Latest news with #DanielleForrest
San Francisco Chronicle
13 hours ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
California's 30-day gun law unconstitutional, appeals court rules
California violates the constitutional right to own guns by limiting purchases to one every 30 days, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. It was the latest in a series of decisions reassessing the state's firearms restrictions since the Supreme Court set new limits on gun-control laws four years ago. The state contended its law, which restricted handgun sales in 1999 and was expanded to apply to all firearms last year, was a safety measure to prevent owners from stockpiling weapons and making 'straw sales' to people who could not legally buy them. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the restriction unduly interferes with the right to keep and bear arms. 'We doubt anyone would think government could limit citizens' free-speech right to one protest a month, their free-exercise right to one worship service per month, or their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures to apply only to one search or arrest per month,' Judge Danielle Forrest said in the 3-0 ruling. 'Possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment,' Forrest said, 'and California's law is not supported by our nation's tradition of firearms regulation.' She was referring to the standard set by the Supreme Court in 2022 when it overturned New York's ban on carrying concealed handguns in public. In that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas said government restrictions on firearms are unconstitutional unless they are shown to be 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Firearms advocates have challenged a number of California laws under that standard. But courts have upheld the state's restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in areas such as parks, banks and government buildings. A state law banning gun possession by domestic violence abusers survived when the Supreme Court upheld a similar federal law last year. And the appeals court has upheld a ban on gun sales on state property. In Friday's decision, however, Forrest said limiting where guns can be sold 'is a significantly lesser interference with an individual's ability to acquire (and therefore possess) firearms than banning the purchase of more than one firearm in a 30-day period.' Forrest, appointed by President Donald Trump, was joined by Judges Bridget Bade, another Trump appointee, and John Owens, appointed by President Barack Obama. Owens said in a separate opinion that he agreed with Forrest's reasoning but added that the case 'does not address other means of reducing bulk and straw purchasing of firearms, which our nation's tradition of firearm regulation may support.' The ruling upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge William Hayes of San Diego. Raymond DiGuiseppe, lawyer for gun companies and individuals who challenged the law, said Friday's ruling was 'the only acceptable outcome in a society where all constitutional rights must stand on equal footing.' Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said the state 'is committed to defending our common-sense gun safety laws' and declined further comment. Bonta could ask the full appeals court for a new hearing before a larger panel.
Boston Globe
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Appeals court hands Trump a loss in birthright citizenship clash
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Judge Danielle Forrest, appointed during Trump's first term, wrote separately to say that she was denying the request for a different reason: she didn't think the government proved it would face 'serious risk of irreparable harm' if it couldn't immediately enforce the new policy. Advertisement The circumstances didn't 'demonstrate an obvious emergency where it appears that the exception to birthright citizenship urged by the government has never been recognized by the judiciary' and where there were 'contrary' executive branch interpretations of the issue in the past, she wrote. For more than a century, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution had been interpreted by courts to mean that citizenship applies to nearly every baby born in the country. Trump's executive action would deny it to children born to parents who are illegally in the US or on non-permanent visas to work, study or visit. A Justice Department spokesperson and representative of the Washington State attorney general's office, which is leading the Seattle case, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The case is Washington v. Trump, 25-807, US Circuit Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Advertisement
CBS News
20-02-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Appeals court denies Trump's bid to pause ruling blocking birthright citizenship order
A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday denied the Trump administration's bid to pause a lower court ruling that blocked the president's executive order seeking to terminate birthright citizenship. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined an emergency request from the Justice Department that sought to pause a lower-court judge's order. Four separate judges have blocked the order, but Wednesday's decision marks the first time an appellate court has weighed in on President Trump's attempt to deny the constitutional right, an issue that could end up before the Supreme Court. One of the judges on the three-judge panel said in a concurring opinion that the administration had "not made a 'strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits' of this appeal." The judge also noted emergency relief was not warranted, and that such relief should only be granted on rare occasions. "Just because a district court grants preliminary relief halting a policy advanced by one of the political branches does not in and of itself an emergency make," Judge Danielle Forrest, who was nominated for her seat by Mr. Trump in 2019, wrote. "A controversy, yes. Even an important controversy, yes. An emergency, not necessarily." The panel, which also comprised a George W. Bush appointee and a Jimmy Carter appointee, will continue to review the case, with full arguments scheduled for June. The White House has not issued any statement regarding the panel's order. Wednesday's order was in response to a lawsuit from multiple states that was filed in Washington state. Mr. Trump's order has also been blocked by judges in Maryland, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. The U.S. government has long interpreted the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to mean that those born on American soil are citizens at birth, regardless of a parent's immigration status. The executive order was part of a sweeping crackdown on unauthorized immigration at the southern border, an issue Trump campaigned heavily on during the 2024 election.
