Glen Prince Chicago Gun Case: Seventh Circuit Reinstates Federal Felon-in-Possession Charge

Why the Glen Prince Gun Case Matters

United States v. Glen Prince has become an important case in the continuing debate over whether the government may permanently prohibit every person with a felony conviction from possessing a firearm.

The case is especially significant because it separates two different constitutional questions:

• Can 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) be struck down completely as unconstitutional in every application?
• Can an individual person argue that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to his or her particular conviction and circumstances?

The Seventh Circuit answered the first question in the government’s favor. It left at least part of the second question unresolved.

For people trying to understand the federal prohibition itself, see our guide to gun rights after a felon-in-possession conviction.

What Happened to Glen Prince?

The federal case arose from Prince’s arrest in Chicago in September 2021.

According to the government’s allegations described in the appellate proceedings, Prince possessed a loaded semiautomatic firearm while on Chicago public transportation. The Seventh Circuit also described allegations that he had confronted passengers with a firearm and demanded valuables.

Because the federal indictment was dismissed before trial, those allegations should not be confused with a conviction in the federal case. Prince pleaded not guilty and had been preparing to proceed to trial when the district court dismissed the indictment.

Prince did, however, have prior felony convictions, including convictions for armed robbery and aggravated battery.

A federal grand jury charged him with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which generally prohibits firearm possession by a person convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, subject to statutory definitions and exceptions.

The indictment also invoked the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). If the statutory requirements for that enhancement are established, ACCA can impose a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.

The Chicago Federal Judge Initially Dismissed the Gun Charge

On November 2, 2023, U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Prince’s federal indictment.

The decision followed the Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Bruen instructed courts evaluating Second Amendment restrictions to look to the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation rather than applying the interest-balancing tests previously used by many lower courts.

Judge Gettleman concluded that the federal government had not established an adequate historical basis for the broad and continuing prohibition imposed by § 922(g)(1).

The district court therefore found the statute unconstitutional on its face and dismissed Prince’s indictment.

The Seventh Circuit Reversed the Dismissal

The federal government appealed.

On April 2, 2026, a Seventh Circuit panel consisting of Chief Judge Joel Brennan and Judges Frank Easterbrook and Diane St. Eve reversed the district court.

Judge Easterbrook wrote the published opinion in United States v. Prince, 171 F.4th 1009 (7th Cir. 2026).

The central point was straightforward: even if difficult constitutional questions remain concerning some applications of § 922(g)(1), the statute has constitutional applications and therefore cannot be invalidated across the board.

What Does “Facially Unconstitutional” Mean?

A facial challenge attacks a law itself rather than merely the way the law applies to one person.

Prince’s appellate argument sought to establish that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional on its face.

The Seventh Circuit rejected that argument because there are circumstances in which disarming a person with a serious or dangerous criminal history can constitutionally fit within the Second Amendment framework recognized by the Supreme Court.

The court pointed to Supreme Court decisions including:

• District of Columbia v. Heller;
• McDonald v. City of Chicago;
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen; and
• United States v. Rahimi.

The Seventh Circuit emphasized that the Supreme Court has recognized historical authority to disarm people who present a danger.

Prince Was Not the Ideal Defendant for an As-Applied Challenge

This is one of the most important parts of the decision.

The Seventh Circuit noted that Prince’s lawyer was not arguing on appeal that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as applied specifically to Prince.

The court pointed to Prince’s prior convictions for armed robbery and aggravated battery and to the firearm-related allegations underlying the new prosecution.

That history made his case substantially different from a challenge brought by someone with an old, nonviolent felony conviction and decades of lawful conduct.

The Seventh Circuit Left the Door Open for Some As-Applied Challenges

The most important language for other people with felony convictions may be what the Seventh Circuit did not decide.

The court expressly reserved the question of whether § 922(g)(1) can be challenged as applied to a person whose felony convictions do not indicate that firearms would be dangerous in that person’s hands.

In other words, Prince does not establish that every application of the federal felon gun prohibition is constitutional.

It establishes that the statute has enough constitutional applications that it cannot be invalidated in its entirety.

Why Nonviolent Felony Cases May Be Different

The distinction matters enormously for people convicted of offenses such as certain tax, fraud, regulatory, financial, or other nonviolent crimes.

A person whose criminal record does not include violence, threats, weapons, or other evidence of dangerousness may present a very different constitutional question from the one presented by Prince.

The Seventh Circuit itself recognized that courts around the country have disagreed about some applications of § 922(g)(1).

For example, the Third Circuit has permitted an as-applied Second Amendment challenge involving an individual whose predicate offense did not involve violent conduct.

That does not mean every person with a nonviolent felony automatically has a successful constitutional claim. It means the legal analysis may be different.

Read more about federal gun rights restoration after nonviolent, tax, fraud, and other white-collar felonies.

Prince Takes the Case to the U.S. Supreme Court

The Seventh Circuit’s ruling did not end the constitutional fight.

Prince’s attorneys initially requested additional time to seek Supreme Court review. Justice Amy Coney Barrett granted an extension through July 31, 2026.

Prince then filed his petition for a writ of certiorari on July 31, 2026.

The case is now docketed at the Supreme Court as:

Glen Prince v. United States
Supreme Court No. 26-5228

The question Prince presents is essentially whether § 922(g)(1) is facially constitutional under the Second Amendment and the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The United States waived its right to file a response unless the Court requests one. The petition was distributed on August 20 for the Supreme Court’s September 28, 2026 conference.

As of September 30, 2026, the Supreme Court’s official docket does not yet list an order granting or denying the petition.

A waiver by the government should not be interpreted as agreement with Prince’s position. The Court can deny review without requesting a response, or it can request additional briefing before deciding whether to hear the case.

Could the Supreme Court Hear the Prince Case?

A petition for certiorari is a request for Supreme Court review, not a guarantee that the Court will hear the case.

Thousands of petitions are filed, and the Court accepts only a relatively small number.

The important point for firearm-rights litigation is that Prince is now one of several cases asking the Supreme Court to provide additional guidance about the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after Bruen, Rahimi, and subsequent Second Amendment decisions.

Until the Supreme Court acts, the Seventh Circuit’s published decision in Prince remains controlling precedent within Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin on the facial-challenge issue.

Does Prince Mean Federal Felon Gun Laws Are Completely Constitutional?

No.

That would overstate the Seventh Circuit’s holding.

The court decided that § 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutional on its face. It did not announce that every application of the statute against every person with every type of felony conviction is constitutionally valid.

The panel specifically stated that it was reserving judgment on as-applied challenges brought by people whose convictions do not indicate that firearm possession would be dangerous.

That distinction will likely remain one of the most important issues in post-Bruen felon firearm litigation.

Constitutional Challenges and Gun Rights Restoration Are Different Paths

A constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) is not the only possible pathway for a federally prohibited person.

Federal law also contains a statutory restoration mechanism under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The federal government has revived an administrative process for eligible applicants to seek relief from federal firearm disabilities.

That process is different from arguing in court that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional.

A restoration application generally focuses on the applicant’s conviction, underlying conduct, sentence completion, later record, reputation, rehabilitation, dangerousness, and the public interest.

Learn more in our guide to federal gun rights restoration after a felony conviction.

You can also use the Felon Justice eligibility review to identify the federal and state issues that may apply to your record.

What the Prince Decision Means for People With Old Felony Convictions

The practical lesson from Prince is that the details of a person’s record matter.

Someone with recent violent convictions, repeated firearm offenses, or conduct indicating dangerousness is situated differently from someone whose only conviction was a decades-old nonviolent offense.

Important facts can include:

• the exact offense of conviction;
• whether the underlying conduct involved violence or threats;
• whether a firearm was involved;
• how long ago the offense occurred;
• when incarceration and supervision ended;
• whether fines, restitution, or other sentence obligations remain;
• the person’s criminal record since the conviction;
• the person’s current state of residence; and
• whether federal and state firearm prohibitions independently apply.

For federal restoration purposes, sentence completion can be especially important. See when DOJ considers a sentence complete for gun rights restoration.

Frequently Asked Questions About United States v. Glen Prince

Who is Glen Prince?

Glen Prince is the defendant in a federal Chicago firearm case challenging 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He has prior convictions including armed robbery and aggravated battery and was federally indicted for allegedly possessing a firearm after a felony conviction.

Did a federal judge rule the felon gun ban unconstitutional?

Yes. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman dismissed Prince’s indictment after concluding that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional on its face under the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit reversed that ruling in 2026.

What did the Seventh Circuit decide in United States v. Prince?

The Seventh Circuit held that § 922(g)(1) has constitutional applications and therefore cannot be declared unconstitutional on its face. The court reinstated the federal prosecution and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Did the Seventh Circuit rule that every felon can constitutionally be prohibited from possessing guns forever?

No. The court rejected Prince’s facial challenge but expressly reserved the question of as-applied challenges by people whose felony convictions do not suggest that firearm possession would be dangerous.

Can a person with a nonviolent felony still challenge § 922(g)(1)?

Potentially, depending on the jurisdiction and facts. Courts have disagreed about the availability and scope of as-applied Second Amendment challenges. The Seventh Circuit stated in Prince that this question remains open for people whose convictions do not suggest dangerousness.

Is Glen Prince asking the Supreme Court to hear the case?

Yes. Prince filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on July 31, 2026. The case is Supreme Court No. 26-5228. As of September 30, 2026, the official docket lists the petition as distributed for the September 28 conference but does not yet show a grant or denial.

Does filing a Second Amendment challenge restore someone’s gun rights?

No. A person who remains prohibited under federal or state law should not possess or acquire a firearm merely because similar laws are being challenged in court. Rights must actually be restored, the prohibition must cease to apply, or a binding court ruling must provide relief in that person’s case.

Is there another way to seek federal firearm-rights restoration?

Federal law provides a restoration mechanism under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). Eligibility and the likelihood of relief depend on the applicant’s individual record, sentence completion, conduct, rehabilitation, public-safety considerations, and other factors.

Primary Sources

• United States v. Prince, Seventh Circuit Opinion, April 2, 2026
• Glen Prince v. United States, Supreme Court Docket No. 26-5228
• Prince Petition for Writ of Certiorari