Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Rahimi

Supreme Court of the United States · 2024 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSecond AmendmentFirearm RegulationDomestic Violence Restraining OrdersFacial ChallengesSecond AmendmentBruenhistorical tradition

Facts

A Texas state court entered a restraining order against Rahimi after allegations of violence against C. M., the mother of his child, including an incident in which he dragged her to his car, fired a gun as she fled, and later threatened to shoot her if she reported him. The order was entered with notice and an opportunity to be heard, included findings that Rahimi had committed family violence, that violence was likely to occur again, and that he posed a credible threat to the physical safety of C. M. or their child. The order prohibited threatening or contacting C. M. for two years and suspended his gun license. Police later found firearms and ammunition in Rahimi's home along with a copy of the restraining order, and he was charged under § 922(g)(8).

Issue

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which bars firearm possession by a person subject to a restraining order containing a finding that he represents a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner or child, may be enforced consistent with the Second Amendment. In this facial challenge, the question was whether the statute is constitutional at least as applied to Rahimi.

Rule

When a restraining order contains a judicial finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner or child, the Second Amendment permits temporarily disarming that individual while the order is in effect. Under Bruen, the government need not identify a historical twin; it must show the challenged law is relevantly similar to historical regulations in why and how it burdens the right, and a facial challenge fails if the law is constitutional in some applications.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, a state court entered a 12-month protective order against Daniel Mercer after notice and a hearing. The order expressly found that Daniel posed a credible threat to the physical safety of his former cohabiting partner, Lena Ortiz, and their child; officers later found a pistol in Daniel's apartment, and he brings a facial Second Amendment challenge to the federal statute barring firearm possession while such an order is in effect.

How should a court rule on Daniel's facial Second Amendment challenge?

Explanation. A facial challenge fails if the law is constitutional in at least some of its applications. The majority held that when a restraining order contains a judicial finding that the person poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner or child, temporary disarmament while the order is in effect is consistent with the Second Amendment. The government need not show a historical twin; a relevantly similar historical analogue is enough. (Derived from United States v. Rahimi (2024).)