Justice Thomas sparks outrage with defense of gun rights for domestic abusers

Clarence Thomas stands alone in dissent as the Supreme Court upholds a law prohibiting domestic abusers from possessing firearms, sparking outrage and renewed calls for judicial accountability.


A highly controversial dissent from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has ignited widespread outrage following the Court’s 8-1 ruling in United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a law prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. Critics across the political spectrum have labeled Thomas’ dissent as “insane” and “truly evil,” highlighting the ongoing debates over gun control and judicial accountability.

The United States v. Rahimi case addressed the dangerous implications of allowing individuals with a history of domestic violence to possess firearms. The case involved Zackey Rahimi, who exhibited violent behavior, including a December 2019 incident where he assaulted C.M., the mother of his child. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, detailed Rahimi’s violent actions, such as dragging C.M. back to his car, causing her to strike her head against the dashboard, and firing a gun as she fled.

Clarence Thomas’ dissent stood in stark contrast to the majority opinion, which emphasized the need to protect victims of domestic violence. Thomas argued that the ruling was inconsistent with the Second Amendment and historical firearm regulation. He criticized his colleagues for misunderstanding his opinion in the 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case, which struck down New York state’s restrictions on concealed carry of firearms in public.

Critics from various political backgrounds expressed their dismay at Thomas’ dissent. Progressive pollster Matt Fuller highlighted the danger posed by Thomas’ stance, while Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts emphasized that the Rahimi case should never have been taken up by the Supreme Court. Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter was killed in the 2018 Parkland shooting, condemned Thomas as a threat to America and linked the Rahimi case to the broader issues created by the Bruen decision.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern provided further insight into the potential implications of the ruling. Stern explained that while the majority and several concurrences attempted to narrow and refine Bruen, Thomas insisted that the Court misunderstood his opinion. Stern predicted that many lower court decisions interpreting Bruen as a maximalist cudgel against modern gun safety measures would likely be vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Rahimi.

Gun control advocates celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision, viewing it as a significant victory for the gun safety movement. Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action, declared that the ruling protected millions of lives over the desires of gun rights extremists. Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a prominent advocate for gun violence prevention, described the decision as a win for women, children, and anyone who has experienced domestic abuse.

Svante Myrick, president of People for the American Way, criticized the extreme, ultraconservative 5th Circuit that initially ruled in favor of Rahimi. Myrick emphasized the importance of maintaining vigilance against far-right judicial decisions that could undermine public safety. He warned that despite the reasonable ruling in Rahimi, the majority of the Supreme Court might still invalidate other gun safety rules under Bruen.

The political ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision are significant, especially with the upcoming November election. Vice President Kamala Harris contrasted the current administration’s stance on gun control with that of former President Donald Trump. Harris accused Trump of bowing to the gun lobby and warned that his re-election could result in the rollback of commonsense protections and the appointment of more far-right justices.

Advocacy groups and political leaders stressed the importance of continued engagement and activism. They called for increased accountability and transparency in the judiciary, urging voters to prioritize judicial appointments and gun safety measures in the upcoming election. The intersection of gun control, domestic violence, and judicial decisions remains a critical issue that requires sustained attention and action.

Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords remarked, “This is a win for women, children, and anyone who has experienced domestic abuse, and it would not have been possible without the work of gun safety and domestic violence advocates across the country.”


If you liked this article, please donate $5 to keep NationofChange online through November.