U.S. v. Rahimi Explained

Is it constitutional to restrict gun rights for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders? Professor Joseph Blocher of Duke Law School provides Second Amendment analysis.

The case of United States v. Rahimi evaluates whether civil domestic violence orders are sufficient under the Second Amendment to restrict access to firearms. Professor Blocher explains that the case centers on 18 USC 922(g)(8), a federal law that bars individuals under certain domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms. He outlines the Court's decision to uphold the law using “originalist” legal doctrine. 

The Opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts provides additional color on the Second Amendment test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that case, the Court found that the justifications for modern gun laws must be based on whether there is a historical analog at the time of the nation’s founding rather than contemporary policy interests. This “text, history, and tradition” approach raised questions for cases such as Rahimi’s since domestic violence laws such as 18 USC 922(g)(8) did not exist at the founding. 

While gun restrictions for civil DV orders did not exist at the time of the founding, Chief Justice Roberts explained that the Second Amendment test does not require a historical twin. Rather, it was sufficient for the Court to find laws which restricted guns from people deemed to be dangerous in order to justify the domestic violence law as it similarly seeks to disarm the dangerous.

Joseph Blocher is a Professor of Law at Duke Law School and co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law.