Justice Kavanaugh signals the Supreme Court could take up AR-15 bans
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled Monday the high court could soon take up a big case: the constitutionality of AR-15 rifle bans. The court declined to take up a case involving Maryland's AR-15 ban this term, but Kavanaugh wrote the court 'should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.' NewsNation legal contributor Jesse Weber told me he believes Kavanaugh is right. 'Not only will they hear it, they have to hear it,' Weber said. 'There is so much confusion across courts about when is a gun regulation unconstitutional,' he added. Get ready for this case in the high court at some point in the coming years.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein's accusers 'all said no,' prosecutor tells jury as rape retrial ends
By Jack Queen NEW YORK (Reuters) -A prosecutor on Wednesday told jurors in Harvey Weinstein's Manhattan retrial that the evidence clearly showed the former movie mogul raped three women, pushing back on a defense lawyer's efforts to paint the accusers as liars. Prosecutor Nicole Blumberg picked up where she left off during closing arguments the previous day, seeking to show that Weinstein forced himself on the women despite their pleading with him to stop. The Academy Award-winning producer and Miramax studio co-founder is accused of raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann in 2013 and assaulting the two other women in 2006 and 2002. Weinstein, who has denied ever having non-consensual sex or assaulting anyone, has pleaded not guilty. The trial began in April. "Members of the jury, he raped three women. They all said, 'no,'" Blumberg said. Weinstein, 73, is on trial for a second time after a New York state appeals court threw out his conviction in April 2024. Experiencing a litany of health problems, Weinstein was present in court on Wednesday in a wheelchair, wearing a dark suit and tie. Before Blumberg's pitch to jurors Wednesday, defense lawyer Arthur Aidala twice moved for a mistrial based on the prosecutor's arguments the previous day, but the motions were swiftly denied by state Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber. The 12 jurors are due to begin deliberations after closing arguments are completed and Farber instructs them on the law. Blumberg on Tuesday called Weinstein a serial predator who promised career advancement in Hollywood to women, only to then coax them into private settings where he attacked them. She urged jurors Wednesday to disregard the defense's claim the Weinstein was on trial because he was famous and that prosecutors were trying to criminalize consensual sex. "We heard a lot about 'policing the bedroom' yesterday," Blumberg said, referring to Aidala's closing argument on Tuesday. "We don't want to police bedrooms either - unless you're forcibly raping someone inside them." Aidala on Tuesday accused the three alleged victims of lying on the witness stand out of spite after consensual sexual encounters with Weinstein failed to deliver them Hollywood stardom. "They are lying about what happened. Not about everything, but about a small slice - just enough to turn their regret, their buyers' remorse, into criminality," Aidala said of the accusers. The lawyer hoisted a dozen poster-sized placards showing emails from the accusers where they seek Weinstein's company after the alleged attacks, saying they showed the women were lying. Weinstein faces a maximum sentence of up to 29 years in prison if convicted on all charges. He already will likely spend the rest of his life in prison due to a 16-year prison sentence given to him after being found guilty in December 2022 of rape in California. He was convicted of rape by a jury in the previous trial in Manhattan in February 2020, but the New York Court of Appeals threw out the conviction and ordered a new trial, citing errors by the trial judge. Weinstein had been serving a 23-year sentence in a prison in upstate Rome, New York, when the conviction was overturned. That conviction was a milestone for the #MeToo movement, which encouraged women to come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct by powerful men. More than 100 women, including famous actresses, have accused Weinstein of misconduct. Weinstein has been held at New York City's Rikers Island jail since his conviction was overturned. He has experienced several health scares while being held at Rikers, and in September was rushed to a hospital for emergency heart surgery.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Key SCOTUS parental rights cases draw McMahon, Moms for Liberty to rally on court steps
Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the conservative group Moms for Liberty took to the Supreme Court steps Tuesday to recognize the 100-year anniversary of a landmark case that they said gave parents more control over their children's education. But advocates who spoke at the event are also anticipating decisions in two other pivotal cases that could affect the conservative-led parental rights movement. Rosalind Hanson, who is part of a group of plaintiffs in Mahmoud v. Taylor, told Fox News Digital in an interview after the rally that she is optimistic about a forthcoming decision from the high court on the key religious liberty case. She said it came from Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland refusing to allow parents to opt their elementary school children out of being exposed to books containing gender and sexuality concepts. "We are not trying to change the curriculum," Hanson said. "We are not trying to say what you teach.… The majority of states across the country have said you can have an opt-out for these very sensitive issues and topics, especially because of the religious component, but also because of the age appropriateness." Supreme Court Likely To Side With Parents In Letting Them Opt Out Of Lgbtq Storybooks, Expert Says Montgomery County Public Schools attorneys argued to the Supreme Court that courts have long held that "mere exposure to controversial issues in a public-school curriculum does not burden the free religious exercise of parents or students." Still, the attorneys stood by the school system's decision to incorporate what they described as a "handful of storybooks featuring lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer characters" for use in language arts lessons. Read On The Fox News App The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case in April, and a decision is expected in the coming weeks. Also on Moms for Liberty's radar is United States v. Skrmetti, one of the most closely watched cases of the court's term. The case arose from the Biden administration suing over a bill Tennessee passed in 2023 to ban puberty blockers and hormone therapy as treatments for minors who identify as transgender. The Supreme Court is now poised to decide within the next few weeks if states can restrict such medical treatments for minors. Maryland Mom Taking Fight To Opt Child Out Of Lgbtq Story Books Before Supreme Court Scarlett Johnson, who has a leadership role in Moms for Liberty, called the case a "big one" and told Fox News Digital she also urges members of her group to advocate legislation that "will protect children from the puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors regarding the issue of gender identity." McMahon, meanwhile, reflected on Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a landmark decision issued 100 years ago that struck down Oregon's law requiring all children to attend public school. McMahon called it "one of the most impactful education-related cases in American history" but said the parental rights movement remains necessary. Watch Live: Moms For Liberty Rally With Linda Mcmahon At Supreme Court "Special interest and progressive activists still try to agitate for the government to override moms and dads in education," McMahon said. "Whether it's through ideological indoctrination, sexually explicit curriculum, or hiding health and safety risks from parents, the progressive left always wants to come between you and your kids." The speakers' remarks could be heard clearly over livestreams online, but in person in front of the Supreme Court building, they were drowned out entirely by a single protester screaming profanities and bashing a string of officials, including McMahon, Justice Clarence Thomas and President Donald Trump. Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., elicited laughs when she thanked the protester, who was holding a sign reading "Let's TACO 'bout tariffs," a reference to an acronym Democrats' adopted for "Trump Always Chickens Out." "I'd also like to thank our lone protester for highlighting the mental health crisis in our country. Bless your heart, as we would say in the South," Cammack article source: Key SCOTUS parental rights cases draw McMahon, Moms for Liberty to rally on court steps
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump DOJ takes 'unprecedented' step admonishing foreign judge in free speech case centered on Rumble
The Department of Justice (DOJ) sent an unprecedented letter to a Brazilian Supreme Court justice in May, admonishing the judge for ordering American-based video platform Rumble to restrict the free speech of a user on U.S. soil, describing the orders as international overreach that lack enforceability. Rumble, a popular U.S.-based video-sharing platform that bucks censorship efforts frequently found on other video and social media platforms, is at the center of an international battle to protect free speech that has been ongoing for months. Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the suspension of Rumble in the South American country back in February over claims the U.S. company did not comply with court orders, including removing the accounts of a Brazilian man living in the U.S. and seeking political asylum. "If you look at what's happening around the world, it's clear we're living through a perilous moment for anyone who believes in freedom of expression — a fundamental human right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and recognized globally, even by the United Nations," Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski exclusively told Fox News Digital Tuesday following the DOJ's May letter. Rumble, Trump Media Declare 'Complete Victory For Free Speech' In Win Against Brazilian Judge "The fact that Rumble has become a central player in this global fight for free speech is a powerful validation of our mission. We're proud to stand at the front lines of this effort and grateful that President Trump and his administration have made this battle a foreign policy priority." Read On The Fox News App Moraes is now in the U.S. government's crosshairs after the DOJ sent a letter to him in May outlining his reported international overreach into U.S. law affecting the First Amendment, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealing in a congressional hearing that the Brazilian judge could face U.S. sanctions. Moraes had ordered Rumble to remove a user from its platform as he stands accused of spreading false information online and is considered a fugitive in Brazil. Rumble refused and was threatened with financial penalties for the lack of cooperation. Trump-backed Media Company Sues Brazilian Supreme Court Justice, Claims He's Illegally Censoring Free Speech The DOJ letter, dated May 7 and made public Thursday, argued that Moraes' orders are not enforceable in the U.S. "These purported directives to Rumble are made under threat of monetary and other penalties," the letter, signed by DOJ official Ada E. Bosque, reads. "We take no position on the enforceability of the various orders and other judicial documents directing Rumble to act within the territory of Brazil, which is a matter of Brazilian law. However, to the extent that these documents direct Rumble to undertake specific actions in the United States, we respectfully advise that such directives are not enforceable judicial orders in the United States." The DOJ did not have additional comment to provide when approached about the letter Tuesday. Pavlovski described to Fox Digital that the letter is "unprecedented" and draws a clear line to foreign nations that they cannot attempt to thwart U.S. laws and the First Amendment. "The letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to a foreign judge over censorship orders is unprecedented," Pavlovski said. "It draws a bright red line: foreign officials cannot issue censorship orders that violate the First Amendment or bypass U.S. law. That kind of extraterritorial overreach is incompatible with American sovereignty. And that's good news, not just for Americans, but for free societies everywhere." Rumble Reveals Censorship Demands From Surprising List Of Countries As Ceo To Testify On Free Speech Threats The letter continued that there are established channels for international legal proceedings, which the DOJ said the judge bypassed, and directed the Brazilian judge to various proper procedures he could take regarding the court orders. Rumble facing restrictions in foreign nations is hardly new, with the platform currently disabled in China, Russia and France, as well as Brazil. It has also previously received censorship demands in nations such as the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, but has maintained its free speech objective. The DOJ's letter comes as Rubio revealed in a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in May that the State Department is considering sanctions against Moraes under the Magnitsky Act. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act authorizes the U.S. government to sanction individuals overseas if determined responsible for human rights abuses or corruption. "We've seen pervasive censorship, political persecution targeting the entire opposition, including journalists and ordinary citizens," Republican Florida Rep. Cory Mills asked Rubio at the hearing in May. "What they're now doing is imminent, politically motivated imprisonment of former President Bolsonaro. This crackdown has extended beyond Brazil's borders, impacting individuals on U.S. soil., the 2023 Financial Times article actually talked about this. What do you intend to do? And would you be looking at Supreme Court justice sanctioning of Alexandre de Moraes under the Global Magnitsky Act?" Brazilian Ex-president Bolsonaro Ordered To Stand Trial Over Alleged Coup Plan Rubio responded, "That's under review right now, and it's a great, great possibility that will happen." Days later, Rubio posted to X that the State Department will roll out visa restrictions on foreigners found "complicit" in censoring Americans. "For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights," Rubio wrote on X. "Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life — a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority." "Foreigners who work to undermine the rights of Americans should not enjoy the privilege of traveling to our country," Rubio added, not naming specific individuals responsible for such actions. "Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over." Moraes is also overseeing the upcoming trial of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of allegedly attempting to overturn his 2022 election results. Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva slammed the U.S. for threatening sanctions against Moraes in comment this week. "It is unacceptable for the president of any country in the world to comment on the decision of the Supreme Court of another country," da Silva said Tuesday, according to Reuters. The Brazilian president added that the U.S. should understand the importance of "respecting the integrity of institutions in other countries." Fox News Digital reached out to Moraes' office Tuesday but did not immediately receive a article source: Trump DOJ takes 'unprecedented' step admonishing foreign judge in free speech case centered on Rumble
