Latest news with #4thCircuitU.S.CourtofAppeals
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court denies challenges to bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear two major gun cases challenging a Maryland law that bans assault-style weapons, including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle that has been used in high-profile mass shootings, and a Rhode Island restriction on large-capacity magazines. As a result, the two laws remain in effect. Litigation over similar bans across the country is ongoing, and the issue is likely to return to the justices. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has expanded gun rights but has also shown a reluctance in recent months to take up a new case on the scope of the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment. It seems likely the court will take up the assault weapons issue soon, with three conservative justices saying they voted to take it up and another, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, saying he would like the justices to hear a case on the issue in the next couple of years. Four votes are needed for the court to hear a case. Kavanaugh wrote in a separate statement that the ruling that upheld the Maryland ban is "questionable" under the court's recent precedents, adding that "in my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon." He noted that millions of Americans own AR-15s, making Maryland's ban 'something of an outlier.' The court in a major 2022 ruling expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that the right to bear arms extends outside the home. That has led to a wave of both new restrictions being imposed in some states and court rulings that have struck down some long-standing gun laws. Both these developments have led to a flurry of appeals at the court asking the justices to clarify the scope of the 2022 ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas, who along with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch wanted to hear the Maryland case, wrote a dissenting opinion saying that the Maryland law was most likely not consistent with the 2022 ruling. "It is difficult to see how Maryland's categorical prohibition on AR-15s passes muster under this framework," he wrote. The Maryland law bans what the state calls 'assault weapons' akin to weapons of war like the M16 rifle as well as the AR-15. The measure became law in 2013 in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, in which 20 children and six adults were killed the previous year. That law was upheld by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court's 2022. A new set of plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit, and the Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to take a second look at the issue. It reached the same conclusion in an August 2024 ruling. "The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense," the court concluded. The Rhode Island law, enacted just before the Supreme Court issued the 2022 ruling, prevents people from possessing magazines that contain more than 10 rounds. Lower courts, including the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the ban, which was challenged by four gun owners and a firearms store called Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply. The Supreme Court last July sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In a case that did not directly address the right to bear arms, the court on March 26 upheld a Biden administration bid to regulate 'ghost gun' kits that can be easily assembled to make firearms. This article was originally published on
CNBC
5 days ago
- Politics
- CNBC
Supreme Court denies challenges to bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear two major gun cases challenging a Maryland law that bans assault-style weapons, including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle that has been used in high-profile mass shootings, and a Rhode Island restriction on large-capacity magazines. As a result, the two laws remain in effect. Litigation over similar bans across the country is ongoing, and the issue is likely to return to the justices. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has expanded gun rights but has also shown a reluctance in recent months to take up a new case on the scope of the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment. It seems likely the court will take up the assault weapons issue soon, with three conservative justices saying they voted to take it up and another, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, saying he would like the justices to hear a case on the issue in the next couple of years. Four votes are needed for the court to hear a case. Kavanaugh wrote in a separate statement that the ruling that upheld the Maryland ban is "questionable" under the court's recent precedents, adding that "in my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon." He noted that millions of Americans own AR-15s, making Maryland's ban "something of an outlier." The court in a major 2022 ruling expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that the right to bear arms extends outside the home. That has led to a wave of both new restrictions being imposed in some states and court rulings that have struck down some long-standing gun laws. Both these developments have led to a flurry of appeals at the court asking the justices to clarify the scope of the 2022 ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas, who along with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch wanted to hear the Maryland case, wrote a dissenting opinion saying that the Maryland law was most likely not consistent with the 2022 ruling. "It is difficult to see how Maryland's categorical prohibition on AR-15s passes muster under this framework," he wrote. The Maryland law bans what the state calls "assault weapons" akin to weapons of war like the M16 rifle as well as the AR-15. The measure became law in 2013 in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, in which 20 children and six adults were killed the previous year. That law was upheld by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court's 2022. A new set of plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit, and the Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to take a second look at the issue. It reached the same conclusion in an August 2024 ruling. "The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense," the court concluded. The Rhode Island law, enacted just before the Supreme Court issued the 2022 ruling, prevents people from possessing magazines that contain more than 10 rounds. Lower courts, including the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the ban, which was challenged by four gun owners and a firearms store called Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply. The Supreme Court last July sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In a case that did not directly address the right to bear arms, the court on March 26 upheld a Biden administration bid to regulate "ghost gun" kits that can be easily assembled to make firearms.
NBC News
5 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court denies challenges to state laws banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear two major gun cases challenging a Maryland gun law that bans assault-style weapons and a Rhode Island restriction on large-capacity magazines. As a result, the two laws remain in effect. Litigation over similar bans across the country is ongoing and the issue is likely to return to the justices. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has expanded gun rights but has shown a reluctance in recent months to take up a new case on the scope of the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment. It seems likely the court will take up the assault weapons issue soon, with three conservative justices saying they voted to take it up and another, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, saying he would like the justices to hear a case ion the issue in the next couple of years. Four votes are needed for the court to hear a case. The court in a major 2022 ruling expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that the right to bear arms extends outside the home. That has led to a wave of both new restrictions being imposed in some states and court rulings that have struck down some longstanding gun laws. Both these developments have led to a flurry of appeals at the court asking the justices to clarify the scope of the 2022 ruling. The Maryland law bans what the state calls 'assault weapons' akin to weapons of war like the M16 rifle as well as the AR-15. The measure became law in 2013 in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, in which 20 children and six adults were killed the previous year. That law was upheld by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court's 2022. A new set of plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit, and the Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to take a second look at the issue. It reached the same conclusion in an August 2024 ruling. "The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense," the court concluded. The Rhode Island law, enacted just before the Supreme Court issued the 2022 ruling, prevents people from possessing magazines that contain more than 10 rounds. Lower courts, including the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the ban, which was challenged by four gun owners and a firearms store called Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply. The Supreme Court last July sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In a case that did not directly address the right to bear arms, the court on March 26 upheld a Biden administration bid to regulate 'ghost gun' kits that can be easily assembled to make firearms.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Donald Trump wants to deport ‘home-grown' criminals. Can American citizens be deported?
President Donald Trump meets with President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador on April 14, 2025, in the Oval Office. White House photo WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump has floated the idea of deporting American citizens. Aides say he's serious. Legal experts say it's unthinkable and illegal – though they're not sure that would stop him from trying, given his willingness to ignore the courts. 'It is flagrantly unconstitutional,' said Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer who served as an associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan. 'You can't deport a U.S. citizen, period.' That's the overwhelming consensus of legal scholars, though Trump and his aides say they're looking for a way around that. 'The homegrowns are next,' Trump said Monday during a meeting with El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele. 'You've got to build about five more places.' The U.S. has sent more than 200 migrants to El Salvador in recent weeks and is paying for their detention at a notoriously dangerous high security prison. Among them is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a longtime Maryland resident flown to El Salvador on March 15 despite a 2019 order protecting him from deportation. Federal authorities ignored a judge's order to turn the plane around well before it landed with Abrego Garcia and other deportees. Trump officials have also refused to comply with a judge's order to seek his return. 'We always have to obey the laws, but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they're not looking, that are absolute monsters,' Trump told reporters with Bukele at his side. 'I'd like to include them.' U.S. authorities have acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was deported by mistake but say he has gang ties and would be deported again immediately if he were returned. Abrego Garcia, his American wife, the local Maryland prosecutor and others dispute the gang allegation. Federal authorities have provided no evidence. He has not been charged or convicted of any crime. Bukele said he cannot return Abrego Garcia without a request from U.S. officials. Attorney General Pam Bondi says the U.S. won't make that request. 'If this can happen to Mr. Garcia, it can happen to any of us,' Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Phoenix, said in a statement. Trump has 'already said that he's ready and willing to illegally deport 'home-growns' and American citizens.' Ansari is one of numerous Democratic lawmakers traveling to El Salvador this month to spotlight the case. 'This is a constitutional crisis': Rep. Ansari to visit wrongfully deported man in El Salvador She and other Trump critics say the president's willingness to defy court orders and to flagrantly violate Abrego Garcia's due process rights indicates he might even exile American citizens in defiance of the courts. On Thursday, the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals refused the administration's request to shield officials involved in the deportation from giving depositions ordered by a lower court. In a scathing opinion written by a Reagan-appointed judge, the court raised the specter of American citizens being sent into exile. 'If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?' wrote Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson. 'And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies?' Trump aides have affirmed that Trump is serious about wanting to send American-born criminals out of the country. That is a 'legal question that the president is looking into,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said at her Tuesday briefing. Trump wants to protect families by deporting 'Americans who are the most violent, egregious offenders of crime, who nobody in this room wants living in their communities,' she said. Trump has promised to deport every immigrant in the country without proper documentation, a population estimated at 11 million or more. He also wants to end birthright citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil, unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen; the Supreme Court will hear arguments May 15 on the issue. Immigration attorney Juan Rocha, who teaches at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, said Trump is trying to deter new immigrants and encourage anyone vulnerable to deportation to leave the country voluntarily. 'It's part of a propaganda machine, to create an environment of fear,' he said. Customs and Border Protection has reported a 14% decline in illegal border crossings since Oct. 1. Legal experts say it's possible for a naturalized citizen to be deported – but only if their citizenship is revoked. The government can seek to denaturalize a citizen who commits treason or certain other crimes, runs for office in a foreign country, or is found to have obtained citizenship through fraud. But there is no constitutional provision or law that allows a natural-born citizen to be stripped of citizenship. And citizenship comes with the right to be in the U.S. Even if an American fights against the U.S. on behalf of an enemy government or terrorist group, that individual can't be barred from returning to the country – though of course they can face criminal charges and prison. Rocha, among others, worries that Trump no longer cares about obeying the courts, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling last year that presidents – and former presidents – are immune from prosecution for official acts. The dissenting justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, warned that such broad immunity would put presidents above the law and incentivize abuse of power. 'There's no such thing as unthinkable in this administration anymore,' said David Bier, an immigration scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute. 'If the courts can't stop him, no one can.' Bier and other scholars have seen Trump's defiance and fear that it will continue with no consequences. Stuart Streichler, a professor of constitutional law and politics at the University of Washington, said Trump has shown a disregard for due process and constitutional rights. 'This is a clear test of how far that power goes,' Streichler said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court considers NC GOP challenge of 65,000 votes in Supreme Court election
A federal appeals court heard arguments Monday in North Carolina's monthslong battle over the results of November's state Supreme Court election. Jefferson Griffin, the Republican candidate for the high court, has sought to invalidate more than 65,000 ballots cast in the race after appearing to lose to Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs by 734 votes. Two recounts of the results affirmed Griffin's narrow loss, but he argues that the state improperly interpreted state law by allowing certain voters to participate in the election. Monday's arguments at the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals were largely procedural and centered on whether the case should be decided by state or federal courts. The court did not immediately issue a decision, but its ruling could be crucial in determining whether the results of the race are ultimately overturned. Earlier this month, the North Carolina Supreme Court, which has a 5 to 2 Republican majority, declined to immediately take up Griffin's case. But in their order, several justices hinted they may ultimately agree with the Republican's challenge to the election results. Monday's arguments primarily revolved around complicated appellate law procedures governing the interplay between state and federal courts. At one point, noticing the dozens of attendees who'd come to witness the hearing, Judge Paul Niemeyer remarked that he couldn't believe so many people had shown up for such a procedural case. Judges spent much of the hearing questioning attorneys on both sides about whether the court would have the authority to reverse any decisions made by the state Supreme Court — or whether it would even be practically possible to force the state to give the federal courts full jurisdiction. William Thompson, an attorney representing Griffin, argued that Monday's proceedings were moot given last week's order from the state Supreme Court, which sent the case to a lower state court. Thompson said that the most the federal courts could do at this point would be to ask the state Supreme Court 'Will you please send me the case back?' To which the Supreme Court would respond ''What case? It's already been dismissed,'' he said. Attorneys for the State Board of Elections and Riggs, however, pointed out that the state Supreme Court left intact an order blocking the state from certifying a winner in the race — continuing to exercise some jurisdiction over the case. Further, Riggs and the State Board of Elections argued that Griffin's challenges implicate national election laws and should therefore be handled by federal courts. In its opening brief to the court, the board wrote that it 'refused to accede to petitioner's astonishing request to retroactively disenfranchise these voters, in part because doing so would violate numerous federal civil rights laws.' The board also noted that Griffin's challenges only apply to voters who cast their ballots early or by mail — a group which tends to lean Democratic. This unequal treatment of different types of voters violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, they argued. In his brief, however, Griffin called the case a 'paradigmatic example of a dispute that presents difficult questions of uncommonly important state laws that are best resolved by a state court system.' The panel of judges hearing Monday's case did not indicate when they would issue a decision, but their ruling could bring some clarity to a dispute which has grown increasingly complex since it began in November. After having his challenges rejected by the State Board of Elections, Griffin appealed the board's ruling directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court — a break from the appeals procedure laid out in state law, which calls for such arguments to begin in Wake County Superior Court. The State Board of Elections immediately moved the case to federal court, but U.S. District Judge Richard E. Myers, an appointee of President Donald Trump, sent the case back to state court. The Supreme Court then issued an order blocking the state from certifying Riggs as the winner while Griffin's legal battles played out. When the high court later ruled that Griffin erred by attempting to fast-track his case directly to the Supreme Court, they nevertheless kept the previous order in place — preventing the state from determining a victor. Since then, the case has proceeded simultaneously in state and federal courts — though the 4th Circuit's ruling could ultimately consolidate the dispute to one jurisdiction. Ahead of arguments in the federal appeals court Monday, Democrats and voters whose ballots are being challenged slammed Griffin's efforts to have ballots excluded after the election. 'What we are witnessing in North Carolina is nothing less than a blatant attempt to overturn a free and fair election,' said U.S. Rep. Deborah Ross during a news conference Monday morning in front of the N.C. Supreme Court. Ross said that Riggs had won her election to retain her seat on the high court 'fair and square,' with two recounts confirming her victory. She said Republicans challenging the result in court were 'shamelessly working to disenfranchise voters retroactively, brazenly manipulating their way to a victory they didn't earn, and that they don't deserve.' N.C. Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said Griffin's efforts to challenge the election result 'are not becoming of a sitting judge, they're actions of a sore loser.' 'He doesn't care that voters rejected him from serving in the highest court in our state, and his efforts are not rooted in reality,' Clayton said. Voters and activists also packed the courtroom in Richmond, later carrying signs saying 'she won' outside the courthouse. 'We are excited about the opportunity to keep fighting,' Clayton told attendees after the hearing. 'We're gonna let this process play out and we know that the decision hopefully will be in our favor.'
