Skip to content Skip to search

Republish This Story

* Please read before republishing *

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free under an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives Creative Commons license as long as you follow our republishing guidelines, which require that you credit The 19th and retain our pixel. See our full guidelines for more information.

To republish, simply copy the HTML at right, which includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to The 19th. Have questions? Please email [email protected].

— The Editors

Loading...

Modal Gallery

/
All donations doubled!

Menu

  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Latest Stories
  • Search
  • Upcoming Events
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Donate
  • Work With Us
  • Fellowships
    • From the Collection

      Changing Child Care

      Illustration of a woman feeding a baby a bottle
      • The full PUMP Act is now in effect. Here’s what it does for lactating parents.

        Chabeli Carrazana · April 28
      • 1 in 4 parents report being fired for work interruptions due to child care breakdowns

        Chabeli Carrazana · February 2
      • Washington, D.C., offers financial relief to local child care workers

        Orion Rummler · September 20
    • From the Collection

      Next-Gen GOP

      Illustration of a woman riding an elephant
      • Mayra Flores’ victory set a record for women in Congress. It also reflects the growing visibility of Republican Latinas

        Candice Norwood · June 21
      • A banner year for Republican women

        Amanda Becker · November 11
      • Republican women could double representation in the U.S. House

        Amanda Becker · November 4
    • From the Collection

      On The Rise

      Illustration of three women marching
      • A train derailment spilled toxic chemicals in her Ohio town. Now she’s running for mayor.

        Jessica Kutz · November 6
      • This Delaware candidate could be the first transgender member of Congress

        Orion Rummler · June 26
      • Can Cheri Beasley build a winning coalition in North Carolina?

        Candice Norwood · October 11
    • From the Collection

      Pandemic Within a Pandemic

      Illustration of four people marching for Black Lives Matter with coronavirus as the backdrop
      • Some LGBTQ+ people worry that the COVID-19 vaccine will affect HIV medication. It won’t.

        Orion Rummler · November 23
      • Why are more men dying from COVID? It’s a complicated story of nature vs. nurture, researchers say

        Mariel Padilla · September 22
      • Few incarcerated women were released during COVID. The ones who remain have struggled.

        Candice Norwood · August 17
    • From the Collection

      Portraits of a Pandemic

      Illustration of a woman wearing a mask and holding up the coronavirus
      • For family caregivers, COVID is a mental health crisis in the making

        Shefali Luthra · October 8
      • A new database tracks COVID-19’s effects on sex and gender

        Shefali Luthra · September 15
      • Pregnant in a pandemic: The 'perfect storm for a crisis'

        Shefali Luthra · August 25
    • From the Collection

      The 19th Explains

      People walking from many articles to one article where they can get the context they need on an issue.
      • The 19th Explains: How guns and domestic violence intersect in a Supreme Court case

        Jennifer Gerson · November 1
      • The 19th Explains: What to know about Ohio Issue 1

        Grace Panetta · October 16
      • The 19th Explains: The groundwork for a Supreme Court case on gender-affirming care is being laid now

        Orion Rummler · October 12
    • From the Collection

      The Electability Myth

      Illustration of three women speaking at podiums
      • Mayra Flores’ victory set a record for women in Congress. It also reflects the growing visibility of Republican Latinas

        Candice Norwood · June 21
      • Stepping in after tragedy: How political wives became widow lawmakers

        Mariel Padilla · May 24
      • Do term limits help women candidates? New York could be a new testing ground

        Barbara Rodriguez · January 11
    • From the Collection

      The Impact of Aging

      A number of older people walking down a path of information.
      • From ballroom dancing to bloodshed, the older AAPI community grapples with gun control

        Nadra Nittle, Mariel Padilla · January 27
      • 'I'm planning on working until the day I die': Older women voters are worried about the future

        Mariel Padilla · June 3
      • Climate change is forcing care workers to act as first responders

        Jessica Kutz · May 31
    • From the Collection

      The State of Our Nation

    • From the Collection

      Voting Rights

      A series of hands reaching for ballots.
      • Voting organizers are breathing ‘a deep sigh of relief’ over Supreme Court rulings on elections — for now

        Barbara Rodriguez · July 6
      • Ranked-choice voting is gaining momentum. So are efforts to stop it.

        Barbara Rodriguez · April 24
      • Connecticut voters approved early voting. Here’s how their new secretary of state wants to make it happen.

        Barbara Rodriguez · February 13

    View all collections

  • Explore by Topic

    • 19th Polling
    • Abortion
    • Business & Economy
    • Caregiving
    • Coronavirus
    • Education
    • Election 2020
    • Election 2022
    • Election 2024
    • Environment & Climate
    • Health
    • Immigration
    • Inside The 19th
    • Justice
    • LGBTQ+
    • Military
    • Politics
    • Press Release
    • Race
    • Sports
    • Technology

    View All Topics

Home
  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Latest Stories
  • Search
  • Upcoming Events
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Donate
  • Work With Us
  • Fellowships

We’re an independent, nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics and policy. Read our story.

Fall Member Drive

Support the nonprofit news you trust through the critical moments that shape our democracy and our lives.

Donate Today

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

An activist holds up a sign that reads
An activist holds up a sign as the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case on domestic violence restraining orders and firearm possession, on November 7, 2023, in Washington, D.C. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Justice

SCOTUS looks for clarity in domestic violence and Second Amendment case

Last year, the Supreme Court set a new standard for gun regulation. Now, in United States v. Rahimi, justices don’t know how it applies to domestic violence.

Jennifer Gerson

Reporter

Jennifer Gerson headshot

Published

2023-11-07 17:09
5:09
November 7, 2023
pm

Share

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a case on domestic violence restraining orders and firearm possession, with the justices spending much of their time seeking clarification on how to define, refine and apply a Second Amendment ruling they made last year in the context of domestic violence and gun ownership.

The court’s 2022 ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, set a new standard for gun regulation; writing for the majority in that case, Justice Clarence Thomas specified a need for a historical reference point from the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791 for any gun regulation measure. 

This new standard is at the center of Tuesday’s case, United States v. Rahimi, in which a Texas man is contesting a federal law that prevents him from possessing firearms because he is under a domestic violence restraining order.

The 19th thanks our sponsors. Become one.

In their brief submitted to the Supreme Court in advance of oral arguments, Rahimi’s attorneys argued that the law in question is not constitutional because it unfairly strips certain citizens of their Second Amendment rights — and also has no legal precedent from the time of America’s founding.

The big picture

Sabrina Talukder, director of the women’s initiative at the liberal Center for American Progress and a former Legal Aid attorney, told The 19th she had three main takeaways from Tuesday’s oral arguments. The first was that the justices and the attorneys were both confused about the parameters of the Bruen test, especially in regard to how far back in history it asks courts to find precedent. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson went as far as to ask whether this historical test could apply to only colonial and foundational times, or whether post-Reconstruction Era history was also relevant, given the vast changes in terms of who was granted full rights as citizens. 

The second, Talukder said, was that a great deal of time was spent attempting to set a definition for a “law-abiding citizen” and the distinction with an irresponsible citizen, given that civil courts rather than criminal ones issue protective orders like the one in Rahimi’s case. During this discussion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett read from the protective order issued against Rahimi directly, calling attention to the fact that he was instructed to stay at least 200 feet away from his partner and child because of the physical risk he was determined to pose to their safety. 

And lastly, Talukder stressed that it was the four women justices — Jackson, Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, all liberal except for Coney Barrett — who brought the conversation from the bench back to the realities of domestic violence and the way it proves so often to be fatal for women. 

Uniting all three of these key elements from oral arguments for Talukder is one through line: “The main takeaway that I’d want people to know is that the justices were unsure of how to apply their own test,” she said. 

Esther Sanchez-Gomez speaks to members of the media outside the Supreme Court.
Esther Sanchez-Gomez, Litigation Director of Giffords Law Center, speaks to members of the media outside the Supreme Court on November 7, 2023, in Washington, D.C. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Defining history

Joan Meier, professor of clinical law and director of the National Family Violence Law Center at the George Washington University Law School, was in the courtroom at the Supreme Court Tuesday. Meier said she believed that Kagan asked “the most important question of the morning,” specifically requesting feedback from Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who represents the United States in front of the court, on how the court could clarify the historical test set by Bruen and what clarification was needed to avoid outlier results moving ahead. Prelogar asked the courts to look beyond legislative history for clear guidance for the lower courts to look for principles from history, not just laws that offer a one-to-one comparison; and also for guidance clarifying that when history is silent, this fact cannot be used as a presumption against the government. 

Nick Suplina, senior vice president for law and police at the gun safety law, policy and advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, agreed, telling The 19th that one of the main takeaways of the day was how clear it is that “several justices are frustrated with the Bruen test and how it’s been applied.”

Suplina said that Prelogar made clear her concern that lower courts are now seeking an exact historical twin law from the founding and also limiting the history they are consulting to regulate firearms. In doing this, she also stressed the impact the Bruen test has created, pressing some lower courts to find additional meaning in the absence of a “historical twin.”

Jackson, from the beginning of oral arguments, “was pointing out the sort of absurdity of a historical test that goes to a time where so many citizens were denied basic rights,” he said. “I think it was good for her to use her time and arguments that way.”

Talukder said that since joining the Supreme Court, Jackson has “carved out a lane of redirecting historical frameworks” applied by the court, repeatedly asking for clarification about what time period is being referenced and calling attention to exactly who and who did not have constitutional rights then. “I think what she’s doing is really strategic and it gets to the heart of the case that we cannot be historians, as justices,” Talukder said. On Tuesday, Talukder said, Jackson drove home “the real crux of the case: that there is no domestic violence firearms ban from this time period. That’s why Prelogar said so brilliantly that the absence of this regulation shouldn’t be used to punish us.” 

What it means to be ‘dangerous’

On a call with reporters this afternoon, Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, noted how neither the government nor any of the justices made any comments to undermine the public safety issues in this case. Sanchez-Gomez told reporters that Prelogar cited the statistic that women are five times more likely to be killed when a gun is present in the home during a domestic abuse incident and took great care to differentiate between the terms “law-abiding,” “responsible” and “dangerous.”

While pushing Rahimi’s lawyer on what terms would need to be met to qualify a person as dangerous and in need of being dispossessed of their weapons, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed to the facts in Rahimi’s case, saying, “Someone who’s shooting at people. That’s a good start.”

“I did not hear any justice vehemently disagree with the idea that dangerousness is an important, important interest that was rooted at the founding — that a dangerous person can be denied access to a firearm,” Suplina said. 

At one point, Justice Samuel Alito asked about more specifics about what it takes to issue a protective order, asking Prelogar if these are frequently “he said-she said” situations, resulting in a civil family court issuing a restraining order against both parties. 

“The government did a nice job of saying we have a presumption of regularity and of course we can’t presume that [this process] is being done wrong,” Meier said.

Sign up for more news and context delivered to your inbox, daily

You have been subscribed!

Please complete the following CAPTCHA to be confirmed. If you have any difficulty, contact [email protected] for help.

Submitting…

Uh-oh! Something went wrong. Please email [email protected] to subscribe.

This email address might not be capable of receiving emails (according to Bouncer). You should try again with a different email address. If you have any questions, contact us at [email protected].

Thomas spoke less than his peers on the bench Tuesday, but when he did it was to echo questions raised in the amicus brief filed last month by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA raised concerns about  the validity of using a civil order — with a lower burden of proof than a criminal conviction — to determine dangerousness. Thomas asked whether a “predictive” measure from a civil court should be held to a different standard than a criminal decision — and for clarification on the legal framework through which these civil orders are issued and to what effect. In talking with Rahimi’s lawyers, Thomas flagged the ability of a civil protective order to determine dangerousness, asking for additional clarification. It was this question that prompted Coney Barrett to reference the order in question in Rahimi’s case, and the amount of evidence the petitioner submitted for it. 

Talukder called Thomas’ line of questions “an argument from the gun rights movement.” 

“To me, that discussion today shows how much corporate gun lobbyists matter. It shows how much one amicus brief that was very, very recently filed has picked up so much momentum and that there was so much back and forth on this,” she said. “There was, in so many ways, less discussion about domestic violence than there was about civil versus criminal proceedings.”

Gender, domestic violence and freedom

Crystal Justice, the chief external affairs officer for Survivor Justice Action, was at the rally outside of the Supreme Court with survivors and advocates Tuesday morning, listening in to oral arguments from there. As a survivor of domestic violence who has had to petition a court for a domestic violence protective order, Justice said it was important to know that many survivors do not file for a protective order until they are leaving an abusive relationship — which is often the most dangerous time for them. 

“Today during the rally, we heard from multiple survivors who told their story, where there had either never been physical violence or any threats of firearms until they let their abusive partner know that they’re leaving,” Justice said. “And that is when gun violence happens.” Justice said she was able to get a protective order only after receiving a voicemail from her abuser threatening to kill her. 

Meier also called out the presence of the women on the Supreme Court bench, both in terms of the “degree of equality” they bring to the court and also the way in which “they were having none of this” in terms of the defense’s argument that protective orders themselves are unconstitutional. 

“I usually feel that there are two sides on the bench, that there’s some passion and people feel strongly on the bench and are pushing one direction or another. I did not get that feeling here. Not at all, not from anyone other than the frustration from Justice Jackson, about the [historical twin] test…There was really a sense of, ‘We have to figure out how to do this, but there’s not a battle here,’” Meier said.

Justice said she was relieved by the amount of attention on the question of the historical standard test raised by Bruen and the way that it made clear that “looking at a historical framework can be important, but it’s not more important than the people’s lives who are going to be at risk right now.” On Tuesday, she said, she heard from the justices echoes of the reality that at the time of the Constitution’s writing, laws “were not put together with women in mind. They were not put together with people of color in mind. They were not put together with the LGBTQ community in mind — and yet our lives matter today. If you think about what we do really stand for in this country, it is freedom.” 

Share

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Email

Fall Member Drive

Support the nonprofit news you trust through the critical moments that shape our democracy and our lives.

Donate Today

Up Next

An illustration of a couple holding hands alongside the male partner gesturing his hand into a gun. The shadow cast from his fingers shows a real gun.

Justice

Survivors don’t want Supreme Court to ignore threat that firearms pose in domestic violence cases

Justices are hearing oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, which centers on the constitutionality of a federal law barring those with standing domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. 

Read the Story

The 19th
The 19th is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. Our stories are free to republish in accordance with these guidelines.

  • Donate
  • Newsletter
  • Events
  • Search
  • Jobs
  • Fellowships
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Community Guidelines
  • Membership
  • Membership FAQ
  • Ways to Give
  • Sponsorship
  • Privacy
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram