The Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously bolstered the federal law that bars those convicted of domestic violence from possessing a firearm.

The court gave a wide interpretation of the law’s requirement of “physical force.” The federal government said that was important because in some states, misdemeanor domestic-violence laws are not specific about the force required.

The case was brought by James Alvin Castleman, who was charged with selling firearms on the black market. He was charged with violating the federal firearms law because he had pleaded guilty in Tennessee to misdemeanor domestic violence, meaning he had “intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury” to the mother of his child.

Because the federal law requires the “use or attempted use of physical force” and Tennessee’s misdemeanor domestic-violence law does not, a district judge agreed with Castleman that the federal charges should be dismissed. The judge said the federal law requires “violent contact with the victim.”

An appeals court agreed that violent physical force was necessary to prosecute under the federal law.

But the court, in an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said that was too literal a definition.

“Minor uses of force may not constitute ‘violence’ in the generic sense,” Sotomayor wrote. But even squeezing someone’s arm to the point of causing bruises “is easy to describe as ‘domestic violence,’ when the accumulation of such acts over time can subject one intimate partner to the other’s control.”

Further evidence of Congress’s intent, Sotomayor wrote, is that Castleman’s reading of the federal law would have made it ineffective at the time it was enacted. That is because 10 states did not have the physical force requirement in their domestic-violence laws.

All of the justices agreed with the outcome of the case. But Justice Antonin Scalia said that when his colleagues define domestic violence too broadly, they “impoverish the language.”

“When everything is domestic violence, nothing is,” Scalia wrote. “Congress will have to come up with a new word (I cannot imagine what it would be) to denote actual domestic violence.”

The case is U.S. v. Castleman.

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
The Democrats debate Thursday. Get caught up on the race.
The big questions after New Hampshire, from The Post's Dan Balz
Can Bernie Sanders cut into Hillary Clinton's strength in the minority community and turn his challenge into a genuine threat? And can any of the Republicans consolidate anti-Trump sentiment in the party in time to stop the billionaire developer and reality-TV star, whose unorthodox, nationalistic campaign has shaken the foundations of American politics?
Clinton in New Hampshire: 2008 vs. 2015
Hillary Clinton did about as well in N.H. this year as she did in 2008, percentage-wise. In the state's main counties, Clinton performed on average only about two percentage points worse than she did eight years ago (according to vote totals as of Wednesday morning) -- and in five of the 10 counties, she did as well or better.
Upcoming debates
Feb. 11: Democratic debate

on PBS, in Wisconsin

Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.