United States v. Torion Byrd

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: June 18, 2026
• Docket: 25-1742
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-1742 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Torion Tamaz Byrd

Defendant - Appellant

------------------------------

Attorneys on Retainer Association

Amicus on Behalf of Appellant(s) ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Western ____________

Submitted: April 13, 2026 Filed: June 18, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Torion Byrd argues that his felon-in-possession conviction, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), violated both the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause. Circuit precedent forecloses both arguments. See Owsley v. Luebbers, 281 F.3d 687, 690 (8th Cir. 2002) (“It is a cardinal rule in our circuit that one panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel.”).

Under federal law, felons like Byrd cannot possess firearms. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (disarming those “who ha[ve] been convicted” of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”). A pair of recent cases concluded that the felon-in-possession statute does not violate the Second Amendment, either facially or as-applied. See United States v. Cunningham, 114 F.4th 671, 675 (8th Cir. 2024) (holding that it is facially constitutional); United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120, 1125 (8th Cir. 2024) (cutting off as-applied challenges too). And it is “well settled that Congress did not . . . exceed its authority under the Commerce Clause” in passing it. United States v. Joos, 638 F.3d 581, 586 (8th Cir. 2011). To the extent Byrd disagrees, his remedy lies with the en banc court, not with us. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Elgin Warehouse & Equip., 4 F.3d 567, 571 (8th Cir. 1993) (“In this circuit only an en banc court may overrule a panel decision . . . .”). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. 1 ______________________________

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.