United States v. Gordon, 137 F.4th 1153

Defendants Gordon and Brown were each subject to domestic-violence protective orders in Utah explicitly prohibiting them from possessing firearms and from committing or threatening physical violence against intimate partners.
Gordon had previously sent threatening messages to his ex-partner and physically harmed his daughter; Brown violently attacked his live-in girlfriend and was later arrested carrying a loaded, stolen firearm.
Both were indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which bars firearm possession by persons subject to certain restraining orders.
They moved to dismiss, arguing that § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) facially violates the Second Amendment, referencing recent decisions in Bruen and Rahimi.
The district court denied their motions; after conditional guilty pleas and appeals, the Tenth Circuit abated pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi and then proceeded after Rahimi was decided.

Issue	Gordon & Brown's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment	Only explicit court findings of dangerousness (as in (C)(i)), not just orders prohibiting violence (as in (C)(ii)), suffice under Rahimi	(C)(ii), like (C)(i), reflects a judicial determination of dangerousness and thus passes constitutional muster	(C)(ii) is not facially unconstitutional; at least some of its applications are valid
Validity of an implicit judicial finding of dangerousness for firearm restriction	Orders lacking explicit findings do not prove present danger; inference is insufficient	Protections orders after hearing inherently involve implied findings of threat, especially under Utah law	No express written finding required; sufficient implicit judicial determination
Application to Utah state law protective orders	Utah law allows too broad an application (i.e., protective orders based on non-violent conduct or remote acts)	Utah law only allows firearm bans upon finding use/possession may pose serious threat of harm	Utah law aligns with constitutional requirements when barring firearm possession

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (set modern Second Amendment framework; historical analogues are key)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (upheld § 922(g)(8)(C)(i) against facial Second Amendment challenge; emphasized historical basis and the temporary, limited, targeted nature of restriction)
United States v. Chapman, 666 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2012) (reasonable inference from protective order itself can satisfy constitutional requirements)