1. In United States v. Rehaif, _ U.S. ___, 189 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), this Court
acknowledged the presumption in favor of scienter — that criminal statutes
require the degree of knowledge sufficient to make a person legally
responsible for the consequences of his or her act — and held that ina
prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of his prohibiting status at the
time he possessed a firearm. The question presented is:

Does the Third Circuit's creation of a presumption that all individuals
convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession), knew of their
relevant status conflict with Supreme Court precedent and essentially
eliminate the knowledge element just established by this Court in
Rehaif?

2. In recent decisions, this Court and individual Justices have expressed its
growing discomfort with the expansion of federal criminal statutes into an
area expressly reserved to state police power, by issuing opinions striking
down federal criminal statutes that failed to have a bona fide interstate
commerce nexus. This is particularly the case in areas that are in fact
sufficiently being regulated by the states. The question presented is:

Does the federal Unlawful Felon in Possession of a Firearm statute (18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) exceed Congress's authority to regulate under the
Commerce Clause?

Does the Third Circuit's presumption that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) defendants knew of their prohibiting status conflict with Rehaif?