In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law on Friday that prohibits domestic abusers from owning firearms, rejecting arguments from gun rights groups that the ban violates the Second Amendment. The 8-1 ruling arrives amid a national crisis of gun violence and mass shootings, and a politically deadlocked Washington unable to pass new gun legislation.
Upholding Federal Gun Regulations
The decision could reinforce similar federal gun regulations that have faced legal challenges since the Supreme Court’s 2022 expansion of gun rights. That ruling, which created confusion among lower courts handling Second Amendment lawsuits, significantly influenced this case.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, clarified that previous Supreme Court decisions should not restrict judges to only those laws existing at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment. Roberts emphasized, “Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others.”
Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, noted the significance of the ruling: “The Court’s ruling today leaves intact a specific federal criminal prohibition on gun possession by those subject to domestic violence-related restraining orders. But there are dozens of other federal and state gun regulations that have been challenged since the court’s 2022 ruling in the Bruen case.”
The Case of Zackey Rahimi
Central to the ruling was a 1994 law that bars individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man, challenged the law after being convicted of violating it following a series of shootings, including an incident where he fired a gun at a Whataburger restaurant.
Rahimi’s lawyers contended that the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Bruen invalidated the 1994 law. They argued that historical firearm regulations did not address domestic violence by banning weapon possession, implying that modern regulations should not either. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had agreed, stating that such a ban would not have been accepted by the founding generation.
However, the Biden administration and domestic violence advocacy groups presented evidence of historical laws barring dangerous individuals from gun ownership, aligning with the Supreme Court’s history-based test for firearm regulations. They emphasized that women subjected to domestic abuse are significantly more likely to be killed if a gun is present in the home.
