United States v. Rahimi

TL;DR Summary

The Holding

Facts of the Case

Zackey Rahimi's History

Zackey Rahimi had a disturbing history of violence and firearm misuse:

• December 2019: Assaulted girlfriend and fired gun at witness
• February 2020: Agreed to restraining order in Texas court
• Restraining order included finding of credible threat
• Order suspended gun rights under federal and Texas law

Violations After Restraining Order

Despite the order, Rahimi was involved in five shootings:

• December 2020: Fired at man who bought drugs from him
• January 2021: Shot at driver after collision
• January 2021: Fired at constable's vehicle
• February 2021: Fired rifle in residential neighborhood
• May 2021: Shot in public after friend's credit card declined

The Federal Charge

Police found Rahimi in possession of firearms while subject to the restraining order, violating § 922(g)(8). He challenged the constitutionality of this prohibition under the Second Amendment.

Majority Opinion (Chief Justice Roberts)

Framework from Bruen

"A court must ascertain whether the new law is 'relevantly similar' to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, 'apply[ing] faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances.'"

— Chief Justice Roberts, Majority Opinion

The "Why" and "How" Test

The Court clarified Bruen's methodology:

• "Why": Whether historical regulations and modern law impose comparable burden for comparable reasons
• "How": Whether the burden on the right is comparably justified
• Not seeking "historical twin" but "historical analogue"

Dangerous Persons Principle

"When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed."

The Court found this principle deeply rooted in Anglo-American tradition.

Applying Bruen to Rahimi

Step 1: Plain Text

The Court assumed without deciding that Rahimi's conduct (possessing firearms) falls within the Second Amendment's plain text.

Step 2: Historical Tradition

The government must show the regulation is consistent with historical tradition. The Court found it was.

Rejecting Fifth Circuit's Approach

The Fifth Circuit had struck down § 922(g)(8) because no historical law was identical. The Supreme Court rejected this "hyperliteral" approach:

• Don't need identical historical match
• Look for comparable burden and justification
• Consider principles, not precise parallels

Historical Analysis

Founding-Era Laws

The Court examined various historical precedents:

1. Affray Laws

• Prohibited fighting in public
• Allowed confiscation of weapons
• Addressed threat to public safety

2. Surety Laws

• Required bonds for those threatening violence
• Could result in forfeiture of arms
• Massachusetts (1836): Posted bond or surrender firearms

3. "Going Armed" Laws

• Prohibited carrying weapons to terrorize others
• Forfeiture of weapons as penalty
• Addressed threatening behavior

English Precedents

The Court noted English tradition of disarming dangerous persons:

• Militia Act of 1662: Disarmed those "dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom"
• Game Act of 1671: Authority to seize arms from unqualified persons
• Post-1689: Continued authority to disarm dangerous individuals

Key Historical Principle

"Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others."

Concurring Opinions

Justice Gorsuch (Concurring)

Emphasized limiting principles:

• Not all restraining orders trigger prohibition
• Must include finding of credible threat
• Procedural protections matter
• Case doesn't address all § 922(g) prohibitions

Justice Sotomayor (Concurring)

Highlighted the danger of domestic violence:

• Presence of gun increases lethality by 1,000%
• 72% of murder-suicides involve intimate partners
• Prohibition serves compelling safety interest

Justice Kavanaugh (Concurring)

Clarified Bruen methodology:

• Pre-Bruen lower court tests were too loose
• But Bruen doesn't require exact historical match
• Look for "relevantly similar" regulations
• Consider principles and analogies

Justice Barrett (Concurring)

Addressed historical methodology:

• Debate over level of generality continues
• Original meaning vs. original applications
• How specific must historical analogues be?
• These questions remain for future cases

Justice Jackson (Concurring)

Questioned commitment to history-only approach:

• Courts struggle with historical analysis
• Judges becoming amateur historians
• Practical difficulties in application

Justice Thomas (Dissenting)

Justice Thomas, who authored Bruen, dissented alone:

Facial Challenge Issue

• Case presented as facial challenge
• Must show no constitutional applications
• Some restraining orders don't include threat findings
• Therefore facial challenge should fail

Historical Analysis Critique

• No Founding-era law disarmed based on restraining orders
• Surety laws required criminal prosecution
• Affray laws addressed completed crimes
• Historical analogues not sufficiently similar

Strict Application of Bruen

"Not a single historical law that the Court cited... disarmed anyone based on a civil proceeding that did not require criminal conduct."

— Justice Thomas, Dissenting

Impact & Significance

Clarification of Bruen

Rahimi clarifies that Bruen doesn't require:

• Exact historical matches ("twins")
• Identical regulatory mechanisms
• Same technological context
• Hyperliteral historical analysis

What Rahimi Means

• For restraining orders: Constitutional if they include threat findings
• For dangerous persons: Historical tradition supports disarmament
• For methodology: More flexible than Fifth Circuit interpreted
• For lower courts: Guidance on applying Bruen

What Rahimi Doesn't Decide

• Constitutionality of other § 922(g) prohibitions
• Non-violent felons' rights
• Drug user prohibitions
• Mental health disqualifications
• Permanent vs. temporary disarmament

Circuit Split Resolution

Resolves how strictly to apply Bruen:

• Fifth Circuit: Required near-identical historical laws (rejected)
• Other circuits: Allowed more analogical reasoning (affirmed)

Ongoing Debates

Several justices noted unresolved questions:

• Level of generality for historical analogues
• Which time periods matter most
• Original meaning vs. expected applications
• Role of post-ratification history

Citations & Resources