After Supreme Court Upholds Domestic Violence Gun Regulation, Experts Say Don’t Expect More Gun-Control Victories

On Friday, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law prohibiting individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns, rejecting a Second Amendment challenge by gun-rights groups.

In a closely watched case, the court’s 8-1 decision narrowed the scope of a significant 2022 ruling that vastly expanded gun rights and triggered numerous legal challenges to other gun laws nationwide. This ruling could reinforce similar gun regulations that have faced challenges since the 2022 decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the court had “no trouble” agreeing that individuals who pose a threat can be denied access to weapons.

“Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others,” Roberts wrote.

The case arose from Zackey Rahimi‘s conviction under a 1994 law prohibiting those under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. Rahimi was convicted following a series of shootings, including one where he allegedly fired into the air at a Whataburger restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined.

Rahimi’s lawyers argued that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision two years ago rendered the law on domestic violence gun prohibitions unconstitutional.

In the 2022 decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a 6-3 Supreme Court majority ruled that gun regulations must be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations.”  This led many lower courts to strike down gun laws lacking a direct historical analog.

Rahimi’s lawyers, citing the Bruen precedent, argued before the New Orleans 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that since the founding generation never addressed domestic violence by banning weapon possession, the current government couldn’t either.

The court sided with Rahimi, ruling that a gun ban for those involved in domestic disputes was an “outlier that our ancestors would have never accepted.”

In the majority opinion, Roberts stated that some lower courts had “misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the majority opinion in Bruen, wrote the sole dissenting opinion.

“The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence,” Thomas wrote. “Yet, in the interest of ensuring the government can regulate one subset of society, today’s section puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.”

The Biden administration and domestic violence victims’ groups praised Friday’s decision, highlighting founding-era laws that restricted dangerous individuals from possessing guns. They argued, in a broader context, that some laws could meet the court’s new history-based criteria.

“As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades,” announced Biden in a statement.

Advocates for domestic violence survivors have cited research indicating that women subjected to domestic abuse are five times more likely to die at the hands of their abuser if there is a gun present in the home.

“This is a huge victory for survivors and it WILL save lives,” wrote March For Our Lives on X.

While affirming the law is a victory for prosecutors worried about loosening gun restrictions, the court majority sidestepped the legal debate regarding the potential upholding of other federal gun prohibitions, like those for non-violent felons.