Smith Professor Hillel Y. Levin offers his thoughts by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on U.S. v. Rahimi

Newswise — What did the Supreme Court do in Rahimi?

As expected, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. The decision was 8-1, with only Justice Thomas dissenting.

On what basis did the Supreme Court decide the case?

The Court held that when looking for historical analogues of modern-day restrictions on firearms, it is not necessary to find a perfectly equivalent regulation from the Founding or post-Civil War eras. In the words of Chief Justice Roberts, the author of the majority opinion, "the Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791." It is sufficient that there be sufficient historical analogues that impose similar burdens or restrictions on the right to bear arms for similar reasons. Here, the Court concluded that the country has a tradition of disarming individuals who pose a clear threat of physical violence to another, even if not quite in the same manner as the law that was applied to Rahimi.

Does this clarify Bruen? How will it impact other cases?

This was a fairly narrow opinion. The Court kept the Bruen regime intact and gave little guidance to lower courts in applying it to other kinds of regulations. At most, the Court clarified that historical analogues need not be perfect in order to justify a modern restriction. However, lower courts will continue to struggle to determine just how similar a modern restriction must be to the historical analogue.

University of Georgia School of Law Smith Professor Hillel Y. Levin is available for further commentary at [email protected].