Whether, in prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), the Government must–in order to separate wrongful acts from innocent acts–offer direct evidence to establish a defendant, such as Evaristo Contreras Silva, acted with a vicious or evil intent (e.g., evidence establishing a defendant, such as Mr. Contreras, actually knew he was not legally present in the United States) in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when a defendant, such as Mr. Contreras, offered direct evidence, including his testimony, bond paperwork, and a Form I-94 "permit," to support his mistaken belief the Form I-94 permit had an effect on his immigration status, a mistaken impression falling squarely within Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2198 (2019) ("a mistaken impression concerning the legal effect of some collateral matter . . . that . . . results in his misunderstanding the full significance of his conduct, . . . negat[es] an element of the offense[]" (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).

Whether the government must offer direct evidence of a defendant's vicious or evil intent to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) prosecutions when the defendant offers evidence of a mistaken belief about their immigration status