federal regulation

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will hear a 2nd Amendment challenge to the gun laws in Connecticut and Cook County, Ill., that ban most semiautomatic assault weapons.

Before leaving for the summer recess, the justices issued orders on new cases that will be heard in the fall. The new 2nd Amendment case figures to be a major test of what kinds of firearms and ammunition are off-limits to state or federal regulation.

The outcome will affect California and all the states led by Democrats that strictly regulate or prohibit semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15.

Gun-rights advocates say these are among the most common and popular weapons in the country, and they should not banned in some states.

In response, Connecticut state attorneys said only about 2% of Americans own assault weapons, and they rarely use them for self-defense.

Since 1989, California has prohibited the sale and possession of most semiautomatic rifles and pistols that can fire more than 10 shots before reloading. Nine other states led by Democrats have similar laws.

State lawmakers said these rapid-fire guns are not needed for self-defense but can be a weapon of mass murder. All of the blue-state bans could be struck down next year if the court’s conservatives rule in favor of the 2nd Amendment claim.

Gun-rights advocates say firearms in “common use” by law-abiding owners cannot be prohibited by the government.

Four of the court’s conservatives have said in past dissents they believe the state bans on assault weapons run afoul of the 2nd Amendment. They are Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

That suggests the fate of those state laws depends on Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Joining in support of the gun-rights challenge were the state attorneys for Montana, Idaho and 25 other Republican-led states.

They urged the court to prevent liberal judges and states led by Democrats from “rewriting the 2nd Amendment … to allow hostile jurisdictions to continue infringing on their citizens’ core constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

In 2016, California’s voters approved a ballot measure that makes possession of large-capacity magazines illegal. At least 10 states have similar laws, but they apply only to the manufacture and sale of large-capacity magazines.

Gun-rights advocates sued in San Diego, leading to nearly a decade of back-and-forth litigation. A federal judge struck down these restrictions under the 2nd Amendment, but the state appealed. They were eventually upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in an en banc ruling.

Meanwhile, the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago has upheld an Illinois law and the Cook County ordinance prohibiting semiautomatic rifles and pistols. Its opinion said rapid-fire guns do not differ significantly “from machine guns and military-grade weaponry,” which can be banned under the 2nd Amendment.

Before Tuesday, the justices had repeatedly refused to weigh in on whether the 2nd Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” includes the right to semiautomatic “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines.

Since 2015, the court has turned down gun-rights appeals from blue states like Illinois and Maryland over their bans on “assault weapons,” despite dissents from Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.

As an appeals court judge in Washington, D.C., Kavanaugh voted to strike down the city’s ban on assault weapons.

Three years after John Roberts became chief justice, the court ruled for the first time in 2008 that the 2nd Amendment protected individual gun rights, not just state militias. But the 5-4 decision simply struck down a city’s ban on having a hand gun at home for self-defense.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller said the Constitution gives law-abiding persons a right to have weapons in “common use” for self-defense, but not “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Ever since, advocates for gun rights and gun control have been arguing over whether semiautomatic guns with large-capacity magazines can be regulated because they are uniquely dangerous or are protected because they are very common.

In the past two years, the Supreme Court has a mixed record on gun regulation.

Last year, the justices in a 6-3 decision struck down a federal regulation that banned “bump stocks,” which allow rapid-fire shooting with a semiautomatic rifle.

That regulation was adopted in the first Trump administration in response to the mass shooting at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas where a lone gunman fired as many as 1,000 shots from a hotel window.

The conservative majority ruled the bump stock devices did not fit the definition of a prohibited machine gun.

Earlier this year, however, the court in a 7-2 decision upheld a regulation prohibiting unregistered “ghost guns” that were made by parts kits.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an antiabortion challenge to federal regulations that permit sending pills through the mail once a patient has consulted a doctor online.

The justices granted an emergency appeal from the makers of mifepristone and set aside an order from a U.S. appeals court in Louisiana that would have made it illegal to send or receive the medication by mail.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.

“The court’s unreasoned order granting stays in this case is remarkable,” Alito wrote. “What is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortions within its borders.”

The decision is a setback for abortion opponents, including Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill, who sued and argued that her state’s ban on abortion has been thwarted by abortion pills sent by mail.

Thursday’s order preserves access to the medication under the current rules, but it is not a final decision.

The case will now return to the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans for further review.

“Today’s ruling buys time, but no peace of mind,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Mifepristone access remains highly at risk as this case moves forward and the Trump administration conducts a politically motivated review of this pill with the hardly disguised aim of making it harder to get.”

National Right to Life expressed deep disappointment.

“Women facing unexpected pregnancies deserve real medical care and support, not a one-size-fits-all mail-order abortion system that minimizes risks and leaves women isolated during medical emergencies,” said Carol Tobias, the group’s president.

The legal dispute has put the Trump administration in a politically awkward spot.

Critics of abortion, including Republican attorneys general from 23 states, argued that the regulations adopted during the Biden administration have thwarted their state laws and allowed patients to obtain medication from doctors in California and New York.

But the Trump administration has shown no urgency to change the regulations that allow for dispensing the pills by mail.

Alito, who spoke at the 5th Circuit a week ago, said he agreed with the state’s argument.

“Louisiana’s efforts have been thwarted by certain medical providers, private organizations, and States that abhor laws like Louisiana’s and seek to undermine their enforcement,” he wrote. “These medical providers and private organizations have developed an operation enabling women in Louisiana and other States that restrict abortions to place an online order for a pill called mifepristone that induces abortion.”

Thomas said abortion is a crime in Louisiana.

The makers of the abortion pills have no grounds to sue “based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise. They cannot, in any legally relevant sense, be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to commit crimes.”

But most of the court’s conservatives refused to go along, even though they had voted to overturn the constitutional right to abortion.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett refused to block the current regulations on a fast-track appeal.

Two years ago, the court handed down a similar decision involving abortion pills and the 5th Circuit Court.

The justices overturned a 5th Circuit ruling on the grounds that the antiabortion doctors who sued had no standing because they did not prescribe or use the medication.

In 2000, the FDA approved the use of mifepristone as safe and effective for ending an early pregnancy or treating a miscarriage. It is used in combination with a second drug misoprostol, which induces cramping.

Since 2016, the FDA has relaxed regulations on its use. They include a requirement that women obtain the pills directly from a doctor or a medical clinic. However, it was understood the medication would be taken later at home.

The agency temporarily suspended this rule in 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, then lifted it entirely in 2023.

Medication abortions now account for almost two-thirds of abortions in the United States, and telehealth is used in 27% of abortions nationwide. Last year, in response to abortion opponents, the Trump administration agreed to review the safety record of mifepristone.

“Mifepristone is one of the safest and most well-studied drugs on the market,” said Dr. Camille A. Clare, president of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. “The FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement after careful evaluation of the data because mifepristone is safe and effective even when distributed by mail.”

But the Louisiana attorney general decided to sue in federal court without waiting for the FDA.

She argued that the mailing of abortion medication, which was approved under the Biden administration, was undermining her state’s strict ban on abortions.

A federal judge in Louisiana said the state appeared to have a strong claim, but he decided not to rule on it until the FDA completed its review.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals responded a few days later by ruling the FDA erred by relaxing its regulations to allow for dispensing the pills by mail. The three-judge panel then put its ruling into effect immediately on May 1.

Abortion law experts called out the decision as extreme and unusual.

“To our knowledge, no court has ever ordered the FDA to reimpose on a drug a safety rule the agency has thoroughly studied and deemed unnecessary,” said Melissa Goodman, executive director of UCLA’s Center for Reproductive Health, Law and Policy.