United States v. Rahimi (2024)
The Supreme Court considered whether Zackey Rahimi, a man subject to a domestic violence restraining order in Texas, could be barred from possessing firearms under a different provision of the same federal statute—18 United States Code Section 922(g)(8). The Fifth Circuit had struck down that ban too, using the same Bruen framework, ruling the government had no historical analogue for disarming domestic abusers.
The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit 8-1, with only Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that historical analogues need not be 'dead ringers'—only similar enough in principle.
Rahimi softened the strict Bruen test and showed the Court's willingness to uphold 'prohibited persons' categories when it sees a genuine public safety rationale. But the narrowness of some concurrences left open the question of how far the principle extends.
Rahimi is the direct legal backdrop for Hemani. The government will argue that if disarming domestic abusers passes the historical test, disarming habitual drug users should too. Hemani's lawyers will argue that domestic violence involves proven individual dangerousness, while drug-user status is a far weaker proxy.