Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case on Age Limits for Carrying Guns
The Supreme Court on Monday turned down an opportunity to weigh in on whether the government may restrict 18- to 20-year-olds from buying or carrying guns, a question that has divided the lower courts.
The case concerned a Minnesota law that makes it a crime for people under 21 to carry guns in public. Last year, the Eighth Circuit struck down the law, ruling that the Second Amendment required letting those as young as 18 be armed.
'The Second Amendment's plain text does not have an age limit,' wrote Judge Duane Benton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.
He relied on the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18 in 1971. The amendment, Judge Benton wrote, 'unambiguously places 18- to 20-year-olds within the national political community.'
Lower courts have struggled to apply recent Supreme Court decisions that transformed Second Amendment law by introducing a new test to judge the constitutionality of gun control measures. As Justice Clarence Thomas put it in his 2022 majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, such laws must be struck down unless they are 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.'
Keith Ellison, Minnesota's attorney general, had urged the justices to return the case to the appeals court for reconsideration in light of United States v. Rahimi. In that case, decided last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can temporarily disarm people subject to restraining orders for domestic violence.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
New Trump travel ban takes effect
President Trump's travel ban targeting a dozen countries went into effect on Monday, the latest step by the White House to crack down on the number of individuals entering the U.S. The new policy fully restricts the entry into the United States of nationals from Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also partially restricts entry into the U.S. for nationals coming from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The policy makes exceptions for nationals from all 19 of those countries who are lawful permanent residents of the United States or existing visa holders and individuals 'whose entry serves U.S. national interests.' The travel ban is taking effect amid rising tensions in Los Angeles around immigration raids in the city. Trump and White House officials have argued the travel restrictions are based on national security concerns, specifically with vetting procedures involving the listed countries. Trump's attempts to restrict entry into the United States from certain Muslim-majority countries in his first term drew legal challenges and protests at airports across the country. This time around, experts have suggested he is likely on firmer legal footing in part because of a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the third version of his first-term ban and in part because the administration laid the groundwork with an executive order focused on enhanced vetting.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Firearm death rate for children increased most in N.H., declined most in R.I. since 2010, study finds
Advertisement The most gun-friendly states were passing more liberalizing legislation, while the stricter states adopted more restrictions, according to Faust. The study looked at 49 states with sufficient data, excluding Hawaii because of inadequate data due to small numbers. Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up Given those changes, Faust said, he and other researchers, including collaborators at Yale School of Medicine, wanted to study the impact of a state's legislative approach on outcomes in different states. 'The question was: Is this a national problem? Is it a state level problem? And if so, is it about the laws?' said Faust. The study divided states into three groups based on an analysis of their gun laws: most permissive, permissive, and strict. Their finding was that the most-permissive states had the biggest increases in mortality, while permissive states had somewhat big increases, and strict states saw no increase. New Hampshire was classified in the most permissive category. Here, the rate started out relatively low compared to other states, the study found, but has doubled since the Supreme Court ruling. Advertisement Nationally, firearms are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents. But outcomes from one state to another varied widely, according to the study. 'I was horrified for some people, but reassured for others,' Faust said. 'You can have a Second Amendment, but have reasonable safety policies that make it so people can exercise their rights without having any untoward effect on the safety of our communities.' Nationally, the study found only four states in which there was a statistically significant decline in childhood firearm mortality after McDonald v Chicago: California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island. All of them fell into the strict firearms law group. Among them, Rhode Island was the state with the biggest decrease. 'It's a really important study that shows, one, that permissive firearm laws are associated with greater pediatric firearm death,' said Kelly Drane, research director at Giffords Law Center, a nonprofit that promotes gun violence prevention. 'It shows the benefit of states taking action to protect children.' And, she said, the study highlights how different outcomes are in different states, and how that relates to the strength of their gun laws. 'You can really see how children in some states are much safer, much less likely to die from gun violence than children in other states,' said Drane. But another independent expert, Dr. Cedric Dark, said it's difficult to establish causality, and there are indications in the study that other factors are likely at play beyond the policy changes after 2010. He pointed to a national increase in homicide deaths around 2020. Advertisement 'I think there's something else going on too, especially in that COVID era,' said Dark, who practices emergency medicine and teaches at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas. In 2024, Dark, who is also a gun owner, published a book on gun violence, 'Under The Gun: An ER Doctor's Cure for America's Gun Epidemic.' In his research for the book, Dark said, he found specific policies that are known to save lives, including universal background checks, child access prevention laws, domestic violence restraining orders, and bans on large capacity magazines. 'The main point for me is: What are those policies that states that are least restrictive versus most restrictive have implemented?' he said. Since 2010, New Hampshire has enacted several liberalizing gun laws. In 2011, the 'What we've seen in states that have passed these laws is that homicides increased drastically after Stand Your Ground laws passed, presumably because people are choosing to stand their ground rather than retreat from conflicts as they would have been required to before,' said Drane. Then, in 2017, the state Advertisement The state's gun laws earned it an 'D-' from Giffords Law Center in its But it New Hampshire's baseline rate from 1999 to 2010 was actually quite low compared to other states, at 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people. But from 2010 to 2023, it nearly doubled, up to 0.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Drane said New Hampshire is likely benefiting from its neighbors with stricter gun laws like Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut, which act as a buffer. In contrast, Rhode Island's mortality rate, with its strict gun laws, declined from 1.2 deaths per 100,000 people down to 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people. Massachusetts, classified as a strict state, has a relatively low rate of childhood firearm deaths, and that didn't change significantly in the years after 2010, although it may have diminished slightly. Its rate went from 0.7 deaths per 100,000 to 0.6 deaths per 100,000, although the change wasn't statistically significant. The study classified Vermont as a permissive state, and its rates rose from 1.1 deaths per 100,000 to 1.8 deaths per 100,000, but the change was not statistically significant. Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Travel Ban Reinstated By Trump With Mostly Muslim Countries
President Donald J. Trump, citing national security concerns, has reinstated and expanded the controversial nationality-based travel ban first introduced during his initial term. The new ban, formalized in a Presidential Proclamation that came into effect on Monday, June 9, 2025, suspends the entry of nationals from 19 countries, primarily targeting Muslim-majority and African nations. The proclamation fully suspends immigrant and nonimmigrant visa issuance to nationals of 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It imposes partial restrictions on B-1/B-2 tourist visas and F, M, and J student and exchange visas for nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Exceptions apply to green card holders, dual nationals, certain special immigrant visa holders, athletes in international competitions, and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The administration relies on a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the president to suspend the entry of any class of noncitizens deemed 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' That authority was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which ruled 5-4 that President Trump's third version of the travel ban was constitutional, emphasizing executive deference on immigration and national security. But critics argue that this expanded ban perpetuates discriminatory intent, noting the disproportionate impact on Muslim and African nations and the invocation of Trump's 2024 campaign pledge to 'restore the travel ban and keep radical Islamic terrorists out.' Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, predicts court challenges but warns that they may fail under the current precedent. 'Even if this expansion is legal, it is not good policy,' he said. 'Families will be separated, and we are not necessarily safer.' The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the order 'ideologically motivated,' 'unnecessary,' and 'overbroad,' criticizing its chilling effect on lawful travel, academic exchange, and humanitarian reunification. Legal scholars have started to question the constitutionality of this policy. More specifically, they contend that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits governments from denying equal legal protection, while the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids favouring or disfavoring any religion. Critics argue that Trump's policy, which targets specific nations commonly associated with certain religions, risks violating both clauses by enabling discrimination based on nationality and faith. Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished national origin quotas to prevent such bias. By reinstating restrictions linked to religious or national identity, opponents claim the policy mirrors discriminatory practices that the law aimed to eliminate. Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, noted: 'Blanket nationality bans have never demonstrated any meaningful national security value. This ban hurts our economy and punishes immigrants who qualify to come legally.' According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) 'In total, just under 162,000 immigrant visas and temporary work, study, and travel visas were issued in fiscal year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the now banned visa categories, according to the Migration Policy Institute.' Nationals from the banned countries represent more than 475 million people globally. Beyond family separations, the ban may deter students, scientists, and health professionals at a time when the U.S. is experiencing labor shortages in STEM and healthcare. Universities like Harvard have expressed alarm at the targeting of international students, as the administration simultaneously suspended new visas for foreign scholars at select institutions, further stoking fears of ideological purges in academia. The 2025 travel ban echoes policies from Trump's first term and extends their scope. The first 'Muslim ban' of 2017 was repeatedly struck down until a more narrowly tailored version survived judicial review. Today's ban, while more procedurally refined, raises the same fundamental concern: are Americans safer by denying entry based on birthplace? Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the 1965 INA famously stated that 'the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system' would never return. Critics now argue that President Trump has revived that very shadow, using presidential proclamations instead of legislative quotas. 'This is not national security—it's national scapegoating,' said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. 'It undermines constitutional values and stigmatizes entire populations for political gain.' The legality of the 2025 travel ban reinstated as it is may pass muster under Trump v. Hawaii, but its morality, logic, and long-term consequences remain in question. As lawsuits mount and civil rights groups prepare their defences, the nation must decide: do we protect ourselves by shutting doors or by standing firm in our values of openness, equality, and due process?
