Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in United States v. Rahimi. At issue is the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting the possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
“The justices appear inclined to reverse the 5th Circuit’s decision and uphold the federal ban on gun possession by those subject to qualifying domestic violence protective orders, under some version of the principle that historical tradition gives the government authority to disarm non-responsible, dangerous individuals,” said Duke University law professor Darrell Miller.
“The court seemed receptive to the solicitor general’s argument that the test for Second Amendment challenges requires extracting high-level principles from history and then determining whether a modern law is consistent with those principles.”
“One major question coming out of the argument is whether the court will provide guidance on specific concerns about a history-focused legal test raised by the solicitor general, including the weight of historical context beyond enacted laws, how broadly courts should analogize to the historical record, and the relevance of historical legislative silences.”
For additional comments, contact Darrell Miller at:
Also available for comment:
Joseph Blocher, a professor of law at Duke Law School and co-director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law.
Duke Center for Firearms Law