Skip to content
The Nexus
DossierENTITY

United States v. Rahimi

Coverage of United States v. Rahimi in the Nexus archive.

Earliest in view: May 29 · 13:30 UTCMost recent: Jun 22 · 13:30 UTC
Co-mentioned in this coverage
Neil Gorsuchperson2Ketanji Brown Jacksonperson2Samuel Alitoperson1Ali Hemaniperson1United States v. Hemanitopic118 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)topic1New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruentopic1Supreme Courtorganization1Learning Resources v. Trumptopic1Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPAtopic1Brett Kavanaughperson1common sensetopic1
Recent coverage
  • POLITICSJun 22 · 13:30 UTCSCOTUSBLOG
    Hemani: proving the reason, not just naming it

    In United States v. Hemani, Justices Gorsuch, Jackson, and Alito agreed the government failed to prove its justification for disarming Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), citing his marijuana use. The case hinges on Second Amendment protections and the requirement for the government to demonstrate a permissible reason tied to the defendant's conduct, as established by precedents like Bruen and Rahimi.

  • POLITICSMay 29 · 13:30 UTCSCOTUSBLOG
    The Supreme Court’s common sense problem

    The Supreme Court increasingly uses 'common sense' reasoning in legal decisions, as seen in cases like Learning Resources v. Trump (tariffs), Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA (standing), and United States v. Rahimi (Second Amendment). Justices, including Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson, have expressed skepticism about this approach, highlighting its subjective nature and potential to reflect controversial intuitions about governance.