Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 33

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

5 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

lane, seeking to honor the supreme law the people have or-
dained  rather  than  substituting  our  will  for  theirs.  And 
whatever indeterminacy may be associated with seeking to 
honor  the  Constitution’s  original  meaning  in  modern  dis-
putes,  that  path  offers  surer  footing  than  any  other  this 
Court has attempted from time to time.  Come to this Court 
with arguments from text and history, and we are bound to
reason  through  them  as  best  we  can.  (As  we have  today.) 
Allow judges to reign unbounded by those materials, or per-
mit  them  to  extrapolate  their  own  broad  new  principles
from those sources, and no one can have any idea how they 
might rule.  (Except the judges themselves.)  Faithful ad-
herence to the Constitution’s original meaning may be an
imperfect guide, but I can think of no more perfect one for 
us to follow. 

Just  consider  how  lower  courts  approached  the  Second
Amendment before our decision in Bruen.  They reviewed
firearm regulations under a two-step test that quickly “de-
volved”  into  an  interest-balancing  inquiry,  where  courts
would weigh a law’s burden on the right against the bene-
fits  the  law  offered.  See Rogers  v.  Grewal,  590  U. S.  ___, 
___, and n. 1 (2020) (THOMAS, J., joined by KAVANAUGH, J., 
dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 5, and n. 1); 
see also, e.g., Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144, 
1167–1168,  1176–1177  (CA9  2014);  Drake  v.  Filko,  724 
F. 3d 426, 457 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting).  Some 
judges expressed concern that the prevailing two-step test 
had  become  “just  window  dressing  for  judicial  policymak-
ing.”  Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F. 4th 1087, 1148 (CA9 2021) (en 
banc)  (Bumatay,  J.,  dissenting).    To  them,  the  inquiry
worked as a “black box regime” that gave a judge broad li-
cense to support policies he “[f]avored” and discard those he 
disliked.  Ibid.    How  did  the  government  fare  under  that 
regime?  In one circuit, it had an “undefeated, 50–0 record.” 
Id., at 1167, n. 8 (VanDyke, J., dissenting).  In Bruen, we 
rejected that approach for one guided by constitutional text