Guns, Judges, and Trump
Rebecca L. Brown, University of Southern California
Lee Epstein, Washington University in St. Louis
Mitu Gulati, University of Virginia

Duke Law Journal Online 74: 81-109 (2025)
Click here for the article.
Click here for the Online Appendix.

Abstract
The Second Amendment landscape is widely perceived to have changed as a result of two cases, District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. But how much did it change and in what ways? Empirical work on these questions has been sparse. This Essay reports on a preliminary look at the data.Although this is a developing story, the impact of these cases appears to have been substantial, and not only by increasing the sheer number of gun cases in the courts. More significant is the way that the Court’s new historical test for assessing gun regulations has provided lower courts with so little guidance that enforcement of gun rights has displayed a significant degree of partisanship. The data calls into question the Court’s claim to have reduced the discretion of judges in enforcing the Second Amendment.

keywords: Bruen, Trump appointees, Trump judges, Heller, Rahimi, gun rights, gun litigation, Second Amendment, originalism, intermediate scrutiny, means-ends tests, judicial partisanship, judicial ideology, history and tradition, Supreme Court gun decisions, judicial careerism, promotion effects

Full Citation:

Rebecca L. Brown, Lee Epstein, and Mitu Gulati. Guns, Judges, and Trump. 74 Duke Law Journal Online 81–109 (2025).

<a href="https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=dlj_online">Download PDF</a>