Judge Stephanie Davis, who was nominated by President Biden to the Sixth Circuit court of appeals, wrote a unanimous decision that upheld the federal law that prohibits firearms possession for anyone subject to a domestic violence restraining order, even when the order does not include a specific finding that the individual poses a threat to another person’s physical safety, as was the case in the Supreme Court’s recent Rahimi ruling. The October 2024 decision was in United States v Conbs.
.
What happened in this case?
In 2022, a Kentucky family court entered an order restraining Sherman Combs from harassing or threatening his ex-wife. The order also made clear that he should not purchase or possess firearms, which would violate federal law. Several days later, however, Combs purchased a .357 caliber revolver and, less than a week later, texted and called his ex-wife in violation of the restraining order. When he was arrested for violating the order, Combs admitted that he had a revolver in a holster on his right hip.
A federal grand jury indicted Combs for possessing firearms while subject to a domestic violence order, in violation of federal law. Combs moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that the law was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. A Kentucky federal district court agreed and dismissed the indictment. The federal government took the case to the Sixth Circuit.
Argued
How did Judge Davis and the Sixth Circuit rule and why is it important?
Judge Davis wrote a unanimous opinion that reversed the lower court and upheld the federal law. The case was sent back to the lower court so that the indictment against Combs can proceed.
Initially, Judge Davis explained that in a 2024 case decided after Bruen, the Supreme Court had upheld a federal law that prohibits someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order from buying or possessing a gun. Combs argued that the specific statute in Rahimi, however, required “express findings of credible threats” by the person restrained towards the person protected by the restraining order, which were not present in the statute and the record in Combs’ case.
Judge Davis wrote that this difference “is of no consequence.” The Court in Rahimi, she noted, stated that it had “no need” to decide whether the specific section of the law under which Combs was indicted was also constitutional. Both sections she went on, provide someone like Combs notice and opportunity to be heard with respect to claims that they are dangerous and both contain prohibitions against harassing, threatening, or taking other action that “would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury.” The “historic and ‘common sense’ tradition that allows the disarmament” of someone who poses a ‘clear threat of physical violence to another” applies in this case, she concluded, just as it did on Rahimi.
Judge Davis’ opinion is obviously important to the ex-wife of Sherman Combs and to the government’s effort to ensure that he does not possess firearms. It is also significant in other potential cases against people subject to a domestic violence restraining order without a specific finding of particular threats by the restrained individual. In addition, the decision serves as a reminder of the importance of promptly confirming fair-minded judges to our federal courts