Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2023 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 22–915.  Argued November 7, 2023—Decided June 21, 2024 

Respondent Zackey Rahimi was indicted under 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8), a 
federal statute that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence
restraining order from possessing a firearm.  A prosecution under Sec-
tion 922(g)(8) may proceed only if the restraining order meets certain 
statutory criteria.  In particular, the order must either contain a find-
ing  that  the  defendant  “represents  a  credible  threat  to  the  physical 
safety”  of  his  intimate  partner  or  his  or  his  partner’s  child, 
§922(g)(8)(C)(i),  or  “by  its  terms  explicitly  prohibit[ ]  the  use,”  at-
tempted use, or threatened use of “physical force” against those indi-
viduals, §922(g)(8)(C)(ii).  Rahimi concedes here that the restraining 
order against him satisfies the statutory criteria, but argues that on
its face Section 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment.  The District 
Court  denied  Rahimi’s  motion  to  dismiss  the  indictment  on  Second 
Amendment  grounds.    While  Rahimi’s  case  was  on  appeal,  the  Su-
preme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 
597 U. S. 1 (2022).  In light of Bruen, the Fifth Circuit reversed, con-
cluding that the Government had not shown that Section 922(g)(8) “fits
within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”  61 F. 
4th 443, 460 (CA5 2023). 

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 tempo-
rarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.  Pp. 5–17.

(a) Since the Founding, the Nation’s firearm laws have included reg-
ulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from
misusing firearms.  As applied to the facts here, Section 922(g)(8) fits
within this tradition. 

The right to keep and bear arms is among the “fundamental rights
necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”  McDonald v. Chicago, 561