unconstitutional

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A pair of court rulings declaring some of Florida’s gun restrictions unconstitutional are creating some confusion in the notoriously firearm-friendly state — and fueling activists’ calls for Republican legislators to take action to update state statutes so they abide by the new legal landscape.

Despite Florida’s history of being a gun-supporting climate, Florida’s GOP-dominated state Legislature took steps to restrict gun laws in the wake of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Since the day the measure was signed into law, gun rights advocates have been pushing to unravel it.

Now, activists say recent court rulings are fueling their push to expand gun rights in the state, emboldened by U.S. Supreme Court’s updated standards for evaluating gun laws based on the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

“Leaving unconstitutional laws on the books creates nothing but confusion,” said Sean Caranna, executive director of the advocacy group Florida Carry.

Here’s what to know.

Judge finds age restriction on concealed carry unconstitutional

A ruling by a circuit court judge in Broward County, home to Fort Lauderdale, found that Florida’s prohibition against people under the age of 21 from carrying a concealed firearm is unconstitutional, at least as it relates to the case in question.

Last week, Judge Frank Ledee tossed out the conviction of 19-year-old Joel Walkes, who was charged with a third-degree felony for carrying a concealed handgun. Florida statutes currently allow people between the age of 18 and 20 to possess a firearm, if they legally receive it as a gift or an inheritance, but they are barred from purchasing guns or carrying them concealed.

Ledee found the state’s prohibition is incompatible with the Supreme Court’s historical test, and inconsistent with a recent appeals court ruling that found a state law banning the open carrying of firearms is unconstitutional. In his decision, the judge pointed to the Legislature’s role in codifying and clarifying the changes.

“Distilling these inconsistencies into a framework of firearm regulations compatible with the guarantee to bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is best left to the wisdom of legislative debate,” Ledee wrote.

Open carry ruling sparks questions

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal issued its ruling last month in a case stemming from the July 4, 2022, arrest of a man who stood at a major intersection in downtown Pensacola carrying a visible, holstered pistol and a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

The decision legalizes open carry, though there are preexisting limitations against carrying in a threatening manner or in certain restricted spaces like government meetings, schools and bars. The ruling has prompted some Florida sheriffs to urge caution among gun owners and seek clarity from lawmakers.

Legalizing open carry has long been a major focus of gun rights activists in the state, who oppose the slate of restrictions that Florida lawmakers implemented in the wake of the Parkland school shooting, which killed 17 people and injured 17 others. Among the law’s provisions was raising the legal gun-buying age to 21.

Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, said the recent court decisions put more onus on lawmakers to enact state statutes that line up with recent judicial rulings.

“I would not be surprised if in the next session the Florida Legislature doesn’t just take care of this by amending the statute to say, ‘clean it up.’ And then that’ll end all these lawsuits and possible lawsuits,” Jarvis said of the age-related prohibition. “And that’s really now what should happen.”

Advocates push for expanding gun laws

In the years since the 2018 Parkland shooting, lawmakers’ efforts to lower the gun-buying age to 18 have advanced in the Florida House but ultimately failed in the state Senate.

Now some advocates say the recent court rulings should force the hand of legislators who have opposed expanding gun rights in the past.

“We’ve been telling the Legislature since 2010 that this was going to be a problem for them if they didn’t act. And they chose not to act,” Caranna said.

“I hope that given some of the recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court and the Florida courts, that they will finally see that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,” he added.

Representatives for Florida’s House speaker and Senate president did not immediately respond to inquiries Wednesday.

Payne writes for the Associated Press.

The city and county of Los Angeles are among the local governments seeking to join a lawsuit calling on the Trump administration to stop “unlawful detentions” during ongoing immigration sweeps in Southern California.

On Tuesday, the governments filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Public Counsel and immigrant rights groups against the Trump administration last week.

The lawsuit claims that the region is “under siege” by federal agents and aims to stop federal agencies from an “ongoing pattern and practice of flouting the Constitution and federal law” during immigration raids.

“These unconstitutional roundups and raids cannot be allowed to continue. They cannot become the new normal,” said Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto at a news conference Tuesday afternoon.

Feldstein Soto was joined by Mayor Karen Bass and officials from other cities also seeking to join the lawsuit.

The motion from the local governments comes as the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Southern California enters its second month. Between June 6 and June 22, federal agents arrested 1,618 immigrants for deportation in Los Angeles and surrounding areas, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

“Day in and day out, there is no telling who these federal agents will target or when they will strike, since they refuse to coordinate with local authorities,” attorney John Schwab, who is representing Los Angeles and other cities, wrote in the motion to intervene. “All that is certain is that Defendants’ aim is to instill maximum fear in … communities and wreak havoc on the economy of one of the most diverse and vibrant areas in the country.”

The motion argues that the immigration raids are obstructing local governments’ ability to perform critical law enforcement functions and depriving them of tax revenue because of a slowdown in the local economy.

L.A. County and some cities — Culver City, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Santa Monica, West Hollywood and Pasadena — hope to become part of the lawsuit at a hearing Thursday where a judge will consider issuing a temporary restraining order that would bar the administration from making unconstitutional immigration arrests.

“How do we know the difference between this and a kidnapping?” Bass asked at the news conference.

In a statement, L.A. County Supervisor Hilda Solis said, “For the past month, we’ve seen individuals picked up at car washes and Home Depot parking lots, then simply disappear without warrants, probable cause, or due process … These actions have created fear, trauma, and instability in our communities. Small businesses are suffering. People are afraid to go to work, take their kids to school, or ride public transportation.”

Feldstein Soto stressed that a temporary restraining order would not stop the Trump administration from conducting legal civil immigration enforcement in L.A.

In a court filing opposing the temporary restraining order, U.S. Department of Justice attorneys argued that L.A. and the other local governments were trying to “interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration law.”

L.A. officials had already been considering a lawsuit before filing the motion Tuesday. Seven City Council members signed onto a proposal asking Feldstein Soto to prioritize “immediate legal action” to protect the civil rights of Angelenos. Feldstein Soto said her office would soon have more announcements on litigation against the administration.

The Trump administration has sued the city of Los Angeles as well, claiming that its sanctuary policy is illegal and discriminates against federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Times staff writer Rachel Uranga contributed to this report.

US lawmakers and American citizens have condemned what they call President Donald Trump’s ‘unconstitutional’ decision to bomb Iran without Congressional approval. Many criticised the US military intervention as a betrayal of Trump’s ‘America First’ platform that got him re-elected.

On this date in history:

In 1846, two amateur baseball teams played under new rules at Hoboken, N.J., planting the first seeds of organized baseball. The New York Nine beat the Knickerbockers, 23-1.

In 1856, the first Republican national convention ended in Philadelphia with the nomination of explorer John Charles Fremont of California for president. James Buchanan, a Federalist nominated by the Democrats, was elected.

In 1864, the Union sloop-of-war USS Kearsarge sank the Confederate commerce raider CSS Alabama in the Battle of Cherbourg off the coast of France.

In 1865, nearly two and a half years after the Emancipation Proclamation, freedom from slavery was announced in Galveston, Texas, the most remote area of the country where slavery was still practiced. The day came to be celebrated annually as Juneteenth, Freedom Day, Jubilee Day and Liberation Day.

In 1867, Austrian Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian, installed as emperor of Mexico by French Emperor Napoleon III in 1864, was executed on the orders of Benito Juarez, president of the Mexican Republic.

In 1905, Pittsburgh showman Harry Davis opened the world’s first nickelodeon, showing “The Great Train Robbery,” a silent Western film. The storefront theater had 96 seats, charged 5 cents and prompted the advent of movie houses across the United States.

In 1910, Spokane, Wash., had the first Father’s Day.

File Photo by Gary C. Caskey/UPI

In 1944, World War II’s Battle of the Philippine Sea began. Japanese forces tried unsuccessfully to prevent further Allied advancement in the South Pacific.

In 1953, convicted spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed by electric chair at Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining, N.Y.

In 1965, Nguyen Cao Ky became the prime minister of South Vietnam, the ninth leader within the past 20 months.

UPI File Photo

In 1972, Hurricane Agnes made landfall in the Florida Panhandle, going on to kill 128 people along the eastern U.S. seaboard.

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1981 Louisiana law that required schools to teach the creationist theory of human origin espoused by fundamentalist Christians.

In 1991, Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar surrendered to police in Medellin in the wake of the assassination of Luis Carlos Galan. Authorities convinced him to give himself up in exchange for a lighter sentence for prior criminal activity — activity which continued after his imprisonment.

In 1999, horror novelist Stephen King was hit by a car and severely injured while out for a walk in rural Maine.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prayers led by students at public high school football games aren’t permitted under the constitutional separation of church and state. In 2022, the high court ruled, however, that a school district in Washington violated a coach’s First Amendment rights when they stopped him from publicly praying on the field after games.

In 2008, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, became the first candidate at that level to bypass public financing since the program was established.

In 2013, James Gandolfini, who starred in the gangster drama The Sopranos, died of a heart attack in Rome. He was 51.

In 2014, Felipe VI was proclaimed Spain’s new king after his father, King Juan Carlos, abdicated the throne.

In 2019, Joy Harjo was named the first Native American poet laureate of the United States.

In 2024, the annual Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, concluded after at least 1,300 people died over the five-day trek. Officials blamed a lack of cooling centers, sleeping accommodations and other critical services as temperatures soared above 125 degrees Fahrenheit.

File Photo by Mohammad Kheirkhah/UPI

A United States federal judge has said that an effort by the administration of President Donald Trump to deport pro-Palestine student activist Mahmoud Khalil is likely unconstitutional.

District Judge Michael Farbiarz of New Jersey wrote on Wednesday that the government’s claim that Khalil constituted a threat to US national security and foreign policy was not likely to succeed.

“Would an ordinary person have a sense that he could be removed from the United States because he ‘compromise[d]’ American ‘foreign policy interests’ — that is, because he compromised US relations with other countries — when the Secretary has not determined that his actions impacted US relations with a foreign country?” Farbiarz wrote. “Probably not.”

Farbiarz did not immediately rule on the question of whether Khalil’s First Amendment rights to free speech were violated. He also did not order Khalil’s immediate release, citing unanswered questions about his permanent residency application.

The judge is expected to order further steps in the coming days.

A ruling against the government would be the latest legal setback for the Trump administration’s controversial efforts to crack down on pro-Palestine activism across the US in the name of national security and combating anti-Semitism.

But critics have accused the Trump administration of violating basic constitutional rights in its efforts to do so.

Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the US, was the first high-profile arrest made in the Trump administration’s push to expel student protesters involved in demonstrations against Israel’s war in Gaza.

A former graduate student, Khalil had served as a spokesperson for the antiwar protests at Columbia University. But on March 8, the 30-year-old was arrested in the hall of his student housing building in New York City, while his wife, Dr Noor Abdalla, filmed the incident.

He was then transferred from a detention centre in New Jersey to one in Jena, Louisiana, while his lawyers struggled to ascertain his location. He remains imprisoned in the Jena facility while the US government seeks his deportation.

In public statements, Khalil has said that his detention is part of an effort to chill dissent over US support for Israel’s war, which has been described as a genocide by human rights groups and United Nations experts.

Civil liberties organisations have also expressed alarm that Khalil’s detention appears premised on his political views, rather than any criminal acts. Khalil has not been charged with any crime.

In Louisiana, Khalil continues to face an immigration court weighing his deportation. But in a separate case before the US federal court in Newark, New Jersey, Khalil’s lawyers are arguing a habeas corpus petition: in other words, a case that argues their client has been unlawfully detained.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, acting on behalf of the Trump administration, has cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as the legal basis for Khalil’s detention.

That Cold War-era law stipulates that the secretary of state can deport a foreign national if that person is deemed to pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences”.

But that law has been rarely used and raises concerns about conflicts with the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to free speech regardless of citizenship.

Judge Farbiarz appeared to echo that concern, warning that the Trump administration’s rationale appeared to meet the standards for “constitutional vagueness”.

That, in turn, means Khalil’s petition is “likely to succeed on the merits of his claim” that the government’s actions were unconstitutional, the judge wrote on Wednesday.

Khalil’s legal team applauded the judge’s order, writing in a statement afterwards, “The district court held what we already knew: Secretary Rubio’s weaponization of immigration law to punish Mahmoud and others like him is likely unconstitutional.”

Khalil is one of several high-profile students whose cases have tested the constitutional bounds of the Trump administration’s actions.

Other international students detained for their involvement in pro-Palestine politics, such as Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk and Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi, have been released from detention after legal challenges.

But Khalil remains in detention. The government denied a request for Khalil’s temporary release that would have allowed him to witness the birth of his son in April.

It also sought to prevent him from holding his newborn son during visitation sessions at a Louisiana detention centre.

“I am furious at the cruelty and inhumanity of this system that dares to call itself just,” Abdalla, Khalil’s wife, said in a statement.

She noted that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had denied the family “this most basic human right” after she flew more than 1,000 miles to visit him in Louisiana with their newborn son.

A judge blocked those efforts by ICE last week, allowing Khalil to hold his son for the first time more than one month after he was born.