Supreme Court Issues Major Ruling on the Second Amendment
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibits individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, rejecting a constitutional challenge to the measure.
The ruling came in an 8-1 decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the lone dissenter.
According to SCOTUS Blog, "The court holds that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment."
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated, "Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition."
Addressing how lower courts have interpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Roberts remarked, "Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber."
He further clarified that otherwise, the Second Amendment would only protect “muskets and sabers.”
Roberts emphasized that "why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. For example, if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations."
Supreme Court Rejects Review of Landmark Defamation Case
The Supreme Court has had a busy schedule. Earlier this week, it declined to review a case seeking to challenge a 1964 ruling that shields news organizations from defamation lawsuits when reporting on public figures.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court ruled that a plaintiff must demonstrate "actual malice" to succeed in a defamation case against the press. Some conservative justices have advocated revisiting this precedent.
As reported by Axios, Sullivan established that news organizations cannot be held liable for publishing false information unless they do so "knowingly and recklessly, without checking to see if it is true."
Casino magnate and Trump supporter Steve Wynn had sued the Associated Press for libel, challenging the established legal precedent protecting journalists from defamation lawsuits. Wynn, who previously served as the Republican National Committee’s finance chair, sued the AP in 2018 over a report detailing allegations of sexual misconduct dating back to the 1970s.
After Nevada’s highest court dismissed the lawsuit, Wynn sought Supreme Court intervention.
First Amendment expert Kevin Goldberg explained to Axios, "The actual malice standard ... exists to give even more breadth when you’re talking about famous people, people with power in government, or people just with more power in society."
"The bar is intentionally high to dissuade people from ever filing these lawsuits," he added.
Although some conservative justices remain interested in overturning Sullivan, the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to take up cases that could provide an opportunity to reconsider the ruling. So far, the Court does not appear to have the necessary votes to revisit the matter.
Speculation on Supreme Court Retirements
Meanwhile, there have been reports suggesting that certain groups are pushing for some Supreme Court justices to step down, though no such efforts have succeeded.
Justice Samuel Alito recently dismissed any rumors that he might retire.
“Despite what some people may think, this is a man who has never thought about this job from a political perspective,” said an individual familiar with Alito’s views. “The idea that he’s going to retire for political considerations is not consistent with who he is.”
According to sources speaking with the Wall Street Journal, speculation that the 74-year-old justice might step down to allow former President Donald Trump to appoint a younger conservative has been largely unfounded.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor has also faced calls to retire. At 69, she is the third-oldest member of the Court and has been open about managing type 1 diabetes throughout her life.
However, sources told the BBC that she has no plans to leave the bench.
“This is no time to lose her important voice on the court,” a source told the Wall Street Journal. Another individual noted, “She takes better care of herself than anyone I know. She’s in great health, and the court needs her now more than ever.”