[1] It came from a 2023 decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating a federal law prohibiting individuals from possessing firearms while under a restraining order relating to domestic abuse.

Suspecting Rahimi of these shootings, officers executed a search warrant at his home, discovering a rifle and a pistol he admitted to possessing.

§ 922(g)(8),[7] which prohibits individuals from owning firearms if they are "subject to a court order that restrains [them] from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.

"[4] Domestic violence protective orders related to bans on possessing a firearm became enacted by the 1968 Gun Control Act.

[12] Writing the February 2 opinion for the unanimous panel, Judge Cory T. Wilson rejected the government's argument that Second Amendment applies only to "law abiding, respectable citizens," citing Justice Amy Coney Barrett's dissent in Kanter v. Barr, when she served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

[13] The revised March 2 opinion included an expanded concurrence from Judge James C. Ho, arguing that "civil protective orders are too often misused as a tactical device in divorce proceedings – and issued without any actual threat of danger".

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 with the government, upholding the ability to temporarily restrict individuals deemed to be a physical threat from gun possession which was granted through the 1994 law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, who had both dissented in the Bruen decision, asserted again that Bruen was wrongly decided, but unlike the exacting requirements that Thomas set forth in his dissent, the majority in Rahimi "permits a historical inquiry calibrated to reveal something useful and transferable to the present day".

[20] Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with Sotomayor that Bruen was wrongly decided, and in relation to the confusion in handling gun rights cases in lower courts "the blame may lie with us, not with them".

[20] Justice Amy Coney Barrett supported the majority decision in allowing analogues rather than exact comparisons to be used for the Bruen test, and that requiring "21st-century regulations to follow late 18th-century policy choices [gives] us 'a law trapped in amber.'

And it assumes that founding-era legislatures maximally exercised their power to regulate, thereby adopting a 'use it or lose it' view of legislative authority," whereas Bruen requires a "wider lens".

[20] Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with Thomas that the Bruen test should use a more strict comparison, but stated that the government had successfully demonstrated the necessary historical laws to justify the modern-day regulation.