The US Supreme Court’s fractured decision in the latest big gun rights case shows the justices can’t quite agree on how to use history and tradition to analyze the constitutionality of firearm restrictions.
Friday’s ruling in United States v. Rahimi elicited separate writings from seven of the nine justices and only one was a dissent. Legal scholars say concurrences on both sides of the ideological line show there’s a rigorous debate going on over a legal theory that the court’s conservative majority has embraced in recent years.
“They’re not even disputing what the history and tradition that ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.