Private: Supreme Court Sides with Victims, Safety and Justice in Voisine v. United States

by Marium Durrani, Public Policy Attorney, National Network to End Domestic Violence

On June 27^th, the Supreme Court made clear what most people can agree is a pretty uncontroversial idea: that domestic abusers shouldn’t have access to guns. Voisine v. United States  marked a victory celebrated by domestic violence advocates, victims and allies around the country. The Court held that a ‘reckless domestic assault’ is a misdemeanor crime of violence, for the purposes of prohibiting access to firearms.

To understand this case, it’s important to understand the historic passage of the Lautenberg Amendment in 1996, a federal law prohibiting a person who has been convicted of a domestic violence crime from owning a firearm. The corresponding statute, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), states: “It shall be unlawful for any person-who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” The law reflected the reality that many perpetrators of domestic violence are only convicted of misdemeanors. Moreover, studies show these misdemeanor perpetrators often escalate the severity of their abuse over time, and the presence of a firearm can increase chances of homicide by nearly 500 percent. Recently two cases, Castleman and Voisine, have challenged the Lautenberg amendment, seeking to redefine the meaning of what domestic violence is. Each time such cases rise to the Supreme Court, domestic violence advocates wait with bated breath for a decision that could uphold or dismantle an incredible tool used to keep survivors safe.

In 2001, Castleman was charged with “intentionally or knowingly caus[ing] bodily injury” to the mother of his child and then was found selling firearms on the black market. Castleman’s attorneys argued that his abuse was not severe enough to count as domestic violence. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that offensive touching satisfied the “physical force” requirement of the federal statute. This was a victory for victims and their families.

Just as Castleman was resolved, Voisine rose to the Supreme Court. The Voisine case began in 2002 and 2003 for William Armstrong III and Stephen Voisine respectively, when each petitioner was convicted of assaulting their domestic partners. When Voisine was arrested in 2009 for killing a bald eagle, he was charged for violating § 922 (g)(9). In 2010, while enforcement officers searched the Armstrong residence for drugs and drug paraphernalia, they found a stockpile of weapons and ammunition, leading to his conviction under the same federal statute for firearm possession.

Both petitioners appealed, spurring a debate on semantics and mens rea, arguing they were not liable under § 922(g)(9). Voisine and Armstrong reasoned because their prior convictions were based on recklessness, rather than knowing or intentional conduct, their crimes were unsuitable as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence under the federal statute. They appealed their convictions, but the District Court rejected their claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that an offense with a mens rea of recklessness may qualify as a misdemeanor crime of violence under § 922(g)(9). The case was remanded in light of the Castleman case. The First Circuit again upheld the conviction, and on June 27^th the Supreme Court further affirmed this ruling.

The petitioners in both Castleman and Voisine tried to re-interpret the domestic violence firearms prohibitions in order to continue their dangerous and illegal activities. Petitioners in these cases argued that they were not accountable to the statutes under which they were convicted, essentially saying “what I was doing wasn’t really domestic violence.” The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision in Castleman and a 6-2 decision in Voisine, has destroyed their arguments and affirmed that abusers forsake the right to have firearms.

The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) along with other anti-violence organizations submitted an amicus brief in the Voisine case, explaining that an abuser’s pattern of conduct encompasses a wide range of dangerous behaviors that create a complete system of abuse and control. It is incorrect to classify an individual who “recklessly” abuses a partner as acting unintentionally because their actions are deliberate choices, and they are no less culpable than those convicted as acting intentionally. Through the Lautenberg Amendment and the Castleman decision, Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized that a broad definition of domestic violence and coercive control is required to adequately capture the various acts and crimes employed by abusers against their spouses and partners. 

The Voisine opinion clearly states that reckless conduct is not an accident: it involves a deliberate decision to endanger others. Justice Kagan noted that both statutory text and background alike led the Court to the conclusion that reckless assault qualifies under § 922(g)(9): “Reckless assaults, no less than the knowing or intentional ones we addressed in Castleman, satisfy that definition. Further, Congress enacted § 922(g)(9) in order to prohibit domestic abusers convicted under run-of-the-mill misdemeanor assault and battery laws from possessing guns. Because fully two-thirds of such state laws extend to recklessness, construing §922(g)(9) to exclude crimes committed with that state of mind would substantially undermine the provision’s design.”  The Supreme Court opinion states that 35 jurisdictions have assault laws extending to recklessness, and the “petitioners’ reading risks allowing domestic abusers of all mental states to evade 922(g)(9)’s firearms ban.”

Domestic violence often escalates and can be deadly. The Supreme Court, Congress, and state legislatures alike have highlighted this dangerous connection in their decisions and their laws. The Lautenberg Amendment, reaffirmed by Castleman and now Voisine, enshrines vital protections for survivors of violence. Inconsistency and lack of implementation of the prohibition, and remaining loopholes in the law allow certain perpetrators to still possess firearms. A study reviewing every shooting with four or more victims between January 2009 and July 2015 revealed that 76 of the shooters killed a current or former intimate partner, and in at least 21 incidents the shooter had a prior domestic violence charge. It is clear that additional resources and updates to the law are still desperately needed. 

Domestic violence is domestic violence. Perpetrators often try to redefine domestic violence to their partners and the courts by blaming the victim for the abuse and attempting to split hairs about what constitutes abuse. But the Supreme Court has sided with victims, safety and justice in these cases and preserved this vital prohibition.