Fooks v. State

Supreme Court of Maryland · June 6, 2025 · No. 24/22

Summary

This Supreme Court of Maryland opinion addresses a Second Amendment challenge to Maryland’s Public Safety Article § 5-133(b)(2), which prohibits individuals convicted of certain common law crimes with sentences exceeding two years from possessing firearms. Applying the historical analysis framework established in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and clarified in United States v. Rahimi, the Court holds that the statute functions substantively as a felon-in-possession ban. The Court concludes that such prohibitions are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and therefore do not violate the Second Amendment. The judgment of the Appellate Court of Maryland is affirmed.

Court
Supreme Court of Maryland
Writing for the Court
Fader, C.J.; Watts, J.; Hotten, J.; Booth, J.; Biran, J.; Gould, J.; Eaves, J.
Jurisdiction
Maryland
Decision date
June 6, 2025
Docket number
24/22
Procedural posture
Petition for writ of certiorari after the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 5‑133(b)(2).
Standard of review
Bruen historical‑tradition test for Second Amendment challenges
Precedential value
published
Parties
Robert L. Fooks v. State of Maryland
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

second amendmentconstitutional lawcriminal procedure

Practice areas

constitutional lawcriminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. What is the proper analytical framework for Second Amendment challenges post‑Bruen?
  2. Did the Maryland Court of Appeals correctly apply that framework to § 5‑133(b)(2)?
  3. Is § 5‑133(b)(2) facially and as‑applied constitutional under the Second Amendment?

Holdings

  1. The Court adopts the Bruen test: when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers conduct, the regulation is presumptively protected unless the government shows the law is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
  2. Yes. The appellate court correctly applied the Bruen historical‑tradition test and concluded that § 5‑133(b)(2) is consistent with historical firearm regulation.
  3. § 5‑133(b)(2) is constitutional both on its face and as applied to Mr. Fooks.

Key quotations

We hold that § 5‑133(b)(2) is, in substance, a law prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons and, as such, is consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. (at 1)
The Court has repeatedly identified prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons as presumptively lawful regulatory measures and permissible limitations on the Second Amendment right. (at 3)

Factual background

Robert L. Fooks was convicted of constructive criminal contempt for willfully failing to pay child support and received a sentence of more than four years. While incarcerated, officers discovered he possessed two handguns in 2019 and 2020. He was charged with multiple firearms offenses, entered a conditional guilty plea to two counts, and argued that Maryland’s § 5‑133(b)(2) violates the Second Amendment.

Procedural history

Fooks was convicted in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County of constructive criminal contempt and sentenced to more than four years in prison. He was later charged with firearms possession offenses under § 5‑133(b)(2), pleaded guilty to two counts, and appealed the appellate court’s upholding of the statute. The Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari and reviewed the Second Amendment challenge.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…