Latest news with #SamuelA.AlitoJr.
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court leaves in place firearms laws in Maryland and Rhode Island
The two other dissenters were Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch. Advertisement Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed with the decision to sidestep the cases for now, but wrote separately to caution against reading too much into Maryland's ban remaining intact. He called the lower court ruling upholding the law 'questionable' and said the Supreme Court should eventually address the validity of bans on assault-style rifles like the AR-15 in the next term or two. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The decision not to take up the gun cases came on the same day the justices decided to hear four other cases for the next term. The Supreme Court will decide on a challenge brought by an Illinois congressman and two Republican presidential electors who say a state law that allows for the collection and counting of absentee ballots after Election Day violates federal election statutes. Advertisement In another case, a US Army specialist who was seriously wounded by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan is asking the Supreme Court to rule that federal contractors do not have immunity from civil suits filed under state law. Winston Hencely sued Fluor Corp., a military contractor, after an Afghan man the company had hired at the Bagram air base built an explosive vest while unsupervised and then detonated it, gravely wounding Hencely. The justices will also hear a case involving a class-action lawsuit brought by migrants who claim they were forced to do work for little or no pay while being held at a private detention facility in Aurora, Colo., in violation of a state law against forced labor. The case concerns a technical question about the contractor's claim that it has sovereign immunity from being sued. In the fourth case, the justices will examine what standards must be met for law enforcement officers to enter a home without a search warrant when they believe an emergency might be occurring inside, in a case originating in Montana. The courts have split over whether probable cause - or a lesser standard - is required in such circumstances. Maryland passed its ban on high-powered rifles in response to the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, in which an AR-15 was used to kill 20 children and six adults. The US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld Maryland's restrictions as consistent with the Second Amendment. 'Our nation has a strong tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons once it becomes clear that they are exacting an inordinate toll on public safety and societal well-being,' Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a nominee of President Ronald Reagan, wrote in an opinion that repeatedly cited the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller declaring a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm at home for self-defense. Advertisement In 2022, the Supreme Court further expanded gun rights in its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, that required the government for the first time to point to historical analogues when defending laws that place restrictions on guns. Earlier this term, the Supreme Court also upheld a Biden-era ban on ghost guns. Gun rights groups challenging Maryland's law noted that AR-15s and other assault-style rifles are the best-selling rifles in the country, owned by millions of Americans and accounting for about 20 percent of all firearms sales in the country for more than a decade. They urged the Supreme Court 'to ensure that the Second Amendment itself is not truncated into a limited right to own certain state-approved means of personal self-defense.' Lower courts, they added, are asking the justices for further guidance about how to apply the Supreme Court's new test. Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, Democrat, whose office defended the ban, said in a statement that the Supreme Court's action Monday means 'a critical law that prevents senseless and preventable deaths will remain in effect,' adding that his office will 'do whatever we can to protect Marylanders from this horrific violence.' The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the groups challenging the ban, expressed frustration in a statement that the Supreme Court 'continues to allow lower courts to treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right' and urged Trump's solicitor general, D. John Sauer, to join the group in 'loudly encouraging the Court to take up quality Second Amendment cases.' Advertisement In the Rhode Island case, an appeals court upheld the state's ban on high-capacity magazines, finding that it does not impose a significant burden on residents seeking to defend themselves. 'Civilian self-defense rarely - if ever - calls for the rapid and uninterrupted discharge of many shots, much less more than ten,' the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit said in its ruling. The appeals court said the law is consistent with the state's ban on other items 'associated with criminal activity,' such as silencers and armor-piercing bullets. The law, passed in response to the rise in mass shootings, gives owners 180 days to comply by modifying their magazines, selling them to firearms dealers, removing them from the state, or turning them over to law enforcement. The justices also declined to take the case of a Texas stripper who sued two clubs, claiming they discriminated against Black dancers. Chanel Nicholson, who is Black, says she was turned away from work on occasions because managers felt there were already too many Black dancers working. A federal judge and then an appeals court ruled for the clubs, determining that the statute of limitations had expired on her claims. The first acts of alleged discrimination occurred in 2014 but continued off and on until she filed her legal claim in 2021. The appeals court found 'her denial of access to the club … on account of her race' in 2021 was 'merely a continued effect of the first alleged discriminatory act that took place in 2014.' Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority's decision not to take the case, saying each new act of discrimination starts a new clock to file a civil action. Advertisement
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court denies student's right to wear 'only two genders' T-shirt at school
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a middle-school student's claim he had a free-speech right to wear a T-shirt stating there are "only two genders." Over two dissents, the justices let stand a ruling that said a school may enforce a dress code to protect students from "hate speech" or bullying. After three months of internal debate, the justices decided they would not take up another conservative, culture war challenge to progressive policies that protect LGBTQ+ youth. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a 14-page dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas. He said the case "presented an issue of great importance for our nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech because it expresses a viewpoint the schools disfavor." Liam Morrison, a 7th grader from Massachusetts, said he was responding to his school's promotion of Pride Month when students were encouraged to wear rainbow colors and posters urged them to "rise up to protect trans and gender non-confirming students." Two years ago, he went to school wearing a black T-shirt that said "There are only two genders." Read more: Supreme Court splits 4-4, blocking first religious charter school in Oklahoma A teacher reported him to the principal who sent him home to change his shirt. A few weeks later, he returned with the word "censored" taped over the words "two genders" but was sent home again. The T-shirt dispute asked the Supreme Court to decide whether school officials may limit the free expression of some students to protect others from messages they may see as offensive or hurtful. In March, the court voted to hear a free-speech challenge to laws in California and 21 other states that forbid licensed counselors from using "conversion therapy" with minors. That case, like the one on school T-shirts, arose from appeals by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group. It has already won free-speech rulings that allowed a cake maker and a website designer to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings despite state laws that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation. On April 22, the court sounded ready to rule for religious parents in Montgomery County, Md., who seek the right to have their young elementary children "opt out" of the classroom use of a new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks. The T-shirt case came before the court shortly after President Trump's executive order declaring the U.S. government will "recognize two sexes, male and female," not "an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity." While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on T-shirts and the 1st Amendment, lower courts have upheld limits imposed by schools. In 2006, the 9th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision upheld school officials at Poway High School in San Diego who barred a student from wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality is shameful." The appeals court said students are free to speak on controversial matters, but they are not free to make "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation.' Other courts have ruled schools may prohibit a student from wearing a Confederate flag on a T-shirt. In the new case from Massachusetts, the boy's father said his son's T-shirt message was not "directed at any particular person" but dealt with a "hot political topic." In their defense, school officials pointed to their policy against "bullying" and a dress code that says "clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification." Lawyers for the ADF sued on the student's behalf and argued the school violated his rights under the 1st Amendment. They lost before a federal judge in Boston who ruled for school officials and said the T-shirt "invaded the rights of the other a safe and secure educational environment." The 1st Circuit Court agreed as well, noting that schools may limit free expression of students if they fear a particular message will cause a disruption or "poison the atmosphere" at school. Read more: Supreme Court will hear free-speech challenge to 'conversion therapy' bans in California, Colorado The Supreme Court's most famous ruling on student rights arose during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Warren Court ruled for high school students who wore black arm bands as a protest. In Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court said students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, [they] must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint." The justices said then a symbolic protest should be permitted so long as it did not cause a "substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." The attorneys for Liam Morrison contended he should win under that standard. "This case isn't about T-shirts. It's about public school telling a middle-schooler that he isn't allowed to express a view that it differs from their own," said David Cortman, an ADF attorney in the case of L.M vs. Town of Middleborough. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court denies student's right to wear ‘only two genders' T-shirt at school
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a middle-school student's claim he had a free-speech right to wear a T-shirt stating there are 'only two genders.' Over two dissents, the justices let stand a ruling that said a school may enforce a dress code to protect students from 'hate speech' or bullying. After three months of internal debate, the justices decided they would not take up another conservative, culture war challenge to progressive policies that protect LGBTQ+ youth. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a 14-page dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas. He said the case 'presented an issue of great importance for our nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech because it expresses a viewpoint the schools disfavor.' Liam Morrison, a 7th grader from Massachusetts, said he was responding to his school's promotion of Pride Month when students were encouraged to wear rainbow colors and posters urged them to 'rise up to protect trans and gender non-confirming students.' Two years ago, he went to school wearing a black T-shirt that said 'There are only two genders.' A teacher reported him to the principal who sent him home to change his shirt. A few weeks later, he returned with the word 'censored' taped over the words 'two genders' but was sent home again. The T-shirt dispute asked the Supreme Court to decide whether school officials may limit the free expression of some students to protect others from messages they may see as offensive or hurtful. In March, the court voted to hear a free-speech challenge to laws in California and 21 other states that forbid licensed counselors from using 'conversion therapy' with minors. That case, like the one on school T-shirts, arose from appeals by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group. It has already won free-speech rulings that allowed a cake maker and a website designer to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings despite state laws that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation. On April 22, the court sounded ready to rule for religious parents in Montgomery County, Md., who seek the right to have their young elementary children 'opt out' of the classroom use of a new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks. The T-shirt case came before the court shortly after President Trump's executive order declaring the U.S. government will 'recognize two sexes, male and female,' not 'an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity.' While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on T-shirts and the 1st Amendment, lower courts have upheld limits imposed by schools. In 2006, the 9th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision upheld school officials at Poway High School in San Diego who barred a student from wearing a T-shirt that said 'Homosexuality is shameful.' The appeals court said students are free to speak on controversial matters, but they are not free to make 'derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation.' Other courts have ruled schools may prohibit a student from wearing a Confederate flag on a T-shirt. In the new case from Massachusetts, the boy's father said his son's T-shirt message was not 'directed at any particular person' but dealt with a 'hot political topic.' In their defense, school officials pointed to their policy against 'bullying' and a dress code that says 'clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.' Lawyers for the ADF sued on the student's behalf and argued the school violated his rights under the 1st Amendment. They lost before a federal judge in Boston who ruled for school officials and said the T-shirt 'invaded the rights of the other a safe and secure educational environment.' The 1st Circuit Court agreed as well, noting that schools may limit free expression of students if they fear a particular message will cause a disruption or 'poison the atmosphere' at school. The Supreme Court's most famous ruling on student rights arose during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Warren Court ruled for high school students who wore black arm bands as a protest. In Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court said students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, [they] must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.' The justices said then a symbolic protest should be permitted so long as it did not cause a 'substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.' The attorneys for Liam Morrison contended he should win under that standard. 'This case isn't about T-shirts. It's about public school telling a middle-schooler that he isn't allowed to express a view that it differs from their own,' said David Cortman, an ADF attorney in the case of L.M vs. Town of Middleborough.
Washington Post
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
What Alito got right in his El Salvador case dissent
Mary McCord is executive director of Georgetown Law School's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and a former acting assistant attorney general for national security and longtime federal prosecutor. Critically, on the fundamental point, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. did not dissent. When Americans are so profoundly divided about so much, it appears there's still one thing we agree on: Before the government deprives someone of 'life, liberty, or property,' it must provide what the Fifth Amendment requires: due process of law.
New York Times
22-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Justices Seem Set to Allow Opt-Outs From L.G.B.T.Q. Stories in Schools
The culture wars returned to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, this time in a battle over whether public schools in Maryland must allow parents with religious objections to withdraw their children from classes in which storybooks with L.G.B.T.Q. themes are discussed. In a long, lively and sometimes heated argument that gave close consideration to a handful of books for young readers, questions from members of the court's six-justice conservative majority indicated that the parents were very likely to prevail. 'The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum,' Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said. 'They're just saying, 'Look, we want out.' Why isn't that feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?' Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh noted that the school board had initially allowed parents to withdraw their children when the books were to be discussed but reversed course. 'I'm not understanding why it's not feasible,' he said, adding, 'They're not asking you to change what's taught in the classroom.' Lawyers for the school system said the opt-outs were hard to administer, led to absenteeism and risked 'exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
