United States v. Rahimi Revisions: 6/25/24
Headline: Domestic-violence restraining orders can trigger temporary federal gun bans; Court upholds law letting courts disarm people judged a credible threat while their orders remain in effect.
Holding: When a court finds a person poses a credible threat to another’s physical safety, that person may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment while a qualifying restraining order remains in effect.
- Allows courts to bar firearm possession for people under qualifying restraining orders.
- Permits temporary disarmament only while restraining orders remain in effect.
- Leaves open later disputes about duration and procedural protections.
Summary
Background
A man accused of assaulting his girlfriend obtained a state domestic-violence restraining order that found he posed “a credible threat” to her or their child. He was later indicted under a federal law that bars people subject to qualifying restraining orders from possessing firearms. The defendant challenged the law on Second Amendment grounds; the Fifth Circuit found the law unconstitutional after this Court’s Bruen decision and the Government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether the Second Amendment covers the conduct at issue (it does) and whether the federal rule fits within the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Applying the test from Bruen, the majority concluded the Government showed historical analogues—such as surety and “going armed” laws—that permitted disarming people who threatened others. The Court stressed that modern rules need not be precise historical twins but must match the historical principles and burdens. The Court therefore rejected the facial challenge and held the law may be applied to someone found by a court to be a credible threat.
Real world impact
The decision allows federal prosecutors to enforce the gun ban against people subject to qualifying domestic-violence orders that include a judicial finding of a credible threat. The ruling is framed as permitting temporary disarmament while an order is in effect and does not resolve every question about duration, permanent bans, or procedural protections. Lower courts and legislatures will still face follow-up fights about scope and safeguards.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas dissented, saying historical laws do not sufficiently match the federal ban. Several Justices wrote separate opinions emphasizing different historical and doctrinal points while joining the judgment or parts of it.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?