Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban for Individuals Under Domestic Violence Restraining Orders in 8–1 Ruling
In a major ruling on gun rights and public safety, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The justices ruled 8–1 in favor of the law, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the sole dissenter.
The decision reinforces Section 922(g)(8) of federal law, which bars gun possession by individuals deemed by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others.
Court Emphasizes Historical Context and Public Safety
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, explained that the ruling aligns with the country’s historical tradition of restricting firearm access for those who pose threats.
“Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” Roberts wrote. “As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition.”
Addressing confusion around the court’s earlier ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Roberts clarified that the Second Amendment should not be interpreted in a rigid or outdated manner.
“Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases,” he wrote. “These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber. Otherwise, the Second Amendment would only protect ‘muskets and sabers.’”
He added that modern laws addressing similar public safety concerns as those at the founding can fall within permissible categories of regulation.
Broader Implications and Other Recent Decisions
The court’s decision comes amid increased scrutiny of how far Second Amendment protections extend, especially when weighed against public safety concerns.
In a separate legal development this week, the Supreme Court declined to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark 1964 decision that established the “actual malice” standard for defamation claims involving public figures. That ruling has long provided strong protections for news organizations against libel lawsuits.
Casino magnate and political donor Steve Wynn had petitioned the court to reconsider that standard after Nevada’s highest court dismissed his defamation suit against the Associated Press. The AP had reported on sexual misconduct allegations against Wynn from the 1970s, which he denied.
Despite calls from some conservative justices to revisit Sullivan, the Supreme Court has consistently declined to hear cases challenging it in recent years, indicating there may not yet be enough support on the bench to overturn the precedent.
Speculation About Retirement on the Court
Amid a flurry of consequential rulings, rumors have continued to circulate about potential retirements among the justices. However, sources close to the court have downplayed speculation.
Justice Samuel Alito, 74, reportedly has no intention of stepping down. “Despite what some people may think, this is a man who has never thought about this job from a political perspective,” one source told The Wall Street Journal. “The idea that he’s going to retire for political considerations is not consistent with who he is.”
Similar speculation has surrounded liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is the third-oldest member of the nine-justice panel and lives with type 1 diabetes. However, sources told the BBC and Wall Street Journal that she is in good health and fully committed to continuing her service on the court.
“This is no time to lose her important voice,” one source said. “She takes better care of herself than anyone I know. The court needs her now more than ever.”
