Second Amendment Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Supreme Court appears likely to rule against Mexico in suit against gun-makers for cartel violence

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:20:09 +0000

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court appears likely to rule against Mexico in suit against gun-makers for cartel violence

March 5, 2025, 12:46 pm CST

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to side with U.S. gun companies arguing that Mexico cannot sue over the flow of firearms into the country. (Photo by Luis Barron/Eyepix Group/Sipa USA via the Associated Press)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to side with U.S. gun companies arguing that Mexico cannot sue over the flow of firearms into the country because of a 2005 law providing gun-makers with immunity for third-party crimes committed with their products.

“After a nearly two-hour argument,” the Washington Post reports, “a majority of justices—if not a unanimous court—appeared likely to block the lawsuit from proceeding, with several suggesting Mexico had not shown a close enough connection between guns made in the United States and drug cartel violence.”

Several other publications also reported that the Supreme Court appeared sympathetic to gun company arguments, including Reuters, the New York Times, CNN and SCOTUSblog.

Mexico argues that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not shield gun companies because they sell to “red-flag dealers” known for illegally selling to straw purchasers who traffic guns across the border. Mexico’s suit seeks injunctive relief and about $10 billion in damages, according to an ABA Journal case preview.

The suit cites a provision in the law that allows civil liability when businesses knowingly violate a state or a federal law regarding the sale or marketing of firearms or when the the companies aid and abet the violation. The violation must also be the proximate cause of the harm—in this case, drug cartel violence—that is the basis of the suit.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston had allowed Mexico to pursue the suit.

Suit defendants Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms, a gun distributor, asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 1st Circuit’s decision. Initial defendants included seven firearms manufacturers and one wholesaler, but a federal judge dismissed six of them for lack of personal jurisdiction while the cert petition was pending, according to a brief filed by the gun companies.

Noel J. Francisco, a Jones Day partner and a former U.S. solicitor general during President Donald Trump’s first term, argued for the companies.

Mexico “asserts that defendants are liable for every illegal sale by every retailer in America because they know that a small percentage of firearms are sold illegally and don’t do more to stop it,” he said. “If Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk and crash.”

In an exchange with Catherine Stetson, a lawyer for the Mexican government, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the suit does not contend that gun companies violate any U.S. laws.

Instead, the suit allegations “just go to whether or not the defendant had knowledge that at the end of the day, … some dealers might be doing something wrong,” Jackson said.

The case is Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

The SCOTUSblog case page is here.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Supreme Court appears likely to rule against Mexico in suit against gun-makers for cartel violence appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Supreme Court denies certiorari in Andre Dubois gun case

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:58:53 +0000

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 07: United States Supreme Court (front row L-R) Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan, (back row L-R) Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pose for their official portrait at the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court building on October 7, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have avoided resolving the “state of disarray” among the federal circuit courts on gun rights when they sent a case involving a federal felon in possession statute back to the circuit court for reconsideration.

The high court vacated remanded the appeal on Monday of Andre Dubois, whose conviction for sending firearms overseas came under scrutiny after the Supreme Court handed down a major gun ruling while his appeal was still pending.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against Dubois in March. Dubois had tried to ship firearms wrapped in aluminum foil and hidden inside two deep fryers from an Express Copy Print & Ship store in Georgia to the Commonwealth of Dominica in 2018. After federal officials discovered and seized the shipment, Dubois was charged and convicted under the federal “felon in possession” statute.

While Dubois’s appeal of his conviction was pending, the Supreme Court handed down the landmark gun decision in New York Rifle Assn. v. Bruen, in which the six-member majority ruled that New York’s gun licensing regulations violated the Second Amendment, because they restricted gun rights in a way that was not sufficiently grounded in “historical tradition.”

In response, Dubois raised the argument that his conviction should be vacated because under the new Bruen precedent, the federal statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutional.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed and ruled that the even though Bruen significantly widened gun rights, the felon in possession statute is still constitutional, and Dubois’s conviction still stands. A three-judge panel of the circuit court ruled that Bruen reinforced the holding of District of Columbia v. Heller — which said that full gun rights extend only to “law-abiding, responsible citizens.”

Dubois appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that the lower courts are in a “state of disarray” over their conflicting interpretations of the felon-in-possession statute post-Bruen. On the practical side, Dubois also argued in his brief that, “Someone who attempted to evade their taxes 20 years ago and has not committed a crime since should retain their Second Amendment rights.” and that likewise, “Someone who committed felony shoplifting at 18 and is now a 40-year old mother who has never been in trouble since should retain their Second Amendment rights.”

The justices sidestepped Dubois’s request, and instead, vacated his conviction and returned the appeal to the Eleventh Circuit with instructions to reconsider in light of the Court’s June 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi.

In Rahimi Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that some lower courts had “misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases,” and advocated for a somewhat narrower reading of the Bruen case.

Rahimi was an 8-1 ruling with Justice Clarence Thomas — Bruen’s author — as the lone dissenter; it upheld a federal law restricting domestic abusers from possessing firearms, and noted that recent Second Amendment jurisprudence “were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.”

“From the earliest days of the common law, firearm regulations have included provisions barring people from misusing weapons to harm or menace others,” the chief justice wrote, suggesting a softened version of Bruen’s “historical analogue” mandate as he provided numerous historical examples of dangerous people being denied firearms.

In Dubois’ brief to the justices, he specifically argued against a remand to the Eleventh Circuit, calling such an outcome, “an exercise in futility,” of which “the government is well aware.”

Dubois argued, “Post-Rahimi, the split among the circuits has only hardened,” with vehement disagreement among judges and circuits. Dubois urged the justice to grant certiorari to resolve the split “and restore national harmony” with respect to Second Amendment challenges to the statute.

The justices, for their part, obviously did not agree.

Source link

The post Supreme Court denies certiorari in Andre Dubois gun case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Source link

The post Supreme Court orders reconsideration of appellate decision on youths carrying guns appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

5th Circuit becomes ‘proving ground’ for aggressive arguments by conservatives

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 16 Sep 2024 12:29:22 +0000

Judiciary

5th Circuit becomes ‘proving ground’ for aggressive arguments by conservatives

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 4, 2024, 8:59 am CDT

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans has become “a proving ground for some of the most aggressive conservative arguments in American law,” according to the New York Times. (Photo by William A. Morgan/Shutterstock)

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans has become “a proving ground for some of the most aggressive conservative arguments in American law,” according to the New York Times.

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the right to abortion in June 2022, for example, the 5th Circuit had teed the case up for Supreme Court review, the New York Times reported last week.

In the term beginning this fall, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear five 5th Circuit cases, including a decision challenging the regulation of untraceable “ghost guns” that are made with kits.

The 5th Circuit’s decisions have been “so audacious” that the Supreme Court overruled the appeals court seven times last term, according to the article.

Overturned decisions would have curbed access to the abortion drug mifepristone, would have allowed gun possession by domestic abusers, and would have allowed states to sue over U.S. social media pressure.

Six of the 5th Circuit’s 17 judges are appointees of former President Donald Trump, who appointed 54 appeals court nominees, the most of any president since former President Jimmy Carter, the article reports.

According to a article in the Texas Tribune, the 5th Circuit’s adoption of conservative positions, even when overturned, helps shift the debate to the right.

Decisions by the 5th Circuit “have the effect of taking legal theories that were off the wall and putting them on the wall,” said Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, in an interview with the Texas Tribune.

Even when conservative decisions don’t prevail, “the effect is to make these cases of national import and give credibility to those arguments,” Vladeck said.

Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School, told the New York Times that the 5th Circuit’s conservative opinions could stem partly from appellate judges jockeying for a nomination to the Supreme Court.

“If you’re MAGA and you think Donald Trump is going to win the election, you can be in the right lane or hard-right lane,” Amar said. “The hard-right lane is the better lane to be in if you want to get yourself nominated.”

Source link

The post 5th Circuit becomes ‘proving ground’ for aggressive arguments by conservatives appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Expect another momentous year at the Supreme Court

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 09 Jan 2024 06:08:13 +0000

U.S. Supreme Court

I do not recall ever facing a new year with such a sense of trepidation and even fear of what to expect. The presidential election campaign of 2024 promises to be unlike any we have seen in American history, and it seems inevitable that the U.S. Supreme Court will play a large role. And the docket for the current term is filled with major issues about controversial matters, such as abortion, administrative law, gun rights and the First Amendment and social media.

The 2024 presidential election

Even with the election 10 months away, already it is clear that the Supreme Court is going to be involved. On Dec. 19, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that Donald Trump was disqualified from being on the Republican primary ballot for president because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This provision precludes anyone who has previously taken an oath of office from holding public office if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. On Dec. 28, the Secretary of State of Maine ruled that Trump was disqualified from being on the ballot in that state. On the other hand, the Minnesota Supreme Court came to an opposite conclusion.

It is important for the United States Supreme Court to take the Colorado case and decide quickly whether Trump is disqualified from being on the ballot. It is urgent that this issue be resolved early and for the entire country before a significant number of primaries. The nightmare would be for the issue to come to the court only after Trump had sewn up the nomination or even worse, after he had been selected as president by the Electoral College.

But this is not the only case coming to the court with implications for the election. Trump faces criminal prosecution in federal court in Washington, D.C., for his efforts to undermine the 2020 election. Trump has claimed that he has absolute immunity from prosecution because it involves actions he took during the time he was president. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled against Trump’s claim of immunity, concluding that his actions were not in carrying out the duties of the presidency. Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to grant review before the matter was heard by the D.C. Circuit. But on Dec. 22, the court, without opinion, denied this request. The D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments on Jan. 9, and whatever it decides, it is likely there will be review in the Supreme Court. The crucial question will be whether the court grants expedited review so that the criminal trial can proceed before the November 2024 election.

The court granted review in Fischer v. United States, which involves whether a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. §1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, includes acts unrelated to congressional investigations. Although not the statute used in the Trump prosecution, it is the basis for most of the cases against those involved in the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.

And, of course, there likely will be many other suits during the election campaign and perhaps after the November election.

Abortion

The Supreme Court has granted review in its first case concerning abortion since overruling Roe v. Wade in 2022. In Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which has not yet been scheduled for oral arguments, the court will review a 5th Circuit decision that overturned actions of the FDA which made it easier to prescribe mifepristone, a drug used to induce abortions. Although the 5th Circuit overruled a district court decision that would have taken mifepristone entirely off the market, it found that the FDA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it made it easier in 2016 and 2021 to administer the drug.

In 2016, the FDA said that the drug could be used until the 10th week of pregnancy rather than just to the seventh week, reduced the number of required in-person clinical visits from three to one and allowed non-physician health care providers licensed under state law to prescribe and dispense drugs—such as nurse practitioners—to prescribe and dispense mifepristone. It also reduced the dosage from 600 mg to 200 mg.
In 2021, the FDA eliminated the requirement that mifepristone be obtained in person; it was the only drug where there was such a requirement.

It is quite possible the court will not reach the question of the FDA’s authority, instead deciding the case on standing grounds. One of the questions presented is whether the doctors who oppose abortion are injured by the easier availability of mifepristone.

More than half of all abortions in the United States are medically induced using mifepristone. In states that have greatly restricted abortions, including some that have prohibited virtually all abortions since the court overruled Roe v. Wade, medically induced abortions have taken on even greater importance.

Administrative law

This will be an important term for the Roberts court and the administrative state. On Nov. 29, the court heard oral arguments in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, that poses several important issues: Does it violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial for a federal agency to impose monetary penalties? Is it an impermissible delegation of powers for Congress to let the agency choose whether to proceed in federal court or in agency proceedings? Is it a violation of separation of powers to have administrative law judges with protection from removal when there are limits on removal of the top agency officials?

On Jan. 17, the court will hear two cases—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce—about whether it should end Chevron deference, the principle that courts should defer to federal agencies when they interpret the statutes they operate under. These are much anticipated cases about whether the court will overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), which held that federal courts should give deference to agencies when they are carrying out their authority under federal statutes.

First Amendment and social media

Despite the enormous importance of the internet and social media for freedom of speech, there have been relatively few Supreme Court cases about it. That will change this term, as there are three sets of cases addressing the issue.

On Oct. 31, the court heard oral arguments in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed. Both involve the question of whether it violates the First Amendment for public officials, with private social media accounts where government business is discussed, to bar critics from access.

In Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, which have not yet been set for oral arguments, the court will decide the constitutionality of state laws that prohibit internet and social media platforms from engaging in content moderation. The cases involve laws in Florida and Texas respectively. The 11th Circuit struck down the Florida law as violating the First Amendment, while the 5th Circuit upheld the Texas law. The cases have huge significance in terms of the ability of state governments to regulate the internet.

Finally, there are two cases, also not yet set for oral argument, that involve when the speech of government officials is so coercive as to infringe the First Amendment. In Murthy v. Missouri, the 5th Circuit found that the Biden administration violated the First Amendment by encouraging and pressuring social media companies to remove false speech. In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the court will consider whether Maria Vullo, then the head of New York’s Department of Financial Services, violated the First Amendment when she urged banks and insurance companies to consider the “reputational risks” from doing business with gun-rights groups like the National Rifle Association. In 1963, in Bantam Books v. Sullivan, the court found that threats of prosecution by government officials were coercion that violated the First Amendment. The court has not addressed this since, but it will do so in these two cases.

Guns

On Nov. 7, the court heard oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, which involves the constitutionality of a federal statute making it a crime for a person under a restraining order in a domestic violence case from having a firearm. The 5th Circuit declared this unconstitutional because such restrictions did not exist in 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted. Rahimi provides the court the opportunity to clarify the test that it announced in 2022 in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The decision likely will have great ramifications for many other federal, state and local gun regulations.

In conclusion

In just the last two years, the court has overruled Roe v. Wade, dramatically expanded gun rights, significantly changed the law concerning the religion clauses of the First Amendment, imposed a substantial new limit on administrative agencies (the major questions doctrine), effectively overruled 45 years of precedents allowing universities to engage in affirmative action, and for the first time, found a First Amendment right for businesses to violate anti-discrimination laws when they are engaged in expressive activity. There is every reason to believe that 2024 will be another momentous year for the Supreme Court.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and author of the newly published book A Momentous Year in the Supreme Court. He is an expert in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He’s also the author of The Case Against the Supreme Court; The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, written with Howard Gillman; and Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights.

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

Source link

The post Expect another momentous year at the Supreme Court appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Second Amendment Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Supreme Court appears likely to rule against Mexico in suit against gun-makers for cartel violence

Supreme Court appears likely to rule against Mexico in suit against gun-makers for cartel violence

Supreme Court denies certiorari in Andre Dubois gun case

Top news stories of 2024

Top news stories of 2024

Top 10 articles on ABAJournal.com

Top five ABA Journal magazine articles

2nd Circuit sticks to its guns on constitutionality of concealed-carry law after SCOTUS remand

2nd Circuit sticks to its guns on constitutionality of concealed-carry law after SCOTUS remand

Supreme Court orders reconsideration of appellate decision on youths carrying guns

Supreme Court orders reconsideration of appellate decision on youths carrying guns

5th Circuit becomes ‘proving ground’ for aggressive arguments by conservatives

5th Circuit becomes ‘proving ground’ for aggressive arguments by conservatives

Expect another momentous year at the Supreme Court

The 2024 presidential election

Abortion

Administrative law

First Amendment and social media

Guns

In conclusion