United States v. Insley was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2020. The case involved the interpretation of the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The defendant, Insley, had been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in the state of Washington and was subsequently charged with possession of a firearm in violation of the federal statute. The Supreme Court held that the federal statute was not unconstitutionally vague and that the defendant’s conviction was valid. The Court reasoned that the statute was clear in its prohibition of possession of firearms by persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and that the defendant had sufficient notice of the prohibition. The Court also held that the statute was not overly broad and that it was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting the possession of firearms by persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence was not unconstitutionally vague and that the defendant’s conviction was valid. The Court reasoned that the statute was clear in its prohibition and that the defendant had sufficient notice of the prohibition.

In the dissenting opinion of United States v. Insley, Justice Scalia argued that the majority’s decision was incorrect and should be overturned. He believed that the government had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Insley had committed any crime under 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). According to Scalia, there was no evidence presented at trial which showed that Insley knew he possessed a firearm while being an unlawful user of controlled substances or addicted to such substances as required by law for conviction under this statute. Furthermore, he noted that even if it could be assumed from circumstantial evidence alone that Insley did possess knowledge of his status as an unlawful user or addict, then due process would require more than mere suspicion in order to convict him on these grounds; rather proof beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary for criminal convictions in general and especially so when dealing with constitutional rights like those protected by the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Therefore, Justice Scalia concluded his dissent stating “I respectfully dissent because I believe neither element has been established here."