Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 51.0

16 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

v.  Washington,  591  U. S.  578,  592–597  (2020);  American 
Legion  v.  American  Humanist  Assn.,  588  U. S.  29,  58–66 
(2019); Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U. S. 1, 15–17, 23–28 (2015); 
Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. 565, 575–579 (2014); 
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 605–619, 626– 
628  (2008);  Crawford  v.  Washington,  541  U. S.  36,  47–50 
(2004); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 481–483, and 
n. 10 (2000); Medina v. California, 505 U. S. 437, 445–448 
(1992); Holland v. Illinois, 493 U. S. 474, 481–482, and n. 1 
(1990); Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783, 786–792 (1983); 
Dames  &  Moore  v.  Regan,  453  U. S.  654,  678–682  (1981); 
Walz  v.  Tax  Comm’n  of  City  of  New  York,  397  U. S.  664, 
676–680 (1970); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 522, 
541–547 (1969); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 
343 U. S. 579, 610–613 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); 
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304, 
321–329 (1936); The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 688– 
691 (1929); Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 155–158 
(1926);  United  States  v.  Midwest  Oil  Co.,  236  U. S.  459, 
469–475  (1915);  Marshall  Field  &  Co.  v.  Clark,  143  U. S. 
649,  683–692  (1892);  Murray’s  Lessee  v.  Hoboken  Land  & 
Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 279–280 (1856); McCulloch 
v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 400–401 (1819).6 

—————— 

6 The  Court  has  similarly  relied  on  history  when  deciding  cases 
involving textually unenumerated rights under the Due Process Clause 
or the Privileges or Immunities Clause.  In those contexts, the baseline 
is 180-degrees different:  The text supplies no express protection of any 
asserted substantive right.  The Court has recognized exceptions to that 
textual  baseline,  but  in  doing  so  has  regularly  observed  that  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  “specially  protects  those  fundamental  rights 
and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history
and tradition.”  Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720–721 (1997) 
(quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 
510,  534–535  (1925)  (“liberty  of  parents  and  guardians  to  direct  the 
upbringing and education of children under their control”).