Latest news with #Democratic-governed
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to Washington, DC's high-capacity gun magazine ban
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Friday to hear a challenge to the legality of a restriction imposed by Washington, D.C., on large-capacity ammunition magazines in a case that gives the justices a chance to further expand gun rights. The justices turned away an appeal by four men who challenged the law of a lower court's ruling that upheld the Democratic-governed city's ban on virtually all ammunition-feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower court rejected arguments that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court poised to revive challenge to California emissions standards
By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared sympathetic on Wednesday to a bid by fuel producers to challenge California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law in a case involving the Democratic-governed state's power to fight greenhouse gases. The justices heard arguments in an appeal by a Valero Energy subsidiary and fuel industry groups of a lower court's ruling that they lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision to let California set its own regulations, separate from those of the federal government. Questioned posed by conservative and liberal justices alike indicated that the court would allow fuel producers to pursue the case. It remained uncertain whether the court would announce a rule suggested by the challengers that would make it easier for a wider array of groups and businesses to challenge any government regulation that may impact their bottom line. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute centers on an exception granted to California during Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration to national vehicle emission standards set by the agency under the landmark Clean Air Act anti-pollution law. Though states and municipalities are generally preempted from enacting their own limits, Congress allowed the EPA to waive the preemption rule to let California set certain regulations that are stricter than federal standards. Valero's Diamond Alternative Energy and related groups challenged the reinstatement of California's waiver, arguing that the decision exceeded the EPA's power under the Clean Air Act and inflicted harm on their bottom line by lowering demand for liquid fuels. "The government has tilted the playing field and foreclosed us from being able to freely sell our product," Jeffrey Wall, a lawyer for the challengers, told the justices. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Wall that the government's tilt of the market "seems like an easy thing to show" in this case. A lawyer for Republican President Donald Trump's administration, Edwin Kneedler, agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the challengers had not shown the evidence that would entitle them to sue. But Kagan told Kneedler that both the EPA and California had made declarations that the waiver would reduce gasoline-related emissions, seeming to validate the concerns of the challengers. Numerous questions centered on whether the assertions by the challengers about how the regulation would influence carmakers and thus affect fuel producers amounted to a "common sense inference" that would permit them to sue. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that in relying on common sense, "It's not that high a burden." California, the most-populous U.S. state, has received more than 75 waivers since 1967, requiring increasingly higher emissions performance and EV sales. The EPA's 2022 action reinstated a waiver for California to set its own tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandate through 2025, reversing a 2019 decision made during Trump's first administration rescinding the waiver. Trump's administration has told the court that it is reassessing the 2022 reinstatement decision, a process that may again lead to the withdrawal of the waiver. The D.C. Circuit threw out the lawsuits in 2024, finding that Valero and the states lacked the necessary standing to bring their claims because there was no evidence that a ruling in their favor might affect the decisions of auto manufacturers in a way that would result in fewer electric and more combustion vehicles to be sold. The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June. The court has taken a skeptical view toward expansive authority for federal regulatory agencies and has restricted the powers of the EPA in some important rulings in recent years. In 2024, the court blocked the EPA's "Good Neighbor" rule aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighboring states. In 2023, the court hobbled the EPA's power to protect wetlands and fight water pollution. In 2022, it imposed limits on the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce coal- and gas-fired power plant carbon emissions.
Reuters
23-04-2025
- Automotive
- Reuters
US Supreme Court poised to revive challenge to California emissions standards
WASHINGTON, April 23 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared sympathetic on Wednesday to a bid by fuel producers to challenge California's standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars under a federal air pollution law in a case involving the Democratic-governed state's power to fight greenhouse gases. The justices heard arguments in an appeal by a Valero Energy (VLO.N), opens new tab subsidiary and fuel industry groups of a lower court's ruling that they lacked the required legal standing to challenge a 2022 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decision to let California set its own regulations, separate from those of the federal government. Questioned posed by conservative and liberal justices alike indicated that the court would allow fuel producers to pursue the case. It remained uncertain whether the court would announce a rule suggested by the challengers that would make it easier for a wider array of groups and businesses to challenge any government regulation that may impact their bottom line. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute centers on an exception granted to California during Democratic former President Joe Biden 's administration to national vehicle emission standards set by the agency under the landmark Clean Air Act anti-pollution law. Though states and municipalities are generally preempted from enacting their own limits, Congress allowed the EPA to waive the preemption rule to let California set certain regulations that are stricter than federal standards. Valero's Diamond Alternative Energy and related groups challenged the reinstatement of California's waiver, arguing that the decision exceeded the EPA's power under the Clean Air Act and inflicted harm on their bottom line by lowering demand for liquid fuels. "The government has tilted the playing field and foreclosed us from being able to freely sell our product," Jeffrey Wall, a lawyer for the challengers, told the justices. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Wall that the government's tilt of the market "seems like an easy thing to show" in this case. A lawyer for Republican President Donald Trump 's administration, Edwin Kneedler, agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the challengers had not shown the evidence that would entitle them to sue. But Kagan told Kneedler that both the EPA and California had made declarations that the waiver would reduce gasoline-related emissions, seeming to validate the concerns of the challengers. Numerous questions centered on whether the assertions by the challengers about how the regulation would influence carmakers and thus affect fuel producers amounted to a "common sense inference" that would permit them to sue. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that in relying on common sense, "It's not that high a burden." California, the most-populous U.S. state, has received more than 75 waivers since 1967, requiring increasingly higher emissions performance and EV sales. The EPA's 2022 action reinstated a waiver for California to set its own tailpipe emissions limits and zero-emission vehicle mandate through 2025, reversing a 2019 decision made during Trump's first administration rescinding the waiver. Trump's administration has told the court that it is reassessing the 2022 reinstatement decision, a process that may again lead to the withdrawal of the waiver. The D.C. Circuit threw out the lawsuits in 2024, finding that Valero and the states lacked the necessary standing to bring their claims because there was no evidence that a ruling in their favor might affect the decisions of auto manufacturers in a way that would result in fewer electric and more combustion vehicles to be sold. The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June. The court has taken a skeptical view toward expansive authority for federal regulatory agencies and has restricted the powers of the EPA in some important rulings in recent years. In 2024, the court blocked the EPA's " Good Neighbor" rule aimed at reducing ozone emissions that may worsen air pollution in neighboring states. In 2023, the court hobbled the EPA's power to protect wetlands and fight water pollution. In 2022, it imposed limits on the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act to reduce coal- and gas-fired power plant carbon emissions.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court won't save Minnesota age restriction on carrying guns
By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Minnesota can no longer enforce its law barring people younger than 21 years old from obtaining a permit to carry a handgun in public after the U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to hear its appeal of a judicial decision deeming the age restriction a violation of constitutional protections for gun rights. The justices let stand a 2024 ruling by the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the restriction violated the rights of people ages 18, 19 and 20 to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, declining to hear the Democratic-governed state's appeal. The case represented one of many challenges to gun restrictions at the state and federal levels that have emerged since the Supreme Court further widened gun rights in a landmark 2022 ruling recognizing for the first time a Second Amendment right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. Gun rights groups including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, as well as some of their members, challenged the state's age restriction in federal court. Minnesota had been enforcing the age restriction while its appeals played out in court. The state called the restriction "modest" considering that youths already have significant access to guns in Minnesota - including no age restriction when supervised by a parent or guardian - and by age 14 they can possess guns on their property or while hunting without supervision. More than 30 other states and the District of Columbia have similar restrictions on public carrying of firearms, reflecting concern that gun injuries are the leading cause of death among children and teens, Minnesota said in a court filing. Courts "should not lightly set aside legislative attempts to address the increase in gun violence by young people," the state added. A judge sided with the challengers in 2023. The 8th Circuit upheld that decision, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that announced a stringent test that required gun laws to be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" in order to comply with the Second Amendment. Minnesota did not present evidence of a suitable historical analogue, the 8th Circuit said. While a government may disarm those who pose a threat to the physical safety of others, 8th Circuit said, "Minnesota has failed to show that 18- to 20-year-olds pose such a threat." The Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in the case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was one of three key decisions it has issued since 2008 that have broadened gun rights in a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence including frequent mass shootings. The United States has the world's highest gun ownership rate. The court last year upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns, clarifying that the Bruen test is not inflexible and that modern gun restrictions do not require a "historical twin" in order to be lawful. The court on April 7 turned away a challenge to gun restrictions that New York adopted after the Bruen ruling. In another gun-related case, the court on March 26 upheld a federal regulation targeting largely untraceable "ghost guns," though that ruling did not center on Second Amendment issues. Last year, the court upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns in a Second Amendment-related challenge but rejected a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns in a case not focusing on Second Amendment rights.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court won't save Minnesota age restriction on carrying guns
By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Minnesota can no longer enforce its law barring people younger than 21 years old from obtaining a permit to carry a handgun in public after the U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to hear its appeal of a judicial decision deeming the age restriction a violation of constitutional protections for gun rights. The justices let stand a 2024 ruling by the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the restriction violated the rights of people ages 18, 19 and 20 to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, declining to hear the Democratic-governed state's appeal. The case represented one of many challenges to gun restrictions at the state and federal levels that have emerged since the Supreme Court further widened gun rights in a landmark 2022 ruling recognizing for the first time a Second Amendment right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. Gun rights groups including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, as well as some of their members, challenged the state's age restriction in federal court. Minnesota had been enforcing the age restriction while its appeals played out in court. The state called the restriction "modest" considering that youths already have significant access to guns in Minnesota - including no age restriction when supervised by a parent or guardian - and by age 14 they can possess guns on their property or while hunting without supervision. More than 30 other states and the District of Columbia have similar restrictions on public carrying of firearms, reflecting concern that gun injuries are the leading cause of death among children and teens, Minnesota said in a court filing. Courts "should not lightly set aside legislative attempts to address the increase in gun violence by young people," the state added. A judge sided with the challengers in 2023. The 8th Circuit upheld that decision, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that announced a stringent test that required gun laws to be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" in order to comply with the Second Amendment. Minnesota did not present evidence of a suitable historical analogue, the 8th Circuit said. While a government may disarm those who pose a threat to the physical safety of others, 8th Circuit said, "Minnesota has failed to show that 18- to 20-year-olds pose such a threat." The Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in the case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen was one of three key decisions it has issued since 2008 that have broadened gun rights in a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence including frequent mass shootings. The United States has the world's highest gun ownership rate. The court last year upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns, clarifying that the Bruen test is not inflexible and that modern gun restrictions do not require a "historical twin" in order to be lawful. The court on April 7 turned away a challenge to gun restrictions that New York adopted after the Bruen ruling. In another gun-related case, the court on March 26 upheld a federal regulation targeting largely untraceable "ghost guns," though that ruling did not center on Second Amendment issues. Last year, the court upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns in a Second Amendment-related challenge but rejected a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns in a case not focusing on Second Amendment rights.
