Latest news with #4thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppeals
The Hill
19 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court sides with parents seeking opt outs from LGBTQ books in schools
The Supreme Court on Friday in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines ruled in favor of a group of parents in Montgomery County, Md., seeking to opt out their children from instruction that uses books with LGBTQ themes. It hands another win to religious rights advocates, who have regularly earned the backing of the high court's conservative majority in a series of high-profile cases. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the six Republican-appointed justices, found the lack of an opt-out option likely substantially burdens parents' constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. The decision sends the case back to a lower court for a final decision on whether that requires the county to provide an opt out. In the meantime, Alito said the school district must notify parents in advance and enable them to have their children removed from the instruction. 'In the absence of an injunction, the parents will continue to be put to a choice: either risk their child's exposure to burdensome instruction, or pay substantial sums for alternative educational services. As we have explained, that choice unconstitutionally burdens the parents' religious exercise,' Alito wrote. The court's three Democratic-appointed justices dissented. 'The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools,' wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,' Sotomayor continued. 'The harm will not be borne by educators alone: Children will suffer too. Classroom disruptions and absences may well inflict long-lasting harm on students' learning and development.' Located just across the border from Washington, D.C., Montgomery County runs one of the nation's largest and most diverse public school systems. In fall 2022, the county began introducing books with gay and transgender characters in language arts curriculum in elementary schools. Initially, the county allowed opt outs before rescinding the option as a flood of parents sought to do so on religious grounds. A coalition comprising an organization formed to fight the policy as well as Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents sued. The parents appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal district judge rejected their bid to require an opt-out option and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in a 2-1 vote. The parents were represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which regularly brings religion cases before the high court. They were backed by the Trump administration, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other religious groups, more than five dozen Republican members of Congress, 26 Republican state attorneys general and various conservative legal groups. Montgomery County was backed by another coalition of religious groups, Democratic attorneys general from Washington, D.C., and 18 states, the American Civil Liberties Union and LGBTQ advocacy groups. The case is one of several at the Supreme Court this term implicating religious rights. The court deadlocked 4-4 on the bid to create the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school, leaving intact a lower ruling blocking the Oklahoma school's contract. And the justices are also weighing whether Wisconsin can refuse to extend its religious exemption from paying unemployment tax to Catholic Charities Bureau by questioning whether it has a religious purpose.
The Hill
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
West Virginia asks Supreme Court to hear trans athlete case after ruling on gender-affirming care
West Virginia on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to hear a case against a state law barring transgender athletes from girls' and women's school sports teams, citing the high court's recent decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. In a statement, West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey (R) said the state is confident in the merits of its case and defense of its law, the 'Save Women's Sports Act' that former Gov. Jim Justice (R) signed in 2021. 'The law is constitutional and complies with Title IX,' McCuskey said Tuesday, referencing the federal law against sex discrimination that President Trump's administration has said prohibits transgender girls from participating on girls' school sports teams. McCuskey praised the justice's ruling in the Tennessee case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, as 'a landmark decision' but said it did little to answer the specific question West Virginia first posed to the court in 2023. 'That is why we are urging the Supreme Court, through our supplemental filing, to take our case and allow the women and girls of West Virginia to begin enjoying the protections of the Save Women's Sports Act,' he said. The Supreme Court rejected a previous request to lift a lower court order that has since 2023 prevented West Virginia from enforcing its law against a now-high school student who throws discus and shot put for her school's girls' track-and-field team. When the student, Becky Pepper Jackson, first sued the state over its restrictions on transgender athletes, she was 11 years old and in middle school. Last spring, West Virginia's former attorney general, now-Gov. Patrick Morrisey (R), asked the high court to intervene for the second time. The justices have yet to respond. West Virginia's supplemental filing argues the Supreme Court's Skrmetti ruling warrants a fresh review of the law, which it says confronts 'a serious social debate.' A previous decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the measure violates Title IX and the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. 'United States v. Skrmetti disclaims any guidance on the Title IX question presented here, and the decision's equal-protection analysis does not address critical questions unique to athletics,' the filing, submitted by McCuskey, the Alliance Defending Freedom and attorneys representing members of the West Virginia Board of Education, says. It asks that the justices take up the case rather than sending it back to the 4th Circuit for further review, citing incongruity in how federal courts have responded to challenges of similar laws in over half the country. 'A remand will not resolve these circuit conflicts,' the filing argues. 'Assume the unlikely scenario where the Fourth Circuit changes course on remand and holds that a law assigning athletic teams by sex does not differentiate based on transgender status or, alternatively, holds that transgender status does not constitute a suspect class. Both circuit splits would remain: the first would move from 2–3 to 1–4, and the second from 4–2 to 3–3. The Court should thus review now.' The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Jackson, did not immediately return a request for comment on the filing. In its ruling last week, the Supreme Court declined address whether transgender status is a 'quasi-suspect class' under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In a concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that transgender people are neither a 'suspect' nor 'quasi-suspect' class, classifications that would trigger heightened scrutiny when laws discriminate against them. 'Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy — ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams,' she wrote. 'If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz[ing] legislative choices' in all these domains.' West Virginia's filing on Tuesday says the Supreme Court should grant its petition and explain that laws restricting trans athletes' participation in girls' sports do not classify based on transgender status 'or hold that transgender-based classifications do not affect a suspect class.' The filing also argues that the high court must decide whether its reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity, can be applied to other statutes, including Title IX. The Supreme Court declined to answer that question in its Skrmetti decision. 'Girls deserve a safe, fair playing field today — not years from now — and the ruling's present harm to women and girls is stark,' the filing says, referring to the 4th Circuit ruling that is blocking the law. The Supreme Court must act to resolve a question 'of national importance,' the filing argues, referencing an executive order signed by Trump in February that threatens to revoke federal funding from states and schools that continue allowing trans athletes to participate in girls' and women's sports. 'Should they follow an executive order that threatens all their funding—even funding unrelated to athletics? Or should they follow a court order that has not yet been applied to them?' the filing states. 'The years of delay that would follow were the Court to grant, vacate, and remand here would not help, especially when Skrmetti did not purport to address the legal questions that drive this case.' 'The Court should take up this petition,' the filing adds, 'and resolve this 'important issue' once and for all.'
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court won't review bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 2 preserved Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons and Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines, declining for now to decide if they meet the high court's controversial bar for gun restrictions. While that's a victory for gun control advocates − and it came over the objections of several conservative justices − the issue could come back to the high court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that challenges to other bans on assault-style weapons are being considered in lower courts and, "in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon." Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas said they would have taken up now both Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons and Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines. "I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America," Thomas wrote in his dissent. "That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners throughout the country." Kavanaugh likewise wrote that gun rights advocates have a strong case that because AF-15s are legal in most states, they can be considered to be in "common use" by law-abiding citizens so should be allowed under the court's past interpretations of the Constitution. To not violate the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has said, a restriction must be grounded in historic tradition. Lower courts have been struggling to apply this standard. Gun rights advocates challenging Maryland's ban said it doesn't pass that test because AR-15s are one of the nation's most popular weapons, proof that there's a history of allowing them. Maryland argues the ban is constitutional because the nation has long regulated exceptionally dangerous weapons. But even some of the lower court judges who agreed the ban doesn't violate the Second Amendment said they need more guidance from the Supreme Court. Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the high court's 2022 ruling 'has proven to be a labyrinth for lower courts, including our own, with only the one-dimensional history-and-tradition test as a compass.' Tasked with 'shifting through the sands of time,' Diaz wrote in a concurring opinion, lower courts 'are asking for help.' The Supreme Court's most recent ruling on the Second Amendment – a 2024 decision upholding a gun control law intended to protect victims of domestic violence – offered little clarity, he said. In that ruling, the Supreme Court said lower courts were misunderstanding their methodology. A gun regulation must have only a 'historical analogue' and not a 'historical twin' to be upheld, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. His opinion did not say how that test should be applied to regulations like Maryland's or Rhode Island's. Maryland passed its ban after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, one of the deadliest school shootings in the nation's history. The law prohibits dozens of firearms including the AK-47s and certain AR-15s. Nine other states, the District of Columbia, and various cities have also restricted assault weapons. The appeals court upheld Maryland's ban in 2017. But after the Supreme Court set the historical tradition test in its 2022 decision known as Bruen, the justices directed the appeals court to reconsider its ruling. Writing for the majority, 4th U.S. Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, said the ban 'fits comfortably within our nation's tradition of firearms regulation.' 'Our nation has a strong tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons once it becomes clear that they are exacting an inordinate toll on public safety and societal wellbeing,' he wrote. Gun rights groups said that if Maryland is allowed to ban 'the most popular rifle in the country,' then no firearm will be protected from regulation except handguns that were at the center of the court's 2008 decision expanding gun rights. In that decision, known as Heller, the court said those rights do have limits – which are guided by the nation's tradition of banning 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' While Maryland focuses on the 'dangerous' aspect of AR-15s, gun rights advocates say the weapon's popularity shows AR-15s are not 'unusual.' Rhode Island, in 2022, made it a felony to have a firearm magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Four gun owners and a gun store challenged the ban, arguing the state is thumbing its nose at the court's 2022 decision. A federal district judge declined to put the ban on hold, saying the challenge was unlikely to succeed. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. A three-judge panel wrote that the ban doesn't burden the right to self-defense because a large-capacity magazines are not necessary outside 'Hollywood-inspired scenarios in which a homeowner would need to fend off a platoon of well-armed assailants without having to swap out magazines.' The court also said the ban is consistent with past restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons used mostly for crime and mass violence such as sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and Bowie knives. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha told the Supreme Court it did not need to get involved at this stage as the record is still being developed while the challenge continues. The ban, Neronha wrote in a filing, 'imposes a relatively mild restriction on a particularly dangerous weapon accessory.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court won't review assault-style weapons, high capacity magazine bans
USA Today
02-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court won't review bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines
Supreme Court won't review bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines The court declined to hear challenges to Maryland's ban on AR-15s and Rhode Island's ban on powerful firearm magazines. Show Caption Hide Caption Mexico takes on American gun companies at Supreme Court Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism as Mexico attempted to hold American gun companies responsible for drug cartel violence. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 2 preserved Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons and Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines, declining to decide if they meet the high court's controversial bar for gun restrictions. To not violate the 2nd Amendment, the court said in 2022, a restriction must be grounded in historic tradition. Lower courts have been struggling to apply this standard. Gun rights advocates challenging Maryland's ban said it doesn't pass that test because AR-15s are one of the nation's most popular weapons, proof that there's a history of allowing them. Maryland argues the ban is constitutional because the nation has long regulated exceptionally dangerous weapons. But even some of the lower court judges who agreed the ban doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment said they need more guidance from the Supreme Court. Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the high court's 2022 ruling 'has proven to be a labyrinth for lower courts, including our own, with only the one-dimensional history-and-tradition test as a compass.' Tasked with 'shifting through the sands of time,' Diaz wrote in a concurring opinion, lower courts 'are asking for help.' The Supreme Court's most recent ruling on the 2nd Amendment – a 2024 decision upholding a gun control law intended to protect victims of domestic violence – offered little clarity, he said. In that ruling, the Supreme Court said lower courts were misunderstanding their methodology. A gun regulation must have only a 'historical analogue' and not a 'historical twin' to be upheld, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. His opinion did not say how that test should be applied to regulations like Maryland's or Rhode Island's. Maryland banned AR-15s after Sandy Hook shooting Maryland passed its ban after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, one of the deadliest school shootings in the nation's history. The law prohibits dozens of firearms including the AK-47s and certain AR-15s. Nine other states, the District of Columbia, and various cities have also restricted assault weapons. The appeals court upheld Maryland's ban in 2017. But after the Supreme Court set the historical tradition test in its 2022 decision known as Bruen, the justices directed the appeals court to reconsider its ruling. Writing for the majority, 4th U.S. Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, said the ban 'fits comfortably within our nation's tradition of firearms regulation.' 'Our nation has a strong tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons once it becomes clear that they are exacting an inordinate toll on public safety and societal wellbeing,' he wrote. Gun rights groups said that if Maryland is allowed to ban 'the most popular rifle in the country,' then no firearm will be protected from regulation except handguns that were at the center of the court's 2008 decision expanding gun rights. In that decision, known as Heller, the court said those rights do have limits – which are guided by the nation's tradition of banning 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' While Maryland focuses on the 'dangerous' aspect of AR-15s, gun rights advocates say the weapon's popularity shows AR-15s are not 'unusual.' Rhode Island made it a felony to have a large-capacity magazine Rhode Island, in 2022, made it a felony to have a firearm magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Four gun owners and a gun store challenged the ban, arguing the state is thumbing its nose at the court's 2022 decision. A federal district judge declined to put the ban on hold, saying the challenge was unlikely to succeed. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. A three-judge panel wrote that the ban doesn't burden the right to self-defense because a large-capacity magazines are not necessary outside 'Hollywood-inspired scenarios in which a homeowner would need to fend off a platoon of well-armed assailants without having to swap out magazines.' The court also said the ban is consistent with past restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons used mostly for crime and mass violence such as sawed-off shotguns, machine guns and Bowie knives. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha told the Supreme Court it did not need to get involved at this stage as the record is still being developed while the challenge continues. The ban, Neronha wrote in a filing, 'imposes a relatively mild restriction on a particularly dangerous weapon accessory.'
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge orders government to report steps it's taken to facilitate Venezuelan man's return to US
A day after a federal appeals court affirmed a court order directing the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a deported 20-year-old Venezuelan man to the United States, the judge overseeing the case has ordered the administration to report "the steps they have taken" to do so. The man, identified in court records by the pseudonym "Cristian," challenged his removal after he was sent in mid-March on a flight to El Salvador after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a "hybrid criminal state" that is invading the United States. U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, found in April that Cristian's removal violated a class action settlement on behalf of individuals who entered the U.S. as unaccompanied minors then later sought asylum, and she directed the government to take steps toward "aiding, assisting or making easier" Cristian's release and return -- similar to the remedy ordered by the judge in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. MORE: Appeals court sides with Venezuelan man seeking return to US from El Salvador Judge Gallagher on Tuesday said she wants the government to provide, by May 27, a status report that includes Cristian's current physical location and custodial status; what steps, if any, defendants have taken to facilitate Cristian's return to the United States; and what additional steps defendants will take, and when, to facilitate Cristian's return. This is the second time that Gallagher, a 2019 Trump appointee, has asked the government to provide this information; the previous time the government filed a motion asking Gallagher to vacate her order, which she denied. The government then appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay of the order, which was denied on Monday. In her April ruling, Gallagher determined that Cristian's removal to El Salvador was in breach of an existing settlement agreement, finalized in 2024, that protected migrants who entered the U.S. as unaccompanied minors from deportation until there was a final determination on their asylum claims. The administration has argued -- unsuccessfully thus far -- that Cristian's removal under the Alien Enemies Act Proclamation was not a violation of the settlement agreement, and that Cristian is an admitted Tren de Aragua member, which he denies. Responding to Monday's ruling by the 4th Circuit, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement, "We strongly disagree with the Court's ruling. No error was made in this individual's return. This alien is a self-admitted Tren de Aragua gang member and illegal alien from Venezuela. Along with millions of other illegal aliens, he crossed our border illegally under the previous administration." "The President and Secretary Noem will not allow a foreign terrorist organization to operate on American soil," McLaughlin said. "If the court forces his return, he will be removed again." Judge orders government to report steps it's taken to facilitate Venezuelan man's return to US originally appeared on
