The Courts/United States v. Rahimi

602 U.S. 680 (2024) · 2024

United States v. Rahimi

Second Amendmentdomestic violencefirearms regulationpublic safetyrestraining ordersLandmark

Summary

Rahimi upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which bars firearm possession by people subject to certain domestic-violence restraining orders. The Court held that temporarily disarming a person found by a court to pose a credible threat is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Background & Context

The case followed Bruen, which required gun regulations to be consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Lower courts struggled with how exact that history must be. Rahimi involved a law aimed at people found by a court to threaten intimate partners.

The Question Before the Court

Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which temporarily bars firearm possession by people subject to qualifying domestic-violence restraining orders, violate the Second Amendment?

Petitioner

United States

Party asking the Court to review or reverse

Argued

A long historical tradition of disarming people who pose a physical threat to others supports this law.
The historical test doesn't require Congress to find an identical 18th-century law — just a similar one.
Domestic violence protective orders are issued by neutral courts after a legal finding that the subject poses a credible threat.
Protecting people from gun violence by known abusers serves a compelling government interest with a long constitutional pedigree.

Respondent

Rahimi

Party defending the judgment below

Argued

The Bruen test requires a historical analog, and no Founding-era law specifically disarmed people subject to civil protective orders.
The Fifth Circuit correctly found the 1994 law unconstitutional under the new Bruen framework.
The government is trying to bootstrap general historical principles into specific constitutional authority without the required evidence.
Only a criminal conviction — not a civil court order — historically justified permanent or significant disarmament.

The Holding

When a court finds that a person poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, temporarily disarming that person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) is consistent with the Second Amendment.

The Court

How the justices lined up in this decision.

2-7

Vote

Joined decision

10 justices

Amy Barrett

Majority

Brett Kavanaugh

Majority

Justice Kagan

Majority

Elena Kagan

Majority

Chief Justice Roberts

Chief Justice

John Roberts

Majority

Ketanji Jackson

Majority

Neil Gorsuch

Majority

Samuel Alito

Majority

Sonia Sotomayor

Majority

Concurred

6 justices

Justice Barrett

Concurred

Justice Kavanaugh

Concurred

Justice Jackson

Concurred

Justice Gorsuch

Concurred

Justice Alito

Concurred

Justice Sotomayor

Concurred

Dissented

2 justices

Justice Thomas

Dissent

Clarence Thomas

Dissent

What this means for you

The ruling preserves a major firearm restriction used to protect domestic-violence survivors. It also signals that Bruen does not require a historical twin for every modern gun law. Courts may reason by analogy from historical practices, especially when the modern law temporarily disarms people found by a court to be dangerous.