On Friday, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibits individuals convicted of domestic abuse from possessing firearms, rejecting arguments from gun rights groups that the prohibition violates the Second Amendment.
The 8-1 decision in one of the Court’s most closely watched cases narrows the scope of a major ruling from two years ago that had prompted numerous legal challenges to gun regulations across the nation. The decision, which saw most of the Court’s conservatives and liberals on the same side, could help bolster similar federal gun regulations that have been challenged since the Supreme Court expanded gun rights in 2022. This previous ruling caused significant confusion among lower courts reviewing Second Amendment lawsuits.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the Court had “no trouble” coalescing around the idea that an individual who poses a threat can be denied access to weapons. “Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others,” Roberts wrote.
Roberts pushed back on the idea that the Court’s decision two years ago in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen had forced lower courts to strike down any gun law that didn’t have a direct historical analogue. Roberts said that some lower courts had “misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases.”
“The court’s ruling today leaves intact a specific federal criminal prohibition on gun possession by those subject to domestic violence-related restraining orders,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “But there are dozens of other federal and state gun regulations that have been challenged since the Court’s 2022 ruling in the Bruen case. The harder cases, like whether Congress can prohibit all felons, or all drug offenders, from possessing firearms, are still to come.”
Several of those cases are already pending at the Supreme Court and could be granted in the coming days.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion in Bruen, authored a lone dissent on Friday. “The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence,” Thomas wrote. “Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.”
The case in question involved a 1994 law that bars individuals who are the subject of domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man, was convicted of violating that law following a series of shootings, including one incident where police said he fired into the air at a Whataburger restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined.
Rahimi’s lawyers argued that the Supreme Court’s decision two years ago meant that the law concerning domestic violence orders could not be reconciled with the Constitution. In a 6-3 majority decision in Bruen, authored by Justice Thomas, the Court ruled that gun regulations must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The defense attorneys argued that the founding generation never addressed domestic violence by banning the possession of weapons, and therefore, the government couldn’t do so now. The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals embraced that argument, concluding that a gun ban for individuals involved in domestic disputes was an “outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”
However, the Biden administration and domestic violence victim groups pointed out that founding-era laws prohibited dangerous individuals from possessing guns. In other words, they argued, when viewed more generally, there were laws that could meet the Court’s new history-based test.
Women subject to domestic abuse are five times more likely to die at the hands of their abuser if there is a gun in the home, victim groups told the Supreme Court.
President Joe Biden applauded the decision on Friday. “As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades,” Biden said in a statement.
Douglas Letter, chief legal officer of the gun control group Brady, stated that the decision was an “important victory for gun violence and domestic violence prevention.”
During oral arguments in November, a majority of the Court appeared poised to uphold the law, though several conservative justices indicated they might be willing to do so on narrow grounds. This was partly because a series of related legal challenges are already queued up for the Court, including the question of whether non-violent felons can be denied access to firearms.
One of the prohibitions in question is tied to President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who was convicted on June 11 of violating a law that bars possession of a gun by a person who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” Hunter Biden is expected to appeal.
In one sense, by upholding the law, the decision was a win for prosecutors in that matter. However, the majority also avoided weighing into a legal debate over whether other federal gun prohibitions—such as those for non-violent felons—would also be upheld. The 5th Circuit last year, in a separate case, ruled that the prohibition on drug users is unconstitutional.
Justice Samuel Alito was absent from the bench for a second consecutive day as the justices handed down opinions in the Supreme Court’s courtroom. The Court has not responded to questions about his absence.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s recent decision underscores a significant moment in the ongoing national debate over gun control and Second Amendment rights, reaffirming the government’s authority to implement firearm restrictions in the interest of public safety while leaving room for future legal battles on related issues.
