Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban for People Under Domestic-Violence Restraining Orders

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the long-standing federal law that prevents people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In United States v. Rahimi, decided June 21, 2024, the Court ruled 8 to 1 that the prohibition is constitutional under the Second Amendment.

Information last verified on June 20, 2026.

The decision matters far beyond the man at its center. It clarifies how protective orders interact with gun rights, and it tells courts across the country that a restraining order built on a credible-threat finding can lawfully strip a respondent of access to firearms while that order is in force.

What the Court Decided

The case turned on 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), a federal statute that makes it unlawful for certain people under domestic-violence restraining orders to possess firearms or ammunition. According to the statutory text published by Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute, the ban applies only when three conditions are met.

First, the order must have been issued after a hearing of which the person received actual notice and at which the person had an opportunity to participate. Second, the order must restrain the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child, or from conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury. Third, the order must either include a finding that the person represents a credible threat to physical safety, or expressly prohibit the use or threatened use of physical force.

The Supreme Court held that the statute survives a facial Second Amendment challenge. As the Court's opinion put it, an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. The Court emphasized that since the founding, the Nation's firearm laws have included rules to keep guns away from people who threaten physical harm to others, and it concluded that Section 922(g)(8) fits within that tradition.

How the Case Reached the Supreme Court

Zackey Rahimi was placed under a civil protective order in Texas after an incident involving an intimate partner. That order included a finding that he posed a credible threat to her physical safety. While the order was in effect, he was found with firearms and was charged under the federal statute.

A federal appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, struck the statute down in 2023. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that under the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the government had not identified a sufficiently close historical analogue to justify the modern ban. The federal government asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling, and the Court agreed.

The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for eight Justices, explained that the Bruen test does not require a historical twin, only a historical analogue. The Court pointed to two founding-era practices: surety laws, which required individuals suspected of future violence to post a bond, and going armed laws, which punished people who menaced others with weapons. Together, the Court reasoned, these traditions show that the government may disarm those a court has found to be dangerous.

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the historical record did not support disarming a person through a civil protective order in the way the statute allows. His was the only dissenting vote.

The Court was careful to describe the ban as temporary. The prohibition under Section 922(g)(8) lasts only while the qualifying order remains in effect. When the order expires or is dissolved, the federal bar tied to that order ends as well. The majority leaned on this limited duration as part of why the law fits the historical tradition rather than functioning as a permanent, blanket disarmament.

Why Restraining Orders Carry Firearm Consequences

Restraining orders, often called protective orders, are civil court orders intended to stop one person from contacting, threatening, or harming another. They are a core tool in domestic-violence cases, and they frequently come with conditions that go beyond simple no-contact rules. Our overview of restraining order laws explains how these orders are requested, what they can require, and how long they last.

The firearm consequence is one of the most serious. When a court enters a qualifying order with a credible-threat finding, federal law layers a gun prohibition on top of the order's other terms. That is what Rahimi preserved. The prohibition is not automatic for every restraining order. It depends on the type of order, the relationship between the parties, the notice and hearing requirements, and the specific findings the court makes.

State practice varies in how these orders are labeled and enforced. For example, our guides to Ohio restraining order laws and Utah restraining order laws show how the categories, durations, and surrender procedures differ from one state to the next, even though the federal firearm rule sits above all of them.

It is worth separating two layers that often get blurred. The federal statute the Supreme Court reviewed in Rahimi sets a floor: when a qualifying order with a credible-threat finding is in place, federal law prohibits firearm possession regardless of where the respondent lives. On top of that floor, many states have their own firearm-surrender rules built into the protective-order process, and some require the respondent to physically turn over weapons to law enforcement or a licensed dealer within a set number of days. Because those state mechanisms can be triggered by a wider range of orders than the federal statute reaches, the practical gun consequences of a protective order frequently depend on state law as much as on Section 922(g)(8).

What the Ruling Does Not Decide

The Court resolved a facial challenge, meaning Rahimi argued the statute is unconstitutional in all its applications. By rejecting that argument, the Court left open narrower, as-applied questions for future cases. The opinion did not address related federal gun bans for other categories of people, and it did not weigh in on protective orders that lack a hearing or a credible-threat finding. Lower courts will continue to sort out those edge cases, but the core rule for credible-threat domestic-violence orders is now settled.

Analysis: Why This Matters

In the view of the Recording Law Editorial Team, the most practical effect of Rahimi is stability. Before this decision, the Fifth Circuit's ruling had created real doubt about whether a foundational federal protection for domestic-violence survivors would survive. An 8 to 1 majority closed that door. For people seeking protective orders, and for the courts and law enforcement agencies that enforce them, the firearm prohibition tied to a credible-threat finding is now on firm constitutional footing.

The decision is also notable for how narrowly it was framed. The Court did not say that anyone under any restraining order can be disarmed. It tied its reasoning to the specific statutory requirements, especially the credible-threat finding and the right to a hearing. That framing leaves room for future disputes about orders that lack those features, and it signals that procedural safeguards inside the protective-order process matter to the constitutional analysis.

For readers, the takeaway is concrete but not legal advice. If you are involved in a protective-order case, either seeking one or responding to one, the firearm consequences are real and they can turn on the precise findings a judge makes. As of June 2026, the federal ban remains in force, and the Rahimi ruling is the controlling authority on its constitutionality.