The Supreme Court has agreed to review a federal law prohibiting individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms. This decision follows a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that deemed the law unconstitutional, citing the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. The case, United States v. Zackey Rahimi, involves a Texas man who challenged his indictment after authorities found firearms in his home despite a protective order against him. The order stemmed from allegations of harassment, stalking, and threats against his ex-girlfriend and their child.
The Fifth Circuit initially upheld the man's conviction, prioritizing public safety over individual gun rights. However, the court later vacated the conviction in light of the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling, which established new standards for interpreting the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit then concluded that the federal law was inconsistent with historical firearm regulations.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has argued for the law's constitutionality, citing a historical tradition of disarming individuals deemed dangerous. The Department of Justice (DOJ) contends that the Fifth Circuit overlooked historical evidence supporting this principle, focusing instead on individual statutes in isolation. Garland has maintained that the law aligns with Supreme Court precedent and the Second Amendment's text, history, and tradition.
Both gun rights and gun control advocates have expressed interest in the Supreme Court's review, seeking clarity on the Bruen decision's scope. Gun Owners of America believes the case presents an opportunity to build upon Bruen, arguing that individuals deemed too dangerous to possess firearms should be incarcerated rather than subjected to restraining orders. Conversely, Brady: United Against Gun Violence supports the law, emphasizing the prevalence of firearms in domestic violence homicides. The organization views the Fifth Circuit's decision as flawed and hopes the Supreme Court will overturn it. Oral arguments are scheduled for the fall.
