Op/Ed: How Supreme Court decides Rahimi case could save or cost lives
The world is a dangerous place to live. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don’t do anything about it. – Albert Einstein
There are two intersecting crises in the United States right now, and our Supreme Court, on Tuesday, Nov. 7, will hear a case that will precipitously affect them both. Those two issues are intimate partner violence (IPV) and gun violence, and how this Supreme Court decides this case will literally save or cost lives.
This is what we know, and have known for some time:
Around 10 million adults in the United States are victims of IPV every year.
An average of 70 women per month are shot and killed by intimate partners.
More than half of female homicide victims are killed by a current or former male intimate partner, with Black and Indigenous women facing the highest domestic violence homicide rates.
Just the presence of a firearm in the home during a domestic violence incident increases the risk of death by 1,000%.
Most mass shootings are related to intimate partner violence and are caused by men with histories of committing domestic violence. Robert Card, a recent mass shooting suspect in Maine, had an active restraining order against him.
Still, this week the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in United States vs. Rahimi, a case that will challenge the constitutionality of an existing federal law (18 USC 922(g)(8)) that bans the possession of firearms by individuals who are subject to a domestic violence protection order. This law has been in effect for nearly 30 years and has been proven to reduce the number of domestic homicides. Its effectiveness and its constitutionality have been previously asked and answered.
But now, there is a new, albeit questionable, Supreme Court jurisprudence in town, and it’s called “originalism.” Last year, the Roberts Court, in a stunning departure from traditional constitutional jurisprudence, decided in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen the constitutionality of laws that regulate firearm possession can only be upheld if there is a proven historical analogy from the time of the Constitution’s framing.
You really did hear that right. Under this new constitutional analysis, the cultural realities of post-colonial America rule, when power was held exclusively by wealthy, white, male landowners, and those populations that were systemically and intentionally excluded — women, enslaved, Indigenous, immigrant, poor, and marginalized populations — had no voice. So, Rahimi will boil down to whether the argument can successfully be made that 18 USC 922(g)(8) fits comfortably in our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations, because America does have a long-standing tradition of unapologetically disarming dangerous individuals.
If we as a country truly care about human rights, equity, inclusion and the protection of the most marginalized and vulnerable communities, watch this constitutional space. We should be concerned about both the motivation behind and the application of “originalism.” In this case, evaluating the constitutionality of a law that is designed to protect primarily women, using a lens fabricated at a time when women were not full citizens, could not own land, vote and were culturally both dependent on and subservient to their husbands, doesn’t just border on the absurd, it’s dangerous. Make no mistake about it, overturning this law will have long-term consequences for the safety and well-being of survivors.
Kerry Hyatt Bennett, JD, is chief legal counsel for the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence and an adjunct professor of law at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis. She was a contributing author of an Amicus brief to the SCOTUS on the Rahimi case on behalf of survivors of domestic violence.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Op/Ed: How Supreme Court decides Rahimi case could save or cost lives
