Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban for Domestic Abusers in Rahimi Ruling

Why this is trending right now

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 8-1 ruling in United States v. Rahimi on June 21, 2024, confirming that the government can constitutionally prohibit domestic abusers subject to restraining orders from possessing firearms. The decision reversed a previous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which had argued that such a ban violated the Second Amendment because it lacked a direct historical twin in founding-era law. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that "when an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed." This ruling is trending because it provides the first major clarification of the "Bruen test," which requires gun laws to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the statute in question, has been a critical tool for public safety, and data indicates it has contributed to a 27% reduction in intimate partner homicide rates in states where it is strictly enforced. The case centered on Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man who was involved in five shootings in a two-month span while under a domestic violence protective order. The Court’s decision to uphold the law signals a rejection of the most extreme interpretations of the Second Amendment that emerged following the 2022 Bruen decision. The ruling emphasizes that the Second Amendment is not a "regulatory straightjacket" and allows for modern laws that address modern problems, provided they are consistent with the principles of historical disarmament.

The last 24 hours: a timeline

• 10:00 AM EDT, June 21, 2024: The Supreme Court releases the opinion in United States v. Rahimi. Immediate reports confirm an 8-1 majority with Justice Clarence Thomas as the sole dissenter. The decision is immediately picked up by major legal and news outlets.
• 10:15 AM EDT: Legal analysts note the narrow scope of the majority opinion, which focuses specifically on individuals found by a court to pose a "credible threat" rather than a broad reinterpretation of gun rights. The opinion clarifies that the government need not find a historical "dead ringer" for modern laws.
• 11:00 AM EDT: Advocacy groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety and the Center for American Progress release statements hailing the decision as a victory for domestic violence survivors, noting the high correlation between domestic abuse and gun violence.
• 12:30 PM EDT: Justice Thomas’s dissent becomes a focal point of legal debate; he argues the government failed to prove the law is consistent with the historical tradition as defined in his own Bruen majority opinion, asserting that the Second Amendment protects even those not yet convicted of a crime.
• 2:00 PM EDT: Constitutional scholars highlight the "flexible" version of the Bruen test adopted by the majority, which allows for laws that are "analogous" to historical regulations even if they are not identical. This is seen as a significant shift in the Court's approach to originalism.
• Evening, June 21, 2024: The ruling is cited in several ongoing lower-court cases involving firearm restrictions for other classes of "dangerous" individuals, indicating an immediate shift in legal strategy for the Department of Justice and state prosecutors.

What could happen next

The Rahimi decision provides a template for how the Supreme Court may handle other pending Second Amendment challenges. By ruling that the Second Amendment is not "trapped in amber," Chief Justice Roberts has opened the door for modern regulations that address modern social problems, provided they follow the general principles of historical disarmament. However, the majority opinion was intentionally narrow. It did not address the constitutionality of bans on specific types of weapons, such as AR-15 style rifles, or the legality of "red flag" laws that do not involve a formal court finding of a credible threat.

Inferred from the web of concurring opinions, there remains a deep division among the conservative justices regarding the level of generality required for historical analysis. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett each filed concurrences, suggesting that the debate over how to apply history to constitutional law is far from settled. We can expect a wave of new litigation testing the limits of the "credible threat" standard, particularly concerning whether it can be applied to non-domestic crimes or mental health adjudications. For now, the legal status of domestic violence protective orders as a basis for disarmament is secure nationwide, providing a clear legal precedent for state and federal law enforcement.