The 9-0 ruling directed the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider Edward Caniglia's lawsuit accusing police of violating his constitutional rights by bringing him to a hospital for a mental health evaluation and taking away his guns without a warrant after a 2015 argument with his wife.
Lower courts had ruled that police in the Rhode Island city of Cranston did not violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
The case centered on a legal doctrine that gives officers leeway to engage in "community caretaking" to ensure public safety. In its ruling, the Supreme Court, which has previously applied this doctrine to vehicles, said it does not apply to the home as well.
Government regulations are not neutral when they "treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise," said the majority, noting that "it is no answer that a state treats some comparable...activities as poorly as...the religious exercise at issue."
The U.S. Supreme Court seemed ready on Tuesday to uphold Arizona's restrictive voting laws, setting the stage for what happens in the coming months and years, as Republican-dominated state legislatures seek to make voting more difficult.
This is unfortunate as voting should be as easy as possible to maximize participation, and not to munipulate the output if folks don't agree with the conclusions.
The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily barred New York from enforcing strict attendance limits on places of worship in areas designated coronavirus hot spots, in a decision released late Wednesday.
The court ruled that Gov. Andrew Cuomo's executive order violated the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause, and actively discriminated against religious institutions.
"The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty," the unsigned majority decision read.
While on the 7th Circuit, Barrett wrote that the Second Amendment did not necessarily ban people convicted of felonies from owning a gun. She declared a Wisconsin law, barring anyone convicted of a felony even if they aren't convicted of a violent crime, to be unconstitutional.
"[L]egislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous,"
I think she could be really good on the second amendment. On other issues she might be a wait and see. That said, I'm not the President nor am I sitting US Senator so I don't have much say in the matter. I do think we should wait until after the presidential election to pick the next Supreme Court Justice but I think she probably will be okay.
I think it makes sense to not appoint a Supreme Court Justice until next year … ⚖
Much like the argument was in 2016, it makes no sense to appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an Election year. This year it’s much too political and being the end of a term, the person appointed by President Trump would likely be a third-rate back bencher, unlike the first justice appointed by a President during the start of their term.
Merrick Garland, was a third-rate backbencher appointed who sat on the US Court of Appeals but didn’t have a lot going for him besides his job on US Court of Appeals – and that he was a Democrat. He certainly didn’t strike me as man of intellect or offering much to the the court. I was much more impressed by Neil Gorsuch then Garland.
That said, I fully expect Donald Trump to appoint somebody much more of Garland then Gorsuch in his rush to get somebody appointed before the end of the year when Congress may flip Democratic, and before his term may end on January 20. But that’s not a very good excuse for appointing an immature, poorly thought out justice in an expedited reform process.
Assuming that President Trump is re-elected, then he will have plenty of time next year to appoint a competent, well thought out pick for Supreme Court Justice through a carefully-planned and reviewed confirmation process in US Senate. And if Trump isn’t re-elected, then the American people will have a chance to set the Supreme Court in a new direction.