Ginsburg hospitalized for treatment of chills and fever
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized after experiencing chills and fever, the court said Saturday. In a statement, the court’s public information office said Ginsburg was admitted Friday night to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. She was initially evaluated at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington before being transferred to Johns Hopkins for further evaluation and treatment of any possible infection. With intravenous antibiotics and fluids, her symptoms abated and she expected to be released from the hospital as early as Sunday morning, the statement said.
Supreme Court 's conservatives appear poised to expand Second Amendment gun rights . WASHINGTON – The late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia was asked in 2013 whether the Second Amendment's right to bear arms stood on equal ground with other constitutional protections
WASHINGTON — Breaking a decade- long silence , Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday suddenly started asking questions from the Supreme Court bench. After saying nothing for years during oral arguments that have helped shape the fabric of American law
WASHINGTON — 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. And lower courts have issued more than 1,000 rulings seeking to apply the justices’ 2008 decision in , which established an individual right to own guns but said almost nothing about the scope of that right.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg released from hospital after possible infection
She missed a day of Supreme Court arguments last week after suffering from a "stomach bug."Ginsburg, 86, has been released after being admitted with chills and a fever, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court said on Sunday.
The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a potentially landmark Second Amendment case, the first time in roughly a decade that the justices will consider gun rights This latest chapter in the nation’s long -running debate over Second Amendment rights has drawn in familiar interest groups.
Framing of verdict on prorogation of parliament may set off ‘constitutional eruption of volcanic proportions’.
The new case concerns a New York City ordinance. Fearing a loss in the Supreme Court, to say nothing of a broad ruling from the court’s conservative majority on what the Second Amendment protects, the city repealed the ordinance and now argues that the case is moot. But the court may be ready to end its decade of silence, elaborate on the meaning of the Second Amendment and, in the process, tell lower courts whether they have been faithful to the message of the Heller decision.
Proponents of gun rights and some conservative justices say lower courts have been engaged in lawless resistance to the protections afforded under the Second Amendment by sustaining unconstitutional gun-control laws.
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.
Days after the Orlando shooting, the Supreme Court is poised to act on two cases highlighting the raging debate over what types of guns and ammunition may be banned and who should have the right to possess firearms.
But Supreme Court justices are also human beings, and it’s hard to see it not impacting how they view the relationship between 21st century assault So the pendulum may swing back on gun rights simply as a function of the Court ’s membership. Two lesser-known developments, though, may be
“The lower courts have, generally speaking, been defying Heller,” said, a law professor at the University of Wyoming.
, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, looked at the same evidence and came to the opposite conclusion. “By and large, the lower courts have played this whole game very straight,” he said. “They have taken Heller seriously.”
The decision in the new case may clarify matters. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch have already set out their positions, saying that the Supreme Court has tacitly endorsed dishonest rulings in the lower courts by refusing to hear appeals from decisions sustaining gun-control laws.
It was, Justice Thomas wrote injoined by Justice Gorsuch, part of “a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”
In, Justice Thomas returned to the theme.
Pennsylvania court rules suspect can't be forced to provide his password
Watch highlights from the Week 12 game between the Dallas Cowboys and the New England Patriots.
A rally at the Supreme Court on Monday as justices considered a challenge in a case that could deal a painful Two years ago, the court seemed poised to rule against public unions, but it deadlocked 4 to 4 after the death of Conservative groups have long urged the court to overrule the Abood decision
The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.
“The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this court’s constitutional orphan,” he wrote. “And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.”
Eight months later, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the court, replacing the more moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. And just a few months after that, the court announced that it would hear the case to be argued Monday.
The Heller decision was both revolutionary and modest. It ruled, by a 5-to-4 vote, that the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own guns — in the home, for self-defense. At the same time, it indicated that many kinds of gun regulations are permissible.
Justice Kennedy was in the majority in Heller decision, but he insisted on an important limiting passage, according towith Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the main dissent and .
“Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in the passage that was the price of Justice Kennedy’s fifth vote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Justice Clarence Thomas rebukes Biden-led confirmation hearings in new film
Justice Clarence Thomas criticizes former Sen. Joe Biden's handling of the 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings that have been an issue in the 2020 campaign. In a forthcoming documentary, "Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words," Thomas lashes out at Democrats and Biden, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee and oversaw his confirmation process.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it would review a New York City gun law that limits residents from transporting their guns outside their homes, its first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade and a test of the court ’s approach to gun rights after the arrival of Justice Brett M
The Supreme Court ruling doesn't mean that anyone can now buy and own a handgun in Washington, D.C. Those who want a gun will still need to obtain a Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier (left) and District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty face reporters March 18 after the Supreme Court heard oral
The court’s only other Second Amendment case since then,in 2010, extended the Heller decision, which concerned federal gun laws, to state and local ones.
Recent scholarship tells a complicated story about how the Heller decision has been applied in the lower courts.of Second Amendment rulings after the Heller decision through early 2016, published last year in the Duke Law Journal, found that the success rate for challengers was indeed low, at about 9 percent.
But the article concluded that “the low rate of success probably has more to do with the claims being asserted than with judicial hostility.” For instance, challenges by felons charged with possessing guns made up about a quarter of the cases and almost always failed, as the Heller decision itself seemed to require.
Other challenges, in criminal cases or brought by people without lawyers, were also seldom successful. But plaintiffs with lawyers in civil cases in federal appeals courts, the study found, had a success rate of 40 percent.
“Second Amendment challenges have overwhelmingly failed at a broad level,” said, a law professor at Duke, who conducted the study with , a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Something like 90 percent of them failed. But when you dig down into the cases to see why they failed, it turns out that many of them were weak from the outset.”
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.
Supreme Court to Consider Gun Rights for 1st Time in 9 Years. Joining in support of gun rights , 17 states said the court should break its years- long silence and use the case to define the scope of gun rights under the Constitution and the level of scrutiny, or skepticism, judges should apply to gun laws.
WASHINGTON — Gun ownership rights can be denied to people who commit reckless acts of domestic violence, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision that brought a blistering dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas. The 6-2 ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan and endorsed by
“Courts are not reflexively rejecting Second Amendment claims,” Professor Blocher said. “There will be cases in which judges may not go far enough in protecting the right, but that’s not indicative of what critics have called ‘massive resistance’ or ‘nullification’ or ‘second-class rights treatment.’”
Still, said, a law professor at Samford University in Birmingham, Ala., “there was a tendency to give Heller the narrowest possible reading.”
“Judges were saying that as long as there is not a complete prohibition of possession of a handgun for self-defense in the home,” Professor Denning said, “then pretty much on anything else we’re going to give the benefit of the doubt to the government.”
The New York City ordinance challenged in the new case allowed residents with so-called premises licenses to take their guns to one of seven shooting ranges in the city limits. But the ordinance barred them from taking their guns anywhere else, including second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when they were unloaded and locked in a container separate from ammunition.
Three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association filed a lawsuit challenging the law but lost in Federal District Court in Manhattan and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuitthat the ordinance passed constitutional muster under the Heller decision.
After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280, the city amended its ordinance to allow people with premises licenses to take their guns to their homes and businesses and to shooting ranges and competitions, whether in the city or not. For good measure, New York State enacted a similar law.
The challengers have gotten everything they sought, the city’s lawyers told the Supreme Court, making the case moot. In response, the challengers said the case is still live because they may be entitled to seek money from the city and could suffer negative consequences for what was unlawful conduct while the ordinance was in place. They urged the justices not to reward the city’s “extraordinary machinations designed to frustrate this court’s review.”
, a professor at William and Mary Law School, said supporters of gun regulation had reason to hope the justices would rule that the case is moot.
“The fear is that the court will accept the premise that what we need here is the most robust form of protection we can offer to this fundamental right because it’s been orphaned and disrespected,” Professor Zick said. “That, and the fact that this law is not a very good one, makes it understandable that you might not want this case to be the one that the court decides.”
Leave nudity laws to locals, New Hampshire tells Supreme Court .
Three women who were convicted of public nudity at a beach were part of a campaign for the rights of women to go topless.The high court is deciding whether to accept the appeal of three women who were convicted of public nudity at Weirs Beach in Laconia in 2016. Part of a campaign advocating for the rights of women to go topless, Heidi Lilley, Kia Sinclair and Ginger Pierro argue the city's ordinance discriminates on the basis of gender and that the Supreme Court should step in to settle disagreements on the issue that have arisen elsewhere.