U.S. Supreme Court won't hear appeal of University of Michigan gun ban
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal in a long running case challenging the University of Michigan's ban on firearms on campus, denying the petition on Monday.
In Joshua Wade v. University of Michigan, the Michigan Court of Appeals previously ruled that the University's ban was in line with other policies permitted by the Second Amendment which ban firearms in 'sensitive places' like schools.
According to the University's brief to the Supreme Court, Wade is neither a student or faculty member, but a private citizen who 'spend[s] a lot of time outdoors and in downtown Ann Arbor' and 'believe[s] it is [his] constitutional right to carry a weapon on University property,' seeking a waiver to the University's policy. When his waiver was denied, he sued the university, alleging violations of the Second Amendment and state law.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
In petitioning the Supreme Court, Wade's attorney questioned 'whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments allow a criminal ordinance that prohibits mere possession of firearms on an entire poorly-delineated university campus, except by permission of a single government official with unfettered discretion, which is granted only for 'extraordinary circumstances,' disputing the Court of Appeals' classification of all university property as a 'sensitive place'.
'The decision of the Court of Appeals, upheld by the Michigan Supreme Court's denial of appeal, has significant and troubling consequences. By broadly designating the entire university campus as a 'sensitive place,' the court effectively nullifies the Second Amendment for thousands of individuals who live, work, or study on or near university property,' Wade's attorney wrote. 'This sweeping prohibition also chills the exercise of the right to bear arms for those who might pass through campus, where the boundary between university property and public space is often indistinguishable.'
The Supreme Court also denied an appeal in another Second Amendment case on Monday, where the State of Minnesota sought to challenge a ruling striking down a law restricting permits to carry a handgun in public to applicants 21 or older, which was upheld by a federal appeals court.
While another federal appeals court struck down similar age restrictions in Pennsylvania, yet another court upheld the restrictions in Colorado. With similar age restriction cases pending in other jurisdictions, the attorneys for Minnesota argued the Court should either grant its petition, vacate the lower court's decision and remand the case, or review the lower court's decision to give direction to the lower courts set to hear these similar cases.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chinese bioterror suspects' arrests signal communist country plotting 'something worse' than COVID: expert
After the pattern of recent covert communist Chinese infiltrations of the U.S. continued with the arrest of two suspected "bioterrorists" in Michigan this week, one expert said it's time to sever relations with China completely. "The only way to stop this is to sever relations with China," attorney and Chinese Communist Party expert Gordon Chang told Fox News Digital. "And I know people think that's drastic, but we are being overwhelmed, and we are going to get hit. And we are going to get hit really hard. Not just with COVID, not just with fentanyl, but perhaps with something worse." Chang was responding to recent news of Chinese nationals Yunqing Jian, 33, and her boyfriend Zunyong Liu, 34, who, over a two-year period, were allegedly smuggling Fusarium graminearum into the U.S. and studying it in labs. Jian was a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan, whose research was funded in part by the People's Republic of China. Patel: Chinese Nationals Charged With Smuggling 'Known Agroterrorism Agent' Into Us Is A 'Direct Threat' Fusarium graminearum is a toxic fungus that causes a crop-killing "head blight," a disease of wheat, barley, maize and rice that "is responsible for billions of dollars in economic losses worldwide each year," according to the Department of Justice. It is also toxic to humans, and can cause vomiting, liver damage and "reproductive defects in humans and livestock." Read On The Fox News App "This couple should be sent to Guantánamo," Chang said. "This Chinese government has declared a 'People's War' on us." A "People's War" is a military strategy developed by brutal former Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong, who died in 1976, known for killing tens of millions of Chinese people via starvation and political persecution. Such a war calls for a protracted military and political onslaught meant to exhaust the enemy. Jian and Liu were arrested earlier this week and charged with conspiracy, smuggling goods into the U.S., false statements and visa fraud. "We're Americans, so we think we're entitled to ignore the propaganda of hostile regimes," Chang said. "But for a communist party, [a People's War] has great resonance, and what they're doing with their strident anti-Americanism is creating a justification to strike our country." Suspected Chinese Bioterrorists Smuggled Killer Agent Into Us In Boots, Officials Say "This means, for example, that this couple should be sent to Guantánamo," he said. "This was an attack on the United States at a time when China thought it was at war with us." Since the 2019 People's War decree referenced by Chang, a laundry list of Chinese and Chinese-aligned infiltrators have been caught red-handed in the U.S., especially at American universities. Here's a look back at some of those instances: In 2020, two Chinese nationals who were graduate students at the University of Michigan pleaded guilty to charges stemming from a breach at a Naval air station in Key West, Florida, where they were caught illegally entering and photographing defense infrastructure. Charles Lieber is not a Chinese national, but was convicted in 2021 of making false statements to authorities and failing to report income from his work with China's Wuhan University of Technology. He also had a contract with China's Thousand Talents Program, which "incentivize [their] members to steal foreign technologies needed to advance China's national, military, and economic goals," according to the FBI. He was sentenced to time served, which was two days in prison, and two years of supervised release with six months of home confinement. He also paid various fines and restitution of more than $88,000. In 2022, Ji Chaoqun, a Chinese national who had been a student at the Illinois Institute of Technology, was convicted after attempting to commit espionage and theft of trade secrets. Chaoqun gathered information from American defense contractors and engineers as part of a plot by high-level Chinese intelligence officials to glean information about U.S. technology advancements. He was sentenced to eight years in prison. In 2024, the FBI filed charges against five Chinese nationals, all students at the University of Michigan, after they were caught allegedly photographing a joint American-Taiwanese training exercise at Camp Grayling, a National Guard training facility in Michigan. Their studies were part of a joint program with Shanghai-based Jiao Tong University. Late last year, a University of Minnesota student and Chinese national named Fengyun Shi was convicted in federal court for illegally taking photos of Norfolk, Virginia, naval bases using a drone. He was sentenced to six months in jail and then deported in May of this year. Chinese Official Claims No Knowledge Of Fungus Situation, Says China Requires Citizens 'Abide By Local Laws' "We can lose our country, even though we're the far stronger nation, because we are not defending ourselves with the vigor and determination that is necessary," Chang told Fox News Digital. Chang also noted that in 2020, Americans in all 50 states received seeds from China unsolicited, which he said "was an attempt to plant invasive species" in the U.S. He also noted that this year, Chinese online retailer Temu did the same. "Imagine walking into your local grocery store and seeing empty shelves where bread, cereal, and even pet food used to be," Jason Pack, a former FBI supervisory special agent, told Fox News Digital. "Prices spike. Supply chains slow down. All because a foreign actor deliberately targeted the crops that keep America fed. That may sound far-fetched, but it's exactly the kind of scenario that becomes possible when someone brings a dangerous agricultural pathogen into the United States. "It doesn't take a bomb to disrupt an economy. It takes a biological agent like Fusarium graminearum introduced into the wrong place at the wrong time. Food prices rise. Livestock suffer. Exports stop. The economic ripple effects are enormous."Original article source: Chinese bioterror suspects' arrests signal communist country plotting 'something worse' than COVID: expert
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Will Harvard win its legal battle against the Trump administration?
The high court has given more leeway to presidential powers, particularly on national security issues the White House has cited to justify its latest impositions on Harvard. Moreover, the battle of attrition could wear Harvard down on the financial front: the legal battles will be costly, and in the meantime, Harvard may lose students and scholars 'I think the government wins every time,' said Brad Banias, an immigration lawyer based in Charleston, S.C., and former trial attorney for the Justice Department. 'If I'm an international student and I have a choice between Harvard, Yale, Brown . . . why would I pick the one in a battle with the government?' Advertisement Under fire on multiple fronts, Harvard has filed two lawsuits against the administration: one to reverse the elimination of billions in federal funding after the school refused to agree to a series of demands; the second over the White House's efforts to block international students from attending Harvard, citing potential threats to national security. Advertisement On the latter fight, Harvard so far has won temporary relief. On Thursday night, US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a temporary restraining barring President Trump from denying visas to all students seeking entry to the country to attend Harvard. Last month, the judge temporarily halted the administration's effort to immediately revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students. In its lawsuit filed in May and amended Thursday, Harvard accused the administration of 'a blatant violation' of its First Amendment and due process rights as part of an ongoing, retaliatory campaign against Harvard and other elite schools by Trump. Banias said he believes the administration's actions against Harvard were 'unlawful retaliation' and predicted the school will obtain a permanent injunction to allow international students to continue their studies while the underlying lawsuit proceeds in court. But, he said, it's 'a coin flip' as to which side wins if the case reaches the Supreme Court. On the one hand, the court historically is hesitant to restrict a president's power on national security issues. Yet in this case, Banias said, the Trump administration is unlikely to prove that all Harvard student visa holders pose a national security threat. During Trump's first term, in a 5-4 vote in 2018, the Supreme Court upheld his ban on travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries, a victory that came after two prior versions of the ban were struck down. The court found presidents have broad statutory authority to make national security judgments involving immigration. Laurence Tribe, a law professor emeritus at Harvard, said he's confident the university would prevail before the Supreme Court. Advertisement 'This has nothing to do with national security,' said Tribe, a liberal lawyer who's argued before the court dozens of times. 'The courts aren't stupid; they recognize a fig leaf when they see one.' He said Harvard has no choice but to fight Trump's actions. He noted Columbia University's more conciliatory approach: The Ivy League school in New York City agreed to change certain internal policies earlier this year in the face of federal funding cuts, but the Trump administration has continued to hammer the college. On the same day Trump announced the latest move targeting the student visas of Harvard enrollees, his administration sent a letter to the accreditation agency that oversees Columbia, writing that the school has violated civil rights laws and asking it to open an investigation. 'Columbia has seen the consequences of trying to deal with him,' Tribe said. 'We are not going to cave.' Daniel DiMartino, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, said that if Harvard wins a permanent injunction, the school will be able to continue to admit foreign students, and likely run out the clock until Trump is out of office or the administration's attention shifts. 'If there is an injunction, essentially Harvard wins. If there is not an injunction, Harvard really is in trouble,' DiMartino said. But Trump's goal, he said, is not to stop foreign students from coming to Harvard: it's to cause the university enough problems that it has to agree to changes demanded by the White House. Trump and other conservatives say Harvard has discriminated against white and Asian people in admissions, failed to do enough to tackle antisemitism, and rebuffed efforts to have ideological diversity in its professorial ranks. Advertisement 'If their goal was actually just to forbid foreign students from Harvard, they would have done it much more slowly and given them notice,' DiMartino said. 'The administration is trying to make an example out of Harvard to threaten other universities into cooperating and not misbehaving.' And in a broad sense, with the legal fees that come with protracted fights, DiMartino said, 'Harvard will lose no matter what. It just matters how much they lose.' Harvard also sued the Trump administration in April after it announced it was slashing about $3 billion in federal grants to the university. That case is pending. Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge who teaches courses at Harvard Law School, said she believes the Supreme Court will come down on Harvard's side and predicted the case will move quickly because of the ongoing harm to the school and its students. Citing the administration's demand the school turn over disciplinary records and other information on international students, Gertner said the White House 'essentially wanted Harvard to be a whistle-blower,' and is now retaliating even though that information is not legally required or provided by any other schools. Northeastern constitutional law professor Jeremy Paul said the government is able to punish institutions that break the law, as the Trump administration says Harvard has in its handling of antisemitic incidents. But first, he said, they have to prove in front of a judge the institution has done so. They can't just make an allegation and then act unilaterally, as the administration has done, he said. 'The executive branch is acting as though they're both the prosecutor and the judge,' Paul said. Advertisement Shelley Murphy can be reached at
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.'
