Summary
The Fifth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits firearm possession by individuals subject to certain domestic-violence restraining orders, violated the Second Amendment under the historical-tradition test articulated in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. The court concluded that Zackey Rahimi remained within the Second Amendment’s protected class and that the government had not identified sufficiently analogous historical regulations. The court withdrew and replaced its prior opinion, 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 under the historical-analogue test announced in Bruen.
- Whether Rahimi remained among the people protected by the Second Amendment despite being subject to a civil domestic-violence restraining order and suspected of other criminal conduct.
- Whether the statute's facial constitutionality should be evaluated under the historical-tradition framework rather than means-end scrutiny.
Holdings
- Rahimi remained among "the people" protected by the Second Amendment because he was subject to a civil protective order, had not been convicted of a felony, and was not otherwise within a historically disarmed class identified by the Supreme Court.
- Bruen fundamentally changed the Second Amendment analysis and therefore displaced the Fifth Circuit's prior means-end-scrutiny framework under Emerson and McGinnis.
- Section 922(g)(8) is facially unconstitutional because the government failed to identify a relevantly similar historical tradition of firearm regulation imposing a comparable burden for a comparable reason.
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.” (at 2)
“The core question is whether the challenged law and proffered analogue are “relevantly similar.”” (at 12)
“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.” (at 25)
“Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional, and Rahimi’s conviction under that statute must be vacated.” (at 25)
Factual background
Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas. Police later 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 entered after an alleged assault of his former girlfriend; the order restricted his conduct toward her and expressly prohibited firearm possession.
Procedural history
A federal grand jury indicted Rahimi after officers searching his home pursuant to a warrant found firearms and Rahimi admitted possessing them while subject to a civil protective order. The district court denied his motion to dismiss under then-binding Fifth Circuit precedent, and Rahimi pleaded guilty. A prior panel affirmed, but after the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the prior opinion was withdrawn and the present substituted opinion was issued.