Ban on Domestic Violence Abusers Owning Guns Upheld

Welcome to the NewsHour. The Supreme Court today handed down a major victory for gun control advocates, ruling that domestic violence abusers can be barred from owning guns. In an 8-to-1 decision, the court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the federal law that makes it illegal for people with domestic violence restraining orders to possess firearms. Joining us now is our Supreme Court analyst, Marcia Coyle.

(00:26)
Marcia, so nice to see you, as always. So this, again, major Second Amendment decision, 8-to-1, but a lot of writing today. Seven justices felt they needed to weigh in on this, writing on this. Remind us what this case was all about and what the court ruled.

Okay. Well, Mr. Rahimi was the person who challenged the federal law, the federal ban. And he had a domestic violence restraining order against him. He was a pretty bad actor, William, to be honest with you. I mean, he physically assaulted his girlfriend, threatened her and his child that they had. He shot off his gun on different occasions, despite the restraining order, and in different places as well.

(01:12)
His challenge went all the way up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court ruled in his favor and struck down the federal law after applying the test that the Supreme Court announced in 2022 in a case that we call Bruen, had to do with New York’s open carry laws. And that test is whether the gun regulation being challenged, whether there is a tradition, a history of gun regulation prior to 1900 that would support the current law. The Fifth Circuit said, nope, we couldn’t find anything. So they struck it down. The Biden administration brought the case to the Supreme Court.

(01:53)
And, today, the majority said, sorry, but we found there was historical support for this law and pointed to two different sets of laws that could have principles, the chief justice said, that support the principle behind or undergirding the federal law. What was pretty important, William, here is that the chief said that the Bruen decision never meant that the law was trapped in amber, an interesting sort of metaphor, that really, instead of looking for an historical twin to the current law, you look at historical principles, that could support the current regulation being challenged.

The one dissenter today was Justice Clarence Thomas, and he is the one who authored that Bruen decision. And I want to read a little bit of what he wrote in his dissent today. He wrote: “The question of whether the government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order, even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime, it cannot. The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence.”

(03:10)
So it seems like that he is in direct opposition with the chief justice here. Does this chip away in some way at the strictures that Bruen had set up?

I think, in a way, William, it softens, maybe clarifies a little bit the Second Amendment tests for the lower court judges, and those judges have been pretty critical of the Thomas tests. They have complained that they’re not historians. They don’t have the time, the resources to do the historical research that’s required. So I think, when the chief sort of emphasized looking at historical principles, it gives them a little more room. Even Justice Barrett, in her concurring opinion, had mentioned that historical regulations reveal principles, not molds.

(03:59)
So I think there is a little softening here, but I have to tell you, honestly, that I think this conservative majority is still quite strongly in favor of the history and tradition test that they announced in Bruen. And it’s very clear that the three liberals, even Justice Jackson now, who was not on the bench at the time of Bruen, made clear that they do not like this test at all, that they don’t feel it’s responsive to current needs.

I want to ask you a little bit about the impact that this might have on lower courts. Earlier, today we spoke to Gloria Terry. She is the CEO of the Texas Council on Family Violence. This is a group that works with domestic violence survivors. And she described tears of joy and relief when this ruling came down. Here’s a little bit of what she had to say.

This ruling is exactly what the advocacy field and the thousands of survivors across the country needed to hear, that their lives matter more than the ability of somebody who has lost that privilege to own a firearm. It sends waves of relief.

Marcia, you mentioned what this might mean for the Supreme Court. Do you have any sense as to whether this ruling then also ripples down into lower courts when they hear other potential gun control challenges?

Well, I’m quite sure the judges will be looking at this ruling and attempting to apply it. And there are many gun challenges coming. In fact, there are still some pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, but all different kinds of gun challenges. And the bump stock case we had just last week, that wasn’t even a Second Amendment challenge. But I think there are many Second Amendment challenges coming and that guns, pretty much, in a sense, like abortion, are going to continue to come to the Supreme Court. And we will have to wait and see how this Supreme Court, after the opinion today, is going to apply it to those challenges.

And lastly, Marcia, we know next week is the Supreme Court’s last week, but they certainly have a big backlog of major, major cases. What’s the one you’re really looking for, one or two for next week?

Well, I’m sure, like many people, I’m very interested in what they’re going to say about former President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. That’s probably at the top of many people’s lists. And, also, I think there’s a major abortion case and also two very important social media First Amendment cases. So you’re right, William. There’s quite a bit still left over, and the tradition has been to finish it up by the end of June.

It gives me a strong suspicion that we are going to see you again next week. Marcia Coyle, as always, wonderful to see you. Thank you.

My pleasure.