Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 66

2 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

JACKSON, J., concurring 

match its historical precursors . . . ‘still may be analogous
enough  to  pass  constitutional  muster.’ ”    Ibid.  (quoting 
Bruen, 597 U. S., at 30).  Gun regulations need only “com-
port  with  the  principles  underlying  the  Second  Amend-
ment.”  Ante, at 7–8.  These clarifying efforts are welcome,
given the many questions Bruen left unanswered. 

When this Court adopts a new legal standard, as we did 
in Bruen, we do not do so in a vacuum.  The tests we estab-
lish  bind  lower  court  judges,  who  then  apply  those  legal
standards  to  the  cases  before  them.  In  my  view,  as  this 
Court thinks of, and speaks about, history’s relevance to the
interpretation  of  constitutional  provisions,  we  should  be 
mindful that our common-law tradition of promoting clarity
and consistency in the application of our precedent also has 
a lengthy pedigree.  So when courts signal they are having 
trouble with one of our standards, we should pay attention.
Cf. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 
469 U. S. 528, 538–539 (1985). 

The message that lower courts are sending now in Second 
Amendment cases could not be clearer.  They say there is 
little method to Bruen’s madness.1  It isn’t just that Bruen’s 

—————— 

1See, e.g., Barris v. Stroud Twp., ___ Pa. ___, ___, 310 A. 3d 175, 190 
(2024) (“[M]ore guidance in this challenging and ever-shifting area of the 
law  is  welcome”);  State  v.  Wilson,  154  Haw.  8,  21,  543  P. 3d  440,  453 
(2024) (“[B]y turning the test into history and nothing else, [Bruen] dis-
mantles workable methods to interpret firearms laws”); United States v. 
Dubois, 94 F. 4th 1284, 1293 (CA11 2024) (“We require clearer instruc-
tion from the Supreme Court before we may reconsider the constitution-
ality of [18 U. S. C. §]922(g)(1)”); United States v. Daniels, 77 F. 4th 337, 
358 (CA5 2023) (Higginson, J., concurring) (“[C]ourts, operating in good
faith, are struggling at every stage of the Bruen inquiry.  Those struggles
encompass numerous, often dispositive, difficult questions”); Atkinson v. 
Garland, 70 F. 4th 1018, 1024 (CA7 2023) (“[T]he historical analysis re-
quired by Bruen will be difficult and no doubt yield some measure of in-
determinancy”); id., at 1036 (Wood, J., dissenting) (“As other courts have 
begun to apply Bruen, [the] need for further research and further guid-
ance has become clear”); Gonyo v. D. S., 210 N. Y. S. 3d 612, 615, 2024 
N. Y. Slip Op. 24018 (Jan. 19, 2024) (“Interpretations and applications of