Explore

Inglewood Repeals Gun Purchase Limit Following Federal Court Ruling

Inglewood Repeals Gun Purchase Limit Following Federal Court Ruling

The city of Inglewood, California, is set to repeal a longstanding ordinance that restricted residents to purchasing one handgun every 30 days. This decision follows a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court in the case of Nguyen v. Bonta, which questioned the constitutionality of such firearm regulations. The court found that California's statewide one-gun-per-month law violated the Second Amendment, as it failed to demonstrate a historical tradition supporting such restrictions. This ruling has prompted Inglewood officials to recommend repealing the local ordinance, aligning with the court's decision. The repeal is part of a broader national debate on gun rights, where states are taking varied approaches to firearm regulations.

Supreme Court to Decide on State Assault Weapons Bans Amid New Jersey Ruling

Supreme Court to Decide on State Assault Weapons Bans Amid New Jersey Ruling

The Supreme Court is set to decide on the constitutionality of state assault weapons bans following a recent decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down New Jersey's ban. The court ruled that the ban violated the Second Amendment, as it prohibited weapons in common use for lawful purposes. This decision could impact similar bans in other states, including Delaware and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which fall under the 3rd Circuit's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's upcoming case will address similar bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, with a decision expected by June 2027.

Supreme Court to Review Alaska Plane Seizure Over Passenger's Beer

Supreme Court to Review Alaska Plane Seizure Over Passenger's Beer

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving Alaska pilot Kenneth Jouppi, whose $95,000 Cessna aircraft was seized by the state after authorities found beer on board, intended for a dry village. The case centers on the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of 'excessive fines.' Jouppi argues that the seizure is disproportionate to the offense, as he claims he was unaware of the alcohol, which belonged to a passenger. Alaska maintains that the forfeiture is justified due to the role aircraft play in transporting alcohol to dry communities. The case has drawn attention from property-rights advocates and civil libertarians, as it could set a precedent for how courts evaluate the proportionality of fines and forfeitures.

Fifth Circuit Considers Overturning Federal Gun Law in Heroin Trafficker Case

Fifth Circuit Considers Overturning Federal Gun Law in Heroin Trafficker Case

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to review en banc a case involving a heroin trafficker's gun charge, questioning the constitutionality of federal laws under the Commerce Clause. The case, United States v. Hemani, challenges the application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun possession by unlawful drug users. Justice Clarence Thomas previously suggested that the Commerce Clause, which underpins much of federal law, might not authorize Congress to regulate possession of items that have crossed state lines. This case has sparked debate as it could potentially undermine a wide array of federal regulations if the court rules in favor of the trafficker.

Supreme Court Reviews Case Involving $95,000 Plane Forfeiture Over Six-Pack of Bud Light

Supreme Court Reviews Case Involving $95,000 Plane Forfeiture Over Six-Pack of Bud Light

The Supreme Court is set to review a case involving the state of Alaska's attempt to seize a man's $95,000 plane after a passenger brought a six-pack of Bud Light on board without the owner's knowledge. The state argues that while the fine for the infraction is $1,500, the forfeiture of the plane is justified under current laws. This case has drawn attention due to the significant disparity between the fine and the value of the forfeited property. The legal proceedings are part of a broader discussion on the proportionality of penalties and the application of forfeiture laws.

The Supreme Court Cases That Changed Affirmative Action

The Supreme Court Cases That Changed Affirmative Action

Affirmative action has been a contentious issue in the United States, sparking debates about equality, fairness, and the role of race in society. W...

Supreme Court Ruling Limits Military Contractors' Immunity in War Zones

Supreme Court Ruling Limits Military Contractors' Immunity in War Zones

The United States Supreme Court has issued a ruling that military contractors do not have absolute immunity from negligence claims in active war zones. This decision was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas and supported by a six-justice majority, including Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, dissented, arguing that the case was preempted by the Constitution's grant of war powers to the Federal Government. The ruling marks a significant shift in how state-law tort claims are viewed in the context of military operations, potentially opening the door for more lawsuits against contractors operating in conflict areas.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Expands Privacy Protections for Private Landowners

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Expands Privacy Protections for Private Landowners

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that government officials must generally obtain a warrant before entering certain posted private properties. This decision came in a unanimous 7-0 ruling in favor of the Punxsutawney Hunting Club and Pitch Pine Hunting Club, which challenged the Pennsylvania Game Commission's warrantless searches. The court found that the state's Constitution provides greater privacy protections than the U.S. Constitution for landowners who have taken steps to exclude intruders, such as posting 'No Trespassing' signs and marking property lines. The ruling overturns the 2007 Commonwealth v. Russo decision and strikes down parts of the Game and Wildlife Code that allowed warrantless entry onto posted private property.

Nintendo Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit Over U.S. Tariff Refunds

Nintendo Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit Over U.S. Tariff Refunds

Nintendo Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit Over U.S. Tariff Refunds

Fifth Circuit Considers Radical Legal Theory in Heroin Trafficker's Gun Case, Challenging Federal Law

Fifth Circuit Considers Radical Legal Theory in Heroin Trafficker's Gun Case, Challenging Federal Law

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear a case en banc involving a heroin trafficker's gun charge, raising questions about the validity of federal laws. The case challenges the application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun possession by unlawful drug users. The court's decision to review the case en banc suggests a willingness to reconsider established legal precedents, potentially questioning the scope of the Commerce Clause. This move has sparked debate about the role of federal law in regulating gun possession and the broader implications for constitutional interpretation.

Justice Department Declares ADA Guidance 'Not Enforceable'

Justice Department Declares ADA Guidance 'Not Enforceable'

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced that its guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) integration mandate and the Olmstead v. L.C. decision is 'not enforceable.' This guidance, which has been used for over a decade to ensure community-based treatment for individuals with mental disabilities, is now under review following a 2024 Supreme Court decision. The Justice Department's notice clarifies that the guidance is not legally binding, despite being treated as authoritative by many courts. This move has raised concerns among disability rights advocates about the potential impact on the rights of people with disabilities.

Supreme Court Invalidates Federal Limits on Party-Coordinated Spending, Impacting State Laws

Supreme Court Invalidates Federal Limits on Party-Coordinated Spending, Impacting State Laws

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission that federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates violate the First Amendment. The 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh, overturned the precedent set by FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee and invalidated the federal party-coordinated-expenditure limits outlined in 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d). These limits previously set ceilings for coordinated expenditures by national and state party committees. The Court maintained that existing base contribution limits, earmarking rules, and disclosure requirements sufficiently address potential circumvention, rendering the additional ceilings on party speech disproportionate. The decision does not automatically nullify state laws but provides a framework for evaluating state restrictions on party support for candidates. Currently, 23 states and the District of Columbia have laws limiting party co...