United States v. Rahimi

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "United States v. Rahimi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

United States v. Rahimi
Supreme Court of the United States
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
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
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

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 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 federal law prohibiting the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. 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 rather than strict matches.