(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by a group of gun-rights advocates seeking to overturn Maryland‘s ban on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines under the Second Amendment.
The decision, a major win for gun-safety advocates, leaves in place a ruling by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which ruled that the state may constitutionally prohibit sale and possession of the weapons.
The state legislation, enacted in 2013 after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, specifically targets the AR-15 — the most popular rifle in America with 20-30 million in circulation. They are legal in 41 of the 50 states.
Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision, saying they would have taken up the case to decide the issue nationwide. Legal challenges to other state bans remain pending in lower courts.
“I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,” Justice Thomas wrote. “The question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners throughout the country.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the court’s decision to let the Maryland law stand, for now, but wrote separately to call the appeals court ruling “questionable.” Kavanaugh said that he expects the high court to weigh in formally on the legality of the AR-15 in the “next term or two.”
Maryland has seen a decline in gun violence since the enactment of a series of laws aimed at curbing access to dangerous weapons.
Officials particularly credit a series of federal, state and local restrictions imposed on gun kits in 2022 and 2023 with slowing online sales of untraceable firearms, requiring background and age checks of buyers and banning some kit sales in Maryland altogether.
While the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has issued rulings expanding the rights of gun owners, recent decisions have underscored support for some longstanding restrictions. In June 2024, the high court upheld a ban on firearm purchases and possession by Americans under domestic violence restraining orders. Earlier this year the Court also upheld federal regulations targeting ghost guns.
(WASHINGTON) — Many Republican senators dismissed the idea of overruling the Senate parliamentarian after she rejected key Medicaid provisions in Trump’s tax and immigration bill Thursday, which dealt a blow to Republicans’ plan to slash costs in the budget package.
This sentiment comes as Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said for months that he was opposed to going against the Senate’s rule enforcer.
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough on Thursday denied the GOP plan to cap states’ ability to collect more federal Medicaid funding through health care care provider taxes — a controversial provision that would have funded much of the bill’s tax cuts. Most of the savings in the bill came from the changes in Medicaid.
MacDonough’s ruling means that Senate Republicans will need to retool the provision or scrap it entirely if they want to move forward with attempting to pass the bill using only GOP votes.
The ruling is a major setback for Republican leadership, who are under pressure to expeditiously move it to the Senate floor to meet Trump’s Fourth of July deadline for passage. This ruling will require potentially major reworks of the bill with relatively little time to accomplish them. And no matter how they change it, leaders are likely to frustrate some faction of the Republican conference, which could imperil the bill’s passage.
A number of Republicans said on Thursday morning that they’d work to tweak language in the bill and send it back to MacDonough for review — but would not overrule her. It’s also unlikely that the Senate would move forward with the bill without the provider tax provisions, some said.
The Senate has “no intention of overruling her,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said of MacDonough. “But I think we’ll take another shot.”
Other Republican senators said that this will delay the timeline for passing the bill, which was set to move through the chamber this weekend.
“I think we’ll make another run at it … my guess is that they’ll continue to work,” Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt said.
“Yeah, could push [the timeline] back,” Schmitt said about MacDonough’s ruling. “We’ll see. But we’re committed to being here through the weekend, so I don’t think it changes that overall time frame.”
Republican Sen. Rick Scott said MacDonough’s ruling is “pretty frustrating,” but rejected the idea that the Senate would overrule the parliamentarian.
“What we’ve got to do is work through this process and come up with something that fulfills the Trump agenda — also has fiscal sanity. So I’m going to keep working hard to do that,” Scott said, adding he’s “optimistic” it can be accomplished.
Republican Sen. John Kennedy stated clearly that “we would never overrule the parliamentarian.”
Other Republicans, however, fumed over the parliamentarian and her ruling.
Republican Sen. Tommy Tubberville came out brashly against MacDonough — calling for Thune to fire her “ASAP” and accused her of being partisan. He did not mention overruling her, however.
“The WOKE Senate Parliamentarian, who was appointed by Harry Reid and advised Al Gore, just STRUCK DOWN a provision BANNING illegals from stealing Medicaid from American citizens. This is a perfect example of why Americans hate THE SWAMP,” Tubberville said in a post on X.
“Unelected bureaucrats think they know better than U.S. Congressmen who are elected BY THE PEOPLE. Her job is not to push a woke agenda. THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN SHOULD BE FIRED ASAP,” he added.
Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin suggested that MacDonough made her rulings as part of a “political decision.”
“I’m concerned about the parliamentarian’s ability to make these decisions,” Mullin said.
He later added, “If it’s a political decision on [her] part, then that’s not OK.”
The provider tax credit provisions had been emerging as a thorn in leadership’s side even before MacDonough’s ruling.
For days, a small but critical faction of the Senate GOP conference has been raising major flags about the way this cut to states’ Medicaid revenue might kneecap rural hospitals in their states. A number of Republicans in the Senate were threatening to withhold their votes for the package because of these changes to the provider tax, so for that group, MacDonough’s ruling is likely a welcome one.
If changes are made to the Medicaid provision to accommodate MacDonough’s ruling, all eyes will be on a handful of Senate Republicans. Some changes could be deal breakers for those whose vote is critical to moving the bill over the finish line.
Last weekend, MacDonough carefully scrutinized the House-passed bill for possible violations of the Senate’s rules. She has already issued a number of decisions that Democrats are touting as major victories.
This review, called the Byrd Bath — named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd, who helped institute the rules governing budget reconciliation packages, is still underway in the Senate.
Any provision that MacDonough rules out of order with the Senate’s rules will have to be stripped or else the legislation will be subject to the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. Republicans need to avoid this, or they won’t be able to pass the bill.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to move forward with an executive order mandating a restructure of federal agencies and mass layoffs of federal workers.
In a two paragraph unsigned order, the court explained that it was lifting a preliminary injunction issued by a district court in California because “the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and [OMB] memorandum are lawful.”
The court noted, however, that the justices “express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF [reduction in force] and Reorganization Plan produces or approved” by the administration under Trump’s direction. “Those plans are not before this Court,” it said.
The decision, another victory for Trump at the Supreme Court, allows the government to begin taking steps to dramatically overhaul 21 agencies and departments, including the departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, Energy, Treasury and State.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief statement concurring with the court’s decision, emphasized that the legality of the administration’s plans themselves has not yet been answered.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissent in the matter. In a 15-page opinion, the junior justice called the decision “not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”
(WASHINGTON) — Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs may be able to survive a legal challenge, thanks in part to a Japanese zipper company that sued the Nixon administration 50 years ago.
Earlier this week, a federal judge in Florida nominated by Donald Trump suggested the president has the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs — basing his ruling on the precedent from a 1970s court case — but stopped short of issuing an order affirming the president’s right to impose sweeping tariffs.
In a largely technical ruling issued on Tuesday, U.S. Judge T. Kent Wetherell II transferred one of the first lawsuits challenging Trump’s tariffs to a different federal court while also weighing in on the legality of the controversial tariffs. Florida-based planner company Emily Ley Paper sued over the tariffs in April, asking Wetherell to invalidate them because Trump lacks the power to impose tariffs himself.
According to the judge, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 gives Trump the authority to set tariffs for reasons other than raising revenue. Wetherell wrote that Trump’s justification for the tariffs — both stemming the flow of illicit drugs into the country and resolving a trade imbalance — is sufficient to satisfy the terms set by Congress.
“This is a civil action commenced against the United States and it ‘arises out of’ a federal law—IEEPA—so the dispositive question framed by the parties’ filings is whether IEEPA ‘provid[es] for … tariffs,'” he wrote. “Defendants contend that it does; Plaintiffs contend that it doesn’t. The Court agrees with Defendants …”
The decision is at best a symbolic victory for the Trump administration, which is fending off a half dozen lawsuits challenging the legality of the recent “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Judge Wetherell ultimately decided to transfer the case from a federal court in Florida to the Court of International Trade in New York, meaning that, despite his favorable view of the tariffs, he won’t be the one deciding the case.
But the decision marks the first time a federal judge has suggested Trump’s imposition of tariffs falls within his authority as president, offering a positive sign that the Trump administration may find a receptive audience at the Court of International Trade. During two hearings over the last week, judges at the Court of International Trade have wrestled with the same question about Trump’s authority.
The question comes down to the interpretation of the 1970s law that Trump used to impose his tariffs. The IEEPA gives the president the right to “regulate” imports but does not explicitly mention tariffs. Lawyers challenging the tariffs have argued that Trump’s interpretation of the law oversteps his authority by treading into an issue controlled by Congress, but the Trump administration has pointed judges to a court decision related to the IEEPA’s legal predecessor — the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 — to guide the way.
Back when President Richard Nixon confronted the country’s 1971 economic crisis with steep tariffs on Japanese goods, a zipper company based in Japan called Yoshida sued Nixon over the tariffs.
The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the predecessor to the Court of International Trade, sided with the government and held that the TWAE gives the president the power to impose tariffs.
According to Wetherell, the same reasoning would apply 50 years later to the IEEPA, meaning Trump has the power to impose tariffs without the help of Congress. “The reasoning in Yoshida is persuasive, and the Court sees no reason why it would not apply to IEEPA because the operative language of IEEPA is identical to the operative language in TWEA,” the judge wrote.
Despite losing its legal battle, Yoshida remains in business today. Now operating under the name YKK, it produces more zippers than any other company in the world.
