Latest news with #BrettKavanaugh
New York Times
a day ago
- Politics
- New York Times
The Supreme Court Is Divided in More Ways Than You'd Think
When Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Supreme Court during President Trump's first term, originalism found itself in an unfamiliar and challenging position. All three of the court's new members were avowed originalists, holding that judges ought to interpret the Constitution according to the meaning it had when it was ratified. As a result, a majority of the justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, now subscribed to this theory. Originalism, long seen as an insurgent force at the Supreme Court, had become its reigning philosophy. For the originalists on the court, the shift from backbenchers to decision makers brought new responsibilities and presented new difficulties. Problems that had mostly been hypothetical debates within the court's originalist minority became central questions of constitutional law. How readily should an originalist court overturn a precedent at odds with the original meaning of the Constitution? What should an originalist judge do when the original meaning of the Constitution does not fully address a modern dispute? The originalist justices have shown themselves to be divided on these and other questions of constitutional theory. To many critics of the Supreme Court, its majority appears monolithic, but that perception is mistaken. Indeed, the defining challenge for the court's conservatives today is how to maintain a majority to move the law in an originalist direction despite the many theoretical disagreements among them. For originalists such as myself, these fractious dynamics pose the greatest threat to the urgent effort to restore the rule of law that was so badly damaged by the Supreme Court in the 1960s and '70s under Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger. But for all observers of the court, regardless of judicial or political inclination, these disputes are key to understanding its decisions. Originalism in its modern form emerged in the 1970s. The Supreme Court had issued an array of controversial decisions including Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 (requiring an arrestee to be informed of certain rights before being interrogated) and Roe v. Wade in 1973 (holding that there is a right to abortion). To some in the legal academy — and to many in the public — nothing in the text or history of the Constitution seemed to justify these rulings. The court's decisions struck them as arbitrary at best. At worst, in the words of Justice Byron White, who served on both the Warren and Burger courts, they appeared to be an 'exercise of raw judicial power.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
5 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court Ruling in Mexico Gun Case Fails to Absolve the US
A few days ago, it was shaping up as a bad week for gun manufacturers at the US Supreme Court. On Monday, the justices refused — for the moment, at least — to entertain challenges to state laws banning the AR-15 and other semiautomatic rifles. But on Thursday, the court unanimously tossed a lawsuit by the government of Mexico seeking damages from multiple US firearm manufacturers for the harm their guns have caused within its borders. First, a quick word about the lawsuits that the justices announced this week they would not hear. In a pair of landmark decisions in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to own firearms 'in common use' — in those cases, handguns. The decisions have been controversial, but they're the law of the land, so gun control advocates have since shifted their attention to semiautomatic weapons. About 10 states ban or tightly restrict possession of the AR-15, which happens to be the most widely owned rifle in the country. The lower courts have upheld the ban. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals, although I think Justice Brett Kavanaugh was correct when he wrote that the court will be forced to revisit the question in the next term or two.
Forbes
7 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
What SCOTUS' Latest NEPA Ruling Means For Climate And Communities
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that could redefine the contours of environmental review in the United States. In a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court sided with the State of Utah and the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, finding that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) acted within its authority when it approved the Uinta Basin Railway project without a more exhaustive National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. This ruling, while technical on the surface, has sweeping implications for how federal agencies consider environmental impacts in project permitting. The case is not just a win for developers and fossil fuel interests. It represents a shift in judicial philosophy, with consequences for communities, ecosystems, and public accountability. At the center of the dispute is the proposed Uinta Basin Railway, a long-contested rail line designed to transport crude oil from Utah's Uinta Basin to national markets. Environmental groups argued that the STB failed to consider downstream greenhouse gas emissions and potential wildfire risks associated with increased oil transport through Colorado and other regions. The Court rejected that argument. According to the majority opinion, the STB adequately fulfilled its duties under NEPA by assessing the direct effects of the project and was not required to consider indirect or speculative harms. Kavanaugh wrote that NEPA 'does not require agencies to consider every conceivable effect of a project, especially those effects that are remote or attenuated.' This narrow interpretation of NEPA continues a trend of limiting environmental review obligations, especially when they may hinder infrastructure or energy development. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent, argued that the majority opinion effectively "hollows out" NEPA, ignoring Congress' original intent to create a robust, forward-looking environmental review process. This isn't the first time NEPA has been at the center of a political tug-of-war. Recent attempts to "streamline" NEPA reviews have often come at the expense of environmental justice communities. Critics argue that by focusing solely on efficiency, policymakers and now courts risk ignoring the disproportionate impact of infrastructure projects on low-income and frontline communities. Under the Biden administration, NEPA had seen a modest revival, with rules emphasizing the importance of considering cumulative climate impacts and community voices in decision-making. That vision has now been weakened. As NPR reported, the ruling may encourage agencies to adopt a minimalistic approach to environmental review, limiting the scope of their analysis to what is explicitly required by law and precedent. Proponents of the decision, including developers and business groups, celebrate it as a win for rational permitting. The Wall Street Journal editorial board framed the decision as common sense, applauding the Court for standing against what they see as activist overreach in environmental litigation. The decision also raises serious questions about public oversight. NEPA has long served as a tool for transparency, requiring federal agencies to disclose the environmental consequences of their actions and giving the public a chance to weigh in. By shielding agencies from considering the full scope of a project's impacts, especially when those impacts are climate-related, the Court may have made it harder for communities to hold decision-makers accountable. And as many legal observers have noted, it leaves a patchwork of interpretations about what counts as a "reasonably foreseeable" effect. Legal scholars expect this ruling to embolden agencies to conduct more limited reviews and may encourage further litigation to challenge or test the boundaries of this interpretation. It also adds another precedent to the growing body of case law that privileges economic development over environmental protection. For communities, especially those that have long used NEPA as a lever to push back against polluting projects, the decision is a blow. But it also highlights the need for stronger statutory language and for state-level environmental review laws to step in where federal protections may falter. The Supreme Court's ruling on NEPA is a reminder that laws written in the 1970s are now being interpreted through a 21st-century lens, shaped by modern political, economic, and climate realities. As climate change accelerates and infrastructure spending increases, the need for robust, science-based environmental review is more urgent than ever. At the policy level, this ruling may motivate Congress to clarify NEPA's scope and purpose. though such legislative action is unlikely in the near term.
The Hill
03-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Justice Kavanaugh signals the Supreme Court could take up AR-15 bans
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled Monday the high court could soon take up a big case: the constitutionality of AR-15 rifle bans. The court declined to take up a case involving Maryland's AR-15 ban this term, but Kavanaugh wrote the court 'should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.' NewsNation legal contributor Jesse Weber told me he believes Kavanaugh is right. 'Not only will they hear it, they have to hear it,' Weber said. 'There is so much confusion across courts about when is a gun regulation unconstitutional,' he added. Get ready for this case in the high court at some point in the coming years.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- 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
