United States v. Rahimi

Last updated

United States v. Rahimi
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 7, 2023
Decided June 21, 2024
Full case nameUnited States, Petitioner v. Zackey Rahimi
Docket no. 22-915
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Questions presented
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
Holding
When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
ConcurrenceSotomayor, joined by Kagan
ConcurrenceGorsuch
ConcurrenceKavanaugh
ConcurrenceBarrett
ConcurrenceJackson
DissentThomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. II
Violence Against Women Act of 1994

United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___(2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and whether it empowers the government to prohibit firearm possession by a person with a civil domestic violence restraining order in the absence of a corresponding criminal domestic violence conviction or charge. [1]

Contents

It came from a 2023 decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating a federal law prohibiting individuals from possessing firearms while under a restraining order relating to domestic abuse. The Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit in an 8–1 ruling and upheld the law. In its decision, the Court refined the Bruen test, stating that in comparing modern gun control laws to historic tradition, courts should use similar analogues and general principles rather than strict matches. [2]

Background

In 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , which changed the way courts assessed laws related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Rather than examining the history of the Second Amendment and its scope, then applying intermediate scrutiny if the former is unclear, the test articulated by Justice Clarence Thomas requires gun-related legislation to be in line with the country's historical firearm legislation. [3] [4] According to that opinion, laws must have "historical analogues" to laws existing at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification in 1791 or incorporation in 1868 via the Fourteenth Amendment. [5] [6]

Zackey Rahimi was issued a civil restraining order by a Texas state court on February 5, 2020; the order barred him from engaging in certain harassment-related behaviors towards his ex-girlfriend or her child, as well as owning firearms. The order came after an incident in December 2019 where Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot following an argument. Noticing that a bystander had witnessed the altercation, Rahimi fired a gun at the witness. Despite his prohibition on owning firearms and communicating with his girlfriend, Rahimi repeatedly defied the order. In May 2020, Rahimi was arrested after approaching her house in the middle of the night. In November 2020, he was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after threatening another woman with a gun.

Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi took part in five shootings. First, he shot at a man who purchased drugs from him after the man spoke disrespectfully to him; Rahimi fired into the man's house with an AR-15. The next day, Rahimi was involved in a traffic collision and fired at the other driver. He fled the scene of the crash, returned, fired more shots at the other driver, then fled again. Three days after the first shooting, Rahimi fired a gun into the air while in the presence of children. Some weeks after that shooting, a truck on the highway flashed its headlights at Rahimi when he sped past the truck; Rahimi then followed the truck off the highway and fired shots at another car that had been following the truck. Finally, Rahimi fired a gun into the air at a fast food restaurant after a friend's credit card was declined.

Suspecting Rahimi of these shootings, officers executed a search warrant at his home, discovering a rifle and a pistol he admitted to possessing. Officers additionally found ammunition, magazines, and a copy of the protective order. He was charged and convicted in a federal district court of unlawful firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), [7] which prohibits individuals from owning firearms if they are "subject to a court order that restrains [them] from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner." [4]

Domestic violence protective orders related to bans on possessing a firearm became enacted by the 1968 Gun Control Act. [8] [9] However, the federal law which enforced the restraining order in question was the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. [9]

Procedural history

Rahimi appealed his conviction, bringing a facial challenge to U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Second Amendment grounds. The court rejected his challenge, [lower-alpha 1] and Rahimi appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel for the Fifth Circuit initially upheld Section 922(g)(8), but while Rahimi's petition for a rehearing was pending, the Supreme Court decided Bruen, causing the panel to withdraw its opinion. [10] The parties filed supplementary briefs and re-argued the case before a new panel of three judges. [11]

On February 2, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) as unconstitutional, barring it from being enforced in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. [4] The Fifth Circuit withdrew the panel's opinion and filed a revised opinion on March 2, 2023, reaching the same result. [11] On March 17, 2023, the United States Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court decision and allow the federal law criminalizing firearm ownership by people under domestic violence restraining orders to stand. [12]

Opinions of the Fifth Circuit

Writing the February 2 opinion for the unanimous panel, Judge Cory T. Wilson rejected the government's argument that Second Amendment applies only to "law abiding, respectable citizens," citing Justice Amy Coney Barrett's dissent in Kanter v. Barr, when she served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. [4] [11] Justice Barrett argued, "Founding era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons," or impose any "virtue-based restrictions" on that right. [4]

Judge Wilson then applied the historical tradition test articulated in Bruen in considering whether the historical analogues put forward by the Justice Department were applicable to Section 922(g)(8). [11] The Justice Department had submitted three categories of possible analogues: "(1) English and American laws...providing for the disarmament of 'dangerous' people, (2) English and American 'going armed' laws, and (3) colonial and early state surety laws". [11] The February 2 opinion stated that the historical laws disarming "dangerous" classes of people were not similar to the modern law, because "The purpose of these 'dangerousness' laws was the preservation of political and social order, not the protection of an identified person from the specific threat posed by another". [13]

The revised March 2 opinion included an expanded concurrence from Judge James C. Ho, arguing that "civil protective orders are too often misused as a tactical device in divorce proceedings – and issued without any actual threat of danger". [10] [14] Judge Wilson went further and argued that Section 922(g)(8) could even put victims of domestic violence "in greater danger than before", [10] because they would be unable to defend themselves against their abusers with guns, if a judge had issued a "mutual" protective order. [14]

Reactions

In her March 29, 2023, opinion for The New York Times following the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, Linda Greenhouse stressed the importance of the government's appeal to the Supreme Court. Greenhouse predicted that the Court would take the case and wrote that the Court's eventual decision would clarify how favorable the current Court is toward gun owners. [15] The Guardian later called the case as the most consequential case of the term. [16]

Supreme Court

In its final order list of the October 2022 term, the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case on June 30, 2023. [1]

Oral arguments

Oral arguments were heard on November 7, 2023. The case was argued, on behalf of the United States, by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and, on behalf of Rahimi, J. Matthew Wright, Rahimi's local federal public defender.

Opinion of the Court

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 with the government, upholding the ability to temporarily restrict individuals deemed to be a physical threat from gun possession which was granted through the 1994 law. [17] [18] [19] Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by all but Justice Clarence Thomas. Roberts, while applying the "historic tradition" standard from Bruen, stated that the courts should not consider Bruen as rigid as the Fifth Circuit had done in looking for a "historic twin", and instead look at aspects of history that are “relevantly similar” to the modern law under challenge. To that end, Roberts stated that "firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms", and through both English and U.S. laws, "[they] confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed." [20] The majority did agree in judgment that in Rahimi's case, the government's argument that Rahimi was not a responsible citizen was not sufficient to deny him his Second Amendment rights. [20]

Thomas, the author of the Bruen majority decision, stated in his dissent that the government had failed to point to any historical laws that were similar to the current law to support the Bruen test. Thomas maintained that the Bruen test required a stricter historical comparison than used by the majority. [20]

Several of the justices wrote their own concurrences to opine on the specificity of the "historic tradition" test from Bruen as applied here. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, who had both dissented in the Bruen decision, asserted again that Bruen was wrongly decided, but unlike the exacting requirements that Thomas set forth in his dissent, the majority in Rahimi "permits a historical inquiry calibrated to reveal something useful and transferable to the present day". [20] Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with Sotomayor that Bruen was wrongly decided, and in relation to the confusion in handling gun rights cases in lower courts "the blame may lie with us, not with them". [20] Justice Amy Coney Barrett supported the majority decision in allowing analogues rather than exact comparisons to be used for the Bruen test, and that requiring "21st-century regulations to follow late 18th-century policy choices, giving us 'a law trapped in amber.' And it assumes that founding-era legislatures maximally exercised their power to regulate, thereby adopting a 'use it or lose it' view of legislative authority." [20] Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with Thomas that the Bruen test should use a more strict comparison, but stated that the government had successfully demonstrated the necessary historical laws to justify the modern-day regulation. [20]

Notes

  1. ↑ Stern (2023) writes that the district court ruled for Rahimi, but that version of events is not supported by other sources – the article cites United States v. Perez-Gallan , a separate case involving similar questions.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Second Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions.

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, often called the "Lautenberg Amendment", is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms for life by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Lautenberg proposed the amendment after a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, involving underenforcement of domestic violence laws brought under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. President Bill Clinton signed the law as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Restraining order</span> Legal order prohibiting certain entities from specified actions

A restraining order or protective order is an order used by a court to protect a person in a situation often involving alleged domestic violence, child abuse, assault, harassment, stalking, or sexual assault.

The Sullivan Act was a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911. The NY state law requires licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public is a felony. The law was the subject of controversy regarding both its selective enforcement and the licensing bribery schemes it enabled. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a Tammany Hall Democrat.

Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it illegal to possess a firearm for individuals previously "convicted in any court" of crimes for which they could have been sentenced to more than one year in prison. The Court ruled, in a five to three decision, that "any court" does not include those in foreign countries. This decision resolved a circuit split on the issue, and reversed the lower ruling of the Third Circuit that the law did apply to foreign convictions.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.

United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting Section 921(a)(33)(A) of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended in 1996. The Court held that a domestic relationship is not necessarily a defining element of the predicate offense to support a conviction for possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roger Benitez</span> American judge (born 1950)

Roger Thomas Benitez is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. He is known for his rulings striking down several California gun control laws.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sharon Johnson Coleman</span> American judge (born 1960)

Sharon Lynn Johnson Coleman is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. She was formerly a justice of the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, 3rd Division.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Domestic violence in the United States</span>

Domestic violence is a form of violence that occurs within a domestic relationship. Although domestic violence often occurs between partners in the context of an intimate relationship, it may also describe other household violence, such as violence against a child, by a child against a parent or violence between siblings in the same household. In the United States, it is recognized as an important social problem by governmental and non-governmental agencies, and various Violence Against Women Acts have been passed by the US Congress in an attempt to stem this tide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Maryland</span>

Gun laws in Maryland regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Maryland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High-capacity magazine</span> Type of firearm magazine

A high-capacity magazine is a magazine capable of holding a higher than normal number of ammunition rounds for a particular firearm.

The boyfriend loophole is a gap in American gun legislation that allows physically abusive ex-romantic partners and stalkers with previous convictions or restraining orders to access guns. While individuals who have been convicted of, or are under a restraining order for, domestic violence are prohibited from owning a firearm, the prohibition only applies if the victim was the perpetrator's spouse or cohabitant, or if the perpetrator had a child with the victim.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as NYSRPA II or Bruen to distinguish it from the 2020 case, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.

<i>Miller v. Bonta</i> 2021 pending federal appellate court case regarding Californias assault weapon ban

Miller v. Bonta is a pending court case before Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California concerning California's assault weapon ban, the Roberti–Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA). Judge Roger Benitez struck down the ban in a ruling on June 5, 2021. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a stay of the ruling on June 21, 2021, which left the ban in place as appeals were litigated. The panel then vacated Judge Benitez’s ruling and remanded it back down after [] was decided. The case was known as Miller v. Becerra before Rob Bonta succeeded Xavier Becerra as Attorney General of California in April 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Firearms Policy Coalition</span> US gun rights organization

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a gun rights organization in the United States, which aims to advance gun rights in the United States via legal action, in keeping with its stated goal to "restore the essential right to keep and bear arms in the United States." The FPC seeks to approach gun rights advocacy in a more targeted and effective way than the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), specifically by working with targeted legal teams to advance legislation in support of gun rights causes.

References

  1. 1 2 "The last grants of October Term 2022?". SCOTUSblog. June 29, 2023. Archived from the original on December 1, 2023. Retrieved June 30, 2023.
  2. ↑ Howe, Amy (June 21, 2024). "Supreme Court upholds bar on guns under domestic-violence restraining orders". SCOTUSBlog . Archived from the original on June 25, 2024. Retrieved June 21, 2024.
  3. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (February 2, 2023). "It's now legal for domestic abusers to own a gun in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi". Vox. Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Coyle, Marcia (February 8, 2023). "Analysis: How a Supreme Court ruling led to the overturning of a guns and domestic violence law". PBS News. Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  5. ↑ Stern, Mark Joseph (February 2, 2023). "5th Circuit Rules That People Accused of Domestic Violence Have a Right to Keep Their Guns". Slate. Retrieved October 29, 2023.
  6. ↑ Shawn Hubler (March 14, 2023). "In the Gun Law Fights of 2023, a Need for Experts on the Weapons of 1791". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 29, 2023. Retrieved October 29, 2023.
  7. ↑ "18 USC 922: Unlawful acts". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved June 21, 2024.
  8. ↑ "Firearms by Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence". U.S. Justice Department. February 19, 2015. Retrieved June 21, 2024.
  9. 1 2 Martin, Nina (June 21, 2024). "Supreme Court Upholds Law Disarming Domestic Abusers". Mother Jones. Retrieved June 21, 2024.
  10. 1 2 3 "USA v. Rahimi, No. 21-11001 (5th Cir. 2023)" (PDF). Retrieved June 21, 2024.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Andrew Willinger,  Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Domestic-Violence Prohibitor in United States v. Rahimi , Duke Center for Firearms Law (February 6, 2023).
  12. ↑ Slattery, Gram; Raymond, Nate (March 20, 2023). "US asks Supreme Court to uphold domestic violence gun law". Reuters . Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  13. ↑ Sneed, Tierney (February 2, 2023). "Law barring people with domestic violence restraining orders from having guns is unconstitutional, court rules | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  14. 1 2 Ruth Marcus,  Revised ruling on guns for domestic offenders just makes things worse , The Washington Post  (March 3, 2023).
  15. ↑ Greenhouse, Linda (March 29, 2023). "We're About to Find Out How Far the Supreme Court Will Go to Arm America". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 29, 2023. Retrieved October 29, 2023.
  16. ↑ Pilkington, Ed (November 6, 2023). "US supreme court to hear case on domestic abuser's right to own guns". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  17. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 21, 2024). "Supreme Court Upholds Law Disarming Domestic Abusers". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved June 21, 2024.
  18. ↑ Fritze, John (June 21, 2024). "Supreme Court upholds law barring domestic abusers from owning guns in major Second Amendment ruling". CNN. Retrieved June 21, 2024.
  19. ↑ Sherman, Mark (June 21, 2024). "The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law intended to protect domestic violence victims". Associated Press. Retrieved June 21, 2024.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Howe, Amy (June 21, 2024). "Supreme Court upholds bar on guns under domestic-violence restraining orders". SCOTUSBlog . Archived from the original on June 25, 2024. Retrieved June 21, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.