The Supreme Court of the United States (by Mindaugas Dulinskas via Getty Images).Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here. Thanks!
Yesterday and today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a total of nine opinions. We’re still waiting on about a dozen cases—including some blockbusters, such as the Trump immunity case and the challenges to Chevron deference—so stay tuned.
This morning, the Court did issue its eagerly awaited opinion in United States v. Rahimi. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts that was joined in full by seven other justices, the Court rejected a facial challenge to the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8). In plain English, as summarized nicely by Amy Howe on the indispensable liveblog of SCOTUSblog, the Court held “that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
The Chief’s opinion ran a concise 18 pages. The remaining opinions—concurrences from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, plus a dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas—took the total to 103 pages.
I’m attending and speaking at a conference today, so I probably won’t get to dig through the Rahimi opinions until tonight. But I will do so, and then I’ll share my thoughts in this weekend’s edition of my Judicial Notice news roundup.
Perhaps you can give me a head start. What jumps out at you from Rahimi? Which justice’s opinion do you find most persuasive? What are the implications of Rahimi for the future of the Second Amendment? Please share your thoughts in the comments of this Notice and Comment post—open to all, not just paid subscribers.
My last two N&C posts, about the conviction of Donald Trump and the Flag-gate controversy involving Justice Alito, generated a total of more than 400 comments. And based on those comments, it’s clear that you’re opinionated, smart, well-informed, and civil (at least by internet standards).
So please, have at it in the comments to this post. I look forward to your insights.
P.S. I also look forward to the thoughts of Sarah Isgur and David French of Advisory Opinions, one of my favorite podcasts. They broke down the Thursday opinions here, and they’ll have analysis of the Friday opinions later today.
AO is part of The Dispatch, one of my favorite publications. If you’d like to check it out, here’s a special offer for readers of Original Jurisdiction:
The Dispatch: Home for the Politically Homeless.
Are you tired of sensationalized news that prioritizes outrage? Consider signing up for The Dispatch.
The Dispatch provides engaged citizens with fact-based reporting and commentary on law, policy, and culture—informed by conservative principles. More importantly, they created a community and forum for intelligent discussion among the “politically homeless” that’s one of the more high-minded comments sections on the Internet.
Join 400,000+ loyal readers and make The Dispatch your news home.
Original Jurisdiction readers: Claim your exclusive 30-day, all-access FREE trial today.
Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; (3) transcripts of podcast interviews; and (4) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below.
Share
Subscribe now