The Supreme Court currently has a conservative majority committed to enforcing the original meaning of the Constitution, as understood when it was adopted. This commitment to originalist interpretation will be tested in two cases involving the Second Amendment. In United States v. Rahimi, the court will consider a federal statute criminalizing possession of firearms by individuals subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders. In Garland v. Cargill, the court will review a regulatory ban on bump stocks that can enhance the firing rate of semiautomatic rifles similar to fully automatic machine guns.
These cases present a challenge for the justices, as they involve sensitive issues such as domestic abuse and mass shootings. The court’s decisions will likely face criticism, especially in an election year. The Supreme Court has evolved over the years as a result of Republican efforts to prevent the politicized use of judicial power for progressive social change. This movement started with calls for judicial restraint during the Nixon era and progressed into promoting originalist theories of interpretation.
In 2008, the Supreme Court made a significant ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, striking down a handgun ban based on originalist analysis. Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion rejected the longstanding lower court consensus and established an individual right to bear arms for self-defense. However, lower courts continued to uphold gun-control laws using a deferential balancing test. In 2022, the court took a stand in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, invalidating a New York law that severely restricted the right to carry firearms in public.
Under the originalist test established in Bruen, the government must prove that a law restricting firearms is consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation. In the case of Rahimi, there are no pre-20th-century laws punishing American citizens for possessing firearms in their homes. The defendant, Zackey Rahimi, has been charged with firearm-related offenses, but the restraining order against him immediately criminalized his possession of a firearm. The court is faced with deciding whether historical traditions support such laws and whether they violate the Second Amendment.
In Garland v. Cargill, the court will evaluate whether bump stocks should be classified as machine guns, which are heavily regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The originalist principle of statutory interpretation dictates that only Congress can amend laws, not the president or the Supreme Court. Upholding the reclassification of bump stocks as machine guns would require the justices to disregard this principle. The conservative legal movement’s goal has been to uphold the original meaning of the Constitution and respect Congress’s authority to enact and amend statutes.
These cases will test the fidelity of the conservative justices to originalist legal principles and their commitment to upholding the Constitution as originally intended. The decisions in these cases will have far-reaching implications for gun rights and regulation. Regardless of the outcomes, these cases will serve as a litmus test for the Supreme Court’s adherence to originalist interpretations and the balance of power between the judiciary and legislative branches.
