Recent proceedings in the Supreme Court hint at a likely decision to uphold a federal law, barring anyone under a restraining order due to domestic violence from possessing a firearm. Following an hour and half of oral arguments, several members of the bench demonstrated concern over the potential ramifications of overruling a federal appeals court that had struck down the law. Amy Howe reported on the details of these proceedings on SCOTUSblog.
The case of Zackey Rahimi, subject to a 2020 protective order from a Texas state court following an episode of assault against his then-girlfriend and the mother of his child, brings this law into focus. The order disallowed Rahimi from approaching his former girlfriend’s home and workplace and prohibited him from holding a gun. The subsequent violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), with police discovering a rifle and a pistol at his property during an investigation into a series of shootings, solidified the core rest of this case. Rahimi’s contention that such a law is unconstitutional set off judicial deliberations.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett acknowledged the lethal potential of domestic violence, while expressing concerns about how the government might show the threat of more dubious types of conduct. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was interested in understanding how courts should evaluate a situation where historically, “men who engaged in domestic violence were actually not perceived” as dangerous.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representative for the federal government, highlighted the “destabilizing consequences” of overturning the 5th Circuit’s ruling. Prelogar confirmed that the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen acknowledged that Congress has the authority to disarm a category of non-responsible, non law-abiding citizens such as those allied with the British government during the Revolution, felons, and drug addicts.
J. Matthew Wright, Rahimi’s lawyer, faced stiffer opposition from the justices, with Chief Justice John Roberts making it clear that he did not think Rahimi should have a gun. The potential repercussions of a ruling in Rahimi’s favor were pointed out by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who mentioned that a win for Rahimi might disrupt the federal background check system used during arms’ sales, thereby allowing individuals under protection orders due to domestic violence to buy firearms.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s deliberations signal a broad consensus in favor of upholding restrictions on firearm possession for individuals involved in domestic violence and under restraining orders. However, a full decision is still pending.