logo
Supreme Court lets stand Maryland's assault weapons ban — for now

Supreme Court lets stand Maryland's assault weapons ban — for now

Yahoo2 days ago

The facade of the U.S. Supreme Court, covered with scaffolding for construction, in a file photo from April 22, 2025. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand Maryland's decade-old ban on assault weapons, over the objections of four conservative justices who were ready to review a lower court's defense of the law that they called 'dubious' and 'questionable.'
'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,' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion. 'We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.'
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, noted that the high court's decision not to hear an appeal of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's August ruling 'does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review.' He predicted that, with similar cases currently working their way through other circuits, the court 'should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.'
But state officials welcomed Monday's court decision.
'The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today to leave Maryland's assault weapons ban intact means that a critical law that prevents senseless and preventable deaths will remain in effect,' said a statement from Attorney General Anthony Brown, the target of the appeal.
'Our Office will continue to advocate for gun safety laws at the General Assembly and will defend Maryland's common-sense gun reforms in court. We will do whatever we can to protect Marylanders from this horrific violence,' his statement said.
Federal appeals court upholds 2013 Maryland assault weapons ban
The high court on Monday also let stand Rhode Island's 2022 ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch were also ready to hear that case, which challenged a state law that prohibits the possession, sale or transfer of a firearm magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The 2013 Maryland law banning assault weapons came one year after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, where 26 people, including 20 children, were shot and killed. The shooter in that case used an AR-15-style rifle along with two handguns.
Gun-rights groups quickly challenged the law, and were given more ammunition by a string of recent Supreme Court rulings that vastly expanded protections under the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.
The 4th Circuit had previously upheld Maryland's assault weapons ban. But the Supreme Court ordered the circuit court to reconsider that ruling in light of the high court's 2022 decision in New York State Police & Rifle Association vs. Bruen — in which it the court said citizens did not need a 'good and substantial' reason to carry a concealed weapon, the burden was on the government to prove the need for such a restriction.
A divided 4th Circuit ruled 10-5 last August that Maryland's ban on assault weapons was constitutional, even in light of Bruen. Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the majority that weapons such as the AK-47, AR-15 and Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, 'fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.'
An appeal quickly followed, but the court's refusal to hear the case means the 4th Circuit ruling stands. In his dissent, Thomas said the appellate court 'placed the burden … on the wrong party.'
'The Fourth Circuit erred by requiring the challengers to prove that the Second Amendment protects their right to own AR–15s' when, in fact, the burden is on the government to justify its regulation of the weapons, he wrote.
Del. Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore City), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said in a text message he is pleased the Supreme Court upheld the state's law 'for now.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
'Maryland's Assault Weapons Ban is critical for keeping Marylanders safe. These dangerous weapons like the AR-15 are military-style weapons designed for combat and not protected by the Second Amendment,' Clippinger wrote. 'As a country and as a State, we still have more work to do to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But for today, we celebrate that the Supreme Court has allowed our Assault Weapons Ban to remain.'
Nine other states, Washington, D.C., and other cities have approved similar bans on assault weapons. But Kavanaugh wrote that an estimated 15 million to 20 million Americans 'possess' an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.
'Meaning that the States such as Maryland that prohibit AR–15s are something of an outlier,' he wrote.
That's why Mark Pennak, president of the gun rights group Maryland Shall Issue, said in a brief interview Monday he agrees with Kavanaugh that other pending cases will provide an opportunity.
'Because there are other cases that are pending out there involving the same issue … let the issue percolate some more which is standard Supreme Court practice,' he said. 'This issue is not over.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Big trouble for the Cuban exception
Big trouble for the Cuban exception

Politico

time8 minutes ago

  • Politico

Big trouble for the Cuban exception

POWER OUTAGE — Until Friday, Cuban immigrants occupied a special place in American immigration policy. From the Mariel boatlift to 'Wet Foot, Dry Foot' policy to the sheer transformation of Miami as the so-called capital of Latin America, over the past 60 years Cubans have played a key role in rewriting the rules on immigration — sometimes carving out their own exceptions in U.S. immigration law. But a Supreme Court majority last Friday may have dealt a lasting blow to the traditionally privileged status of Cuban immigrants. The Trump administration now has the green light to end the Biden-era Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela (CHNV) parole program and eliminate the legal status of over 500,000 immigrants, including Cubans. Never before have so many Cubans been on the verge of losing status — let alone being deported en masse. Cubans, via the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, have long enjoyed their own specific path to citizenship; after living in the United States for a year, Cubans are fast-tracked towards obtaining permanent residency. And Cubans under that law have been exempted from other provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Politicians have tried (and largely failed) to replicate those special protections for other immigrant groups — most recently for Venezuelans. But none of those groups have achieved the political clout and influence needed to secure the kinds of benefits Cubans have enjoyed for nearly six decades under U.S. law. The Supreme Court's recent decision allowing the Trump administration to cancel the parole program puts in limbo tens of thousands of Cubans who hadn't been in the U.S. long enough to qualify for the Cuban Adjustment Act's protections. That's in addition to the 40,000 Cubans with deportation orders against them. It's not the first time Cubans have seen their unique status in immigration law pared back. In 2017, the Obama administration nixed the Clinton-era 'Wet Foot, Dry Foot' policy which granted Cuban refugees who were intercepted on U.S. soil automatic asylum as part of its efforts to reopen diplomatic relations with Havana. And the first Trump administration opted to enforce a deal with Cuba to accept deportation flights from the U.S., even as it reinstated other sanctions and measures against the island's communist government. But the scale of the potential deportations now is expansive — and tinged in irony. After helping deliver Florida twice to Trump, Cubans have never had more influence in Washington. Cuban exile politicians are at the peak of their power. Marco Rubio, the former senator and son of Cuban immigrants, is one of the most influential American diplomats in recent memory, the first individual since Henry Kissinger to hold the national security adviser and secretary of state positions at the same time. On Capitol Hill, Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.), another Cuban American, is the vice chair of the House Appropriations Committee and wields considerable influence within a narrow GOP House majority over the flow of legislation. That influence has only magnified with House Republicans' slim majority. The 'crazy Cubans' –– as Speaker Mike Johnson has dubbed Díaz-Balart and his South Florida colleagues Reps. María Elvira Salazar and Carlos Gímenez –– have wielded their influence in concert with Rubio's policy priorities. But the Trump administration has been adamant about making good on Trump's vow of the largest mass deportation in U.S. history — with the White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller pressing Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to ramp up arrests to 3,000 a day and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pushing forward on canceling temporary programs, including CHNV. Deporting the thousands of Cubans suddenly out of status could go a long way toward reaching the numbers Trump promised on the stump. Only there's one big problem: Miami's Cuban voters are overwhelmingly Trump voters. Florida International University's Cuba poll released just after the 2024 election showed a staggering 68 percent of Cuban Americans cast their ballots for Trump, nearly twice as many as in 2016. To cast out Cubans would be political suicide for the GOP and could cost them in the midterms, says Dr. Eduardo Gamarra, a professor and pollster at FIU. 'Now there are more Republicans than there are Democrats in Miami Dade County, it may have reached its apex,' Gamarra said, while cautioning that 'these shifts are not permanent.' In the wake of the Supreme Court decision, the South Florida Cubans in Congress will attempt to thread the needle between breaking with Trump on deportations and defending the Cuban population that delivered them their political power. For their part, they are vowing to fight to preserve Cubans' pathways to citizenship. Diaz-Balart wrote on X shortly after the Supreme Court ruling that they are working with the Trump administration 'to make the case and find a permanent solution for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans who have fled political crises and cannot return to their countries of origin because of legitimate claims of persecution.' More specifically, the South Florida members are holding out hope they'll convince the Trump administration to keep the Cuban exception. 'They need to be treated a little bit differently,' Gímenez told reporters at a press conference in Miami following the court ruling. 'They're a part of our community, they're part of our economy and they need to be treated as such,' Gimenez added. 'So we're going to be looking for some adjustments to what the enforcement mechanism of this ruling is going to be.' Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's authors at abianco@ and ebazail@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @_alibianco and @ebazaileimil. What'd I Miss? — House GOP gets megabill's official price tag: $2.4T: Congress' nonpartisan scorekeeper released its full price tag today of the tax and spending package House Republicans passed last month, predicting that the measure would grow the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion over a decade. The Congressional Budget Office's forecast comes days after Elon Musk, freshly departed from serving as head of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency, blasted the measure as 'massive,' 'outrageous' and 'a pork-filled disgusting abomination.' Just before the new numbers were released this morning, Musk and CBO both came up as topics of discussion during the House GOP's weekly closed-door meeting. — Trump calls for scrapping debt limit, in megabill twist: President Donald Trump today said the debt limit should be 'entirely scrapped,' throwing another wrench into negotiations around the GOP's 'big beautiful' bill. Trump's comment on Truth Social comes as Republicans scramble to pass Trump's new round of tax cuts and other policy priorities in a sweeping legislative package that would raise, rather than eliminate, the cap on the federal government's borrowing authority. Republicans are facing a potential August deadline to raise the debt limit before the U.S. starts to default on its financial obligations. — Putin will 'respond' to surprise Ukraine drone strikes, Trump says: President Donald Trump said today he spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the recent Ukrainian drone attack that destroyed more than 40 Russian aircrafts and the Russian leader said he will respond to Ukraine's drone strikes. It remains unclear exactly how Russia would respond. In a post to Truth Social, Trump said his phone call with Putin lasted about one hour and 15 minutes. In addition to the most recent Ukrainian attack, Trump said, the two also discussed 'various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides,' as well as Iran and a general understanding that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. The post was later deleted. — Confirmation process begins for Trump's first judicial nominees: The Senate Judiciary Committee is launching the confirmation process for the first judicial nominations of President Donald Trump's second term. The panel this morning opened a hearing for Whitney D. Hermandorfer, Trump's nominee for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and four other district court judges in Missouri: Maria A. Lanahan, Cristian M. Stevens and Zachary M. Bluestone for the Eastern District, and Joshua M. Divine for the Eastern and Western Districts. It is a continuation of a major priority of Trump's first term: applying a conservative slant across the federal bench. The Senate confirmed hundreds of judges the last time Trump was in office. The Biden administration also confirmed hundreds of judges, leaving relatively few vacancies for Trump to fill upon his return to the White House in January. According to data from the U.S. courts, there are currently about 49 existing vacancies. AROUND THE WORLD HIT BACK — Ontario Premier Doug Ford is urging Canada's prime minister to retaliate against the United States after it doubled tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. But Prime Minister Mark Carney is holding off, arguing he's close to striking a new trade deal with President Donald Trump. Ford and Carney aired their clashing approaches today, as the Ontario premier accused the PM of being bullied by the U.S. 'You're either standing up for Canada and protecting people's jobs, their livelihoods,' Ford told reporters in Toronto today. 'Or you sit back and get steamrolled. That's not what I'm going to do.' Carney declined to comment on Ford's remarks as he left his national caucus meeting. Ford told CNN's 'The Situation Room' earlier today that he 'highly recommended to the prime minister directly that we slap another 25 percent on top of our tariffs, to equal President Trump's tariffs on our steel.' Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that doubled tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to the U.S., from 25 percent to 50 percent. In March, Canada imposed 25 percent reciprocal tariffs on a list of U.S. steel and aluminum products totaling C$15.6 billion. DANGEROUS HISTORY — The city of Cologne in western Germany is undergoing a major evacuation following the discovery of three unexploded bombs from World War II. Authorities on Monday found the munitions — two 1,000 kilogram bombs and one 500 kilogram bomb, all manufactured in the U.S. — in the central district of Deutz, on the eastern bank of the Rhine. Beginning at 8 a.m. today, approximately 20,500 residents were evacuated from their homes and workplaces. The evacuation zone covers the entire historic district, 58 hotels, three Rhine bridges, the town hall, the Deutz railway station — located across the river from the city center — as well as several museums, a hospital and two care homes. Cologne's iconic cathedral lies just outside the danger zone. Germany's national rail operator Deutsche Bahn warned of widespread disruption, with many train services diverted or canceled. Road traffic in and around the city has also been heavily affected. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP CRAFT CLOSURES — As Joann Fabric and Crafts expects to finish closing its almost 800 stores by the weekend, crafters across the country are mourning the loss of a textile giant. The Atlantic's Andrea Valdez reports that the recent closures mark an ever-widening gap between crafting materials and their makers. While more generalized retailers and Amazon continue to sell craft supplies, Valdez highlights Joann's characteristic affordability, accessibility and the community experience of entering the store to seek out the perfect colors or textures for upcoming projects. Parting Image Marisa Guerra Echeverria contributed to this newsletter. Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.

Trump's birthright citizenship order lands in Seattle appeals court
Trump's birthright citizenship order lands in Seattle appeals court

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's birthright citizenship order lands in Seattle appeals court

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, center, speaks to reporters alongside Solicitor General Noah Purcell, left, and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project Legal Director Matt Adams, right, outside a Seattle courthouse where federal appeals court judges heard arguments over President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship on Wednesday, June 4, 2025. (Photo by Jake Goldstein-Street/Washington State Standard) SEATTLE — Federal appeals court judges in Seattle on Wednesday questioned a Trump administration lawyer and Washington's solicitor general over the president's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The three-judge panel in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared more open to the Trump administration's arguments than a federal judge in Seattle who in January called the order 'blatantly unconstitutional.' Perhaps the most pointed question came after a lengthy back-and-forth over what the writers of the 14th Amendment meant when they enshrined birthright citizenship into the U.S. Constitution. Hawkins asked Department of Justice attorney Eric McArthur, who clerked for conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, what the late Justice Antonin Scalia would think of his arguments. Scalia, an ardent originalist, anchored the Supreme Court's conservative wing alongside Thomas. 'He was widely critical of looking at congressional history and statements of senators opposing or supporting a particular thing, and famously said 'just the words,'' said Hawkins, a Clinton appointee. McArthur said he thought Scalia would have been 'very open to looking at all of the historic evidence.' After McCarthur's arguments, Hawkins told the Justice Department attorney he did a 'terrific job.' Trump's executive action, signed on the first day of his second term, aims to end birthright citizenship for babies born to a mother and father who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Since the aftermath of the Civil War, the country has automatically given citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil, no matter their immigration status. Wednesday was the first time the merits of Trump's order have come before a federal appeals court. The arguments from Washington's solicitor general, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and McArthur come a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court took up Washington's case on birthright citizenship and others. The justices focused on whether preliminary injunctions, like the one from Judge John Coughenor in Seattle at the center of Wednesday's hearing, should affect only the parties involved in a particular case or can be applied nationwide. The Trump administration contends such orders are judicial overreach. The Supreme Court's ruling-to-come could have implications far beyond the birthright citizenship case, potentially staunching the flow of temporary nationwide blocks that state attorneys general are relying on to stop what they see as the president's unlawful actions. In their May 15 hearing, the justices appeared wary of allowing different rules by state. On Wednesday, state Solicitor General Noah Purcell called Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship 'unconstitutional and unAmerican.' 'President Trump seeks to turn citizenship into a political football, denying that precious right to hundreds of thousands of babies born in this country simply because their parents are here to work, to study or to escape persecution or violence,' said Purcell, who argued successfully against the president's travel ban in court in 2017. As is customary, the 9th Circuit judges didn't rule from the bench Wednesday. They'll issue a written ruling in the coming weeks or months. Both sides told the judges it may be prudent to first wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the nationwide injunction question. Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, appointed two of the three judges who oversaw Wednesday's hearing. The other is a Trump appointee from the president's first term. Several other cases are currently awaiting similar appellate hearings after lower courts awarded preliminary injunctions. The Supreme Court will likely have the final say on the merits of Trump's order. Speaking to reporters after the Wednesday morning hearing, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said 'the judges had a lot of pointed and difficult questions for both sides to grapple with.' Still, he said he is 'really confident moving forward that this court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will rule in the states' favors.' The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution codified birthright citizenship in 1868. The amendment begins: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' Trump's order, initially set to take effect Feb. 19, focused on the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' phrase. 'The Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,' Trump's executive order reads. 'The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' Legal precedent, including an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, has long upheld birthright citizenship. That case dealt with a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents named Wong King Ark. The justices ruled he was a U.S. citizen. The two sides interpret this case differently. Much of Wednesday's arguments centered the Wong Kim Ark decision. McArthur noted the Supreme Court ruled 'every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.' He focuses on the word 'domiciled,' arguing those here temporarily or without legal status don't fall under that umbrella. Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, countered by reading further from the Supreme Court decision. 'His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory,' the justices continued in their Wong Kim Ark ruling, arguing that he is 'as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.' Washington's case against Trump's birthright citizenship order, filed alongside Oregon, Arizona and Illinois, led to the second Trump administration's first judicial rebuke. The Reagan-appointed judge, Coughenour, later agreed to indefinitely block Trump's order while the case played out in court. Trump's Department of Justice appealed, leading to Wednesday's hearing. Two pregnant noncitizen women joined the states' litigation, fearful their children could be born stateless. One has since given birth to a baby born a U.S. citizen because of court action, said Matt Adams, legal director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. In 2022, about 153,000 babies across the country were born to two parents without legal immigration status, including 4,000 in Washington, according to the plaintiffs. The states have said they stand to lose federal funding through programs like Medicaid that otherwise could help these children if they were citizens. Purcell told the judges that implementing the Trump administration's vision would be difficult, leaving hospitals to ask about immigration status and how long parents plan to remain in the United States. 'Doesn't that just show the injunction is premature?' asked Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee. 'We don't know how unworkable it is because they were not given a chance to implement it.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Mexican Supreme Court remake: Ruling-party loyalists dominate the new bench
Mexican Supreme Court remake: Ruling-party loyalists dominate the new bench

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Mexican Supreme Court remake: Ruling-party loyalists dominate the new bench

Judicial candidates closely linked to Mexico's ruling party have swept every position on the nation's newly transformed Supreme Court, according to final results released Wednesday from the controversial judicial vote. The nine incoming justices on the high court have strong ties to the dominant Morena bloc headed by President Claudia Sheinbaum, and their election signals a radical shift in Mexico's balance of power. Among them is a new chief justice, Hugo Aguilar, who would become the country's first top jurist of Indigenous origin since the legendary Benito Juárez, who also served as president, more than a century and a half ago. Electoral regulators still must validate the vote, though that is viewed as a formality. The Supreme Court justices, along with almost 900 other newly elected federal jurists, are scheduled to take office Sept. 1. Mexican authorities have been tallying the results from Sunday's controversial national balloting — championed by Morena — in which only 13% of eligible voters went to the polls. Despite the paltry turnout, Sheinbaum has lauded the election as "marvelous" and "a great success." She has hailed the replacement of the entire federal judiciary as a victory of democracy over corruption and nepotism. Read more: Sheinbaum calls Mexico's judicial election 'extraordinary' despite turnout of less than 13% The president has been especially effusive about the likely emergence of a chief justice from one of Mexico's long-marginalized Indigenous communities. "It's a profound change," she said. Indigenous Mexicans, comprising about 10% of the population, have long been among the country's poorest residents and are often subject to racism. Some detractors have mocked the desire of Aguilar to don Indigenous dress instead of the traditional black robes. Sheinbaum said she supports his effort to honor his cultural roots. Mexico has became the first country worldwide to elect all of its judges, from Supreme Court justices down to thousands of local magistrates. Many independent observers have assailed the exercise as a triumph of politics over justice — and a potentially fatal blow for the separation of powers, a crucial pillar of democratic rule. "This is a setback for democracy in Mexico," said Stephanie Brewer, who heads the Mexico analysis section of the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights research group. "When you have concentration of power over all three branches of government, you start to erode democratic rule." Sheinbaum's Morena party already has super-majorities in the Mexican Congress and dominates many state and local governments. Coparmex, a Mexican business group, said it had detected "multiple irregularities" in the vote and declared that the new judiciary could hamper investment in Mexico, the United States' leading trading partner. "Without independent justice, there is no sustainable investment," Coparmex said in a statement. "Mexico cannot aspire to progress without legality." Read more: Mexico judicial elections: Government calls it essential reform. Critics say it's a farce The revamped Supreme Court will have nine judges, compared to 11 in the current high court. The Supreme Court will also have reduced ability to challenge congressional and presidential actions. Sheinbaum has dismissed much of the the criticism of the election as "classism and racism," and has celebrated the rise of Aguilar, the apparent chief justice-elect, who hails from the Mixtec ethnic group in southern Oaxaca state. She accused opponents of fomenting "hate." Aguilar, who currently oversees human rights affairs for the government's National Institute of Indigenous Peoples, garnered 6 million votes, more than any other Supreme Court contender, results showed. Second highest in Supreme Court balloting was Lenia Batres Guardarrama, 5.7 million votes. From humble origins, Aguilar has said that a desire to defend Indigenous rights inspired him to study law. He has been widely praised for his legal acumen and dedication to the poor. "Hugo seems to be a brilliant lawyer," said Joaquín Galván, a human rights attorney in Oaxaca state. "But I would advise against idealizing him like he is the new Benito Juárez, or to say that—just because he is Indigenous—he cannot be criticized." Some critics have also accused Aguilar of selling out to win Indigenous support for controversial development projects promoted by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, notably the $25-billion Maya Train, which some Indigenous groups resisted as destructive of the environment and of native communities. "Without doubt Aguilar has been a promoter and defender of the government of Morena," Galván said. Among the other candidates leading in the voting for seats on the Supreme Court are three sitting justices appointed by López Obrador, who founded Morena, and was Sheinbaum's mentor. Those three are: Batres, Yasim Esquivel and Loretta Ortiz. By law, the new court will be composed of five women and four men. For years, López Obrador battled with the country's Supreme Court about a number of contentious issues, notably his plan to overhaul the nation's electoral system. Nearing the end of his six-year term, he championed the controversial reform that led to Sunday's judicial overhaul. Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store