Should the Court grant the petition, vacate the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand for further consideration in light of Rahimi?

Question Presented Mr. Whitney pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of prohibited person in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he argued his conviction was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. After the Ninth Circuit rejected his appeal, the court issued its published decision in United States v. Duarte, 101 F.4th 657 (9th Cir. 2024), vindicating an analogous Second Amendment challenge to Section 922(g)(1). The Ninth Circuit has since granted rehearing en banc in Duarte, see 108 F.4th 786, and those en banc proceedings remain pending. In the meantime, other circuit courts of appeals have been resolving similar constitutional challenges to subsections of Section 922(g). See, e.g., Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc). Through the end of the past Term, various parties sought certiorari from this Court on these questions. This Court recently issued its decision in United States v. Rahimi, 1448. Ct. 1889 (2024), involving a Second Amendment challenge to Section 922(g)(8)(C)(i). The Court then granted seven certiorari petitions raising challenges to subsections of Section 922(g), vacated the court of appeals’ decisions, and remanded for further consideration in light of Rahimi. See, e.g., Garland v. Range, No. 23-374, 2024 WL 3259661 (U.S. July 2, 2024). The question presented is: Should the Court grant the petition, vacate the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand for further consideration in light of Rahimi? i