CNN
—
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law banning domestic violence perpetrators from owning guns, rejecting arguments by gun rights groups that the ban violates the Second Amendment.
The 8-1 ruling, in one of the Supreme Court’s most closely watched cases, limited the scope of a shocking ruling the justices handed down just two years ago that sparked a surge in lawsuits challenging other gun control laws across the country.
The decision put most of the Supreme Court’s conservative and liberal wings in the same position, but it could help tighten similar federal gun restrictions that have been challenged since the Supreme Court significantly expanded gun rights in 2022, at least in situations where criminal defendants are deemed dangerous. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision has caused considerable confusion for lower court justices hearing cases based on the Second Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion, said the court was “comfortably united” in the idea that threats should be prevented from obtaining weapons.
“Our nation’s tradition of gun control allows the government to take away weapons from individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others,” Roberts wrote.
The chief justice rejected the idea that his decision two years ago in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen bound lower courts from striking down gun control laws that had no direct historical parallels. Roberts said some lower courts had “misunderstood the methodology of recent Second Amendment cases.”
View this interactive content on CNN.com
“The Court’s decision today leaves intact a specific federal criminal prohibition on gun possession by those subject to domestic violence-related restraining orders,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas Law professor.
“But since the 2022 ruling in Bruen, dozens of federal and state gun laws have been challenged, and some of the more difficult cases are yet to come, such as whether Congress can ban all felons, or all drug offenders, from possessing firearms.”
Some of these cases are already before the Supreme Court, with a decision likely coming soon.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion in Bruen, wrote the lone dissenting opinion on Friday.
“The Court and the government have not cited a single historic law that has stripped people of their Second Amendment rights because of the potential for interpersonal violence,” Thomas wrote, “But by allowing the government to regulate one group in society, today’s decision puts Second Amendment rights at risk for many more people.”
The case at issue was a 1994 law that bans people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns. Texas resident Zackie Rahimi was convicted of violating the law in a series of shootings, including one in which he fired a shot into the air at a Whataburger restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined.
Rahimi’s lawyers argued that a landmark Supreme Court decision two years ago means domestic violence order laws are unconstitutional. In Thomas’ opinion, Bruen’s 6-3 majority held that gun restrictions “must be consistent with the historical tradition of gun control in this country.”
The defense argued that the Founding Generation never banned weapons for domestic violence, and therefore the government cannot do so now. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals accepted that argument, concluding that banning guns for people involved in domestic disputes is “an extraordinary measure that our forefathers would never have embraced.”
But the Biden administration and domestic violence victims’ groups pointed out that there were founding-era laws that prohibited dangerous Americans from owning guns — or, in other words, laws more generally that could meet the Supreme Court’s new history-based test, they said.
Victims groups have told the Supreme Court that women experiencing domestic violence are five times more likely to die at the hands of their abuser if they have a gun in their home.
President Joe Biden praised the decision on Friday.
“Today’s ruling ensures that victims of domestic violence and their families will continue to have access to important protections, just as they have for the past 30 years,” Biden said in a statement.
Douglas Letter, chief legal officer for the gun control group Brady, called the ruling “an important victory for preventing gun violence and domestic violence.”
Randy Kozuk, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, downplayed the significance of Friday’s ruling.
“The Supreme Court’s narrow opinion does not endorse red flag laws or the dozens of other unconstitutional laws the NRA challenges across the country that infringe on the right of peaceful Americans to keep and bear arms,” Kozuk said in a statement. “This decision simply holds that individuals who pose a clear threat of violence may be temporarily disarmed following a judicial determination of their danger.”
During oral arguments in November, the court majority appeared prepared to uphold the law, but several conservative justices signaled they would do so only on limited grounds, possibly in part because a series of related cases are already before the court, including on the issue of whether nonviolent offenders should be denied access to firearms.
One of the bans in question involves President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, who was convicted on June 11 of violating a law that bans the possession of firearms by “unlawful users or addicts of any controlled substance.” Biden is expected to appeal.
In some ways, the decision upheld the law, a victory for prosecutors in that case, but the majority avoided weighing in on the legal debate over whether other federal gun restrictions, such as those for nonviolent criminals, would also be upheld.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year in a separate case that the ban on drug users is unconstitutional.
Gun control advocates praised the court’s decision. “This is a huge victory for victims and will save lives,” March for Our Lives posted on X. Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, said the case should never have come before the Supreme Court in the first place, and that the court’s decision to hear it “shows how extreme this court has become.”
Advocates for domestic violence victims point to research that shows the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500 percent.
Amy Sanchez, CEO of the Justice Project for Battered Women, said in a statement that the group was “encouraged by the court’s decision.”
“Maintaining restrictions on firearm access for abusers ensures these protections remain in place and victims are not put at further risk,” she said.
“Today’s ruling just solidifies that we have more work to do,” Ruth Glenn, executive director of Survivor Justice Action, an organization that supports victims of domestic violence, told CNN on Friday.
“We need to strengthen protection orders and ensure they are properly enforced locally and across the state,” explained Glenn, a domestic violence victim.
Asked if she was concerned about future attempts to challenge protections for domestic violence victims, Glenn said, “We have to vote. From my perspective and from this organization’s perspective, elections are important. Victims’ groups are powerful.”
Advocates told CNN before Friday’s ruling that even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the federal law, future challenges are likely, especially in the post-Brune context.
Nel Sylvia Guzman, vice president of Safe Sisters Circle, a nonprofit that helps victims of domestic violence, said gun rights advocates see the Bruen decision as “a license to completely eliminate gun rights and all restrictions on gun owners.”
Justice Samuel Alito was absent for a second straight day as justices delivered their rulings on the Supreme Court bench.
The court did not answer questions about his absence.
CNN’s Owen Dahlkamp, Kahnita Iyer and Piper Hudspeth Blackburn contributed to this report.
This story has been updated to reflect additional developments and reactions.
