Whether the government must prove that a defendant charged with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) knew he fell within the relevant status categories

QUESTION PRESENTED 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) prohibits individuals falling into particular status categories from possessing firearms or ammunition. Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. __, 189 §.Ct. 2191 (2019), held that to convict a defendant of violating § 922(g), the government must prove not only that the defendant knew he had engaged in the prohibited conduct (e.g., possessing a firearm), but also that he knew he fell within one of the status categories (e.g., felon or alien unlawfully in the United States) to which the prohibition applied. The unlawful reentry statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), similarly, contains one conduct element—that the defendant “enter[ed], “attempt[ed] to enter”, or was “found in” the United States—and three status elements: that the defendant (1) is an “alien”; (2) had previously been “denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or had departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding”; and (8) lacks the Attorney General’s “express[] consent|] to... reapply[] for admission.” The question presented is whether, to prove a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), the government must show that the defendant knew he fell within the relevant categories of people to whom the statute’s prohibition applies. 1 STATEMENT OF