Latest news with #Kavanaugh
Yahoo
18 hours 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. ________
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
In Our View: Supreme Court is right
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court made the correct decision not to accept a Maryland case that banned AR-15 semiautomatic assault weapons. These are the types of guns used in high-profile mass killings. The Court also declined to accept a Rhode Island case that banned high-capacity magazines. This means the laws in both states will take effect. Similar legislation and litigation has been going on around the country due to recent high-profile shootings. The Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun rights group against the two laws, issued a statement saying 'they are disappointed members of the Supreme Court did not have the judicial courage to do their most important job and enforce the Constitution.' We disagree. The Supreme Court did do its job. The Court declined hearing either of these cases. The Supreme Court is not bound to hear every case. In fact, it overwhelmingly rejects most cases which allows lower court decisions stand. It takes four members to vote to accept a case for a hearing. Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court operates on a 6-3 conservative majority. The court indicated it is likely to take up similar legislation in the future. The court has been reluctant to tamper with what many view as gun rights. Justice Kavanaugh wrote in a separate statement that the ruling upholding the Maryland ban is 'questionable.' In 2022, the Supreme Court made a major ruling that, for the first time, the right to bear arms is expanded outside the home. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch wanted to hear the Maryland case. The Maryland law bans what it calls 'weapons of war,' outlawing guns like the M16 and AR-15. It became law in 2013. That was after the Sandy Hook school massacre that killed 20 children and six adults. The Rhode Island law prohibits people from owning magazines that contain more than 10 bullets. In a case this year, the Supreme Court upheld a Biden-era ruling that banned 'ghost gun' kits that can be assembled to make firearms. In July of last year, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on persons owning firearms that have domestic restraining orders against them. To be sure, these gun-related issues will continue to come before the court. We are surprised such a conservative court ruled the way they did in this matter. Or, could it be the Supreme Court is just doing its job?
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
What SCOTUS' Latest NEPA Ruling Means For Climate And Communities
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that could redefine the contours of environmental review in the United States. In a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court sided with the State of Utah and the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, finding that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) acted within its authority when it approved the Uinta Basin Railway project without a more exhaustive National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. This ruling, while technical on the surface, has sweeping implications for how federal agencies consider environmental impacts in project permitting. The case is not just a win for developers and fossil fuel interests. It represents a shift in judicial philosophy, with consequences for communities, ecosystems, and public accountability. At the center of the dispute is the proposed Uinta Basin Railway, a long-contested rail line designed to transport crude oil from Utah's Uinta Basin to national markets. Environmental groups argued that the STB failed to consider downstream greenhouse gas emissions and potential wildfire risks associated with increased oil transport through Colorado and other regions. The Court rejected that argument. According to the majority opinion, the STB adequately fulfilled its duties under NEPA by assessing the direct effects of the project and was not required to consider indirect or speculative harms. Kavanaugh wrote that NEPA 'does not require agencies to consider every conceivable effect of a project, especially those effects that are remote or attenuated.' This narrow interpretation of NEPA continues a trend of limiting environmental review obligations, especially when they may hinder infrastructure or energy development. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent, argued that the majority opinion effectively "hollows out" NEPA, ignoring Congress' original intent to create a robust, forward-looking environmental review process. This isn't the first time NEPA has been at the center of a political tug-of-war. Recent attempts to "streamline" NEPA reviews have often come at the expense of environmental justice communities. Critics argue that by focusing solely on efficiency, policymakers and now courts risk ignoring the disproportionate impact of infrastructure projects on low-income and frontline communities. Under the Biden administration, NEPA had seen a modest revival, with rules emphasizing the importance of considering cumulative climate impacts and community voices in decision-making. That vision has now been weakened. As NPR reported, the ruling may encourage agencies to adopt a minimalistic approach to environmental review, limiting the scope of their analysis to what is explicitly required by law and precedent. Proponents of the decision, including developers and business groups, celebrate it as a win for rational permitting. The Wall Street Journal editorial board framed the decision as common sense, applauding the Court for standing against what they see as activist overreach in environmental litigation. The decision also raises serious questions about public oversight. NEPA has long served as a tool for transparency, requiring federal agencies to disclose the environmental consequences of their actions and giving the public a chance to weigh in. By shielding agencies from considering the full scope of a project's impacts, especially when those impacts are climate-related, the Court may have made it harder for communities to hold decision-makers accountable. And as many legal observers have noted, it leaves a patchwork of interpretations about what counts as a "reasonably foreseeable" effect. Legal scholars expect this ruling to embolden agencies to conduct more limited reviews and may encourage further litigation to challenge or test the boundaries of this interpretation. It also adds another precedent to the growing body of case law that privileges economic development over environmental protection. For communities, especially those that have long used NEPA as a lever to push back against polluting projects, the decision is a blow. But it also highlights the need for stronger statutory language and for state-level environmental review laws to step in where federal protections may falter. The Supreme Court's ruling on NEPA is a reminder that laws written in the 1970s are now being interpreted through a 21st-century lens, shaped by modern political, economic, and climate realities. As climate change accelerates and infrastructure spending increases, the need for robust, science-based environmental review is more urgent than ever. At the policy level, this ruling may motivate Congress to clarify NEPA's scope and purpose. though such legislative action is unlikely in the near term.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Justice Kavanaugh signals the Supreme Court could take up AR-15 bans
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled Monday the high court could soon take up a big case: the constitutionality of AR-15 rifle bans. The court declined to take up a case involving Maryland's AR-15 ban this term, but Kavanaugh wrote the court 'should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.' NewsNation legal contributor Jesse Weber told me he believes Kavanaugh is right. 'Not only will they hear it, they have to hear it,' Weber said. 'There is so much confusion across courts about when is a gun regulation unconstitutional,' he added. Get ready for this case in the high court at some point in the coming years.
Yahoo
3 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.
