Supreme Court upholds restraining-order firearm ban in Rahimi, narrows but complicates Bruen test

The Supreme Court on the most recent Term upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, reversing the Fifth Circuit in an 8–1 decision.

The case centered on whether the federal statute can survive the historical-analogy test the Court set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law, said the majority, written by Chief Justice Roberts, found "sufficiently similar analogs" in historical practice to permit the restriction. "The Supreme Court in an 8 to 1 decision reversed," Chemerinsky said, summarizing the outcome.

Why it matters: Bruen instructed courts to measure modern firearm regulations against history and tradition rather than traditional tiers of scrutiny. In Rahimi the majority accepted broader analogs — such as historical rules limiting dangerous persons from bearing arms — rather than requiring an exact eighteenth-century match. "In fact, the proper historical analog doesn't have to be an exact copy," Tara Grove, Vincent & Elkins Chair in Law, said.

What the Court decided: The statute at issue makes it a federal crime for a person subject to a domestic-violence protective order to possess a firearm. The petitioner, Zacky Rahimi, had been subject to a two-year restraining order after violent conduct; police later recovered multiple guns at his home and he was prosecuted under the federal prohibition. The Fifth Circuit applied Bruen narrowly and struck down the statute because it found no direct 1791-era analog; the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the modern restriction is close enough to historical practices that regulated people deemed dangerous.

Dissent and tensions: Justice Thomas, who authored Bruen, dissented, applying the stricter historical-level test and agreeing with the Fifth Circuit that such protective-order-based restrictions lack a founding-era equivalent. Several justices who joined the majority or wrote separately (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Gorsuch, Barrett) expressed caution about how Bruen's historical inquiry should be implemented, with some signaling concern about the practical burdens on lower courts.

Implications for lower courts: Legal scholars on the podcast said Rahimi will aid upholding statutes that limit firearm possession by individuals already adjudicated as dangerous (for example, some restrictions on convicted felons or people subject to judicial findings of dangerousness) but provides limited guidance for weapon-type or public-place rules. "I anticipate a real cacophony of decisions among the lower courts," Grove said, predicting divergent applications of Bruen and Rahimi.

Next steps: The decision places a premium on how lower courts identify appropriate historical analogs; litigants and legislatures may respond by narrowing or clarifying statutory text, and some disputes about other categories of regulation are likely to return to federal appeals and the Supreme Court for further clarification.