Your gun rights depend on which judge you get
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
The number of gun-rights cases in the U.S. has skyrocketed since the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022, according to a new paper from law professors Rebecca Brown, Lee Epstein and Mitu Gulati.
Why it matters: The ruling in Bruen said courts should only uphold restrictions on the Second Amendment if there's a long history of similar regulations. That has given attorneys fresh avenues to challenge a slew of gun laws.
- "Every lawyer defending clients on a gun related claim must consider whether they have a Second Amendment defense," the paper states.
By the numbers: Federal courts handed down 865 gun-rights decisions in 2023, up from 121 in 2021.
- In the post-Bruen era, 11% of cases have come down in favor of gun rights, up from just 3% before the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.
- Republican appointees are slightly more likely to find in favor of gun rights: They now do so in 14% of decisions, compared to 8% for Democratic appointees.
What they found: Judges appointed by President Trump are much more likely to find in favor of gun rights. That's especially true if they're under the age of 55 and deciding cases that will be "reported" — that is, published in a regional or federal book of cases.
- Judges under 55 are considered to be "auditioners" — that is, they're looking to receive promotions. In reported cases, they find in favor of gun rights a whopping 61% of the time.
Between the lines: After Bruen increased judicial discretion in gun cases, the authors write, "perhaps the Trump judges were taking the opportunity to signal to Trump that they support his agenda."
- "Bruen not only widened partisan divides but also gave license to judges to pursue careerist goals."
The latest: The high court's most recent gun-rights ruling, in United States v. Rahimi, "does not portend a greater degree of determinacy for future cases," per the authors. In some ways, it only increases the amount of discretion given to individual judges by Bruen.
The bottom line: The paper concludes: "Bruen has fueled, rather than settled, partisan divide over a fundamental constitutional right."
