The month of June typically marks the beginning of summer, but it is also the end of the annual term for the United States Supreme Court. In June the Court typically releases final written decisions on cases heard during the year. This term the Court released several decisions relevant to threat assessment
The case with the most direct impact on our work in threat assessment is United States v. Rahimi. In this case, the Court upheld a federal law that bars anyone subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun.
Two other cases decided this term impose significant limits on the regulatory authority of federal agencies and their ability to conduct enforcement action when addressing regulatory violations.
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo the Justices ruled that courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. The decision held that courts, not regulatory agencies should “decide all relevant questions of law” and “interpret constitutional and statutory provisions.”
In a related case, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, the Court ruled that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. The Court ruled that regulatory agencies cannot impose civil penalties without affording a defendant the right to a jury trial.
While the immediate impact of these decisions is limited to those specific cases this new precedent will likely spawn additional legal challenges to other federal regulations and related enforcement actions for agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and others. The court also made clear that their rulings in these cases were not retroactive and all other current rules and regulations remain in place. These rulings come at a time when state and federal regulatory agencies are taking a harder look at workplace safety issues including workplace violence prevention efforts.
Critics of these decisions claim that the result will be the elimination or weakening of rules and regulations relating to the environment, health care, worker protection, food and drug safety, telecommunications, and finance. Supporters of these decisions claim victory in efforts to restrain a growing administrative state imposing regulations that curtail business activity. We will continue to monitor the impact of these recent decisions.
Protective orders have long been an effective tool in combating both domestic violence and workplace violence. Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) commonly known as “Red Flag” laws have also been effectively utilized as an emergency option to temporarily disarm an individual posing a threat to themselves or others. The decision in Rahimi preserves these valuable tools.
The right to seek such orders is vested in that of the victims or intended targets as well as law enforcement agencies. California is one exception to this rule and recent changes in legislation in that state allow employers to seek Workplace Violence Protection Orders if an employee poses a threat to that organization and other employees. Considering this recent decision organizational threat managers and threat management teams should continue to thoroughly document threats in the workplace. Such documentation will be critical in efforts by law enforcement agencies and other potential targets and victims when seeking Protection Orders.
Let’s take a few minutes to review the details of the Rahimi case.
Zackey Rahimi is a Texas drug dealer convicted of multiple narcotics, assault, and weapons charges. During a violent argument with his then-girlfriend Rahimi violently pushed her into his car causing her head to hit the dashboard. When she attempted to flee Rahimi pulled a gun from his car and fired a shot at an eyewitness. The girlfriend was subsequently granted a civil protection order which was served on Rahimi. The order specifically barred Rahimi from possessing firearms. After being served with the order Rahimi made repeated calls to his girlfriend threatening to shoot her.
After being served with the protective order Rahimi threatened another woman with a gun following a verbal altercation. He was subsequently arrested and charged with aggravated assault. While in custody for this offense police linked him to several other acts of gun violence.
- Rahimi saw a Facebook post made by one of his drug customers complaining about the quality of drugs sold by Rahimi. Enraged, he drove to the customer’s house and fired several rounds from an AR-15 through the front door.
- The next day, after a minor traffic accident, Rahimi emerged from his car and shot at the other driver.
- Several days later, for no apparent reason, while driving through a residential neighborhood, Rahimi fired several shots in the air.
- Several weeks later during a road rage incident, Rahimi fired at another driver.
- Rahimi fired several shots in the air after a companion’s credit card was declined at a fast-food restaurant.
Police executed a search warrant at Rahimi’s apartment and recovered a pistol, a rifle, and ammunition all in plain view next to a copy of the restraining order.
Rahimi was charged with multiple criminal charges and ultimately pleaded guilty to a federal firearms charge and was sentenced of six years in prison. He continued to challenge the law related to restraining orders. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reheard his case and sided with Rahimi.
In this decision, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bars anyone subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun. In an 8-1 vote (Justice Thomas dissenting), the court ruled that such a law is not in violation of the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” This ruling is the first Second Amendment decision since the Court overturned New York’s handgun licensing laws almost two years ago. In that case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the majority ruled that courts should uphold gun restrictions only when there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history. This decision presented challenges for the lower courts which struggled to apply a historical test to gun cases. The Rahimi case appears to be an attempt by the court to provide additional guidance to lower courts in future gun cases.
While this decision upheld restrictions on gun ownership by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders, legal pundits and expert court watchers caution against drawing broader conclusions from this decision. As noted in a lower appellate court decision Rahimi was far from a model citizen.
Although eight justices rejected Rahimi’s challenge, several of them wrote separate concurring opinions to add their views on the Court’s latest interpretation of the “history and tradition” test as articulated in the Bruen decision. Legal pundits and other observers of the Court have offered the opinion that while the justices were united in their opinions of the merits of Rahimi’s case, likely due to the fact of his egregious and highly dangerous behavior, the Court is far from united in its opinion on broader Second Amendment issues. In one concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett referred to the existing federal law banning felons from the possession of firearms. Barrett openly questioned whether such a restriction should apply to felons with no history of violence distinguishing an individual who commits a violent felony such as an aggravated assault from an individual convicted of a white-collar crime such as bank fraud. Barrett questioned whether barring such a nonviolent felon from possessing firearms might be a violation of the Second Amendment. Legal experts have offered the opinion that this matter is far from settled we will likely continue to see additional legal challenges on this issue.
