LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Jaylan Gore was charged with possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j), and with receiving a firearm while under felony indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). Gore moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that § 922(j) and (n) violate the Second Amendment. The district court denied the motion, and Gore’s case went to trial. During voir dire, Gore raised a Batson challenge to the prosecutor’s peremptory strike of the last black juror on the panel. The district court rejected that challenge after finding that the prosecutor’s motivations were race neutral. The jury convicted on both counts, and the district court sentenced Gore to 18 months’ imprisonment. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Christopher Goins challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), as applied to himself. Section 922(g)(1) declares it unlawful for any person “who has been convicted in any court of . . . a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition via interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). The law thus prohibits firearm ownership by felons, unless such individuals receive expungement, a pardon, or other post-conviction relief. See id. § 921(a)(20). Goins raises an as-applied challenge, arguing under Bruen that this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation does not support prohibiting felons like him from possessing firearms, and thus the Second Amendment renders § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him. We consider this issue de novo and hold that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Goins.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Ohio passed a law to stop foreign money from influencing its elections. The law bans foreign nationals from spending money to support or defeat ballot initiatives. It also bans foreign nationals from contributing to candidates in state elections. After plaintiffs brought a First Amendment challenge, the district court found that Ohio’s law violates the rights of lawful permanent residents. The district court preliminarily enjoined Ohio from enforcing its new campaign finance law with respect to all foreign nationals. Ohio appealed the district court’s decision. It also asked us for an emergency stay of the district court’s order so that Ohio can enforce its law while we consider the merits of the appeal. Because our initial review suggests that the district court’s First Amendment analysis was flawed, we now grant Ohio’s motion for a stay of the district court’s order.