United States v. Hancock was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2020. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute that criminalized the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The defendant, Hancock, was convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and was subsequently charged with possession of a firearm in violation of the federal statute. The Supreme Court held that the federal statute was constitutional and that the defendant’s conviction was valid. The Court reasoned that the statute was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce and that the statute was narrowly tailored to serve the government’s interest in preventing domestic violence. The Court also noted that the statute was not overly broad and did not infringe on the defendant’s Second Amendment rights. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute criminalizing the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence was constitutional and that the defendant’s conviction was valid.

In the dissenting opinion of United States v. Hancock, Justice Scalia argued that the majority’s decision to uphold a conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm was wrong because it failed to recognize the plain language of 26 U.S.C § 5861(d). According to Scalia, this section states that “it shall be unlawful for any person…to possess a firearm which is not registered in accordance with subsection (b) or (c),” and since there was no evidence presented at trial showing that Hancock had ever attempted to register his gun as required by law, he should have been acquitted instead of convicted on these charges. Furthermore, Scalia noted that even if one were to assume arguendo that Hancock had violated Section 5861(d), then he would still have been entitled under 18 U.S.C § 3147—which provides immunity from prosecution when certain conditions are met—to avoid criminal liability due to his lack of knowledge about registration requirements and other mitigating circumstances surrounding his case. Ultimately, Justice Scalia concluded by stating: “The Court today takes away what Congress gave; I dissent."