Washington D.C. — On November 7, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for the case United States v. Rahimi. A new CAP column uncovers how the Supreme Court’s attempts to legitimize the upending of legal precedent under the guise of conservative legal theories such as originalism put the lives of countless women, children, and other survivors of domestic violence at risk.
In Rahimi, justices will decide whether a lifesaving federal law that prohibits those who are actively subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms is constitutional under the Second Amendment. However, because of the Supreme Court’s adherence to originalism, there is a real possibility that the safety and security of domestic violence survivors in the 21st century will be decided based on a historical record written exclusively by white, wealthy, male landowners from the 18th century.
This new CAP column investigates the historic and inextricable connections between firearms and domestic violence, how the court’s use of originalism in both New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen and Rahimi fails survivors, and how vulnerable women and children will bear the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision to upend legal precedent on a whim.
“If not for the Bruen decision last year, an effective and lifesaving gun safety law that has been on the books for almost 30 years would not be questioned by this activist Supreme Court,” said Sabrina Talukder, director of the Women’s Initiative and author of the column. “Evaluating a law’s legitimacy that disproportionately affects women through the prism of a time when women weren’t full citizens would result in absurd and—as Rahimi shows—fatal consequences.”
Read the column: “The Supreme Court Case United States v. Rahimi Underscores the Ugly Truth About Originalism and Women” by Sabrina Talukder
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Sarah Nadeau at email@example.com.