Whether a defendant's guilty plea entered before Rehaif v. United States constitutes a due-process-violation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a defendant’s guilty plea entered before Rehaif'v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2020), in which the defendant was not advised of the essential elements of the crime with which he was charged, constitutes a due process violation requiring vacatur of the guilty plea? 2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) is unconstitutional facially and as applied to the purely intrastate conduct of possessing a firearm within a school zone, because the statute suffers from the same infirmities that led the Court to strike down the earlier version of the statute in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)? 3. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power, facially and as applied to the purely intrastate conduct of possessing a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon, where the only connection to interstate commerce occurred before the defendant’s possession? i PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE United States Supreme Court: United States v. Isaac Thomas, No. 19-5025 (Oct. 15, 2019) (granting certiorari, vacating judgment, and remanding for further proceedings in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019)). United States Court of Appeals (11th Cir.): United States v. Isaac Thomas, No. 18-10956 767 F. App’x 758 (Mar. 29, 2019) (original opinion) 810 F. App’x 789 (Apr. 22, 2020) (opinion on remand) United States District Court (M.D. Fla.): United States v. Isaac Thomas, No. 8:17-cr-90-T-23MAP (Feb. 26, 2018) ii