United States v. Rahimi

Background

In 2019 a woman obtained a state domestic violence restraining order against a man who later admitted he had pulled a gun and threatened her. The order, entered after notice, found he posed “a credible threat to the physical safety” of the woman or her child and prohibited using physical force. The federal government charged the man under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), a law that makes it a crime for a person subject to such an order meeting statutory criteria to possess firearms. He pleaded guilty and appealed a denial of his constitutional challenge after this Court decided Bruen.

Reasoning

The Justices applied Bruen’s history-and-tradition test. The majority held that when a court has found an individual poses a credible threat, temporarily banning that person from possessing guns fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of restraining dangerous people. The opinion relied on founding-era “surety” and “going armed” laws that addressed threats and allowed limited preventive measures. The Court treated the defendant’s challenge as facial but found the statute constitutional as applied to his case, reversed the Fifth Circuit, and remanded for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The ruling allows federal enforcement of §922(g)(8) where a qualifying restraining order exists and a court has found a credible threat. It affirms that limited, court-ordered disarmament is consistent with the Second Amendment in these circumstances. The opinion leaves other questions—such as broader facial invalidation, duration, or procedural protections—for lower courts and later cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote concurrences emphasizing method and scope. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing no meaningful historical analogue justified the law.