Today, the US Supreme Court decided United States v. Castleman
, No. 12-1371, a case involving the interpretation of the federal statute restricting gun ownership by a person convicted of "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9). The Court holds unanimously that this includes a state conviction for "having 'intentionally or knowingly cause[d] bodily injury to' the mother of his child," reversing the Sixth Circuit. There is some disagreement on how much further the statute reaches.
What about the Second Amendment?
Finally, Castleman suggests--in a single paragraph--that we should read §922(g)(9) narrowly because it implicates his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But Castleman has not challenged the constitutionality of §922(g)(9), either on its face or as applied to him, and the meaning of the statute is sufficiently clear that we need not indulge Castleman's cursory nod to constitutional avoidance concerns.
Now there's a public spanking for an inadequate argument, but no precedent on the Second Amendment question.
For today's oral argument session, the Court is hearing Wood
. Aside from its interesting name (placing it in a category with the famous Plough
) the case is about
qualified immunity for Secret Service agents who were sued for thinking that demonstrators against the President just might pose a greater threat than demonstrators for him and acting accordingly.Update
: Adam Liptak has this article
in the NYT on the argument, noting that some of the justices urged the lawyer for the government to take a bolder position than the one he was taking.