Its provisions included 18 USC § 922(g), which specified many classes of so-called "prohibited persons" who were forbidden to possess a firearm.

After 53 days of this routine, a hotel employee notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation that Rehaif had claimed to have weapons in his room.

Rehaif was charged with possessing a gun while illegally or unlawfully in the United States, in violation of §922(g)(5)(A).

Rehaif objected, claiming that the United States was required to prove that he knew his status.

Justice Ginsburg seemed concerned about the ramifications of reversal, and whether the thousands of people convicted under the statute would be eligible to seek habeas corpus relief.

Although the Court had previously held that knowledge of status was not required for certain crimes, for example in United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., the conduct was inherently immoral or suspect.

He took issue with the majority applying the law to a theoretical sympathetic defendant, rather than Rehaif whom he characterized as suspicious.