The Supreme Court rejects Joe Biden’s plan to wipe away $400 billion in student loans
A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Biden administration overstepped its authority in trying to cancel or reduce student loans for millions of Americans. The 6-3 decision, with conservative justices in the majority, effectively killed the $400 billion plan, announced by President Joe Biden last year, and left borrowers on the hook for repayments that are expected to resume by late summer. The court held that the administration needs Congress’ endorsement before undertaking so costly a program. The majority rejected arguments that a bipartisan 2003 law dealing with student loans provided the authority Biden claimed. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Alabama leaders respond to Supreme Court ruling on conceal and carry gun rights
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. The decision came out as Congress and states debate gun-control legislation. The decision struck down a New York law that required people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry a gun in a concealed way in public. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion, “Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.” President Joe Biden said in a statement he was “deeply disappointed” by the Supreme Court ruling. It “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all,” he said. Alabama leaders and lawmakers are responding to the decision. Rep. Barry Moore stated on Twitter, “The right to bear arms is not a second-tier right! An attack on #2A is an attack on ALL our constitutional rights. This decision makes clear: no state can require an American citizen to petition their government for permission to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.” Rep. Terri Sewell expressed dismay over the ruling. “Today’s Supreme Court ruling on gun violence defies the Constitution and common sense! As our nation mourns a string of senseless killings, the Court is making it more difficult for local governments and law enforcement to keep Americans safe from gun violence,” Sewell stated on Twitter. “This ruling only makes it more critical for Congress to act quickly. I look forward to considering the Senate’s bipartisan gun violence prevention legislation. Our communities are counting on us!” Rep. Jerry Carl stated, “Today’s ruling is good news and ensures all law-abiding Americans have the right to defend themselves and their families without the government interfering.” Rep. Robert Aderholt also spoke out in favor of the Supreme Court ruling. Rep. Mike Rogers stated, “I’m thrilled that SCOTUS upheld our second amendment rights in their ruling today. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Gov. Kay Ivey said the ruling was a win for common sense and for gun rights. “It’s time folks keep a level head on issues dealing with our constitutional rights as Americans, and that is exactly what our U.S. Supreme Court did through its decision today,” Ivey stated on Twitter. “While we Alabamians do not have to worry about our rights being infringed upon, law-abiding citizens in states like New York are fighting simply for their right to bear arms. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says: A citizen’s right to carry a firearm in public should not be subject to the whims of a government bureaucrat. This is a win for the Second Amendment and win for common sense.” California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island all have similar laws to New York’s. Those laws are expected to be quickly challenged.
House committee says Donald Trump’s privilege claim should be tossed
The House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol said Thursday that the Supreme Court should let stand an appeals court ruling that the National Archives turn over documents from former President Donald Trump that might shed light on the events leading up to and including that day. In a filing with the court, lawyers for the committee argued that it is within its jurisdiction to seek the information. “Although the facts are unprecedented, this case is not a difficult one,” the lawyers said in the filing, adding, “This Court’s review is unwarranted, and the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.” The lawyers said, however, that if the court “nonetheless believes” a review is warranted, “the Congressional Respondents respectfully request that the case be resolved expeditiously.” The nine-member congressional committee is investigating not just Trump’s conduct on January 6 — when he told a rally crowd to “fight like hell” shortly before rioters overran law enforcement officers — but also his efforts in the months before to challenge election results or obstruct a peaceful transfer of power. Trump has attacked the committee’s work and continued to promote unfounded conspiracy theories about widespread fraud in the election, even though Joe Biden’s victory was certified by all 50 states. His claims have been rebuked by courts across the country. In suing to block the National Archives from turning over documents, Trump’s lawyers have said the committee has “no legitimate legislative purpose” for seeking them, and granting access to the records would damage executive privilege for future presidents. Last week Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to hear arguments on his claim that executive privilege prevents the release of the documents, describing the committee as engaged in “meandering fishing expeditions.” The committee says the documents, including presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts, and handwritten notes, are vital to its investigation into the deadly riot at the Capitol aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election. The Supreme Court could decline to hear the appeal. Such action would mean the ruling December 9 by the federal appeals court is the final word on the matter. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit tossed aside Trump’s various arguments asserting executive privilege, saying Congress has a “uniquely vital interest” in studying the events of January 6. That panel also placed emphasis on Biden’s determination that the documents were in the public interest and that executive privilege should therefore not be invoked. The question now is whether at least four justices agree to hear the case. The court has six conservative jurists, including three appointed by Trump, and several issues have arisen since Trump’s lawyers filed their original petition that might be of interest. On Tuesday, The Associated Press reported that the House committee had agreed to defer its attempt to get some documents at the request of the Biden administration. The White House was concerned that releasing all of the Trump administration documents sought by the committee could compromise national security and executive privilege. The agreement to keep some Trump records away from the committee is memorialized in a December 16 letter from the White House counsel’s office. It mostly shields records that do not involve the events of January 6 but were covered by the committee’s sweeping request for documents from the Trump White House about the events of that day. While the agreement focused on specific concerns, the potential narrowing of the documents requests is an acknowledgement that it was broad. That point forms a foundation of the court filing to the Supreme Court by Trump’s lawyers, where the words broad, overly broad, strikingly broad, and hopelessly broad are sprinkled throughout. It is a point that Trump noticed as well. In a statement following the disclosure of the agreement, the former president said the committee had “just dropped a large portion of their request for my records and documents — a very big story,” and the action “also changes the entire complexion of their request.” On Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers sent a supplemental request asking the court to look into an interview that committee chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., did with The Washington Post. During the interview, Thompson indicated the committee is looking into Trump’s actions the day of the insurrection to determine if it can recommend the Justice Department open a criminal investigation. The Trump filing argues that such action is outside the committee’s legislative purpose. “It cannot embark on what is essentially a law enforcement investigation with the excuse that it might legislate based on information it turns up in the course of the exploration,” the filing said. In the submission Thursday, lawyers for the committee addressed that question, acknowledging that its involvement must have legislative intent. “The records could inform numerous pieces of potential legislation,” they wrote, such as efforts to “reform and amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887” and “enhance the legal consequences for a refusal by the Executive Branch to timely and appropriately respond to attacks on Congressional proceedings.” They also said the records could have an effect on efforts to enact or enhance laws to “prevent Executive Branch officials from enlisting the Department of Justice, or other federal resources, to support false claims about an election.” Trump’s attempts to limit investigations against him have had mixed results with the Supreme Court. The court earlier this year refused to stop his tax records from going to a New York prosecutor’s office as part of an investigation. It did prevent Congress last year, while Trump was in office, from obtaining banking and financial records for him and members of his family. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Alabama sues Joe Biden administration over school, work LGBT protections
Attorneys general from 20 states sued President Joe Biden’s administration Monday seeking to halt directives that extend federal sex discrimination protections to LGBTQ people, ranging from transgender girls participating in school sports to the use of school and workplace bathrooms that align with a person’s gender identity. Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Knoxville, arguing that legal interpretations by the U.S. Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are based on a faulty view of U.S. Supreme Court case law. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2020 that a landmark civil rights law, under a provision called Title VII, protects gay, lesbian, and transgender people from discrimination in employment. This June, the Department of Education said discrimination based on a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity will be treated as a violation of Title IX, the 1972 federal law that protects against sex discrimination in education. A legal analysis by the department concluded there is “no persuasive or well-founded basis” to treat education differently than employment. Also, in June, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released guidance about what could constitute discrimination against LGBTQ people and advised the public about how to file a complaint. With its guidance, the Biden administration in part took a stand against laws and proposals in a growing number of states that aim to forbid transgender girls from participating in female sports teams. The state attorneys general contend that the authority over such policies “properly belongs to Congress, the States, and the people.” “The guidance purports to resolve highly controversial and localized issues such as whether employers and schools may maintain sex-separated showers and locker rooms, whether schools must allow biological males to compete on female athletic teams, and whether individuals may be compelled to use another person’s preferred pronouns,” the lawsuit states. “But the agencies have no authority to resolve those sensitive questions, let alone to do so by executive fiat without providing any opportunity for public participation.” Joining Tennessee in the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. The lawsuit asks a judge for a number of declarations about Title IX in schools and Title VII in the workplace: that they don’t prohibit schools and employers from having showers, locker rooms, bathrooms, and other living facilities separated by “biological sex”; that they do not require employers, school employees or students to use a transgender person’s preferred pronouns; that they do not prohibit having school sports teams separated by “biological sex”; and that they do not prohibit workplace dress codes based on “biological sex.” The education policy carries the possibility of federal sanctions against schools and colleges that fail to protect gay and transgender students. The Department of Justice on Monday did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. The education directive reversed President Donald Trump-era policies that removed civil rights protections for transgender students. In 2017, the Trump administration lifted President Barack Obama-era guidance allowing transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identities. At the time, then-Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said the issue was “best solved at the state and local level,” and the earlier guidance led to a spike in lawsuits seeking clarification. The new action does not reinstate the Obama-era policy but instead clarifies that the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights will investigate complaints of discrimination involving gay or transgender students. If the department finds evidence of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, it will pursue a resolution to “address the specific compliance concerns or violations.” The federal agencies noted that the workplace and education guidance documents do not carry the force of law. The state attorneys general argued they are at risk of the federal government enforcing the guidance, threatening their states’ sovereign authority, causing significant liability, and putting their federal education funding at risk. In June, the Department of Justice filed statements of interest in lawsuits that seek to overturn new laws in two states. In West Virginia, a law prohibits transgender athletes from competing in female sports. Arkansas became the first state to ban gender-confirming treatments or surgery for transgender youth. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Religion and the death penalty collide at the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is sending a message to states that want to continue to carry out the death penalty: Inmates must be allowed to have a spiritual adviser by their side as they are executed. The high court around midnight Thursday declined to let Alabama proceed with the lethal injection of Willie B. Smith III. Smith had objected to Alabama’s policy that his pastor would have had to observe his execution from an adjacent room rather than the death chamber itself. The order from the high court follows two years in which inmates saw some rare success in bringing challenges based on the issue of chaplains in the death chamber. This time, liberal and conservative members of the court normally in disagreement over death penalty issues found common ground not on the death penalty itself but on the issue of religious freedom and how the death penalty is carried out. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of three justices who said they would have let Smith’s execution go forward, said Alabama’s policy applies equally to all inmates and serves a state interest in ensuring safety and security. But he said it was apparent that his colleagues who disagreed were providing a path for states to follow. States that want to avoid months or years of litigation over the presence of spiritual advisers “should figure out a way to allow spiritual advisors into the execution room, as other States and the Federal Government have done,” he wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Clarence Thomas also would have allowed the execution of Smith, who was sentenced to die for the 1991 murder of 22-year-old Sharma Ruth Johnson in Birmingham. Alabama had up until 2019 allowed a Christian prison chaplain employed by the state to be physically present in the execution chamber if requested by the inmate, but the state changed its policy in response to two earlier Supreme Court cases. Robert Dunham, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, says the court’s order will most clearly affect states in the Deep South that have active execution chambers. Dunham said most state execution protocols, which set who is present in the death chamber, do not mention spiritual advisers. For most of the modern history of the U.S. death penalty since the 1970s, spiritual advisers have not been present in execution chambers, he said. The federal government, which under President Donald Trump resumed federal executions following a 17-year hiatus and carried out 13 executions, allowed a spiritual adviser to be present in the death chamber. The Biden administration is still weighing how it will proceed in death penalty cases. The court’s order in Smith’s case contained only statements from Kavanaugh and Justice Elena Kagan. “Willie Smith is sentenced to death, and his last wish is to have his pastor with him as he dies,” Kagan wrote for herself and liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, as well as conservative Amy Coney Barrett. Kagan added: “Alabama has not carried its burden of showing that the exclusion of all clergy members from the execution chamber is necessary to ensure prison security.” Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Samuel Alito did not make public their views, but at least one or perhaps both of them must have voted with their liberal colleagues to keep Smith’s execution on hold. The court’s yearslong wrestling with the issue of chaplains in the death chamber began in 2019, when the justices declined to halt the execution of Alabama inmate Domineque Ray. Ray had objected that a Christian chaplain employed by the prison typically remained in the execution chamber during a lethal injection, but the state would not let his imam be present. The next month, however, the justices halted the execution of a Texas inmate, Patrick Murphy, who objected after Texas officials wouldn’t allow his Buddhist spiritual adviser in the death chamber. Kavanaugh wrote at the time that states have two choices: Allow all inmates to have a religious adviser of their choice in the execution room or allow that person only in an adjacent viewing room. In response, the Texas prison system changed its policy, allowing only prison security staff into the execution chamber. But in June, the high court kept Texas from executing Ruben Gutierrez after he objected to the new policy. Diana Verm, a lawyer at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which had submitted briefs in two of the spiritual adviser cases, said it was unusual for the court with its conservative majority to halt executions. “You can tell from some of the opinions that the justices don’t like the last-minute nature of execution litigation, but this is an area where they are saying: ’Listen … religious liberty has to be a part of the process if it’s going to happen,” Verm said. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Supreme Court Justices return for season of big decisions, amid campaign
There is a bumper crop of hot issues on the court’s agenda.
Supreme Court won’t reconsider Confederate monument ruling
The monument was first covered in 2017.
Supreme Court takes up gun case, though disputed law has changed
The Supreme Court is turning to gun rights for the first time in nearly a decade, even though those who brought the case, New York City gun owners, already have won changes to the regulation they challenged. The justices’ persistence in hearing arguments Monday despite the city’s action has made gun control advocates fearful that the court’s conservative majority could use the case to call into question gun restrictions across the country. Gun rights groups are hoping the high court is on the verge of extending its landmark rulings from 2008 and 2010 that enshrined the right to have a gun for self-defense at home. For years, the National Rifle Association and its allies had tried to get the court to say more about gun rights, even as mass shootings may have caused the justices to shy away from taking on new disputes over gun limits. Justice Clarence Thomas has been among members of the court who have complained that lower courts are treating the Second Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” as a second-class right. The lawsuit in New York began as a challenge to the city’s prohibition on carrying a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun outside the city limits, either to a shooting range or a second home. Lower courts upheld the regulation, but the Supreme Court’s decision in January to step into the case signaled a revived interest in gun rights from a court with two new justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both appointees of President Donald Trump. Officials at both the city and state level scrambled to find a way to remove the case from the justices’ grasp. Not only did the city change its regulation to allow licensed gun owners to transport their weapons to locations outside New York’s five boroughs, but the state enacted a law barring cities from imposing the challenged restrictions. “There is no case or controversy because New York City has repealed the ordinance and the New York state Legislature has acted to make sure it remains repealed,” said Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel and vice president of the gun control group Brady’s legal action project. But those moves failed to get the court to dismiss the case, although the justices are likely to ask at arguments about whether there’s anything left for them to decide. Paul Clement, who represents three New York residents and New York’s National Rifle Association affiliate challenging the transportation ban, said in an email that among the reasons the case remains alive legally is that the court frowns on tactical moves of the sort employed by the city and state that are meant to frustrate the justices’ review of an issue. In addition, he wrote, that “the City still views firearm ownership as a privilege and not a fundamental right and is still in the business of limiting transport and denying licenses for a host of discretionary reasons.” In the event the court reaches the substance of the law, the city does contend that what it calls its “former rule” did not violate the Constitution. But that would seem to be a tough sell given the court’s makeup, with Gorsuch and, in particular, Kavanaugh on the court. Kavanaugh voted in dissent when his federal appeals court upheld the District of Columbia’s ban on semi-automatic rifles. “Gun bans and gun regulations that are not longstanding or sufficiently rooted in text, history, and tradition are not consistent with the Second Amendment individual right,” Kavanaugh wrote in 2011. Gun control advocates worry that the court could adopt Kavanaugh’s legal rationale, potentially putting at risk regulations about who can carry guns in public, limits on large-capacity ammunition magazines and perhaps even restrictions on gun ownership by convicted criminals, including people convicted of domestic violence. “This approach to the Second Amendment would treat gun rights as an absolute right, frozen in history, and not subject to any restrictions as public safety demands,” said Hannah Shearer, litigation director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Reflecting the possible high stakes, more than three dozen supporting legal briefs have been filed. The Trump administration, 25 mainly Republican states and 120 members of the House of Representatives are on the side of the gun owners. A dozen Democratic-led states and 139 House lawmakers back the city. In addition, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat-Rhode Island, a vocal court critic, filed a brief joined by four Senate Democratic colleagues that asked the justices to dismiss the case and resist being drawn into what he called a political project. Whitehouse also included a warning to the justices. “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics,’” he wrote, quoting a public opinion poll showing support for such changes. All 53 Republican senators responded with a letter urging the court not to be cowed by the Democrats’ threats. A decision is expected by late June. By Mark Sherman Associated Press. Republished with the Permission of the Associated Press.
Monument Protections Upheld by Alabama Supreme Court
The Alabama Supreme Court overturned an earlier ruling concerning a Birmingham confederate monument by a Jefferson County judge.
Supreme Court Delays Release of Donald Trump’s Financial Records
The order gives Donald Trump’s team until December 5, 2019 to formally appeal a lower court decision on releasing his financial records.
Donald Trump wants Supreme Court to block subpoena for his taxes
Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to block a subpoena for his tax returns, in a test of the president’s ability to defy investigations. The filing Thursday sets the stage for a high court showdown over the tax returns Trump has refused to release, unlike every other modern president. The justices also could weigh in more broadly on Trump’s claim that sitting presidents can’t be prosecuted or investigated for crimes. The subpoena from the Manhattan district attorney is seeking Trump’s tax returns back to 2011 from his accounting firm as part of a criminal investigation. Trump’s lawyers say a criminal probe of the president at the state or local level is unconstitutional and unprecedented in American history. “Allowing the sitting president to be targeted for criminal investigation — and to be subpoenaed on that basis— would, like an indictment itself, distract him from the numerous and important duties of his office, intrude on and impair Executive Branch operations, and stigmatize the presidency,” said the brief signed by Jay Sekulow. Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s claims of immunity. Trump wants the court to decide the case by late June, under a deal to keep the district attorney from enforcing the subpoena in the meantime. The justices may not decide whether to hear the case for at least another month. A second, similar case is headed to the court over a House committee subpoena demanding Trump’s financial records from the same accounting firm. The president has lost both cases at each step of the judicial system so far. The Mazars USA firm has said it will comply with the subpoenas, if courts agree. A ruling against Trump would not require public release of the information. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. is seeking the records back to 2011 in a broader probe that includes payments made to buy the silence of two women, porn star Stormy Daniels and model Karen McDougal, who claim they had affairs with the president before the 2016 presidential election. Trump has denied the claims. Vance spokesman Danny Frost declined to comment Thursday, saying the district attorney would be making its own Supreme Court filing next week. Trump is asking for the Supreme Court’s intervention as the impeachment drama plays out elsewhere in Washington. Public impeachment hearings that began Wednesday are examining claims that Trump tried to get Ukraine’s leader to investigate political rival Joe Biden. If the House votes to impeach the president, Chief Justice John Roberts would preside at a Senate trial that is likely to begin in January. The justices usually fill their term’s calendar by late January. The New York tax case is moving unusually swiftly through the federal courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled last week that the tax returns can be turned over to New York prosecutors. The appellate judges emphasized the narrowness of their ruling, deciding only that a state prosecutor can demand Trump’s personal financial records from a third party while the president is in office. Their opinion upholding a trial judge’s earlier ruling noted that they did not consider whether the president is immune from indictment and prosecution while in office or whether the president himself may be ordered to produce documents in a state criminal proceeding. The subpoena does “not implicate, in any way, the performance of his official duties,” 2nd Circuit Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann wrote. During arguments in a New York courtroom, Trump’s lawyer told the 2nd Circuit that Trump is immune from state criminal law, even if he shoots someone, because he’s president. The exchange stemmed from Trump’s campaign trail comment in 2016 that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” Trump’s lawyers have said the probe by Vance, a Democrat, is politically motivated. The Justice Department, which intervened on Trump’s behalf in New York, has taken a narrower approach, saying Vance must prove “particularized need” for the records before they are released to a grand jury. In the Washington case, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed records from Mazars in April. They include documents from 2011 to 2018 that the House wants for investigation into the president’s reporting of his finances and potential conflicts of interest. The list of documents makes no mention of Trump’s tax returns. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted Wednesday not to reconsider an earlier panel opinion ordering Mazars to comply with the subpoena. Trump’s two appointees to the Washington court said the full court should have reheard the case. Judge Greg Katsas called the subpoena a “threat to presidential autonomy and independence.” There are two Trump appointees on the nine-member Supreme Court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Supreme Court lets Sandy Hook shooting lawsuit go forward
The Supreme Court said Tuesday a survivor and relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting can pursue their lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 26 people. The justices rejected an appeal from Remington Arms that argued it should be shielded by a 2005 federal law preventing most lawsuits against firearms manufacturers when their products are used in crimes. The court’s order allows the lawsuit filed in Connecticut state court by a survivor and relatives of nine victims who died at the Newtown, Connecticut, school on Dec. 14, 2012 to go forward. The lawsuit says the Madison, North Carolina-based company should never have sold a weapon as dangerous as the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to the public. Gunman Adam Lanza used it to kill 20 first graders and six educators. It also alleges Remington targeted younger, at-risk males in marketing and product placement in violent video games. Lanza was 20 years old. Lanza earlier shot his mother to death at their Newtown home and killed himself as police arrived at the school. The rifle was legally owned by his mother. The Connecticut Supreme Court had earlier ruled 4-3 that the lawsuit could proceed for now, citing an exemption in the federal law. The decision overturned a ruling by a trial court judge who dismissed the lawsuit based on the 2005 federal law, named the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The federal law has been criticized by gun control advocates as being too favorable to gun-makers, and it has been used to bar lawsuits over other mass killings. The case is being watched by gun control advocates, gun rights supporters and gun manufacturers across the country, as it has the potential to provide a roadmap for victims of other mass shootings to circumvent the federal law and sue the makers of firearm. The 2005 federal law has been cited by other courts that rejected lawsuits against gun-makers and dealers in other high-profile shooting attacks, including the 2012 Colorado movie theater shooting and the Washington, D.C., sniper shootings in 2002. The National Rifle Association, 10 mainly Republican-led states and 22 Republicans in Congress were among those urging the court to jump into the case and end the lawsuit against Remington. By Mark Sherman Associated Press. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
