Skip to main content

Cases compared

United States v. Rahimi and Bruen

How Rahimi applied Bruen's historical-tradition test to a federal domestic-violence firearm restriction.

No. 22-915No. 20-843

Side by side

United States v. Rahimi and Bruen, compared fact by fact
FactUnited States v. RahimiNew York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen
DocketUnited States v. Rahimi22-915New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen20-843
TermUnited States v. RahimiOctober Term 2023 (2023–2024)New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. BruenOctober Term 2021 (2021–2022)
RoleUnited States v. RahimiHistorical analogue applicationNew York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. BruenFramework case
Procedural postureUnited States v. RahimiCertiorari from the Fifth CircuitNew York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. BruenCertiorari from the Second Circuit
OutcomeUnited States v. RahimiDecided June 21, 2024New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. BruenDecided June 23, 2022

Relationship

Shared issue
Both cases turn on how courts evaluate firearm regulations under the Second Amendment after looking to historical tradition.
Key difference
Bruen invalidated a public-carry licensing rule. Rahimi upheld a temporary firearm ban tied to domestic-violence restraining orders.
Procedural posture
Bruen reviewed a civil challenge to a state licensing regime. Rahimi reviewed a criminal prosecution after the Fifth Circuit held the federal statute facially unconstitutional.
Outcome
Bruen announced the history-and-tradition framework. Rahimi clarified that historical analogues need not be identical to modern firearm restrictions.

Related

Sources

  • Use the Rahimi and Bruen opinions for source language before adding doctrinal detail.
  • This page compares doctrine and outcome; it is not a full Second Amendment issue hub.