Latest news with #WashingtonSupremeCourt
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Democracy without dissent a contradiction: Justice Surya Kant
Democracy without dissent is a contradiction and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity, Supreme Court judge justice Surya Kant has asserted as he invoked India's constitutional ethos and the top court's role in defending civil liberties. Justice Kant, who is in line to take over as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in November this year, was speaking at the Washington Supreme Court as part of an international judicial exchange. In his address earlier this week that underscored the shared constitutional commitments of India and the United States, the judge said: 'Democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity…These are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations.' Justice Kant highlighted that the right to free speech, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the First Amendment in the US, has been 'zealously defended' by courts on both sides of the Atlantic. Drawing parallels with the US Supreme Court's protection of student protest in Tinker Vs Des Moines (1969), he recalled how India's top court, much earlier, had established the primacy of expression in Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan cases in 1950, ruling against pre-censorship and vague notions of public order. 'In both countries, the judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the executive may hold,' he noted. Reaffirming the foundational nature of constitutional supremacy in both democracies, Justice Kant highlighted that the basic structure doctrine in India that asserts Parliament cannot amend away core constitutional values mirrors the American principle that 'even the majoritarian will must bow' before foundational ideals like liberty, federalism, and equality. 'These doctrines reflect a shared understanding that tampering with these principles would cause a rift so immense that it would threaten the very heart of our existence,' he warned. ALSO READ | Free speech, democracy, and the epidemic of hurt feelings Justice Kant also spotlighted India's global leadership in using public interest litigation (PIL) as a judicial tool to redress collective harm. Citing the Vishaka judgment (1997) where the Indian Supreme Court laid down workplace sexual harassment guidelines in the absence of legislation, he said: 'Though structurally distinct, both approaches reflect a shared judicial philosophy: that justice must not be confined to individual litigants but must be responsive to collective harm and systemic failure.' In contrast, he acknowledged the role of class action lawsuits in the US, such as Lois Jenson Vs Eveleth Taconite Co (1993), where female workers collectively challenged workplace abuse. Addressing the evolution of due process jurisprudence, Justice Kant recalled how the Indian Constitution initially adopted 'procedure established by law' over the American-style 'due process,' but eventually evolved the latter through judicial interpretation. 'In the seminal Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Indian Supreme Court read into the phrase the requirements of justice, fairness, and reasonableness -- effectively harmonizing our doctrine with the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,' he added. Justice Kant concluded his address on a note of judicial kinship, stating: 'It is my firm belief that our countries, and our legal systems, share a kindred spirit rooted in the pursuit of justice, liberty, and the rule of law… The law must be a shield for the weak, not a sword for the powerful.'
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Washington's highest court upholds ban on high-capacity magazine sales
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — Washington's highest court has once again maintained the state's ban on large-capacity magazine sales. With an opinion issued on Thursday, seven of nine Washington Supreme Court justices upheld Senate Bill 5078 — which . The measure prohibits buying, selling, importing and distributing magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. 'Excommunicated': WA Archdiocese pushes back against mandatory reporting law, DOJ investigating More than a year after the bill's passage, former Washington Attorney General and current Gov. Bob Ferguson for continuing to sell the high-capacity magazines. The saga continued last spring, when Cowlitz County Superior Judge Gary Bashor and issued an injunction to pause its enforcement. In response, Ferguson filed a motion to halt the ruling. Washington Supreme Court Commissioner Michael Johnston later granted the temporary stay, therefore keeping the ban in place while officials debated its validity. Another attempt to challenge the ban's enforcement, this time from Gator's Custom Guns, was in July 2024. Although opponents of SB 5078 have claimed it violates the right to bear arms, the recent opinion argued that Washingtonians can still legally own firearms — and large-capacity magazines aren't necessary for self-defense. LGBTQ-friendly Portland bar closes after fundraising attempts '…Some firearms may require a magazine to function as intended, but there are no firearms that require an LCM to function,' the majority opinion reads. 'This is unlike ammunition, which is an integral component of a firearm because ammunition is necessary for a firearm to function as intended: a lack of ammunition would render the firearm a paperweight —or, at best, a scarcely effective bludgeoning tool — and it no longer serves its function for the core purpose of self-defense.' Justices Sheryl Gordon McCloud and G. Helen Whitener were the only two justices to dissent from this opinion, stating that it violates the Second Amendment. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Washington cements ‘high-capacity' magazine ban in landmark ruling
This story was originally published on The Washington Supreme Court has upheld the state's ban on high-capacity firearm magazines, reversing a lower court's previous decision. The law was first passed in 2022, making it illegal to buy or sell magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. However, people who already own 'high-capacity magazines' can keep them, according to The Seattle Times. In a 7-2 majority opinion, Justice Charles Johnson stated that large-capacity magazines (LCMs) are not considered 'arms' under constitutional definitions and are not necessary for self-defense. Six national gun rights groups had filed separate briefs during the lawsuit, hoping the Supreme Court would kill the ban. Currently, 13 other states have similar bans on high-capacity magazines. The fight over the ban began in 2023 when the Cowlitz County Superior Court ruled that it violated both state and federal constitutional rights. Gator's Custom Guns, a Kelso-based gun retailer, argued that the state's ruling was not consistent with longstanding firearm traditions. Former Attorney General and current Governor Bob Ferguson has previously voiced support for the ban. He claims that siding with the lower court's interpretation could threaten the state's broader authority to regulate guns, such as AR-15s and fully automatic weapons. He claimed that imposing 'sensible limits on military-style guns' is non-exclusive with the constitutional right to self-defense.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Spokane City Council declines to reinstate Prop 1 after state Supreme Court strikes it down
Apr. 21—The Spokane City Council voted 4-3 Tuesday to not move forward with reinstating Proposition 1, the anti-homeless camping law approved overwhelmingly by voters that was struck down by the Washington Supreme Court on Thursday. Proposition 1, supported by 75% of voters in 2023, banned any camping within 1,000 feet of parks, schools and licensed daycare facilities, making violations a cite-and-release misdemeanor offense. The state Supreme Court's majority ruling argued the proposition had gone outside the legal bounds for a local initiative, though did not make a ruling on the merits of the law, leaving it open for the City Council to reinstate the law through ordinance. Councilman Michael Cathcart called for a suspension of council rules to allow the quick consideration of an ordinance that would have reintroduced Proposition 1's provisions verbatim into city code. Council members Jonathan Bingle and Zack Zappone joined him in voting for the expedited process. Councilwoman Kitty Klitzke suggested that council members should wait for guidance from police leadership due Wednesday on possible modifications to the law before reintroducing some variation for council consideration. "The day after (Prop 1) was overturned, I met with my precinct captain, and I asked, what would you do if you were able to write this law, if we had to do it over again?" Klitzke said. "I would really like to be able to hear feedback from them and draft something that really works, and possibly has a broader scope." Cathcart said he would be willing to consider modifications of Proposition 1 — after the council wrote it back into city law. "We are at a point at time where the public expects this law is on the books, and to not reimplement when we have the power to do so is disrespectful to them," Cathcart said. Councilman Paul Dillon argued that the popularity of the law should not guide whether the council reimplements it. He noted that there is ongoing litigation on the merits of the law and also called for significant modifications before something comes before the council for a vote.
CBS News
20-04-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Officers who attended Trump's Jan. 6 rally petition Supreme Court to allow their anonymity in public records
Four Seattle police officers who attended President Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan. 6, 2021, which preceded the attack on the United States Capitol that day, have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to keep their names out of public records related to the insurrection. The group, which consists of current and former officers at the Seattle Police Department, initially sued the city of Seattle to prohibit Jan. 6 investigative records from being released without their names redacted. But the Washington Supreme Court ruled against them in a decision earlier this year, in which the justices unanimously found the officers failed to show that disclosing their names in public filings would violate their right to privacy, as the lawsuit claimed. "At its core, this appeal involves whether a government agency can ignore the chilling effect resulting from an employer requiring an employee to disclose their off-duty political activities and attendant impressions or motivations associated therewith, followed by widespread dissemination to those who deliberately seek this information to subject these public servants to vilification without the commission of any misconduct whatsoever," reads the latest petition to the nation's highest court. Using the pseudonyms John Does 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the petition , the officers have acknowledged they were present at the Washington, D.C., rally held by Mr. Trump to protest the certification of the 2020 election results and former President Joe Biden's victory. However, the officers say they did not commit any crimes and cite a subsequent investigation by Seattle's Office of Police Accountability that determined the four did not engage "in unlawful or unprofessional conduct" at the event. That investigation found two other Seattle police officers who also attended the rally had trespassed near the Capitol, and, on a disciplinary committee's recommendation , both were fired. The probe recognized that attending Mr. Trump's political gathering was a protected act under the First Amendment, and the recommendation was based on the pair's violation of departmental policies within the Seattle Police Department. Of six Seattle officers who attended the rally, it said three had not violated policies and a conduct evaluation for a fourth officer who attended was inconclusive. All six Seattle officers, including the four John Does petitioning the Supreme Court, were interviewed. In those interviews, the officers apparently "were required to disclose their political beliefs, affiliations, reasons for attending the Rally, and their mental impressions as to the content of the Rally," according to the petition, which says they were "compelled to participate" in the investigation "under threat of termination" from the police department. The petition's respondents are the Seattle Police Department and Sam Suekoa, now an attorney, who filed public records requests as a law student seeking to disclose documents related to the investigation, such as the interview transcripts. Neil Fox, an attorney for Sueoka in this case, told the Associated Press on Saturday that their legal team was "reviewing the Does' motion for a stay." CBS News contacted an attorney representing the John Does for comment, but did not receive an immediate response. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
