United States v. Rebollar Osorio

── United States v. Rebollar Osorio ── Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 24-2043 UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. ALBERTO REBOLLAR-OSORIO, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Nancy Torresen, U.S. District Judge] Before Barron, Chief Judge, Howard and Kayatta, Circuit Judges. Brian S. Kleinbord, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Craig M. Wolff, Acting United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellant. Jamesa J. Drake, with whom Drake Law LLC was on brief, for appellee. May 5, 2026  BARRON, Chief Judge. In this case, we must resolve the government's challenge to the dismissal of an indictment that charged Alberto Rebollar Osorio ("Rebollar Osorio") with possessing a firearm as an "alien" "illegally or unlawfully in the United States" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). In that ruling, the United States District Court for the District of Maine determined that, under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(5)(A) violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment because Rebollar Osorio is among "the people" protected by that Amendment, and the government failed to carry its burden to show that, as applied to him, that statute is consistent with our nation's "tradition of firearm regulation." We reverse, largely for the reasons set forth in United States v. Vizcaíno-Peguero, No. 23-1932, slip op. (1st Cir. May 5, 2026). I. In March 2024, a grand jury in the District of Maine charged Rebollar Osorio with one count of knowingly possessing a firearm as an "alien" "illegally or unlawfully in the United States" in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(8). The former measure makes it unlawful for a person who is an alien "illegally or unlawfully" in this country to possess a firearm.1 1 We use the term "alien" in this opinion for consistency with the statutory language. - 2 - Id. § 922(g)(5)(A). The latter measure provides for up to 15 years imprisonment for "knowingly violat[ing]" § 922(g). Id. § 924(a)(8). Rebollar Osorio moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that § 922(g)(5)(A) violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms both on its face and as applied to him. The government opposed his motion. Courts confronting Second Amendment challenges must apply the two-step Bruen framework. United States v. Minor, 165 F.4th 616, 621 (1st Cir. 2026). The first step focuses on the text of the Second Amendment, which provides that "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. Const. amend. II. If the challenged regulation falls within the "plain text" of that Amendment, then the court must proceed to the second step, which focuses on this country's history and tradition of firearms regulation. Minor, 165 F.4th at 621 (quoting Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17). At that step, "the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the challenged regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Id. (citation modified). In opposing Rebollar Osorio's motion to dismiss his indictment, the government contended, with respect to Bruen's first step, that Rebollar Osorio, as an alien illegal