Supreme Court Declines To Take Up Appeal Of Ruling In Favor Of Man Stripped Of Gun Rights For Missing Child Support

Joe Ravi/Wikimedia Commons

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a case involving a man convicted of a felony over back child support.

Edward Cockerham pled guilty to being in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1) following his conviction in Mississippi, but appealed the conviction. United States Circuit Judge James Ho of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a Trump appointee, said in the opinion that the lifetime ban for a non-violent crime violated the Second Amendment.

🚨 The Supreme Court left in place a Fifth Circuit ruling that the federal felon-in-possession firearm law cannot be applied to a Mississippi man whose only felony conviction was nonpayment of child support. pic.twitter.com/C5HjWiTnp3

— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) June 8, 2026

“The Government analogizes failure to pay child support to theft. But during the Founding era, thieves were treated differently from debtors,” Ho wrote. “Thieves were subject to permanent disarmament. Debtors were not. Debtors could be imprisoned, and thus temporarily disarmed.”

“But they were released from debtors’ prison upon payment of their debt. And the Government acknowledges that Cockerham was no longer delinquent of any failure to pay child support when he was found in possession of a firearm,” Ho continued. “Cockerham’s conviction under §922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment.”

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a Monday interview that the DOJ will often defend laws, even if they don’t agree with what they are defending.

“I understand people have policy differences with DOJ’s enforcement of federal laws, but, in my opinion, and I’ve said this to many gun groups, the appropriate place to launch those, policy discussions is in Congress, not with us,” Dhillon said. “We have, I mean, not me, but other people in this building regularly respond to all kinds of litigation on behalf of the United States where I don’t necessarily agree with what we’re defending.”

Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Konstadinos Moros observed that the Fifth Circuit’s decision appeared to be in line with the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in United States v. Rahimi.

“SAF was happy to hear the Supreme Court declined to review this case, as the Fifth Circuit reached the correct ruling: dangerousness must be the standard for disarmament, and many nonviolent felons are not dangerous,” Moros told the DCNF. “That includes Mr. Cockerham, whose crime was failing to pay child support.”

“To be clear, the Supreme Court refusing to review a particular case does not necessarily mean the Court agrees with the lower court’s decision, so we should not treat this as definitive,” Moros continued. “Still, it is a possible sign that the high court is sticking closely to what it decided in Rahimi — actual dangerousness is required to deny a citizen their Second Amendment rights. The upcoming ruling in US v. Hemani should shed more light on this.”

In the Hemani case, the United States is appealing a Fifth Circuit ruling that overturned a conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(3), which prohibits users or addicts of controlled substances from possessing firearms. The Supreme Court heard arguments in March, and the decision is currently pending.