#8th Circuit Court

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Chris Geidner at Law Dork:

On Friday afternoon, a federal appeals court blocked the Biden administration from doing almost anything to provide student loan relief to those people nationwide whose loans are currently in income-contingent repayment plans. It was the third appeals court ruling relating to the Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, program — and followed a June 30 order from a different appeals court that would have allowed the program to go into effect. Friday’s order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is the first of those appellate orders addressing the SAVE program that contained any substantive discussion of the effort. With the ruling, seven Republican-led states succeeded in getting a three-judge panel of all Republican appointees on a federal appeals court that only has one Democratic appointee to issue a nationwide injunction blocking the SAVE program. More than that, the injunction goes even further — blocking any similar relief, regardless of whether it is issued under the rule creating the SAVE program or otherwise.

The per curiam order issuing an injunction pending appeal, unsigned and with its grand total of eight pages of substance, was issued for Judge Raymond Gruender, a George W. Bush appointee, and Judges Ralph Erickson and Steven Grasz, Trump appointees. The ruling caused significant confusion coming a day or two after many borrowers across the country received word that their loans had been placed into forbearance following an earlier order from the same court in mid-July. Although the covered loans are not accruing interest during this time, according to the Education Department, the months the loans are in forbearance will not court toward borrowers’ Public Service Loan Forgiveness or income-driven repayment loan forgiveness time. Neither the Justice Department nor Education Department provided comment on Friday’s ruling or next steps in its immediate aftermath. The bottom line, though, is that the SAVE plan is blocked currently — and that this is not the final word.

Right-wing judicial activists on the 8th Circuit Court blocked the SAVE program from going forward.

[aanews69]

Entregamos historias. También te damos guías, consejos y trucos sobre cómo crear el tuyo propio. Este canal está dedicado a cosas aleatorias que pasan por nu...

[todaysdocument]

Appeal Request from Lenny Bruce v. Hon. John M. Murtagh, Criminal Court of the City of New York

Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United StatesSeries: Civil Case FilesFile Unit: Lenny Bruce vs Hon. John M. Murtagh, Criminal Court of the City of New York: Special Sessions: County of New York: Part 2B: Frank S. Hogan, The District Attorney of the County of New York, Civil 64-3574

LH 5, --

COPY

LENNY BRUCE

PLAINTIFF

AGAINST

FRANK HOGAN

CRIMINAL COURT CIV 64 3574

WILLIAM Cahn 

SOUTHERN

DISTRICT COURT

UNITED ] STATE S 

LeNNY [sic] BRUCE

PLAINTIFF

FRANK HOGAN

WILLIAM CAHN 

CRIMINAL

COURT 2B, DEFENDANT 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT 

GVEN THA -

LENNY BRUCE PLAINTIFF IN

CIV ACTION 643574 HEREBY

APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT

FROM THE ORDER BY JUDGE PALMERY

DENYING MOTION ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ENTERED IN THIS ACTION

Lenny Bruce [signature] Per Se

5 West 8TH ST

N Y. C, N. Y.

Dec 15, 1964

TO

FRANK Hogan

JUDGE MURTAUGH

JUDGE PHIPPS

JUDGE CREEL 

William Cahn D.A. Nassau County Criminal Courts part 2B: County of New York

TH E CIV ACTION THAT AROSE UNDER 28 U.S.C.

S.D. OF N.Y.

[Stamp in center of page]

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

FILED

DEC. 15 1964

S.D. OF N.Y.

TOMORROW Bring Research

LB

[leclerdelune]

Macau GP 70th Anniversary

YOU. YEAH YOU READING THIS. This is me trying to pursued you to go watch the Macau GP this weekend. This track is historic and legendary. And one of the most fun and dangerous street circuits (imo) with tight corners and varying elevations. It is still the oldest (active) street circuit that still holds F3 (+other races) and isn't part of the F1 World Championship (the other being New Zealand🤝)

Since it’s the 70th anniversary and they are holding two wholeass race weekends with a BANGER entry list this year (full list at the end of the post), so why not take a trip down memory lane and talk about some iconic races and drivers throughout the years. [LONG POST, just saying][Also, surprises underneath]

Macau Grand Prix, Guia Circuit (or Circuito da Guia)—a circuit that spans 6.120km, with different elevations over 30 meters top to bottom (in non-metric terms: 2 small pine trees, or 2 volleyball courts for all non-metric people out there👍). Top speed: 260km/h for an F3 car, which is already a handful. This circuit has had little to no changes since the beginning of its grand opening. While this track serves as a stepping stone for drivers, it remains an independent circuit and race of its own. Though still having an affiliate with the FIA.

Although the first race event began in 1954, they didn’t introduce F3 until 1983. Which they had a strong start for F3 with the likes of Ayrton Senna and Gerhard Berger, respectively taking first and third place.

A few years later; Eddie Irvine, Damon Hill, Jean Alesi also left their marks on this race track.

But the most iconic moment came in 1990. The battle of Schumacher vs Hakkinen. The beginning of their motor rivalry.

Schumi took first place while Mika unfortunately crashed out at the back of Schumi’s car.

Jenson Button (a literal child) in 1999, second place. God works hard but those mechanics work even harder

In 2003-2004, both Lewis and Nico took part, whilst Lewis took pole and they both showed great results in qualifying. Neither of them went on to podium in both years.

2005: baby Seb starting to shine through and took third at the main race, just behind Kubica

They put a baby in a fast car

2009: Daniel, Valtteri, and Jules took the challenge. Jules started near the back end of the grid but was steady racing and finished 10th. Valtteri started 4th, had the opportunity to be on podium until he got a puncture on the last lap that saw him finish fifth. Daniel-not the best start- clipped the wall and punctured his left rear, carried on a little bit more until he crashed out of the race :( can’t find any video cuz apparently no one cared enough about 2009

2011: Valtteri’s third year in a row; the previous got him third place but this one he retired the car on lap 4 due to an accident. Kmag, da Costa, Carlos participated but all in all, half the grid retired in the end.

Pre-mustache Bottas and baby redbull Carlos

Bloop! 2014: a wild baby Max appears! Boy had good results in qualifying, placing him third, but in the quali race he lost control and crashed. Main race-7th. Nick Cassidy, Nicki Latifi, Antonio Giovinazzi, Alex Palou finished 3rd, 5th, 12th and 16th. Unfortunately, Antonio Fuoco and Estie Bestie retired :(

Yes, Max did get the fastest lap

2015: Everybody’s favourite! Charles Leclerc has entered the ring. Charlie’s aggressive attack led him to second place and on that podium. Giovinazzi-4th, Lance Stroll-8th, Nick Cassidy-12th and following close behind, my boy, Alexander Albon-13th

The race was that good even FIA had to post it on their channel lol

The infamous onboard camera

2016: we see the introduction of George Russell, Landon Norris, Callum Ilott, Guanyu Zhou and Ticktum (But we’re not gonna talk about him🤭). It was an okay race, António Félix da Costa took first (came 9th in the recent WEC👏) and Nikita crashed.

That year gave us baby Lando and baby George who took his first pole *surprise🎉*

2017: A fucking great racing year, Lando came second due to Habsburg and Sette Câmara crashing out in the final corner. It’s Mick’s first year, though not the best result but did manage to snatch the fastest lap 💨

2018: it was a scary ass race and I remember standing in front of the TV just watching this. Lisboa corner is famously know for a lot of accidents, Sophia Flörsch made contact with another that send her airborne and crashed into the barriers and fractured her vertebrae. Final standing: Mick-5th, Ilott-7th, Schwartzman-9th, Zhou-11th, Vesti-15th

I’m not gonna post the video, you can go look it up if you’re interested

2019: a lot more familiar faces: Richard Verschoor, Jüri Vips (yeah that one), Logan Sargeant, Callum Ilott came back for another year, Liam Lawson with his bestie Yuki Tsunoda, Enzo Fittipaldi, Max Fewtrell🫡, David Schumacher, Felipe Drugovich, Schwartzman’s second attempt and Sophia Flörsch

3 years of absence and we are back! 2023!

This year there’s two whole weekends, from 11-12th November and 16-19th November. And they’ve a banger list of drivers like Bianca Bustamante for F4 and Richard Verschoor taking another stab at it.

Macau F4 race is happening on the 11-12th:

F4 is happening the week after on 16-19th

The FIA is streaming F3 on the YouTube channel (streaming f3 not f4🥲…go watch motor gp too it’s on the same day) but you could probably watch it on other streaming platforms too (you know the ones👀👀)

If you haven’t seen the Macau GP before…give it a go! It’s brilliant!

*side note: if Fernando or Lewis ever retires from f1 and have nothing else to do…I’d like to see them tackle this track (again for Lewis) maybe not f3, maybe something like GT cup or something. It would be verrrry interesting👀

[beardedmrbean]

Minnesota's law that bans people ages 18 to 20 from getting permits to carry guns in public is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, affirming a lower court decision that concluded the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of young adults to bear arms for self-defense.

"Minnesota has not met its burden to proffer sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that 18 to 20-year-olds seeking to carry handguns in public for self defense are protected by the right to keep and bear arms," the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

The three-judge panel cited a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights in 2022 and a major decision last month that upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez reluctantly struck down the Minnesota law in March of 2023 but granted the state's emergency motion for a stay, keeping the ban in place until the state's appeal could be resolved. Her ruling was an example of how the 2022 Supreme Court case, known as the Bruen decision, upended gun laws nationwide, dividing courts and sowing confusion over what restrictions can remain in force.

The Bruen decision, which was the conservative-led high court's biggest gun ruling in more than a decade, held that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. And it established a new test for evaluating challenges to gun restrictions, saying courts must now ask whether restrictions are consistent with the country's "historical tradition of firearm regulation."

Attorney General Keith Ellison, whose office represented the state in the case, said he was "extremely disappointed" in the ruling.

"This epidemic of gun violence will continue unabated unless we do something about it," Ellison said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling made that far more difficult by opening the floodgates to litigation from gun advocacy groups looking to undo reasonable safety legislation.. ... The people of Minnesota want and deserve solutions that reduce shootings and improve public safety, and today's ruling only makes that more difficult."

The state argued to the appeals court that Second Amendment protections should not apply to 18 to-20-year-olds, even if they're law-abiding, because the states have always had the authority to regulate guns in the hands of irresponsible or dangerous groups of people. The state argued that people under the age of 21 aren't competent to make responsible decisions about guns, and that they pose a danger to themselves and others as a result.

But the appeals court said the plain text of the Second Amendment does not set an age limit, so ordinary, law-abiding young adults are presumed to be protected. And it said crime statistics provided by the state for the case don't justify a conclusion that 18 to 20-year-olds who are otherwise eligible for carry permits present an unacceptable risk of danger.

Rob Doar, senior vice president for government affairs of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, which sued to overturn the law, said people who hold carry permits are "overwhelmingly law-abiding." He said Minnesota 18 to-20-year-olds should be able to begin applying for carry permits effective immediately, assuming they meet the same legal requirements as other adults, which include training from a certified instructor and background checks.

Ellison noted that the ruling came down just three days after a 20-year-old in Pennsylvania shot and wounded former President Donald Trump with a gun purchased by his father. Pennsylvania requires applicants for permits to carry concealed firearms to be 21. Open carry is generally allowed everywhere in Pennsylvania except Philadelphia.

[vague-humanoid]

Hamdi Mohamud, then a 16-year-old refugee from Somalia, found herself caught up in that scheme in 2011, when one of Weyker's witnesses, Muna Abdulkadir, tried to attack her and her friends at knifepoint. Mohamud called the police, and Weyker intervened—on behalf of Abdulkadir. She arrested Mohamud and her friends for allegedly tampering with a federal witness, and Mohamud subsequently spent two years in jail before the trumped-up charges were dismissed.

While Mohamud lost those two years of her life, Weyker has not paid any price—not in spite of her position, but because of it. Since the officer conducted her investigation as part of a federal task force, she is entitled to absolute immunity and cannot be sued, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled last year.

It's not because the "sex trafficking" investigation—which consisted of Weyker conjuring fake information, editing police reports, fabricating evidence, and lying under oath, among other things—was legitimate. On the contrary, the court says it was "plagued with problems from the start" and notes that Weyker employed "lies and manipulation" to put people behind bars. Legally speaking, none of that matters.

What does matter is a line of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has made suing a rights-violating federal officer almost out of the question. Had Weyker acted in her capacity as a state or local cop, Mohamud would have been permitted to bring her claim before a jury of her peers. Yet the most powerful officers are held to the lowest standard of accountability.

Mohamud hopes to change that standard by asking the Supreme Court to hear her case, which she made official last week.

The problem here isn't qualified immunity, the doctrine that shields police officers and other state actors from federal civil suits unless the way the government violated your rights has been litigated almost exactly in a prior court precedent. That's an onerous standard to meet. It has, for example, protected two police officers who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant, because no prior court ruling had said stealing in those circumstances is unconstitutional. The legal principle has been at the center of criminal justice reform efforts over the last year.

But Mohamud cleared that hurdle. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that Weyker's actions so clearly made a mockery of the Constitution that she could not skirt the suit. The 8th Circuit then overturned that decision on appeal, citing Weyker's temporary federal badge, while in the same breath acknowledging the depravity of her actions.

"Qualified immunity makes it very, very difficult to sue government officials," says Patrick Jaicomo, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, the libertarian public interest law firm representing Mohamud. "This makes it impossible."

There's a Supreme Court decision that should, in theory, give Mohamud the avenue to redress she needs. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971), the high court allowed a victim to go before a jury after federal cops conducted a drug raid on his apartment without a warrant and later strip-searched him at the courthouse.

But since then the Court has undermined its own decision in almost comical ways. In 2017, the justices ruled in Ziglar v. Abbasi that lower courts should pinpoint "special factors counseling hesitation" when considering suits against federal cops. In practice, that has meant just about whatever a judge can cook up.

@chrisdornerfanclub @el-shab-hussein

[schraubd]

8th Circuit Reaffirms Constitutionality of Bans on Felons Bearing Arms

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has reaffirmed its earlier decision in United States v. Jackson, concluding that it is constitutional to prohibit felons from possessing firearms even if the felony they were convicted of was non-violent (the case was on remand following Rahimi). The court observed that there was ample evidence of historical precedent permitting disarmament of non-law abiding individuals even in absence of evidence they were "violent", as well as pointing to the Supreme Court's repeated insistence that its Heller/McDonald/Bruen line of cases repeatedly emphasized it was not disturbing longstanding prohibitions on felon disarmament laws. It also reiterated a point it made in its initial ruling: that while it may be the case that prohibiting gun ownership by non-violent offenders would fail the more traditional "means/ends" scrutiny that prevailed pre-Bruen (and in most other areas of constitutional law), Bruen flatly forecloses such "policy" analysis. Bruen does not care about a law's fairness any more than it cares about your due process rights. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/wQL8IoY

[whenweallvote]

In case you missed it, the Voting Rights Act is under attack, again.

Last week, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling from a lower court. If the Supreme Court were to agree with this decision, it would be a HUGE blow to the Voting Rights Act.

Swipe through to learn more then visit weall.vote/check to check your voter registration now.

[maswartz]

Once again, to those who say "What's Biden done for me" ask yourselves "who's stopping him"

[batboyblog]

An interesting run down on way anti-Trans laws are floptina Aguilera in Court.

currently a number of HRT bans for minors are working their way through courts, however, ONE from 2021 in Arkansas has worked its way all the way through district court and gives us a preview of what might happen to nearly identical laws passed in other states. Basically it did not go well for the transphobes.

The Judge in the case ruled that anti-trans HRT bans for minors violate the 14th Amendment in two different ways (Due Process, and Equal Protection) as well as the First Amendment's Free Speech protections, in short:

"The court, respectfully, tells the state to fuck off"

Now this case heads up to the  8th circuit court of appeals which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Missouri, Minnesota, and South Dakota, if the 8th agrees with the district judge similar HRT bans will be overturned in 5 of those states.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Chris Geidner at Law Dork:

A federal judge in North Dakota issued an injunction on Monday blocking the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from protecting any employees of any members of a nationwide Catholic association who are seeking time off or other accommodations under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for an abortion or in vitro fertilization treatment.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor, a Trump appointee to the federal court in North Dakota, issued the religion-infused preliminary injunction to partially block enforcement of an EEOC rule implementing the 2022 law, along with related implementation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as to the Catholic Benefits Association and its members — current or future — nationwide. The order covers more than 8,000 employers — including thousands of churches — across the country. The PWFA was passed in December 2022 and is supposed to protect covered workers from discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” by, in part, requiring employers to provide employees with reasonable accommodations. The EEOC proposed its implementing rule for the PWFA in August 2023, stating in part that abortion and fertility treatment, including IVF, are covered by the law’s protections. That rule, which does not relate to insurance coverage, went into effect in June.

“It is a precarious time for people of religious faith in America,” Traynor declared in the introduction to his 21-page opinion, criticizing “the repeated illegal and unconstitutional administrative actions against one of the founding principles of our country, the free exercise of religion.” Ultimately, Traynor concluded that happened again here, finding that the CBA is likely to succeed in its challenge to the rule and related Title VII enforcement guidance under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Any appeal would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which only has one Democratic appointee among its 11 judges.

[...] Traynor sided with the Catholic employees — rejecting the EEOC’s arguments — on virtually all points, from standing to the underlying religious freedom claims to the scope of his eventual injunction. (Notably, Traynor gave little credit to the EEOC’s argument that “the Final Rule and Guidance acknowledge that employers may have RFRA defenses and commit to a fact-sensitive, case-by-case analysis.” Instead, he found that such an approach is not likely sufficient because the “burden of investigation and possible litigation” would remain.) The injunction is extremely broad, barring the EEOC from enforcing accommodations required under the PWFA rule relating to “abortion or infertility treatments,” along with guidance relating to “abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition“ under Title VII, including recent workplace harassment guidance.

Trump-appointed judicial activist Daniel Traynor issued a nationwide injunction in Catholic Benefits Association v. Burrows that blocks the EEOC from protecting any employees of any Catholic Benefits Association members who are seeking time off or accommodations for abortion or IVF services.

[trukker94gurl]

[LIVE Q&A 11/21 at 10:30AM ET] Federal Court Issues Major Ruling on Election Integrity

[LIVE Q&A 11/21 at 10:30AM ET] Federal Court Issues Major Ruling on Election Integrity https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/epochtv/federal-court-issues-major-ruling-on-election-integrity-5533063?utm_source=andshare

[hansilw]

BREAKING: An 8th Circuit panel of federal judges has struck down the main path for enforcing the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 protections for people of color, upholding a lower court ruling that says private individuals can’t bring lawsuits under the law

[arizonaconservativegal]

Student Loans: DOJ Says Overruling Biden’s Forgiveness Could Lead to Lawsuits Over ‘Virtually All Federal Action’

David Nadelle

Mon, January 9, 2023 at 2:39 PM EST

While the fate of borrowers’ loan repayments remains in limbo until the end of February, experts are waiting with apprehension of what an upheld Supreme Court ruling will mean, not only for federal student loan cancellation, but for future legal arguments on federal policy.

See: Can Unpaid Student Loans Affect Social Security Money? Student Loan Forgiveness: Timeline of Events Leading Up To the Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the legitimacy of President Biden’s plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for federal borrowers making under $125,000 on Feb. 28. On Jan. 4, the Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a filing to justify the legality of Biden’s program.

According to Business Insider, as part of its 86-page brief, the DOJ expressed concern that if the Supreme Court decides to stand by the 8th Circuit’s November ruling and invalidate Biden’s debt forgiveness program, it will set a bad precedent for future legal judgments.

The federal student loan forgiveness plan has been delayed since October due to two lawsuits filed by GOP-endorsed groups. The suits — one led by six Republican-led states arguing relief would hurt their states’ tax revenues and diminish the value of investments tied to student loans, and another by two student loan borrowers who did not qualify for the full $20,000 amount of relief — have been refuted by the Biden administration as baseless and politically-motivated.

Complicating the state-led lawsuit — pursued by Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina — is the involvement of a third party, St. Louis-based student loan company MOHELA, which has been dragged into the legal challenge by the state of Missouri. MOHELA, one of America’s largest student loan servicers, currently has a contract with the federal government to service student loans.

Take Our Poll: Are You in Favor of More Inflation Relief in 2023?

Missouri contends that MOHELA will lose money under Biden’s relief program because it will have fewer student loan accounts to manage, make less money and “will make it more difficult for MOHELA to make required payments to a state fund that helps its public colleges and universities,” according to Politico.

If the Supreme Court quashes this particular cancellation program and rules in favor of the plaintiffs in the two cases it is hearing in February, it could have “startling implications” for future claims, according to the filing.

“Virtually all federal action — from law enforcement to collecting taxes to managing property — has some side effect on government finances,” the filing read. “If such side effects were enough to stand, then every state would have the right to challenge almost any federal policy.”

“(B)anks could sue anyone who causes financial harm to their borrowers, credit-card companies could sue anyone who causes financial harm to their customers, and governments could sue anyone who causes financial harm to their taxpayers,” it adds.

Student Loan Forgiveness: What Is the Income-Driven Repayment Account Adjustment? Social Security: Garnishments for Delinquent Student Loans Might Resume — and Could Cost You $2,500

The current student loan pause extension runs through 60 days after June 30, 2023, or whenever the lawsuits are resolved — whichever happens first. If the Supreme Court decrees Biden’s loan forgiveness plan to be legal, the Department of Education can begin to process the 26 million applications it has already received and will re-open the application process, per Forbes.

More From GOBankingRates

40 Cities That Could Be Poised For a Housing Crisis

How Rich Is Former President Donald Trump?

The 10 Best Cash Back Credit Cards for 2023

6 Strategies for Paying Off Multiple Credit Cards

This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: Student Loans: DOJ Says Overruling Biden’s Forgiveness Could Lead to Lawsuits Over ‘Virtually All Federal Action’

https://openweb.jac.yahoosandbox.com/0.8.1/safeframe.html

As the kids say these days: like to charge, reblog to cast

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Salt Lake Tribune

* * * * 

Putting More Guns in the Wrong Hands  ::  Joyce Vance

First the Supreme Court decided Heller, a case that extended the Second Amendment notion of well-armed militias to permit Americans to possess virtually any kind of firearm that wasn’t fully automatic or short-barreled in their home, under a self-defense rationale. Then came last term’s decision in Bruen, a New York case, that struck down what it decided were unreasonable limitations on public possession of firearms. So we knew it was only a matter of time until a court took it even further. After all, over the years the NRA has advocated for the right of blind people to carry firearms, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the only federal agency tasked with oversight of the gun industry, is so notoriously underfunded by Congress that it cannot fully perform that role.

This week the 5th Circuit entered the fray, ruling that the domestic violence provision of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) contradicts the nation’s “historical tradition” of access to firearms even for people who aren’t “model citizens.” The three-judge panel (two Trump appointees and one Reagan appointee, for those who are counting) held that the statute is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to Congress to determine who qualifies as “law-abiding, responsible citizens” when it comes to gun ownership.

The court worried about who might lose their right to possess firearms if they permitted the prohibition against people with a demonstrated propensity towards violence against their partners to stay on the books: “Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle?”

The court vacated the conviction of the Texan man Zackey Rahimi, who pleaded guilty to having a pistol in his home following the issuance of a civil domestic-violence restraining order for assaulting his former girlfriend. Texas, which we know denies women abortion access to protect the lives of unborn fetuses, apparently thinks it’s acceptable to risk that same woman’s life at the hands of a man with a firearm who has already shown a willingness to do violence to her. The court wrote that “Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal.”

The 5th Circuit contorted itself to ignore the use of language like “law-abiding citizen” that prior cases have used to determine the reach of Second Amendment rights. And while the decision is limited to the 8th subsection of the statute, which we started out with above, there is little reason to believe litigants won’t proceed to challenge other parts of the statute.

And none of this is theoretical. Prosecutions for possession of firearms by disqualified persons have risen steadily over the years. The most recent numbers available from the U.S. Sentencing Commission show that in 2021, there were 7,454 offenders convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g). That was an increase from 6,032 offenders in fiscal year 2017. Illegal firearms possession cases are also significant as a percentage of DOJ’s total criminal docket. For instance, in fiscal year 2016, there were 5,391 offenders convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), accounting for 8% of all offenders sentenced in federal court.

DOJ has already announced it will appeal the Rahimi decision in a statement from Attorney General Garland: “Nearly 30 years ago, Congress determined that a person who is subject to a court order that restrains him or her from threatening an intimate partner or child cannot lawfully possess a firearm. Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision.”

What should we expect the Supreme Court to do? In a 2019 case, Rehaif, the Court considered whether the government had to prove a defendant was aware they had the status that made it a crime for them to possess a firearm (in that case, that they were not legally in the United States). The Court ruled that the government did, without in any way suggesting that the statute itself was unconstitutional. However, this Court has been less mindful of precedent than the Court has been at any other point in our lifetimes. Given its recent trajectory on firearms and Second Amendment issues, it’s hard to feel optimistic that all of the public-safety-based restrictions on firearms ownership in 922(g) will survive.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

[beardedmrbean]

WASHINGTON — A divided federal appeals court on Monday ruled that private individuals and groups such as the NAACP do not have the ability to sue under a key section of the federal Voting Rights Act, a decision that contradicts decades of precedent and could further erode protections under the landmark 1965 law.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis found that only the U.S. attorney general can enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires political maps to include districts where minority populations’ preferred candidates can win elections.

The ruling applies to federal courts covered by the 8th Circuit, which includes Iowa as well as Arkansas, the state from which the appeal was filed. Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota also are in the court's territory.

The majority said other federal laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, make it clear when private groups can sue but said similar wording is not found in the voting law.

“When those details are missing, it is not our place to fill in the gaps, except when ‘text and structure’ require it,” U.S. Circuit Judge David R. Stras wrote for the majority in an opinion joined by Judge Raymond W. Gruender. Stras was nominated by former President Donald Trump and Gruender by former President George W. Bush.

The decision affirmed a lower judge’s decision to dismiss a case brought by the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel. The court had given U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland five days to decide whether to join the lawsuit.

Chief Judge Lavenski R. Smith noted in a dissenting opinion that federal courts across the country and the U.S. Supreme Court have considered numerous cases brought by private plaintiffs under Section 2. Smith said the court should follow “existing precedent that permits a judicial remedy” unless the Supreme Court or Congress decides differently.

“Rights so foundational to self-government and citizenship should not depend solely on the discretion or availability of the government’s agents for protection,” wrote Smith, another appointee of George W. Bush.

NAACP: 'a devastating blow to the civil rights of every American'

Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, called the ruling a “travesty for democracy.” She had argued the appeal on behalf of the two Arkansas groups.

“By failing to reverse the district court’s radical decision, the Eighth Circuit has put the Voting Rights Act in jeopardy, tossing aside critical protections that voters fought and died for,” Lakin said in a statement.

It was not immediately clear whether the groups would appeal. A statement from the ACLU said they are exploring their options.

Barry Jefferson, political action chair of the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, called the ruling "a devastating blow to the civil rights of every American, and the integrity of our nation’s electoral system.”

The state NAACP chapter and the public policy group had challenged new Arkansas state House districts as diluting the influence of Black voters. The state’s redistricting plan created 11 majority-Black districts, which the groups argued was too few. They said the state could have drawn 16 majority-Black districts to more closely mirror the state’s demographics.

U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky noted there was “a strong merits case that at least some of the challenged districts” in the lawsuit violate the federal Voting Rights Act but said he could not rule after concluding a challenge could only be brought by the U.S. attorney general.

The Justice Department filed a “statement of interest” in the case saying private parties can file lawsuits to enforce the Voting Rights Act but declined to comment on the ruling.

Another circuit court makes opposite ruling. Will Supreme Court decide?

It’s likely the case eventually will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the issue was raised in a 2021 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“I join the court’s opinion in full, but flag one thing it does not decide,” Gorsuch wrote at the time, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. “Our cases have assumed — without deciding — that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under section 2.”

Gorsuch wrote that there was no need in that case for the justices to consider who may sue. But Gorsuch and Thomas were among the dissenters in June when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in another Voting Rights Act case in favor of Black voters in Alabama who objected to the state’s congressional districts.

The Gorsuch and Thomas opinion was referenced less than two weeks ago in another federal court decision that came to the opposite conclusion of Monday's ruling by the 8th Circuit.

On Nov. 10, three judges on the conservative-dominated 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans rejected arguments that there is no private right to sue under the Voting Rights Act. In a Louisiana congressional redistricting case, the panel said the U.S. Supreme Court so far has upheld the right of private litigants to bring lawsuits alleging violations of Section 2, as have other circuit appellate courts.

Fifth Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, a nominee of ex-President George W. Bush, pointed to separate cases from 1999 and 2020 that reaffirmed that right.

Election law experts say most challenges seeking to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are brought by private plaintiffs and that the Justice Department has limited resources to pursue such cases. Some voting rights experts also noted the apparent contradiction in the Alabama case decided by the Supreme Court last June and Monday's ruling by the appellate court.

“It doesn’t seem to make sense,” said Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “If the laws were that private parties couldn’t bring these cases, then the Alabama case would have never even gotten off the ground.”

If ruling stands, voting rights challenges likely to be limited

Lawsuits under Section 2 have long been used to try to ensure that Black voters have adequate political representation in places with a long history of racism, including many Southern states. Racial gerrymandering has been used in drawing legislative and congressional districts to pack Black voters into a small number of districts or spread them out so their votes are diluted. If only the U.S. attorney general is able to file such cases, it could sharply limit their number and make challenges largely dependent on partisan politics.

It’s unlikely Congress will be willing to act. Republicans have blocked recent efforts to restore protections in the Voting Rights Act that were tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court a decade ago. In the 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision, justices dismantled an enforcement mechanism known as preclearance, which allowed for federal review of proposed election-related changes before they could take effect in certain states and communities with a history of discrimination.

In a statement, the Congressional Black Caucus noted that private individuals and civil rights groups have been successful in giving Black voters better representation through recent challenges to congressional maps drawn by Republican lawmakers in Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.

“This decision by the appellate court is ill-advised, cannot stand, and should be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which we hope will reaffirm that citizens have a private right of action to bring forward lawsuits under Section 2,” the group said.