United States v. Rahimi and Restrictions on Gun Ownership for Domestic Violence Convictions

Representative Lucy McBath (D-GA) speaking at a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol following the 5th Circuit of Appeals ruling on Feb. 8th.

Introduction

Second Amendment rights have long been a contentious issue, but a recent Supreme Court decision was the first to break a series of major gun legislation that have been expanding gun rights since 2008. (APNews) The United States v. Rahimi case was a life-saving decision that reversed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that allowed abusers to own guns. (Everytown) Rahimi has brought renewed attention to the complex intersection of domestic violence convictions and gun ownership rights while addressing fundamental questions of public safety, constitutional rights, and the implications of criminal convictions on firearm possession. In this case, the court was not analyzing whether the ban on guns for abusers is a commendable policy goal, but rather if 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(8), a specific 1994 statute that upholds this ban, is constitutional under the Second Amendment. (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit) This law precisely concerns “the prohibition against disposal of firearms to, or receipt or possession of firearms by, persons who are subject to domestic violence protection orders.” (DOJ) Yet, in the middle of Rahimi’s court proceedings the Supreme Court decided incredibly relevant gun legislation. In 2022, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, a Supreme Court case, decided that “gun restrictions had to be analyzed based on a historical understanding of the right to bear arms.” (NBC). This undermined all existing gun laws and restrictions in the country, reversed Rahimi’s case, and ultimately moved a district court case into a Supreme Court case.

Police mugshot of Zackey Rahimi, who brought his case to an appeals court that struck down a law that banned people under restraining orders from firearm possession.

Background and Context

U.S. v. Rahimi revolves around the arrest and subsequent legal proceedings involving Zackey Rahimi, who was convicted of domestic violence-related charges. In December 2019, Rahimi allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend, knocking her onto the ground in a parking lot before dragging and locking her inside his car. When Rahimi realized that a bystander had seen the entire assault occur, he took out a gun and fired at him. He subsequently threatened his ex-girlfriend with the firearm if she told anyone about the abuse. In February 2020, the court granted Rahimi’s ex-girlfriend a civil protection order to safeguard against his behavior. This did not stop Rahimi from returning to his ex-girlfriend’s house or becoming further involved in violent gun-related incidents. (Everytown) Between 2020-2021 Rahimi was involved in several violent shootings and a hit-and-run in Arlington, Texas. He was still under the Civil Protection Order (CPO) for assault against his ex-girlfriend during the time of the series of violent incidents. Thus, he was ultimately indicted for violating federal law 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(8), which makes it illegal for a person under a restraining order to possess firearms. (LII) Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment as violating his Second Amendment right, leading the Fifth Circuit of Appeals to reopen his case. (SCOTUS)

Fifth Circuit Ruling

Per Bruen, the Fifth Circuit reopened Rahimi’s case and reversed its decision, which applied in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. (Hopkins) The court acknowledged that Rahimi was far from a model citizen but that it was not constitutional to disarm him due to the protective order. (Hopkins) Bruen’s ruling created a new test to evaluate gun legislation. Judges had to discern whether current laws were consistent with the nation’s historical firearm regulations. Laws that specifically targeted domestic abusers did not exist during the time of the nation’s founding, and women as a class were underrepresented in the law. Yet, because the court found no identical law from the 1700s or 1800s, the Fifth Circuit court was able to overturn the ban on gun restrictions for abusers. (ACLU)

Joint Amicus Brief

Gun activists gather outside the Supreme Court on November 3, 2021.

The ACLU, Everytown for Gun Safety, and other advocacy organizations submitted a joint amicus brief, calling the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s decision. Sandra Park, a senior staff attorney in the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, stated, “We cannot stand by as federal courts rely on the historical subordination of women to strike down legal protections extended to survivors of domestic violence.” (ACLU) The brief also cited how the Fifth Circuit court had misinterpreted and applied the Bruen test and failed to recognize that the Second Amendment allows the government to disarm people who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens. (ACLU) Another statement on the brief was by Sasha Drobnick, Director of Appellate Litigation at Network for Victim Recovery of DC. She described how “if allowed to stand, the 5th Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Rahimi, women, children, and men will die. They will die despite their legal right to–and legally recognized need for– protection from domestic abusers because protection orders will no longer provide a critical remedy to keep them and others safe…No reading of history can support failure to regulate individuals who pose the clear danger that abusers with guns represent.” (TSSC)

Activists outside the Supreme Court rally before the oral arguments begin in the Rahimi case.

Supreme Court Ruling

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal law prohibiting abusers who were issued a protective order from owning guns was constitutional within the Second Amendment, overturning the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. (Everytown) While the vote was an 8 to 1 decision in favor of the Biden Administration, the verdict still exposed division among gun rights issues as five justices each wrote a separate concurring opinion. (NBC) Chief Justice John Roberts gave the majority opinion, writing that “since the United States was founded, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.” (SCOTUS) Throughout the court’s discussion, the arguments that the Biden administration had made in favor of the law were overlooked, such as that the government can disarm people who are not “responsible gun users.” (NBC) Attorney General Merrick Garland was in favor of the ruling, citing that it “protects victims by keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals who pose a threat to their intimate partners and children.” Thomas, the only dissenting justice and strict originalist and textualist, described how “not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue.” (SCOTUS)

Implications of the Supreme Court’s Reversal

While federal law prohibits individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning guns, enforcement and compliance with these restrictions vary widely by state. The Rahimi decision essentially puts a life-saving law back in place nationally and ensures that violent abusers do not have the constitutional right to own guns. Rahimi also allowed the Supreme Court to clarify how lower courts will apply the Bruen framework in future Second Amendment cases. Chief Justice Roberts clarified how to satisfy the Bruen test; there does not have to be an exact historical match, instead the laws have to contain broad shared historical principles. (NYT) This legislation also meant the difference between life and death for many survivors of domestic abuse, as nearly every month, 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner. (Everytown) In almost 70% of mass shootings, the perpetrator first killed a partner or family member and often had a history of domestic violence. (Hopkins)

Photo of each supreme court justice, who appointed them to office, and their vote in the Rahimi Decision. (Thomas was the only dissent)

Conclusion

The United States v. Rahimi decision highlights ongoing challenges in the regulation of firearm ownership in the United States. Policymakers, legal experts, and advocacy groups continue to navigate the contentious debate surrounding the Second Amendment, but this case serves as a critical precedent for advancing public safety measures while upholding constitutional rights.

CIW REPORTS

Comments and Content from Cornell in Washington

Search

United States v. Rahimi and Restrictions on Gun Ownership for Domestic Violence Convictions

Recent Posts

Search

United States v. Rahimi and Restrictions on Gun Ownership for Domestic Violence Convictions

Introduction

Joint Amicus Brief

Implications of the Supreme Court’s Reversal

Suggestions for Further Reading:

Recent Posts