Lawyers for North Texas native Zackey Rahimi faced some tough questions when they argued his case in front of the Supreme Court.
The court heard arguments in United States v. Rahimi on Tuesday. The case, which originated in Arlington, focuses on a section of the Violence Against Women Act that makes it a federal felony to own or possess firearms while someone is subject to a domestic violence protective order. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last March that the domestic violence statute violated the Second Amendment rights of the defendant, Zackey Rahimi.
Rahimi’s attorney, J. Matthew Wright, argued at the Supreme Court that the domestic violence law goes against historic tradition of firearm regulations.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan questioned that stance. Kagan said Wright’s position seems to apply to a wide variety of bans designed to protect the public.
“You seem to be running away from it because you can't stand what the consequences of it are,” she said.
The U.S. Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, said there’s historic precedent for disarming dangerous people who aren’t law abiding, responsible citizens. Prelogar said upholding the Fifth Circuit Court’s decision in the Rahimi case could have dangerous consequences for victims of domestic violence.
“The only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun,” she said.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to agree.
“I think there would be little dispute that…domestic violence is dangerous,” Barrett said.
The Fifth Circuit based its decision in the Rahimi case on the Supreme Court’s ruling in another gun rights case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Judge Cory T. Wilson, who wrote the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, argued that under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, governments have to justify modern gun regulations with a historic firearm law from when the country was founded.
Prelogar also said that the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of Bruen isn’t correct. She argued that Bruen’s framework focuses on the principle of historic firearm regulations, not finding an exact match to the modern law from when the country was founded.
Rahimi’s attorney disagreed. Wright said that the government’s argument applies modern sensibilities to history — something he argued the court didn’t intend in its Bruen decision.
“It feels like what the government is doing is looking down the dark well of American history and seeing only a reflection of itself in the 20th and 21st century and saying that's what history shows,” Wright said.
He said the federal domestic violence law violates the text of the Second Amendment. Wright argued that the historic tradition of disarming dangerous people isn’t enough to justify the modern law.
He also said that the law disarms people who aren’t convicted of a crime and has a harsh punishment for violating it. Family violence protective orders are often issued by civil courts, including the one against Rahimi. Having firearms while subject to a protective order can be punished with ten years in prison.
Prelogar refuted Wright’s argument. She said there’s legislative consensus that armed domestic violence needs to be regulated, pointing out that 48 states have laws similar to the federal statute.
“History and tradition confirm common sense,” Prelogar said. “Congress can disarm armed domestic abusers in light of those profound concerns.”
Got a tip? Email Caroline Love at clove@kera.org.
Caroline Love is a Report For Americacorps member for KERA News.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gifttoday. Thank you.
