By Kathy Hochul Ms. Hochul is the governor of New York.
The Supreme Court Case That Has Me Worried, for Survivors and for My State
By Kathy Hochul
Ms. Hochul is the governor of New York.
When
my mother turned 70, she had a unique birthday wish. Instead of a party
or a cake, she told our family she needed our help to open a
transitional home for survivors of domestic violence and their children.
She
saw this birthday present as the culmination of a lifetime spent
fighting for survivors of abuse, a journey that began back in the 1970s
when it was commonplace to use terms like “battered women,” and
survivors had few places to turn. A few months after my mom’s birthday,
the Kathleen Mary House opened its doors — named in honor of her mother,
Kathleen Mary, a survivor of domestic abuse.
When
I was born, my mother gave me the name Kathleen Mary, and her lifelong
activism on behalf of survivors made a huge impact on me. The effects of
domestic violence are not limited to a single generation, nor should
our vigilance against it be. That is just one reason I’m so concerned
about the outcome of an upcoming Supreme Court case, United States v.
Rahimi, which next year will decide whether to uphold a gun safety law
that protects survivors of domestic violence.
The
Supreme Court recently announced plans to take up the Rahimi case,
which will most likely rely on the court’s recent Second Amendment
decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In
that case, a majority led by Justice Clarence Thomas overturned New
York’s concealed carry law that had been on the books for more than a
century — claiming 21st-century gun laws should be consistent with an
earlier time, when muskets were common firearms.
In
doing so, the court stripped away a critical tool I had as governor to
keep New Yorkers safe. In New York, we quickly responded with actions to
try to prevent more deadly firearms than ever from flooding our
communities, our businesses, our bars and restaurants and even our
crowded subway cars. One stray word, or sharp elbow, could immediately
have devastating, life-threatening consequences.
Now,
in Rahimi, the Supreme Court will decide whether deadly firearms can
flood the homes of domestic violence survivors. The case arrives at the
court after a decision
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in favor of abusers.
The appeals court decided that government cannot prevent an abusive
individual, against whom a court has issued a domestic violence
protective order, from possessing a deadly firearm.
By
striking down a federal law aimed at protecting survivors of abuse, the
appeals court put forth an outrageous legal theory that claims
individuals with domestic violence orders have a constitutional right to
possess a gun. Using Justice Thomas’s historically focused argument
from Bruenas precedent, the
Supreme Court could rule that domestic violence survivors today deserve
only the protections they had in the 18th century — a time before most
women could own property or work outside the home, let alone vote.
The
stakes could not be higher. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey indicates
that about 41 percent of women and 26 percent of men in the United
States have experienced sexual violence, physical violence or stalking
by an intimate partner and reported being affected by it during their
lifetime. According to U.S. crime reports, about one in five homicide
victims is killed by an intimate partner, and over half of female
homicide victims are killed by a current or former male intimate
partner.
Here in New York, there are
approximately 80,000 serious offenses such as assaults, sex offenses and
violations of orders of protection each year across the state, and data
shows that in New York approximately one in five homicides is related
to domestic violence.
The
Supreme Court has a choice: It can lean into the dangerous Fifth
Circuit theory that guns cannot be regulated for the purpose of
protecting survivors of domestic violence, or it can uphold federal law
that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals.
Before
oral arguments are heard, there’s no way to tell which way the Supreme
Court will rule. The precedent set by Bruen is extraordinarily
troubling. Yet even within the court’s majority in Bruen, there was a
split. Justice Thomas kept his focus on historical arguments. But a
concurrence by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in which Chief Justice John
Roberts joined, left room for certain basic protections, noting that
“properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a ‘variety’ of gun
regulations.”
This concurrence helped
inform New York’s response to Bruen. After New York State’s century-old
gun law was overturned, I took immediate steps to restore protections
from gun violence, including signing new laws to strengthen training and
gun licensing requirements. In the spring of 2022, we bolstered our
state’s red flag laws, getting guns away from people like domestic
abusers who pose a risk to themselves or others and closing loopholes
that made the tragedies in Buffalo and in Uvalde, Texas, possible. As a
result, courts have issued roughly 9,000 extreme-risk orders of
protection in the past year, up from 1,400 in the preceding two and a
half years.
Depending on the scope of
the court’s decision in Rahimi, these protections could be at risk as
well. After a brief spike during the start of the pandemic in 2020, New
York is gradually and steadily returning to prepandemic shooting levels
and has one of the five lowest rates of firearm-related deaths. I’ve
always said public safety is my top priority as governor, and I’m
committed to using every tool at my disposal to keep our communities
safe from gun violence.
An extreme,
out-of-control Supreme Court put gun safety laws at risk in Bruen.
Across America, survivors of domestic abuse will now wait in fear to see
whether Justice Kavanaugh and his colleagues deem laws that protect
survivors to “properly” interpret the Constitution.
I
can only imagine what my late mother would say about these judicial
attacks on survivors of abuse. But in her honor, and on behalf of all
New Yorkers, I’ll never stop fighting for justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment