US v Rahimi

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court decision in US v Rahimi upheld a federal gun control law that makes it a crime for people with an Order of Protection against them by a spouse or partner to possess a firearm. This decision provides affirmation and security to domestic and sexual violence survivors in Missouri and across the country.

In the opinion drafted by Justice Roberts, he writes, “We conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”

When perpetrators of violent crimes have access to firearms, they are more likely to kill their partners than perpetrators who do not. According to Everytown Reporting, domestic violence perpetrators with firearms are five times more likely to kill their female victims. The decision in the case of US v Rahimi helps promote the safety of victims of domestic and sexual violence by removing the perpetrator’s right to possess a firearm.

The Supreme Court decision does not directly change Missouri’s law, which does not require that a person convicted of a domestic violence offense surrender firearms following the conviction or a protective order. The decision in the case of US v Rahimi provides protections for survivors accessing Orders of Protection in other states.

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v Johnson

The Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v Johnson on June 28, 2024, upholds ordinances in Grants Pass Oregon that prohibit people who are experiencing homelessness from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within city limits. The 6-3 decision found that criminalizing homelessness did not violate the US Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The decision in the case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v Johnson allows state and local governments to punish people for experiencing homelessness.

Many people experiencing homelessness have also experienced domestic or sexual violence within their lifetime. More than 90% of homeless women experience severe physical or sexual abuse at some point in their lives, and 63% have been victims of domestic or sexual violence. Limited housing options for people experiencing domestic violence and/or homelessness

In 2022, Missouri passed a similar law, making it illegal for people experiencing homelessness to sleep or camp on state-owned property. The law was ultimately considered unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court. The decision in the case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v Johnson provides Missouri the opportunity to resubmit a similar law.

Browne, A. 1998. “Responding to the Needs of Low Income and Homeless Women Who are Survivors of Family Violence.” Journal of American Medical Women’s Association. 53(2): 57-64

Moyle v. United States & Idaho v. United States

The Supreme Court dismissed the case of Moyle v. United States & Idaho v. United States, in which Idaho challenged the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act and doctor’s abilities to provide abortions to mothers experiencing life-threatening emergencies. Idaho law completely bans abortion with the only exception being to prevent a pregnant person’s death. The ban does not contain exceptions for preventing grave harm to the person’s health.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law that requires hospitals with emergency departments to provide care to anyone who needs it. The United States sued Idaho under EMTALA which requires Medicare-funded hospitals to provide stabilizing treatments to patients experiencing medical emergencies. Idaho’s strict abortion ban potentially prevented doctors from performing abortion care on patients who need an abortion to prevent serious health harm.  

The case was dismissed and sent back to the appeals court. Idaho doctors will be able to perform emergency abortions while the case makes its way through the courts.

Missouri law bans all abortions, with no exception for rape and incest. Abortions are allowed for medical emergencies that threaten the life of the pregnant person or “create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” Under the EMTALA law, Missourians experiencing life-threatening injury or illness can receive an abortion to prevent death, to stabilize the patient’s health, or to prevent grave harm to the patient’s health.

Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food & Drug Administration

The Supreme Court upheld the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for distributing Mifepristone, a commonly used abortion bill, by mail and telemedicine in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food & Drug Administration. In a 9-0 ruling, the justices found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.

The continued access to Mifepristone allows survivors of domestic and sexual violence in states where abortion is legal to access care for unwanted pregnancies.

Survivors of domestic and sexual violence often experience reproductive coercion including denied access to contraceptives and abortion care. Approximately 1 in 5 young women reported experiencing reproductive coercion. As many as one-quarter of women of reproductive age accessing healthcare providers for sexual and reproductive health services reported a history of experiencing reproductive coercion at some point in their lives.

Pregnancy can increase a person’s vulnerability to intimate partner violence, and abusive partners often exercise reproductive coercion over their victims. Survivors of IPV who experience reproductive coercion are less likely to be able to make decisions about family planning and contraception because of the dynamics of power and control present in abusive relationships.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration allows survivors of domestic and sexual violence access to reproductive care after experiencing reproductive coercion and violence from their partners.

Missouri law bans all abortions, with no exception for rape and incest. Abortions are allowed for medical emergencies that threaten the life of the pregnant person or “create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.” This law prevents Missouri residents from accessing abortion medications by mail.

National Crime Victimization Survey. (2005). https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/criminal-victimization-2005-revised

Tarzia, L. & Hagerty, K. (2021). A conceptual re-evaluation of reproductive coercion: Centering intent, fear, and control. https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-021-01143-6
Rowlands, S. & Walker, S. (2019). Reproductive control by others: Means, perpetrators, and effects. BMJ Sex Reprod Health. (45) 61- 7. https://srh.bmj.com/content/45/1/61

Domestic Violence Awareness Month (DVAM) is over six months away, providing plenty of time to begin planning for awareness campaigns around the state. MOCADSV has created two letter templates to share with your city government to light cities across the state purple on October 19, 2024, for Missouri’s Domestic Violence Awareness Day.

The Coalition created two template letters, one for cities that already change the lighting in their city buildings for different events, and one for cities that currently do not already participate. The letters encourage members of your city government to change the lighting to purple for Missouri’s Domestic Violence Awareness Day by explaining the history of the awareness day and highlighting the importance of spreading community awareness.

Join us in lighting the state purple by sharing these letters with your local city governments. Click here to access the templates. 

We grieve with Kansas City today. Yesterday’s events are still being absorbed by so many. The impact of the fear for those on the scene and later for the families and friends who have stood by those who were able to walk away physically unharmed continues to ripple. Dealing with trauma can be immensely challenging but there are resources available. The Crisis Lifeline is available 24/7 by dialing or texting 988. Their services are free and confidential. You can also call your local Mental Health Centers. You don’t have to deal with your trauma and feelings alone.

January is National Stalking Awareness Month. In many cases, stalkers will push the boundaries of their victims, causing their victims to constantly be on high alert. Environmental design is a form of safety planning that can have a positive effect on preventing crime and supporting community connectedness. The Rape and Abuse Crisis Center (RACS) and the Metropolitan Organization to Counter Sexual Assault (MOCSA) have created two separate toolkits on environmental design as crime prevention.

Stalking is defined by the Stalking Prevention and Awareness Resource Center (SPARC) as “a pattern of behavior directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for the person’s safety or the safety of others; or suffer substantial emotional distress.” Stalkers may target an individual or their home by following them, invading property, or causing damage.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) promotes safety by considering various aspects of community design. According to MOCSA’s Community by Design: Neighborhood Safety, simple changes can be made to visibility, availability of directions, neighborhood connectedness, and the maintenance of space. People are discouraged from engaging in unsafe behavior if they feel there are strong neighborhood connections and properties that are well-maintained by their owners. Additionally, using environmental design to promote a safe neighborhood also promotes a strong sense of community by engaging residents in maintaining a safe space.  

Environmental design can be used as a form of safety planning. According to SPARC’s Stalking Safety Strategies toolkit, safety planning around the home includes informing neighbors, identifying escape routes, and using documentation strategies such as home surveillance cameras. RACS’s Community Prevention Neighborhood Toolkit promotes many of these strategies using the natural design of the property. Using full cutoff lighting, creating clear paths to the entry points of the property, and creating trusting relationships with neighbors are all suggestions for neighborhood crime prevention that also work towards an individual’s safety plan.

MOCSA’s toolkit provides users with an assessment tool to examine their community through a safety lens. Each section of the assessment provides solutions easily maintainable by individuals in the community, as well as suggestions on ways to get local community groups and government involved with the implementation of CPTED.

RACS’s CPTED toolkit provides users with an in-depth guide on natural surveillance, territorial reinforcement, access control, and maintenance. Simple switches in lighting options or landscaping are examples of ways to better promote safety by increasing visibility and maintaining properties.

Access the toolkits today here:

MOCSA Community by Design: Neighborhood Safety Toolkit. 

Contact RACS to access their CPTED toolkit. 

In April 2023, the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (MOCADSV) launched an awareness campaign to educate Missourians of their rights under the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights (SASBR). These include the right to consult with an advocate of a rape crisis center, be offered a shower and fresh set of clothing, have an interpreter to help communicate, and more. 

As part of the Know Your Rights campaign, MOCADSV printed and shipped hundreds of large informational posters to organizations throughout Missouri, each featuring diverse models and the abbreviated SASBR. The general public can order tabloid-sized copies of the Know Your Rights posters at the MOCADSV online store free of charge; these large posters are printed in-house at MOCADSV to ensure quality.

Acting on member agency feedback, MOCADSV also developed letter-size versions of the Know Your Rights posters, including variations translated in Spanish. These posters are available for download in full-color and black-and-white and can be printed on standard office printers.

Counterman V. Colorado

The Supreme Court of the United States decided in Counterman v. Colorado that the conviction of a Colorado man who received a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence for stalking would be thrown out. The implications of this court ruling will have impacts on how future stalking cases proceed, including jurisdictions requiring evidence that offenders understood the threatening nature of their communication.

Counterman was originally found guilty by the Colorado courts for stalking a singer-songwriter for several years. Some of his stalking tactics included sending unwanted messages over Facebook. These messages grew more threatening as the stalking continued. Counterman appealed the original case ruling and the Supreme Court found that the Colorado courts applied an incorrect test to the threats made by Counterman. SCOTUS decided that the Colorado courts needed to apply a recklessness standard. This type of standard would require evidence the speaker was aware recipients of their message would recognize the message as threats of violence and proceed to send anyway.

Stalking is defined in Missouri state statue as an individual engaging in conduct directed towards a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to be frightened, intimidated, or emotionally distressed under the circumstances of the individual’s actions. The law states that an individual has committed the offense of stalking in the first degree if they purposefully disturb another person with their actions. This conduct may include threats made that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or physically following an individual with the intent of causing them distress.

Victims of stalking already have difficulty in creating viable cases due to existing tests of statements as threats. The requirement that evidence must prove the recklessness standard further creates barriers in the accessibility of legal protections for stalking victims. 

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. V. President and Fellows of Harvard College

The decision from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College will remove the use of affirmative action in college admission practices. Affirmative action is used in college admissions to promote diversity within student bodies. Removing affirmative action practices within college admissions will ultimately have damaging impacts on victims of domestic and sexual violence.

Inequality and oppression are large factors of why women of color experience higher rates of domestic and sexual violence. Oppressive behaviors from higher education institutions often prevent women of color from achieving educational goals that may promote financial stability. Poverty doesn’t automatically equate to domestic and sexual violence, but it is a factor to enabled abuse. The lack of personal financial stability can also be used to prevent a victim from leaving an abusive relationship.

303 Creative v. Elenis

The Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis found it constitutional for a website designer to refuse to provide website designing services to a same-sex couple. This ruling allows business owners providing customized messaging services to refuse to do business with same-sex or other couples.

The decision from the Supreme Court promotes discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals. The normalization of discrimination and inequality makes it difficult for LGBTQ+ people to find accessible resources, especially accessible legal resources. Though there are a variety of programs accessible to LGBTQ+ people, lack of support in legal decisions can further make resources feel inaccessible.

U.S. V. Rahimi

The United States Supreme Court will review the decision in the case U.S v. Rahimi which was tried in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sought to dismantle federal law prohibiting individuals under a protective order for domestic violence from possessing firearms. SCOTUS will have the opportunity to set national standards for the safety of domestic and sexual violence victims.

The conclusion from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that domestic violence offenders under protective orders have the constitutional right to possess a firearm is dangerous. Perpetrators of violent crime who possess a firearm are more likely to kill their partner than perpetrators who do not. The long-standing federal law protects domestic violence victims and should continue to do so.

The U.S. v. Rahimi case will be heard in the United States Supreme Court later this year.