## Facts

- Zackey Rahimi publicly assaulted his girlfriend, the mother of his child, in December 2019, including dragging her to a car, shoving her inside, and firing a gun as she ran away.
- The girlfriend sought a restraining order describing that assault and other violent conduct and alleging Rahimi endangered their young child.
- On February 5, 2020, a Texas state court issued a two-year domestic-violence protective order (entered with both parties’ consent). The order found that Rahimi committed family violence and posed a credible threat to the physical safety of the girlfriend and the child.
- The protective order, among other terms, suspended Rahimi’s license to carry a firearm for two years and barred him from possessing firearms while the order remained in effect.
- About 10 months later, police searched Rahimi’s home and found a pistol, a rifle, and ammunition.
- A federal grand jury indicted Rahimi for possessing firearms while subject to a qualifying domestic-violence restraining order, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).
- Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing § 922(g)(8) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
- The district court denied the motion. Rahimi later pleaded guilty while preserving his right to appeal the constitutional question.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and held § 922(g)(8) unconstitutional.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which bars firearm possession by persons subject to certain domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded in an 8–1 decision (Roberts, C.J.).
- The Court held that when a court has found an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of another, the individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.
- The Court concluded that § 922(g)(8) fits within the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation at least as applied to restraining orders containing a judicial finding of a credible threat to another’s physical safety.
- Justice Thomas dissented.

## Legal Principles

- Under Bruen, when the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, the government must show the challenged regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- The historical inquiry is based on analogies: the government need not produce a near-identical historical “twin,” but must identify historical regulations that are relevantly similar in purpose and burden.
- History reflects a tradition of restricting access to weapons for persons found, through legal process, to present a danger to others (including surety/peace-bond type measures and related laws addressing threats of violence).
- Section 922(g)(8) is comparable to those historical measures because it operates only after judicial process (notice and an opportunity to be heard) and is limited in time to the duration of the qualifying protective order.
- The Court framed its holding narrowly: it addressed temporary disarmament tied to a court finding that the person poses a credible threat to another’s physical safety, and it did not decide the validity of other firearm prohibitions.

## Conclusion

United States v. Rahimi held that § 922(g)(8) is consistent with the Second Amendment where it disarms an individual for a limited period after a court has found the person poses a credible threat to another’s physical safety, and the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision striking the statute down.


United States v. Rahimi, 144 S.Ct. 1889 (2024)