Opinion Opinions | The Supreme Court could undo local gun laws — in a case it shouldn’t be hearing
Pennsylvania court rules suspect can't be forced to provide his password
Law enforcment might soon have a harder time forcing suspects to unlock their devices. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court has ruled that authorities were asking Joseph J. Davis, the accused in a child pornography case, to violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when they asked him to provide the password for his computer. A lower court had determined that the request fell under an exemption to the Fifth Amendment when Davis seemingly acknowledged the presence of child porn on his PC, but the state Supreme Court rejected that argument on the grounds that a password is testimony and thus protected under the Constitution.
Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.
Fed by a steady stream of mass shootings and rising public anger about Congress’s inaction, the gun control movement has gained new life. All of the Democratic presidential contenders have put gun policy reform near the top of their platforms, and some lawmakers are considering proposals for buybacks and licensing once thought impossible. Yet the Supreme Court appears ready to douse that momentum — in a case the justices, according to their rules, should not even be hearing at all.
Supreme Court allows climate change scientist's defamation suit against National Review
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court refused on Monday to shield two conservative writers from being sued for defamation by a climate-change expert whom they accused of having "molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science." Over a dissent by Justice Samuel A. Alito, the high court cleared the way for Penn State professor Michael Mann to sue the National Review and the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute for having compared him to the former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who was imprisoned for sexual abuse. Both had been investigated by the university.
On Monday, the court will hear a challenge to a now-repealed New York City regulation that limited where New Yorkers could bring their guns. It is the court’s first major Second Amendment case in nearly a decade. With two new justices appointed by President Trump, the court could now make it much harder for lawmakers to stem the tide of gun violence and keep guns off their streets.
The case arises just as gun control advocates were beginning to make headway on reform. Although people often complain that nothing changed after the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., in truth, the gun debate has been transformed since then by the emergence of a strong, well-financed and politically active movement for gun reform. New advocacy groups such as Mike Bloomberg’sand Gabrielle Giffords’s are putting unprecedented resources into electing pro-reform candidates and ballot measures, in some races even the National Rifle Association. March for Our Lives, organized by students from Parkland, Fla., and Moms Demand Action have to get more involved than at any time in the past 30 years.
Supreme Court to hear appeal over former NYPD rule that barred gun owners from transporting firearms out of the city
The law in question is gone — but the appeal goes on in the case of a New York City rule that kept gun owners from transporting their weapons unless they were headed to city-licensed gun ranges or out of town at hunting season. Oral arguments are scheduled Monday in the first major gun case taken up by the US Supreme Court in more than a decade.
This political energy has led numerous states, including, , and , to try to close the loopholes that Congress won’t fix, including universal background checks and bans on military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines. About live in states that have enacted significant new gun laws since 2012 — far from nothing.
The fact that all of the contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are backing broad new gun laws also marks a sea change. In the 2008 and 2012 elections, Barack Obama shied away from talking about gun reform, emphasizing instead the right to keep and bear arms. Before Newtown, the prevailing wisdom in Democratic circles was that proposing gun restrictions would hurt you on Election Day. Today, every Democratic candidate is betting otherwise. And for good reason: Afound that gun policy was a top issue for voters in Virginia, where Democrats just won control of both houses of the state legislature for the first time since 1994.
After Long Gap, Supreme Court Poised to Break Silence on Gun Rights
It has been almost 10 years since the Supreme Court last heard a Second Amendment case. On Monday, a transformed court will return to the subject and take stock of what has happened in the meantime. The nation has had a spike in gun violence. The nation has had a spike in gun violence. And lower courts have issued more than 1,000 rulings seeking to apply the justices’ 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which established an individual right to own guns but said almost nothing about the scope of that right.
Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association isfrom a that has resulted in the ouster of its board president, head lobbyist, longtime lawyers and the public relations firm responsible for the organization’s messaging for three decades. Chief executive Wayne LaPierre has survived but faces the continuing pressure of attorney general investigations by New York and Washington, D.C., of the organization’s compliance with nonprofit law.
The NRA doesn’t have to be all that strong, however, if the Supreme Court begins to read the Second Amendment expansively to outlaw more and more forms of gun control. That is what gun control advocates fear from the case to be heard Monday.
It is possible that the justices could rule narrowly. New York City’s regulation, which severely restricted where lawful gun owners could transport their firearms, was unique; no other city or state has such draconian restrictions. The court could say that New York simply went too far, writing an opinion with no real effect on other cases.
Second Amendment Case May Fizzle Out at the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade may not end up changing anything, judging from questioning at arguments on Monday that focused largely on whether the repeal of a New York City law made the case challenging it moot. “What’s left of this case?”“What’s left of this case?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. “The petitioners have gotten all of the relief they sought.
Yet several of the justices have made it clear that they would like to see a much broader and more consequential ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas has complained that the lower courts have been too willing to uphold gun restrictions, accusing the courts of treating the Second Amendment as a “.” Justice has also called for the Supreme Court to strengthen Second Amendment protections.
These justices apparently want to adopt a stricter test for courts to apply in Second Amendment cases, making it harder for gun laws to survive a legal challenge. If the court follows suit in the New York case, recent reforms such as red flag laws and universal background checks could be imperiled.
Or the court might use the case to articulate broad new principles on possessing guns in public. To date, the court has ruled only that the Second Amendment protects your right to have a gun in your home. If the justices hold that citizens have a right to transport or carry guns in public, that could undermine the laws in major cities like New York, Los Angeles and Boston that prohibit most residents from carrying concealed weapons. Today, Los Angeles has only a few hundred civilians with concealed carry permits; tomorrow, it could be a.
Trump files appeal at Supreme Court in financial records fight
President Donald Trump on Thursday filed court papers asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block a lower court ruling directing an accounting firm to hand over his financial records to a Democratic-led congressional panel, setting up a major clash between branches of government. © 2019 The Washington Post WASHINGTON DC - MARCH 19: The Supreme Court of the United States is seen March 19, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Katherine Frey/The Washington Post via Getty Images) Trump turned to the justices after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided on Nov.
The shocking thing about such a transformation of these American cities is that it would come from a case that is moot — meaning there is no longer any real legal controversy. Fearing a near-certain loss in the Supreme Court, New York Citythis year, and the New York state legislature prohibiting such restrictions from being adopted in the future. Those challenging the New York City gun rules say that lawmakers could one day adopt another law limiting Second Amendment rights. But anyone could say that about any hypothetical law imaginable.
More than two centuries ago, the Supreme Court turned down a request by President George Washington andthat it would not issue advisory opinions on proposed or hypothetical legislation. To ensure that the best arguments are made, the court insists on real, live controversies involving actual laws capable of being enforced presently. New York City’s repealed gun restrictions, by contrast, have been wiped from the books and can’t ever be enforced against anyone.
The court should adhere to its long-standing bar on advisory opinions and refuse to rule on these dead and buried gun laws. For gun control advocates, that result would be a welcome respite, but hardly a long-lasting one. Even if the court drops the New York case, there are several other cases challenging gun laws waiting to be heard by the justices. It may only be a matter of time before the court, under the banner of the Second Amendment, makes it even harder for any cities or states to enact meaningful gun laws.
House urges Supreme Court to enforce subpoenas for Trump’s financial records .
The House cited 2020 election security concerns Wednesday when it urged the Supreme Court not to delay the enforcement of congressional subpoenas for financial records of President Donald Trump and his business from Deutsche Bank and Capital One Financial Corporation. Any harm to Trump for allowing the enforcement of the House Financial Services and Intelligence committees would be less severe than Congress not getting information it needs to protect the elections from foreign influence, House attorneys argued in a Supreme Court filing.
Polls Show Trump’s Squandered Summer Has Taken A Toll | Deadline | MSNBC
NYT's Annie Karni, NBC News' Heidi Przybyla and Julia Ainsley, MSNBC's Garrett Haake, The Bulwark's Charlie Sykes, and Princeton University's Eddie ...
STEYER ON CLIMATE CRISIS & JOBS: 2020 presidential candidate
Tom Steyer meets with voters in Reno, NV to discuss the climate crisis, jobs, and wages. The conversation is hosted by PLAN Action NV and is streaming ...