Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

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

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

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 KAVANAUGH, concurring. 
The Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights wisely 
sought the best of both worlds: democratic self-government
and the protection of individual rights against excesses of
that  form  of  government.  In  justiciable  cases,  this  Court 
determines whether a democratically enacted law or other 
rights 
infringes  on 
government  action 
guaranteed  by  the  Constitution.  When  performing  that 
Article  III  duty,  the  Court  does  not  implement  its  own 
policy  judgments  about,  for  example,  free  speech  or  gun 
regulation.    Rather,  the  Court  interprets  and  applies  the
Constitution  by  examining  text,  pre-ratification  and  post-
ratification  history,  and  precedent.  The  Court’s  opinion
today does just that, and I join it in full.

individual 

The concurring opinions, and the briefs of the parties and 
amici in this case, raise important questions about judicial
reliance  on  text,  history,  and  precedent,  particularly  in
Second Amendment cases.  I add this concurring opinion to 
review  the  proper  roles  of  text,  history,  and  precedent  in 
constitutional interpretation. 

I 
The American people established an enduring American
Constitution.  The  first  and  most  important  rule  in
constitutional  interpretation  is  to  heed  the  text—that  is, 
the actual words of the Constitution—and to interpret that