SCOTUS to rule on a Texas man's second amendment challenge of law protecting domestic violence victims

A man from North Texas is awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on his challenge of a law prohibiting individuals under certain domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. A decision is expected from the court within the next week.

AUSTIN (Nexstar) - A man from North Texas is awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on his challenge of a law prohibiting individuals under certain domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. A decision is expected from the court within the next week.

The case revolves around whether 18 USC 922(g)(8) -- a federal statute enacted in 1994 that disarms individuals subject to domestic-violence protective orders -- is still constitutional, following the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Zackey Rahimi was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Northern District of Texas for violating Section 922(g)(8) after he was found to be in possession of several firearms while subject to a relevant protective order.

Rahimi attempted to have the charge dismissed, claiming that the law facially violates his Second Amendment rights. However, he was denied because the Fifth Circuit had already found Section 922(g)(8) to be constitutional in a previous case. Following the denial of his motion, Rahimi pleaded guilty.

When Rahimi's appeal came before the Fifth Circuit, the appellate court initially affirmed the lower court's decision that Rahimi's Second Amendment challenge was foreclosed by its decision in a previous case.

However, following the new precedent set by the Supreme Court's ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the Fifth Circuit withdrew its opinion and ultimately reversed the lower court's ruling, finding that under the new precedent Section 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment on its face.

The Supreme Court accepted the case and during oral arguments questioned how the historical analysis utilized by the court in Bruen applied in the analysis of Section 922(g)(8).

Justices on both sides of the aisle seemed persuaded by arguments from the solicitor general that the restriction is in line with the longstanding practice of disarming dangerous people.

Rahimi was represented by Assistant Federal Public Defender J. Matthew Wright, who argued that there is no history of firearm bans or any comparable laws ,which would satisfy Bruen and, therefore, Section 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional.

The court's decision in this case could impact previous rulings that involve gun laws. This includes the high-profile conviction of Hunter Biden in which President Joe Biden's son was found guilty on three felony charges relating to the purchase of a firearm while addicted to drugs.

Rahimi is currently jailed in Texas facing other charges. Wright declined to comment at this time.

The Supreme Court's 2023-2024 term concludes at the end of June, with 20 cases still awaiting decisions.