Kavanaugh signals Supreme Court will soon decide constitutionality of banning AR-15's
The Supreme Court declined to take up Monday a case that involves whether possessing AR-15s is protected by the Second Amendment, but the court's conservatives are signaling they soon will.
Only three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — voted to hear a challenge to Maryland's ban on possessing AR-15s, barely falling short of the four votes required to take up a case.
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh sent a strong signal that he will provide that crucial fourth vote in a future case once the issue percolates more in the lower courts.
'In my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two,' Kavanaugh wrote in a three-page written statement.
Kavanaugh, President Trump's second appointee to the court, called Maryland's law 'questionable.' But he stressed the issue is currently being considered by several appeals courts that are weighing other states' bans.
'Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court's ultimate decisionmaking on the AR–15 issue,' Kavanaugh wrote.
The constitutionality of such laws has become a flashpoint in the legal battles over gun control. The Supreme Court has issued multiple expansions of Second Amendment rights in recent years but has yet to settle how those rulings apply to AR-15 bans.
Maryland is one of nine states that have banned the possession of AR-15s, the most popular civilian rifle in America. Maryland enacted its law in 2013 following the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland's law by ruling AR-15s are not 'constitutionally protected arms' under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case leaves intact that ruling.
The trio of other conservative justices said they would've taken up the issue now.
'I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade,' Thomas wrote in a solo, written dissent.
He added, 'I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right.'
Alito and Gorsuch did not join Thomas's written dissent and did not author their own to explain their reasoning.
The court's refusal to hear the case came as they also turned away a challenge to Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch indicated they also would've taken up that case.
In that dispute, four gun owners and a local hunting store accused lower courts of contorting the Supreme Court's recent expansions on Second Amendment rights to uphold Rhode Island's restrictions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Argentina's high court upholds former President Kirchner's conviction
Argentina's Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (pictured in 2013) must serve her six-year prison sentence for a corruption conviction. File Photo by Stefano Spaziani/UPI | License Photo June 10 (UPI) -- Former Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner must serve her six-year prison sentence for a corruption conviction, the nation's Supreme Court of Justice ruled on Tuesday. The three-judge court unanimously upheld Kirchner's 2022 corruption conviction and ruled she is banned from holding public office. The conviction arises from how awards for 51 public works projects were issued in what became the "Vialidad" trial. Kirchner, 72, received due process, and the "rulings issued by the lower courts were based on extensive evidence assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judgment and the penal code enacted by Congress," the judges wrote in Tuesday's verdict. She had argued that the trial arose from political persecution because she is an influential leader of the opposition to current Argentine President Javier Milei and his government. Kirchner was Argentina's president from 2007 to 2015. She also was Argentina's vice president from 2019 to 2023. She is a popular leftist politician and recently announced she intended to run for a seat during the Sept. 7 Buenos Aires Province legislative elections. If she were to run and win, the victory would have given Kirchner immunity against imprisonment over the four-year term as a provincial lawmaker. The Supreme Court's decision against her makes it impossible for Kirchner to seek any public office. "The republic works," Milei said in a translated statement made during his visit to Israel. "All the corrupt journalists, accomplices of politicians, have been exposed in their operetta about the alleged pact of impunity," Milei said. The Federal Oral Court 2 in December 2022 found Kirchner guilty of corruption, sentenced her to prison and imposed a lifetime disqualification from holding public office due to "fraudulent administration to the detriment of the state." She was allowed to stay out of prison while the Supreme Court deliberated the case. Kirchner similarly was charged with fraud in 2016 and was convicted in February 2021, which made her Argentina's first vice president to be convicted of a crime while still in office. She was accused of and convicted of directing 51 public works contracts to a company owned by Kirchner's friend and business associate, Lazaro Baez. The scheme also directed $1 billion to Baez, who is serving a 12-year sentence for a money-laundering conviction in 2021 and was sentenced to another six years in prison for charges arising from the case that resulted inKirchner's conviction.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Georgia Supreme Court rejects changes sought by Trump-aligned board ahead of 2024 election
Members of Georgia's State Election Board sit during a Sept. 23 meeting at the Georgia state capitol in Atlanta. Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder (file photo) The Georgia Supreme Court has permanently blocked four rules the State Election Board approved last fall, concluding Tuesday that members of the board exceeded their authority in attempting to implement rules that went beyond the scope of Georgia's election laws. A total of seven rules were approved by the Republican-led board ahead of the 2024 general election, with supporters claiming that the changes were necessary to ensure accuracy and restore public confidence in Georgia's election integrity. If enacted, the rules would have ordered poll workers to hand count all ballots cast on election day, made it easier for local election officials to delay certifying election results and required family members and caregivers to present a photo ID when dropping off absentee ballots on behalf of another voter, among other changes. Election officials and voting rights groups opposed the rules, arguing that last-minute changes could sow confusion and doubt into the election process, and that implementing the new rules would violate Georgia's election laws. Last October, the Georgia Republican Party and Republican National Committee filed an emergency motion urging the state Supreme Court to reinstate the rules ahead of the general election, but the court declined to expedite their appeal. In a 96-page opinion, Chief Justice Nels Peterson upheld most of the Fulton County Superior Court's ruling, declaring that the State Election Board 'can pass rules to implement and enforce the Election Code, but it cannot go beyond, change, or contradict' existing Georgia law. The October ruling from Judge Thomas A. Cox Jr. argued that the seven rules were 'illegal, unconstitutional and void,' and that the State Election Board had exceeded its authority by passing them. However, in a slight reversal of the lower court ruling, the state Supreme Court allowed a rule mandating video surveillance of ballot drop boxes to take effect, finding that the rule was consistent with current election laws. Two other rules that would have expanded mandatory poll-watching areas and required election workers to publicly post daily totals of early and absentee voters were sent back to the Fulton County Superior Court for further consideration. The State Election Board is tasked with writing rules to ensure that elections run smoothly and hearing complaints about alleged violations. The three most conservative members of the Republican-led board — Janice Johnston, former state Sen. Rick Jeffares and Janelle King — made national headlines last fall after approving seven election rules in spite of Attorney General Chris Carr's warnings that the changes likely would not stand up in court. Then-presidential candidate Donald Trump also praised King, Jeffares and Johnston during a campaign rally in Atlanta for supporting changes to election certification rules, calling them 'pit bulls' for 'victory.' State Election Board Chairman John Fervier did not respond to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's ruling. The ACLU of Georgia, which helped represent the plaintiffs, applauded Tuesday's ruling. 'This is a resounding affirmation of voters' rights,' said Theresa Lee, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Voting Rights Project. 'The court recognized what we've argued all along — that this rule was unlawful and entirely unnecessary. Today's decision safeguards not just the letter of Georgia election law, but the democratic principle that every vote must be counted accurately and without interference.' Eternal Vigilance Action, a conservative election advocacy organization that sued the State Election Board over the rule changes, also celebrated the ruling. 'This ruling makes clear: the legislative power belongs to the General Assembly, not executive agencies operating without proper constraints,' Eternal Vigilance Action founder and former Republican state Rep. Scot Turner said in a statement. As new election laws passed in 2024 begin to take effect, including a ban on the use of QR codes to tabulate ballots, the board will likely continue to draft rules to guide local election officials tasked with implementing the changes. However, this year the board is workshopping changes to the rulemaking process in the hopes of avoiding a repeat of the chaos that defined the 2024 election cycle. During a May meeting, state election board members discussed the possibility of forming a rules committee with election directors, legislators, Georgia residents, and election law attorneys. Rules would be vetted by the committee before being presented to the full board. Senior reporter Stanley Dunlap contributed to this report. s25a0362 SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
