He argued that the federal law banning people under such restraining orders from possessing guns violated the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and threw out Rahimi’s guilty plea and prison sentence.

Last June, the Supreme Court overhauled Second Amendment jurisprudence in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court’s conservative majority found that a state law controlling who could carry concealed weapons in public was unconstitutional. In that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas created a new test for determining the constitutionality of gun restrictions: All restrictions must accord with gun laws during America’s founding era.

That new historical test created widespread confusion among the lower courts, as judges reached different conclusions on just how close any particular gun restriction had to be to the gun laws that existed during early American history. The ruling brought into question longstanding federal laws banning drug users, convicted felons, and domestic abusers from possessing guns.

Rahimi will be the court’s first chance to clarify just how the new Bruen test should work — and just how closely current gun restrictions must hew to those that existed at the founding era.

David Pucino, deputy chief counsel at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said his group — which favors stricter gun laws — had expected the court to review Rahimi.

“My hope is that the conservative justices will recognize that what we’re talking about here are the proverbial bad guys with a gun,” he said.