« A pair of notable and important rulings in another sad child porn downloading case | Main | Charges dropped against Paul House of House v. Bell fame »

May 12, 2009

Split Ninth Circuit rejects Commerce Clause challenge to possession of body armor crime

A Ninth Circuit panel today split over an interesting Commerce Clause issue relating to a federal criminal statute in US v. Alderman, No. 07-30186 (9th Cir. May 12, 2009) (available here).  Here is how the majority opinion starts:

This case of first impression in the Ninth Circuit requires us to consider whether Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, art. I, § 8, cl. 3, to criminalize the possession by a felon of body armor that has been “sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 931 and 921(a)(35)..... We conclude that we are bound by [SCOTUS and Ninth Circuit] precedent — absent the Supreme Court or our en banc court telling us otherwise — and that the felon-in-possession of body armor statute passes muster.

May 12, 2009 at 01:13 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Split Ninth Circuit rejects Commerce Clause challenge to possession of body armor crime:


Of course, look at the author of the dissent, Judge Richard Paez. Who would have thought him to the right of Clarence Thomas on this issue? I guess anything that helps out a criminal.
Paez may, of course, be right, but his lefty lunacy has tarnished his work product.

Posted by: federalist | May 12, 2009 10:19:58 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB