Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case on Age Limits for Carrying Guns
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
Associated Press
19 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Oregon city at heart of Supreme Court homelessness ruling to ensure camping spaces under settlement
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon city at the heart of a major U.S. Supreme Court homelessness ruling has agreed to ensure camping spaces for at least 150 people as part of a settlement reached with a disability rights group that sued the city over its camping rules. Disability Rights Oregon, which sued Grants Pass in January, said Friday that it had reached a settlement agreement. The advocacy group accused the city of discriminating against people with disabilities and violating a state law requiring cities' camping regulations to be 'objectively reasonable.' 'This settlement represents a significant step forward in ensuring people with disabilities experiencing homelessness have places to rest, basic necessities like drinking water, and real opportunity to stabilize their lives,' Jake Cornett, executive director and CEO of Disability Rights Oregon, said in a statement. Grants Pass Mayor Clint Scherf said in an email Tuesday that the city appreciates having reached an agreement and will 'continue to work toward effective measures to benefit all members of our community.' A copy of the settlement agreement showed the city signed off on it earlier this month. Josephine County Circuit Court Judge Sarah McGlaughlin issued a preliminary injunction in March blocking the city from enforcing its camping rules unless it increased capacity at city-approved sites for camping and ensured they are physically accessible to people with disabilities. City ordinances prohibit sleeping or leaving personal property in a park overnight in most cases. Those found in violation can be fined up to $50. The city said Friday on Facebook that law enforcement 'will begin noticing the parks, and occupants will have 72 hours to remove their belongings.' The city's website shows three 'designated resting locations' in the downtown area, near City Hall and the police station, where people can stay for four days before having to relocate. The time limit can be enforced unless disability accommodations are necessary, the city said on Facebook. At resting sites, individuals are limited to spaces that are 8 feet by 8 feet (2.4 meters by 2.4 meters), with buffers of 3 feet (0.9 meters) between spaces, as outlined in city code. Under the settlement, Grants Pass must ensure that at least 150 camping spaces are available in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act for the next 12 months. Drinking water and hand washing stations must be available on-site. The city must also provide $60,000 in grant funding to a nonprofit for homeless services. Grants Pass, a small city of about 40,000 along the Rogue River in the mountains of southern Oregon, has struggled for years to address the homelessness crisis and become emblematic of the national debate over how to deal with it. Its parks in particular became a flashpoint, with many of them becoming the site of encampments blighted by drug use and litter. Last June, in a case brought by the city, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that communities can ban sleeping outside and fine people for doing so, even when there are not enough shelter beds. After the high court ruling, Grants Pass banned camping on all city property except locations designated by the City Council, which established sites for the town's hundreds of homeless people in a bid to move them from the parks. Upon taking office in January, the new mayor and new council members moved to close the larger of the two sites, which housed roughly 120 tents, according to Disability Rights Oregon's complaint, which said the sites were frequently crowded with poor conditions and inaccessible to people with disabilities because of loose gravel. After the lawsuit was filed, the city reopened a second, smaller site. McGlaughin's order in March said the city had to increase capacity to what it had been before the larger site was closed. Homelessness increased 18% last year nationwide, driven mostly by a lack of affordable housing as well as devastating natural disasters and an increase in migrants in some areas.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Potential Trump Supreme Court pick rails against ‘cultural elites' in drag ban reversal dissent
There are no current vacancies on the Supreme Court. But the Donald Trump White House has said that it wants judges in the mold of the high court's two oldest justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. A new dissent that name-checks both justices is a reminder that one front-runner for any vacancy that emerges could be Judge James Ho, whom Trump previously appointed to a federal appeals court. In his dissent, Ho invoked conservative talking points, like transgender sports participation, and railed against 'cultural elites.' The case decided Monday concerned Spectrum WT, an LGBT+ student organization at West Texas A&M University. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit split 2-1 in ruling for the group that had raised a free speech claim. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Trump appointee of mifepristone case fame, denied the group a preliminary injunction, reasoning that the First Amendment didn't apply to the drag show. The appellate panel majority reversed the district judge, with George W. Bush appointee Leslie Southwick writing the opinion, joined by Clinton appointee James Dennis. Southwick wrote that Kacsmaryk 'erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.' The panel majority said the plaintiffs' drag show is protected constitutional expression. In his dissent, Ho argued that a 2010 Supreme Court precedent called Christian Legal Society (CLS) v. Martinez, which went against a student group that wanted to exclude gay people while receiving school funding, should've led the appellate panel to rule against the plaintiffs in this case. Writing that he disagrees with the CLS decision even as he's bound by it, Ho said he 'will not apply a different legal standard in this case, just because drag shows enjoy greater favor among cultural elites than the religious activities at issue in CLS.' Obviously, the majority did not explain its ruling that way. One of the ways it sought to distinguish this case from the CLS case was by writing, 'Instead of the significant interference with the right of expressive association that the Supreme Court permitted there, the university here was interfering with the expressive activity itself, the speech.' At any rate, one implication of Ho's dissent is that the majority did the untoward thing he valiantly refused to do: apply a double standard in service of some undefined 'cultural elites.' Lawyers and judges generally bolster their points by citing authorities, but Ho didn't do so there, nor did he explain which 'elites' he was talking about. Perhaps we are supposed to understand implicitly — and perhaps we do. Though one wonders how 'elite' is the group if it needs to wage a legal battle to put on a show? Ho's 'cultural elites' remark was just the beginning, however. He added to his dissent's culture-war complaints by positing that 'if university officials allow men to act as women in campus events like drag shows, they may feel compelled to allow men to act as women in other campus events as well — like women's sports.' The judge conceded that drag shows and women's sports 'might seem, on first blush, to have little to do with one another.' But he proceeded to make the case, citing sources that included a book that worried, 'If we accept that people can change genders — or even if we don't but agree to be 'polite' and call a man 'she' — then why shouldn't 'she' be allowed to play women's sports or bathe naked in an all-women's space? Why shouldn't 'she' be allowed to enter women's abuse houses or be transferred to a women's prison? Why accept one lie and not the whole thing?' (To be clear, Ho included that full quote in his dissent.) He also leaned on Alito's dissent in the CLS case, which was joined by Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and the late Antonin Scalia. Ho separately cited Thomas' concurrence in the recent Skrmetti case approving a gender-affirming care ban for minors, specifically where Thomas noted 'several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class.' Ho used the justice's observation to bolster his point that 'judges should not blindly trust experts in education, anymore than we should in any other field.' It was the appeals court judge's latest display of his willingness — and apparent eagerness — to step into any vacancy that Thomas or Alito might one day leave. If such a vacancy emerges, then so does the prospect of encountering Ho's writings in Supreme Court opinions for decades to come. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
an hour ago
US appeals court blocks New Mexico's 7-day waiting period on gun purchases
SANTA FE, N.M. -- A panel of federal appellate judges ruled Tuesday that New Mexico's seven-day waiting period on gun purchases likely infringes on citizens' Second Amendment rights, putting the law on hold pending a legal challenge. The ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sends the case back to a lower court. New Mexico's waiting period went into effect in May 2024, and does hold an exception for concealed permit holders. 'Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment's scope,' wrote Judge Timothy Tymkovich in the split 2-1 ruling. 'We conclude that New Mexico's Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Scott Matheson said New Mexico's waiting period 'establishes a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms that does not serve abusive ends.' The National Rifle Association and Mountain States Legal Foundation, an advocacy group for gun rights, filed the lawsuit on behalf of two New Mexico residents, citing concerns about delayed access to weapons for victims of domestic violence and others. Democratic state lawmakers had enacted the restrictions in hopes of ensuring more time for the completion of federal background checks on gun buyers. In a statement, Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham expressed 'deep disappointment' and said Tuesday's ruling was likely to cost lives. 'New Mexico's waiting period law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights,' said Lujan Grisham, highlighting additional exceptions for gun purchases by law enforcement officers and transactions between immediate family members. 'Waiting periods prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide, giving people time to step back and reassess their emotions during moments of crisis.' —-
