Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

United States v. Rahimi

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Rahimi
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: November 28, 2023
Decided: June 21, 2024
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
8-1
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas

United States v. Rahimi is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 21, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 7, 2023.

In a 8-1 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that if a person is found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, they may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Justice Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned 18 U.S.C. § 922 and the Second Amendment. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face."[2]
  • The outcome: In a 8-1 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that if a person is found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, they may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Zackey Rahimi was involved in five shootings and a hit-and-run from December 2020 to January 2021. Officers of Arlington Police Department obtained a warrant and searched Rahimi’s home where they found a rifle and a pistol. Rahimi was under a Civil Protective Order for allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend; an order that specifically prohibited him from owning firearms.[3][4]

    Rahimi was indicted by a federal grand jury for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) under which it’s unlawful for someone to possess firearms if they’re under a domestic violence restraining order. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. However, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Rahimi’s motion, concluding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had upheld Section 922(g)(8) as constitutional in United States v. McGinnis (2020). Rahimi pleaded guilty to the charges and he was sentenced to 73 months of imprisonment then three years of supervised release.[5]

    After the district court’s decision, Rahimi appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit where he again argued that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. During this appeal, the Supreme Court issued their decision on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022). In light of Bruen, the Fifth Circuit concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional.[3] The court reversed the decision of the district court and vacated Rahimi’s conviction under that statute, concluding:

    “

    Zackey Rahimi levies a facial challenge to § 922(g)(8). The district court and a prior panel upheld the statute, applying this court's pre-Bruen precedent. See United States v. Rahimi, No. 21-11001, 2022 WL 2070392 at *1 n.1 (5th Cir. June 8, 2022). Rahimi filed a petition for rehearing en banc; while that petition was pending, the Supreme Court decided Bruen. The prior panel withdrew its opinion and requested supplemental briefing on the impact of that case on this one. Considering the issue afresh, we conclude that Bruen requires us to re-evaluate our Second Amendment jurisprudence and that under Bruen, § 922(g)(8) fails to pass constitutional muster. We therefore reverse the district court's ruling to the contrary and vacate Rahimi's conviction. [6]

    		”
    —Circuit Judge Cory T. Wilson, [3]


    In United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court will determine if 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment.[5]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

    [6]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a 8-1 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that if a person is found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, they may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Justice Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:[1]

    “

    Taken together, the surety and going armed laws confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed. Section 922(g)(8) is by no means identical to these founding era regimes, but it does not need to be. See Bruen, 597 U. S., at 30. Its prohibition on the possession of firearms by those found by a court to present a threat to others fits neatly within the tradition the surety and going armed laws represent.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Chief Justice John Roberts

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “

    The Court today emphasizes that a challenged regulation ‘must comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment,’ but need not have a precise historical match. Ante, at 7–8. I agree. I write separately to highlight why the Court’s interpretation of Bruen, and not the dissent’s, is the right one. In short, the Court’s interpretation permits a historical inquiry calibrated to reveal something useful and transferable to the present day, while the dissent would make the historical inquiry so exacting as to be useless, a too-sensitive alarm that sounds whenever a regulation did not exist in an essentially identical form at the founding.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “

    Among all the opinions issued in this case, its central messages should not be lost. The Court reinforces the focus on text, history, and tradition, following exactly the path we described in Bruen. Ante, at 5–8. And after carefully consulting those materials, the Court ‘conclude[s] only this’: ‘An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.’ Ante, at 17 (emphasis added). With these observations, I am pleased to concur.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “

    As exemplified by Heller, McDonald, Bruen, and the Court’s opinion today, constitutional interpretation properly takes account of text, pre-ratification and postratification history, and precedent. Those are the tools of the trade for an American judge interpreting the American Constitution. Of course, difficult subsidiary questions can arise about how to apply those tools, both generally and in particular cases. And in some cases, text, history, and precedent may point in somewhat different directions. In law as in life, nothing is perfect. But in Second Amendment cases as in other constitutional cases, text, history, and precedent must remain paramount.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Barrett wrote:[1]

    “

    Despite its unqualified text, the Second Amendment is not absolute. It codified a pre-existing right, and preexisting limits on that right are part and parcel of it. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 595, 627 (2008). Those limits define the scope of ‘the right to bear arms’ as it was originally understood; to identify them, courts must examine our ‘historical tradition of firearm regulation.’ New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, 17, 19 (2022). That evidence marks where the right stops and the State’s authority to regulate begins. A regulation is constitutional only if the government affirmatively proves that it is ‘consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.’ Id., at 26.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Jackson wrote:[1]

    “

    I concur in today’s decision applying Bruen. But, in my view, the Court should also be mindful of how its legal standards are actually playing out in real life. We must remember that legislatures, seeking to implement meaningful reform for their constituents while simultaneously respecting the Second Amendment, are hobbled without a clear, workable test for assessing the constitutionality of their proposals. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 54–57; cf. Bruen, 597 U. S., at 90–91 (Breyer, J., dissenting). And courts, which are currently at sea when it comes to evaluating firearms legislation, need a solid anchor for grounding their constitutional pronouncements. The public, too, deserves clarity when this Court interprets our Constitution.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    The Framers and ratifying public understood ‘that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty.’ McDonald, 561 U. S., at 858 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more. I respectfully dissent.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. Rahimi, decided June 21, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "22-915 UNITED STATES V. RAHIMI QUESTION PRESENTED," CERT. GRANTED June 30, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Casetext, "United States v. Rahimi," published March 2, 2023
    4. ↑ Oyez, "United States v. Rahimi," accessed July 14, 2023
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "United States of America v. Zackey Rahimi, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit" published March 2, 2023
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued November 7, 2023
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued November 7, 2023
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=United_States_v._Rahimi&oldid=9601407"