Latest news with #ClarenceThomas
Newsweek
9 hours ago
- General
- Newsweek
Could Clarence Thomas Delay Retirement Over Trump Picks? Experts Weigh In
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is unlikely to delay any hypothetical retirement to avoid being replaced by a President Donald Trump appointee, legal analysts have said. Speaking with Newsweek, analysts rejected the suggestion that a spat between Trump and conservative legal groups, as well as tension over some of the appointments Trump has made, would be enough to change Thomas' tenure in the courts. Why It Matters As Republicans have a slim majority in both the House and Senate, the courts have emerged as one of the main impediments to policies the Trump administration has pursued. Trump has repeatedly called for the impeachment of federal judges who have blocked his orders and has appointed people to courts to suit his politics. Thomas, a conservative judge, has served since 1991. If the 76-year-old retires, it will change the alignment and direction of the court, depending on who replaces him. He has made no public statements indicating whether he wishes to retire. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File What To Know On Thursday, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to attack the conservative legal group the Federalist Society, saying he was "disappointed" by "the bad advice" the society had given him on judicial nominations during his first term. The day before, Timothy Reif, a judge Trump appointed to the U.S. Court of International Trade, ruled in a unanimous panel to strike down the president's tariffs. Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump nominated in 2020, has recently drawn criticism for siding with liberals in the court. In May, Trump nominated Emily Bove to serve as a judge on a federal appeals court. Amid these events, legal analysts have speculated that judges such as Thomas will be reluctant to retire over concerns about who might replace them. The Wall Street Journal editorial board said that attacking conservative judges would make it less likely that they will retire, "lest they be replaced by partisan hacks." However, writing in his Substack, Original Jurisdiction, the legal commentator David Lat said he didn't believe these events would affect Thomas' plans. Newsweek spoke with legal analysts who shared their predictions on the matter. What People Are Saying Attorney Bradley P. Moss told Newsweek: "I see absolutely no reason to believe Clarence Thomas will step away from the bench until either he physically is unable to continue with his work, or he is assured that a handpicked successor will be confirmed without incident. No one should realistically believe that this current little rift between President Trump and Leonard Leo will have any impact on that in the long term." Matthew Mangino, a former district attorney in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, told Newsweek: "The cult of Donald Trump is stronger than any association, society or organization. If Trump wants Justice Alito and Thomas to move aside, they will oblige; if he wants them to stay, they'll stay, it is that simple. "If conservatives expect these two justices to take a heroic stand against the president to save the Federalist Society, they are sadly mistaken. How can anyone anywhere expect principled action in this brewing controversy." Richard Painter, a former ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, told Newsweek that Thomas' future depended on several factors: "First, Justice Thomas may or may not want to retire and might not choose the optimal time for a conservative replacement anyhow. "So even without Trump's spat with Fed Soc and conservatives, a lot of this depends on Justice Thomas and whether he is willing to retire and give up the enormous status that comes with holding a seat on the Court." He continued: "As for the spat with the conservative legal movement, they have already put up with a lot from Trump, but they will insist on conservative justices in return (some people say there are only three reasons conservative lawyers support Trump, all three on the Supreme Court). So it all boils down to who Trump nominates. "Justice Thomas, if he wants to retire, could announce his intention to retire in the near future, and then see who the White House plans to nominate. If the nominee is unsatisfactory, he would simply tell the GOP in the Senate that he is postponing retirement, and that would kill the nomination. I would expect a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiations between Justice Thomas and his allies, the Senate GOP and the White House over the next year or so. Same with Justice Alito." Legal commentator David Lat wrote in his Substack on Monday: "I'm sticking to my prediction from last year that we won't see a SCOTUS retirement during Trump's term." What Happens Next It remains to be seen whether Thomas or any other justices will resign from the Supreme Court during Trump's term.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets stand Maryland's assault weapons ban — for now
The facade of the U.S. Supreme Court, covered with scaffolding for construction, in a file photo from April 22, 2025. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters) The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand Maryland's decade-old ban on assault weapons, over the objections of four conservative justices who were ready to review a lower court's defense of the law that they called 'dubious' and 'questionable.' 'I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country,' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion. 'We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, noted that the high court's decision not to hear an appeal of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's August ruling 'does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review.' He predicted that, with similar cases currently working their way through other circuits, the court 'should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.' But state officials welcomed Monday's court decision. 'The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today to leave Maryland's assault weapons ban intact means that a critical law that prevents senseless and preventable deaths will remain in effect,' said a statement from Attorney General Anthony Brown, the target of the appeal. 'Our Office will continue to advocate for gun safety laws at the General Assembly and will defend Maryland's common-sense gun reforms in court. We will do whatever we can to protect Marylanders from this horrific violence,' his statement said. Federal appeals court upholds 2013 Maryland assault weapons ban The high court on Monday also let stand Rhode Island's 2022 ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch were also ready to hear that case, which challenged a state law that prohibits the possession, sale or transfer of a firearm magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 2013 Maryland law banning assault weapons came one year after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, where 26 people, including 20 children, were shot and killed. The shooter in that case used an AR-15-style rifle along with two handguns. Gun-rights groups quickly challenged the law, and were given more ammunition by a string of recent Supreme Court rulings that vastly expanded protections under the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. The 4th Circuit had previously upheld Maryland's assault weapons ban. But the Supreme Court ordered the circuit court to reconsider that ruling in light of the high court's 2022 decision in New York State Police & Rifle Association vs. Bruen — in which it the court said citizens did not need a 'good and substantial' reason to carry a concealed weapon, the burden was on the government to prove the need for such a restriction. A divided 4th Circuit ruled 10-5 last August that Maryland's ban on assault weapons was constitutional, even in light of Bruen. Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the majority that weapons such as the AK-47, AR-15 and Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, '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.' An appeal quickly followed, but the court's refusal to hear the case means the 4th Circuit ruling stands. In his dissent, Thomas said the appellate court 'placed the burden … on the wrong party.' 'The Fourth Circuit erred by requiring the challengers to prove that the Second Amendment protects their right to own AR–15s' when, in fact, the burden is on the government to justify its regulation of the weapons, he wrote. Del. Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore City), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said in a text message he is pleased the Supreme Court upheld the state's law 'for now.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE 'Maryland's Assault Weapons Ban is critical for keeping Marylanders safe. These dangerous weapons like the AR-15 are military-style weapons designed for combat and not protected by the Second Amendment,' Clippinger wrote. 'As a country and as a State, we still have more work to do to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But for today, we celebrate that the Supreme Court has allowed our Assault Weapons Ban to remain.' Nine other states, Washington, D.C., and other cities have approved similar bans on assault weapons. But Kavanaugh wrote that an estimated 15 million to 20 million Americans 'possess' an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. 'Meaning that the States such as Maryland that prohibit AR–15s are something of an outlier,' he wrote. That's why Mark Pennak, president of the gun rights group Maryland Shall Issue, said in a brief interview Monday he agrees with Kavanaugh that other pending cases will provide an opportunity. 'Because there are other cases that are pending out there involving the same issue … let the issue percolate some more which is standard Supreme Court practice,' he said. 'This issue is not over.'
Wall Street Journal
a day ago
- General
- Wall Street Journal
Four Justices for AR-15s . . . Next Time
Is the AR-15 rifle protected by the Second Amendment? The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last year said no in a doubtful opinion written by the redoubtable conservative Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III. On Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of that ruling, while sending an unmistakable message to Second Amendment advocates: Ask again later. The oddity is that it takes four Justices to accept a case, and four chose to go on record here. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch stated that they would have heard the Fourth Circuit appeal, Snope v. Brown. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a longer dissent from the denial. 'The State of Maryland prohibits ownership of AR-15s, the most popular civilian rifle in America,' he begins. Then he casts shade on the Fourth Circuit's 'surprising conclusion' that 'AR-15s are not 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment.' That's three Justices. The fourth is Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who issued a 'statement' tipping his hand. AR-15s are legal in 41 states, he says, and Americans own 20 million to 30 million of them. The Snope petitioners therefore 'have a strong argument that AR-15s are in 'common use' by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment.' He calls the Fourth Circuit's contrary ruling 'questionable.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Finally Does Something Good on Guns—for Now
On Monday, the Supreme refused to hear two significant cases challenging Maryland's state-wide ban on semiautomatic rifles and other assault-style weapons like AR-15s. The court's rejection of the cases, a somewhat surprising move for the conservative majority, means that the gun control law will stay in place—for now. The court also refused to hear a challenge to Rhode Island's restrictions on high-capacity magazines. Four Supreme Court justices are needed to hear a case. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion on the Maryland case, arguing that it wasn't consistent with the Supreme Court's conservative 2022 ruling that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, which loosened gun restrictions and caused states like Maryland and Rhode Island to enact bans like the ones being challenged in court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the other conservative justice, wrote his own dissenting statement, calling the Maryland ban an 'outlier' and positing ominously that 'this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon.'
Newsweek
a day ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Clarence Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Decide Issue It's Avoided for Decade
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Justice Clarence Thomas broke from the Supreme Court's denial to hear a case about whether government bans of AR-15s are allowed under the Second Amendment, arguing that the Court has avoided the decision "for a full decade." "I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America," Thomas wrote in the dissent published Monday. "That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country." Why It Matters The Court decided not to hear David Snope, et al. v. Anthony G. Brown, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Maryland, et al. Maryland prohibits ownership of AR-15s, and the case challenged whether this ban is permitted under the Second Amendment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that AR-15s are not "arms" protected by the Second Amendment. Thomas said he would have agreed to hear the case to review this "surprising conclusion." Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also would have agreed to hear the case, according to the Court's order. What To Know Thomas argued that AR-15s fit the definition of "arms" under the Second Amendment. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas listens to President Donald Trump speak before swearing in Pam Bondi as Attorney General in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas listens to President Donald Trump speak before swearing in Pam Bondi as Attorney General in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington. AP Photo/Evan Vucci "AR–15s appear to fit neatly within that category of protected arms," Thomas wrote. "Tens of millions of Americans own AR–15s, and the 'overwhelming majority' of them 'do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.'" He called the Fourth Circuit's reasoning "dubious at least twice over." Thomas said that the constitutional status of AR-15s is "all the urgent" following a recent Court decision on ghost guns. The Court ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is permitted to regulate some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers under the Gun Control Act. "On the Court's logic, it seems that ATF could at any time declare AR–15s to be machineguns prohibited by federal law," Thomas wrote. Thomas said this leaves AR-15 owners dependent on the "goodwill" of a federal agency to maintain a right to self-defense. "That is 'no constitutional guarantee at all,'" Thomas said. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also released a statement respecting the denial to hear the case. He called the Fourth Circuit's decision "questionable." "Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review," Kavanaugh wrote. What People Are Saying Thomas, in a dissent: "I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right. Until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear arms will remain 'a second-class right.'" Kavanaugh, in a statement respecting the denial: "In my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two." What Happens Next With the Court's denial to hear the case, the Fourth Circuit's decision remains in effect. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
