Latest news with #USCircuitCourtofAppeals
Boston Globe
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Federal appeals court upholds Massachusetts law banning assault weapons
This particular firearms saga began in 2022 with Joseph Capen, a Massachusetts resident who sought to purchase firearms deemed illegal by the law. He, alongside the National Association for Gun Rights, sued the state in Sept. 2022 arguing the law infringed on gun owners' Second and 14th Amendment protections by imposing on their rights to carry firearms and self-defense. Advertisement In a statement Friday, Attorney General Andrea Campbell, who handled the case for Massachusetts, lauded the court decision, saying it will make the state safer. 'Massachusetts has some of the strongest common sense gun laws in the country, and we know they are effective in ensuring our communities, especially our children, remain safe,' Campbell said. 'The recent First Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to uphold Massachusetts' assault weapons ban is a tremendous victory for our state, and I will continue to vigorously defend these laws.' Massachusetts, which had its assault weapons ban , commonly known as Bruen. The ruling Advertisement The ruling also unleashed a wave of legal challenges from Second Amendment advocates across the country, who saw the Bruen decision as an opening to overturn gun safety regimens nationwide. It deemed laws in places such as New York, Illinois, and Minnesota unconstitutional and made states think more carefully about whether any new gun restrictions could withstand lawsuits. The Boston-based US Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Thursday sided with a federal district court that Massachusetts' ban 'does not impose a heavy burden on civilian self-defense,' Judge Gary Katzmann wrote on behalf of the appeals court, adding that those challenging it 'do not demonstrate a single instance where the AR-15 — or any other banned weapon — has actually been used in a self-defense scenario.' Meanwhile, Hannah Hill, vice president for the National Foundation for Gun Rights, wrote on social media that while the court's ruling was expected, it was 'full of absolute defiance of Bruen.' Last May, a coalition of 19 Democratic attorneys general, including Campbell, Massachusetts Democrats will face several more legal fights aimed at upending the state's firearms laws, including lawsuits over components of the law dealing with restrictions Advertisement Anjali Huynh can be reached at
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Another US federal judge blocks Trump policy banning transgender troops
A US judge in Washington state has blocked enforcement of president Donald Trump's order banning transgender people from serving in the military. It is the second nationwide injunction against the policy in as many weeks. The order on Thursday from US District Court Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma came in a case brought by several long-serving transgender military members who say the ban is insulting and discriminatory, and that their firing would cause lasting damage to their careers and reputations. In his 65-page ruling, Mr Settle — an appointee of former president George W Bush and a former captain in the US Army Judge Advocate General Corps — said the administration offered no explanation as to why transgender troops, who have been able to serve openly over the past four years with no evidence of problems, should suddenly be banned. 'The government's arguments are not persuasive, and it is not an especially close question on this record,' Mr Settle wrote. 'The government's unrelenting reliance on deference to military judgment is unjustified in the absence of any evidence supporting 'the military's new judgment reflected in the Military Ban.' US District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, DC, similarly issued an order blocking the policy last week but then put her own ruling temporarily on hold pending the government's appeal. The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia late on Thursday told the parties that it would consider putting the ruling into effect if 'any action occurs that negatively impacts' transgender service members. In a more limited ruling on Monday, a judge in New Jersey barred the Air Force from removing two transgender men, saying they showed their separation would cause lasting damage to their careers and reputations that no monetary settlement could repair. Mr Trump signed an executive order on January 27 that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members 'conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life' and is harmful to military readiness. In response, defence secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies transgender people from military service. 'They can do the right number of pullups. They can do the right amount of pushups. They can shoot straight,' Sasha Buchert, an attorney with the civil rights law firm Lambda Legal, said after arguments Monday in Tacoma. 'Yet, they're being told they have to leave the military simply because of who they are.' Those challenging the policy and Mr Trump's executive order in Tacoma include the Gender Justice League, which counts transgender troops among its members, and several transgender members of the military. Among them is US navy commander Emily 'Hawking' Shilling, a 42-year-old woman who has served for more than 19 years, including 60 missions as a combat aviator in Iraq and Afghanistan. In his ruling, Mr Settle highlighted her case. 'There is no claim and no evidence that she is now, or ever was, a detriment to her unit's cohesion, or to the military's lethality or readiness, or that she is mentally or physically unable to continue her service,' he wrote. 'There is no claim and no evidence that Shilling herself is dishonest or selfish, or that she lacks humility or integrity. Yet absent an injunction, she will be promptly discharged solely because she is transgender.' During arguments on Monday, Justice Department lawyer Jason Lynch insisted that the president was entitled to deference in military affairs and suggested the service ban was not as broad as the plaintiffs had suggested. The judge peppered Mr Lynch with questions, noting that the government had offered no evidence that allowing transgender troops to serve openly had caused any problems for military readiness. Thousands of transgender people serve in the military, but they represent less than 1% of the total number of active-duty service members. In 2016, a Defence Department policy permitted transgender people to serve openly in the military. During Mr Trump's first term in the White House, the Republican issued a directive to ban transgender service members, with an exception for some of those who had already started transitioning under more lenient rules that were in effect during the Obama administration. The Supreme Court allowed that ban to take effect. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, scrapped it when he took office. The rules imposed by Mr Hegseth include no such exceptions.
Boston Globe
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Appeals court hands Trump a loss in birthright citizenship clash
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Judge Danielle Forrest, appointed during Trump's first term, wrote separately to say that she was denying the request for a different reason: she didn't think the government proved it would face 'serious risk of irreparable harm' if it couldn't immediately enforce the new policy. Advertisement The circumstances didn't 'demonstrate an obvious emergency where it appears that the exception to birthright citizenship urged by the government has never been recognized by the judiciary' and where there were 'contrary' executive branch interpretations of the issue in the past, she wrote. For more than a century, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution had been interpreted by courts to mean that citizenship applies to nearly every baby born in the country. Trump's executive action would deny it to children born to parents who are illegally in the US or on non-permanent visas to work, study or visit. A Justice Department spokesperson and representative of the Washington State attorney general's office, which is leading the Seattle case, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The case is Washington v. Trump, 25-807, US Circuit Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Advertisement
