On June 21, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision in United States v. Rahimi that a law protecting domestic violence survivors from gun violence remains constitutional under the Second Amendment. The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), prohibits individuals under an active domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms and has been effective in reducing intimate partner homicide rates by 27 percent.
The ruling underscores the complexities of firearm regulation post-Bruen. Chief Justice John Roberts clarified that an exact historical match to the challenged regulation is not required; rather, it needs to be sufficiently analogous to an 18th-century law to pass constitutional muster. The court found surety laws and "going armed" laws analogous enough to support the spirit of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8).
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concurring opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, highlighted the limitations of the Bruen test and originalist framework for gun violence prevention. She noted that no laws explicitly protected women and domestic violence survivors at the time of the Constitution's ratification.
Justice Clarence Thomas’s lone dissenting opinion suggested that Congress lacks authority to pass certain protective laws, raising concerns about future decisions impacting vulnerable Americans.
While this decision upholds critical protections for domestic abuse survivors, it leaves open questions for future litigation. The ruling may prompt Congress to push for stronger gun laws and greater investments in addressing violence's root causes.
The Supreme Court’s decision reversed a lower court ruling that had increased risks for domestic violence survivors in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas—states with high rates of gun violence. Policymakers are urged to enforce existing laws fully and provide more resources for survivors.
