United States v. Rahimi

The Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi rejected the idea that the Second Amendment is 'trapped in amber,' a metaphor now widely used in constitutional law. The phrase originated in 1974 with Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent in Richardson v. Ramirez but has since been adopted by conservative justices like Neil Gorsuch. The metaphor challenges the notion of fixed legal principles, reflecting a shift toward living constitutionalism.

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.

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.