Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 96

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

25 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

tion provided a bevy of protections during that process—in-
cluding  a  right  to  a  jury  trial,  counsel,  and  protections 
against double jeopardy.  See Amdts. 5, 6. 

The  imposition  of  §922(g)(8)’s  burden,  however,  has  far
fewer  hurdles  to  clear.    There  is  no  requirement  that  the 
accused has actually committed a crime; instead, he need 
only be prohibited from threatening or using force, or pose
a  “credible  threat”  to  an  “intimate  partner  or  child.” 
§922(g)(8)(C).  Section  922(g)(8)  thus  revokes  a  person’s 
Second  Amendment  right  based  on  the  suspicion  that  he 
may  commit  a  crime  in  the  future.    In  addition,  the  only
process required before that revocation is a hearing on the
underlying  court  order.   §922(g)(8)(A).  During  that  civil 
hearing—which is not even about §922(g)(8)—a person has
fewer  constitutional  protections  compared  to  a  criminal 
prosecution  for  affray.  Gone  are  the  Sixth  Amendment’s 
panoply of rights, including the rights to confront witnesses 
and have assistance of counsel, as well as the Fifth Amend-
ment’s  protection  against  double  jeopardy.    See  Turner  v. 
Rogers, 564 U. S. 431, 441 (2011) (“[T]he Sixth Amendment 
does not govern civil cases”); Hudson v. United States, 522 
U. S. 93, 99 (1997) (“The [Double Jeopardy] Clause protects
only  against  the  imposition  of  multiple  criminal  punish-
ments for the same offense”).  Civil proceedings also do not 
require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and some States 
even set aside the rules of evidence, allowing parties to rely
on  hearsay.  See,  e.g.,  Wash.  Rule  Evid.  1101(c)(4)  (2024) 
(providing the state rules of evidence “need not be applied” 
to applications for protection orders (boldface and capitali-
zation deleted)); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. §527.6(i) (West 
Supp. 2024) (judge “shall receive any testimony that is rel-
evant” and issue order based on clear and convincing evi-
dence).  The differences between criminal prosecutions and 
civil hearings are numerous and consequential.

Affray  laws  are  wide  of  the  mark.    While  the  Second 
Amendment does not demand a historical twin, it requires