Supreme Court to Decide if Accused Domestic Abusers Have Gun Rights

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a case that asks whether people accused of domestic violence continue to have a right to own firearms.

The justices took on the case at the urging of the Biden administration, which is appealing to defend a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning or otherwise possessing guns.

The case is widely expected to test the scope of the high court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York state’s handgun-licensing scheme and for the first time recognized that the Constitution’s Second Amendment includes a right to bear arms outside the home.

The new case, which the court will hear during the term that begins in October, stems from events that were set in motion in an Arlington, Texas, parking lot in 2019.

It was then that the respondent in the case, Zackey Rahimi, got into a violent argument with his girlfriend, knocking her to the ground and dragging her back to his car and hitting her head on its dashboard.

In a subsequent phone call after the incident, Rahimi allegedly told the woman that he would shoot her if she told anyone about the assault. She filed a complaint anyway.

In February 2020, a Texas state court entered a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi, barring him from harassing his now ex-girlfriend or her child, as well as owning firearms.

The judge also warned him that if he was caught with firearms while the order was in effect, he could be charged with a felony.

Despite this warning, about a year later and while the order was still in effect, Rahimi became the suspect in a series of shootings. The local police obtained a warrant and a search of his home turned up a pistol, a rifle, ammunition and a copy of the restraining order.

Rahimi was charged with violating the federal ban on the possession of a firearm by an individual who is the subject of a domestic violence restraining order. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to just over six years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.

But after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out his conviction.

According to the 5th Circuit, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Rahimi’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment would only be barred under the restraining order if the federal government could show the ban was consistent with the country’s historical tradition of regulating firearms. 

Because it was not, the 5th Circuit held, the law is unconstitutional.

In a brief filed with the court, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argues allowing the 5th Circuit’s decision to stand would “threaten grave harms for victims of domestic violence.”

Rahimi’s attorney responded by saying he and his client believe the 5th Circuit ruling was a “faithful” application of the Bruen ruling.

In the alternative they argue the appellate court’s decision should not be disturbed until more lower courts have grappled with and applied the framework set out by the Supreme Court just last year.

As is their custom, the justices did not comment on their rationale for taking up the case.

Bruen, for readers that might not remember, concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York state law requiring applicants for a license to carry a concealed pistol on their person to show “proper cause,” or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application.

In a 6-3 decision, the majority ruled that New York’s law was unconstitutional, and ruled that the ability to carry a pistol in public was a constitutional right under the Second Amendment.

The majority ruled that states are allowed to enforce “shall-issue” permitting, where applicants for concealed carry permits must satisfy certain objective criteria, such as passing a background check, but that “may-issue” systems that use “arbitrary” evaluations of need made by local authorities are unconstitutional.

In a written statement released after the court’s decision to take up the Rahimi case was announced, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said, “after a devastating string of opinions this week, we learned today that the U.S. Supreme Court will now consider overturning a law that keeps firearms out of the hands of domestic violence abusers and protects survivors.

“This comes one year after the Court recklessly overturned a century-old law that established common-sense gun safety regulations in New York,” she continued. “I am sickened that the U.S. Supreme Court is once again poised to dismantle the right of a Governor to protect her State’s most vulnerable residents and survivors of domestic abuse from gun violence.

“We will be watching closely as the U.S. Supreme Court reviews this case, but our commitment remains the same: we will continue taking bold action to protect victims of gender-based violence and end the gun violence epidemic,” Hochul said.

Dan can be reached at [email protected] and @DanMcCue