In United States v. Perez-Garcia, --- F.4th ---, No. 22-50314 (9th Cir. 2024), the Court denied Appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, and held that the Bail Reform Act of 1984’s firearm condition on pretrial release is constitutional as applied to the appellants.
This is a case out of the SDCA.
After their arrests in unrelated cases, two magistrate judges released Fencl and Perez-Garcia pending their trials but subjected them to a condition of pretrial release that temporarily barred them from possessing firearms pending trial. The magistrate judges concluded that the firearm condition was the least restrictive way to assure the safety of the community and the defendants’ appearances in court. Two district court judges agreed.
In consolidated appeals, Appellants Fencl and Perez-Garcia contended that the pretrial firearm condition violates their Second Amendment rights under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in a brief dispositive order stating: “We affirm the district court’s orders. An opinion explaining this disposition will follow.”
Fencl and Perez-Garcia moved to dismiss their appeals as moot after the Court ruled against them but before the opinion was released.
Today, the opinion was filed. As noted, the Court declined to dismiss the appeals.
Next, the Court held that "the Bail Reform Act’s firearm condition on pretrial release is constitutional as applied to Fencl and Perez-Garcia. Our holding is consistent with how we have long balanced the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees and releasees with legitimate public safety and logistical considerations. And our holding is consistent with our nation’s long history of temporarily disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges and those deemed dangerous or unwilling to follow the law."
