Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 15

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

A 
Since Heller and McDonald, the two-step test that Courts
of  Appeals  have  developed  to  assess  Second  Amendment
claims  proceeds  as  follows.    At  the  first  step,  the  govern-
ment may justify its regulation by “establish[ing] that the
challenged law regulates activity falling outside the scope
of the right as originally understood.”  E.g., Kanter v. Barr, 
919  F. 3d  437,  441  (CA7  2019)  (internal  quotation  marks
omitted).  But see United States v. Boyd, 999 F. 3d 171, 185 
(CA3 2021) (requiring claimant to show “ ‘a burden on con-
duct  falling  within  the  scope  of  the  Second  Amendment’s 
guarantee’ ”).    The  Courts  of  Appeals  then  ascertain  the
original scope of the right based on its historical meaning. 
E.g.,  United  States  v.  Focia,  869  F. 3d  1269,  1285  (CA11 
2017).  If the government can prove that the regulated con-
duct falls beyond the Amendment’s original scope, “then the
analysis can stop there; the regulated activity is categori-
cally unprotected.”  United States v. Greeno, 679 F. 3d 510, 
518 (CA6 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).  But if 
the historical evidence at this step is “inconclusive or sug-
gests that the regulated activity is not categorically unpro-
tected,” the courts generally proceed to step two.  Kanter, 
919 F. 3d, at 441 (internal quotation marks omitted).

At  the  second  step,  courts  often  analyze  “how  close  the
law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and
the severity of the law’s burden on that right.”  Ibid. (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted).  The Courts of Appeals gen-
erally maintain “that the core Second Amendment right is
limited  to  self-defense  in  the  home.”  Gould,  907  F. 3d,  at 
671  (emphasis  added).  But  see  Wrenn,  864  F. 3d,  at  659 
(“[T]he Amendment’s core generally covers carrying in pub-
lic for self defense”).  If a “core” Second Amendment right is 
burdened,  courts  apply  “strict  scrutiny”  and  ask  whether 
the  Government  can  prove  that  the  law  is  “narrowly  tai-
lored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.”  Kolbe 
v. Hogan, 849 F. 3d 114, 133 (CA4 2017) (internal quotation