By: Kunjal Bastola
edited by: Lauren levinson and alexandra dickerman
As of Nov. 14, 2023, there have been 37,490 gun violence deaths, according to the Gun Violence Archive.[1] An average of 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month.[2]
On Nov. 7, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case that centered around the Second Amendment rights of people subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The case follows Zackey Rahimi from Texas, who became subject to a protective order by the state court in 2020 after physically assaulting his then-girlfriend and firing a gun at a bystander who witnessed the incident. As a result of the protective order, Rahimi was not allowed to possess a firearm. However, he violated the order on multiple occasions, including participating in five shootings that occurred in public places. In 2021, police searched Rahimi’s home, finding a rifle and a pistol.[3] He was charged with violating federal code 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm if they are “subject to a court order that restrains [them] from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.”[4]
Rahimi appealed the ruling, citing the law as unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit overturned Rahimi’s conviction, citing the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022), the Court’s last major case regarding Second Amendment rights, where the Court ruled to uphold gun restrictions only if there is a “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”[5] The majority opinion in that case was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.[6]
Following the ruling in the Bruen case, with Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting, confusion formed in lower courts as to what framework should be used when considering gun laws in the present day.[7] In an interview with ABC News, Michael Siegel, a faculty member at Tufts School of Medicine who studies firearm violence, said, “The [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen] decision really opens up a whole new way of analyzing the legality of firearm regulation and so there is no experience really to go by, so it's essentially a free for all.”[8]
However, the Court seemed poised to contradict that ruling as J. Matthew Wright, the lawyer for Rahimi, was essentially forced to concede that his client was a dangerous person when Chief Justice John Roberts asked the following question: “To the extent that's pertinent, you don't have any doubt that your client's a dangerous person, do you?”[9]
Wright’s reply was that he wanted to know what would constitute a “dangerous person,” to which Chief Justice Roberts replied, “Well, it means someone who's shooting, you know, at people. That's a good start.”[10]
Wright conceded, saying, “That’s fair.”[11]
Wright’s argument centers around calling on the courts to find a similar ban in U.S. history as evidence to support upholding the gun law that lies at the center of the case. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the lawyer for the United States, asked the Court to uphold this law, the same law that Rahimi was charged with violating in 2021. In her opening statement, Prelogar said, “As this Court has said, all too often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.”[12]
One justice who is key to watch as the Court decides on this case, likely in June or July 2024, is Justice Brett Kavanaugh; he is likely to be a major factor in deciding the outcome of this case.[13] Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in the Bruen case, which Chief Justice Roberts signed. However, he emphasized in his opinion that “properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a “variety” of gun regulations.”[14]
It seems that the Court is likely to rule in favor of the federal law prohibiting certain individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing a firearm, with justices indicating that the case of Rahimi falls under the historical tradition of limiting Second Amendment rights when it comes to dangerous individuals. However, the future of gun regulation in the nation, specifically confusion regarding the criteria for considering gun laws, is likely to remain unclear even after the Court rules in U.S. v. Rahimi.
Notes:
Gun Violence Archive,” Gun Violence Archive, Accessed November 14, 2023, https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/.
“Domestic Violence,” Everytown, Accessed November 14, 2023, https://www.everytown.org/issues/domestic-violence/#by-the-numbers.
Amy Howe, “Court to Hear Major Gun-Rights Dispute over Domestic-Violence Restrictions,” SCOTUSblog, November 6, 2023. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/court-to-hear-major-gun-rights-dispute-over-domestic-violence-restrictions/.
Unlawful Acts, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (1968)
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, 142 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (S. Ct. 2022)
El-Bawab, Nadine. “Supreme Court Decision Creates Confusion over Which Firearm Restrictions Are Constitutional.” ABC News, January 13, 2023. https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-court-decision-creates-confusion-firearm-restrictions-constitutional/story?id=96364133.
United States v. Rahimi, U.S. Supreme Court (2023) (oral argument transcript) https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-915_986b.pdf
United States v. Rahimi, U.S. Supreme Court (2023) (oral argument transcript)
United States v. Rahimi, U.S. Supreme Court (2023) (oral argument transcript)
United States v. Rahimi, U.S. Supreme Court (2023) (oral argument transcript)
Roskam, Kelly. “Questions and Answers on U.S. v. Rahimi, the Major Gun Case before the Supreme Court during Its 2023–2024 Term.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, October 10, 2023. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/questions-and-answers-on-us-v-rahimi-the-major-gun-case-before-the-supreme-court-during-its-2023-2024-term.
bibliography:
“Domestic Violence.” Everytown. Accessed November 14, 2023. https://www.everytown.org/issues/domestic-violence/#by-the-numbers.
El-Bawab, Nadine. “Supreme Court Decision Creates Confusion over Which Firearm Restrictions Are Constitutional.” ABC News, January 13, 2023. https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-court-decision-creates-confusion-firearm-restrictions-constitutional/story?id=96364133.
“Gun Violence Archive.” Gun Violence Archive. Accessed November 14, 2023. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/.
Howe, Amy. “Court to Hear Major Gun-Rights Dispute over Domestic-Violence Restrictions.” SCOTUSblog, November 6, 2023. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/court-to-hear-major-gun-rights-dispute-over-domestic-violence-restrictions/.
Roskam, Kelly. “Questions and Answers on U.S. v. Rahimi, the Major Gun Case before the Supreme Court during Its 2023–2024 Term.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, October 10, 2023. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/questions-and-answers-on-us-v-rahimi-the-major-gun-case-before-the-supreme-court-during-its-2023-2024-term.
