Supreme Court Issues Decision in United States v. Rahimi

The Supreme Court issued its decision this morning in United States v. Rahimi, upholding the federal ban on individuals subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders possessing guns.  An 8-justice majority, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, found that the statute passed muster under the Second Amendment because history demonstrates that, "[w]hen an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed."  The majority adopted a somewhat flexible version of the Bruen test, holding that the restraining order law "is by no means identical to [] founding era regimes, but it does not need to be."  And the Court explained that the "the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition."  It criticized the Fifth Circuit for requiring a historical twin to uphold the law—which the Court said would result in "law trapped in amber"— and for failing to properly apply the standard for a facial challenge (under which the challenger must show that "no set of circumstances exists under which the [law] would be valid"). 

The majority opinion was relatively narrow, and it's unclear how the Court's analysis will impact other forms of federal and state gun regulation.  A web of concurring opinions also illustrated divisions among the justices in the majority over the proper level of generality for historical analysis.  Justice Thomas, the author of the majority opinion in Bruen, dissented and argued that "the Government failed to produce any evidence that [the restraining order law] is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation."

We'll have further analysis and reaction to Rahimi on the blog in the coming days and weeks.