WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that bars people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, taking a step back from recent decisions that recognized a broad right to own firearms.
In an 8-1 vote, the court ruled in favor of the Biden administration, which had defended the law, one of several federal gun control laws currently facing legal challenges.
The ruling indicates that some long-standing gun control laws are likely to remain in place despite a 2022 Supreme Court decision that expands gun rights by for the first time recognizing that people have the right to bear arms outside the home under the Second Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, wrote that since the nation’s founding, “our firearms laws have contained provisions prohibiting the misuse of firearms by individuals who pose a threat of physical harm to others.”
He added that the provision at issue in the case “fits well into this tradition.”
In reaching its decision, the court rejected some of the arguments the Biden administration made in defense of the law, including that the government can disarm people who are not “responsible.”
Although the vote was one-sided, with only conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, the decision nonetheless exposed the divisions among the justices on gun rights issues, with five justices each writing a concurring opinion explaining their views.
These far-reaching opinions will likely help determine how the Court handles future firearms cases, including several currently pending firearms cases.
The 2022 ruling, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, said gun regulations must be analyzed based on a historical understanding of the right to bear arms. As such, the ruling has raised questions about many existing gun regulations that gun rights activists say are not rooted in historical tradition.
One other law banning illegal drug users from possessing firearms has come under intense scrutiny after President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was indicted on charges of violating the law and challenged its constitutionality.
The three liberal justices on the conservative-majority Supreme Court all made clear they opposed the 2022 ruling, despite being in the majority.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by President Joe Biden after the ruling was handed down, said the new case “highlights the clear difficulties facing judges on the ground” in deciding which gun control laws to uphold in light of previous rulings.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas maintained that the history of similar laws from the nation’s founding is decisive. Other justices have been more willing to consider laws that are not identical but have similar effects.
“No single historical regulation justifies the law at issue,” Thomas wrote.
The case before the Supreme Court involved Zackie Rahimi, a Texas man whose partner obtained a restraining order against him in February 2020. He argued that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision, he could not be prosecuted under federal gun possession restrictions.
Rahimi’s ex-partner obtained a restraining order against him following the incident in an Arlington, Texas, parking lot in 2019. Prosecutors said in court documents that Rahimi tackled the woman to the ground, dragged her to his car, forced her inside and slammed her head on the dashboard. He also allegedly fired a gun at a bystander.
Prosecutors allege that while the protection order was in place, Rahimi was involved in a series of shootings, including one in which he used an AR-15 rifle to fire shots into a home.
Rahimi faces state charges of domestic violence and a separate assault against a different woman, but the case before the Supreme Court concerns a separate prosecution by the Department of Justice for violating federal gun laws.
Rahimi eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, applying the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Rahimi’s case, concluded last year that the law was “unconstitutional.”
