Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Have courts struck down any state red flag laws and why?
Executive Summary
Courts have produced a mixed record on state “red flag” laws: some challenges have been rejected while legal uncertainty persists after the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment rulings and subsequent federal decisions. Appeals courts have upheld at least one major state red flag law, and the Supreme Court has simultaneously upheld certain federal firearms restrictions, creating a legal landscape where red flag statutes remain largely intact but vulnerable to future challenges [1] [2] [3].
1. A Big Win for New York — Appeals Court Upholds the Law
An appeals court affirmed New York’s red flag framework, ruling that judges may issue orders preventing individuals deemed dangerous from purchasing or possessing firearms. This decision directly rejects the notion that courts have broadly struck down state red flag laws, demonstrating judicial willingness to sustain such measures when statutory procedures are followed and state law supports them [1]. The ruling, rendered in March 2024, came after nationwide judicial attention to firearm restrictions following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision; it indicates that not all post-Bruen litigation results in overturning state gun-safety statutes. Advocates for red flag laws point to this ruling as evidence that properly tailored statutes can survive constitutional scrutiny, while opponents continue to pursue challenges in other jurisdictions.
2. Supreme Court Moves Have Reshaped Litigation Risks
The Supreme Court’s post-Bruen jurisprudence has expanded Second Amendment protections and prompted federal courts to revisit gun restrictions, producing a string of rulings striking down various state limits on firearms. Yet the Court also upheld a federal law barring domestic abusers from possessing guns, signaling that the high court will allow some targeted regulations tied to demonstrable risk, which bears directly on how red flag laws are evaluated [4] [2] [3]. The June 2024 Supreme Court decision limiting its earlier expansive ruling created a legal doctrine that distinguishes between categorical bans and risk-focused prohibitions. This doctrinal nuance means red flag laws—framed as temporary, individualized risk orders—may be treated differently than broad statutory bans, but the risk of successful challenges persists.
3. Federal Decisions Provide a Partial Shield but Not Immunity
The Supreme Court’s affirmation of the federal domestic-abuser prohibition provides a partial precedent that authorities cite when defending red flag statutes, because both regimes remove firearms from persons judged to present a threat. The June 2024 rulings have been read by proponents as supporting targeted restrictions grounded in individualized risk assessments [2] [3]. Nonetheless, the broader trend in lower federal courts since Bruen has been to scrutinize gun regulations more strictly, and some courts have invalidated other kinds of state firearm restrictions. Therefore, while the Supreme Court’s domestic-abuser decision offers a favorable data point for defenders of red flag laws, it does not guarantee that every red flag statute will withstand constitutional challenge in every court.
4. State-Level Politics and Legislative Responses Are Shifting the Ground
Alongside litigation, state legislatures are actively reexamining red flag laws; in Michigan, for example, lawmakers have introduced bills aimed at repealing or modifying the state’s extreme-risk order procedures, reflecting partisan and regional divergence on these policies [5]. Legislative pushback creates an alternate path to alter or dismantle red flag frameworks without direct court intervention, and changes in statutory language can be used by courts to reassess constitutionality. Where statutes are tightened to add judicial safeguards or altered to change enforcement mechanics, advocates argue such reforms preserve life-saving tools, while critics claim legislative repeal protects constitutional rights. The interplay between courts and legislatures therefore matters as much as individual judicial opinions.
5. The Bottom Line — No Broad Judicial Repeal Yet, But Uncertainty Remains
The record shows no sweeping judicial invalidation of red flag laws across the states; courts have upheld at least one prominent state law while the Supreme Court has allowed targeted firearm prohibitions to stand, offering a mixed but not catastrophic outcome for these statutes [1] [2]. Still, the broader wave of post-Bruen decisions striking down other gun restrictions underscores a continuing vulnerability: red flag laws survive in some courts but face ongoing challenges in others, and partisan legislative actions add further variability [4] [5]. Policymakers and litigants should treat red flag statutes as durable in certain legal environments but subject to evolving judicial and political conditions, rather than as uniformly settled law.