Supreme Court decisions today

Justice Clarence Thomas opened the floodgates for all sorts of gun safety laws to be challenged in federal court.

Thomas' opinion also declined to resolve a "scholarly debate" over whether, when analyzing the historical context around modern gun laws, courts should be looking at 1791, the birthdate of the Second Amendment, or 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. "Laws addressing repeating crossbows, launcegays, dirks, dagges, skeines, stilladers, and other ancient weapons will be of little help to courts confronting modern problems," Breyer wrote. "It is true that people sometimes congregate in 'sensitive places,' and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations," Thomas said. Likewise, he said, if that societal problem was historically addressed using a type of regulation different than the one now before a court, that is also evidence that the modern law is unconstitutional. The ruling will also likely prompt a bevy of new legal challenges, with gun rights proponents now able to push more aggressive arguments for why a restriction should be struck down. Thomas changed the test courts are to use when analyzing the constitutionality of such regulations.

On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court struck down a restrictive New York gun law in a major ruling for gun rights.

This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m.. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who ...

More broadly, Alito pushed back against the contention by Breyer and New York that “the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law.” In Alito’s view, people want the right to carry a gun precisely because of those conditions. Indeed, he suggested, the Second Amendment’s reference to the right to “bear” arms most naturally refers to the right to carry a gun outside the home. As Biden released his statement, the Senate took a pivotal bipartisan vote that moved the federal gun-control package to the brink of passage. Heller, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. And with rare exceptions, Thomas added, there was no historical requirement that law-abiding citizens show the kind of special need for self-defense required by the New York law to carry a gun in public. That discussion, Alito posited, is largely irrelevant to the court’s actual holding – which, Alito stressed, “decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Moreover, he continued, restrictions that apply to the modern versions of “sensitive places” may also pass constitutional muster. Instead, Thomas wrote, if “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct,” the government has the burden to show that the regulation is consistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Bruen required anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun outside the home to show “proper cause” for the license. The court rejected a two-part test that many lower courts have used to review challenges to gun-control measures. The lower courts upheld the New York law against a challenge from two men whose applications for concealed-carry licenses were denied. Going forward, Thomas explained, courts should uphold gun restrictions only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.

A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decision may nullify a California law that requires sheriffs and police departments to ...

“This decision only has immediate consequences for the few counties in California that currently require concealed-carry applicants to show a special need or proper cause,” David A. Carrillo, executive director of Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center, said in an email. A mass shooting last month at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas has intensified California Democrats’ determination to further strengthen the state’s robust gun laws. A broader suite of tough California gun control laws could also be in jeopardy. Like New York, California has given local law enforcement some discretion in issuing permits — a commonality that Justice Clarence Thomas specifically noted in his opinion. Within hours of the court’s decision to strike down New York’s rules, Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta and state lawmakers announced legislation that would bar concealed firearms in places like courthouses and schools and require applicants to undergo assessments for whether they are dangerous to others, which could include checking for criminal records and restraining orders. The Supreme Court ruling will likely do away with the requirement entirely.

NEW YORK — Lawmakers laid out broad aims Thursday to mitigate a Supreme Court ruling striking down a strict New York gun law, including plans to tighten the ...

“This decision may be an affirmative step toward ending arbitrary licensing standards that have inhibited lawful Black and Brown gun ownership in New York,” the group said in a statement. “There is no place in the nation that is going to be impacted — based on this decision — more than New York City.” He pointed to court rulings in Illinois and Delaware that struck down gun restrictions in parks, for example. For instance, Hochul said the state may require applicants to undergo firearms training to obtain a concealed-carry permit — something currently required only in certain counties. Hochul said the city subways are another area she wants designated. The notion could face legal challenges, however. New York City has its own gun-permitting process. But the high court ruled that condition violates the Second Amendment. “New York still has some of the toughest gun laws in the country on the books, and we will continue to use these statutes to hold accountable those who commit gun violence,” he said. It’s not what New Yorkers want,” Gov. Kathy Hochul said. “This decision isn’t just reckless. It’s reprehensible.

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York gun law that places restrictions on carrying a concealed gun outside the home. Follow here for live ...

"It's an outrage and this is what Donald Trump intended: to stack the court with ultra, extreme conservative justices who are so far out of step with the American people." The House would next have to take up the bill before it can be signed into law. A final Senate vote could come as early as Thursday if all 100 senators consent to a time agreement. In the meantime, Sewell said the NYPD is evaluating the permit process. The mayor added, “The City of Buffalo continues to mourn the loss of 10 innocent members of our community at the hands of a mass murderer motivated by racism and hate. Unfortunately, today’s decision will eventually lead to more concealed weapons to be carried on the streets of Buffalo and America, rather than taking additional steps toward sensible gun reform. Overturning decades of reasonable firearm regulations will cost more lives," AMA President Jack Resneck Jr. said in a statement. Gendron is being held on a slew of state criminal charges, to which he has pleaded not guilty. The vote came just after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on New York's gun law. Whether gun restrictions can stand, Thomas wrote, must be measured by the nation's history, not by a state's assertion of urgent public safety interests. The conservative wing is likely to control those rulings, too. Most gun owners do not wear a holstered pistol at their hip in their bedroom or while sitting at the dinner table.

The Supreme Court ruled the Constitution provides a right to carry a gun outside the home, issuing a major decision on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

But they both warned the ruling would likely lead to more guns on the streets and would change how police and other public safety authorities work in the cities. "And mass shootings are just one part of the problem," he added. "In response to this ruling, we are closely reviewing our options — including calling a special session of the legislature. Gun owners in the state sued, contending that the requirement made it virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to get the necessary license. "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need." The state bans carrying handguns openly, but it allows residents to apply for licenses to carry them concealed.

The decision, based on a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, will make it harder for states and localities to restrict guns outside the home.

“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?” Justice Alito asked. “It imposes a task on the lower courts that judges cannot easily accomplish.” “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion,” he added. Since then, it has been almost silent on the scope of Second Amendment rights. In a concurring opinion, one that appeared to limit the sweep of the majority opinion, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., wrote that “shall issue” laws used objective criteria and remained presumptively constitutional. Justice Thomas wrote that states remained free to ban guns in sensitive places, giving a few examples: schools, government buildings, legislative assemblies, polling places and courthouses. “It is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section,” he wrote. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Since the start of this year, there have been 277 reported mass shootings — an average of more than one per day. Jonathan Lowy, a lawyer with Brady, a gun control group, said the decision was a grave misstep. “We’re already dealing with a major gun violence crisis,” Ms. Hochul said.

Supporters of the Second Amendment lauded the Supreme Court's decision on Thursday, while gun control advocates say it jeopardizes public health.

Thursday’s ruling establishes a new framework for determining the constitutionality of gun control laws. "Next week, I will have 16 new gun safety bills on my desk, including a bill that will allow individuals to sue gun makers and distributors for violating certain gun laws. "It is not always an option to wait on the phone when 911 police response times are several minutes and there’s a bad guy in your house or there’s a bad guy attacking you on the street." Historically, New Jersey law has made it difficult to obtain a carry license. For him, the ruling gives individuals the opportunity to defend themselves when faced with a threat. Supporters of the Second Amendment have lauded the decision, while gun control advocates say it jeopardizes public health.

After some restrictions on gun permits were deemed unconstitutional, legislators announced plans to craft new laws that honor the ruling while still ...

Mr. Bonta acknowledged that the ruling would outlaw the state’s requirement that Californians show “good cause” for carrying a gun in public, but he said other requirements appeared to remain constitutional, including background checks and firearms safety training. “He’s finally had his Second Amendment rights vindicated,” Mr. Beck said of his client. On Thursday, state lawmakers and the attorney general, Rob Bonta, said they have been tailoring legislation for some time with the New York case in mind. On Thursday, Mr. Newsom said California lawmakers “anticipated this moment” and would hear a bill next week to shore up the state’s “public carry” law, rewriting it to regulate gun use in ways that blunt the ruling’s impact. In rural counties or jurisdictions with Republican police chiefs or sheriffs — Sacramento, for example — permits to carry guns outside the home typically require little more than a gun safety class, a clean criminal record and a fee. “That is unacceptable.” “We are going to see a lot of litigation,” said Adam Winkler, a University of California, Los Angeles, professor who specializes in gun policy. Even then, the sheriff’s decision is “discretionary and final,” the local guidelines say. Instead, the court has now ruled that a “history and tradition” standard should be used to evaluate these questions. The United States already had been moving in the direction of easing concealed-carry requirements. They also must undergo 16 hours of firearms training, pass a background check and psychological examination, and have no history indicating a propensity toward violence or carelessness with firearms. Three additional states — Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island — may need to rewrite laws that set certain limits on how permits for carrying guns outside the home are issued, gun rights groups said.

The Supreme Court ruling focused on a New York gun law, but Justice Thomas also set a standard that upends the way other gun laws will be judged.

By rejecting the second step, the ruling Thursday blocks lower courts from weighing what a government says is its need for a gun law and instead requires judges to focus exclusively on the text of the Constitution and whether there are historical antecedents for the challenged gun law. Gun control groups aren’t throwing in the towel on defending regulations – and they hope to use the Thomas opinion to their advantage. Chris Stone, with the National Association for Gun Rights, said the earlier approach to gun laws "turned the Constitutional questions into a cost-benefit analysis on a Bill of Rights guarantee." "We remain optimistic that the vast majority of gun safety laws will withstand constitutional challenge, even under the court's new test." After the Supreme Court’s gun rulings in 2008 and 2010, lower courts adopted a two-step approach to deciding whether a gun law was constitutional. In other words, did the city or state have a good reason for the law and was the restriction limited to addressing that reason. "The implications for gun rights litigation are massive," Stone said. This spells doom for numerous state and federal gun laws and regulations." Kavanaugh stressed in a separate opinion Thursday, joined by Roberts, that he doesn’t view the court’s historical analysis as giving courts carte blanche to overturn every gun regulation on the books. That could include red flag laws, for instance, which permit courts to remove firearms from those deemed a threat but that didn't exist in 1791. Some of those disputes may revolve around how to define “sensitive places” where cities and states traditionally banned guns. It would also prevent partners in a current or recent relationship from buying guns if they have been convicted of domestic violence.

Full coverage of the Supreme Court decision to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion, overruling the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, leaving the ...

The Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that enshrined abortion as a constitutional right in the U.S. for almost half a century.

"Today's Court, that is, does not think there is anything of constitutional significance attached to a woman's control of her body and the path of her life," it said. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision on Friday overturned Roe v. The majority thereby substitutes a rule by judges for the rule of law." It also cast a pall over the nation's highest court, which immediately opened an investigation to find the source of the leak. Tall fencing was set up around the court building afterward, and Attorney General Merrick Garland directed the U.S. Marshals Service to "help ensure the Justices' safety." - The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision overturned Roe v. But Republican lawmakers in Washington, who are hoping to win big in the November midterm elections, initially focused more on the leak itself than on what it revealed. It drew harsh scrutiny from the court's critics, many of whom were already concerned about the politicization of the country's most powerful deliberative body, where justices are appointed for life. - Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. Roberts vowed that the work of the court "will not be affected in any way" by the leak, which he described as a "betrayal" intended to "undermine the integrity of our operations." Almost half the states are expected to outlaw or severely restrict abortion as a result of the Supreme Court's decision, which is related to a highly restrictive new Mississippi abortion law. - Almost half the states are expected to outlaw or severely restrict abortion as a result of the Supreme Court's decision on a Mississippi case known as Dobbs v.

The Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states to ban abortions. Follow Newsweek for the latest.

The Supreme Court overturned the 50-year precedent set in Roe v. "We reject the tactics and threats of groups that use destruction and violence as a means to an end," the joint statement from Planned Parenthood Federation of America, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Liberate Abortion Campaign said. - The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. The poll's results mark a drop from last year, when 36 percent of American adults expressed confidence in the Supreme Court. "We also recognize that those most loudly lifting up the actions of groups threatening violence have historically been silent as health centers, providers, and patients have been under threat for far too long," it said. "We know you may be feeling a lot of things right now — hurt, anger, confusion," Planned Parenthood said. There has been a 2 percent increase among Republicans in their confidence levels from mid-2021 to June 2022. - The draft decision forDobbs v. The Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Planned Parenthood and over 100 other reproductive rights organizations and providers released a statement condemning violence in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to overturn abortion rights. American confidence in the Supreme Court hit a record low shortly before the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Confidence in the court among Democrats last year was at about 30 percent and at about 40 percent among independents.

The Mississippi case was the culmination of a generations-long push on the right to overturn or weaken the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on abortion.

That is a more aggressive position than the state took when it first brought the case to the court in 2020. For years, the legal battle over abortion has focused on regulating the procedure, such as requirements that minors inform their parents before ending a pregnancy or requiring doctors performing the procedure to have privileges at nearby hospitals. Conservatives enjoy a 6-3 majority on the court for the first time since the Roosevelt administration. The effort to roll back that right was aided by President Donald Trump, who was elected in 2016 in part on a promise to name justices who would overturn Roe. Over the course of a single term, Trump managed to put three conservative justices on the high court. "Today, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has achieved the GOP’s dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement. Because the issue is so divisive and personal, the state argued, it should be decided by state lawmakers accountable to voters rather than by federal courts whose jurists enjoy lifetime appointments. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the last abortion clinic in Mississippi, challenged the state law in 2018, asserting it conflicted with Roe and a subsequent case in 1992 that upheld Roe. A 7-2 majority in Roe v. Though not unexpected, the court's decision hit like a political and cultural earthquake, reshaping the relationship between millions of Americans and the government. Experts say the decision may set off challenges to other rights that, like abortion, have been grounded in the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process. "After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had," Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in a dissent joined by the court's two other liberal justices. - The 6-3 decision from the Supreme Court said Roe v. "Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences."