Latest news with #Alito
San Francisco Chronicle
21 hours ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
California gun ban still alive. For now
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed states to continue to ban semiautomatic AR-15-style rifles, which can be fired repeatedly without reloading and are owned by millions of Americans. But the issue is far from settled. Only two of the nine justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented from the court's decision to deny review of a federal appeals court ruling in September that upheld Maryland's AR-15 ban, similar to laws in California and seven other states. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another member of the court's conservative majority, said in a separate opinion that the appeals court ruling was 'questionable' and the Supreme Court 'should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon.' Thomas, in a dissent joined by Alito, said tens of millions of Americans own AR-15s, and an 'overwhelming majority … do so for lawful purposes.' And in a separate case, the court denied a challenge to a Rhode Island law, similar to California's, that bans possession of gun magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Justices Thomas, Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The actions reflect the uncertain status of gun-control laws since the court's 6-3 ruling in 2022 that said Americans have a constitutional right to carry concealed firearms in public. Thomas, in the majority opinion, said any restrictions on owning or carrying guns could be upheld only if they were 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation,' dating back to the nation's founding. Based on that ruling, many state gun laws have been overturned, and California has narrowed, though not repealed, its restrictions on carrying guns in public. But the Supreme Court appeared to move in a different direction last June when it ruled 8-1, with only Thomas dissenting, that the government could ban gun ownership by domestic abusers who have attacked or threatened someone in their household. It was the court's first direct ruling on guns since 2022. Kavanaugh's opinion suggested that reviewing bans on semiautomatics or other widely used weapons may be next for the court, despite Monday's denial. 'We are disappointed that some members of the Supreme Court did not have the judicial courage to do their most important job and enforce the Constitution,' said the Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun-advocacy nonprofit based in Sacramento. 'We are more resolved than ever to fight forward and eliminate these immoral bans throughout the nation, whatever and however long it takes.' The group urged the Trump administration to join a future legal challenge. The administration did not file arguments in the Maryland case, but President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all firearms policies of President Joe Biden's administration and 'protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.' David Pucino, legal director of the San Francisco-based Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, was relieved by Monday's Supreme Court action. 'Courts have repeatedly upheld laws limiting access to highly dangerous weapons,' Pucino said in a statement. 'They are proven measures that protect families and reduce gun violence.' The court left intact a 9-5 ruling in September by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia upholding Maryland's AR-15 ban. The appeals court had rejected a challenge to the law in 2017, then was ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider it under the standards of the 2022 ruling. The semiautomatic rifles are 'military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote in the appeals court's majority opinion. A California appeals court gave similar reasons in 2023 for upholding the state's ban on many AR-15-style rifles, which has also been allowed to stand by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under California's ban, semiautomatic rifles with fixed ammunition magazines — bullet chambers that require disassembly of the firearm to swap them out — can't hold more than 10 rounds. Those with detachable magazines, which enable swift reloading, can't have any of a number of additional features, such as pistol grips. In other states, the weapons are sometimes sold with forced-reset triggers, which pull the trigger back after each shot, allowing rapid refiring. Trump's Justice Department agreed last month to allow their sale under federal law, withdrawing the government's previous classification of the weapons as illegal machine guns. But California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday he has notified law enforcement agencies that the triggers are still prohibited by state law. In dissent from the 4th Circuit ruling, Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee, said 20% of all firearms sold in the United States are AR-15s. 'Maryland's ban cannot pass constitutional muster as it prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,' Richardson said. Maryland's law contains similar restrictions to those in the California ban. It also limits some features and bans semiautomatic rifles that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The Maryland case is Snope v. Brown, 24-203. The Rhode Island case is Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, 24-131.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Declines To Hear 'Two Genders' T-Shirt Case, Sparking Free Speech Debate
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a Massachusetts student's challenge after he was barred from wearing a T-shirt that read 'There are only two genders' to school on May 27. The Court's decision preserves a lower court ruling siding with Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, which had told then-seventh grader Liam Morrison to remove the shirt or leave school. The case, L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, drew national attention and divided legal experts, parents, and civil liberties groups over how far First Amendment protections extend inside public school classrooms. Morrison, who brought the case with the help of his father and stepmother, was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Massachusetts Family Institute. His legal team argued that his constitutional rights were violated when he was sent home twice in 2023 for refusing to remove T-shirts bearing messages critical of gender ideology—one reading 'There are only two genders,' and a second with 'There are [censored] genders' written on tape covering the original wording. School officials reportedly defended their actions with complaints from others in the school and concerns that the shirts made classmates—particularly those who identify as 'transgender'—feel unsafe. Both a federal district court judge and the Boston-based First U.S. Circuit Court affirmed the school's decision. The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene was announced as part of a routine order list. While most denials are unsigned and unexplained, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both dissented, warning that the case raised significant questions about student expression and viewpoint discrimination. In a detailed dissent, Alito called the situation 'an issue of great importance for our Nation's youth,' arguing that schools cannot selectively permit speech based on whether it aligns with their ideological preferences. 'Public schools may not suppress student speech either because it expresses a viewpoint that the school disfavors or because of vague concerns about the likely effect of the speech,' Alito wrote. Thomas, who has previously argued that student speech rights may not be protected by the Constitution at all, nonetheless joined Alito in dissent. He emphasized that under Tinker v. Des Moines—a 1969 Supreme Court precedent that prohibits schools from censoring student speech unless it causes substantial disruption—Morrison's shirt did not meet the standard for suppression. Thomas wrote, 'Unless and until this Court revisits it, Tinker is binding precedent.' ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman said in a statement that the group was 'disappointed' by the Court's decision. 'Students don't lose their free speech rights the moment they walk into a school building,' Cortman said, pointing to what he described as a double standard where schools allow pro-LGBT messages while censoring dissenting views. The case reignited debate about how far public schools should go in managing speech. In online forums, including a Reddit thread that received over a thousand upvotes and comments, users were sharply divided. 'The fact that this case even made it to the Supreme Court in the first place is laughable,' one Reddit user wrote. 'And the fact that Alito and Thomas wanted to waste time ruling on it is telling.' Others disagreed. 'It's truly insane how the courts have bastardized the Tinker test,' another user posted. 'We're now in a place where political viewpoints that make someone feel uncomfortable are deemed dangerous.' In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of students who had been suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The Court held that students do not 'hold their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.' The decision established a key precedent: public school officials cannot censor student speech unless it would cause a substantial disruption to the school's operation. The ruling underscored the principle that student expression, even if politically charged or controversial, is protected under the First Amendment. In the Tinker case, the Court found that the students' silent protest did not disrupt the educational environment and, therefore, could not be lawfully punished. The case has since become a cornerstone of student free speech rights in America, frequently cited in legal arguments and public debates involving expression in schools and online platforms. This latest case echoes previous high-profile student speech battles, including Morse v. Frederick (2007), in which the Court sided with a school that disciplined a student for displaying a 'BONG HiTS 4 JESUS' banner. In that case, both Thomas and Alito were part of the majority, though Alito issued a narrower opinion reserving room for political expression. While the Court's decision not to take the case leaves the appeals court ruling intact, it does not establish a national precedent.
Boston Globe
7 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Justices allow Middleborough school to bar student from wearing ‘Only Two Genders' shirt
The opinion illustrated a split among the members of the court's six-member conservative supermajority, said Justin Driver, a law professor at Yale University. Advertisement 'The dissent both illuminates and underscores a significant divide among the six Republican-appointed justices,' he said, 'with Alito and Thomas comfortable voicing positions that the other four would prefer to avoid.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The case involved a student identified in court papers as L.M. who tried to wear the shirt at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough in 2023. When students and a teacher complained, the principal told the student that he could not return to class unless he changed clothes. He refused and was sent home. Later, the student came to school wearing a T-shirt that this time said 'There Are CENSORED Genders.' He was told that was not permitted, either. Rather than missing more school, he changed clothes. His parents sued, saying the school's policy violated the First Amendment. They relied on a landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which held that public school students have First Amendment rights. In that case, students sought to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Advertisement Justice Abe Fortas, writing for the majority, said students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.' But he added that disruptive speech could be punished. In the Massachusetts case, a federal trial judge ruled for the school, saying the student's shirts had invaded the rights of other students. The US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, in Boston, affirmed that ruling. Judge David J. Barron, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said the school could ban messages that demean other students' deeply rooted characteristics in a way that poisons the educational atmosphere. Alito wrote that the 1st Circuit's approach was at odds with Tinker and violated the First Amendment's prohibition of viewpoint discrimination by the government. 'Like the black armbands in Tinker, L.M.'s shirts were a 'silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance,'' he wrote, quoting from the decision. 'And just as in Tinker, some of L.M.'s classmates found his speech upsetting. Feeling upset, however, is an unavoidable part of living in our 'often disputatious' society, and Tinker made abundantly clear that the 'mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint' is no reason to thwart a student's speech.' Alito added that the Massachusetts school 'promotes the view that gender is a fluid construct' and should allow other perspectives. 'If anything, viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable because young children are more impressionable and thus more susceptible to indoctrination,' he wrote. Advertisement The court will soon decide a case on a related question: whether public schools in Maryland must allow parents with religious objections to withdraw their children from classes in which storybooks with LGBTQ+ themes are discussed. Driver said 'Justice Alito's emphasizing the dangers of 'indoctrination' of younger students could well preview a theme' in the Maryland case. In addition to joining Alito's dissent, Thomas, long a skeptic of minors' First Amendment rights, wrote separately to say he believed that Tinker should be overruled. 'But, unless and until this court revisits it, Tinker is binding precedent that lower courts must faithfully apply,' he wrote.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
These conservative justices are skeptical of students' freedom of speech, except this time
The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal over a middle schooler being barred from wearing a T-shirt to class that said, 'There Are Only Two Genders.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the court should have taken up the First Amendment dispute. The denial came Tuesday on the court's routine order list, a document that announces action in pending appeals, mostly consisting of the justices declining to take up cases for review. The court grants review in relatively few cases and it takes four justices to do so. In the T-shirt case, called L.M. v. Middleborough, Thomas and Alito each wrote dissents. Both are notable, especially since both justices have (in different ways) previously ruled against students in First Amendment cases. In Thomas' brief dissent, he reminded readers that he thinks the landmark precedent upholding student speech rights was wrongly decided. That precedent is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which, he noted, said in 1969 that public schools can't restrict student speech unless it 'materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.' Thomas cited his prior concurring opinion from a 2007 case in which he wrote that the Tinker standard 'is without basis in the Constitution'; he wrote in that concurring opinion, 'In my view, the history of public education suggests that the First Amendment, as originally understood, does not protect student speech in public schools.' So if Thomas doesn't think kids have speech rights in school, why does he care about this one? The formal reason he gave is that while he thinks Tinker is wrong, 'unless and until this Court revisits it, Tinker is binding precedent that lower courts must faithfully apply.' He wrote that the student here didn't create a material disruption by wearing the two-genders shirt or a later one that said, 'There Are CENSORED Genders.' Alito's lengthier dissent said (in part) that the case presented 'an issue of great importance for our Nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech either because it expresses a viewpoint that the school disfavors or because of vague concerns about the likely effect of the speech on the school atmosphere or on students who find the speech offensive.' Put that way, it sounds like an important issue. But let's take a step back and look at that 2007 case that Thomas brought up, Morse v. Frederick (which Alito also cited in his dissent). That one involved a high school principal ordering students at a school-supervised event to take down a banner that said, 'BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.' The Supreme Court split 5-4, siding with the school and finding no First Amendment violation for confiscating what the court called 'the pro-drug banner' and suspending the student responsible. Thomas and Alito were both in the majority in that case. As Thomas noted in his dissent Tuesday, he wrote a concurring opinion in Morse, explaining his view that went even further in the school's favor. Alito also wrote a concurring opinion in that case, seeking to keep his options open to side with students in future cases. He wrote that he joined the majority 'on the understanding that (1) it goes no further than to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use and (2) it provides no support for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as 'the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.'' In the Massachusetts case rejected by the majority Tuesday, a federal appeals court panel had deferred to school officials, citing Tinker and subsequent cases, including Morse. 'We see little sense in federal courts taking charge of defining the precise words that do or do not convey a message demeaning of such personal characteristics, so long as the words in question reasonably may be understood to do so by school administrators,' the appeals court wrote, citing Morse. Successfully opposing Supreme Court review, school officials from Massachusetts cited Morse to bolster the court's endorsement of deference to school officials. So while Alito sought to cabin his Morse concurrence to the drug context, and while a shirt about gender can be distinguishable from that context, it's cases like Morse that Alito and Thomas made possible that also helped make possible the appeals court ruling that the Supreme Court just declined to review. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
New York Times
27-05-2025
- General
- New York Times
Justices Allow School to Bar Student From Wearing ‘Only Two Genders' Shirt
The Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand an appeals court decision that allowed a public school in Massachusetts to prohibit a seventh grader from wearing a T-shirt that said 'There Are Only Two Genders,' declining to hear the case over heated dissents from two conservative justices. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court should have agreed to take the case and ruled for the student on free speech grounds. 'If a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like L.G.B.T.Q.+ rights or gender identity,' Justice Alito wrote, 'then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues.' The opinion illustrated a split among the members of the court's six-member conservative supermajority, said Justin Driver, a law professor at Yale. 'The dissent both illuminates and underscores a significant divide among the six Republican-appointed justices,' he said, 'with Alito and Thomas comfortable voicing positions that the other four would prefer to avoid.' There was a similar split in a second case the justices declined to hear on Tuesday, as they let stand a ruling clearing the way for copper mining on sacred Indian land. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, the court's most committed supporter of Native American rights, issued a dissent joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Alito recused himself but did not say why. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
