Latest news with #10thCircuit
New York Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Federal judge approves Colorado's age limit for firearms purchases
A federal judge upheld Colorado's restriction on firearms sales requiring buyers to be 21 or older after Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and two people looking to purchase firearms sued Democratic Gov. Jared Polis. Chief U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's decision that age-based requirements for purchase do not fall under the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. The 10th Circuit and Brimmer agree that the issue falls under a 'safe harbor' exclusion, placing it outside the scope of the Constitution. The only exceptions to Colorado's firearm purchase age restriction are for those in the U.S. Military and for peace officers. In both cases, the person must be making the purchase while on duty and is 'serving in conformance with the policies' of their respective agency. 'Governor Polis is committed to making Colorado one of the ten safest states, and common-sense laws encourage responsible gun ownership and keep people safe. For decades in Colorado, you had to be 21 to purchase a handgun, per federal law. The requirement to be 21 was expanded to rifles and shotguns with the signing of SB23-169, and Governor Polis is glad to see the court affirm that Colorado's common sense law does not infringe on Second Amendment rights. Governor Polis is confident this law has and will help keep Coloradans and our communities safe,' Polis' Communications Director Conor Cahill said in a statement to Fox News Digital. 3 A federal judge upheld Colorado's restriction on firearms sales requiring buyers to be 21 or older. REUTERS Brimmer acknowledged that Adrian Pineda and Matthew Newkirk — the two individuals under 21 who sued Polis together with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners — are part of 'the people' as written in the Second Amendment. However, he referred to the 10th Circuit's decision, saying it had resolved the case back in 2023, according to Courthouse News Service (CNS). The decision in Colorado comes in contrast to one issued by the Supreme Court in 2022 in which justices determined that New York issued unconstitutional requirements for carrying a concealed weapon in public. Then-President Joe Biden said he was 'deeply disappointed' by the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. He said that SCOTUS had 'chosen to strike down New York's long-established authority to protect its citizens.' 3 The only exceptions to Colorado's firearm purchase age restriction are for those in the U.S. Military and for peace officers. DmyTo – 'This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all,' Biden said in a statement at the time. He went on to reaffirm his commitment to reducing gun violence and making communities safer. 3 The 10th Circuit and Brimmer agree that the issue falls under a 'safe harbor' exclusion, placing it outside the scope of the Constitution. Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Brimmer is also going against a decision made by the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which struck down a federal restriction banning the sale of firearms to anyone below the age of 21. That court held that those aged 18 to 20 are protected under the Second Amendment, according to The Trace, an organization of journalists who report on gun violence in the U.S. 'The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds' firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban,' Judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the opinion. Several states, including New York, Massachusetts, California, Florida, Illinois, Delaware and Vermont have raised the age for purchasing firearms, according to the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. While some states have limited the age restrictions to handgun purchases, others have applied the restriction to any kind of firearm.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun
A federal judge upheld Colorado's restriction on firearms sales requiring buyers to be 21 or older after Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and two people looking to purchase firearms sued Democratic Gov. Jared Polis. Chief U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's decision that age-based requirements for purchase do not fall under the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. The 10th Circuit and Brimmer agree that the issue falls under a "safe harbor" exclusion, placing it outside the scope of the Constitution. The only exceptions to Colorado's firearm purchase age restriction are for those in the U.S. Military and for peace officers. In both cases, the person must be making the purchase while on duty and is "serving in conformance with the policies" of their respective agency. Supreme Court Declines To Examine Appeals Over Maryland, Rhode Island Gun Control Laws "Governor Polis is committed to making Colorado one of the ten safest states, and common-sense laws encourage responsible gun ownership and keep people safe. For decades in Colorado, you had to be 21 to purchase a handgun, per federal law. The requirement to be 21 was expanded to rifles and shotguns with the signing of SB23-169, and Governor Polis is glad to see the court affirm that Colorado's common sense law does not infringe on Second Amendment rights. Governor Polis is confident this law has and will help keep Coloradans and our communities safe," Polis' Communications Director Conor Cahill said in a statement to Fox News Digital. Brimmer acknowledged that Adrian Pineda and Matthew Newkirk — the two individuals under 21 who sued Polis together with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners — are part of "the people" as written in the Second Amendment. However, he referred to the 10th Circuit's decision, saying it had resolved the case back in 2023, according to Courthouse News Service (CNS). Read On The Fox News App Debate Over Whether To Ban Handgun Sales To Teens Could Soon Head To The Supreme Court The decision in Colorado comes in contrast to one issued by the Supreme Court in 2022 in which justices determined that New York issued unconstitutional requirements for carrying a concealed weapon in public. Then-President Joe Biden said he was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. He said that SCOTUS had "chosen to strike down New York's long-established authority to protect its citizens." "This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all," Biden said in a statement at the time. He went on to reaffirm his commitment to reducing gun violence and making communities safer. Brimmer is also going against a decision made by the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which struck down a federal restriction banning the sale of firearms to anyone below the age of 21. That court held that those aged 18 to 20 are protected under the Second Amendment, according to The Trace, an organization of journalists who report on gun violence in the U.S. "The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds' firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban," Judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the opinion. Several states, including New York, Massachusetts, California, Florida, Illinois, Delaware and Vermont have raised the age for purchasing firearms, according to the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. While some states have limited the age restrictions to handgun purchases, others have applied the restriction to any kind of article source: Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun
Epoch Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Appeals Court Upholds Restrictions on Deportations of Venezuelans From US
A federal appeals court on April 29 turned down the Trump administration's bid to block restrictions on deporting Venezuelans from Colorado. The government did not show that it is likely to be irreparably harmed if a lower court order remains in place, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit Under court precedent, a party seeking a stay pending appeal must show it will likely be irreparably harmed absent a stay. U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney recently issued a temporary restraining order requiring the Trump administration to give Venezuelans arrested for alleged links to the Tren de Aragua gang three weeks' notice before deportation. The order applies to all noncitizens in Colorado who were, are, or will be subject to President Donald Trump's March 'All members of the class are in federal custody. And given the important unresolved issues under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) and the ruling of the United States Supreme Court that no one in that proceeding be removed under the AEA until further order of that Court ... there is no realistic possibility that the government could remove any member of the class from this country before final expiration of the TRO on May 6, 2025,' the 10th Circuit panel stated. Related Stories 4/22/2025 4/28/2025 Lawyers for the government and the plaintiffs in the case did not respond to early morning requests for comment. Four factors must be met to secure a stay pending appeal. The appeals court did not address the other three factors, which include presenting a strong showing that a party is likely to succeed in the case since the irreparable harm standard was not met, the judges said. The panel consisted of U.S. Circuit Judges Harris L. Hartz, Gregory A. Phillips, and Joel M. Carson. Government lawyers had The lawyers also argued that the restraining order 'irreparably harms the United States' conduct of foreign policy' because it 'usurps the President's statutory and constitutional authority to address what he has identified as an invasion or predatory incursion.' Attorneys representing the Venezuelans had
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court rejects Trump argument, maintains Colorado block on ‘alien enemy' deportations
A view of the Byron White U.S. Courthouse, base of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in downtown Denver. (Google Maps) A trio of federal appellate judges on Tuesday left in place a lower court's ruling temporarily blocking the removal of detainees held in Colorado under the Alien Enemies Act. The two-page order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit denied an emergency motion for a stay filed by President Donald Trump's administration last week. Trump has invoked the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act for just the fourth time in U.S. history in an attempt to expedite the removals of hundreds of people the administration claims are part of an 'invasion' of the United States by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Citing the authority granted to it by the 1798 law, the administration sent 137 detainees to a brutal maximum-security prison in El Salvador before multiple federal courts, including one in Colorado, ordered a halt to such removals over due process concerns. U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte Sweeney's temporary restraining order against the removal of any detainees from Colorado under the AEA is set to remain in effect until at least May 6. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Trump's Department of Justice appealed Sweeney's ruling to the 10th Circuit last week, asking the court to suspend the TRO pending appeal and arguing that it causes 'irreparable harm' by 'interfer(ing) with the President's core authority to protect the nation.' A panel of three appellate judges — Judges Harris L. Hartz, Gregory Alan Phillips and Joel M. Carson — bluntly dismissed that argument in Tuesday's order denying the DOJ's motion. 'Given the important unresolved issues under the Alien Enemies Act and the ruling of the United States Supreme Court that no one in that proceeding be removed under the AEA until further order of that Court … there is no realistic possibility that the government could remove any member of the class from this country before final expiration of the TRO on May 6, 2025,' the judges wrote. 'Accordingly, the emergency motion for a stay is denied.' The case, D.B.U. v. Trump, originated earlier this month as a petition for habeas corpus and proposed class action by lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two Venezuelan nationals held at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Aurora. The plaintiffs, who are identified by their initials, D.B.U. and R.M.M., say they have been falsely identified as Tren de Aragua members by the Trump administration and fear imminent deportation to the CECOT facility, criticized by human rights groups for its crowded and abusive conditions. About 90% of the deportees sent to CECOT last month had no criminal record, according to Bloomberg. At least one, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, was removed as a result of an 'administrative error,' while advocates, attorneys and family members for other deportees say that they were falsely identified as TdA members because of tattoos honoring family members or their favorite soccer team. Trump has openly floated plans to send American citizens to CECOT next. Sweeney's order required the Trump administration to provide at least 21 days' notice, written in a language the individual understands, to any detainee designated for removal under the AEA. It also provisionally certified the class that the two plaintiffs seek to represent, blocking the removal of 'all noncitizens in custody in the District of Colorado who were, are, or will be subject to' Trump's March 14 proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. ACLU attorneys estimate that could apply to more than 100 detainees held at the Aurora detention center. In U.S. District Court proceedings in the case, the DOJ argued in a Monday filing that Sweeney should decline to certify the case as a class action, claiming again that D.B.U. and R.M.M. are not targeted for AEA removals and haven't shown they 'are members of the class they seek to represent.' But the ACLU has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that would extend and clarify the terms of Sweeney's TRO for the plaintiffs and all members of the proposed class. 'Without an injunction, the government will be free to send hundreds more individuals, including Petitioners and class members, to the notorious Salvadoran prison where they may be held incommunicado for the rest of their lives,' ACLU attorneys wrote in an April 25 filing. 'The harm is only magnified by the government's position that mistakes cannot be remedied, and once an individual is in a foreign prison, they are stuck there.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
CBS News
10-04-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Denver Water to seek emergency appeal of judge's ruling on Gross Reservoir expansion in Colorado
Denver Water says it is seeking an emergency appeal to the 10th Circuit in Denver after a judge paused work on the half-billion dollar expansion of Gross Reservoir in southwest Boulder County. That work has now resumed under a temporary stay of two weeks and Denver Water says it is bringing workers back but worries about losing employees. "Our main concern is to bring our workforce back, be on the ready. Be ready to take care of the dam safety issues we have by quickly raising this dam," said Denver Water's program manager of the Gross Reservoir expansion project, Jeff Martin. Denver Water has been working on enlarging the dam since 2022 to nearly triple the reservoir's capacity. Crews were about to start the Spring construction season when Federal District Court Judge Christine Arguello issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the enlargement of the reservoir in her October decision on a lawsuit filed by some neighbors of the project and several environmental groups. "We're looking at every way to make sure that we can keep pushing the completion of Gross Reservoir expansion forward and make sure that we can supply a reliable water supply for Denver," said Martin about remedies that could include requesting help from the Trump Administration. Planning for the reservoir expansion began in 2002. Martin said they had met all requirements of permitting at local, state, and federal levels before starting construction, meeting requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. "All of the environmental impacts were analyzed in the NEPA process," said Martin. However, in October, Judge Arguello found that the Army Corps of Engineers violated NEPA and the Clean Water Act when permits for reservoir expansion were approved. And she backed many of the opponents' claims. "Among other things, the permitting process requires the applicant to consider the least environmentally damaging practical alternative," said neighbor Scott Engle, a member of an opposition organization that calls itself The Environmental Group. "There were other alternatives available that would cost the ratepayer a lot less money," said Engle. Opponents favored a pipeline from Denver Water's southern water system and opposed drawing water from the headwaters of the Colorado River on the opposite side of the Continental Divide. The water is to be moved via the Moffat Tunnel to the Gross Reservoir, but Denver Water has maintained that it will only draw during periods when the tributaries are flowing well. On Wednesday, Martin told journalists who visited the Gross Dam after an invite from Denver Water that the project will help Denver Water create a better supply and reserve in its Northern system. The project, he said, was to prevent shortages. "We want to be able to solve the issue and weather a drought. We want to be able to weather the next catastrophic event. The next climate uncertainty. We want to make sure we have water for a growing Denver area." But, opponents have noted that per capita water use has been falling and believe Denver Water should opt for more conservation. The two-week stay meant some workers were on the job Wednesday. However, the pouring of additional concrete has not happened yet with the project's future in question. "Right now, the best way we can take care of our workforce is by giving them a job," said Martin. "We're getting absolute ready so we can place concrete and start raising the dam," he said about hopes for a successful appeal.
