Clarence Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Decide Issue It's Avoided for Decade
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Justice Clarence Thomas broke from the Supreme Court's denial to hear a case about whether government bans of AR-15s are allowed under the Second Amendment, arguing that the Court has avoided the decision "for a full decade."
"I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America," Thomas wrote in the dissent published Monday. "That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country."
Why It Matters
The Court decided not to hear David Snope, et al. v. Anthony G. Brown, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, et al. Maryland prohibits ownership of AR-15s, and the case challenged whether this ban is permitted under the Second Amendment.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that AR-15s are not "arms" protected by the Second Amendment.
Thomas said he would have agreed to hear the case to review this "surprising conclusion." Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also would have agreed to hear the case, according to the Court's order.
What To Know
Thomas argued that AR-15s fit the definition of "arms" under the Second Amendment.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas listens to President Donald Trump speak before swearing in Pam Bondi as Attorney General in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas listens to President Donald Trump speak before swearing in Pam Bondi as Attorney General in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
"AR–15s appear to fit neatly within that category of protected arms," Thomas wrote. "Tens of millions of Americans own AR–15s, and the 'overwhelming majority' of them 'do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.'"
He called the Fourth Circuit's reasoning "dubious at least twice over."
Thomas said that the constitutional status of AR-15s is "all the urgent" following a recent Court decision on ghost guns. The Court ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is permitted to regulate some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers under the Gun Control Act.
"On the Court's logic, it seems that ATF could at any time declare AR–15s to be machineguns prohibited by federal law," Thomas wrote.
Thomas said this leaves AR-15 owners dependent on the "goodwill" of a federal agency to maintain a right to self-defense.
"That is 'no constitutional guarantee at all,'" Thomas said.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also released a statement respecting the denial to hear the case. He called the Fourth Circuit's decision "questionable."
"Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review," Kavanaugh wrote.
What People Are Saying
Thomas, in a dissent: "I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right. Until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear arms will remain 'a second-class right.'"
Kavanaugh, in a statement respecting the denial: "In my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two."
What Happens Next
With the Court's denial to hear the case, the Fourth Circuit's decision remains in effect.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court blocks New Mexico's 7-day waiting period for gun purchases, saying it violates 2nd Amendment
A federal appeals court on Tuesday halted New Mexico's seven-day waiting period for gun purchases, ruling that it likely infringes on citizens' Second Amendment rights. The 2-1 ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals leaves the law on hold pending a legal challenge and returns the case to a lower court. The waiting period went into effect in May of last year and included violators being subject to a misdemeanor, but it does have an exception for concealed permit holders. Democrats had enacted the measure in an effort to allow for more time for federal background checks on gun buyers to be completed. "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," Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote for the majority. "We conclude that New Mexico's Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens." Nra And Conservative Legal Group Sue Democrat Governor Over 7-Day Waiting Period To Buy Guns The Mountain States Legal Foundation and National Rifle Association filed the lawsuit on behalf of two New Mexico residents, arguing that the law was unconstitutional and delayed access to firearms for victims of domestic violence and other citizens. Read On The Fox News App The lawsuit referenced the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in which a new standard to determine whether a gun restriction is unconstitutional was established. To meet that standard, the government must show there is a "historical tradition of firearm regulation" that supports the law. Michael McCoy, director of the Mountain States Legal Foundation's Center to Keep and Bear Arms, celebrated the ruling. "The court found that there was no analogous law from that era that would support the modern day law that's at issue," McCoy said. "For now, it means New Mexicans can go buy their firearms without an arbitrary delay imposed." Federal Appeals Court Rules California Ammunition Background Checks Unconstitutional John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, also praised the court's decision, saying it "serves as a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country." In a dissent, Judge Scott Matheson argued that New Mexico's waiting period "establishes a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms that does not serve abusive ends." Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, said she was disappointed with the ruling and claimed it would likely cost lives. "New Mexico's waiting period law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights," Lujan Grisham said in a statement, pointing to other 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," she added. Since she was sworn in as governor in 2019, Lujan Grisham has signed several gun control measures, including a "red flag" law allowing a court to temporarily remove guns from people suspected of being at risk of hurting themselves or others and restrictions on firearms near polling places. In 2023, the governor suspended the right to carry guns in public parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque in response to shootings across the state that killed children. Lujan Grisham declared a state of emergency in Albuquerque earlier this year, saying that a significant uptick in crime warranted the help of the state's National Guard. She also declared a state of emergency last week over violent crime and drug trafficking across parts of northern New Mexico. Legal experts have said the ruling could have wider consequences because other states, including California, Hawaii and Illinois, have imposed similar restrictions on gun purchases. In New Mexico, the waiting period applies to all licensed dealer firearm sales for handguns and long guns. The only exception applies to concealed carry permit holders, law enforcement and immediate family transfers. Those in support of the waiting period laws argue that research links the law to reduced suicides and crimes of passion limiting impulsive behavior. Officials in New Mexico have not said if they will seek review from the full 10th Circuit or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Associated Press contributed to this article source: Appeals court blocks New Mexico's 7-day waiting period for gun purchases, saying it violates 2nd Amendment Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court tosses New Mexico's seven-day waiting period for gun buys
Aug. 19—New Mexico's seven-day "cooling off" period for most gun purchases violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. A three-member panel of the Denver-based court reversed the decision by U.S. District Judge James Browning of Albuquerque, who refused to grant a preliminary injunction in July 2024 to halt enforcement of the law. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, in a statement on Tuesday, appeared to favor appealing the ruling, a sentiment echoed by state Sen. Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, who co-sponsored the measure during the 2024 legislative session. "We have tried very hard in the Legislature to stay within the lanes that the U.S. Supreme Court has put up," Cervantes told the Journal. "The challenge is that the Supreme Court keeps changing the goal posts." He said the 10th Circuit's conclusion was unexpected, considering that a number of other courts at the same level as the 10th Circuit have upheld such waiting periods as constitutional. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers joined gun shop representatives in lauding the appeals decision. "Justice delayed is justice denied," said Jason Archie, manager of Right To Bear Arms gun shop at 11200 Montgomery NE. "It was represented as a way to prevent crime, but I didn't see that crime went down at all." He said enforcement of the waiting period was a "hassle" that most customers weren't happy about. The legal challenge to the law, which was enacted in early 2024, was filed on behalf of two gun owners, one from Farmington and the other from Albuquerque, who complained about trying to buy a firearm for personal purposes only to be told they had to come back a week later to pick it up. Supporters argued that the waiting period would help reduce gun violence and gun deaths in New Mexico. "Even though the potential to reduce impulsive gun violence might be true, once we acknowledge that the Waiting Period Act likely burdens Second Amendment activity, that potential is outweighed," wrote the appeals panel. The appeals court found that the law applies "a blanket burden across all of society, assuming that everyone is dangerous or unstable before they can exercise their Second Amendment right." In her statement, Lujan Grisham said the decision was "deeply disappointing, plainly wrong and likely to cost lives in New Mexico. New Mexico's waiting period law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights." She said the dissenting opinion in the ruling even notes that New Mexico's law "is likely to save approximately thirty-seven lives per year." "This ruling ignores a recent binding Tenth Circuit precedent that upheld Colorado's law barring gun purchases by anyone under the age of 21 — a law that requires 18-year-olds to wait three years to purchase a weapon," she added. The ruling also mischaracterizes New Mexico's gun purchase waiting period, saying it applies to "everyone" when, in fact, it doesn't apply to those who sell guns to immediate family members, those with a concealed carry permit and law enforcement officers, the governor stated. "The evidence is clear — waiting periods prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide, giving people time to step back and reassess their emotions during moments of crisis. I'm disappointed that today's ruling doesn't take this into account," she stated, adding that her administration was reviewing its legal options in reaction to the "misguided ruling." The New Mexico House initially approved a 14-day waiting period in early 2024, but a Senate floor amendment cut the wait time to seven days before the final passage. Meanwhile, Rhode Island, Maryland and New Jersey have adopted a seven-day waiting period, with four states, Colorado, Florida, Illinois and Vermont opting for three days. California has a 30-day waiting period. Browning, after hearing legal arguments and testimony from historian witnesses, also considered the plain language of the Second Amendment. He concluded that the right to acquire a firearm in New Mexico, which mandated the waiting period, didn't impede the right to "keep and bear" a firearm. But the appeals court held the opposite view, stating that "the constitutional injury to the Plaintiffs is so broad and clear that they have met their higher burden entitling them to an injunction changing the status quo." The court reversed Browning's ruling, and sent the case back for further proceedings. Republican legislators predicted this outcome during debate on the bill in 2024, but Democrats nonetheless passed HB 129 without a single Republican vote, stated Brandon Harris, spokesperson for the state Senate Republican Leadership office. Senate Republican Leader Bill Sharer of Farmington welcomed the appeal court ruling, reiterating that "the clear language of the 2nd Amendment says that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.'" Sharer also questioned the logic behind the law itself, pointing out that "Criminals certainly don't wait seven days before breaking into our homes and threatening our families and properties... What sense does it make to require law-abiding citizens to wait seven days before being able to defend themselves?" Solve the daily Crossword
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
9/11 victims' fund architect slams changes to New Hampshire abuse settlement program
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — An attorney who helped design and implement the 9/11 victims' compensation fund says New Hampshire lawmakers have eroded the fairness of a settlement program for those who were abused at the state's youth detention center. Deborah Greenspan, who served as deputy special master of the fund created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, recently submitted an affidavit in a class-action lawsuit seeking to block changes to New Hampshire's out-of-court settlement fund for abuse victims. She's among those expected to testify Wednesday at a hearing on the state's request to dismiss the case and other matters. More than 1,300 people have sued the state since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused as children while in state custody, mostly at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Most of them put their lawsuits on hold after lawmakers created a settlement fund in 2022 that was pitched as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed in June. The amended law gives the governor authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator and gives the attorney general — also a political appointee — veto power over settlement awards. That stands in stark contrast to other victim compensation funds, said Greenspan, who currently serves as a court-appointed special master for lawsuits related to lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan. She said it 'strains credulity' to believe that anyone would file a claim knowing that 'the persons ultimately deciding the claim were those responsible for the claimant's injuries.' 'Such a construct would go beyond the appearance of impropriety and create a clear conflict of interest, undermining the fairness and legitimacy of the settlement process," she wrote. Ayotte and Attorney General John Formella responded by asking a judge to bar Greenspan's testimony, saying she offered 'policy preferences masquerading as expert opinions' without explaining the principles beyond her conclusions. 'Her affidavit is instead a series of non sequiturs that move from her experience to her conclusions without any of the necessary connective tissue,' they wrote. The defendants argue that the law still requires the administrator to be 'an independent, neutral attorney' and point out that the same appointment process is used for the state's judges. They said giving the attorney general the authority to accept or reject settlements is necessary to give the public a voice and ensure that the responsibility for spending millions of dollars in public funds rests with the executive branch. As of June 30, nearly 2,000 people had filed claims with the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. A total of 386 had been settled, with an average award of $545,000. One of the claimants says he was awarded $1.5 million award in late July, but the state hasn't finalized it yet, leaving him worried that Formella will veto it. 'I feel like the state has tricked us,' he said in an interview this week. 'We've had the rug pulled right out from underneath us.' The Associated Press does not name those who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly. The claimant, now 39, said the two years he spent at the facility as a teenager were the hardest times of his life. 'I lost my childhood. I lost things that I can't get back,' he said. 'I was broken.' Though the settlement process was overwhelming and scary at times, the assistant administrator who heard his case was kind and understanding, he said. That meeting alone was enough to lift a huge burden, he said. 'I was treated with a lot of love,' he said. 'I felt really appreciated as a victim and like I was speaking to somebody who would listen and believe my story.' Separate from the fund, the state has settled two lawsuits by agreeing to pay victims $10 million and $4.5 million. Only one lawsuit has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. The state has also brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. The 39-year-old claimant who fears his award offer will be retracted said he doesn't know if he could face testifying at a public trial. 'It's basically allowing the same people who hurt us to hurt us all over again,' he said.
