Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 72

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

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–915 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ZACKEY RAHIMI 

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

[June 21, 2024] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting. 
After New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 
597 U. S. 1 (2022), this Court’s directive was clear: A fire-
arm regulation that falls within the Second Amendment’s
plain text is unconstitutional unless it is consistent with the
Nation’s  historical  tradition  of  firearm  regulation.  Not  a 
single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue, 18
U. S. C. §922(g)(8).  Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 

I 
Section 922(g)(8) makes it unlawful for an individual who
is subject to a civil restraining order to possess firearms or
ammunition.  To trigger §922(g)(8)’s prohibition, a restrain-
ing order must bear three characteristics.  First, the order 
issues  after  a  hearing  where  the  accused  “received 
actual  notice”  and  had  “an  opportunity  to  participate.”
§922(g)(8)(A).  Second, the order restrains the accused from 
engaging in threatening behavior against an intimate part-
ner or child.  §922(g)(8)(B).  Third, the order has either “a 
finding  that  [the  accused]  represents  a  credible  threat  to
the physical safety of [an] intimate partner or child,” or an
“explici[t]  prohibit[ion]”  on  “the  use,  attempted  use,  or 
threatened use of physical force against [an] intimate part-
ner or child.”  §922(g)(8)(C).  If those three characteristics 
are  present,  §922(g)(8)  automatically  bans  the  individual