Chief Justice Roberts’s Masterful Opinion in Rahimi
Chief Justice Roberts has a unique ability to simplify complex cases, making the outcome seem like the only logical conclusion. In his recent opinion in Rahimi, he appears to reaffirm Bruen while subtly altering the precedent in less than 18 pages. Now, lower courts can uphold gun control laws that align with the principles of our regulatory tradition. The majority opinion in Rahimi is a remarkable display of misdirection that may go unnoticed upon a quick read.
The key principle underlying the tradition for 922(g)(8) is surety laws. This concept reminded me of the Obamacare cases and triggered my NFIB PTSD, as discussed in Moore. Society has historically dealt with misconduct in various ways, including punishment through the criminal justice system, prospective injunctions, and financial penalties to deter undesirable behavior.
One example of such penalties is the Affordable Care Act’s mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fee. This approach is similar to the surety system, where individuals can pay a bond to ensure compliance with certain behaviors. Chief Justice Roberts draws parallels between surety laws and the domestic violence provisions in Section 922(g)(8), although Justice Thomas’s dissent raises doubts about this comparison.
While surety laws were used to prevent domestic violence, their application in the context of firearm possession for suspected abusers raises questions. Justice Thomas argues that the historical precedent of surety laws does not fully support 922(g)(8). The debate over whether surety laws are more akin to mandates with penalties or taxes on non-compliance adds complexity to the issue.
A more fitting analogue might involve a system where individuals posing a risk to others must post a financial bond, with failure to do so leading to incarceration. This model aligns more closely with the idea of ensuring accountability for potential misconduct. The outcome of cases like Range and others pending before the Court will shed light on the interpretation of Second Amendment rights in relation to surety laws.
It remains to be seen how the Court will proceed, whether granting plenary review in Range and similar cases or leaving the lower courts to navigate the complexities of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Chief Justice Roberts’s nuanced approach in Rahimi highlights the ongoing debate over the interpretation of constitutional rights in the context of public safety concerns.
