Anyway, I have not heard the oral arguments but everything I've read agrees with brucejoel99 that Rahimi's case went so disastrously badly that he's basically certain to lose now. Barrett apparently questioned Prelogar about a different case which will go before the Supreme Court next term, Garland v. Range, which is also about applying the Bruen precedent -- but has a much more sympathetic plaintiff (instead of a domestic abuser like Rahimi, Range is an individual accused of making false statements to obtain food stamps; otherwise the fact pattern is similar with a judge issuing an order to disarm the plaintiff). Presumably these will be 'companion cases', where Rahimi loses but Range wins.
(Like, my understanding is that the best case scenario for Rahimi is the Court voting to vacate and remand in light of a pro-gun decision in Range.)
I don't think they'll have to hear
Range (yet) with a broad
Rahimi opinion echoing ACB's
Kanter dissent that THT confirms restricting sufficiently adjudicated
violent offenders, with
Range then GVR'd in light of
Rahimi.
EDIT: oh wait, it's the government appealing the overturning of a nonviolent restriction in
Range, so they could presumably just decide to grant post-
Rahimi & issue a quick per curiam affirming the 3rd Circuit's holding as binding nationwide precedent, if they don't wanna bother with the full merits process in light of
Rahimi.
