Clarence Thomas was snubbed in the Supreme Court’s gun ruling. So were a few other people.

The Supreme Court backtracked somewhat on its expansionist treatment of gun rights — and on the way to an 8-1 ruling Friday, a few people on both sides of the debate got slighted.

Not even the government’s top Supreme Court lawyer — who won the case handily — was safe. Nor was Justice Clarence Thomas, who found himself on an island alone in dissent.

The decision, which upheld a federal law barring alleged domestic abusers from having guns, was a recalibration from a landmark 2022 ruling that upended — and expanded — Second Amendment rights. And despite the near-consensus in the result, some of the justices displayed sharp tongues.

Here’s a look at four telling disses in the high court’s latest gun-rights decision:

Clarence Thomas stands alone

What a difference two years makes.

In June 2022, Thomas wrote on behalf of the Supreme Court’s six-justice conservative majority as the court charted a new approach to the Second Amendment. His sweeping opinion declared that modern gun-control laws are invalid unless similar restrictions existed in early American history.

But on Friday, Thomas — the court’s oldest and longest-serving justice — stood alone in dissent as every one of his colleagues decided that lower courts had taken his rubric too far. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, sought to minimize the disagreement with their colleague, but not all the justices were so restrained, with two calling Thomas’ approach “useless.” Ouch.

Thomas’ strict view of history is far too “exacting,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a concurrence joined by Justice Elena Kagan. They likened it to a “too-sensitive alarm that sounds whenever a regulation did not exist in an essentially identical form at the founding.”

For his part, Thomas complained bitterly that his fellow justices were unwisely handing the government a “regulatory blank check.”

5th Circuit keeps racking up the L’s

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — the most conservative appeals court in the nation — got slapped down by the justices again Friday. The high court overturned the 5th Circuit’s 2023 ruling that declared the gun law at issue unconstitutional, and in doing so, justices issued an unusually direct rebuke.

“Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber,” the chief justice wrote.

“The Fifth Circuit made two errors,” Roberts continued. One was to require the government to show a “historical twin” to the domestic-violence-related provision. The other was to dwell on “hypothetical scenarios” not involved in the case, like situations where a weapon was denied to someone due to an unjustified restraining order.

“That error left the panel slaying a straw man,” Roberts declared, even singling out one member of the appeals court — Trump appointee James Ho — for aggravating the mistake.

The New Orleans-based appeals court, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas and has 12 Republican appointees and five Democratic appointees, has been overruled by the Supreme Court in two other cases this year by lopsided margins. A 5th Circuit ruling striking down funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was overturned 7-2, and the appeals court’s ruling rolling back the availability of abortion pills was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court.

The Biden admin’s top SCOTUS litigator gets needled

No doubt: Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who defended the gun-control law on behalf of the Biden administration, won the case handily. But she was still left smarting after the entire court — all nine members — went out of their way to repudiate one of her arguments.

Prelogar seemed to trigger the justices last November when she contended that the government had the power to sort the responsible from the irresponsible when deciding who can have a gun.

“Congress may disarm those who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens,” Biden’s top Supreme Court lawyer declared.

That didn’t sit well with the justices.

“We reject the Government’s contention that Rahimi may be disarmed simply because he is not

‘responsible,’” Roberts wrote, referring to Zackey Rahimi, the Texas man whose case was before the court. “‘Responsible’ is a vague term. It is unclear what such a rule would entail.”

Thomas’ dissent doesn’t agree with the majority on much, but he hailed the rest of the court for summarily rejecting Prelogar’s assertion.

“Not a single Member of the Court adopts the Government’s theory,” Thomas declared. “The Government’s argument lacks any basis in our precedents and would eviscerate the Second Amendment altogether.”

Zackey Rahimi gets a brutal rebuke

Roberts opened his 18-page opinion with a detailed and chilling account of Rahimi’s actions that seemed intended to underscore the extraordinary danger he posed.

Litigants trying to expand rights often try to bring sympathetic cases to the high court. Rahimi’s is anything but, although it arrived at the court when the Justice Department challenged the 5th Circuit’s ruling in his favor.

Roberts detailed at least six incidents where the Texas resident was suspected of firing a gun at people, including one during an altercation with his girlfriend and his shooting into the home of a man he considered to be “talking trash.” Other incidents included shooting at a car following a traffic accident, firing a gun at a truck that flashed his lights at him on a highway and firing into the air at a roadside burger restaurant after his friend’s credit card was declined.

Rahimi received a sentence of just over six years in prison on the gun-related federal charge — a term he will now likely have to complete due to the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday.