Law360 (August 26, 2026, 9:48 PM EDT) -- The Fifth Circuit upheld a Louisiana man's felon-in-possession conviction Wednesday, rejecting his challenge that a prior conviction for trying to take a police officer's pepper spray lacked a founding-era analogue sufficient to justify barring him from possessing a firearm, as well as rejecting his "weird" argument that the disarmament was unsuccessful.

In an unpublished opinion authored by U.S. Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a three-judge panel affirmed the conviction of Maurice Mitchell for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), finding that his conviction for the pepper spray incident is "functionally identical to robbery," and the appellate court's precedent for that type of conviction permits application of the felon-in-possession law.

Mitchell argued his conviction should be overturned under the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. Inc. v. Bruen , which held that firearm laws must fall within a historical "Founding-era" tradition of firearms regulation. The panel said founding-era laws prevented robbers from possessing firearms and that Mitchell's attempted disarmament of a police officer was the same as an attempted robbery.

"Because Mitchell was convicted of trying to disarm a police officer, we can constitutionally disarm Mitchell," the panel said.

The panel also rejected Mitchell's argument that it should consider that he was unsuccessful in disarming the officer.

"Mitchell also emphasizes that he was convicted only of attempted disarmament, not the 'completed' crime," the panel said. "As he points out, he 'did not actually succeed in taking the pepper spray away from the officer.' Why this should make any difference escapes us."

"To convict him of attempted disarmament, the government proved Mitchell specifically intended to commit the crime, even though he did not accomplish it," the panel added. "Mitchell says this is not enough. Evidently, the Second Amendment does not allow us to disarm failed robbers, only successful ones. Mitchell cites no precedent for that weird notion."

Mitchell was convicted in 2017 under Louisiana state law of attempting to disarm a peace officer after trying to grab pepper spray from an officer who was detaining him during a trespass arrest.

In 2023, officers found a loaded revolver and spent casing in a bag attached to his bicycle in January when responding to a report of a burglary and observed Mitchell leaving the area on his bike. He was charged and convicted under Section 922(g)(1), which prohibits anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of imprisonment from possessing a firearm, and sentenced to 36 months of imprisonment.

Mitchell appealed his conviction, arguing that under the Bruen decision there is no founding-era analogue for his disarmament conviction to justify preventing him from possessing a firearm. The government argued his pepper spray conviction was essentially an attempted robbery of a police officer, and that there is founding-era precedent for keeping anyone convicted of robbery, burglary or theft from possessing firearms, to which the panel agreed.

"Accordingly, Mitchell's § 922(g)(1) conviction can constitutionally be predicated on his felony conviction for attempting to disarm a police officer," the panel said.

Mitchell argued that during the founding-era "resisting arrest" was not as severely punished as robbery, burglary or theft.

"But even assuming Mitchell is correct about that historical detail — something we do not decide — it is beside the point," the panel said. "He was not convicted of resisting arrest, a separate crime under Louisiana law. ... He was convicted of attempting to disarm a police officer, which as noted is virtually identical to robbery."

The court also rejected Mitchell's effort to "downplay" the incident as merely a reaction to an arrest or a "scuffle over pepper spray," saying the statute he was convicted under covers law enforcement equipment including firearms, weapons, self-defense sprays, chemical weapons and electroshock weapons.

"It takes little imagination to grasp the peril this statute seeks to prevent," the panel said.

The panel also rejected Mitchell's challenges to the jury's consideration of his flight from police before his arrest and to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.

An attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Louisiana and counsel for Mitchell did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

U.S. Circuit Judges Stuart Kyle Duncan, Andrew Oldham and Cory Wilson sat on the panel for the Fifth Circuit.

The government is represented by Thomas Forrest Phillips, Camille Ann Domingue and Wajdi C. Mallat of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Louisiana

Mitchell is represented by Dustin Charles Talbot and Betty Lee Marak of the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Middle and Western Districts of Louisiana.

The case is USA v. Mitchell, case number 25-30438, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

--Editing by Drashti Mehta.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.