Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DERBY CLERFE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Filed: 2026-08-10 The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court denying Derby Clerfe’s motion to dismiss his indictment for conspiring to violate federal laws prohibiting the export of firearms without filing an export information sheet. The court rejected Clerfe’s two primary constitutional challenges: a Second Amendment claim and a non-delegation doctrine claim. Regarding the Second Amendment challenge, the court applied the standard established in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen*, which requires determining whether the challenged conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment and, if so, whether the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court held that the plain text of “keep and bear Arms” does not cover Clerfe’s conduct of exporting firearms abroad to Haiti because “keeping” arms entails physical possession or control, whereas export involves dispossessing oneself of the weapons. Consequently, the conduct was not presumptively protected. Even assuming the conduct fell within the Amendment’s scope, the court found the export restrictions consistent with historical tradition, citing founding-era statutes from 1794, 1806, and 1807 that prohibited or restricted the export of arms for foreign policy reasons. Regarding the non-delegation challenge, the court applied the “intelligible principle” test to determine if Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative authority to the President under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. § 2778(a)(1). The court concluded that the statute provided an intelligible principle by directing the President to designate defense articles in furtherance of “world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States,” a goal clarified by other provisions of the AECA aimed at reducing international arms trade. The court noted that this delegation is similar to those upheld in *Touby v. United States* and *United States v. Amirnazmi*, particularly given the procedural requirements and the President’s exclusive authority over foreign affairs. The practical consequence is that Clerfe’s conviction stands, and the appeal is dismissed with the judgment of the District Court affirmed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.