Latest news with #JusticeThomas
Fox News
2 days ago
- General
- Fox News
Supreme Court declines to examine appeals over Maryland, Rhode Island gun control laws
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two cases challenging separate state bans on so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines on Monday. The court declined to hear cases arising out of Maryland and Rhode Island relating to state regulations on AR-15-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, respectively. The cases had been submitted to the Supreme Court after lower courts upheld the bans in the face of challenges. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch disagreed with the majority's decision and said they would have liked to have reviewed the cases. With respect to the Maryland ban, the Supreme Court's decision upholds the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling, which states that authority to ban AR-15-style rifles is consistent with the 2nd Amendment. The 4th Circuit argued in its ruling that granting AR-15s constitutional protection based on their common use would mean that any dangerous weapon "could gain constitutional protection merely because it becomes popular before the government can sufficiently regulate it." Lawyers arguing against the ban claimed the Supreme Court had a duty to "ensure that the Second Amendment itself is not truncated into a limited right to own certain state-approved means of personal self-defense." While the court declined to take up the issue in this case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that, "In my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon." Thomas, one of the three justices who sought to review the Maryland case now, was more blunt in his dissent. "I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America," Thomas wrote. "That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners throughout the country." The gun cases come as the Supreme Court has been inundated with challenges to President Donald Trump's agenda, from his economic and regulatory policies to his anti-illegal immigration efforts. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down rulings relating to several of these topics in the coming weeks.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Justice Thomas Nears Historic Milestone, Eyes Longest-Serving Supreme Court Record
Justice Clarence Thomas marked a major milestone Thursday, tying the late Justice Joseph Story as the ninth-longest-serving Supreme Court justice in U.S. history. The tie comes after 12,273 days on the nation's highest Court. Thomas, 76, has long been a pivotal and often polarizing figure on the bench, and his tenure shows no signs of ending soon. Barring retirement or health complications, Thomas is on track to rise even higher on the longevity list, potentially becoming the longest-serving justice in history by August 2028 — just months before the next presidential election. If he serves another 20 days beyond Thursday, Thomas will surpass Chief Justice William Rehnquist for the eighth-longest tenure. Within months, he would eclipse judicial giants, including Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Hugo Black, the Alabamian who currently holds the fifth-longest term with 12,448 days. Thomas's longevity on the Court comes at a time when health and age are increasingly relevant topics for the justices. While Thomas is the oldest current member, fellow septuagenarian Justice Sonia Sotomayor has also faced health challenges in recent years. Retirement rumors occasionally swirl, but Thomas has given no public indication of stepping down. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush and confirmed in 1991 after a bruising and historic confirmation battle, Thomas has become the Court's longest-serving current justice and its most senior voice. Known for his textualist approach and willingness to question decades of precedent, Thomas has played a central role in reshaping American constitutional law, particularly in areas like gun rights, affirmative action, and administrative law. For much of his early tenure, Thomas was known for his silence during oral arguments, often going years without asking a single question. But in recent years, he has become more vocal from the bench. His writings have drawn both fierce criticism and admiration, particularly his concurrences and dissents, which often lay the groundwork for future rulings. Thomas will match the service of Joseph Story, an influential early justice appointed by President James Madison in 1811 at the age of just 32 — the youngest justice in Supreme Court history. Story helped shape foundational doctrines in American law and was especially influential in the development of maritime and commercial law. His writings, including Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, remain widely studied by legal scholars. Story served until his death in 1845 after nearly 34 years on the bench. As Thomas continues toward breaking more longevity records, the political implications loom. Justices in the modern era typically avoid retiring in the months leading up to a presidential election, in part to prevent their seat from becoming a flashpoint. But if Thomas is still on the bench in late 2028 — and if the presidential race is closely contested — the possibility of his successor may become a major issue for both parties and the electorate. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death in 2020, just weeks before the presidential election, led to a contentious and rapid confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. That episode highlighted how crucial Court appointments can be to the political process, especially when timing intersects with electoral cycles. Whether Thomas seeks to retire or remain on the bench, one thing is increasingly clear: his presence — and the legacy he leaves — will remain a major part of the Court's history and the country's political conversation for years to come.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme court blocks Trump bid to resume deportations under 1798 law
The supreme court has rejected the Trump administration's request to remove a temporary block on deportations of Venezuelans under a rarely used 18th-century wartime law. Over two dissenting votes, the justices acted on an emergency appeal from lawyers for Venezuelan men who have been accused of being gang members, a designation that the administration says makes them eligible for rapid removal from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The court, which returned the case to a federal appeals court, had already imposed a temporary halt on deportations from a north Texas detention facility in a middle-of-the-night order issued last month. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Donald Trump responded on social media, with a post that claimed: 'THE SUPREME COURT WON'T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!' 'The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,' Trump added in a subsequent post, in which he also claimed, falsely, that the justices 'ruled that the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane, who came into our Country illegally, are not allowed to be forced out without going through a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person.' Related: Alien Enemies Act: what is it and can Trump use it to deport gang members? The case is among several making their way through the courts over the president's proclamation in March calling the Tren de Aragua gang a foreign terrorist organization engaged in an 'invasion of the United States', and as such subject to deportation under the 1798 statute. However, a recently declassified memo showed US intelligence agencies rejected a key claim the administration made to justify invoking the wartime law – that Venezuela's government was orchestrating the gang's operations. The supreme court case stems from a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas, challenging Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. At issue is whether people must have the opportunity to contest their removal from the United States, without determining whether Trump's invocation of the law was appropriate. 'We recognize the significance of the government's national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the constitution,' the justices said in an unsigned opinion. In a statement, Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead counsel, said: 'The court's decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government's attempt to hurry people away to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador. The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance.' At least three federal judges have said Trump was improperly using the AEA to speed deportations of people the administration says are Venezuelan gang members. On Tuesday, a judge in Pennsylvania signed off on the use of the law. The court-by-court approach to deportations under the AEA flows from another supreme court order that took a case away from a judge in Washington DC and ruled detainees seeking to challenge their deportations must do so where they are held. The justices said in April that people must be given 'reasonable time' to file a challenge. The court has rejected the 12 hours the administration has said would be sufficient, but has not otherwise spelled out how long it meant. The US district judge Stephanie Haines ordered immigration officials to give people 21 days in her opinion in which she otherwise said deportations could legally take place under the AEA. In its opinion, the supreme court pointed to the case of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident the administration admitted it wrongly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador as a result of an 'administrative error'. The president and other high-ranking administration officials have repeatedly said Ábrego García would never be allowed back in the US, despite a supreme court order instructing the government to 'facilitate' his return. Related: Venezuelans deported by Trump are victims of 'torture', lawyers allege Highlighting the administration's argument that it was 'unable to provide for the return of an individual deported in error to a prison in El Salvador', the court concluded that the 'detainees' interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty'. 'Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process right to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,' the justices wrote. However, the court also made clear that it was not blocking other ways the government may deport people. The decision comes one day after the court appeared troubled by an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office that seeks to end birthright citizenship, which contradicts precedent upholding the plain text of the 14th amendment as granting citizenship to 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States'.
New York Times
16-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Supreme Court Retains Temporary Block on Using Wartime Law to Deport Venezuelans
The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would keep in place a temporary block on deportations of Venezuelan migrants accused of being members of a violent gang and threatened with removal from the country under a rarely invoked wartime law. The justices sent the case back to a federal appeals court, directing it to examine claims by the migrants that they could not be legally deported under the Alien Enemies Act, the centuries-old law invoked by the Trump administration. The justices said the appeals court should also examine what kind of notice the government be required to provide that would allow migrants the opportunity to challenge their deportations. The court said its order would remain in place until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled and the Supreme Court considered any appeal from that ruling. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a dissent. He was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. The Trump administration has attempted to use the law as a tool in its signature initiative to speed the deportation of millions of migrants, leading to a clash with a skeptical judiciary. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue once, agreeing in early April to temporarily allow the administration to proceed with its use of the law, provided it gave migrants subject to it the opportunity to challenge their deportations in court. As those challenges have been filed, several lower court judges have concluded that the administration has exceeded the scope of the law, which can be invoked only when the United States has been subject to 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion,' and have blocked the deportation of groups of Venezuelans. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
