Court Supreme

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery – Fox News

The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery Tuesday beside her husband, Martin, who died in 2010.

Video of the procession shows a large police escort approaching the cemetery, where a military escort awaited its arrival.

The private ceremony included family, friends, fellow justices and members of Ginsburg’s staff, according to a Supreme Court spokesperson. Ginsburg is survived by her two children, Jane Carol and James Steven Ginsburg.


Ginsburg had battled back from two forms of cancer in the past, but her health began to further decline in December 2018 when she underwent a pulmonary lobectomy after two malignant nodules were discovered in the lower lobe of her left lung.

On Jan. 7, 2019, the court announced she would miss oral arguments that day for the first time since she was confirmed in 1993 as she recuperated from that surgery.

In this Aug. 1src, 1993 photo, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes the court oath from Chief Justice William Rehnquist, right, during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington. Ginsburg's husband Martin holds the Bible and President Bill Clinton watches at left. (AP Photo/Marcy Nighswander, File)

In this Aug. 10, 1993 photo, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes the court oath from Chief Justice William Rehnquist, right, during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington. Ginsburg’s husband Martin holds the Bible and President Bill Clinton watches at left. (AP Photo/Marcy Nighswander, File)


Arlington is the final resting place for more than 400,000 service members, veterans and their family members, and Ginsburg is the 14th Supreme Court justice to be interred there. Her husband, Martin Ginsburg, joined the Army shortly after the two were married in 1954.


Three justices who Ginsburg served alongside also are buried at Arlington. They are Harry Blackmun, the author of the Roe v. Wade decision, John Paul Stevens, who died last year and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

The flag-draped casket of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is carried out of the Statuary Hall by a joint services military honor guard after Ginsburg lied in state Sept. 25, in Washington. (Chip Somodevilla/Pool via AP)

The flag-draped casket of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is carried out of the Statuary Hall by a joint services military honor guard after Ginsburg lied in state Sept. 25, in Washington. (Chip Somodevilla/Pool via AP)

Ginsburg became the first woman and the first Jewish person to lie in state last week in the U.S. Capitol Statuary Hall.

Civil Rights pioneer Rosa Parks lay “in honor” in the Capitol Rotunda on Oct. 29, 2005. She was the first woman to be so recognized in the Rotunda. Lying in “honor” is considered one level below “state.”

Ginsburg also laid in repose for two days atop the Supreme Court’s steps, and thousands turned up to pay their respects, including President Trump and the first lady. Former Vice President Joe Biden, his wife, Jill, and running mate Sen. Kamala Harris also paid their respects to the late justice on Capitol Hill.


The battle over President Trump’s nominee to fill her seat, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, already has stoked partisan tensions in the nation’s capital.

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Adam Shaw and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read More

means Supreme

What it means to “pack” the Supreme Court – Washington Post

What it means to “pack” the Supreme Court – YouTube

Read More

Fight Supreme

Fight over Supreme Court already shaking up Senate races – CNN

(CNN)The brawl over Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s successor began before her body was buried. Within hours of her death on Friday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Since then, almost every Republican senator running for reelection has announced their support for the process to confirm the to-be-announced nominee, shaking up the race for Senate control only six weeks out from Election Day.
The quick embrace of McConnell’s strategy could help Republicans in toss-up Senate races in purple and red states, including in North Carolina, Iowa, Georgia and Montana, although it could hurt them in others.
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis has struggled to coalesce the Republican Party behind him, with polls showing Trump leading him in the state. But the battle over the Supreme Court could endear him to the President’s supporters.
“I think what it does is it helps him with the Trump voters who might not vote down ticket,” Glen Bolger, Tillis’ pollster, told CNN. “But now suddenly see, ‘Oh, the Senate’s an important fight.'”
But Tillis may also have to satisfy those who question why his position has changed since 2016. The first question he received in the Senate debate on Tuesday was whether he flip-flopped on how to handle a Supreme Court vacancy.
In 2016, Tillis, like almost every other Republican senator, supported blocking President Barack Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, from filling the seat left by the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. But at a Fayetteville rally with President Donald Trump on Saturday, Tillis announced to cheers from the crowd that he would vote for whoever Trump picked from his list to replace the late Ginsburg.
While both nominees were chosen in the final year of a presidential term, Tillis said on Tuesday that there was a difference: Obama was a “lame duck” in 2016, while Trump, who is running for reelection, “deserves” to put forward his nominee.
Tillis then attacked his Democratic opponent Cal Cunningham on Tuesday for supporting Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who the senator said would nominate “radical left, activist judges that would be wrong for this country.” Cunningham responded that Tillis wrote a “blank check to the president” in supporting a Trump pick before it was even announced, when he should have been a “check and balance.”
Republicans argue that confirming a sixth conservative justice to the court could help them in other states too, pointing to Senate GOP victories in Indiana and Missouri after confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the court in early October 2018. That year, then-Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill acknowledged the vote was “not a ‘political winner'” for her. She voted along with every other fellow Democrat against Kavanaugh, but lost by fewer than six points.
Ryan Koopmans, a former top aide to Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, said the Supreme Court vacancy could help Republican Sen. Joni Ernst in her race against Democrat Theresa Greenfield, noting that Iowa has a record of supporting conservative judges. In 2010, it voted to remove three justices from the Iowa Supreme Court who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.
“I think that this issue has the potential to start to drown out others in the coming weeks,” Koopmans said.
If Sen. Doug Jones loses in deep red Alabama, Democrats need to win four seats and the White House to take control of the chamber. Republicans are worried that the fight over Ginsburg’s successor could hurt Republicans in at least two blue states, Sen. Susan Collins in Maine and Sen. Cory Gardner in Colorado.
Gardner has said he would vote to confirm a “qualified nominee.” But Collins has said that she will oppose any pick due to its proximity to election. She said her position is “in the interest of being fair to the American people — and consistent” with what she did back in 2016.
Collins’ decision could help her regain the support of those who have appreciated her independent stances in the past, like opposing the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017. But it will not be enough for some of her former supporters, who say that she changed during the Trump era and abhor her support of Kavanaugh.
“I have no faith in Susan to do the right thing, like I’ve counted on for so many years,” said Carroll Payne, a Democrat and former Collins supporter running for a state House seat.
Democratic Senate candidates across the country have pushed to fulfill Ginsburg’s “most fervent wish” to not be replaced until after the next presidential inauguration, when a President Joe Biden could choose Ginsburg’s replacement. They have no power to block a unified Senate Republican majority, but are warning voters that a Supreme Court with six conservative justices could dismantle the ACA and its protections for those with pre-existing conditions. The Court hears a crucial case on the law’s constitutionality a week after Election Day.
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock launched an ad on Monday saying that his Republican opponent, Sen. Steve Daines, voted to strike down the ACA, while he would protect citizens from insurance companies denying people coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee aired an ad hitting back at Bullock, saying if he’s elected, Democrats in charge of the House, Senate and White House could “change Montana overnight,” leading to “liberal judges, stricter gun laws and government-run health care.”
The Democratic party has become more energized on the Supreme Court issue during the Trump era. Many Democrats view the seat that Justice Neil Gorsuch now occupies, instead of Garland, as stolen. They say that Kavanaugh’s confirmation amid accusations of sexual assault — allegations Kavanaugh denied — delegitimized the court. And after Ginsburg’s death, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said that “nothing is off the table for next year” if Republicans replace her and he becomes majority leader.
But the Democratic candidates who could give Schumer the gavel have tried to separate themselves from the party’s left wing. The campaigns for Jones, Cunningham, Jon Ossoff in Georgia and Mark Kelly in Arizona have indicated that their candidates do not support expanding the Supreme Court.
“North Carolinians are already voting and will continue to do so in the coming weeks,” said Cunningham in a statement. “They deserve that opportunity to have their voices heard, and then, it should be up to the next President and next Senate to fill the vacancy on our Court.”

Read More

Ethan Supreme

Ethan Is Supreme: Beauty influencer Ethan Peters dies aged 17 – BBC News

Ethan Peters

Image copyright
Getty Images

Beauty blogger and influencer Ethan Peters, known as Ethan Is Supreme, has died at the age of 17.

Ethan’s father Gerald told Fox News: “He was a kind soul, who accepted everyone for who they were.”

His friend, fellow influencer Ava Louise, also posted saying she’d lost her “best friend in the entire world”.

Both have said that Ethan was struggling with addiction, but his official cause of death is not yet known.

Ethan had over half a million Instagram followers and 139,000 YouTube subscribers.

A Vice article last year described his makeup style as “characterised by its desire to catch your attention” and “dramatic, emotional and, at times, gory.”

He started young, saying that by the summer of 2017 he’d hit 100,000 followers and left his private Christian school because his social media activity “[violated] their moral conduct code.”

He moved to an online school instead and had recently started his own clothing line called Hellboy.

There was some negative response on social media after news of Ethan’s death broke.

He had been accused of racism and transphobia in the past.

But fans also spoken in his defence – including one of his inspirations, fellow makeup artist Manny MUA, who posted: “He’s made many many mistakes… but to say he deserved to pass away is horrible and inhuman.”

His friend Ava Louise blamed his death on addiction.

“If anyone talks negatively about my friend and his actions over the past year he was battling addiction,” she tweeted.

“Speak positively of Ethan. He was an artist & inspiration. So talented.”

BBC Action Line has links to resources to help with addiction.

Follow Newsbeat on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 weekdays – or listen back here.

Read More

Court Supreme

Supreme Court denies Democrats’ bid to fast-track ongoing fight for Trump financial records | TheHill – The Hill

The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request by House Democrats to accelerate the timeline of remaining court battles over congressional subpoenas for President TrumpDonald John TrumpKanye West says Harriet Tubman ‘never actually freed the slaves’ at rally Trump-Afghan deal passes key deadline, but peace elusive GOP governors in hardest hit states split over COVID-19 response MORE’s tax returns.

The bid by lawmakers came in response to the court’s landmark 7-2 ruling earlier this month to shield a trove of Trump’s financial records from several Democratic-led House committees and return the dispute to lower courts for further litigation.

Under regular Supreme Court procedure, the ruling would reach the lower courts no earlier than Aug. 3, a delay Democrats sought to avoid by asking the justices to expedite the process.

But the conservative-majority court rejected that request Monday in an unsigned order. Justice Sonia SotomayorSonia SotomayorSupreme Court declines to reinstate vote of nearly 1 million Florida felons Supreme Court clears way for second federal execution Supreme Court lifts stay for second federal execution this week MORE, one of the more liberal justices, said she would have granted it.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court issued a blockbuster split decision that handed a win to New York state prosecutors seeking Trump’s tax returns, but dealt a setback to Democrats who sought a similar financial paper trail.

While the justices settled some of the major legal issues embedded in the disputes, they left it to lower courts to resolve other unanswered questions.

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to expedite its order in the New York case, where the justices had ruled 7-2 against Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a grand jury subpoena for eight years of tax returns. Chief Justice John Roberts ordered the decision to go into effect immediately, which allows the Manhattan district attorney to advance more swiftly in pursuit of Trump’s records.

But Monday’s order means a trio of Democratic-led House committees will have to wait nearly a month from the date of the court’s decision before they can proceed in the lower courts.

The committees have long maintained that four congressional subpoenas issued to Trump’s bankers and accountants for his personal and corporate records were necessary to carry out their legislative and oversight functions.

Before the case reached the Supreme Court, lawmakers had prevailed in every round of battle in federal district and appeals courts.

But the justices’ July 9 decision in Trump v. Mazars USA found that the lower courts had failed to properly consider the weighty separation of powers concerns at hand.

“When Congress seeks information needed for intelligent legislative action, it unquestionably remains the duty of all citizens to cooperate,” Roberts wrote for the majority on July 9, citing prior Supreme Court rulings. “Congressional subpoenas for information from the President, however, implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers. The courts below did not take adequate account of those concerns.”

While the decision reaffirmed Congress’s subpoena power, it also enumerated some of its constraints when information at issue concerns the president. Specifically, the court laid out parameters for the appropriate scope and relevance of such subpoenas.

The committees may now continue to press their case in the lower federal courts of Washington, D.C., and New York, but only after the Supreme Court decision takes effect early next month.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee claims its subpoena of Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, is needed to inform rules governing ethics, conflicts of interest and presidential financial disclosure.

Another set of subpoenas, from the House Financial Services Committee, requested records from Deutsche Bank and Capital One as a follow-up on press reports that Deutsche Bank staffers had raised concerns that Trump and his son-in-law, White House senior adviser Jared KushnerJared Corey KushnerGraham releases newly declassified documents on Russia probe CREW files ethics complaint against Ivanka Trump over Goya photo The Memo: Can new campaign manager help Trump? MORE, were linked to illicit financial activity.

The House Intelligence Committee also subpoenaed Deutsche Bank, but its focus was on Kremlin efforts to interfere in U.S. elections and whether Russian or other foreign nationals have financial leverage over Trump.

Updated at 11:46 a.m.

Read More

Court Supreme

Supreme Court says Trump can weaken Obamacare contraceptive mandate – CNN

(CNN)The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for the Trump administration to expand exemptions for employers who have religious or moral objections to complying with the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate.

The 7-2 ruling reverses a lower court decision that had blocked Trump’s move nationwide.
The ruling is a win for President Donald Trump, who has vowed to act aggressively to protect what he and other conservatives frame as religious liberty, as well as for the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Roman Catholic religious order for women who, along with the Trump administration, asked the court to step in.
It came the same day the court also sided with religious schools in a different case, ruling that teachers at religious institutions aren’t covered by employment discrimination laws.
The White House called it a “big win for religious freedom and freedom of conscience” in a statement from press secretary Kayleigh McEnany.
Trump had complained in recent weeks when the court ruled against him on issues such as abortion, LGBTQ rights and the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. After Chief Justice John Roberts sided with liberals in significant cases in recent weeks, he joined the conservative majority in Wednesday’s two cases.
The Little Sisters case required the justices to balance concerns for women’s health care against claims of religious liberty. The law requires that employer-provided health insurance plans cover birth control as a preventive service at no cost. Wednesday’s ruling means that by the government’s own estimate, thousands of women will have to search elsewhere for coverage.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, wrote that the justices held that the government “had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption.” He was joined in full by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Thomas commended the Little Sisters of the Poor for their efforts.
“For the past seven years, they — like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today’s decision — have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs,” he wrote.
Thomas continued, “After two decisions from this Court and multiple failed regulatory attempts, the Federal Government has arrived at a solution that exempts the Little Sisters from the source of their complicity-based concerns — the administratively imposed contraceptive mandate.”
Liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan agreed with the court’s judgment but under different rationale. They said that the Trump administration had the authority to issue a rule expanding exemptions from the contraceptive mandate, but suggested that a lower court might still find that the government’s rule was “arbitrary and capricious.”
“That issue remains open for the lower courts to address,” Breyer wrote, opening up the possibility of future challenges — though the rules can go into effect for now.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the Court’s opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree,” Ginsburg wrote.
“This Court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets,” she said and noted that the government had acknowledged that the rules would cause thousands of women — “between 70,500 and 126,400 women of childbearing age,” she wrote — to lose coverage.
The dispute — the latest concerning the Affordable Care Act to come before the justices — pit supporters of the contraceptive provision against those who said it violated their religious and moral beliefs.
Churches and some other religious entities could get an exemption and others such as religious universities, hospitals or charities with religious objections get an accommodation. The accommodation means that plan participants could still receive the coverage, but it would be paid for by the insurer or employer’s health insurance administrator.
Over 61.4 million women in the US have birth control coverage with zero out-of-pocket costs, according the National Women’s Law Center.
After Trump took office, the government moved in 2017 to allow exemptions for more employers.
Under the religious exception rule, any private employer, including publicly traded corporations, could receive exemptions based on a “sincerely held religious belief.” A second rule extends the same provision to organizations and small businesses that have objections “on the basis of moral conviction which is not based in any particular religious belief.”
By the government’s own estimate, between 75,000 to 125,000 women would lose coverage. At oral arguments held over the phone because of the coronavirus, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — participating from a hospital bed because of a gall bladder condition — lambasted the government’s position, arguing it would leave women “to hunt for other government programs that might cover them.”
Pennsylvania and other states challenged the federal government move in court, arguing in part that they would have to step in and provide coverage for women seeking coverage.
A federal appeals court blocked the rules nationwide, holding that the states would suffer irreparable harm and “unredressable financial consequences” from subsidizing contraceptive services and “providing funds for medical care associated with unintended pregnancies.” The court said that the states’ financial injury “outweighs any purported injury to religious exercise.”
The Trump administration and the Little Sisters of the Poor asked the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco had argued that the accommodation still made some entities feel complicit in providing contraceptive coverage to their employees. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, designed to prohibit the federal government from “substantially burdening” a person’s exercise of religion, gives agencies discretion to offer an exemption, he said.
But Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, joined by New Jersey’s attorney general, told the Supreme Court that the lower court got it right. He pointed out that an accommodation is already in place that allows certain objecting employers to exclude contraception for the benefit packages and allowing third parties to provide the coverage directly.
“This approach,” Shapiro said, “balances the employers’ sincere religious belief with the health of their female employees.”
He said that such a balance was “disrupted” when the Trump administration moved to allow more people, including publicly traded corporations and large universities, to receive an exemption.
“The existing accommodation respects both the health of women and the religious liberty interests of employers,” he argued.
Shapiro lamented the court’s decision Wednesday, but vowed to continue fighting the administration’s rule in the lower courts.
“While I am disappointed with much of the majority opinion, I am pleased the Court allowed our challenge to the Administration’s overly broad rules to proceed,” he said. “We now return to the lower courts to address whether the exemptions are arbitrary and capricious. This fight is not over.”
Shapiro added that the challenge brought by Pennsylvania and other states against the rule “was never about requiring religious groups to provide contraception — organizations like the Little Sisters are already exempt. Our case is about an overly broad rule that allows the personal beliefs of CEOs to dictate womens’ guaranteed access to contraceptive medicine.”
Twenty states and the District of Columbia supported the states, as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 185 other members of Congress.
Texas and 19 other states, meanwhile, supported the Trump administration and the Little Sisters, arguing that some employers “believe sincerely that it is incompatible with their religious convictions to provide health insurance when it means contracting with a company that then, because of that relationship, becomes obligated to provide contraceptives that the employers regard as abortifacients.”
The lawyers who brought the challenge indicated they also plan to carry on fighting.
“America deserves better than petty governments harassing nuns. The Court did the right thing by protecting the Little Sisters from an unnecessary mandate that would have gutted their ministry,” said Mark Rienzi, a lawyer behind the challenge and the president of Becket, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty issues.
“Governments don’t need nuns to distribute contraceptives. But they do need religious groups to care for the elderly, heal the sick and feed the hungry,” Rienzi said. “These governments all have real work they ought to be doing rather than dividing people with old and unnecessary culture wars.”
This story has been updated with additional details from the ruling, as well as reaction to it.

Read More

Court Supreme

Supreme Court makes it easier for president to fire CFPB head – NBC News

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday made it easier for the president to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The justices struck down restrictions Congress had written on when the president can remove the bureau’s director.

“The agency may … continue to operate, but its Director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the President at will,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

The court’s five conservative justices agreed that restrictions Congress imposed on when the president can fire the agency’s director violated the Constitution. But they disagreed on what to do as a result. Roberts and fellow conservative justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh said the restrictions could be stricken from the law. The court’s four liberals agreed, though they disagreed the restrictions were improper.

The decision doesn’t have a big impact on the current head of the agency. Kathy Kraninger, who was nominated to her current post by the president in 2018, had said she believed the president could fire her at any time.

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act that created the agency in response to the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB’s director is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term. The law had said the president could only remove a director for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” That structure could leave a new president with a director chosen by the previous president for some or all of the new president’s time in office. The Trump administration had argued that the restrictions improperly limit the power of the president.

“We hold that the CFPB’s leadership by a single individual removable only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violates the separation of powers,” Roberts wrote.

Defenders of the law’s removal provision had argued the restrictions insulated the agency’s head from presidential pressure.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for herself and three liberal colleagues, called the majority opinion simplistic.

“What does the Constitution say about the separation of powers—and particularly about the President’s removal authority? (Spoiler alert: about the latter, nothing at all.) The majority offers the civics class version of separation of powers—call it the Schoolhouse Rock definition of the phrase,” she said, referencing the educational, animated short films.

“Today’s decision wipes out a feature of that agency its creators thought fundamental to its mission—a measure of independence from political pressure. I respectfully dissent,” Kagan wrote.

The CFPB was the brainchild of Massachusetts senator and former Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren.

After the ruling, Warren wrote in a series of tweets that the Supreme Court had “handed over more power to Wall Street’s army of lawyers and lobbyists to push out a director who fights for the American people.” But, she said that even after the ruling the CFPB is “still an independent agency.”

“The director of that agency still works for the American people. Not Donald Trump. Not Congress. Not the banking industry. Nothing in the Supreme Court ruling changes that,” Warren wrote.

Read More

Court Supreme

Supreme Court again declines to take up Second Amendment cases – CNN

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up several cases regarding the scope of the Second Amendment.

Despite a low hurdle for the right-leaning Supreme Court, the justices turned down petitions from 10 challenges to state laws established to limit the availability and accessibility of some firearms and when they can be carried in public.
It’s been over a decade since 2008’s landmark 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v Heller that held the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms at home for self-defense. Except for a follow-up decision two years later, the court has not weighed in on Second Amendment rights significantly again.
Five of the 10 cases the court declined to look at asked the justices to determine whether the Second Amendment allows the government to restrict the ability of citizens to carry a firearm outside the home to those with “good cause” or “justifiable need” to do so. Two of the cases were high-profile challenges to state laws involving bans on certain semiautomatic firearms and high capacity magazines, one from Illinois and one from Massachusetts. The remaining three cases had a narrower scope, but none of the 10 will be argued before the justices.
Jacob Charles, the executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, said the court’s decision to deny all of the pending Second Amendment petitions came as a surprise.
“The petitions denied today presented some of the biggest open questions in Second Amendment law, including what types of weapons the Constitution protects and how and whether the right extends outside the home,” Charles said. “For now, it appears that a majority of the Court is content to let these issues be sorted out by the lower courts.”
Three of the nine justices have been vocal in recent years about their desire for the court to take up a Second Amendment case. Last month, Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed his concern that lower courts have been thumbing their noses at Supreme Court precedent on the Second Amendment, saying the court should “address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”
Justice Clarence Thomas in 2018 complained that the lower courts were treating the Second Amendment right “cavalierly.”
Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel and vice president of pro-gun safety organization Brady: United Against Gun Violence, said the court’s decision not to hear any of the Second Amendment cases is “well-reasoned”
“Today’s decision is welcome, but we are vigilant that there remains a concerted effort to reverse it and undermine our nation’s hard-earned progress in instituting common-sense gun safety measures and that those arguments have found sympathy with several of the Justices,” Lowy said in a statement to CNN.
This story has been updated.

Read More

Court Supreme

Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to California sanctuary law – CNN

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a lower court opinion upholding one of California’s so-called sanctuary laws that limits cooperation between law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, a measure that the Trump administration says is meant to “undermine” federal immigration enforcement.

The Trump administration had asked the court to step in and review the law and the court declined to do so.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the Court’s conservative members, supported taking up the case.
The law — and others like it — have ignited a firestorm between the federal government, which has made immigration enforcement a top priority, and some states that say they are within their rights to determine how best to use their own resources.
During his State of the Union speech last January, President Donald Trump lamented California’s effort, which he classified as an “outrageous law.”

Read More

Supreme Venezuela's

Venezuela’s supreme court rules against opposition in vote setback – The Guardian

Venezuela’s government-friendly supreme court has said the opposition-held congress did not name rectors to the South American country’s electoral authority in time, a move denounced by the opposition as an attempt to derail election plans. 

The court declared the national assembly’s decisions null and void shortly after the opposition won control of the body in late 2015. With new legislative elections due by the end of 2020, the decision marked a setback to efforts between the two sides to agree on conditions for the vote. 

Most mainstream opposition parties boycotted the presidential election in 2018, due to concerns President Nicolás Maduro had laid the groundwork to rig the vote. He easily won re-election amid relatively low voter turnout and accusations of irregularities, which he denies. 

The supreme court’s ruling – in a case came brought by parties seen as close to the government – complained that the congress had not named the authorities in time. The court did not give a timeline for hearing the case. 

“Today’s events obstruct the designation of the CNE,” said Juan Pablo Guanipa, an opposition lawmaker and vice president of the National Assembly, using the Spanish abbreviation for the national electoral council. “They are trying to name a CNE that will worsen the problems.” 

A loss of control of the national assembly by the opposition could complicate the standing of Juan Guaido, the national assembly president who is recognised as Venezuela’s legitimate president by dozens of countries, including the United States and most western democracies. Guaido invoked the constitution and claimed the role of interim president in January 2019, based on his position as leader of the legislative body. 

Read More