Kanter v. Barr
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
919 F.3d 437 (2019)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Rickey I. Kanter lived in Mequon, Wisconsin, and sold therapeutic shoe inserts. In 2004, Medicare rejected Kanter’s inserts because they did not meet certain standards. Kanter, however, continued to sell the noncompliant inserts while representing that they were Medicare-approved. In 2011, Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and ordered to pay a criminal penalty. Kanter served his time and paid the penalty. Under federal and Wisconsin law, Kanter was permanently prohibited from owning a firearm. Kanter brought suit in district court, arguing that the state and federal law were unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to him. The United States (defendant) moved to dismiss Kanter’s complaint, and Kanter moved for summary judgment. The government argued that, based on statistical studies, prohibiting even nonviolent felons like Kanter from possessing firearms is substantially related to the prevention of gun violence. The district court held that the application of the dispossession to Kanter was substantially related to the government’s interest in preventing gun violence and denied Kanter’s motion. Kanter appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, J.)
Dissent (Barrett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.