Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

4 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

Opinion of the Court 

anyone  with  whom  he  cohabitates  or  has  cohabitated. 
§921(a)(32).  Third,  under  Section  922(g)(8)(C),  the  order
must  either  contain  a  finding  that  the  defendant  “repre-
sents 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,”  attempted  use,  or 
threatened use of “physical force” against those individuals, 
§922(g)(8)(C)(ii).

Rahimi’s restraining order met all three criteria.  First, 
Rahimi had received notice and an opportunity to be heard
before  the  order  was  entered.    App.  2.    Second,  the  order  
prohibited  him  from  communicating  with  or  threatening
C. M.  Id., at 3–4.  Third, the order met the requirements of
Section  922(g)(8)(C)(i),  because  it  included  a  finding  that 
Rahimi  represented  “a  credible  threat  to  the  physical 
safety” of C. M. or her family.  Id., at 2–3.  The order also 
“explicitly  prohibit[ed]”  Rahimi  from  “the  use,  attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force” against C. M., sat-
isfying  the  independent  basis  for  liability  in  Section 
922(g)(8)(C)(ii).  Id., at 3. 

Rahimi  moved  to  dismiss  the  indictment,  arguing  that
Section  922(g)(8)  violated  on  its  face  the  Second  Amend-
ment right to keep and bear arms.  No. 4:21–cr–00083 (ND
Tex., May 7, 2021), ECF Doc. 17.  Concluding that Circuit 
precedent  foreclosed  Rahimi’s  Second  Amendment  chal-
lenge, the District Court denied his motion.  Rahimi then 
pleaded  guilty.  On  appeal,  he  again  raised  his  Second 
Amendment challenge.  The appeal was denied, and Rahimi 
petitioned for rehearing en banc.

While Rahimi’s petition was pending, this Court decided 
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 
1 (2022).  In Bruen, we explained that when a firearm reg-
ulation  is  challenged  under  the  Second  Amendment,  the
Government  must  show  that  the  restriction  “is  consistent 
with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” 
Id., at 24.