Appeals Court Puts Stake Through Heart Of New York’s Anti-2nd Amendment ‘Vampire Rule’
'Many private property owners will likely not post signs indicating whether firearms are permitted'
2A win: Appeals court in DC strikes down high-capacity magazine restrictions
Second Amendment advocates are celebrating after a D.C. appeals court struck down a local ban on high-capacity magazines.
On Thursday, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals handed down a 2-1 decision in Tyree Benson v. United States and the District of Columbia, ruling that a local law banning gun magazines that can contain more than 10 rounds is unconstitutional.
'We agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment.'
Appellant Tyree Benson was arrested in October 2022 on multiple charges related to possession of a Glock 45 9mm caliber handgun with a high-capacity magazine that could hold 30 rounds of ammunition.
The opinion argued that the ubiquity of high-capacity magazines makes enforcing or justifying an outright ban extremely difficult.
Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today. Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment.
RELATED: Want a machine gun? These states might soon make buying one easier
The opinion of the court was written by Trump appointee Associate Judge Joshua Deahl, who was joined by Obama appointee Catharine Friend Easterly.
In her dissent, Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby argued in part that the majority's argument failed to address the unusually high capacity in this case, whereas many gun owners have guns with 11-, 15-, or 17-round magazines. Additionally, she defended the law by applying the historical legal standard of banning "dangerous and unusual" weapons, though that standard is controversial.
The District of Columbia, which upholds the ban and is another party in the suit, could appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court or request that a larger panel from the local appeals court reconsider it, the New York Times reported.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Appeals court unanimous in pivotal ruling on undated or misdated mail-in ballots
The Republican National Committee was dealt a blow by a unanimous decision of the Third Circuit Appeals Court in the RNC's effort to discard undated and misdated ballots in Pennsylvania.
The three-judge panel said in the 55-page ruling that the affected ballots needed to be counted and failing to do so was unconstitutional. Pennsylvania voters are required to write the date on the envelope for their mail-in ballots.
'Discarding thousands of ballots every election is not a reasonable trade-off in view of the date requirement's extremely limited and unlikely capacity to detect and deter fraud.'
"The date requirement imposes a burden on Pennsylvanians' constitutional right to vote," the court ruling reads. "And it culminates in county election boards discarding thousands of ballots each time an election is held. The date requirement will not protect against the vast majority of attempts at voter fraud."
The RNC unsuccessfully sought to discard those thousands of ballots for the 2025 election. The group argued that the number of affected ballots could swing some of the races.
"The date requirement seems to hamper rather than facilitate election efficiency. By its nature, it fails to add solemnity to the process of voting," the court continued. "And discarding thousands of ballots every election is not a reasonable trade-off in view of the date requirement's extremely limited and unlikely capacity to detect and deter fraud."
RELATED: Texas mayoral candidate charged with 109 felonies related to mail-in ballot voter fraud
In November, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered county election officials to preclude non-dated and misdated ballots from their count.
"These eligible voters who got their ballots in on time should have their votes counted and voices heard," Pennsylvania ACLU attorney Steve Loney said at the time. "The fundamental right to vote is among the most precious rights we enjoy as Pennsylvanians, and it should take more than a trivial paperwork error to take it away."
President Donald Trump has said that he intends to focus on ending all mail-in balloting. The U.S. Supreme Court could overturn the appeals court ruling if the case makes it to the highest court of the land.
The three judges of the court were appointed by former Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Joe Biden.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Appeals court shuts down ban on drag shows at Texas A&M
A battle lasting over two years between drag show advocates and Texas A&M has led to a decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals against the university.
The ruling said that the plaintiffs had proven a "substantial threat of irreparable harm" to their First Amendment right to free speech because of the ban on drag shows.
'These events often involve unwelcome and objectively offensive conduct based on sex for many members of the respective communities.'
FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, filed the lawsuit against Texas A&M on behalf of the Texas A&M Queer Empowerment Council when the board of regents banned drag shows across the system's 11 campuses.
The group celebrated the latest decision on Monday.
"VICTORY! In a win for student expression on campus, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals today overruled a lower court's decision, sided with FIRE's clients, and blocked West Texas A&M University's unconstitutional ban on drag shows," the group said on social media.
The order allows drag shows to continue on the campuses as the litigation proceeds through the court system.
FIRE said the original ban was in response to a drag show that was raising charity funds to address suicide in the LGBTQ community. However, those funds would go to the Trevor Project, which has been criticized as an extremist activist group.
"State officials should stop trying to score political points at the expense of students' First Amendment rights," FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh said after a previous ruling that was reported by Blaze News.
A resolution from the university argued that the drag shows were an affront to the dignity of womanhood.
"Drag show events are likely to create or contribute to a hostile environment for women," the resolution reads.
"These events often involve unwelcome and objectively offensive conduct based on sex for many members of the respective communities of the universities, particularly when they involve the mockery or objectification of women," the university added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Appeals court delivers Trump a 'huge victory' in VOA layoffs suit, sets stage for additional wins
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered the Trump administration a "huge victory" on Saturday, blocking the order of a lesser court that required the reinstatement of over 1,000 Voice of America employees.
Kari Lake, senior adviser for the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which supervises Voice of America, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and a handful of other state-funded outfits including Radio Free Europe, called the ruling a "BIG WIN in our legal cases at USAGM & Voice of America. Huge victory for President Trump and Article II."
"Turns out the District Court judge will not be able to manage the agency as he seemed to want to," added Lake.
The appeals court's 2-1 ruling, which saw Trump-appointed Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao pitted against dissenting Obama-appointed Judge Cornelia Pillard, held that "the government is likely to succeed on the merits because the district court likely lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enjoin USAGM's personnel actions and to compel the agency to restore RFA's and MBN's FY 2025 grants."
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on March 14 aimed at reducing various "unnecessary" elements of the federal bureaucracy "to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law." Among the entities targeted was the USAGM.
'Ensure that taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda.'
In a corresponding fact sheet, the White House shared links to articles criticizing the quality and neutrality of the state media outfit's output, as well as a link to a write-up of the American Accountability Foundation's 2022 lawsuit alleging that VOA had "been infiltrated by anti-American, pro-Islamic state interests."
Blaze News previously reported that pursuant to the president's executive order, approximately 1,300 VOA journalists and other employees were placed on administrative leave, and funding was suspended to VOA's sister networks.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled against the administration on April 22, noting that its stated efforts to "ensure that taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda" were "arbitrary and capricious" and "likely in direct violation of numerous federal laws," including the VOA's congressionally established charter in the International Broadcasting Act.
Lamberth ordered the administration to "take all necessary steps to return USAGM employees and contractors to their status" prior to Trump's March 14 EO; to restore VOA programming; and to restore fiscal year 2025 grants to Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. He also demanded that the administration provide him with monthly status reports "apprising the Court of the status of the defendants' compliance with this Order."
'The injunction threatens its prerogative to "speak with one voice" on behalf of the United States in foreign affairs.'
The appeals court said in its Saturday ruling that Lamberth "likely lacked jurisdiction over the USAGM's personnel decisions" as federal employees may not use the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge agency employee actions.
"Congress has instead established comprehensive statutory schemes for adjudicating employment disputes with the federal government," noted the court.
While the dissenting Obama judge on the appeals court expressed doubt that Congress' chosen administrative methods could properly process agency-wide claims for over 1,000 employees, the majority noted that "administrative agencies are not powerless to issue broad-reaching relief in large-scale personnel matters."
The court said that Lamberth similarly lacked jurisdiction to restore Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks' grants for fiscal year 2025.
"If a claim against the United States is contractual 'at its essence,' district courts have no power to resolve it," wrote the majority. That authority belongs to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The appeals court also recognized that Lamberth's order requiring the restoration of all employees and contractors is a harmful "intrusion" that implicates the Trump administration's foreign-affairs authority since USAGM is responsible for presenting the views of the government and supporting U.S. foreign policy.
"By depriving the Executive Branch of control over the individuals involved in its international broadcasting, the injunction threatens its prerogative to 'speak with one voice' on behalf of the United States in foreign affairs," said the court.
Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent at the Federalist, noted that this "conclusion should have wide-spread ramifications" because many of the legal challenges brought against the Trump administration "are about employment decisions which CONGRESS said are NOT for district courts to decide."
The appeals court's decision landed a day after the Department of Justice notified lawyers representing VOA workers that they could return to work this week.
In a letter obtained by The Hill sent to VOA staffers' lawyers, the DOJ wrote, "USAGM currently expects staff to begin to return to the office next week, as security, building space, and equipment issues require a phased return."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Biden's student loan repayment plan dealt another blow by federal court
Joe Biden's attempts to fulfill a major campaign promise to relieve student loan debt took another hit this week when a federal appeals court blocked the Saving on a Valuable Education program, better known as SAVE.
On a one-page, unsigned order issued on Thursday, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the request of six Republican-led states, including Missouri, to suspend implementation of aspects of the SAVE program while the court considers a more permanent block favored by Republicans. A district judge had already blocked implementation of the other parts of the SAVE program in a ruling last month.
Supporters of SAVE, on the other hand, waxed histrionic that the order blocking the implementation of SAVE would upend people's lives, even though the program began offering debt relief only a few months ago.
Andrew Bailey, the Republican attorney general of Missouri who filed the emergency motion on behalf of the plaintiffs, celebrated the order as a "HUGE win" for everyday Americans. Bailey called SAVE "illegal" and claimed it was a backdoor means of saddling taxpayers — many of whom never went to college — "with half-a-trillion dollars in Ivy League debt."
— (@)
"I'm proud to lead from the frontlines on this. In Missouri, we believe in paying our debts and not burdening hardworking taxpayers. Today’s victory is a win for every hardworking American who pays their bills without leaning on their neighbors," Bailey added in a separate statement.
Supporters of SAVE, on the other hand, waxed histrionic that the order blocking the implementation of SAVE would upend people's lives, even though the program began offering debt relief only a few months ago.
"Today’s ruling from the 8th Circuit blocking President Biden’s SAVE plan could have devastating consequences for millions of student loan borrowers crushed by unaffordable monthly payments if it remains in effect," said a statement from Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona.
"This decision threatens the entire federal student loan system and will cause complete chaos and confusion," added a statement from Eileen Connor, president and executive director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending.
The Biden administration has tried to ease or outright cancel student loan debt for years after campaigning heavily on the issue in 2020. However, time after time, the courts have overruled many of those efforts. In June 2023, the Supreme Court struck down Biden's attempts to cancel up to $20,000 in loans for qualified borrowers.
SAVE was yet another means of trying to achieve a similar end. To date, more than 8 million people have enrolled in SAVE, and over 400,000 of them who had taken out no more than $12,000 originally had their entire debt eliminated. The appellate court order will not affect any debt cancellation that has already been given through the SAVE program.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com