Notable Items:

Silently overturns New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) :
As we explained in Bruen, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition. 597 U. S., at 26–31. [emphasis added]
Bruen required a (single) analogous regulation, not principles that underpin our regulatory tradition.
As noted by Thomas:
The Court has two rejoinders, surety and affray laws. Neither is a compelling historical analogue. As I have explained, surety laws did not impose a burden comparable to §922(g)(8). And, affray laws had a dissimilar burden and justification.

Is Constitutional Law "trapped in amber"?

Erwin Chemerinsky Once Again, Originalism’s Hollow Core Is Revealed at the Atlantic 2024-06-25

Abridged version of the opinion prepared for Randy Barnett and Josh Blackman's Constitutional Law: Cases in Context
Michael Dorf's blog post. 2024-06-21
Joseph Fishkin Rahimi pop quiz to distinguish actual quotes from nonsense. 2024-06-21
Eric Segall's blog post. (judges are like umpires -- Roberts) 2024-06-24
Michael Dorf's follow on blog post highlighting Kavanaugh's errors. 2024-06-26 Still, if you're going to claim that consulting centuries of history has substantially more determinate normative implications than other interpretive methodologies, you probably should try to avoid misstatements that reveal you can't even accurately report a perfectly clear statement that was written in the U.S. Reports just a few decades ago.
Linda Greenhouse's
Josh Blackman's blog post agreeing with Linda Greenhouse and Michael Dorf's follow on. 2024-06-26 Josh Blackman's blog post comparing Rahimi and United States v. Lopez (1995) .
Petitioner: United States
Respondent: Zackey Rahimi
Venue: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion of the Court: United States v. Rahimi (2024)

Issue(s) Before the Court:

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face. (Grant of certiorari)

Whether prohibiting an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order that includes a finding that he “represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner,” or a child of the partner or individual from possessing a firearm is consistent with the Second Amendment. [cobbled together from first paragraph of the opinion of the court.]

Petitioner's Claim(s):

Respondent's Claim(s):

Rahimi argu[es] that Section 922(g)(8) violated on its face the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Held: 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.
Disposition: reversed and remanded

Material Facts:

Procedural History:


Majority Opinion Roberts (Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson)

Sotomayor Concurrance (Kagan)

6 pages

Gorsuch Concurrance

7 pages

Kavanaugh Concurrance

(24 pages)

Barrett Concurrance

(5 pages)

Jackson Concurrance

(7 pages)

Thomas Dissent

(~30 pages)

Full Recounting of Facts

Majority Full Argument

(18 pages)