The US Supreme Court listened to oral arguments on Tuesday on the case US v. Rahimi, which challenges a federal law prohibiting individuals under a domestic violence court order from owning guns. This case is notable as it is the first challenge to gun control measures since a new framework was introduced last year to evaluate whether firearm restrictions infringe on rights under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
This new framework came about in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where the court exclusively based their judgment on historical tradition in adjudicating Second Amendment cases, thereby disregarding the government safety interest in passing gun control laws.
In the ongoing case, the defendant, Zackey Rahimi, was found to have assaulted his girlfriend and fired a gun at a bystander. In response, a Texas court granted a protective order against Rahimi. He later violated this court order by threatening another woman with a firearm and fired a gun at various locations. He pleaded guilty to violating the law on his actions.
Rahimi is currently challenging his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which criminalizes gun possession by people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the government, defended the domestic violence law and urged a refined interpretation of the Bruen case for lower courts to follow. Nevertheless, Rahimi’s federal public defender suggests that the federal law deviates from the country’s historical traditions, rendering the law unconstitutional per Bruen’s framework.
Prelogar argued that there was a stronger historical framework of keeping firearms away from dangerous individuals. She stated, “Guns and domestic abuse are a deadly combination.” She then referred to an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor from a prior case argues, “all too often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.”
While the Supreme Court justices appeared to lean towards Prelogar’s argument that individuals considered dangerous should not be armed, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned how broad the judgment this case should be, thereby leaving the same law at the center of Tuesday’s case open for potential future challenges.
The justices will cast a preliminary vote in a few days and a decision on the case is anticipated by the end of the court’s term in June 2024.