Summary
The Fifth Circuit considered a facial Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits firearm possession by individuals subject to qualifying domestic-violence restraining orders. Applying the historical-tradition framework from N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the court held that § 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional and that prior circuit precedent was no longer controlling. The court reversed the district court and vacated Rahimi’s conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits firearm possession by a person subject to certain domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment.
- Whether Rahimi remained among 'the people' protected by the Second Amendment despite being subject to a civil domestic-violence protective order and suspected of other criminal conduct.
- Whether the Government demonstrated that § 922(g)(8) is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.
- Whether the Fifth Circuit's pre-Bruen precedent upholding § 922(g)(8) remained binding under the rule of orderliness.
Holdings
- Bruen fundamentally changed the Second Amendment analysis by rejecting the circuit courts' means-end scrutiny framework and requiring a text-and-history inquiry; therefore, the Fifth Circuit's pre-Bruen precedent upholding § 922(g)(8) was rendered obsolete and could not control the appeal.
- A person subject to an agreed civil domestic-violence restraining order, without a criminal conviction or another longstanding firearm prohibition, remains among 'the people' protected by the Second Amendment.
- Section 922(g)(8) is facially unconstitutional because the Government failed to demonstrate that its categorical prohibition on firearm possession by persons subject to qualifying civil protective orders is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- Because § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional, Rahimi's conviction under that statute must be vacated.
Key quotations
“Considering the issue afresh, we conclude that Bruen requires us to re-evaluate our Second Amendment jurisprudence and that under Bruen, § 922(g)(8) fails to pass constitutional muster.” (61 F.4th at 443)
“The Government fails to demonstrate that § 922(g)(8)’s restriction of the Second Amendment right fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (61 F.4th at 464)
“Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional, and Rahimi’s conviction under that statute must be vacated.” (61 F.4th at 464)
Factual background
Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas. Police searched his home pursuant to a warrant and found a rifle and a pistol, which Rahimi admitted possessing. At the time, he was subject to an agreed civil protective order issued after an alleged assault of his former girlfriend; the order included firearm and domestic-violence restrictions.
Procedural history
A federal grand jury indicted Rahimi under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The district court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, and Rahimi pleaded guilty. A prior Fifth Circuit panel affirmed, relying on pre-Bruen precedent. While rehearing was pending, Bruen was decided; the prior opinion was withdrawn, supplemental briefing was ordered, and the present panel reversed the district court and vacated Rahimi's conviction.
Remand instructions
The district court's ruling upholding § 922(g)(8) was reversed and Rahimi's conviction was vacated. The opinion does not provide further remand instructions.