Hunter Biden could emerge as a potential beneficiary of a Supreme Court ruling, which could significantly impact his ongoing legal battle.
What Happened: The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday, in the case of United States v. Rahimi, could potentially bolster Biden’s challenge to the federal law that prohibits drug users from owning firearms, reported Politico. The ruling, which was 8-1, leaves a clear path for Biden’s challenge and even includes language that could strengthen it.
The case in question involved a provision of a federal gun-control law that prohibits individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms, which is similar to the drug prohibition that Biden was found guilty of violating.
Biden’s legal team had been closely monitoring the Rahimi case, hoping that a ruling against the domestic-violence provision would also invalidate the drug-users provision. Although this did not happen, the language in the court’s ruling could still be beneficial to Biden’s case.
Despite the political implications, Biden could emerge as a strong Second Amendment plaintiff, given the circumstances of his case. The court’s ruling suggests that they expect to handle more Second Amendment cases in the future, and Biden’s case could be a significant test of the constitutionality of the drug provision, the report noted.
See Also: Trump Is Now Singing A Different Tune: Goes From Calling Cream City ‘Horrible’ To ‘I Love Milwaukee’
Chief Justice John Roberts highlighted in his majority opinion that the court was only authorizing the confiscation of guns from individuals who a judge had deemed to pose a danger to others. This distinction could potentially work in Biden’s favor.
“[W]e reject the Government's contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not ‘responsible,'” Roberts wrote, adding, “‘Responsible’ is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail.”
Peter Tilem, a criminal defense lawyer and former Manhattan gun prosecutor, stated that this line is a positive indicator for Biden. Tilem said that if he were representing Biden, he would advise him to challenge the constitutionality of the drug-user ban.
“This is a little-used statute,” he said, “and I would certainly think that he has a very strong claim.”
Why It Matters: Biden is expected to be sentenced in October, after which he can appeal his conviction. If he chooses to do so, he could revive his constitutional challenge, a legal position that would put him at odds with his father’s gun-control agenda.
Earlier in June, two Republican congressmen challenged Biden’s conviction, arguing that millions of marijuana users own guns and should not be jailed for purchasing or possessing a firearm against current laws.
“Hunter might deserve to be in jail for something, but purchasing a gun is not it,” wrote Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on X, formerly Twitter.
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) also questioned the validity of the conviction, though he did not directly connect it to marijuana reform. “The Hunter Biden gun conviction is kinda dumb tbh,” Gaetz wrote after the verdict.
Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.
Image Via Flickr
© 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Comments
Trade confidently with insights and alerts from analyst ratings, free reports and breaking news that affects the stocks you care about.
