United States v. Rahimi

In United States v. Rahimi, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 21, 2024, upheld a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The defendant, Zackey Rahimi, had been placed under a civil protective order after assaulting his girlfriend, yet later engaged in multiple shootings. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had struck down the law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court reversed in an 8-1 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, holding that when a court finds an individual poses a credible threat to an intimate partner, the government may temporarily disarm that person consistent with historical tradition. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit in an 8-1 decision, upholding the federal law as constitutional. The majority held that temporarily disarming individuals who pose a credible threat to an intimate partner is consistent with the Second Amendment and the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits firearm possession by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment in light of the historical tradition test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The decision reaffirmed the ability of federal and state governments to disarm individuals who pose a credible threat of violence, particularly in domestic violence contexts. It narrowed the scope of the Bruen test by emphasizing historical principles rather than exact historical analogs. The ruling was widely viewed as a significant victory for gun control advocates and domestic violence prevention efforts, while leaving broader Second Amendment questions unresolved.