Background
Stephen Jay Thorp was convicted by jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri of being a felon in possession of a firearm, a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced and subsequently appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On appeal, Thorp raised two primary arguments. First, he contended that his conviction under section 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to his particular circumstances. Second, he argued that the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable and exceeded the bounds of the court’s discretion.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conviction and sentence in full. The court rejected Thorp’s constitutional challenge, holding that his argument was foreclosed by circuit precedent established in United States v. Jackson, 110 F.4th 1120 (8th Cir. 2024), which was upheld when the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2025. Under that established precedent, the § 922(g)(1) prohibition on felon firearm possession does not violate the Constitution as applied to Thorp.
The court also rejected the claim of sentencing unreasonableness. Under the applicable standard of review—substantive reasonableness analyzed under a narrow, deferential abuse-of-discretion standard—the district court did not abuse its discretion. The record showed that the district court properly considered mitigating factors and had wide latitude to weigh the appropriate sentencing factors, assigning relative weight to each factor in reaching its decision.
Key Takeaways
- The Eighth Circuit continues to uphold the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as applied to felons, relying on its prior Jackson precedent.
- District courts retain substantial discretion in firearm-possession sentencing, provided they consider relevant mitigating factors.
- Constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) in the Eighth Circuit are unlikely to succeed absent a change in controlling precedent.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Eighth Circuit’s consistent position that the federal ban on felon firearm possession survives Second Amendment challenges. The ruling provides guidance to defense practitioners that constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) convictions face high barriers in this circuit and are foreclosed by existing precedent, potentially affecting defense strategy in similar cases.
The sentencing portion of the opinion also clarifies the deferential standard applied to firearm-possession sentences, making it difficult to overturn sentencing decisions on appeal absent a clear error or failure to consider statutory factors. This limits appellate relief for defendants in this category of federal firearms offenses.