Smith Professor Hillel Y. Levin has provided his analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Rahimi, which was delivered on June 24, 2024.
Levin noted that the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision, ruling that an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to another's physical safety may be temporarily disarmed in accordance with the Second Amendment. The decision was made with an 8-1 majority, with only Justice Thomas dissenting.
Regarding the basis of the Supreme Court's decision, Levin explained that the Court determined it is unnecessary to find perfectly equivalent regulations from the Founding or post-Civil War eras when looking for historical analogues of modern-day firearm restrictions. Chief Justice Roberts, authoring the majority opinion, stated, "the Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791." The Court concluded that there are sufficient historical analogues imposing similar burdens or restrictions on the right to bear arms for comparable reasons. Specifically, it recognized a tradition of disarming individuals who pose a clear threat of physical violence to others.
When asked if this decision clarifies Bruen and its impact on other cases, Levin described the opinion as fairly narrow. He noted that while the Bruen regime remains intact, and little guidance was provided for lower courts in applying it to other types of regulations, this ruling clarified that historical analogues do not need to be perfect to justify modern restrictions. However, he predicted that lower courts will continue facing challenges in determining how similar modern restrictions must be to historical analogues.
For further commentary, University of Georgia School of Law Smith Professor Hillel Y. Levin can be contacted at hlevin@uga.edu.