Supreme Court Upholds Temporary Firearm Restrictions in Key Second Amendment Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a major Second Amendment decision this week, ruling that the federal government may temporarily bar individuals from possessing firearms if a court has determined they pose a credible threat to another person’s physical safety.

In an 8–1 decision, the Court held that such temporary disarmament is consistent with the Constitution’s protections — a ruling that underscores the Court’s view that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of individuals adjudicated as dangerous to retain access to weapons.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, anchored the decision in longstanding historical precedent. He noted, “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 emphasized that the Court’s post-Bruen jurisprudence has been misapplied by several lower courts. He wrote, “Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.”

If taken to that extreme, he warned, the Second Amendment would protect nothing more than “muskets and sabers.”

Roberts added that “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.”

Redistricting Battles Intensify Nationwide as Trump Administration Weighs In

The Court’s Second Amendment ruling comes as the Supreme Court remains at the center of several high-stakes legal fights across the country — including a major redistricting clash in Texas.

On Monday, the Department of Justice — now operating under President Donald Trump — filed a brief supporting Texas in its ongoing dispute over congressional redistricting. The DOJ argued that the map approved by the Texas Legislature does not amount to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The move signals that, at least for now, Texas is cleared to proceed with its newly drawn districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, urged the Court to reverse a lower-court order that blocked the map. In his filing, Sauer argued the case was straightforward, writing: “This is not a close case.”

He maintained that the Legislature’s adjustments to five districts were motivated by political strategy — not race — and therefore fall well within constitutional bounds. The lower court, he said, gravely misunderstood both the letter sent to lawmakers and its significance to the legislative process.

Shortly after that letter was issued, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott added redistricting to the Legislature’s agenda. Democrats famously fled the state in protest, temporarily halting legislative activity.

The plaintiffs — made up of several voting and immigrant-rights groups — claim that the letter encouraged lawmakers to dissolve coalition districts and re-concentrate Black and Latino voters elsewhere. Sauer countered 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.”

A National Redistricting Showdown

Texas is not alone. As President Trump prepares for the 2026 cycle, states across the country are redrawing their political maps — with enormous implications for control of the U.S. House.

• California voters approved a ballot measure that would blunt the five-seat Republican gain expected in Texas.
• Utah adopted a new map favoring Democrats.
• Virginia has begun a redraw expected to benefit Democrats.
• Louisiana awaits Supreme Court review of a GOP-friendly map.
• Missouri added a Republican-leaning district.
• Indiana lawmakers are considering similar action next month.

In a surprising twist, the Department of Justice filed suit against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s new map, alleging it was unconstitutionally driven by race — a legal position that contrasts sharply with its argument in the Texas case.

Justice Samuel Alito has issued an administrative stay on one of the lower-court rulings, and the full Supreme Court is expected to hand down a definitive decision on Texas’s map at any time.

As the fight over redistricting accelerates, the Court’s influence over the political landscape remains undeniable — and the stakes heading into 2026 continue to rise.