Last week, the US Supreme Court upheld a federal law prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The 8-1 opinion, seen as a victory for domestic violence survivors and their advocates, aims to bring much-needed clarity but does not significantly alter the landscape of gun regulation. The Court’s decision, rooted in historical analysis, leaves numerous questions unresolved regarding the constitutionality of modern firearm laws.
In the majority opinion for United States v. Rahimi, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that restricting firearm possession for individuals under restraining orders aligns with the Second Amendment, especially when there is a credible threat to an intimate partner’s physical safety. This reaffirms the nation’s long-standing tradition of preventing dangerous individuals from misusing firearms.
The Rahimi decision is particularly pertinent when considering the confusion lower courts have faced post-NYSA Rifle Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Supreme Court struck down a New York licensing statute, emphasizing that modern regulations must have historical analogues rather than merely balancing the state’s interest in public safety against Second Amendment rights.
In her concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out the confusion among lower courts in applying the Bruen test. Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas, the sole dissenter in Rahimi, adhered to a strict historical interpretation, arguing against the existence of adequate historical analogues for the law in question.
The decision in Rahimi also underscores the restrictive nature of contemporary judicial perspectives on gun regulation, shaped by a “myopic focus on history,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor described it. This approach may hinder legislatures’ ability to address modern issues related to gun violence.
Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the narrowness of the holding in Rahimi, stating that the Court has not engaged in exhaustive historical analysis of the Second Amendment’s full scope. This leaves considerable room for interpretation and further litigation concerning the constitutionality of broader gun regulations.
The case continues to raise important questions, as highlighted by the concurring justices. Justice Neil Gorsuch, for instance, noted that the opinion does not address whether the government can permanently disarm individuals or how Section 922(g)(8) applies to self-defense scenarios. Justice Jackson raised broader inquiries about historical perspectives on Second Amendment protections and the appropriate historical eras for judicial reference.
While the Supreme Court upheld Section 922(g)(8), its adherence to historical analysis over practical balancing may continue to pose challenges for future gun regulation efforts. The decision reflects ongoing tension between historical adherence and the need to address contemporary issues of public safety and gun violence.
The full text of the opinion in United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915, decided on June 21, 2024, offers further details.