The federal government can continue to limit domestic abusers’ gun rights, according to a landmark ruling issued by the U.S. Supreme Court Friday that helps clarify the conservative-majority court’s thinking on firearm restrictions.
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal government can temporarily restrict a person’s right to possess firearms without violating the Second Amendment. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
The case of United States v. Rahimi had emerged as a high-profile test of how far the Supreme Court was willing to go in expanding gun rights after its sweeping reinterpretation of the Second Amendment two years ago directed courts to stop considering public safety when assessing the constitutionality of firearm restrictions.
Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images
A court in Tarrant County, Texas, placed Zackey Rahimi under a protective order on Feb. 5, 2020, after he assaulted his former girlfriend. Prosecutors accused him of shooting guns in public in at least six separate instances while subject to the protective order — including once at a woman he allegedly lured into a parking lot, two instances of alleged road rage and one instance in which he allegedly fired a rifle into someone’s home.
When police investigating those shootings searched Rahimi’s room on Jan. 14, 2021, they discovered a semiautomatic rifle under the bed and a pistol with an extended magazine on the nightstand, along with a copy of the protective order. A 1994 federal law makes it a felony to possess firearms while subject to a protective order in a domestic violence case.
Rahimi, facing an open-and-shut case, pleaded guilty.
But in 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas laid out a new constitutional standard for assessing gun restrictions when the Supreme Court ruled on the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. The new standard directed courts to judge the constitutionality of gun laws by narrowly focusing on whether a given restriction fit within a history of regulation dating back to some time between the signing of the Bill of Rights in 1789 and the end of the Civil War in 1865.
The ruling set off dozens of Second Amendment challenges to long-standing gun laws, many of which are still playing out.
Rahimi’s was among the most highly publicized decisions after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment protected his right to bear arms despite allegedly using them to commit several other crimes. Public defenders representing Rahimi had argued that the United States did not develop a legal tradition of disarming people for domestic abuse until the 20th century.
The decision set off a firestorm of criticism from gun law reformers and advocates for victims of domestic violence, who feared that overturning the 1994 law would empower abusers.
Rahimi’s state cases were left pending while the Supreme Court considered the issue. He also faces a state felony charge for possession of fentanyl.