In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the prohibition on firearms for individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of a federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by individuals under domestic violence restraining orders on Friday, marking a significant ruling regarding gun rights and public safety. Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter in the justices’ 8-1 ruling supporting the law.
This ruling affirms Section 922(g)(8) of federal law, which forbids the possession of firearms by anyone deemed by a court to be a credible threat to another person’s physical safety.
The Court Emphasizes Public Safety and Historical Context
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the ruling aligns with the nation’s historical practice of restricting firearm access for individuals deemed dangerous.
“Our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions that prevent individuals who pose a physical threat to others from misusing firearms since our founding,” Roberts stated. “Section 922(g)(8) is well within this tradition as it applies to the circumstances of this case.”
Roberts further clarified that the Second Amendment should not be interpreted in a rigid or outdated manner to resolve any confusion regarding the court’s earlier ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“The interpretation of our recent Second Amendment cases has been misconstrued by some courts,” he noted. The intent of these precedents was not to suggest that the law was frozen in time. If that were the case, only “muskets and sabers” would be safeguarded by the Second Amendment.
He added that modern regulations addressing public safety issues similar to those at the time of the founding can be deemed lawful.
The court’s decision aligns with an increased scrutiny of the extent of Second Amendment rights, especially considering public safety issues.
The Supreme Court did not revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark ruling from 1964 that set the “actual malice” standard for defamation cases involving public figures, during a separate legal matter this week. This ruling has provided news organizations with strong protections against libel lawsuits for many years.
Following the dismissal of his defamation lawsuit against the Associated Press by Nevada’s highest court, casino mogul and political contributor Steve Wynn has requested the court to reassess that standard. Wynn has refuted allegations of sexual misconduct from the 1970s that were reported by the AP.
Advertisement
In recent years, the Supreme Court has consistently declined to hear cases challenging Sullivan, despite some conservative justices advocating for a review of the case. This indicates that there may not be sufficient support among the justices to overturn the established precedent.
Speculation About Court Retirements
Amid a flurry of significant rulings, speculation regarding the potential retirements of justices has continued. However, insiders close to the court have downplayed these rumors.
Reports indicate that 74-year-old Justice Samuel Alito has no intention of stepping down. One source informed The Wall Street Journal, “This is a man who has never viewed this position through a political lens, contrary to what some may believe.” “It is not in his character to consider retirement for political motives.”
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the third oldest among the nine justices and a person living with type 1 diabetes, has also been the focus of similar speculation. However, sources who spoke with the Wall Street Journal and the BBC assert that she is in good health and is committed to remaining on the court.
One source remarked, “This is not the moment to lose her vital perspective.” “She takes better care of herself than anyone I know.” Her presence is more essential than ever for the court.
