The Supreme Court faced the Second Amendment gun mess it made

Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. We’re in the final stretch of the Supreme Court term, with Donald Trump’s immunity appeal still undecided and the court ending this week with the long-awaited Second Amendment ruling in United States v. Rahimi. The justices upheld a commonsense law that was only in doubt because of the GOP-appointed majority’s recent gun rights expansion.

People posing credible domestic violence threats can be disarmed, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in Rahimi. That reversed a right-wing appeals court panel that said otherwise, though the lower court had said it was just applying the high court’s 2022 Bruen ruling, which seemingly doomed a host of gun laws. So this law, barring gun possession for people subject to restraining orders, is now safe, but the appeal was a problem of the Roberts Court’s creation.

Notably, Bruen’s author, Justice Clarence Thomas, was the lone dissenter in Rahimi. He argued that the law is inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s “text and historical understanding.” Is Thomas misreading his own precedent? Is he trying to expand it? Are his colleagues misreading it or trying to make it reasonable somehow? Whatever the answers to these questions, we learned that there are limits to how far even this court will go on guns, which is more cause for relief than celebration.

After all, this court just last week unleashed “deadly consequences” in the bump stock case, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent warned. That ruling in Garland v. Cargill gave Congress the chance to ban the deadly devices. But true to form, Republicans blocked that legislation this week.

Meanwhile, Trump ally Steve Bannon wants the justices to keep him free pending his contempt of Congress appeal. A divided appellate panel in Washington rejected his attempt Thursday, but a dissenting Trump-appointed judge thinks the MAGA podcaster should stay out for now. We could learn next week if the high court will keep Bannon free or make him go to prison July 1.

Trump himself benefited from an unnecessary hearing Friday in his classified documents case. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon heard a long-shot bid attacking special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment as unlawful. Strangely, she let outside parties weigh in at the hearing. Whatever she rules — whenever she rules — it’s an issue she could’ve rejected without a hearing. Once again, the case moves slowly without a trial date in any of Trump’s three pending criminal cases, as his fourth nears sentencing in New York on July 11.

Looking ahead, the Supreme Court is next set to hand down opinions Wednesday and may do so Thursday and Friday as well. There are several significant cases left on immunity, abortion and more. The justices usually wrap up in late June, but a glut of heavy decisions is piling up. So next week’s newsletter could mark a SCOTUS finale or a prelude to a rare July run.

Have any questions or comments for me? I’d love to hear from you! Please email deadlinelegal@nbcuni.com for a chance to be featured in a future newsletter.

This article was originally published on MSNBC.com