In America: The Supreme Court’s Ruling Reshapes Gun Rights & Domestic Violence Protections

For two decades, the government, the courts, and U.S. citizens have all explored how to apply the extent of individual rights. The juxtaposition between tradition and the Constitution’s modern-day application continues to be put to the test.

Gun rights is a topic of animosity between Second Amendment supporters and gun control advocates. Due to gun violence, there is a push to legislate in ways that limit individuals’ freedoms in accessing guns. Opposing viewpoints argue that restricting this right is unconstitutional.

But how does this apply to domestic violence? The U.S. Supreme Court has taken several Second Amendment cases, ruling in ways that impact gun access and the way in which federal law and domestic violence restraining orders affect it.

Gun Rights v.s. Domestic Violence Restraining Orders

The Supreme Court’s modern firearm law is built upon precedent. The gun rights cases that have come before SCOTUS demonstrate that the Second Amendment is very important to the United States, yet its powers are not unlimited. Title 18 U.S. Code §922 is federal law which makes it unlawful for certain individuals to possess firearms. These individuals often have a criminal record or ongoing circumstances that makes it lawful for the Government to limit or prohibit these individuals’ involvement with firearms or ammunition.

Through recent rulings, SCOTUS has established a precedent that individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders will temporarily not be allowed to possess firearms. Many cases have been used to develop this stance. The case which the courts rely on as precedent today is United States v. Rahimi (2024).

In the winter of 2019, witnesses saw Zachery Rahimi attack his girlfriend. After dragging her into his car, he went to grab his firearm. While this was happening, she managed to escape. Rahimi then fired his gun but didn’t make contact with either his girlfriend nor the bystanders. A Texas State Court granted Rahimi’s girlfriend a restraining order against her former partner after ruling that he was in fact a credible threat to her safety.

The order prohibited Rahimi from possessing firearms and suspended his gun license for two years. During this prohibition and suspension, law enforcement searched his home regarding other criminal incidents, and found two firearms. He was then indicted for violating federal law Title 18 U.S. Code §922(g)(8) prohibiting individuals under a domestic violence restraining order to possess firearms. Rahimi argued this federal law was unconstitutional and appealed his conviction.

In 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the original ruling declaring §922(g)(8) unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit referred to the 2022 Supreme Court’s ruling of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen which required modern firearm regulations to be consistent with historical precedent.

The next year, the Supreme Court reviewed this ruling and reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision. The Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting those under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms temporarily does not violate the Second Amendment when there is a “credible-threat finding.” The ruling over this case, according to Chief Justice John Roberts, was consistent with historical principles and practice. In light of this, SCOTUS did not specifically state that all the subsections of the law were constitutional.

Legal Arguments & Potential Outcomes

Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, there were conflicts with previous rulings and the federal law’s narrative. Using Rahimi’s previous ruling, lower courts ruled on other cases applying their understanding of modern firearm law.

In June of 2022, Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan was working in a semi-truck when crossing the Mexico-U.S. border. At the border patrol checkpoint, he was asked if he was armed which he confirmed and claimed the firearm was for personal protection while he works. The firearm was reported stolen and Perez-Gallan was arrested for possession of a stolen firearm.

The border patrol agents found a Kentucky court order in Perez-Gallan’s possession. The court order, stemming from Perez-Gallan assaulting his partner, imposed conditions of release, including that he would be prohibited from possessing a firearm. He was indicted under 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(8). He challenged the law arguing that it is unconstitutional to disarm him because he wasn’t considered a credible threat to his partner under the Kentucky court order. At the time, the Fifth Circuit agreed and affirmed his dismissal from the indictment. In 2024, SCOTUS’s Rahimi decision led this case to be reevaluated by the Fifth Circuit through further proceedings.

In April of 2022, Patrick Daniels was pulled over for driving without a license plate. One of the officers was a DEA agent who when conducting the traffic stop smelled the odor of marijuana. After searching the vehicle, they found marijuana cigarette butts, a handgun, and a semi-automatic rifle. While taken into custody, Daniels was not drug-tested nor asked if he was under the influence. During his questioning he confirmed that he was a regular user of marijuana but didn’t confess to being under the influence at the occurrence of the traffic stop. Daniels was charged for violating § 922(g)(3); this subsection makes it illegal for a person unlawfully using/addicted to any controlled substance to possess or be in some “temporal proximity” to any firearm. Daniels moved to dismiss the indictment but was denied. He was found guilty and sentenced to four years in prison. The case made its way to the Fifth Circuit where the court ruled in favor of Daniels using SCOTUS’s 2022 Bruen decision. After the 2024 Rahimi decision, the Supreme Court made the Fifth Circuit reconsider its ruling due to the newly established precedent. The Fifth Circuit then reversed Daniels’ conviction finding the subsection of the federal law unconstitutional.

It is a challenge to apply lessons of the past to cultivate progress now. Developing precedent includes careful consideration of preserving the U.S. Constitution while shaping it to fit the people of this country. Our society’s changing values have allowed for application of law to change repeatedly.

The aforementioned cases exemplify this in very individualistic ways. The U.S. vs. Rahimi's ruling is a statement of protecting domestic violence victims by constricting the gun rights of their abusers. Modern firearm law has required the courts to reconsider “historical tradition.” The U.S. vs. Daniels' case recognizes how the country’s past of criminalizing drug and substance use spills into today’s legal systems. As the courts continue towards the goal of progress, it leads to challenging situations. U.S. vs. Perrez-Gallan shares this difficulty as the courts have to decide the extent to which they can restrict individuals rights. The interpretation and application of law continues to reform and impact the country.