Edited Version of Rahimi for the Barnett/Blackman Supplement

Read each of the opinions in only 33 pages.

The Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Rahimi stretched more than 100 pages. I finally finished reading it, and editing it down for the Barnett/Blackman supplement. The edited version now totals about 33 pages.

I suspect that most professors will not assign all of the opinions. For a basic 1L ConLaw class, it is probably enough to read Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion, Justice Jackson's concurrence, and Justice Thomas's dissent. Students interested in originalist theory should read Justice Barrett's concurrence and Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, in that order. I'm still not sure what to make of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence. And Justice Sotomayor's concurrence can be skipped without sacrificing much.

I will have much more to say about this case in due time.

Comments

[Michael Ejercito]

What Rahimi dod not address was due process, nor an Article I challenge.

[Bubba Jones]

This seems clear enough.

JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring. Mr. Rahimi pursues the “most difficult challenge to mount successfully”: a facial challenge. United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987). He contends that 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment “in all its applications.” Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U. S. 119, 138 (2019). To prevail, he must show “no set of circumstances” exists in which that law can be applied without violating the Second Amendment. Salerno, 481 U. S., at 745. I agree with the Court that he has failed to make that showing. Ante, at 8.

[Michael Ejercito]

Salerno was also a case of people being temporarily deprived of liberty due to a finding of dangerousness.

[Bubba Jones]

Our resolution of Mr. Rahimi’s facial challenge to §922(g)(8) necessarily leaves open the question whether the statute might be unconstitutional as applied in “particular circumstances.” Salerno, 481 U. S., at 751. So, for example, we do not decide today whether the government may disarm a person without a judicial finding that he poses a “credible threat” to another’s physical safety. §922(g)(8)(C)(i); see ante, at 8. We do not resolve whether the government may disarm an individual permanently. See ante, at 14 (stressing that, “like surety bonds of limited duration, Section 922(g)(8)’s restriction was temporary as applied to [Mr.] Rahimi”). We do not determine whether §922(g)(8) may be constitutionally enforced against a person who uses a firearm in self-defense. Notably, the surety laws that inform today’s decision allowed even an individual found to pose a threat to another to “obtain an exception if he needed his arms for self-defense.” Ante, at 12; see also post, at 23 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Nor do we purport to approve in advance other laws denying firearms on a categorical basis to any group of persons a legislature happens to deem, as the government puts it, “not ‘responsible.’” Ante, at 17 (quoting Brief for United States 6); see Tr. of Oral Arg. 31–32; see also post, at 27 (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (“Not a single Member of the Court adopts the Government’s theory”).

[Matt F]

Why include the Sotomayor, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh concurrences at all, when they seem so unlikely to influence future holdings?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The American future -- which will be shaped by the culture war's victors -- may expand your imaginative horizons.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

I suspect that most professors will not assign all of the opinions.

That's a sound call, because most professors would not use this book.

How many professors at legitimate law schools -- professors who are are not Volokh Conspirators -- ask students to buy and use this book?

I don't expect to get an answer. I doubt many professors, beyond maybe the Liberty-Ave Maria-Regent-BYU context, would consider this book. I do not know the currently popular constitutional law texts -- is the Gunther book still around? Chemerinsky maybe? I think someone still uses Stone at my law school -- but I would bet my car(s) the Blackman-Barnett book is not among them.