Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas Feuding?

Simmering tension between U.S. Supreme Court justices Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas are likely to come to a head in an upcoming gun case.

As Newsweek previously reported, Coney Barrett showed her strong disapproval of Thomas’s analysis during oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, a case that will decide whether people under a domestic violence civil restraining order have a right to own a gun. A decision is expected on Thursday and Friday, when clear differences between the two conservative justices are likely to be seen again.

Rahimi was placed under a domestic violence restraining order after assaulting his girlfriend when she tried to leave his car, then fired a warning shot at a passer-by who sought to intervene.

Rahimi, from Texas, then went on a months-long crime spree in which he fired shots in a restaurant and at a truck driver who flashed his lights to warn Rahimi that he was traveling too fast. He challenged a federal law that removes the right to gun ownership from people under a civil domestic violence restraining order.

During oral arguments, Thomas asked Rahimi’s lawyer why a criminal defendant should be subject to a civil remedy like a restraining order. Coney Barrett immediately pulled out a copy of the restraining order, which forbids Rahimi from coming near his now ex-girlfriend or her daughter. She then read from the restraining order’s list of Rahimi’s alleged crimes against his ex-girlfriend, including threats and intimidation.

By doing so, Coney Barrett was signaling that she does not agree with Thomas’s strict constructionist view of the Second Amendment. Thomas’s school of thought suggests that readers should look only at the wording of the Constitution, which placed no impediments on the rights of U.S citizens to own a gun.

This is not the only time the pair have differed recently. On June 12, Coney Barrett had some stern words for Thomas in her written decision in a trademark case.

Coney Barrett accused Thomas of misinterpreting her, even though they were part of unanimous decision in Vidal v. Elster, a case that arose from petitioner Steve Elster wanting to register the phrase “TRUMP TOO SMALL” for use on merchandise, without getting Donald Trump’s consent.

In her decision, Coney Barrett said about Thomas, who wrote the majority ruling: “Justice Thomas mistakenly suggests that I present the federal trademark register as a limited public forum. That is not my position…Justice Thomas ignores my reasons for drawing the analogy.”

Refusing Thomas’s historical analysis, Coney Barrett also wrote that “loosely related” trademark cases from the late-19th and early-20th centuries set a weak comparison to modern trademark law.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor sided with Coney Barrett, writing: “I agree with Justice Barrett that, even if the majority’s historical ‘evidence were rock solid,’ there is no good reason to believe that ‘hunting for historical forebears on a restriction-by-restriction basis is the right way to analyze the constitutional question.'”