15 It’s an all-too-familiar story: after months or years of escalating threats, desperate calls to 911, attempts at separation, and even the filing of protective orders, an abusive domestic relationship ends in murder. Often, the assailant’s weapon is a gun. Tragedies of this type make headlines across the United States almost daily. According to the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, female partners are more likely to be murdered with a gun than by all other means combined. In recent decades, however, victims’advocates have worked to pass laws that are making a difference. In 1996, Frank Lautenberg, the late senator from New Jersey, sponsored Section 922(g)(9) of Title 18 of the United States Code, the“Lautenberg Amendment.”The provision bans the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, including cases involving the use or attempted use of“physical force.” By adopting a narrow interpretation of those words, a recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit threatened to undermine the law. In UnitedStatesv.Castleman, the Supreme Court heard the case on appeal, and considered whether James Castleman’s conviction for“intentionally or knowingly caus[ing] bodily injury”to the mother of his child qualified as“a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence”as construed in the Lautenberg Amendment. Mintz Levin attorneys Andy Nathanson, Kim Parr, and Helen Guyton worked with the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) and members of its coalition, along with the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, and Legal Momentum to submit an amicus brief arguing for a broad interpretation of the law’s language. The brief sought to educate the judges about domestic violence, highlight the correlation between the presence of firearms and the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate to homicide, and analyze the Lautenberg Amendment’s intent. Andy and Kim researched and wrote the brief, with supporting research by attorney Ernie Cooper. Helen, NNEDV’s outside counsel, managed the project. Ultimately, the judges agreed with the brief’s interpretation of the Lautenberg Amendment, ruling against Castleman and concluding that the statute did not require the degree of severe “physical force”the Sixth Circuit had demanded. In the majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited the brief several times, while Justice Antonin Scalia, concurring in part, noted with displeasure that the majority had based its definition of domestic violence on the one the brief advanced. In particular, the ruling acknowledged that while the word“violence”generally implies substantial force, its meaning in the context of domestic violence is broader, encompassing verbal abuse, emotional manipulation, and other threatening behaviors. Since domestic violence typically involves a pattern of escalating abuse, the decision will help protect victims before abuse becomes lethal.“The decision strengthens protections for survivors across the country,”Kim says. “I must say, as someone who has filed many amicus briefs over the years, I’m not sure I recall one that was as impactful as yours.” Jonathan Lowy Director, Legal Action Project Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Violence by Any Other Name