Clarence Thomas Finds Himself Alone Before Pivotal Gun Rights Case

Clarence Thomas was the only member of the Supreme Court who was willing to block a lower court's ruling that prevented the enforcement of a Missouri law limiting local authorities' cooperation in enforcing federal gun laws.

The Supreme Court rejected an emergency request from the state of Missouri to block a federal judge's decision that federal gun laws supersede a state law aimed at limiting the enforcement of federal law.

The court's decision comes ahead of what could be a pivotal gun rights case, where the justices will be asked to rule on the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic abuse restraining orders.

Thomas indicated that he would have granted Missouri's request in the brief order issued by the court on Friday, but didn't provide any written explanation for why he would have done so.

The Missouri state statute says that no one in the state has the authority to "enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances infringing on the right to keep and bear arms."

The law also allows gun owners to sue police officers and state and local officials if they assist in the enforcement of federal restrictions outlined in the statute.

Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch agreed with the majority in refusing to grant Missouri's request, but Gorsuch, in a brief opinion joined by Alito, suggested that state officials could still potentially be sued under the state's law because those officials aren't bound by the federal judge's ruling.

The Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has been strongly supportive of gun rights and will hear another possible major Second Amendment case next month.

On November 7, the court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, where Texas man Zackey Rahimi is asking the justices to decide if a federal law prohibiting firearms possession by people under domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment.

It remains to be seen if Friday's decision will have any bearing on the court's ruling in Rahimi. It might not publish an opinion on the matter until toward the end of the judicial term next year.

However, the court expanded gun rights in its ruling last year in the landmark case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The justices ruled 6-3 that a New York state law requiring a person to show proper cause when applying for a concealed carry permit for a firearm was unconstitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Thomas, who is the longest-serving member of the present court and the most senior conservative.