Latest news with #4thCircuit
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Don't like the Supreme Court's recent opinions? Chief Justice John Roberts has thoughts
WASHINGTON − Chief Justice John Roberts has some advice for anyone unhappy with the Supreme Court's decisions. 'It would be good if people appreciated it's not the judges' fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don't get to do this,' Roberts said at a judicial conference, the day after the Supreme Court handed down some of its biggest – and most divisive – opinions of the term. In a public conversation with the chief judge of the Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberts did not discuss any of those decisions, which included a big win for President Donald Trump in his fights with judges who have blocked his policies. Instead, the chief justice was asked how he deals with criticism. More: Called out by Trump for how he leads the Supreme Court, John Roberts is fine keeping a low profile Roberts says he keeps in mind that each case has a winner and a loser – and the loser is not going to like the outcome. 'You'd like it to be informed criticism, but it's usually not,' he said. 'They're naturally focusing on the bottom line: who won and who lost. You need to appreciate that that's just the nature of what you do.' More: Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways Sometimes, however, the criticism comes not from the party that lost, but from other justices. In writing the conservative majority's opinion that judges went too far when they blocked Trump's changes to birthright citizenship from going into effect everywhere in the country, Justice Amy Coney Barrett had some strong words about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' Barret wrote. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' More: Trump Republicans lash out at Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a DEI hire Jackson wrote that the majority's decision gives the president 'the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate.' 'As a result, the Judiciary – the one institution that is solely responsible for ensuring our Republic endures as a Nation of laws – has put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy,' she wrote. Justice Jackson Supreme Court appears to favor 'monied interests' over ordinary citizens Roberts acknowledged that there can be sharp divisions among his colleagues and sharp adjectives employed, particularly at the end of the term. But he said the justices all work hard to understand where they're colleagues are coming from 'to see if there's some way to if not bring things together, make the resolution as helpful as possible.' 'It's important to know, and understand, what Justice So-And-So is thinking about, because that will help you understand a little bit more about yours,' he said. 'And that's an interesting dynamic that plays out over the course of several months.' Roberts also acknowledged that the court waited until the last days of the term to decide some of the biggest cases, saying they will try to spread things out more. 'Things were a little crunched,' he said, 'toward the end this year.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Chief Justice Roberts: Don't blame judges for applying the law
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Roberts rebuffs some criticism of Supreme Court decisions as ‘venting'
Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday said some public criticism of the Supreme Court's work is 'not terribly helpful,' dismissing it as 'venting' that only focuses on the bottom line. 'It would be good if people appreciated it's not the judge's fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don't get to do this,' Roberts told a crowd of judges and lawyers gathered at a judicial conference in North Carolina. 'And it may be an incorrect interpretation,' he continued. 'But if that's their criticism, then, of course, they can explain that, and maybe the court of appeals will take a different view.' The chief justice added, 'But if it's just venting because you lost, then that's not terribly helpful.' Roberts was not speaking to any specific decision, but his conversation with Albert Diaz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit's chief judge, came one day after the Supreme Court handed down its final opinions of the term. In a major victory for President Trump, the high court narrowed federal district judges' ability to issue universal injunctions, a battle that stems from Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. It was one of several 6-3 decisions along ideological lines the Supreme Court handed down on Friday. The conservative majority also upheld Texas's age verification law for porn websites and sided with a group of parents seeking to opt out their children from instruction that incorporates books with LGBTQ themes. Roberts joined the majority in all three cases. 'What they're angry about or upset about is probably not that you applied the principle of ejusdem generis in a context in which it had not been applied before. It's that they lost whatever they were looking for,' Roberts said when asked how he deals with public criticism. The chief justice in his remarks steered clear of discussing any of the court's opinions this year. But when asked, he acknowledged the frenzy that accompanies the end of the term. 'Things were a little crunched toward the end this year, and we try to space it out a little better next year, I suppose,' the chief justice told the crowd.
Mint
02-06-2025
- Politics
- Mint
US Supreme Court declines to hear cases on assault rifle, high-capacity magazine bans
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge to the legality of state restrictions on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, passing up cases that offered the justices a chance to further expand gun rights. The justices turned away two appeals after lower courts upheld a ban in Maryland on powerful semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s and one in Rhode Island restricting the possession of ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower courts rejected arguments that the measures violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." In a nation bitterly divided over how to address firearms violence including numerous mass shootings, the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, often has taken an expansive view of the Second Amendment. The court broadened gun rights in landmark rulings in 2008, 2010 and in a 2022 case that made it harder to defend gun restrictions under the Second Amendment, requiring them to be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The challengers now before the Supreme Court contended that states and courts are flouting precedents that make clear that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are in "common use." Maryland in 2013 enacted its ban on military-style "assault weapons" such as the semiautomatic AR-15 and AK-47 after a shooter used such a firearm in the 2012 mass killing of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The law carries a penalty of up to three years in prison. A Maryland resident who is seeking to purchase one of the banned guns, as well as three gun rights organizations including the Firearms Policy Coalition, sued in 2020, claiming the ban violates the Second Amendment. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 rejected the challenge because it said assault weapons "are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense." As such, the "excessively dangerous" firearms are not protected by the Second Amendment, the 4th Circuit decided. The 4th Circuit said it refused "to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes." The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that the term "assault weapon" is a political term that is designed to exploit public confusion over machine guns and semi-automatic firearms. The banned weapons, they said, are "identical to any other semiautomatic firearm - arms that are exceedingly common and fully protected by the Second Amendment." Rhode Island's law, passed in 2022 as a response to mass shootings, bars most "large-capacity feeding" devices such as a magazine or drum that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The state calls it a "mild restriction on a particularly dangerous weapons accessory" and that in mass shooting situations, "any pause in fire, such as the pause to switch magazines, allows for precious seconds in which to escape or take defensive action." The law applied retroactively, meaning residents had to surrender or alter any banned magazine that they owned, and carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. Four gun owners and a registered firearms dealer sued, claiming the ban violated their Second Amendment rights, and that having to forfeit the magazines they owned violated the Constitution's prohibition on the government taking property without compensation. In 2024 the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims and refused to block the law, noting that the weapons have been deployed in mass shootings for a reason: "Semiautomatic firearms fitted with (large capacity magazines) are highly effective weapons of mass slaughter." Magazine capacity "directly corresponds to lethality," the 1st Circuit said. The Rhode Island plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that instead of abiding by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, the state's law 'can only be understood as protest legislation imposing more restrictive bans on long-common arms.' The Supreme Court has been buffeted in recent years by challenges to gun restrictions. It is due to rule by the end of June on the legality of a 2022 regulation issued by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration cracking down on "ghost guns," largely untraceable firearms whose use has proliferated in crimes nationwide. The justices signaled approval of that ban during arguments in the case in October. The court in June 2024 upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns. They also struck down a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, although that case was not centered on the Second Amendment.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court won't review assault weapon, high-capacity magazine bans
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge to the legality of state restrictions on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, passing up for now cases that offered the justices a chance to further expand gun rights. The justices turned away two appeals after lower courts upheld a ban in Maryland on powerful semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s and one in Rhode Island restricting the possession of ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower courts rejected arguments that the measures violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the court's decision not to hear the cases. A fourth, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a statement accompanying the Maryland case expressed sympathy for the argument made by the challengers that semiautomatic AR-15s are in common use by "law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment." Kavanaugh said the issue will return to the Supreme Court, which "presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon." In a nation bitterly divided over how to address firearms violence including numerous mass shootings, the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, often has taken an expansive view of the Second Amendment. The court broadened gun rights in landmark rulings in 2008, 2010 and in a 2022 case that made it harder to defend gun restrictions under the Second Amendment, requiring them to be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The challengers in the two cases turned away on Monday by the Supreme Court contended that states and courts are flouting precedents that make clear that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are in "common use." Maryland in 2013 enacted its ban on military-style "assault weapons" such as the AR-15 and AK-47 after a shooter used such a firearm in the 2012 mass killing of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The law carries a penalty of up to three years in prison. A Maryland resident who is seeking to purchase one of the banned guns, as well as three gun rights organizations including the Firearms Policy Coalition, sued in 2020, claiming the ban violates the Second Amendment. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 rejected the challenge because it said assault weapons "are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense." As such, the "excessively dangerous" firearms are not protected by the Second Amendment, the 4th Circuit decided. The 4th Circuit said it refused "to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes." The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that the term "assault weapon" is a political term that is designed to exploit public confusion over machine guns and semi-automatic firearms. The banned weapons, they said, are "identical to any other semiautomatic firearm - arms that are exceedingly common and fully protected by the Second Amendment." Rhode Island's law, passed in 2022 as a response to mass shootings, bars most "large-capacity feeding" devices such as a magazine or drum that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The state calls it a "mild restriction on a particularly dangerous weapons accessory" and that in mass shooting situations, "any pause in fire, such as the pause to switch magazines, allows for precious seconds in which to escape or take defensive action." The law applied retroactively, meaning residents had to surrender or alter any banned magazine that they owned, and carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. Four gun owners and a registered firearms dealer sued, claiming the ban violated their Second Amendment rights, and that having to forfeit the magazines they owned violated the Constitution's prohibition on the government taking property without compensation. In 2024 the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims and refused to block the law. The Rhode Island plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that instead of abiding by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, the state's law "can only be understood as protest legislation imposing more restrictive bans on long-common arms." The Supreme Court has been buffeted in recent years by challenges to gun restrictions. On March 26, the court upheld a regulation targeting largely untraceable "ghost guns" imposed by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration. The court last year struck down a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns.
Straits Times
02-06-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
US Supreme Court won't review assault weapon, high-capacity magazine bans
FILE PHOTO: A man looks at an AR-15 rife at an exhibition booth during the National Rifle Association (NRA) annual convention in Dallas, Texas, U.S., May 18, 2024. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge to the legality of state restrictions on assault-style rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, passing up for now cases that offered the justices a chance to further expand gun rights. The justices turned away two appeals after lower courts upheld a ban in Maryland on powerful semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s and one in Rhode Island restricting the possession of ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower courts rejected arguments that the measures violate the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the court's decision not to hear the cases. A fourth, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a statement accompanying the Maryland case expressed sympathy for the argument made by the challengers that semiautomatic AR-15s are in common use by "law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment." Kavanaugh said the issue will return to the Supreme Court, which "presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon." In a nation bitterly divided over how to address firearms violence including numerous mass shootings, the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, often has taken an expansive view of the Second Amendment. The court broadened gun rights in landmark rulings in 2008, 2010 and in a 2022 case that made it harder to defend gun restrictions under the Second Amendment, requiring them to be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." The challengers in the two cases turned away on Monday by the Supreme Court contended that states and courts are flouting precedents that make clear that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are in "common use." Maryland in 2013 enacted its ban on military-style "assault weapons" such as the AR-15 and AK-47 after a shooter used such a firearm in the 2012 mass killing of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The law carries a penalty of up to three years in prison. A Maryland resident who is seeking to purchase one of the banned guns, as well as three gun rights organizations including the Firearms Policy Coalition, sued in 2020, claiming the ban violates the Second Amendment. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 rejected the challenge because it said assault weapons "are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense." As such, the "excessively dangerous" firearms are not protected by the Second Amendment, the 4th Circuit decided. The 4th Circuit said it refused "to wield the Constitution to declare that military-style armaments which have become primary instruments of mass killing and terrorist attacks in the United States are beyond the reach of our nation's democratic processes." The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that the term "assault weapon" is a political term that is designed to exploit public confusion over machine guns and semi-automatic firearms. The banned weapons, they said, are "identical to any other semiautomatic firearm - arms that are exceedingly common and fully protected by the Second Amendment." Rhode Island's law, passed in 2022 as a response to mass shootings, bars most "large-capacity feeding" devices such as a magazine or drum that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The state calls it a "mild restriction on a particularly dangerous weapons accessory" and that in mass shooting situations, "any pause in fire, such as the pause to switch magazines, allows for precious seconds in which to escape or take defensive action." The law applied retroactively, meaning residents had to surrender or alter any banned magazine that they owned, and carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. Four gun owners and a registered firearms dealer sued, claiming the ban violated their Second Amendment rights, and that having to forfeit the magazines they owned violated the Constitution's prohibition on the government taking property without compensation. In 2024 the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims and refused to block the law. The Rhode Island plaintiffs told the Supreme Court that instead of abiding by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, the state's law "can only be understood as protest legislation imposing more restrictive bans on long-common arms." The Supreme Court has been buffeted in recent years by challenges to gun restrictions. On March 26, the court upheld a regulation targeting largely untraceable "ghost guns" imposed by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration. The court last year struck down a federal ban on "bump stock" devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
