Latest news with #unconstitutional
Reuters
a day ago
- Politics
- Reuters
California cannot require background checks to buy ammunition, US appeals court rules
July 24 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that California's first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional. In a 2-1 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California upheld a lower court judge's permanent injunction against enforcing the law.
Fox News
a day ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Federal appeals court rules against Trump's birthright citizenship executive order
President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) putting an end to birthright citizenship faced another legal setback after a federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled it to be unconstitutional. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed a lower court's decision blocking the nationwide enforcement of the EO, which would deny citizenship to babies born to people illegally or temporarily in the U.S. A three-judge panel ruled against Trump's plan in a 2-1 vote, keeping a decision first made by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle in place. "The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree," the majority wrote. Though the Supreme Court has since restricted lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions, the majority in the 9th Circuit ruled against the EO after discovering the case fell under an exception left open by SCOTUS justices. States filed the case against the Trump administration after arguing that a nationwide order is needed to block the EO in order to prevent problems that would arise from birthright citizenship being outlawed in some states. "We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief," wrote Judges Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both of whom were appointed by former President Bill Clinton. Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented after deciding that states don't have the legal right or standing to sue the Trump administration over this. He did not weigh in on the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that people born or naturalized in the U.S., or "subject to United States jurisdiction," are American citizens, but Department of Justice attorneys argue that does not mean children are automatically American citizens based solely on birth location. Trump's EO would deny American citizenship to a child born to a mother without legal or permanent status in the U.S., and whose father does not hold legal or permanent status. The Trump administration is facing at least nine lawsuits across the country challenging the EO.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional, appeals court rules
President Donald Trump's order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday. In their sprawling 78-page ruling, the panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit wrote they 'fully agree' with the decision of a lower-court, which blocked the order nationwide. 'We conclude that the Executive Order is invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to 'all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' the ruling stated. The 9th Circuit ruling blocks the Trump administration from enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The judges wrote: 'The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree.' The Independent has reached out to the White House for comment on Wednesday's ruling. It comes after the push was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire, and puts the issue – in which Trump seeks to unilaterally redefine who gets to be a citizen – one step closer to quickly coming back before the Supreme Court. New Hampshire District Judge Joseph Laplante agreed to grant class-action status to all babies who stood to lose automatic U.S. citizenship when Trump's order took effect, saying that his decision was 'not a close call.' LaPlante noted that thousands of children would be deprived of their citizenship should Trump's order go into effect. 'That's irreparable harm, citizenship alone,' he said. 'It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.' Several other courts have already struck down the president's attempt to block citizenship from newborn Americans who are born to certain immigrant parents. But last month the Supreme Court determined those judges went too far by issuing nationwide injunctions instead of applying the rulings to only the states and plaintiffs who sued the administration. Additional reporting from Alex Woodward.
Japan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Japan Times
Lawyers file lawsuit to nullify Upper House election
A group of lawyers filed a lawsuit with Osaka High Court on Tuesday to nullify the results in six electoral districts, including Kyoto, Osaka and Hyogo, of Sunday's House of Councilors election, claiming that the election was unconstitutional in terms of vote-value disparities. Similar lawsuits are expected to be filed elsewhere in the country later on Monday. According to estimates by Jiji Press, the maximum vote-value disparity in the Upper House election was 3.13 times, between Fukui, which had 308,428 voters per Upper House seat, and Kanagawa, which had 965,500 voters. The figure was up from 3.03 times in the previous election three years ago. In the written complaint, the lawyers argue that the apportionment provisions for Upper House seats did not meet the constitutional requirement of population-based proportional representation. "Japan is the only major developed country that uses proportional representation not based on population," Hidetoshi Masunaga from the lawyer group told a news conference. "We hope the court will declare the election unconstitutional." In 2023, the Supreme Court deemed the disparities in the 2022 Upper House election constitutional, saying that there was not necessarily a significant expanding trend in the disparities, while noting that there had barely been concrete progress in efforts to correct them.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge rules that Miami election date change was unconstitutional
Judge rules that Miami election date change was unconstitutional Miami's decision to postpone its 2025 election to 2026 without voter approval was unlawful and unconstitutional, a judge has ruled. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Valerie Manno Schurr on Monday issued a written opinion in a lawsuit filed by Miami mayoral candidate Emilio González. The former city manager sued the city after the Miami City Commission passed an ordinance that postponed the upcoming November 2025 election to November 2026 without voter approval, giving the current elected officials an extra year in office. González had asked the court to find the city's ordinance 'unlawful and invalid.' In her ruling, Manno Schurr declared that the city cannot change the dates of municipal elections or terms of office without voter approval. The city had cited three Florida statutes that allow municipalities to move an election date via ordinance, arguing that state laws supersede local rules. But in her ruling, Manno Schurr disagreed. Manno Schurr pointed to the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, which states that any proposed charter change must be decided by a vote of the electors. Miami's city charter dictates the rules for elections, including the requirement that elections for mayor and commissioner 'shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in odd-numbered years.' Ultimately, Manno Schurr said, the ordinance the city passed 'constitutes an impermissible amendment to the City Charter without a vote of the electorate,' as is required by the Miami-Dade County Charter and the Florida Constitution. The city filed a notice of appeal shortly after Manno Schurr handed down her ruling. The parties are working on a tight timeline, with both sides telling the judge at a Wednesday hearing that they need a final decision, following appeals, by Aug. 8. 'This is not just a victory for me — it is a triumph for all voters in the City of Miami and across Miami-Dade County who believe in upholding our charter and the rule of law,' González said in a statement Monday. 'We are extremely grateful to the Court for its decision in this critical case, which restores the fundamental right to vote and ensures that citizens can shape their own future,' González's attorney Alan Lawson said. '... Our client, Emilio Gonzalez, recognized the far-reaching implications of this case, and we are proud to have worked with him to uphold one of the core guarantees of our Constitution: the right to vote.' In a statement Monday, the Miami City Attorney's Office said: 'While we respectfully disagree with the trial court's decision, we are confident in the strength of our case and remain optimistic about the outcome on appeal.' Commissioner Damian Pardo, who sponsored the ordinance moving the city's elections from odd to even years, agreed with the city's statement and declined further comment 'until the matter is fully resolved.' Politicians react Gov. Ron DeSantis celebrated the judge's ruling in a post on X. 'City of Miami politicians voted to defy term limits, cancel this year's scheduled election, and extend their own terms in office — all without voter approval,' DeSantis said. 'Today, a judge has put the kibosh on the scheme. Great to see the law and common sense prevail.' Miami-Dade County Commissioner Eileen Higgins is among the candidates who had already filed to run for Miami mayor in November 2025. In a statement, Higgins called the ruling 'a clear victory for democracy and for every Miami resident who believes elections should be decided by the people — not politicians.' Higgins added that if voters support moving the city to even-year elections, she's in favor of reducing the mayor's term by one year, ending in 2028 instead of 2029, to achieve that goal. Former City Commissioner Alex Díaz de la Portilla, whom DeSantis suspended from office in 2023, has not formally filed candidate paperwork but confirmed Monday that he intends to run for mayor in November. 'In America, you can't change the rules just to stay in power,' Díaz de la Portilla said. 'The people have the final say. Today's decision proves that. The judge gave the city a chance to choose the right path. Instead, they are choosing to appeal and fight a decision they know is wrong. We the people will choose our next Mayor.' Commissioner Joe Carollo, who has long been teasing a run for mayor, also added his two cents Monday afternoon. 'I voted against this ordinance because there was no doubt in my mind it was illegal and it went against every principal of democracy of our country,' Carollo said. 'But beyond that, it was immoral for us to have given ourselves an extra year in office.' Mayor Francis Suarez, who was a proponent of the ordinance, said through a spokesperson that he agreed with the city attorney's statement, declining further comment. What each side is arguing In two separate 3-2 votes, the Miami City Commission approved an ordinance moving the city from odd- to even-year elections. That meant that the scheduled November 2025 election was postponed to 2026 and that the city's current elected officials would get an extra year in office — even those who are term-limited. Pardo has argued that the change is a reform measure that will substantially boost voter turnout while cutting election costs. Critics, however, have called the move a 'power grab.' In his lawsuit, González likened it to actions carried out by 'regimes in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, or Cuba — the very places so many of Miami's people come from.' His attorneys have argued that the city violated its own charter, as well as the county charter and the Florida Constitution, by moving the election without voter approval. The city charter governs the rules for elections, and charter changes generally require voter approval. But the city has argued that passing the ordinance technically didn't change the charter — rather, it changed the city code. Assistant city attorney Eric Eves acknowledged at a hearing last week that the change puts the city charter and code in conflict with each other. Manno Schurr called that argument 'meritless,' saying it 'ignores the effect the Ordinance has on the pertinent provisions of the City Charter.' The city has relied on three Florida statutes that allow municipalities to move an election date via ordinance, as well as a case in the city of North Miami, which similarly moved its elections to even years via a City Council vote and without voter approval a few years ago. That case went up to the Third District Court of Appeal, which upheld a lower court's ruling that the city acted lawfully. The Third DCA ruling did not create binding precedent, however. Solve the daily Crossword
