Supreme Court

SCOTUS Contender Brett Kavanaugh on Gun Rights, Search and Seizure, and Mens Rea

The D.C. Circuit judge is a strong defender of the Second Amendment but seems less inclined to accept Fourth Amendment claims.


Heritage Foundation

Last week I suggested that whoever replaces Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court probably will be more receptive to cases that challenge gun control laws on Second Amendment grounds. That certainly seems to be true of Brett Kavanaugh, who by some accounts is the leading contender for Donald Trump's second Supreme Court nomination, which the president plans to announce on Monday night.

Kavanaugh, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 2006, dissented from a 2011 decision in which a three-judge panel upheld the District of Columbia's ban on so-called assault weapons and its requirement that all guns be registered. Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority's use of "intermediate scrutiny," saying an analysis "based on text, history, and tradition" is more consistent with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents.

The D.C. "assault weapon" ban covers a list of specific models as well as guns that meet certain criteria. A semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine is illegal, for instance, if it has any of six prohibited features, including an adjustable stock, a pistol grip, or a flash suppressor. "The list appears to be haphazard," Kavanaugh noted. "It bans certain semi-automatic rifles but not others—with no particular explanation or rationale for why some made the list and some did not." In any case, he concluded, the law is inconsistent with the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller.

"In Heller," Kavanaugh noted, "the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller's protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional."

Although Heller suggested that various "longstanding" gun restrictions would pass constitutional muster, Kavanaugh said, D.C.'s gun registration system does not qualify. "Because the vast majority of states have not traditionally required and even now do not require registration of lawfully possessed guns," he wrote, "D.C.'s registration law—which is the strictest in the Nation and mandates registration of all guns—does not satisfy the history- and tradition-based test set forth in Heller."

Kavanaugh also is sensitive to the constitutional implications of regulations that interfere with freedom of speech. In 2009, a year before the Supreme Court overturned statutory restrictions on the political speech of unions and corporations in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, he wrote an opinion rejecting FEC rules that made it harder for advocacy groups to raise money.

The FEC regulations, which were challenged by the abortion-rights group Emily's List, required nonprofit organizations to pay for election-related activities largely with "hard money" subject to donation limits. "Because donations to those hard-money accounts are capped at $5000 annually for individual contributors," Kavanaugh noted, "the FEC's allocation regulations substantially restrict the ability of non-profits to spend money for election-related activities such as advertisements, get-out-the-vote efforts, and voter registration drives." That burden, he concluded, cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment, which "protects the right of individual citizens to spend unlimited amounts to express their views about policy issues and candidates for public office" as well as "the right of citizens to band together and pool their resources as an unincorporated group or non-profit organization in order to express their views."

Kavanaugh seems to take a narrower view of Fourth Amendment rights. In 2010 he dissented from the D.C. Circuit's decision not to rehear a case in which a three-judge panel had ruled that police violated a suspected drug dealer's Fourth Amendment rights when they tracked his movements for a month by attaching a GPS device to his car without a warrant. Kavanaugh rejected the idea that the tracking constituted a search because of the quality and quantity of information it collected, although he anticipated the argument that ultimately persuaded a majority of the Supreme Court: that the physical intrusion required to plant the tracking device amounted to a search.

That rationale would not support invoking the Fourth Amendment in cases where information is collected without trespassing on someone's physical property, as when police use cellphone location records to figure out where a suspect was at particular times on particular dates. Last month the Supreme Court ruled that looking at such data is a search, meaning it generally requires a warrant.

Kavanaugh also dissented in a 2008 case involving a man named Paul Askew, who was stopped by D.C. police because his clothing was similar to an armed robber's. The cops patted Askew down for weapons, as permitted under the 1968 Supreme Court ruling in Terry v. Ohio, but found nothing. Later they unzipped his coat, supposedly to facilitate an eyewitness identification, and found a gun.

The D.C. Circuit concluded that police went too far when they unzipped Askew's coat and that the gun, which became the basis for a weapons charge, should not have been admitted as evidence against him because it was the product of an illegal search. Kavanaugh disagreed, saying unzipping the coat could be justified as "an objectively reasonable protective step to ensure officer safety" after Askew "actively resisted" the pat-down or because "police may reasonably maneuver a suspect's outer clothing—such as unzipping a suspect's outer jacket—when, as here, doing so could help facilitate a witness's identification at a show-up during a Terry stop."

While Kavanaugh typically has not sided with criminal defendants, whether they were seeking to overturn their convictions or shorten their sentences, there are some notable exceptions. In 2012, for instance, he wrote the majority opinion that overturned a military commission's conviction of Salim Hamdan, who admitted serving as Osama bin Laden's driver, for providing material support to terrorism:

When Hamdan committed the conduct in question…the international law of war did not proscribe material support for terrorism as a war crime. Indeed, the Executive Branch acknowledges that the international law of war did not—and still does not—identify material support for terrorism as a war crime. Therefore, the relevant statute at the time of Hamdan's conduct—10 U.S.C. § 821—did not proscribe material support for terrorism as a war crime.

Because we read the Military Commissions Act not to retroactively punish new crimes, and because material support for terrorism was not a pre-existing war crime under 10 U.S.C. § 821, Hamdan's conviction for material support for terrorism cannot stand.

In another 2012 case involving an unsympathetic defendant, Kavanaugh dissented from a decision upholding an armed robber's conviction for carrying a machine gun in the course of a violent crime. Kavanaugh argued that the offense—which triggers a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years, compared to 10 years for a violent criminal who carries a semi-automatic firearm—requires knowledge that the gun is capable of automatic fire.

"The majority opinion holds that a person who committed a robbery while carrying an automatic gun—but who genuinely thought the gun was semi-automatic—is still subject to the 30-year mandatory minimum sentence," he wrote. "The majority opinion thus gives an extra 20 years of mandatory imprisonment to a criminal defendant based on a fact the defendant did not know. In my view, that extraordinary result contravenes the traditional presumption of mens rea long applied by the Supreme Court."

It is doubtful that Donald Trump, a "law and order" advocate who is not keen on due process or other legal niceties, understands the importance of the principles that might lead a judge to side with a bank robber or a member of Al Qaeda. But it is reassuring that the president's leading choice for the Supreme Court does.

NEXT: New Jersey's Experiment in State-Funded News

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “police may reasonably maneuver a suspect’s outer clothing?such as unzipping a suspect’s outer jacket?when, as here, doing so could help facilitate a witness’s identification at a show-up during a Terry stop.”

    Ugh. Can we just get rid of Terry v. Ohio already?

    1. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..

  2. Chuck Schumer appealed to Trump to pick Merrick Garland for Supreme Court

    One of the many reasons I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 is her Supreme Court picks would be far better than Orange Hitler’s. Having Gorsuch there is already damaging enough; we cannot afford another right-wing extremist. Contact your US Senators and tell them to use every procedural tactic available to prevent anybody other than Garland from taking that ninth seat.


    1. The filibuster is dead. Without it, the Democrats have zero hope of even delaying a confirmation vote until after the Mid-term elections.

      1. But “Republicans” can prevent a confirmation.

        Deep State gonna Deep State.

        Flake and McCain could vote no just to #Resist.

    2. It would be a gesture of comity Trump is famous for.

      1. He should certainly show concern for the D’s since shitbags like you have been oh, so considerate of him. Loser.

    3. Oh look, there’s the “literally Hitler” argument. This should be a new logical fallacy.

    4. No, Merrick Garland should be the nominee for Justice Ginsberg’s seat in a year or two..

      That would be poetic justice.

      1. No, Ann Coulter should be the nominee for Justice Gimsberg’s seat in a year or two. THAT would be poetic justice.

    5. No, Merrick Garland should be the nominee for Justice Ginsberg’s seat in a year or two..

      That would be poetic justice.

    6. No, Merrick Garland should be the nominee for Justice Ginsberg’s seat in a year or two..

      That would be poetic justice.

    7. My only problem with the Reps nuking the SC filibuster is that they didn’t take it all the way to everything the Senate does.

      51 votes. The majority.

      That’s Democracy. Well, the Dems always scream they want Democracy, so the Reps should have given it to them good and hard until they cried Uncle.

      Stupid Reps, always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (not that they haven’t moved some judicial appointments of course).

      1. When they do that, all of the GOP senators should yet “this is what de ocracy looks like”. And do it in that annoying cadence all the progtards use when protesting.

    8. You are not a libertarian and nothing but a globalist.

  3. “”The D.C. Circuit judge is a strong defender of the Second Amendment but seems less inclined to accept Fourth Amendment claims.””

    While I prefer someone who would do both. I think Kavanaugh would be a good counter to Sotomayor who is strong on the Fourth, but weak on the Second.

    1. Kavanaugh seems to take a narrower view of Fourth Amendment rights.

      I was prepared to be outraged by his “narrower view” of the Fourth, but it seems to be some pretty thin gruel. His first dissent was against the denial of an en banc review (a decision made by a 3-judge panel was requested to be reviewed by the entire court and the entire court said “No.” Judge K thought there was reason enough for the entire court to weigh in on the decision.) His dissent was based on the idea that there was an important point being over-looked by the court – that point being the very one that the Supreme Court later addressed in its decision that planting a GPS-monitoring device constitutes a search. Seems to me that he was correct in calling for an en banc review in a case where this issue was raised but not addressed. And as far as the over-arching claim that GPS-location data itself doesn’t fall under the Fourth, well, that was the Supremes precedential ruling at the time and district courts are bound to follow that ruling.

      1. And as far as the Terry stop case is concerned, we all know the cops abuse the hell out of their authority in many cases but this wasn’t one of them. The robber was described as wearing a blue sweatshirt, this suspect who otherwise fit the description was wearing a jacket over a blue sweatshirt, unzipping the jacket to get a better look at the blue sweatshirt seems reasonable. If unzipping the jacket is impermissible, what if crooks just simply slipped a sheet over their heads as they fled, secure in the knowledge that cops can’t lift the sheet to look under it and make an ID? You have to draw the line somewhere and while it’s been drawn way too far in the cops’ direction, this isn’t a good argument for that assertion.

        Overall, I’d say Kavanaugh certainly isn’t the worst of the lot. Some good points and the bad points aren’t that bad.

  4. Strong on the 2nd, weak on the 4th? So, typical Republican.

    1. “Strong on the 2nd, weak on the 4th? So, typical Republican.”

      Preferable to the typical D who says: “What’s the Bill of Rights?”

      1. Emanations and Penumbras
        Living Constitution
        Who, whom?

  5. This guy is the deep state’s pick. If you believe Roger Stone….

  6. I hope he picks me. Seems like a pretty sweet gig.

  7. constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned

    NO. They’re constitutionally protected because the second amendment forbids the government from banning them. No need for this mealy-mouthed “tradition” bullshit.


    1. There’s a Supreme Court precedent from 1939 against nontraditional weapons, if I recall correctly – if so he’d have to go carefully.

    2. This was Scalia’s nasty dodge in Heller, to try to preserve a good deal of more common gun control, while stopping it from expanding. Most of the ‘traditional’ law here was a result of the Court refusing to take 2nd amendment cases for 68 straight years.

  8. If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

    1. Oh, Jesus Christ, it sounds like you’re bringing up the old discredited racist idea of interposition and nullification, which has roundly (and correctly) been rejected as an absurdity. Just because this shit was started by some old crackpot like James Madison when he authored the Virginia Resolution of 1798 doesn’t mean anything, what the hell makes you think James Madison would know anything about the Constitution and how the government was supposed to work?

      1. “crackpot like James Madison”: author of the Bill of Rights.

        1. You just stepped into the sarchasm he dug right in front of you.

    2. “If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about.”

      I’ll bet you can quote that statement in the constitution which means I really don’t have to pay income tax, too.

      1. The Supreme Court has the power, but they didn’t necessarily get it legitimately.

    3. The Left’s primary weapon against the Constitution has always been judicial authoritarianism

  9. Mens Rea? What about Women’s Rea?


  10. It would be nice, for once, to get a possible SCOTUS pick who cared about the entire Bill of Rights…

    1. …and not in the way Lenny cared about the girl in Of Mice and Men.

      1. True.

  11. I am clouds from manchester, i hear how people are talking about The powerful spell caster called DR Ewan in regard of how he bring back ex lover, Winning lottery, getting pregnant and getting married to their dream lover and i also contact him to help me cast a spell in regard of my ex lover whom i love so much that left me 2yrs ago, but today my ex is back to me and we are happily married with 3kids and i am so much happy for the help i found in you DR Ewan. I and my family are very much happy and we are living large now, i am grateful and appreciate your good work . Thank you and may you live long to help people in problems. if you are going through any problem at all he will help you contact him on his email is or add him on watsapp +2349057353987 check out his webpage

  12. ” Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are.” Every time i hear this phrase i cringe because without a large amount of clarification it can be taken as a suggestion that semi-auto handguns should be banned. the nazies in charge of Kaliforniastan already ban certain semi-auto hand guns and, now, all semi-auto rifles with the dreaded 6 inert pieces of accessories.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.