Rahimi: Success for Abuse Survivors

By Margaret Drew, Associate Professor at UMass Law School

On June 21, 2024, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Rahimi case.  Mr. Rahimi, who was subject to a civil protection order, was arrested for possession of firearms as forbidden by 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8).  The Court, in an 8-1 vote, upheld the statute. “When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” Only Justice Thomas dissented.

There is a history of governments withholding firearms from those they considered dangerous.  While these laws were often used against classes of people, such as Native Americans and Blacks, the history of government limitations supported the ban.

Not all courts ban the possession of firearms, despite the federal law at issue.  One hope by advocates is that post-Rahimi more states will suspend the possession of guns and ammunition from abusers.  According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, most intimate partner homicides are committed with firearms. In addition, abuser’s access to a gun increases the risk of intimate partner death by 1000%

Mr. Rahimi was hardly a sympathetic litigant.  He had a cache of firearms when he was arrested.  And his arrest was not related to any action toward his former intimate partner.  Mr. Rahimi, it appears, is a generally violent man.

I suspect that future lawsuits will parse the meaning of “temporary” prohibitions.  Even for those states that enter “permanent” restraining orders, typically a hearing mechanism is provided to address whether the restrained party may be exempted from the firearms possession ban.  

Victories for intimate partner violence survivors are rare enough. Let’s take time to rejoice in this decision.