The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents someone under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms in the case of United States v. Rahimi.
The decision was 8-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas casting the dissenting vote.
In 2019, Zackey Rahimi physically assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot in Texas and then told her that if she talked to the police about it, he would shoot her. Later, a state court granted her a domestic violence restraining order.
Rahimi then threatened a different woman with a gun and was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. He shot guns in public on five more occasions, firing an AR-15 assault rifle into the home of someone who had once bought drugs from him and shooting into the air at a fast food restaurant when a friend’s credit card was declined. When police conducted a legal search of Rahimi’s home, they found multiple firearms and rounds of ammunition.
Under a 1994 federal law, anyone with an active domestic violence restraining order against them is barred from possessing or purchasing firearms. Rahimi was charged with violating that law.
In June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that any restriction on firearms must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition” — meaning that it must have a point of reference rooted in the time of the Constitution’s signing. At the time of America’s founding, domestic violence restraining orders did not exist — nor were women, who are disproportionately impacted by domestic violence, considered full citizens. Thomas wrote that this precedent superseded the long-standing practice of allowing the government to weigh its interest in public safety against the possibility of imposing a limitation on Second Amendment rights.
As a result of this ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed its original conviction of Rahimi, saying a domestic violence restraining order could not be used to justify restricting Rahimi’s right to bear arms.
“Our country has stood at a tipping point, with the safety of survivors of domestic violence on the line. But today, we took a step toward protecting millions from their abusers,” said Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at Everytown Law, in a statement after the decision. “This is a major victory for gun safety in the courts, but make no mistake — we should not have been here in the first place. Lower court judges should never have been allowed to put their interpretation of early American history ahead of the lives of countless women and families across the country.”
A domestic violence restraining order is a protective measure issued by a civil court. While the specifications of what these orders do can vary by state, they generally require a person accused of abuse to stop harming or threatening a victim; stay physically away from a victim’s home, workplace and school; and cease all communication with a victim. To receive such an order, an accuser must petition a civil judge and provide evidence. Civil courts’ evidentiary standard is a “preponderance of evidence,” a burden of proof below what is required for a conviction in criminal courts. If a judge finds that a preponderance of evidence shows proof of abuse, stalking, harassment or any other form of domestic or intimate partner violence, they will grant the accuser a domestic violence restraining order.
Women, LGBTQ+ people and those from marginalized backgrounds are disproportionately impacted by domestic violence. Women in the United States are 11 times more likely to be killed with a firearm than women in other high-income countries, female intimate partners are more likely to be killed with a gun than all other means combined, and the presence of a gun increases the risk of homicide for women in domestic violence situations by 500 percent. One in 4 women in the United States has been the victim of severe domestic violence injury in her lifetime, and 1 in 3 women in the United States has experienced rape, stalking or domestic violence.
“Today’s decision from the Supreme Court is a powerful reminder that the gun lobby cannot — and will not — be the arbiter of the lives of women and families across the country,” said Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action, in a statement released after the decision. “Our movement has been fighting against the gun lobby’s extreme agenda for over a decade, and made it known that this decision would have had deadly consequences.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.