In a recent video, William Kirk from “Washington Gun Law,” channel discussed three major cases pending before the Supreme Court that could have profound implications for Second Amendment rights in the United States. Here’s the full story.
NRA v. Vullo: A Prelude
Kirk began by sharing that the recent NRA v. Vullo decision, a win for gun rights advocates, was just the first chapter in a series of Supreme Court cases impacting gun ownership. While the Court released opinions most Thursdays, none of the three remaining cases were decided on June 6th.
What Happened
Kirk had predicted an 8-1 decision in favor of the NRA, but the final ruling was a unanimous 9-0. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, while in agreement with the decision, wrote a separate opinion highlighting nuanced legal points. Kirk shared that this case sets the stage for the three other cases yet to be decided, each carrying major implications for gun rights and regulatory powers.
United States v. Rahimi
The first of the three pending cases is United States v. Rahimi. Contrary to popular belief, this case is not just about whether individuals indicted for domestic violence can possess firearms. Instead, Kirk shared that it centers on a critical constitutional question: Do we have a historical tradition of disarming individuals without providing due process?
The Issue at Stake
Rahimi, the defendant, is not a sympathetic figure, which complicates the case. Kirk shared that the issue at stake is whether the government can disarm individuals deemed dangerous without due process.
The Prediction
Kirk predicts that Rahimi will lose by a 7-2 vote. However, he believes this decision could still be a win for lawful gun owners if the Court delineates clear exceptions for disarming only those deemed genuinely dangerous, thereby protecting the rights of non-violent felons and other non-threatening individuals.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
The second case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, might appear unrelated to gun rights at first glance, as it involves a fishing company. However, the core issue here is the constitutionality of the Chevron deference.
Implications for Regulatory Agencies
Kirk shared that this legal doctrine allows executive agencies to interpret their own statutes, effectively giving them quasi-judicial powers. He added that this has significant implications for regulatory agencies like the ATF, which have used this doctrine to create and enforce rules without clear legislative backing.
The Argument
Kirk argued that allowing such power to reside within executive agencies violates the separation of powers. He predicts the Supreme Court will find the Chevron deference unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision, with justices voting along party lines.
Cargill v. Garland
The final case, Cargill v. Garland, directly challenges the authority of the ATF to rewrite rules without congressional approval. This case stems from the controversial bump stock ban, where the ATF reinterpreted existing laws to ban bump stocks, turning law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight.
A Significant Blow
Kirk shared that the broader question is whether an administrative agency can make such significant regulatory changes without legislative action. Kirk predicts a narrow 5-4 victory for Cargill, which would signify a significant blow to the ATF’s regulatory overreach.
UPDATE: the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike this one down. The majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas found the Justice Department was wrong to declare that bump stocks modified semiautomatic rifles into illegal machine guns because, he wrote, each trigger depression in rapid succession still only releases one shot.
Impacting Gun Owners
Chief Justice Roberts is expected to side with the liberal justices, but the majority conservative bloc would likely find that such unilateral regulatory changes by the ATF are unconstitutional. Kirk shared that this decision could set a precedent limiting the ATF’s future regulatory actions, particularly those impacting gun owners.
Share Your Thoughts
So how do you think the Supreme Court’s decisions on these cases will impact the balance between individual rights and public safety?
