The Supreme Court on Friday said it will weigh whether a federal ban on gun possession for people under domestic violence restraining orders is constitutional, setting up a major Second Amendment case for the court’s next annual term.

The justices in a brief, unsigned order agreed to hear the Justice Department’s appeal of a ruling that invalidated the ban.

It will mark the highest-profile gun case at the Supreme Court since the justices last summer issued the biggest expansion of Second Amendment rights in a decade.

Federal law prohibits various categories of people from possessing firearms, and many of the provisions have become entangled in challenges in the lower courts following the landmark ruling.

The dispute now before the justices involves the criminal case of Zackey Rahimim who is contesting the federal law after Texas placed him under a restraining order after he assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to shoot her. Months later, police searched Rahimi’s home in connection with an unrelated investigation and found a rifle and a pistol.

A federal grand jury indicted Rahimi for possessing a firearm while being under a domestic violence restraining order, and he began fighting the charge as a violation of his Second Amendment rights. After his argument was rejected, Rahimi proceeded to plead guilty and was sentenced to 73 months in prison.

Then, the Supreme Court handed down New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion changed the test that lower courts had used to decide whether gun regulations complied with the Second Amendment. The conservative majority ruled that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals withdrew its ruling in Rahimi’s case and went on to strike down the crime he was charged under as unconstitutional, invalidating it in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi based on the Bruen decision.

The Justice Department then appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

Rahimi had asked the Supreme Court to stay out of the case, arguing it was too early for the justices to get involved as he noted his case was one of the first federal appeals court rulings to apply the Bruen decision.

“As the Court surely anticipated, lower courts are now hard at work applying the new historical framework and revaluating firearm restrictions that were previously upheld under intermediate scrutiny and deference to legislative judgment. Many important cases have been argued and await decisions,” Rahimi’s attorney wrote in court filings.

The Justice Department opted against waiting for more cases to percolate, arguing the provision was constitutional and needed to reduce violence, contending the nation’s historical tradition allows the government to disarm people who are dangerous

“Governments have long disarmed individuals who pose a threat to the safety of others, and Section 922(g)(8) falls comfortably within that tradition,” the Justice Department wrote in its request. “The Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision misapplies this Court’s precedents, conflicts with the decisions of other courts of appeals, and threatens grave harms for victims of domestic violence.”