Hunter Biden’s attorneys are arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a ban on gun possession by someone accused of domestic violence bolsters their client’s Second Amendment rights because the president’s son has never been under such a court order or deemed dangerous.

In a 17-page motion filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Delaware, Biden’s attorneys say he should be acquitted because the law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

They point to the high court’s 8-1 ruling in United States v. Rahimi on Friday that said a person under a domestic violence protective order whom a court has deemed to be a danger or threat to another could be temporarily disarmed.

---

---

Biden’s attorneys said no court ever deemed their client to be dangerous and that the law preventing him from possessing a firearm as an addict is not temporary.

“That distinction is critical to the Second Amendment analysis,” they wrote.

A federal jury in Delaware this month convicted Biden of three felonies stemming from his purchase of a gun in October 2018 while he was addicted to crack cocaine. Federal law prohibits drug users from owning and possessing firearms. A sentencing date has not been scheduled.

Biden was found guilty of two counts of making false statements on a federal form by saying he was not addicted to drugs when he purchased a revolver at a Delaware gun store in 2018. He was also found guilty of illegally possessing a firearm while addicted to drugs.

In their series of filings on Monday, Biden’s attorneys attempted to have his charges and conviction dismissed. One motion focused specifically on the Rahimi decision.

The Supreme Court decided that some “dangerous” people could be disarmed, but the narrow ruling didn’t resolve scores of questions about bans against semiautomatic rifles, carrying permits, or whether illegal immigrants and drug users can possess firearms.

The justices said only that a dangerous person who is subject to a domestic violence protection order can temporarily be disarmed.

The case involved Zackey Rahimi, who was under a domestic violence order in Texas but hadn’t been convicted of any crime. Under federal law, the domestic violence order prohibited him from being armed. Rahimi was convicted of illegally possessing a gun.

The Supreme Court issued a ruling in 2022 saying any law restricting the use of a gun had to comply with the nation’s history dating back to its founding. Using that ruling to challenge Rahimi’s conviction, attorneys said he had a Second Amendment right to handle a gun.

Felons, illegal immigrants and others have since brought challenges to courts, saying their ban is not grounded in the history and tradition surrounding the Second Amendment.

Biden also has argued that his conviction doesn’t hold water under the high court’s 2022 ruling.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the Rahimi ruling. He said the 2022 Bruen decision doesn’t require an exact historical twin of law to disarm someone.

“Since the founding, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition,” the chief justice said in upholding the federal law.

Biden’s attorneys have tried to use the temporary status of a court order and the language and history surrounding the treatment of a dangerous person to argue that the high court would find the federal law that snared him unconstitutional.

“It seems to be important to the majority in Rahimi that this domestic violence law was placed on individualized findings that this person posed a threat to someone else,” said Andrew Willinger, executive director of Duke Center for Firearms Law. He noted that the order was used only temporarily to bar gun possession. He is not involved in representing Biden.

“Really this actually indicates the Supreme Court would likely be suspicious of a law that is broader than the one it upheld in Rahimi,” said Mr. Willinger, referring to the federal law enforced against Biden.

Lauryn P. Gouldin, a law professor at Syracuse University, said the Rahimi ruling is “highly relevant” to Biden’s appeal and his attorneys should be “pleased” with the decision.

She said the Supreme Court repeatedly noted that Rahimi had notice and process for being subject to a domestic violence protective order, whereas Biden did not.

“You don’t have any of that notice or process that attaches for Biden’s case. That is a lot of what his defense team was challenging before the trial and at the trial,” Ms. Gouldin said.

• Jeff Mordock contributed to this report.