Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to an individual with a prior felony conviction under the text-and-historical-tradition methodology established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen

No question identified. : Mr. Whitaker is filing this Application at least ten days before the filing date, which is October 7, 2025. See S.Ct. R. 13.5. The jurisdiction of this Court will be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Mr. Whitaker was convicted of possessing a firearm and ammunition by a individual previously convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argued in the district court and on appeal that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to him, under the text-and-historical tradition Second Amendment methodology of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Both courts, however, rejected that as-applied Second Amendment challenge based upon the Eleventh Circuit’s pre-Bruen decision in United States v. Rozier, 598 F.3d 768, 771 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding “statutes disqualifying felones from possessing a firearm under any and all circumstances do not offend the Second Amendment”). See United States v. Whitaker, 2024 WL 3812277 (11th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024) (granting the government’s motion for summary affirmance based on the court’s recent precedent in United States v . Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284, 1291-93 (11th Cir. 2024) (following Rozier, even after Bruen)). When Mr. Whitaker petitioned this Court for review, the Court granted certiorari, vacated the decision below, and remanded his case to the Eleventh Circuit for reconsideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). See Whitaker v. United States, 145 S.Ct. 1165 (2025). On remand, the Eleventh Circuit held Mr. Whitaker’s case in abeyance while it reconsidered its decision in Dubois (which had also been GVR’d) in light of Rahimi. But it ultimately reaffirmed its prior conclusion in Dubois even after Rahimi, holding that neither Bruen nor Rahimi had abrogated Rozier. See United States v. Dubois, 139 F.4th 887, 893-94 (11th Cir. 2025) (Dubois Il). And based on Dubois I, the Eleventh Circuit again granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance in this case. See United States v. Whitaker, 2025 WL 1892566, at **1-2 (11th Cir. July 9, 2025) (citing the “prior panel precedent” rule). Although this Court’s rules require that a petition for writ of certiorari be filed within 90 days of the court of appeals’ decision (by October 7, 2025), undersigned counsel will not be able to file Mr. Whitaker’s petition by that date, and will need an additional 30 days to do so, for several reasons. First, over the past few months, counsel has needed to devote her attention to several other time-consuming case matters, including most recently, a petition for writ of certiorari in Isaac Alvarez v. United States, just filed with the Court today. Second, in the two weeks prior to the current due date for Mr. Whitaker’s petition, counsel will need to be out of the office in observance of the Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashanah (September 23-24) and Yom Kippur (October 2). And finally, the day prior to the current due date for Mr. Whitaker’s petition (October 6), counsel is scheduled to have surgery. It is estimated that the recovery from this surgery will take at least two weeks, during which it will be difficult for counsel to work. In anticipation of being out of the office for an extended period as described above, counsel is now working diligently to file an Initial Brief in United States v. Justin Meyer, No. 25-10003 (due October 14, 2025); a Reply Brief in United States v. Robert Mondragon, No. 24-12385 (due October 15, 2025); and an Initial Brief in United States v. Kemarcio Mitchell, No. 25-10393 (due October 20th ) before her October 6th surgery. And, because counsel has another petition for writ of certiorari in United States v. Curtis Solomon also due on October 7th (the same day as the petition in this case), she is seeking to extend the due date for the Solomon petition by 30 days as well. Given these competing case commitments, and both religious and personal health matte