The US Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Tuesday in a highly consequential case that could have life-or-death implications for thousands of domestic abuse victims and their families, according to a report by The Guardian. Gun and domestic violence prevention groups are warning that the outcome of United States v Rahimi could determine the extent to which the court's new hard-right supermajority will unravel the country's already lenient gun laws, while the nation grapples with a string of devastating mass shootings.

At the heart of the case is a federal law that prohibits individuals under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms. Advocates are seeking clarification on whether this law violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Experts highlight that if the law is deemed unconstitutional, it could put the lives of thousands of Americans, particularly women, at risk of gun violence perpetrated by their current or former intimate partners.

The prospect that removing guns from individuals deemed a domestic violence threat could be ruled unconstitutional has raised alarm among organizations studying the issue. Kelly Roskam, the director of law and policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, has co-authored an amicus brief for the Rahimi case, outlining the potential consequences of dismantling the law. Roskam emphasizes the crucial role of domestic violence civil protective orders in protecting victims, expressing concerns that blocking such orders would primarily endanger women's lives.

Startling statistics further underscore the urgency of this issue. According to the gun control group Brady, between 2018 and 2020, 739 people were shot and killed each year by their intimate partners, the majority of whom were women. Research conducted across 11 cities indicates that the presence of a gun in a household increases the likelihood of an abused woman being fatally shot by a male partner fivefold. Shockingly, an estimated one million women in the United States have either been shot or threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.

Moreover, there is a disturbing link between domestic violence and mass shootings. A study by Lisa Geller from the Johns Hopkins Center found that between 2014 and 2019, 68% of gunmen involved in mass shootings had a history of domestic violence or had killed at least one intimate partner or family member during the shooting.

The fact that a case as extreme as Rahimi's has reached the Supreme Court is largely attributable to the conservative justices' previous rulings. In 2022, the court's six conservative justices, three of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump, voted as a bloc in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen to expand the right to carry handguns in public. This decision introduced a new standard to evaluate the constitutionality of gun laws, requiring a "historical tradition" to support regulations related to public safety.

However, the interpretation of this "historical tradition" has sparked confusion in federal courts across the country. Some judges have struggled to determine how closely modern laws should align with historical norms. This lack of clarity has also affected the domestic violence gun ban. While nine out of twelve federal courts have declared the ban constitutional, three have ruled it a violation of the Second Amendment. The Rahimi case originated from the fifth circuit court of appeals, which subsequently reversed its previous decision and deemed the ban unconstitutional.

Gun and domestic violence groups are urging the Supreme Court to reject the fifth circuit's narrow interpretation of "historical tradition," pointing out that historically there have been instances of confiscating firearms from individuals deemed dangerous. They argue against a literal interpretation, noting that during the nation's founding, husbands were allowed to physically discipline their wives under the common law of "chastisement."

Kelly Roskam remains cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will uphold the law, while anticipating the potential consequences of an adverse ruling given the court's new hard-right supermajority. She fears that if the law is struck down, it could lead to a situation where abuse victims no longer have faith in the legal system to protect them. A ruling against the domestic violence gun ban could result in heightened fear and insecurity for many individuals living in abusive relationships.