WASHINGTON, March 2 - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal that questioned the constitutionality of a federal law barring people with certain serious criminal convictions, including nonviolent felons, from owning firearms. By declining review, the justices left intact a lower court judgment that the restriction does not violate the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."
The prohibition challenged in the case is a component of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The petitioner, Melynda Vincent, a single mother living in Utah, was prohibited from possessing a firearm after she was convicted in 2008 of felony bank fraud for cashing a fraudulent check for roughly $500, according to court filings. Vincent had sought reinstatement of her ability to lawfully own a gun after lower courts denied relief, and she then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Attorneys for President Donald Trump’s administration asked the high court to leave the lower court ruling undisturbed. In briefs, Justice Department lawyers explained that the administration has taken steps to enable U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to restore firearms rights to certain nonviolent felons who meet eligibility criteria, a move the government said made the appeal unsuitable for Supreme Court review.
The justices have recently declined to take up a number of cases similar to Vincent’s. The decision to pass on her appeal comes amid a broader national debate over how to address persistent gun violence, including frequent mass shootings. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and has in recent decades issued several rulings that broadened Second Amendment protections, with major decisions in 2008, 2010 and most recently in 2022.
The court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, backed by the six conservative justices and opposed by the three liberal justices, established a new framework for evaluating firearms regulations. Under Bruen, courts must determine whether a restriction is "consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation," rather than assessing whether it advances an important government interest. Advocates challenging limits on gun ownership for nonviolent felons had cited Bruen in arguing that the ban should be reexamined in light of the new legal test.
Not all post-Bruen challenges have prevailed. In 2024, the court ruled 8-1 that a federal law making it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to possess firearms satisfied the Bruen test.
The high court is currently considering other significant Second Amendment disputes during its present term. In January oral arguments, conservative justices expressed doubts about a Hawaii law that restricts carrying handguns on private property open to the public, such as businesses, without the property owner’s permission. On Monday the court also heard arguments in a separate matter in which the Trump administration defended a federal prohibition on firearm ownership by users of illegal drugs.
By denying review of Vincent’s appeal, the Supreme Court allowed the existing federal prohibition on firearm possession by nonviolent felons to remain in force, leaving questions about its broader application to be addressed in other pending litigation or by the processes the administration has put in place for potential restoration of rights under limited criteria.