Latest news with #1stU.S.CircuitCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Worst Part of the Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Blocking a Lawsuit Against Gunmakers
On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government of Mexico may not continue its lawsuit seeking to hold firearms manufacturers and a firearms distributor civilly accountable for their role in causing cartel-driven gun violence in Mexico. Having taken the case at an unusually early stage in the litigation, and so working from an undeveloped factual record, all nine justices agreed that Mexico's current complaint does not even satisfactorily allege that the defendants have aided and abetted U.S. dealers who illegally sell guns to traffickers who then get them to the cartels in Mexico. What's worse, Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson each wrote separate concurrences in which they wade into the substantive law of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, offering unprecedented interpretations that would make it harder for victims of gun violence to try to hold firearms-makers and sellers responsible for their part in the harms they cause. All in all, Thursday's intervention from the Supreme Court means expanded impunity for the firearms industry—and thus the likelihood of more death and injury due to gun violence. PLCAA is a complex federal statute that specifies only a limited number of circumstances when victims of gun violence may bring a lawsuit against the maker or seller of a gun. Apart from these circumstances, PLCAA bans civil suits against industry members for harms arising from the criminal use of firearms. One ground for a civil action permitted by PLCAA arises when a firearms industry actor knowingly violates a statute applicable to the sale and marketing of firearms. When this happens, victims of a criminal shooting may sue the maker or seller of the firearms used, advancing any cause of action supported by facts of the case. Mexico's complaint alleged that the named firearms manufacturers and the named distributor aid and abet rogue dealers in the U.S. who illegally sell firearms to straw purchasers. These purchasers work with traffickers to illegally convey the arms to criminal cartels in Mexico. Aiding and abetting the sale of firearms to straw purchasers is itself a violation of the same statutes the rogue dealers are breaking. According to Mexico's complaint, the defendants' participation in breaking these law opens them to the full panoply of civil liability for the ensuing gun violence. Writing for the full court, Justice Elena Kagan announced that Mexico had not succeeded in stating a sufficiently plausible aiding-and-abetting claim. The court reversed the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had held that Mexico had properly pleaded aiding and abetting, opening the door to discovery and trial on the merits. The court's reversal is odd, because it interrupts the normal flow of civil litigation. Kagan criticized Mexico for its failure to specify precisely which rogue dealers the defendants supply and what exactly the defendants know about the dealers' illegal sales. But the ordinary way for a plaintiff to attain such precision is by conducting discovery, thus uncovering the facts necessary to proving their case to a jury. The court today preemptively shut down this process, in essence requiring plaintiffs bringing aiding-and-abetting claims to somehow know information that they would typically learn through pretrial discovery. It remains open to Mexico to revise its complaint to address the full court's criteria for properly pleading aiding and abetting, if Mexico can obtain the required information outside the legal process. Regardless, we know from Thursday's opinions that at least two justices—and quite possibly more—are poised to radically revise the body of PLCAA law lower federal courts have been developing. Thomas and Jackson both went beyond the issue of aiding and abetting to make pronouncements about the sorts of conduct and kinds of legal violations that trigger PLCAA's permission to bring civil actions against the firearms industry. Thomas wrote to cast doubt on whether PLCAA's reference to knowing violations of federal or state statutes includes violations that have not been formally found by a court or other regulatory body. No lower court that I know of has adopted this position. Indeed, no lower court opinions have even discussed the question. Yet Thomas took the opportunity to alert the firearms industry that 'it seems to [him] that the PLCAA at least arguably requires not only a plausible allegation that a defendant has committed a predicate violation, but also an earlier finding of guilt or liability in an adjudication regarding the 'violation.' ' He doesn't provide even a hint of an argument that the words of PLCAA support his impression. Thomas instead vaguely gestures to 'serious constitutional considerations' that would support his view. Jackson's concurrence is just peculiar. She argued that Mexico's complaint should be dismissed because Mexico did not identify particular statutory violations committed by the defendants. But the complaint notes several specific statutes it alleges the defendants have violated, including the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968. The Gun Control Act expressly forbids selling guns to straw purchasers, buyers who purchase guns for somebody else who cannot lawfully by them. This is exactly what people who buy guns for traffickers do. The complaint also names state statutes it alleges the defendants have violated: the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (which applies to defendant Colt) and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (which applies to Smith & Wesson). These statutes require the responsible sale and marketing of consumer goods, including firearms. Stocking rogue dealers with guns the manufacturers and the distributor know the dealer will sell to straw purchasers who will then supply them to traffickers breaks these laws. Ignoring the complaint's discussion of how the defendants' conduct violates the Gun Control Act, CUTPA, and MCPA, Jackson writes, 'Mexico merely faults the industry writ large for engaging in practices that legislatures and voters have declined to prohibit.' Jackson's disregard for what the complaint actually says is baffling. She claims to be concerned for PLCAA's purpose of establishing the 'primacy of the political branches—both state and federal—in deciding which duties to impose on the firearms industry.' But federal gun control laws and state consumer protection statutes like the ones Mexico pinpoints do just that: They codify legislatures' decisions as to the duties firearms manufacturers and sellers have. Perhaps Jackson regards the complaint as 'conclusory' because it does not itemize occasions when rogue dealers, intentionally supplied with firearms by the defendants, violated the Gun Control Act. Nor does the complaint itemize specific instances of when the defendants violated CUTPA or MCPA. But again, even if PLCAA calls for this, the necessary facts would ordinarily be gathered by the plaintiff through discovery. By demanding more specifics on the statutory violations alleged, Jackson's position comes close to Thomas': Only formally adjudicated violations can secure a complaint against a motion to dismiss. Writing from the right and left wings of the Supreme Court, Thomas and Jackson have emboldened Second Amendment absolutists to attack cases brought under the rubric of PLCAA. They invite lower court judges to grant early motions to dismiss. This is contrary to rule of law in an appellate system like ours. Our civil justice system permits plaintiffs to initially plead their cases comparatively generally and then to refine them in light of discovery. Quick dismissals of properly pleaded, if general, claims undermine the proper evolution of individual lawsuits. Worse, it strips all courts of the chance to identify and analyze relevant issues of law. Even if Thomas and Jackson have rightly detected questions raised by PLCAA—what constitutes a statutory violation and what does a plaintiff have to plead to preliminarily identify one—their concurrences foreclose usual judicial processes for answering them. The court as a whole and the two concurrences hurtle pell-mell toward making it virtually impossible for plaintiffs like Mexico to successfully plead their claims. Beyond that, the decision short-circuits the careful development of the law of PLCAA. The statute is a particularly intricate one, which already gave an industry that produces, markets, and sells exceptionally lethal products a large measure of impunity from any civil accountability for its harm-causing conduct. The opinions handed down by the Supreme Court in Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos thwart case-by-case determination of PLCAA's applicability, a process that promotes careful explication of the law. This is a very poor ruling. It will put more firearms in the hands of criminals who will use them to wreak havoc. It will prevent victims of this havoc from seeking justice in court.
NBC News
02-06-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court denies challenges to state laws banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear two major gun cases challenging a Maryland gun law that bans assault-style weapons and a Rhode Island restriction on large-capacity magazines. As a result, the two laws remain in effect. Litigation over similar bans across the country is ongoing and the issue is likely to return to the justices. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has expanded gun rights but has shown a reluctance in recent months to take up a new case on the scope of the right to bear arms under the Constitution's Second Amendment. It seems likely the court will take up the assault weapons issue soon, with three conservative justices saying they voted to take it up and another, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, saying he would like the justices to hear a case ion the issue in the next couple of years. Four votes are needed for the court to hear a case. The court in a major 2022 ruling expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that the right to bear arms extends outside the home. That has led to a wave of both new restrictions being imposed in some states and court rulings that have struck down some longstanding gun laws. Both these developments have led to a flurry of appeals at the court asking the justices to clarify the scope of the 2022 ruling. The Maryland law bans what the state calls 'assault weapons' akin to weapons of war like the M16 rifle as well as the AR-15. The measure became law in 2013 in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, in which 20 children and six adults were killed the previous year. That law was upheld by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court's 2022. A new set of plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit, and the Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to take a second look at the issue. It reached the same conclusion in an August 2024 ruling. "The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense," the court concluded. The Rhode Island law, enacted just before the Supreme Court issued the 2022 ruling, prevents people from possessing magazines that contain more than 10 rounds. Lower courts, including the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the ban, which was challenged by four gun owners and a firearms store called Big Bear Hunting and Fishing Supply. The Supreme Court last July sidestepped multiple gun-related disputes soon after it issued a ruling that upheld a federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. In a case that did not directly address the right to bear arms, the court on March 26 upheld a Biden administration bid to regulate 'ghost gun' kits that can be easily assembled to make firearms.
The Herald Scotland
31-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court lets Trump revoke migrants' temporary status
Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the migrants would suffer the greater harm if the migrants' legal status ends while the case is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The administration wants to cut short a program that provided a two-year haven for immigrants because of economic, security, political and health crises in their home countries. Lawyers for the migrants said half a million people lawfully in the country will become subject to deportation, what it called the "largest mass illegalization event in modern American history." Labor unions and communities that have welcomed the migrants said they've filled gaps in key industries, including healthcare, construction and manufacturing. Nearly 20% of the workers at one automotive parts manufacturer are in the temporary program, according to labor unions. The Trump administration said it's determined the migrants' presence in the United States is "against the national interests" and the courts don't get to decide otherwise. The move is part of the President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration and push to ramp up deportations, including of noncitizens previously granted a legal right to live and work in the United States. The Biden administration hoped the program would deter migrants from those countries from trying to enter the country illegally. But the Trump administration cancelled people's work permits and deportation protections, arguing the program failed as a deterrent and makes it harder to enforce immigration laws for those already in the country. Immigrant rights groups challenged the change on behalf of the immigrants and their sponsors. A federal judge in Massachusetts said the abrupt curtailing of the program was based on a legal error, as the administration wrongly concluded that letting the temporary status naturally expire would foreclose the Homeland Security Department's ability to legally expedite their deportations. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, also said early cancellation of protections requires a case-by-case review for each participant. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed Talwani's decision to temporarily block mass cancellation. All three judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. The Justice Department argued the lower courts are "undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election." Lawyers for a group of cities and counties said the abrupt cancellation of the program "would case severe economic and societal harms."
The Hindu
30-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court lets Trump end humanitarian parole for 5,00,000 people from 4 countries
The Supreme Court on Friday (May 30, 2025) again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 5,00,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The court has also allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 3,50,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people, and in office has sought to dismantle Biden administration polices that created ways for migrants to live legally in the U.S. Mr. Trump amplified false rumours that Haitian immigrants in Ohio with legal status under the humanitarian parole programme were abducting and eating pets during his only debate with President Joe Biden, according to court documents. His administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration's push to end the programme. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent that the effect of the court's order is 'to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent. Ms. Jackson echoed what U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Ms. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, found that revocations of parole can be done, but on a case-by-case basis. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be cancelled. An appeals court refused to lift her order. The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The Justice Department argues that the protections were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference. The administration says Mr. Biden granted the parole en masse, and the law doesn't require ending it on an individual basis. Taking on each case individually would be a 'gargantuan task,' and slow the government's efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued. Mr. Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952. Beneficiaries included the 5,32,000 people who have come to the United States with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with 'instability, dangers and deprivations,' as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the US at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years. The Trump administration's decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration's moves 'the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.' The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration. The court has sided against Mr. Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.
Time of India
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
1 million people to be deported by the Trump administration soon - these 4 countries to bear the brunt
1 million people to be deported by the Trump administration soon – these 4 countries to bear the brunt- In a dramatic move likely to impact nearly 1 million migrants, the Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin mass deportations. The court's decision affects immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, who were previously granted temporary protection under a humanitarian parole program launched by former President Joe Biden. The ruling opens the door for what could be the largest deportation wave in recent U.S. history, targeting hundreds of thousands of people who fled violence, poverty, and instability in their home countries. Here's a full breakdown of what this means and who's most affected. What did the supreme court decide and how many immigrants will it affect? The Supreme Court's decision on Friday lifted a previous court order that had protected more than 500,000 immigrants from deportation. These individuals, primarily from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, were allowed to stay in the U.S. under the humanitarian parole program, a policy President Biden expanded in late 2022. In a separate case, the court also allowed the Trump administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelans. Together, that brings the number of people at risk to nearly 1 million immigrants. Although the court hasn't issued a final ruling, the justices allowed the deportation process to begin while the case continues in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Live Events Which countries will be hit hardest by these deportations? The four countries that will bear the brunt of the deportation wave are: Venezuela Haiti Cuba Nicaragua Migrants from these countries were the main beneficiaries of Biden's parole program. To qualify, they had to fly to the U.S. at their own cost and secure financial sponsors. They were granted a two-year legal stay under this program. According to government data, more than 532,000 people came to the U.S. under these rules since late 2022. The Trump administration is now moving to cancel these permits before they expire, making this the first mass revocation of humanitarian parole in U.S. history. How did this case reach the supreme court? The decision followed an emergency appeal by the Trump administration after a federal judge in Boston, Indira Talwani, ruled against them. Talwani, an Obama appointee, said ending the program early would leave people with a 'stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything.' She said parole could be revoked, but only case by case — not in bulk. But the Supreme Court overruled her order temporarily, siding with the Trump team's push for faster deportations. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented. Jackson wrote that this move will 'unravel the lives of half a million migrants' before the legal questions are fully resolved. What is the Trump administration's argument for mass deportation? The Trump team says humanitarian parole is temporary by design, and the law gives the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the power to end it — with or without court approval. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, argued that revoking parole one person at a time would be a 'gargantuan task' and would delay removals. He also said the Biden administration abused the parole system by granting it en masse rather than assessing cases individually. The Department of Justice claims the parole program doesn't legally require individual termination, even if the beneficiaries met financial and travel requirements. Why is this considered the largest mass immigration rollback in decades? Lawyers for the affected migrants have called this 'the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.' They argue that the Trump administration's actions amount to a blanket criminalization of lawful immigrants, many of whom have built lives in the U.S. legally over the past two years. This case is one of several emergency immigration appeals the Trump team has brought to the Supreme Court. In earlier cases, the justices had ruled against Trump, such as when the administration tried to deport Venezuelans accused of gang involvement under the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely-used wartime law from the 1700s. What happens next in the immigration case? The legal fight isn't over. The case now returns to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which will review the full arguments. However, because the Supreme Court lifted the protections for now, migrants could start receiving deportation notices soon, even as the case moves forward. Until a final decision is made, hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela will be left in limbo — unsure whether they'll be able to stay or be forced to leave the U.S. abruptly. FAQs: Q1: What is the Trump administration deportation plan about? It's a plan to deport nearly 1 million migrants by ending Biden's parole protections. Q2: Which countries are affected by the mass deportation order? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela will be hit the hardest by this ruling.
