Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES MORGAN

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-25 The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of James Morgan’s motions to suppress evidence and dismiss his indictment. Regarding the motion to suppress, the court held that the magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin possessed authority under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(b)(3) to issue a warrant for property located outside that district because the affidavit provided probable cause to believe the investigation involved “domestic terrorism.” The court found that Morgan’s social media activity, which included documenting homemade weapons like pipe bombs and acid throwers while advocating for violence against government officers and specific civilian groups, satisfied the statutory definition of domestic terrorism under 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5) by demonstrating an intent to intimidate a civilian population, influence government policy through coercion, or affect government conduct via mass destruction. The court further ruled that Morgan failed to meet the burden required for a *Franks v. Delaware* challenge, concluding that omitted facts regarding earlier law enforcement assessments of his threat level were immaterial and did not alter the probable cause determination. Regarding the motion to dismiss, the court held that 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), which criminalizes possession of unregistered destructive devices, is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power under the Internal Revenue Code. The court determined that Supreme Court precedent in *Sonzinsky v. United States* and Seventh Circuit precedent in *United States v. Lim* and *United States v. Copus* foreclose Morgan’s argument that the statute exceeds congressional authority, noting that *National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius* did not implicitly overrule these holdings. Consequently, the conviction stands, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.