United States v. Rahimi | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued November 7, 2023 Decided June 21, 2024 | |
Full case name | United States, Petitioner v. Zackey Rahimi |
Docket no. | 22-915 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Decision | Opinion |
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. | |
Holding | |
When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson |
Concurrence | Sotomayor, joined by Kagan |
Concurrence | Gorsuch |
Concurrence | Kavanaugh |
Concurrence | Barrett |
Concurrence | Jackson |
Dissent | Thomas |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. II Violence Against Women Act of 1994 |
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and whether it confers the government's ability to prohibit firearm possession by a person with a civil domestic violence restraining order in the absence of a corresponding criminal domestic violence conviction or charge.[1]
It came from a 2023 decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating a federal law prohibiting individuals from possessing firearms while under a restraining order relating to domestic abuse. The Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit in an 8–1 ruling and upheld the law. In its decision, the Court refined the Bruen test, stating that in comparing modern gun control laws to historic tradition, courts should use similar analogues and general principles rather than strict matches.[2]
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search