United States v. Wilson

── United States v. Wilson ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 24-10633 Document: 133-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10633 FILED April 30, 2026 _____________ Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jamaion Wilson, Defendant—Appellant. ________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CR-27-1 ________________________________ ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Before Wiener, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing (5th Cir. R. 40 I.O.P.), the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED because, at the request of one of its members, the court was polled, and a majority did not vote in favor of rehearing (Fed. R. App. P. 40 and 5th Cir. R. 40). In the en banc poll, seven judges voted in favor of rehearing: Judges Jones, Smith, Graves, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, and Case: 24-10633 Document: 133-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2026 No. 24-10633 Oldham. Ten voted against rehearing: Chief Judge Elrod, and Judges Stewart, Richman, Southwick, Haynes, Higginson, Willett, Wilson, Douglas, and Ramirez. 2 Case: 24-10633 Document: 133-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/30/2026 No. 24-10633 Don R. Willett, Circuit Judge, joined by Elrod, Chief Judge, and Duncan, Circuit Judge, respecting the denial of rehearing en banc: By enumerating both powers and rights, the Framers embraced “a belt-and-suspenders Constitution.” 1 They denied Congress the “power to enact a comprehensive criminal code.” 2 And, for added security, they hardcoded some liberties—including the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” 3—into the Constitution itself. 4 The design was straightforward: if the enumerated-powers belt slipped, the enumerated-rights suspenders would still hold. 5 Often, they have. 6 But not here. Jamaion Wilson was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), and two of our precedents leave little work for either safeguard to do. In United States v. Knutson, we let the enumerated-powers belt slip, holding that Congress may ban the mere possession of a machinegun pursuant to its commerce power. 7 And in Hollis v. Lynch, we cast aside the Second Amendment suspenders too, holding that machineguns are not just 1 United States v. Hembree, 165 F.4th 909, 919 (5th Cir. 2026) (Willett, J., concurring). 2 United States v. Bonner, 159 F.4th 338, 340 (5th Cir. 2025) (Willett, J., concurring); see United States v. Morrison, 529 US. 598, 607 (2000) (“Every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution.”); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 428 (1821) (“It is clear, that Congress cannot punish felonies generally . . . .”). 3 U.S. Const. amend. II. 4 See generally id. amend. I–VIII. Cf. id. amend. IX (prohibiting “constru[ing]” “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights . . . to deny or disparage others reta