Latest news with #JohnSauer


The Herald Scotland
6 hours ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Trump wants Supreme Court to crack down on gun rules
Now the Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to declare that such rules in Hawaii, California, New York, Maryland and New Jersey violate the Constitution. "The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment," Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in explaining why the Department of Justice wants the high court to weigh in. That's not the only example of how the change in administrations is affecting litigation over gun regulations. Justice Department stopped defending federal handgun rule In a move alarming to groups working to prevent gun violence, the DOJ declined to continue to defend a federal law setting 21 as the minimum age to own a handgun after an appeals court ruled the restriction unconstitutional. "For the government to step back and say, `Hey, here's a major piece of federal firearms legislation that was passed by Congress; we're just not going to bother to defend it any longer,' that's a really, really significant thing," said Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation director for the Giffords Law Center. The DOJ has also told the Supreme Court that the federal government no longer opposes all aspects of a Missouri law - blocked by lower courts after the Biden administration and others challenged it - that would penalize state police for enforcing federal gun control laws. "This is the first time we've seen a Justice Department really actively fight for the Second Amendment rights of all Americans," said Hannah Hill, vice president of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. Hill said it's taken the administration longer than she'd hoped to take a stand and her group is eager for President Donald Trump to repeal federal regulations - including rules on untraceable "ghost guns" that the Supreme Court upheld in March. "But you're seeing a slow pivot of a massive ship back toward the Constitution," she said. "And I'm extremely encouraged by the trajectory." Trump: `No one will lay a finger on your firearms' During a 2024 campaign stop to address thousands of members of the National Rifle Association in Pennsylvania, Trump promised that "no one will lay a finger on your firearms" if voters put him back in the White House. "Your Second Amendment will always be safe with me as your president," Trump said. Soon after taking office, Trump signed an executive order directing a review of Biden-era firearm policies and of the positions the government has taken in gun-related litigation. Legal challenges to firearm rules spiked after the court created a new test for gun laws in its 2022 decision striking down a New York law that required state residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun. The court said gun rules must be similar to a historical regulation on weapons to pass constitutional muster. Lower courts divided over age restriction on handguns As the administration was changing hands in January, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a decades-old federal law banning handgun purchases by 18- to 20-year-olds fails that test. "The history of firearm use, particularly in connection with militia service, contradicts the premise that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds are not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment," U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones wrote for the court. In July, the DOJ told a lower court that the government is not going to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. But the high court may still take up the issue. More: Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence In June, the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion as the 5th Circuit, ruling against a similar challenge. "From English common law to America's founding and beyond, our regulatory tradition has permitted restrictions on the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21," U.S. Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the court. The four 18- to 20-year-olds challenging the age restriction have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. The DOJ has not yet filed its response. More: Supreme Court sides with Biden and upholds regulations of ghost guns to make them traceable Debate over the right to carry a gun in public In its brief supporting a challenge to Hawaii's law prohibiting the carrying of handguns onto someone else's property without their consent, the government said that the rule "effectively nullifies" the general right to carry a gun in public that the court upheld in 2022. "Someone carrying a firearm for self-defense cannot run errands without fear of criminal sanctions," Sauer told the court. Sanchez-Gomez, the litigation director for the Giffords Law Center, said property owners have always had the ability to restrict weapons. But Hawaii's law makes the default that handguns aren't allowed unless there's express permission, rather than that they are allowed unless they're expressly prohibited. When the court limited states' control over who could publicly carry guns, she said, the focus turned to where in public they could bring them. Alex McCourt, an assistant professor with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, said the Supreme Court could take up the case not so much because the Trump administration wants them to but because one appeals court upheld Hawaii's rule while a different appeals court rejected New York's. "The fact that we have these differing opinions across the country probably weighs even heavier in the Supreme Court's mind," he said. Still, McCourt said, it's relatively rare for the high court to weigh in on gun laws. "They often say no," he said. Justice Department backs challenge to bans on AR-15s In June, the justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons, although Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he expects his colleagues "will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two." Days later, the Justice Department urged the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down a similar law in Illinois. "Because the Act is a total ban on a category of firearms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons, it is flatly unconstitutional," lawyers for the DOJ wrote in a legal brief supporting the challenge. The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the groups fighting Illinois' law, called the DOJ's filing a critical step toward Trump fulfilling his promise to defend the Second Amendment. "We hope Solicitor General Sauer will stand with us on this issue at the Supreme Court," coalition president Brandon Combs said in a statement, "when this case inevitably heads up."

USA Today
a day ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump DOJ wants Supreme Court to bring down hammer on gun rules
WASHINGTON − After the Supreme Court in 2022 made it harder to restrict who can arm themselves in public, some states took a different approach. Five Democrat-led, mostly densely populous states passed laws that prohibit bringing a handgun onto someone else's property without that person's express consent. Now the Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to declare that such rules in Hawaii, California, New York, Maryland and New Jersey violate the Constitution. 'The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment,' Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in explaining why the Department of Justice wants the high court to weigh in. That's not the only example of how the change in administrations is affecting litigation over gun regulations. Justice Department stopped defending federal handgun rule In a move alarming to groups working to prevent gun violence, the DOJ declined to continue to defend a federal law setting 21 as the minimum age to own a handgun after an appeals court ruled the restriction unconstitutional. 'For the government to step back and say, `Hey, here's a major piece of federal firearms legislation that was passed by Congress; we're just not going to bother to defend it any longer,' that's a really, really significant thing,' said Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation director for the Giffords Law Center. The DOJ has also told the Supreme Court that the federal government no longer opposes all aspects of a Missouri law – blocked by lower courts after the Biden administration and others challenged it – that would penalize state police for enforcing federal gun control laws. 'This is the first time we've seen a Justice Department really actively fight for the Second Amendment rights of all Americans," said Hannah Hill, vice president of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. Hill said it's taken the administration longer than she'd hoped to take a stand and her group is eager for President Donald Trump to repeal federal regulations − including rules on untraceable "ghost guns" that the Supreme Court upheld in March. "But you're seeing a slow pivot of a massive ship back toward the Constitution," she said. "And I'm extremely encouraged by the trajectory." Trump: `No one will lay a finger on your firearms' During a 2024 campaign stop to address thousands of members of the National Rifle Association in Pennsylvania, Trump promised that 'no one will lay a finger on your firearms' if voters put him back in the White House. "Your Second Amendment will always be safe with me as your president," Trump said. Soon after taking office, Trump signed an executive order directing a review of Biden-era firearm policies and of the positions the government has taken in gun-related litigation. Legal challenges to firearm rules spiked after the court created a new test for gun laws in its 2022 decision striking down a New York law that required state residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun. The court said gun rules must be similar to a historical regulation on weapons to pass constitutional muster. Lower courts divided over age restriction on handguns As the administration was changing hands in January, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a decades-old federal law banning handgun purchases by 18- to 20-year-olds fails that test. "The history of firearm use, particularly in connection with militia service, contradicts the premise that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds are not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment," U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones wrote for the court. In July, the DOJ told a lower court that the government is not going to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. But the high court may still take up the issue. More: Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence In June, the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion as the 5th Circuit, ruling against a similar challenge. "From English common law to America's founding and beyond, our regulatory tradition has permitted restrictions on the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21," U.S. Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the court. The four 18- to 20-year-olds challenging the age restriction have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. The DOJ has not yet filed its response. More: Supreme Court sides with Biden and upholds regulations of ghost guns to make them traceable Debate over the right to carry a gun in public In its brief supporting a challenge to Hawaii's law prohibiting the carrying of handguns onto someone else's property without their consent, the government said that the rule 'effectively nullifies' the general right to carry a gun in public that the court upheld in 2022. 'Someone carrying a firearm for self-defense cannot run errands without fear of criminal sanctions,' Sauer told the court. Sanchez-Gomez, the litigation director for the Giffords Law Center, said property owners have always had the ability to restrict weapons. But Hawaii's law makes the default that handguns aren't allowed unless there's express permission, rather than that they are allowed unless they're expressly prohibited. When the court limited states' control over who could publicly carry guns, she said, the focus turned to where in public they could bring them. Alex McCourt, an assistant professor with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, said the Supreme Court could take up the case not so much because the Trump administration wants them to but because one appeals court upheld Hawaii's rule while a different appeals court rejected New York's. 'The fact that we have these differing opinions across the country probably weighs even heavier in the Supreme Court's mind," he said. Still, McCourt said, it's relatively rare for the high court to weigh in on gun laws. 'They often say no,' he said. Justice Department backs challenge to bans on AR-15s In June, the justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons, although Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he expects his colleagues 'will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.' Days later, the Justice Department urged the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down a similar law in Illinois. 'Because the Act is a total ban on a category of firearms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons, it is flatly unconstitutional,' lawyers for the DOJ wrote in a legal brief supporting the challenge. The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the groups fighting Illinois' law, called the DOJ's filing a critical step toward Trump fulfilling his promise to defend the Second Amendment. 'We hope Solicitor General Sauer will stand with us on this issue at the Supreme Court,' coalition president Brandon Combs said in a statement, 'when this case inevitably heads up.'


Mint
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Mint
A blow to judicial power and a win for Donald Trump
A year ago John Sauer, then Donald Trump's personal lawyer, persuaded six justices to hand the presidential candidate sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution. On June 27th Mr Sauer, now Mr Trump's solicitor general, notched another huge victory for his boss—one that will enhance the power of future presidents, too. Whereas Trump v United States articulated a capacious standard of presidential immunity and cleared the way for Mr Trump to complete his campaign free of legal jeopardy, Trump v CASA liberates him from nationwide injunctions—the most potent tool judges have been using to thwart his agenda. It was, as Mr Trump wrote on social media, a 'GIANT WIN'. On the surface, Trump v CASA was about Mr Trump's executive order denying citizenship to babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary-visa holders. That proclamation, issued on his first day back in office, departed from more than 125 years of understanding that the 14th amendment promises citizenship to 'all persons born or naturalised' in America. Three district courts issued nationwide injunctions blocking the order, with one judge (appointed by Ronald Reagan) calling it 'blatantly unconstitutional'. But when the Department of Justice (DoJ) approached the Supreme Court, it did not request a wholesale reversal of any of these decisions—an apparent recognition that the justices, too, would likely see the order as unconstitutional. Instead the DoJ asked the justices to limit the injunctions to the litigants who brought the cases: a group of pregnant women, the members of two immigrants-right organisations and 22 states, plus San Francisco and the District of Columbia. By doing so the DoJ invited the justices to turn from the question of 'birthright citizenship' to the broader question of district judges usurping executive power by issuing nationwide or 'universal' injunctions. The tack may have been cynical, but it was effective. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's 26-page majority opinion is an indictment of such injunctions. The trend of individual district-court judges blocking presidential actions has held 'across administrations', wrote Justice Barrett. During the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, the tool was used about 25 times. Congress has granted judges 'no such power', she argued, and universal injunctions are not a valid application of the judicial role. The practice was unheard of until the 20th century. 'No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law,' she wrote. 'But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation'. The three liberal justices dissented vigorously. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that '[n]o right is safe in the new legal regime' of Trump v CASA. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the majority's decision gives the president authority 'to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued', posing 'an existential threat to the rule of law'. Soon, she cautioned, 'executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional republic will be no more'. To this, Justice Barrett had a rejoinder: 'When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' The blast zone from Trump v CASA could be wide. As the majority noted, judges across America have been issuing nationwide injunctions to stymie a host of Mr Trump's policies, from eliminating foreign aid appropriated by Congress to imposing new voter-identification rules. The DoJ is expected to promptly file motions to lift the injunctions. Moving forward, America's 677 district-court judges will be deprived of a particularly powerful tool. But there are other ways that the judicial system can deal with broad violations of the constitution or individual rights. One is class-action lawsuits, whereby one or several named plaintiffs, or an organisation, sue on behalf of similarly situated plaintiffs across America. All pregnant women without legal status, for example, could be a 'class' that courts recognise as entitled to relief from Mr Trump's birthright-citizenship proclamation. But this form of litigation has high procedural hurdles and classes can take months to certify—a process the Supreme Court has made increasingly difficult in recent years. In the case of birthright citizenship, there is another possibility that Justice Barrett's opinion explicitly leaves open to the lower courts. The cost and administrative burden of tracking the immigration status of babies traveling around the country, for example, could make anything less than a comprehensive bar on Mr Trump's policy unworkable for the 22 states seeking relief. So these states have a plausible argument that the only injunction that can ease their burden is one that blocks Mr Trump's executive order everywhere. Justice Barrett closed her opinion by delaying implementation of the court's decision for 30 days. That gives the plaintiffs until July 27th to hasten back to district courts to file class-action cases or argue that a blanket injunction against Mr Trump's policies is required to grant the suing parties 'complete relief'. If neither of these efforts is successful, the country could be left with a patchwork of rules that grants citizenship to the baby of an undocumented mother born in Minnesota, but not one born in Mississippi (at least until the constitutionality of Mr Trump's executive order is decided by the high court). The 6-3 split in Trump v CASA reveals a court that remains deeply divided over executive power. For those hoping to challenge the president's more aggressive policies, the courthouse doors remain open—but the path to meaningful relief is considerably narrower.
Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump celebrates Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling
President Trump on Friday celebrated the Supreme Court ruling that allowed his executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country. He called the ruling a 'giant win' and announced that he will be speaking about it in a press conference at 11:30 a.m. 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ. News Conference at the White House, 11:30 A.M. EST,' he said on Truth Social. The high court's decision found that three federal district judges went too far in issuing nationwide injunctions, allowing blocks on Trump's birthright citizenship ban only in Democratic-run states that have filed challenges against it. In the other states, the Trump administration may resume developing guidance to implement the order, though they must wait 30 days before attempting to deny citizenship to anyone. The ruling though does not yet definitively resolve whether Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship are constitutional. The limits nationwide injunctions will likely have a significant impact on legal battles beyond birthright citizenship, as the Trump administration is locked in battles over injunctions against many of Trump's policies. Attorney General Pan Bondi also took a victory lap after the ruling, celebrating what she described as the end to injunctions against Trump. 'Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,' Bondi said on X. She continues, 'This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer. This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend @POTUS's policies and his authority to implement them.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
27-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump celebrates Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling
President Trump on Friday celebrated the Supreme Court ruling that allowed his executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country. He called the ruling a 'giant win' and announced that he will be speaking about it in a press conference at 11:30 a.m. 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ. News Conference at the White House, 11:30 A.M. EST,' he said on Truth Social. The high court's decision found that three federal district judges went too far in issuing nationwide injunctions, allowing blocks on Trump's birthright citizenship ban only in Democratic-run states that have filed challenges against it. In the other states, the Trump administration may resume developing guidance to implement the order, though they must wait 30 days before attempting to deny citizenship to anyone. The ruling though does not yet definitively resolve whether Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship are constitutional. The limits nationwide injunctions will likely have a significant impact on legal battles beyond birthright citizenship, as the Trump administration is locked in battles over injunctions against many of Trump's policies. Attorney General Pan Bondi also took a victory lap after the ruling, celebrating what she described as the end to injunctions against Trump. 'Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,' Bondi said on X. She continues, 'This would not have been possible without tireless work from our excellent lawyers @TheJusticeDept and our Solicitor General John Sauer. This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend @POTUS's policies and his authority to implement them.'