Latest news with #FourthCircuit
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rejects Maryland AR-15 case, and interest groups respond
BALTIMORE — It's not clear if the Supreme Court's decision to deny two gun cases, including a challenge to a Maryland ban on AR-15s, a semi-automatic rifle, will influence how other gun cases are determined. However, gun owners say the split-court's case rejection reflects skepticism from some justices that the ban is constitutional. 'Four members of the Court, including Justice Kavanaugh, have made clear that the Fourth Circuit incorrectly decided the case,' said Mark Pennak, president of Maryland Shall Issue, a group advocating for gun owner rights expansion. In his view, the court's rejection only 'temporarily' allows the ban to hold. 'Once the Court grants review of the issue, the decision in that case will be controlling precedent in MD and elsewhere. If plaintiffs win on this issue in that case, the Maryland law will fail as well,' he said. The ban was enacted in response to the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newton, Connecticut, where 20 children and six school staff members were killed. The Maryland case, Snope v. Brown, was declined alongside a Rhode Island case which contested a ban on high-capacity gun magazines. While Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas said they would hear the case, four of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree to hear a case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he expects the court will address the issue of AR-15 legality 'in the next Term or two.' Kavanaugh also said that AR–15s are legal in 41 of the 50 States, which makes Maryland's law, relatively, 'something of an outlier.' Gun control advocates, including several Maryland elected officials, felt relieved at the high court's decision, saying that Marylanders are safer with the ban in place. Daniel Webster, Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that he views the court's rejection of the case favorably. 'I think it'll mean that assault weapon ban will stay in, and I think that that's generally a good thing in terms of public safety,' Webster said. 'And I think that that is a policy that most Marylanders support for sure.' He also said that there are other states where similar bans have been challenged on Second Amendment grounds, but most courts have supported the bans. Maryland Congressman Glenn Ivey, a Democrat, posted on X, 'This decision sends a clear message: states can take bold action to protect their communities from gun violence. Marylanders shouldn't have to live in fear of weapons of war on our streets.' He also expressed his commitment to supporting 'common-sense gun laws that save lives and uphold our Constitution' in the future. Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat, also voiced support for the Court's decision. 'Maryland passed its ban on military-style assault weapons after the Sandy Hook massacre,' he posted on X. 'SCOTUS should continue to allow lifesaving laws like Maryland's to remain in place.' Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, the defendant in Snope v. Brown, said in a statement that the Supreme Court's case rejection means the state's ban 'that prevents senseless and preventable deaths' will remain in effect. '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,' the statement said. ________
Vox
2 days ago
- Business
- Vox
A federal court's novel proposal to rein in Trump's power grab
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Federal civil servants are supposed to enjoy robust protections against being fired or demoted for political reasons. But President Donald Trump has effectively stripped them of these protections by neutralizing the federal agencies that implement these safeguards. An agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears civil servants' claims that a 'government employer discriminated against them, retaliated against them for whistleblowing, violated protections for veterans, or otherwise subjected them to an unlawful adverse employment action or prohibited personnel practice,' as a federal appeals court explained in an opinion on Tuesday. But the three-member board currently lacks the quorum it needs to operate because Trump fired two of the members. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Trump also fired Hampton Dellinger, who until recently served as the special counsel of the United States, a role that investigates alleged violations of federal civil service protections and brings related cases to the MSPB. Trump recently nominated Paul Ingrassia, a far-right podcaster and recent law school graduate to replace Dellinger. The upshot of these firings is that no one in the government is able to enforce laws and regulations protecting civil servants. As Dellinger noted in an interview, the morning before a federal appeals court determined that Trump could fire him, he'd 'been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job,' and was working to get 'all probationary employees put back on the job [after] their unlawful firing' by the Department of Government Efficiency and other Trump administration efforts to cull the federal workforce. Related The Supreme Court just revealed one thing it actually fears about Trump These and other efforts to reinstate illegally fired federal workers are on hold, and may not resume until Trump leaves office. Which brings us to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's decision in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, which proposes an innovative solution to this problem. As the Owen opinion notes, the Supreme Court has held that the MSPB process is the only process a federal worker can use if they believe they've been fired in violation of federal civil service laws. So if that process is shut down, the worker is out of luck. But the Fourth Circuit's Owen opinion argues that this 'conclusion can only be true…when the statute functions as Congress intended.' That is, if the MSPB and the special counsel are unable to 'fulfill their roles prescribed by' federal law, then the courts should pick up the slack and start hearing cases brought by illegally fired civil servants. For procedural reasons, the Fourth Circuit's decision will not take effect right away — the court sent the case back down to a trial judge to 'conduct a factual inquiry' into whether the MSPB continues to function. And, even after that inquiry is complete, the Trump administration is likely to appeal the Fourth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court if it wants to keep civil service protections on ice. If the justices agree with the circuit court, however, that will close a legal loophole that has left federal civil servants unprotected by laws that are still very much on the books. And it will cure a problem that the Supreme Court bears much of the blame for creating. The 'unitary executive,' or why the Supreme Court is to blame for the loss of civil service protections Federal law provides that Dellinger could 'be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,' and members of the MSPB enjoy similar protections against being fired. Trump's decision to fire these officials was illegal under these laws. But a federal appeals court nonetheless permitted Trump to fire Dellinger, and the Supreme Court recently backed Trump's decision to fire the MSPB members as well. The reason is a legal theory known as the 'unitary executive,' which is popular among Republican legal scholars, and especially among the six Republicans that control the Supreme Court. If you want to know all the details of this theory, I can point you to three different explainers I've written on the unitary executive. The short explanation is that the unitary executive theory claims that the president must have the power to fire top political appointees charged with executing federal laws – including officials who execute laws protecting civil servants from illegal firings. Related The legal theory that would make Trump the most powerful president in US history But the Supreme Court has never claimed that the unitary executive permits the president to fire any federal worker regardless of whether Congress has protected them or not. In a seminal opinion laying out the unitary executive theory, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the president must have the power to remove 'principal officers' — high-ranking officials like Dellinger who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under Scalia's approach, lower-ranking government workers may still be given some protection. The Fourth Circuit cannot override the Supreme Court's decision to embrace the unitary executive theory. But the Owen opinion essentially tries to police the line drawn by Scalia. The Supreme Court has given Trump the power to fire some high-ranking officials, but he shouldn't be able to use that power as a back door to eliminate job protections for all civil servants. The Fourth Circuit suggests that the federal law which simultaneously gave the MSPB exclusive authority over civil service disputes, while also protecting MSPB members from being fired for political reasons, must be read as a package. Congress, this argument goes, would not have agreed to shunt all civil service disputes to the MSPB if it had known that the Supreme Court would strip the MSPB of its independence. And so, if the MSPB loses its independence, it must also lose its exclusive authority over civil service disputes — and federal courts must regain the power to hear those cases. It remains to be seen whether this argument persuades a Republican Supreme Court — all three of the Fourth Circuit judges who decided the Owen case are Democrats, and two are Biden appointees. But the Fourth Circuit's reasoning closely resembles the kind of inquiry that courts frequently engage in when a federal law is struck down. When a court declares a provision of federal law unconstitutional, it often needs to ask whether other parts of the law should fall along with the unconstitutional provision, an inquiry known as 'severability.' Often, this severability analysis asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that the one provision is invalid. The Fourth Circuit's decision in Owen is essentially a severability opinion. It takes as a given the Supreme Court's conclusion that laws protecting Dellinger and the MSPB members from being fired are unconstitutional, then asks which law Congress would have enacted if it had known that it could not protect MSPB members from political reprisal. The Fourth Circuit's conclusion is that, if Congress had known that MSPB members cannot be politically independent, then it would not have given them exclusive authority over civil service disputes. If the Supreme Court permits Trump to neutralize the MSPB, that would fundamentally change how the government functions The idea that civil servants should be hired based on merit and insulated from political pressure is hardly new. The first law protecting civil servants, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law in 1883. Laws like the Pendleton Act do more than protect civil servants who, say, resist pressure to deny government services to the president's enemies. They also make it possible for top government officials to actually do their jobs. Before the Pendleton Act, federal jobs were typically awarded as patronage — so when a Democratic administration took office, the Republicans who occupied most federal jobs would be fired and replaced by Democrats. This was obviously quite disruptive, and it made it difficult for the government to hire highly specialized workers. Why would someone go to the trouble of earning an economics degree and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy, if they knew that their job in the Treasury Department would disappear the minute their party lost an election? Meanwhile, the task of filling all of these patronage jobs overwhelmed new presidents. As Candice Millard wrote in a 2011 biography of President James A. Garfield, the last president elected before the Pendleton Act, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers began to form outside the White House 'before he even sat down to breakfast.' By the time Garfield had eaten, this line 'snaked down the front walk, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.' Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, a fact that likely helped build political support for the Pendleton Act.
Wall Street Journal
4 days 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.'
Newsweek
4 days 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@
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to hear challenge against Maryland gun law
June 2 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court announced Monday that it won't hear a Second Amendment challenge to a Maryland law that bans semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15. Despite approvals to hear the case from Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the statement that the Court has denied the petition for review. However, despite his refusal to hear the challenge, Kavanaugh's response seemed to indicate his opinion would stand against the law in question. "Americans today possess an estimated 20 to 30 million AR-15s," he wrote. "And AR-15s are legal in 41 of the 50 States, meaning that the states such as Maryland that prohibit AR-15s are something of an outlier." "Given that millions of Americans own AR-15s and that a significant majority of the states allow possession of those rifles, petitioners have a strong argument that AR-15s are in 'common use' by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment," he continued. Kavanaugh further explained that although the Court denied the challenge Monday, it doesn't mean he feels it isn't "worthy of review," and that in his opinion, "this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two." Justice Thomas, in his dissent of the refusal to hear the dispute, wrote that he feels that "It is difficult to see how Maryland's categorical prohibition on AR-15s passes muster" under the framework of the Second Amendment. Thomas declared the Amendment protects all things considered "arms," and that it falls on Maryland to show that a ban on AR-15s is "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." It was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's decision in August of 2024 to uphold the Maryland law because "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 decision further stated that Maryland's law "fits comfortably within our nation's tradition of firearms regulation." Thomas called out the Fourth Circuit's decision in his dissent several times, and among the mistakes he purports it made are that "AR-15s fall within the historic exception for dangerous and unusual weapons," as "Weapons in common use today for self-defense are fully protected." "Our Constitution allows the American people, not the government, to decide which weapons are useful for self-defense," Thomas added, and concluded with "Until we resolve whether the Second Amendment forecloses that possibility, law-abiding AR-15 owners must rely on the goodwill of a federal agency to retain their means of self-defense. That is no constitutional guarantee at all." Justices Alito and Gorsuch did not note why they would have heard the challenge.
