A Specious Form of Judicial Restraint
- Author(s): Nelson Lund
- Posted: 7-2024
- Legal Studies #: LS 24-16
- Availability: Full text (most recent) on SSRN
ABSTRACT:
When eight members of our disputatious Supreme Court join an opinion on a controversial topic like the Second Amendment, it’s safe to expect a narrow decision. Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion in United States v. Rahimi is indeed narrowly drawn, and this consensus will encourage proponents of strong gun rights to applaud the Court’s restraint.
Every Justice rejected the Biden Administration’s proposal to give legislatures wide latitude to disarm individuals or groups considered by the government to be dangerous or irresponsible. But while the decision certainly could have been worse, we should recognize that the Court misapplied its own precedent and misinterpreted the Second Amendment. Only Justice Clarence Thomas’s solo dissent was genuinely restrained because it alone was faithful to the Constitution.