Latest news with #8thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppeals
USA Today
23-04-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court declines to take case about banning guns for 18-to-20-year-olds
Supreme Court declines to take case about banning guns for 18-to-20-year-olds The Supreme Court let stand a lower court's ruling that Minnesota's law restricting handguns in public to people age 21 or older violates the Second Amendment. Show Caption Hide Caption Mexico takes on American gun companies at Supreme Court Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism as Mexico attempted to hold American gun companies responsible for drug cartel violence. WASHINGTON −The Supreme Court on Monday declined to get involved in the ongoing debate about age restrictions for weapons, despite pleas from both Minnesota and the gun rights groups that successfully challenged Minnesota's age limit on handgun permits. The court declined to review an appeals court's decision that Minnesota's law violates the Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds. Minnesota had restricted permits to carry handguns in public for self-defense to people age 21 or older. That was challenged by gun rights groups which have filed similar lawsuits in Georgia, Illinois and Pennsylvania. Although the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Minnesota's law, the gun rights groups agreed with the state that the Supreme Court should get involved now to settle the issue nationally. More than thirty states and the District of Columbia have similar regulations, according to Minnesota. In rejecting the law, the appeals court cited the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 ruling that firearm regulations must be 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Minnesota said the 8th Circuit failed to fully account for the high court's 2024 decision that regulations don't have to have an 'historical twin.' The state asked the Supreme Court to either take up the issue itself or at least direct the appeals court to reconsider Minnesota's rule. 'Hundreds of years of common and statutory law history supports restricting firearm use by minors,' the state's lawyers said. They said 18-to-20-year-olds are 'the most dangerous and homicidal age group in the United States.' The 8th Circuit said Minnesota didn't provide enough evidence to back that up. And gun rights groups argue there were no age-based restrictions on firearms until more than sixty years after the Second Amendment was ratified.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Former Arkansas governor sworn in as Israel ambassador
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee places his hand on a Bible held by his wife, Janet, as he's sworn in by Judge Lavenksi Smith as the new U.S. ambassador to Israel on April 9, 2025. (Screenshot from livestream) Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was sworn in as the United States' new ambassador during a ceremony at the state Capitol Wednesday afternoon. The U.S. Senate confirmed his nomination to the post by a vote of 53-46 earlier in the day. Huckabee told guests and family members, including his daughter, current Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, that he couldn't think of a better place for the ceremony than the Arkansas Capitol. Judge Lavenksi Smith, a fellow Hope native who serves on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, swore in Huckabee, who took his oath with his hand placed on a Bible that he acquired during his first visit to Israel and gifted to his wife, Janet. 'It's pretty special, the fact that it has survived these now 52 years is amazing in itself, and I want to say how grateful I am to be able to share this moment with Janet who's carried not only a Bible all these years, but carried a faithful, consistent willingness to go anywhere and do anything that God ever called us to do,' Huckabee said. 'And of all the tests we've been given, this may be one of the biggest.' Former Arkansas governor promises to support Trump's plans if confirmed Israel ambassador President Donald Trump nominated Huckabee for the role in November. The native Arkansan has no foreign policy experience, but has visited Israel several times. An evangelical Christian, Huckabee is a long-time supporter of Israel and has opposed a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. During a Senate committee hearing last month, Huckabee told members he wasn't there to defend his personal views and repeatedly said that if confirmed, he would enforce Trump's policies. U.S. Sen. John Boozman on Wednesday praised the confirmation of his 'dear friend and gifted leader' who will be an ambassador to 'a critical ally and partner' of the U.S. 'He has been a lifelong advocate and supporter of Israel who is uniquely suited for this role,' Boozman said in a statement. 'As our ambassador, he will work alongside President Trump and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel to advance our shared values and security interests. I congratulate Gov. Huckabee and his entire family, and wish them well as he begins this new chapter of service to our country.' Huckabee said he expects to deploy to his post in Israel next week. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Yahoo
Public schools can't expel a family as 'not a good fit.' Why can private schools?
I have been an attorney representing public schools in Texas for over 40 years. Here's a basic rule for public school administrators: You don't punish the student for something the parents did. Private schools don't have to play by that rule, however. They can simply declare that the family is 'not a good fit' for the school. Let me tell you the story of three kids who were expelled from a Catholic school in St. Louis, Missouri. One of the students had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, and reduced vision. The parents and school had agreed on a set of accommodations, called a learning plan, to help her. According to the parents, everything went well at Our Lady of Lourdes until the elementary school got a new principal. The parents allege that the new principal was not requiring the teachers to provide the accommodations in the learning plan. The parents met with the principal and Father Jim Theby, the pastor, to discuss the situation. In their lawsuit, the parents allege that Theby read the emails the mother had sent to the principal, became visibly upset and said 'he did not think Lourdes was a good fit for any of the family's children.' '(The dad) defended his wife's emails and noted that the only change since the list of accommodations was developed was the change in principal,' the family's lawsuit said. 'In response, the principal smiled and said she was not going anywhere. (The dad) stated that 'we will see about that.'' Theby viewed that as a threat to the principal. According to the lawsuit, he told the parents that 'their family, including their three children, was no longer welcome at the Lourdes School and that they should leave immediately.' No notice. No hearing. No due process. A public school is required by law to have a written Student Code of Conduct that lays out the reasons students may be disciplined. I can guarantee you that no public school in Texas has a Code of Conduct that would allow a student to be suspended or expelled because the family was 'not a good fit' for the school. If the parent of a public school student threatened a school employee, the school might impose restrictions or bring in law enforcement. But it would not expel the student. Things are different in the private sector. The parents sued the parish school and took their case to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that the school did not comply with Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, a federal law that requires non-discrimination based on disability in entities that receive federal financial assistance. But the 8th Circuit dismissed the case in January. The court held that the expulsion had nothing to do with the school's compliance with Section 504. It was based on things the parents did: the mother's emails and the father's 'threat.' Theby's declaration that 'you are not a good fit' for Our Lady of Lourdes was a sufficient reason for the expulsion of three children. Such a reason would never fly in a public school. Our state is on the verge of sending tax dollars to private schools that can do things like this and get away with it. I hope our legislators will think about that. Wouldn't it be wise to at least attach some conditions to that money? I'm not opposed to private schooling. I attended Catholic schools for 13 years and am grateful for the great education I got. I was pleased to serve on the advisory board of a Catholic school in Austin for several years. I know that private schools, as a general rule, have Codes of Conduct and apply basic standards of fairness. But in the public schools, these standards are built into the law. Public schools are held accountable for abiding by those standards. Shouldn't all schools that we fund with our tax dollars be accountable? Jim Walsh is co-author of The Educator's Guide to Texas School Law. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: School lawsuit raises questions as Texas ponders vouchers | Opinion
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Appeals courts blocks Biden student debt relief plan
An appeals court ruled Tuesday to block former President Biden's Saving on Valuable Education (SAVE) income-driven repayment plan that lowered monthly payments for some borrowers and quickened the pace of student debt relief for others. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of seven Republican-led states that argue the Department of Education under Biden exceeded its authority with the implementation of SAVE. U.S. Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz said in the decision the authority given to the Education secretary to 'to create repayment plans means the Secretary must design ICR plans leading to actual repayment of the loans.' 'The Secretary has gone well beyond this authority by designing a plan where loans are largely forgiven rather than repaid,' Grasz wrote in a decision supported by two other Republican-appointed judges on the case. The SAVE plan was implemented after the Supreme Court blocked Biden's efforts to give partial universal student debt forgiveness. The SAVE plan lowered some borrowers' payments to $0 per month and made it so others with lower student loan balances could receive debt relief after only 10 years, a significant drop from the 20-25 years it took to receive relief before. 'Though @JoeBiden is out of office, this precedent is imperative to ensuring a President cannot force working Americans to foot the bill for someone else's Ivy League debt,' Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R), whose state was in the lawsuit, wrote on X. 'HUGE win.' The decision comes as student loan advocates fear President Trump would aim to roll back steps Biden took to give student loan borrowers more relief, especially on issues that were still held up in the courts. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
USA Today
19-02-2025
- Business
- USA Today
US appeals court blocks Joe Biden's student loan relief plan
US appeals court blocks Joe Biden's student loan relief plan The SAVE program was designed to provide more generous terms than past income-based repayment plans. Show Caption Hide Caption GOP-led states block Biden's latest student debt relief plan Touted the most affordable student loan repayment plan ever, the SAVE plan would have provided debt relief to over 30 million Americans. A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration lacked authority to pursue a student debt relief program designed to lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers and speed up loan forgiveness for some. The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with seven Republican-led states that sued to block the Department of Education's program, whose future was already in doubt with President Donald Trump back in the White House. The three-judge panel held that the Education Department exceeded its authority by trying to use a Higher Education Act provision that allows income-based loan repayment plans to adopt debt forgiveness on the scale provided by Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan. That program was designed to provide more generous terms than prior income-based repayment plans, with monthly payments dropping to as low as $0 for some borrowers. It also provided debt forgiveness for some smaller loans in as few as 10 years, compared to the 20- or 25-year timeline under earlier rules. U.S. Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz, appointed by Trump during his first term in office to the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the Higher Education Act text made clear that Congress only authorized repayment plans that lead to actual repayment of student loans. Grasz, whose opinion was joined by two fellow Republican-appointed judges, said the Biden administration had "gone well beyond this authority by designing a plan where loans are largely forgiven rather than repaid." Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican who led the litigation, said on the social media platform X that while Biden is out of office, "Fhis precedent is imperative to ensuring a president cannot force working Americans to foot the bill for someone else's Ivy League debt." James Bergeron, who was recently named deputy under secretary at the Education Department under Trump, in a statement said the department is working to ensure borrowers understand existing repayment alternatives. He said the ruling "affirmed what we've known all along: the Biden administration misled students into believing their debt would simply disappear, despite the law being clear that a taxpayer-funded bailout is blatant executive overreach." The ruling marked another legal setback to Biden's efforts to address what his White House described as a broken student debt system that can financially burden Americans seeking higher education. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 blocked Biden's earlier plan to cancel $430 billion in student loan debt – a move intended to benefit up to 43 million Americans and fulfill a campaign promise. Following that ruling, the Biden administration sought to continue providing student debt relief through other means, announcing by the time he left office $183.6 billion in student loan forgiveness for more than 5 million borrowers.
