Two years ago, New York Times columnist David French complains that the Supreme Court has “created a jurisprudential mess that has thrown America’s gun laws into disarray” by saying they “must conform to this nation’s historic tradition of firearms regulation.” French suggests the Court pulled back from the brink last week when it upheld a federal law that disarms people subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
That view is somewhat misleading, as all eight justices who voted to uphold that law plausibly claimed to follow the approach the Court prescribed in the 2022 case. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. BruenStill, French is far from the only Second Amendment advocate who finds the test impractical.
Bruen explicitly rejected the “balance of interests” tests that weighed the burdens of a gun law against its purported benefits—an approach that gave judges the freedom to approve whatever rules they deemed wise. But critics of Bruen argue that it has replaced one kind of unfettered discretion with another, inviting judges to express their personal biases when deciding whether a challenged law is “relevantly similar” to a “historical analogy” identified by the government.
Register for the majority last week United States v RahimiChief Justice John Roberts concluded that “our tradition of firearms regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others” — a description that applies to at least some people covered by the federal ban, including the suspect. in this case. Roberts saw a precedent for that policy in “bail laws,” which required people who were allegedly threatening to post bonds that would be forfeited if they “breached the peace.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion Bruen and the only difference of opinion Rahimi, admitted that the security laws “shared a common justification” with the statute that disarms people based on restraining orders. But he argued that they were not “relevantly comparable” because “they imposed a much less onerous burden.”
Despite this disagreement, Roberts et al. reaffirmed the Bruen test, noting that there is no “dead ringer” or “historical twin,” a requirement that would “suggest a law trapped in amber.” And the fact that the justices disagreed on how to apply a constitutional standard, which happens all the time, does not in itself make it unworkable.
However, in a dissenting opinion, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that “lower courts have difficulty” to Bruen consistently, “dividend in both approach and results.” A new study by three law professors – Rebecca Brown, Lee Epstein and Mitu Gulati – reinforces that impression.
After BruenThey say the number of Second Amendment challenges heard in federal courts has increased, as has the number of successful lawsuits. But they found that “judicial discretion, as measured by partisanship, was not constrained.”
On the contrary, Brown et al. Thus, the similarity between the judges’ conclusions and the party of the president who appointed them has increased. That’s what they conclude Bruen “gives judges significant unguided discretion, which encourages partisan bias.”
Clark Neily of the Cato Institute, who submitted a letter Rahimi criticizing the disputed law on the grounds of due process, argues that the Supreme Court, despite its rejection of the “interest balance analysis,” is essentially taking the same approach under the guise of “text/history/tradition.” He predicts that “pragmatism will play a role enormousif not recognized, play a role in determining the outcomes of the case.”
Yet it seems clear that Bruen has limited judicial discretion in at least some cases. For example, faced with a wave of state laws banning guns from long lists of “sensitive places,” federal judges predictably disagreed on the validity of the administration’s historical analogies, but there was some encouraging consistency between Republican and Democratic appointees.
Despite the disadvantages, the Bruen The test has been undeniably effective in circumventing constitutionally dubious firearms regulations. Whether that counts in his favor depends on whether you view the Second Amendment as an inconvenient relic or as an essential guarantee of a fundamental right.
© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
The post Has SCOTUS replaced one form of unfettered discretion with another in Second Amendment cases? appeared first on Reason.com.
