Court rejects appeal to revive ban on gun-carry permits for young adults
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Minnesota asking to revive the state's ban on gun-carry permits for young adults.
The justices also left in place a ban on guns at the University of Michigan, declining to hear an appeal from a man who argued he has a right to be armed on campus. No justice noted a dissent in either case.
Taken together, the actions reflect the high court's apparent lack of appetite for cases that further explore the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms."
The court has repeatedly turned away gun cases since its 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights and a clarifying 2024 decision that upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence.
The decision not to hear the Minnesota case was somewhat surprising because both sides sought the Supreme Court's review and courts around the country have come to different conclusions about whether states can limit the gun rights of people aged 18 to 20 without violating the Constitution.
The federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled that the Minnesota ban conflicted with the Second Amendment, which the court noted sets no age limit and generally protects ordinary, law-abiding young adults.
In January, the federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down a federal law requiring young adults to be 21 to buy handguns.
In February, a federal judge declined to block Hawaii's ban on gun possession for people under 21.
The justices also left in place a ban on guns at the University of Michigan, declining to hear an appeal from a man who argued he has a right to be armed on campus. No justice noted a dissent in either case.
Taken together, the actions reflect the high court's apparent lack of appetite for cases that further explore the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms."
The court has repeatedly turned away gun cases since its 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights and a clarifying 2024 decision that upheld a federal gun control law that is intended to protect victims of domestic violence.
The decision not to hear the Minnesota case was somewhat surprising because both sides sought the Supreme Court's review and courts around the country have come to different conclusions about whether states can limit the gun rights of people aged 18 to 20 without violating the Constitution.
The federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled that the Minnesota ban conflicted with the Second Amendment, which the court noted sets no age limit and generally protects ordinary, law-abiding young adults.
In January, the federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down a federal law requiring young adults to be 21 to buy handguns.
In February, a federal judge declined to block Hawaii's ban on gun possession for people under 21.
Seattle officers who attended Jan. 6 rally ask court to keep their identities anonymous
SEATTLE (AP) — Current and former Seattle police officers who attended President Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" political rally on Jan. 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol are asking the nation's highest court to keep their identities anonymous in public court records.
Using "John Doe" pseudonyms, they sued over whether the investigation into their activities should be made public. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled in February that they can be identified and that they haven't shown that public release of their names violates their right to privacy. The state supreme court denied reconsideration earlier this month and lawyers for the four officers submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the names remain protected during their legal challenge.
Four officers who attended events in the nation's capital on the day of an insurrection claimed they are protected under the state's public records law. They say they did nothing wrong and that revealing their names would violate their privacy.
In the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021 events, the Seattle Police Department ordered an investigation into whether any of its officers who traveled to Washington, D.C. to attend the rally had violated any laws or department policies.
The investigation found that married officers Caitlin and Alexander Everett crossed barriers set up by the Capitol police and were next to the Capitol Building, in violation of the law, prompting Diaz to fire the pair. Investigators said three other officers had not violated policies and the fourth case was ruled "inconclusive."
Sam Sueoka, a law student at the time, filed records requests seeking disclosure of the investigation's records for the participating officers.
"We are reviewing the Does' motion for a stay," Neil Fox, one of the Sueoka's attorneys, said in an email to The Associated Press Saturday.
Requiring the officers to use their real names in the litigation would create a chilling effect on voicing unpopular opinions, the petition to the Supreme Court said.
"At its core, this appeal involves whether a government agency can ignore the chilling effect resulting from an employer requiring an employee to disclose their off-duty political activities and attendant impressions or motivations associated therewith, followed by widespread dissemination to those who deliberately seek this information to subject these public servants to vilification without the commission of any misconduct whatsoever," the petition said.
A response to the petition is due on Friday.
Using "John Doe" pseudonyms, they sued over whether the investigation into their activities should be made public. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled in February that they can be identified and that they haven't shown that public release of their names violates their right to privacy. The state supreme court denied reconsideration earlier this month and lawyers for the four officers submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the names remain protected during their legal challenge.
Four officers who attended events in the nation's capital on the day of an insurrection claimed they are protected under the state's public records law. They say they did nothing wrong and that revealing their names would violate their privacy.
In the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021 events, the Seattle Police Department ordered an investigation into whether any of its officers who traveled to Washington, D.C. to attend the rally had violated any laws or department policies.
The investigation found that married officers Caitlin and Alexander Everett crossed barriers set up by the Capitol police and were next to the Capitol Building, in violation of the law, prompting Diaz to fire the pair. Investigators said three other officers had not violated policies and the fourth case was ruled "inconclusive."
Sam Sueoka, a law student at the time, filed records requests seeking disclosure of the investigation's records for the participating officers.
"We are reviewing the Does' motion for a stay," Neil Fox, one of the Sueoka's attorneys, said in an email to The Associated Press Saturday.
Requiring the officers to use their real names in the litigation would create a chilling effect on voicing unpopular opinions, the petition to the Supreme Court said.
"At its core, this appeal involves whether a government agency can ignore the chilling effect resulting from an employer requiring an employee to disclose their off-duty political activities and attendant impressions or motivations associated therewith, followed by widespread dissemination to those who deliberately seek this information to subject these public servants to vilification without the commission of any misconduct whatsoever," the petition said.
A response to the petition is due on Friday.
