The Fifth Circuit Just Vacated Its Own Felon-in-Possession Ruling

The Fifth Circuit filed its order in United States v. Peter Villa Cordova, No. 24-50564, on September 14, 2026. The docket entry is blunt. A member of the court requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc. A majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not disqualified voted in favor. “IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed.” Under Fifth Circuit Rule 41.3, the panel opinion dated May 20, 2026, reported at 175 F.4th 381, is vacated. The appeal comes up from the Western District of Texas, No. 7:24-CR-31-1.

The Clerk set a briefing clock the same morning. Cordova’s supplemental brief is due October 14, 2026. The United States’ supplemental brief is due November 13. Copies of the original briefs are due September 29. The case is reopened.

The vacated panel had affirmed a § 922(g)(1) conviction. Bearing Arms, citing the May 20 opinion, reported that Cordova pled guilty to possessing a firearm after convictions that included drug possession and evading arrest with a motor vehicle, and that he was never sentenced to prison on the predicate. Judge James C. Ho, concurring in the judgment, wrote that § 922(g)(1) “contains no time limit” and “imposes a lifetime ban” even if a person “has never been sentenced to serve a single day in prison.” Judge Andrew S. Oldham called United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), “the accidental font of all our felon-in-possession precedent” and said it “was wrong on the day it was decided.” Both still concurred that Cordova could be disarmed on dangerousness. The en banc order does not adopt those concurrences. It does not strike § 922(g)(1). It puts the vacated panel back to zero and queues the full court.