Supreme Court Delivers Key Second Amendment Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court this week rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of a long-standing federal statute barring individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms — a ruling that underscores the Court’s view that temporary disarmament of demonstrably dangerous individuals remains compatible with the Second Amendment.

In an 8–1 decision, the justices held that when a court determines a person poses a “credible threat” to another’s physical safety, the government may limit that person’s access to firearms. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, noted that, “Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition.”

Roberts also addressed confusion in the lower courts over the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, emphasizing that the Court’s historical framework was never intended to freeze firearms jurisprudence in the 18th century.

“Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber,” Roberts wrote, warning that such a view would leave the Constitution protecting little more than, “muskets and sabers.”

He continued: “Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. For example, if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions of similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations.”

A Busy Term for the High Court — and a Win for Texas

The ruling is only the latest in a string of consequential decisions and interventions as the Court enters a legally and politically charged period leading into the 2026 midterms.

Recently, the Department of Justice under President Donald J. Trump sided squarely with Texas in its redistricting fight, arguing that the state’s newly approved congressional map was not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court’s action, for now, allows Texas to move forward with the Legislature’s new map.

In an amicus brief, Solicitor General John Sauer — representing the Trump administration — urged the justices to overturn the lower court’s ruling that had blocked the map.

“This is not a close case,” Sauer wrote, asserting that the Legislature’s adjustments to five districts were driven by political strategy rather than racial targeting, placing the plan well within constitutional bounds.

His brief also pushed back against the claim that a letter from attorney Harmeet Dhillon had sought to dismantle minority coalition districts. Sauer argued that the lower court “misinterpreted the letter’s meaning; and more importantly, the court misunderstood the letter’s significance to the legislature’s adoption of the 2025 map.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott added redistricting to the Legislature’s agenda shortly after the letter was issued — a move that triggered a dramatic walkout by state Democrats, who fled the state in protest.

The plaintiffs — including voting and immigrant advocacy organizations — insist that Texas reconfigured Black and Latino districts in ways that illegally dilute minority voting strength. But the Supreme Court’s temporary order indicates the justices are giving deference to the state’s political process unless clear evidence proves racial intent.

Redistricting Battles Escalate Nationwide

Texas’ fight is only one of several redistricting clashes unfolding as President Trump prepares for a 2026 congressional landscape that may be less favorable if Democrats can offset GOP gains.

Several states are altering their maps ahead of the midterms:

• California passed a last-minute ballot measure designed to reverse the five seats Republicans gained in Texas.
• Utah enacted a map giving Democrats new advantages.
• Virginia began another redistricting process expected to benefit Democrats.
• Louisiana’s GOP-leaning map awaits Supreme Court review.
• Missouri added a Republican-favored seat.
• Indiana may soon follow, with its legislature weighing new adjustments next month.

Adding to the complexity, the Department of Justice has sued California Gov. Gavin Newsom, arguing the state’s new map was drawn based on unconstitutional racial considerations — a legal stance that sharply contrasts with its defense of Texas.

Justice Samuel Alito has already issued an administrative stay in the California case, and the full Court could issue a definitive ruling at any moment.