Whether Rehaif's mens rea requirement is limited to whether or not the defendant knew he was a convicted felon alone, or whether it requires him to know that his prior felony conviction rendered him a prohibited person for subsequent firearms possession?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A circuit split has emerged over how to treat Rehaifbased challenges to the validity of § 922(g) convictions where the charging document failed to include an essential element of the crime and the jury was given incorrect instructions regarding the essential elements of the offense. Rehaif requires that the Government prove the defendant knew of his prohibited status. The Fourth Circuit applies Rehaif as written and finds that substantive rights violation occur when either the indictment or jury instruction omits an essential element of the crime. The Fifth Circuit, and others, appears to limit the mens rea component to whether or not the defendants know they were convicted felons and fail to find plain error by either relying upon the fact of a stipulated conviction or going beyond the trial record to infer knowledge of prohibited status. As such the two questions presented are: 1) Whether Rehaifs mens rea requirement is limited to whether or not the defendant knew he was a convicted felon alone, or whether it requires him to know that his prior felony conviction rendered him a prohibited person for subsequent firearms possession? 2)Whether the substantive constitutional rights of the defendant were violated when an indictment fails to provide notice regarding an essential element of the charged offense and the jury is subsequently given incorrect instructions regarding the Government’s burden of proof? ii