The Supreme Court last month upheld a law that prohibited gun ownership by individuals under domestic violence restraining orders.

That case — United States v. Rahimi — has since been incorporated by the Department of Justice in District Attorney Rob Greene’s Second Amendment medical marijuana challenge.

“The Supreme Court explained that ‘some courts have misunderstood the methodology’ of recent Supreme Court Second Amendment cases as requiring an exact historical match between a modern firearms law and a historical law, but ‘[t]hese precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber,'” the Department of Justice said in a July 19 filing in federal district court.

Greene’s counsel via the Second Amendment Foundation argued that the Rahimi decision only imposed prohibitions “occurring after a hearing where the defendant is provided due process, and when the court order

includes a finding that the individual ‘represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [an] intimate partner.'”

That response notes that Greene’s situation “does not provide for any form of due process, either pre- or post-deprivation, the prohibition is permanent for as long as the individual utilizes a controlled substance, and there exists no nexus between an unlawful user of a controlled substance and the establishment that the

an individual poses a physical threat to another.”

A case out of Delaware was also cited by the DOJ as part of an argument against a pending request for a preliminary injunction in the case.

“The Third Circuit explained: ‘Preliminary injunctions are not automatic. Rather, tradition and precedent have long reserved them for extraordinary situations,'” the DOJ’s filing states.

In that case, the filing states, the plaintiffs sought “to enjoin enforcement of two democratically enacted state laws. Courts rightly hesitate to interfere with exercises of executive or legislative authority.”