Tag: scotus

Judge Dismisses Machine Gun Charges Against Kansas Woman, Citing Supreme Court Decision

A U.S. judge has dismissed charges against a woman who possessed a machine gun, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision that shifted the framework for how courts analyze cases dealing with constitutional rights.

Machine guns fall under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, U.S. District Judge John Broomes found.

That means prosecutors must show that the law barring possession of machine guns is rooted in historical firearm restrictions, under the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, he added.

“In this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi to demonstrate through historical analogs that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation,” Broomes wrote in his 10-page ruling on Aug. 21. “Indeed, the government has barely tried to meet that burden. And the Supreme Court has indicated that the Bruen analysis is not merely a suggestion.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in Bruen, said that when the Second Amendment is found to apply, government officials must show that the regulation in question “is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

In the recent ruling in United States v. Rahimi, the justices found that a law prohibiting people under domestic violence-related restraining orders from possessing guns does not violate the Second Amendment, and they clarified how courts should analyze such regulations.

“A court must ascertain whether the new law is ’relevantly similar‘ to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, ’apply[ing] faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. He said that some courts had misunderstood Bruen.

Broomes’s decision came after prosecutors charged Tamori Morgan, a Kansas resident, with illegally possessing an Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 .300 caliber machine gun and a machine gun conversation device.

Keep reading

The Chevron decision may also apply to federal land policies in the West

By now most who watch such things are familiar with the opinion issued by the Supreme Court in the case Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al. on June 28, 2024. Loper overturned an opinion issued by the court in 1984 titled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

The Chevron “precedent” required federal courts to defer to federal agency interpretations of law when the law at issue was ambiguous and, therefore, subject to interpretation. The effect of the Chevron “precedent” was to transfer certain authority for statutory interpretation away from the court and deposit it in the hands of unelected and, therefore, unaccountable bureaucrats. Stated otherwise, Chevron tended to reverse the role of the court in the process of “judicial review” which was established in 1803 in the case Marbury v. Madison.

Since Congress has a particular knack for writing vague or ambiguous law and letting the agencies “figure it out,” the Chevron “precedent” is said to have transferred substantial quasi-judicial power to agency staff at the expense of the judicial role. Chevron is, therefore, credited with accelerating growth of the “administrative” or “deep” state — a “shadow government” of sorts functioning, in effect, according to its own interpretation of its enabling statutes.

The point to be made here is that the Chevron ruling arguably represented a measurable breach of constitutional structure, as that structure was established by the court in Marbury v. Madison. The effect of this breach may be likened to the breach of a dam impounding a river. With this breach of constitutional structure, an unelected shadow government, arguably extraconstitutional and with expansive powers, unleashed a regulatory flood upon the land.

After 40 years, the Loper ruling has righted this historical wrong. The net effect of this remedy is that Congress will be compelled to exercise its legislative authority with greater particularity, agency staff will be disinclined to engage in regulatory adventurism, and the impartial interpretive role of the court is substantially restored. As more precise laws must now be made through the legislative process, thereby restricting regulatory latitude, democracy itself is substantially restored. However, in the nature of a wounded beast, these restorative consequences have given rise to shrill wailing and charges of “judicial power grabbing” coming from those whose power has been diminished.

Now bring this narrative around to the matter of federally owned public lands. An impartial review of the formative history of the federal territorial system will affirm two essential facts.

First, congressional authority for establishment of local governments within federal territories is derived from the Northwest Ordinance, not from the treaty power of the United States or from congressional Property Clause authority as originally maintained by the court in the case of Sere v. Pitot. Under authority of the Northwest Ordinance, Congress is authorized to establish and supervise temporary local territorial governments, but it is not authorized to be the local municipal government over them. From Benner v. Porter, “[Territorial governments] … are the creations, exclusively, of the legislative department, and subject to its supervision and control.”

Second, the Property Clause is a delegation of constitutional authority and duty to dispose of federal territorial and public lands. “The power being given, it is the interest of the nation to facilitate its execution,” according to McCulloch v. Maryland, speaking of constitutionally enumerated federal powers.

Keep reading

Legal Experts Pan Joe Biden’s Proposals for Reforming U.S. Supreme Court: ‘It’s All Posturing for the Election’

Joe Biden called for major reforms to the United States Supreme Court in a speech today.

Lots of people are wondering why Biden is even trying to do this. He is the lamest of lame duck presidents in decades and has no political capital left to trade on. It’s likely that this is an effort by Democrats to squeeze one last major policy initiative out of Biden’s now failed presidency.

Legal experts are already weighing in and saying that Biden’s proposals are going nowhere.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Biden Supreme Court reforms already on life support, legal experts say

President Joe Biden’s ambitious three-pronged proposal to reform the Supreme Court is not likely to survive past its 15 minutes of fame, legal experts from across the partisan spectrum say.

“It’s all posturing for the election season to try to garner votes amongst the far Left but also to bully the United States Supreme Court into not pursuing its current path of enforcing the Constitution,” California RNC National Committeewoman and lawyer Harmeet K. Dhillon told the Washington Examiner…

Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, questioned in a July 18 Substack blog why Biden was merely highlighting the recent Trump v. United States decision when there are multitudes of other high court decisions Democrats disfavor.

“What about an amendment to overrule Rucho and reaffirm that the federal courts can adjudicate severe partisan gerrymandering? Or an amendment to overrule Citizens United and allow Congress to meaningfully limit the money in our elections? Or an amendment to overrule Dobbs? All of these have the exact same chance of getting two-thirds of the House and Senate to approve them (0.0%),” Vladeck wrote…

Additionally, Vladeck voiced caution over an enforceable ethics code on the nine justices, saying that if anyone other than the justices is given power to enforce a code on the members for violating roles, “we’d no longer have ‘one Supreme Court,’ as Article III, Section 1 says we must; we’d have two.”

Keep reading

‘No One Is Above The Law’: Harris Backs Biden Proposals To Reform Supreme Court

In what marks a major shift for President Biden – the former head of the Senate Judiciary Committee who had long resisted calls to reform the high court – is calling for Congress to back his proposals for two significant changes to the U.S. Supreme Court and a change to the U.S. Constitution.

His plan includes establishing term limits and an enforceable ethics code for the court’s nine justices. He’s also pressing lawmakers to ratify a constitutional amendment limiting presidential immunity.

The announcement marks a remarkable evolution for Biden, who as a candidate had been wary of calls to reform the high court.

Last week, he announced during an Oval Office speech that he would pursue Supreme Court reform during his final months in office, calling it “critical to our democracy.”

As Melanie Sun reports at The Epoch Times, the president (well, his team of millennial minions) outlined his reasoning for pursuing changes that have been long-sought by progressive camps in U.S. politics in an op-ed published this morning.

“This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one,” the president wrote.

According to a White House official, President Biden will call for Congress to back term limits for Supreme Court justices and a code of ethics enforceable by the legislative branch.

He also will propose an amendment to limit the extent of presidential immunity afforded by the Constitution, proposing that former presidents be granted no immunity for crimes committed in office.

Keep reading

Report: Biden Will Announce His Radical Plan to Make Sweeping Changes to SCOTUS Next Week

Joe Biden is expected to announce a proposal outlining several radical changes to the Supreme Court during a trip to Texas on Monday.

According to Politico, Biden’s plan is likely to include term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics, as well as a constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity.

This proposed amendment comes in response to the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling that protected presidents from prosecution for “official acts” during their term, a decision involving the witch-hunt of former President Donald Trump.

Such drastic measures to overhaul the Supreme Court are viewed by critics as a dangerous move towards consolidating power and diminishing our system of checks and balances.

The prospect of a constitutional amendment and new legislation faces significant obstacles and reflects the inability for the Democratic Party to cope over the court’s recent decisions, which they see as a challenge to their narrative.

From Politico:

“Biden is likely to endorse establishing term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics, in an announcement that represents a remarkable shift for a president who had long resisted calls to overhaul the high court.

He is also expected to push for a constitutional amendment limiting immunity for presidents and certain other officeholders, in a response to the court’s July 1 ruling that presidents are shielded from prosecution for “official acts” during their time in office, in a case brought by former President Donald Trump.

The specifics of the proposal remain unclear and could still change, said the people, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal planning.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to COVID-19 Shot Mandates

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected appeals to two COVID shot mandate-related cases brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD). In one case, CHD appealed a lower court ruling that the non-profit group lacked standing to sue the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over its authorization of the COVID-19 shots for young children. In the other case, CHD challenged the COVID shot mandate for students at Rutgers University in New Jersey.1

The Supreme Court did not issue an explanatory statement along with their denial of these appeals.2 By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court has allowed the opinions of the lower court to stand.3

Appellate Court Dismissed CHD’s Claims Against the FDA

CHD, together with five sets of parents, sued the FDA over its emergency use authorization COVID shots for minors. The District Court dismissed the case finding that the Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue and the 5th Circuit Appellate Court affirmed that ruling. Plaintiffs alleged that when the FDA granted pharmaceutical companies an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to distribute the experimental biologicals, it did not adhere to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) reasoned decision-making requirements. Plaintiffs sought an injunction forbidding the marketing or promotion of the shots.4

A Plaintiff will have standing to sue when it has been demonstrated that the Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact that is, “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent;” the defendant caused the injury; and the injury would likely be redressed by the court.5 The injury must also be concrete, which has been defined as “whether the alleged injury to the Plaintiff has a ‘close relationship’ to a harm ‘traditionally’ recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.”6

The Appellate Court agreed with the District Court that the Plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of showing that their injury was concrete, particularized or imminent, rather than merely speculative.

The Appellate Court wrote:

To begin, it is insufficient that Plaintiff allege that some hypothetical third party might, at some hypothetical point in the future and through some hypothetical means, will vaccinate their children against their wishes.7

The Appellate Court added that CHD also lacked standing because the organization has not “diverted significant resources to counteract” the EUA granted to the COVID shots by the FDA. The Appellate Court ruling went on to state that the Plaintiff also has not shown that the FDA’s authorization, “concretely and ‘perceptibly impaired’” its ability to fulfill their mission. The courts dismissed the action due to lack of standing.8

Keep reading

Supreme Court Ruling Alters January 6 Charges: From Insurrection to Trespassing

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. U.S. has struck down one of the most common charges against January 6 defendants: “obstruction of an official proceeding.” This ruling has profound implications for the numerous cases that relied on this charge, rendering many of these convictions invalid.

For years, the narrative around January 6 has centered on the idea of an “insurrection.” Politicians and pundits alike have used this term to describe the events of that day, often framing it as an organized attempt to overthrow the government. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling signals a significant shift in how these actions are legally interpreted. The events of January 6 are now increasingly seen as a case of mass trespass and unlawful entry rather than an insurrection.

The Justice Department’s decision to use the obstruction charge, which stems from a law enacted post-Enron to criminalize the destruction of evidence, has now been called into question. The broad interpretation of this law allowed it to be applied to hundreds of January 6 cases. At least a quarter of the prosecutions included this charge. The ruling will result in resentencing for many, and pending cases will proceed without the obstruction claim.Former President Donald Trump is also affected by this decision. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against Trump in Washington, D.C., includes obstruction charges. With the Supreme Court’s ruling, half of this indictment could be dropped, necessitating a potential superseding indictment. This development could derail Smith’s efforts to bring Trump to trial before the election, a goal that has been prioritized by both Smith and Judge Tanya Chutkan.

The ruling challenges the long-held belief that January 6 was an insurrection. Polls show that a majority of citizens view the events as a protest that escalated into a riot, not an attempt to overthrow the government. This perspective is reinforced by the Supreme Court’s decision, which suggests that the legal framework used to prosecute many of the January 6 defendants was flawed.

Keep reading

The Supreme Court Just Opened the Door to a New Orwellian Censorship Regime

The Supreme Court’s decision in a recent case challenging the Biden administration’s censorship efforts unleashed renewed threats to Americans’ ability to speak and listen freely online while effectively putting a legal remedy out of reach ahead of the 2024 election, legal experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Last year on Independence Day, U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty issued the initial injunction blocking a range of government agencies from communicating with social media companies to suppress speech, calling the government’s actions “Orwellian.” But one year later, with the Fifth Circuit’s narrower injunction now lifted by the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri, officials have free rein to again employ the same tactics.

“It’s basically a roadmap for government actors, not just the federal government, but also state and local government actors, to reach out to social media companies and pressure them into censoring this disfavored speech,” Center for American Liberty associate counsel Eric Sell told the DCNF.

The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in the case, who included two states and five individuals, did not have standing to seek an injunction against the government.

In her majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the plaintiffs failed “to link their past social-media restrictions to the defendants’ communications with the platforms.” She also noted that platforms had “independent incentives to moderate content,” making it difficult for the plaintiffs to establish they were harmed directly as a result of the government’s requests.

Justice Samuel Alito worried in his dissent that the Supreme Court’s ruling, though it did not reach the merits of the issue, would send the message that coercive government campaigns against certain speech can run unchecked if “carried out with enough sophistication.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Throws Out Pro-Gun Group’s “Assault Weapons” And Magazine Ban Case

On July 2, 2024, the United States Supreme Court rejected certiorari in National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville. The case is currently going through the discovery, trial, and summary judgment phases at the district court.

“Today’s decision tells the lower courts they’re more than welcome to trample Bruen to their hearts’ content – at least for the time being. The question all along has been whether the Supreme Court was okay with the lower courts’ outright and unanimous defiance of the plain holdings of Bruen. Today we got our answer: for now at least, the Second Amendment IS a second-class right, and it will remain so until the Supreme Court decides to stop ducking the issue,” declared Hannah Hill Executive Director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights. 

The US District Court rejected a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of the law, which plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the 7th Circuit. The 7th Circuit issued a ruling upholding the district court’s denial of preliminary injunction, determining that AR-15s are not firearms under the Second Amendment in complete defiance to multiple precedents established by the Supreme Court.

The National Association for Gun Rights appealed to the Supreme Court, calling on the high court to overturn the 7th Circuit’s ruling and establish a nationwide precedent definitively throwing out gun prohibitions. 

Justice Clarence Thomas published a statement describing the 7th Circuit’s ruling “nonsensical” and declared “It is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment.” Thomas added that when the case returns to the Court in a final judgment posture, the Supreme Court “can – and should” review the 7th Circuit’s decision if it maintains it preliminary injunction reasoning.

Keep reading

Americans Are Already Sticking It To The Permanent Bureaucracy Just Days After Landmark Supreme Court Ruling

Just days after the Supreme Court struck down the precedent of automatically deferring to bureaucrats, it is now ordering lower courts to reconsider some cases where federal agencies have interfered with the activities of Americans.

On June 28, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a case that set a precedent requiring courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of a given law when the language used in the law was ambiguous. Now, the Supreme Court has ordered lower courts to review Foster v. U.S. Department of Agriculture and KC Transport v. Secretary of Labor, two cases where judges limited the commercial activities of Americans due to the precedent of deference set under Chevron.

“Our clients may now make their case in court without judges putting their thumb on the scale in favor of the government,” said Paige Gilliard, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, the right-of-center legal nonprofit representing the plaintiffs in both cases. “The Supreme Court’s decision to end Chevron deference is a move to restore fairness in federal courts. Our clients Arlen Foster and KC Transport are among the first beneficiaries.”

Keep reading