Connect with us

Politics

Supreme Court upholds federal gun ban for those under domestic violence restraining orders

Published

on

Supreme Court upholds federal gun ban for those under domestic violence restraining orders

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

The Supreme Court Friday upheld a federal law that bans guns for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) in the first major test of the Second Amendment at the high court this term.

In an 8-1 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the court’s majority said, “[W]e conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.” Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.

Advertisement

Both liberal and conservative justices agreed with the Biden administration that there was a history and tradition of keeping firearms from dangerous persons, despite the lack of any specific ban that may have been in place when the Constitution was enacted in the 1790s.

The case, U.S. v. Rahimi, is first major test of the Second Amendment since a high court ruling in 2022 expanding rights of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for protection, and could have major implications for several gun-rights measures working their way through the legal system and in state legislatures.

SUPREME COURT APPEARS LIKELY TO HAND BIDEN DOJ A WIN ON CHALLENGE TO GUN LAW

The Supreme Court is seen Wednesday, June 29, 2022, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

The conservative majority in that case known as “Bruen” said gun regulations must be consistent and analogous with “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” in order to withstand present-day constitutional scrutiny.

Advertisement

It could also affect current cases that deal with whether current and former drug users can similarly be denied gun ownership – like that of Hunter Biden. The president’s son plans to challenge his conviction this month for lying on a federal registration form in 2018 about his addiction when buying a firearm.

The case before the court stemmed from a lawsuit that involves a Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, who – under a DVRO – argued he still had a right to keep a gun for self-protection. Rahimi was charged with separate state offenses that began with the 2019 physical assault of his ex-girlfriend and later another woman by use of firearms.

READ THE SUPREME COURT OPINION – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:

 A Texas court in a civil proceeding found Rahimi had “committed family violence,” then granted his former girlfriend a protective order that included suspension of Rahimi’s gun license. Court records show he was warned gun possession under the protective order would be a federal offense.

After repeatedly violating the order, including approaching the victim and threatening her, Rahimi was also accused of firing a gun in public in five different locations within a span of weeks. Police then searched his residence and found handgun, rifle, and ammunition.

Advertisement

While contesting some of the allegations against him, he pleaded guilty to a violation of federal law for later possessing a handgun despite an earlier restraining order, but then appealed.

The 5th Circuit U-S Court of Appeals ruled for Rahimi, saying the federal restriction was unconstitutional since there was no historical analog justifying the burden on individual self-defense rights.

 A major question was whether there was a precise analog now to the 18th century legal concept of domestic violence and gun rights– that would give modern day legislatures and courts the discretion to limit gun possession for those deemed dangerous or irresponsible.

Friday’s decision in the DVRO case was narrow in scope, focusing only on whether the Second Amendment protects those considered a danger to society.

“When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may—consistent with the Second Amendment—be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect,” the Chief Justice wrote for the majority. 

Advertisement

“Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, [the statute] fits comfortably within this tradition,” he wrote.  

Six justices filed separate concurrences, agreeing with the outcome, but offering separate thoughts on the scope of the majority opinion—signaling some concerns with Roberts’ reasoning laid out in the majority opinion.

Those were Justices Sonia Sotomayor – supported by Elana Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Thomas wrote a long dissenting opinion. 

“The question before us is not whether Rahimi and others like him can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Instead, the question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order—even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot,” he said. 

Advertisement

“The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence. The Government has not borne its burden to prove that [the statute] is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.

 “The Framers and ratifying public understood ‘that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty,’” he continued. 

“Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more. I respectfully dissent,” he said.

Advertisement

Politics

How Republicans and Democrats are Redistricting Urban Areas to Tilt the House

Published

on

How Republicans and Democrats are Redistricting Urban Areas to Tilt the House

American cities — densely populated and overwhelmingly Democratic — are typically prime targets for aggressive gerrymanders. This past year has been no different, as urban areas became casualties of newly partisan maps, drawn by both Republicans and Democrats in a rare bout of middecade redistricting.

With nearly 80 percent of the United States population living in urban areas, according to the census, mapmakers using modern data technology can surgically split cities block by block to eke out a partisan advantage. They “pack” like-minded voters into a single district, or “crack” them, linking slivers of concrete-covered downtowns with farmland hundreds of miles away.

Advertisement

While the intentions are often political, these julienned districts often leave communities with little in common, and no cohesive representation in Congress. Roughly 37 percent of congressional districts are either urban or an urban-suburban mix, while 63 percent remain rural or rural-suburban, according to the District Density Scale.

So far this year, state lawmakers have carved up major Democratic cities in the nationwide redistricting arms race, drawing new maps in five states. Virginia could be next, if voters approve a referendum Tuesday to redraw boundaries and potentially add four Democratic seats.

Kansas City, Mo.

Advertisement

Take the Kansas City, Mo., area as a clear example. Late last year, Gov. Mike Kehoe signed into law a new map that would pave the way for eliminating a Democratic seat and add a Republican one, potentially ousting a longtime representative, Emanuel Cleaver, who was also the first Black mayor of Kansas City.

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

The proposed map effectively slices apart — or “cracks” — the old Fifth District, which previously held a majority of Democratic-dominated Kansas City and its metropolitan area, into three parts.

Advertisement
Advertisement

2024 districts

District Margin
5th Dem. +23.2 D +23.2
6th Rep. +38.9 R +38.9
4th Rep. +42.3 R +42.3

New districts

Advertisement

District Margin
5th Rep. +18.2 R +18.2
4th Rep. +21.2 R +21.2
6th Rep. +26.7 R +26.7

As a result, Democratic voters from Kansas City are spread out across three new districts where they are likely to be outnumbered by Republican voters. The Kansas City area went from having one Democratic district and two Republican districts to having three Republican districts.

Northern Virginia

Advertisement

While Missouri illustrates how a single-district city can be cracked apart to dilute the votes of a densely packed partisan area, Virginia is taking a different approach. Its proposed map spreads out Democrats from the crammed northern Virginia suburbs into multiple districts spreading more than a hundred miles into deeply red areas for the opposite outcome: to tilt more districts blue.

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

While there is no central city in northern Virginia — Fairfax County, the state’s largest municipality, boasts nearly 1.2 million people but sprawls across nearly 400 square miles — the northern reaches of the state have a population in the millions and are mostly Democratic.

Advertisement
Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

District Margin
8th Dem. +49.3 D +49.3
11th Dem. +34.0 D +34.0
10th Dem. +8.3 D +8.3
7th Dem. +2.9 D +2.9
6th Rep. +23.8 R +23.8

New districts

Advertisement

District Margin
8th Dem. +17.5 D +17.5
11th Dem. +13.4 D +13.4
10th Dem. +12.4 D +12.4
7th Dem. +8.1 D +8.1
1st Dem. +7.5 D +7.5

The result is an exceptionally aggressive “cracking” of Democratic voters in the northern part of the state across five congressional districts, which would lead to the elimination of three Republican-held seats (the proposed Virginia map eliminates all but one Republican-controlled district).

Houston

Advertisement

In larger cities like Houston, mapmakers have the opportunity to get creative in their carving. At President Trump’s behest, Texas was the first state to redistrict last year. Let’s look at Houston’s old Ninth District.

Advertisement

2024 districts

The old Ninth District was mostly swallowed by the newly crafted 18th District, and remaining voters were funneled into three Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic one.

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

District Margin
9th Dem. +44.0 D +44.0
18th Dem. +39.7 D +39.7
7th Dem. +20.7 D +20.7
29th Dem. +20.3 D +20.3
38th Rep. +20.7 R +20.7

New districts

Advertisement

District Margin
18th Dem. +54.9 D +54.9
29th Dem. +30.4 D +30.4
7th Dem. +23.4 D +23.4
9th Rep. +19.9 R +19.9
38th Rep. +21.0 R +21.0

Advertisement

But Houston’s maps also illustrate a second gerrymandering strategy: “packing.” The new 18th District was drawn to be exceptionally Democratic, “packing” a high concentration of Democrats into a single district, thereby ensuring that they would be outnumbered in neighboring districts.

Dallas

As another densely populated city, and one with a large population of people of color, Republicans in Texas sliced some congressional districts in the state, while packing Democrats into others.

Advertisement

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

The newly drawn 32nd District is a textbook example of “cracking,” splitting apart the eastern and northern suburbs of Dallas and extending the district more than a hundred miles east, into more rural and deeply Republican areas of East Texas. As a result, the new 32nd District is solidly red compared with its previous blue tint.

Advertisement

2024 districts

Advertisement

District Margin
33rd Dem. +33.7 D +33.7
32nd Dem. +23.6 D +23.6
24th Rep. +15.5 R +15.5
5th Rep. +27.0 R +27.0
6th Rep. +28.4 R +28.4

New districts

Advertisement

District Margin
30th Dem. +47.0 D +47.0
33rd Dem. +32.6 D +32.6
24th Rep. +16.1 R +16.1
32nd Rep. +17.6 R +17.6
5th Rep. +21.4 R +21.4

The cracking and packing in Dallas achieved another outcome: drawing current incumbents out of their districts, forcing some into primaries against one another while prompting others to leave the House entirely. In Dallas, Representative Jasmine Crockett chose to run for Senate after being drawn out of the 30th District (She lost in March to James Talarico).

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Byron Donalds cracks down on persistent border blind spot leaving US vulnerable to overstays

Published

on

Byron Donalds cracks down on persistent border blind spot leaving US vulnerable to overstays

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: Florida Republican Rep. Byron Donalds introduced legislation that would require biometric tracking of every entry and exit from the United States, as part of a Republican push to crack down on visa overstays and fraudulent immigration documents.

With illegal crossings down sharply under President Donald Trump’s second term, Republicans are shifting toward the next phase of immigration enforcement — tracking visa overstays and closing documentation loopholes. Donalds’ bill aims to force full nationwide use and federal oversight of the biometric entry-exit system.

Donalds told Fox News Digital exclusively he introduced the legislation on Monday.

“Thanks to President Trump’s decisive actions, our borders are more secure than they have been in decades. We are now moving to finish the job by introducing the Reform Immigration Through Biometrics Act, which provides the oversight needed to ensure every entry and exit is fully verified,” Donalds told Fox News Digital. 

Advertisement

FLORIDA SHERIFF SAYS ICE PARTNERSHIP ONLY THE BEGINNING IN ILLEGAL MIGRANT CRACKDOWN

Congressman Byron Donalds is introducing Reform Immigration Through Biometrics Act to tighten immigration enforcement nationwide. (Paul Ratje / AFP via Getty Images)

The bill would close gaps to ensure full coverage at every port, provide system flow updates, and identify what is “slowing” it down by requiring DHS to report to congress. The biometric data system collects fingerprints, facial images, and iris scans.

Immigration reform is a central focus of the second Trump administration, with officials shifting attention toward internal tracking and enforcement gaps, not just border crossings.

The biometric entry-exit system was first introduced a decade ago, following a 2004 recommendation from the 9/11 Commission to strengthen national security through a comprehensive tracking method.

Advertisement

HOUSE GOP BILL COULD TRIGGER SELF-DEPORTATION FOR SOMALI REFUGEES AMID MINNESOTA FRAUD PROBE

Previous administrations failed to fully implement the system across all ports of entry, leaving it incomplete. A final rule issued in December 2025 now mandates a nationwide rollout.

Donalds’ legislation aims to ensure it is fully executed this time by holding DHS accountable. 

“The border has been secured, but the work is far from over,” said Donalds in a press release. “Visa overstays and fraudulent documentation remain a large piece of the overall illegal immigration puzzle that needs to be addressed.”

Byron Donalds, a Florida lawmaker and gubernatorial candidate, unveiled legislation cracking down on immigration overstays.  (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Data from the Border Patrol cited by Pew Research found there were 237,538 migrant encounters at the Mexican border in 2025. It is the lowest number since Richard Nixon was president in 1970 when 201,780 were encountered.

I REPRESENT A BORDER DISTRICT THAT WAS SWAMPED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. WHAT I’M SEEING NOW MIGHT SURPRISE YOU

Migrants wait in line to turn themselves in for processing to US Customs and Border Protection border patrol agents near the Paso del Norte Port of Entry after crossing the US-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, on May 9, 2023.  (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP)

Donalds, candidate for Florida governor to succeed term-limited Gov. Ron DeSantis, said he anticipates “swift passage” of the bill.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

“Republicans are steadfast in our commitment to the mandate entrusted to us by the American people,” he told Fox News Digital.

Fox News Digital reached out to DHS for comment.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Former state Controller Betty Yee drops out of the governor’s race

Published

on

Former state Controller Betty Yee drops out of the governor’s race

Former state Controller Betty Yee dropped out of the governor’s race on Monday, citing low levels of support from voters and donors.

Yee, a Democrat, was part of a sprawling field of politicians vying to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. But despite the bevy of prominent candidates running to lead the nation’s most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy, this year’s governor’s race has lacked a clear front-runner well known by the electorate.

“It was becoming clear that the donors were not going to be there. Even some of my former supporters just felt like they needed to move on as well,” Yee said in a virtual news conference Monday morning, adding that her internal polling showed voters did not prioritize “competence and experience … and that’s really been my wheelhouse in terms of how we grounded this campaign.”

The former two-term state controller did not immediately endorse another candidate and said she would take a few days to assess the field before making an announcement.

The race was upended this month when then-Rep. Eric Swalwell, among the leading Democrats in the contest, was accused of sexual assault and other misconduct. The East Bay Area Democrat, who is facing multiple criminal investigations, promptly ended his gubernatorial bid and resigned from Congress.

Advertisement

Yee said the contest would probably go down as “one of the most unusual, unpredictable and unsettling races in modern California history.”

“I certainly could not have imagined the twists and the disturbing turns that this race has taken,” she said. “But through it all, my values and my vision for California has never wavered.”

“Voters are scared right now, and I think they really are placing a lot of prominence on a fighter in chief against this Trump administration,” she said.

Though she was prepared to be a governor that would push back against the Trump administration, Yee said her calm demeanor did not help her grab attention.

“We are living in like a reality TV era, where to get traction, you have to either be the loudest, you have to have gimmicks. You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do to get attention. I got no gimmicks. I have no scandals,” she said before calling herself “Boring Betty.”

Advertisement

Yee, 68, was well regarded by Democrats during her tenure in Sacramento.

But she never had the financial resources to aggressively compete in a state with many of the most expensive media markets in the nation.

Yee reported raising nearly $583,000 in 2025 for her gubernatorial bid, according to campaign fundraising reports filed with the California secretary of state’s office. Yee’s announcement that she is dropping out of the race came days before the latest financial disclosures will be publicly reported.

Despite being elected to the state Board of Equalization twice and as state controller twice, Yee was not widely known by most Californians. She never cracked double digits in gubernatorial polls.

Her name will still appear on the ballot. She was among the candidates who rebuffed state Democratic Party leaders’ request this year to reconsider their viability amid fears that the party could be shut out of the November general election because of the state’s unique primary system. The top two vote-getters in the June primary will move on to the November general election, regardless of party affiliation.

Advertisement

Though California’s electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, the makeup of the gubernatorial field makes it statistically possible for Republicans to win the top two spots if Democratic voters splinter among their party’s candidates. Yee said fear of that scenario playing out “kind of took over” the gubernatorial race.

“Was it possible? Yes. Was it plausible? No, we’re in California. That was not going to happen,” she said, adding that the top-two primary system “has got to go.”

The daughter of Chinese immigrants, Yee said she was disappointed that other Asian American donors and community members did not show up for her as “robustly” as they had in the past.

“We had the opportunity to make history,” she said. “I’m going to want to do a deep dive about … what was it about my campaign that just did not resonate with them.”

Still, Yee was beloved by Democratic Party activists and previously served as the party’s vice chair.

Advertisement

No Democratic candidate reached the necessary threshold to win the party’s official endorsement at its February convention, but Yee came in second with support from 17% of delegates despite calls for her to drop out of the race.

“Every poll shows that this race is wide open, and I know this party,” she said in an interview at the convention. “Frankly, I’ve been in positions where it’s been a crowded field, and we work hard and candidates emerge.”

Yee became emotional Monday as she thanked her supporters and family, including her husband, siblings and mother. “She’s now 103 years old, and her life and voice and wisdom are my compass,” Yee said.

The gubernatorial primary will take place June 2, though voters will start receiving mail ballots in about two weeks.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending