The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the case of United States v. Rahimi, which revolves around whether a Texas man who is under a domestic violence restraining order has a Second Amendment right to own guns. This case has become a source of concern due to a previous Supreme Court decision in June 2022, which stated that modern gun laws are unconstitutional unless they have a historical basis. Essentially, the court questions whether these laws would align with the views of 18th-century white men.
Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito expressed significant concern over the potential stripping away of a fundamental right from men who have been deemed abusive by judges. On the other hand, the remaining justices seemed skeptical of this argument. However, due to the magnitude of this case, a decision is not expected until June 2024, as the court typically rules on major appeals during that time, regardless of when they were initially argued. This leaves a seven-month period for speculation and concern.
Domestic violence groups have emphasized the importance of this case through their amicus briefs, highlighting that disarming domestic abusers can save lives. Gun safety group Everytown reports that 70 women are shot and killed each month by current or former partners. In her opening statements, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who is responsible for defending the law, made a similar point. She referenced a 2014 case in which the court acknowledged that the presence of a gun is often the difference between a battered woman and a deceased one. Prelogar argued that disarming individuals considered a danger to society is a long-standing tradition in the U.S. She also noted that although domestic violence was not recognized as a problem during the time of the country’s founding, it should not hinder governments from enacting laws against it now. After all, modern laws prohibit guns in schools even though there is no historical precedent for such a ban.
The three liberal justices appeared inclined to uphold the law, and even Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to disagree with the arguments put forth by Rahimi’s federal public defender.
However, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito expressed concerns about the ease with which state courts can confiscate guns from individuals accused of domestic violence but not convicted of a crime. They questioned the use of civil courts to make anticipatory or predictive determinations, as opposed to criminal proceedings that require a conviction. Justice Alito also posed a hypothetical scenario, highlighting his greater concern for an individual’s right to possess a firearm rather than the potential dangers it may pose to others.
These arguments from Justices Thomas and Alito are particularly troubling given their previous votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, with Justice Alito having written the opinion himself. Homicide is the leading cause of death for pregnant individuals, and domestic violence hotlines have witnessed an increase in calls since the landmark Roe decision was undermined. There have been instances in the past year where men have resorted to shooting their partners due to disagreements over abortion.
If the Supreme Court ultimately rules against Rahimi and overturns the appeals court decision, it may be seen as a victory. However, this does not necessarily indicate that the court has suddenly become reasonable. It simply suggests that their previous Bruen decision in 2022 was so extreme that they need to establish boundaries. It remains absurd that this case even reached the Supreme Court in the first place.
