District of Columbia v. Heller
The Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense at home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement violated it.· AI-written
554 U.S. 570 · No. 07-290 · 2007 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 26, 2008 · argued Mar 18, 2008
Criminal procedure · Miscellaneous criminal procedure
Landmark · Second Amendment rightsStruck down a local ordinance
Majority opinion: Antonin Scalia
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed. District of Columbia lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
District of Columbia was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.
Because of the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave (it is not in any U.S. state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against the states. This point was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), in which it was found that they are.
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia. The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision, the law at issue also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2007 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Antonin ScaliaWrote the majority opinion
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
John StevensWrote a dissent
Stephen BreyerWrote a dissent
Ruth GinsburgJoined a dissent
David SouterJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- District of ColumbiaState (District of Columbia)
- Respondent
- HellerGovernmental employee or job applicant (District of Columbia)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Second Amendment
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
- Struck down
- A local ordinance, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 26, 2008DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. District of Columbia lost.
- Mar 18, 2008ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: reversed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
16 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous criminal procedure, newest first.
- Wolford v. Lopez146 S. Ct. 2032Jun 25, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2032Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- United States v. RahimiLandmark · Second Amendment rights144 S. Ct. 1889Jun 21, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1889Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights8–18–1 band
- Smith v. United States599 U.S. 236Jun 15, 2023 · 599 U.S. 236Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Reed v. Goertz598 U.S. 230Apr 19, 2023 · 598 U.S. 230Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. BruenLandmark · Second Amendment rights141 S. Ct. 2111Jun 23, 2022 · 141 S. Ct. 2111Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights6–36–3 band
- Otis McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.Landmark · Second Amendment rights561 U.S. 742Jun 28, 2010 · 561 U.S. 742Criminal procedureLandmark · Second Amendment rights5–45–4 band
- Charles B. Miller, Superintendent, Pendleton Correctional Facility, et al., v. Richard A. French, et al.530 U.S. 327Jun 19, 2000 · 530 U.S. 327Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Scott Leslie Carmell v. Texas529 U.S. 513May 1, 2000 · 529 U.S. 513Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Patrick Ramirez v. Indiana471 U.S. 147Apr 1, 1985 · 471 U.S. 147Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
- United States v. Miller471 U.S. 130Apr 1, 1985 · 471 U.S. 130Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Waller v. Georgia467 U.S. 39May 21, 1984 · 467 U.S. 39Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Payne v. Madigan, Warden366 U.S. 761Jun 5, 1961 · 366 U.S. 761Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
- New York v. O'Neill359 U.S. 1Mar 2, 1959 · 359 U.S. 1Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- United States v. Sharpnack355 U.S. 286Jan 13, 1958 · 355 U.S. 286Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Dowd, Warden, v. United States ex rel. Cook340 U.S. 206Jan 2, 1951 · 340 U.S. 206Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Haupt v. United States330 U.S. 631Mar 31, 1947 · 330 U.S. 631Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.