News
A federal appeals court has upheld Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons
Three variations of the AR-15 assault rifle are displayed at the California Department of Justice in 2012. A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland’s decade-old ban on military-style firearms commonly referred to as assault weapons.
Rich Pedroncelli/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Rich Pedroncelli/AP
SILVER SPRING, Md. — A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld Maryland’s decade-old ban on military-style firearms commonly referred to as assault weapons.
A majority of 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges rejected gun rights groups’ arguments that Maryland’s 2013 law is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this case in May, when the full 4th Circuit was still considering it. Maryland officials argued the Supreme Court should defer to the lower court before taking any action, but the plaintiffs said the appeals court was taking too long to rule.
Maryland passed the sweeping gun-control measure after a 20-year-old gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut in 2012. It bans dozens of firearms — including the AR-15, the AK-47 and the Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle — and puts a 10-round limit on gun magazines.
The Firearms Policy Coalition Inc., one of the plaintiffs challenging Maryland’s law, said it would again ask the Supreme Court to review the case.
“Our objective is simple: End all bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ nationwide. And we look forward to doing just that,” coalition president Brandon Combs said in a statement.
The 4th Circuit’s full roster of judges agreed to consider the case after a three-judge panel heard oral arguments but hadn’t yet issued a ruling.
The weapons banned by Maryland’s law fall outside Second Amendment protection because they are essentially military-style weapons “designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
“Moreover, the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation,” Wilkinson wrote. “It is but another example of a state regulating excessively dangerous weapons once their incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes apparent, while nonetheless preserving avenues for armed self-defense.”
Eight other 4th Circuit judges joined Wilkinson’s majority opinion. Five other judges from the Virginia-based appeals court joined in a dissenting opinion.
The law’s opponents argue it’s unconstitutional because such weapons are already in common use. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Julius Richardson said the court’s majority “misconstrues the nature of the banned weapons to demean their lawful functions and exaggerate their unlawful uses.”
“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges. Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal,” Richardson wrote.
Wilkinson said the dissenting judges are in favor of “creating a near absolute Second Amendment right in a near vacuum,” striking “a profound blow to the basic obligation of government to ensure the safety of the governed.
“Arms upon arms would be permitted in what can only be described as a stampede toward the disablement of our democracy in these most dangerous of times,” Wilkinson wrote.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown praised the court’s decision.
“The Court’s decision today will save lives,” Brown said in a statement. “Access to weapons of war that have no place in our communities causes senseless and preventable deaths.”
The latest challenge to the assault weapons ban comes under consideration following a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that “effected a sea change in Second Amendment law.” That 6-3 decision signified a major expansion of gun rights following a series of mass shootings.
With its conservative justices in the majority and liberals in dissent, the court struck down a New York law and said Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. It also required gun policies to fall in line with the country’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The 4th Circuit previously declared the ban constitutional in a 2017 ruling, saying the guns banned under Maryland’s law aren’t protected by the Second Amendment.
“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court in that majority opinion, calling the law “precisely the type of judgment that legislatures are allowed to make without second-guessing by a court.”
The court heard oral arguments in the latest challenge in March. It’s one of two cases on gun rights out of Maryland that the federal appeals court took up around the same time. The other is a challenge to Maryland’s handgun licensing requirements.
Separately, a federal judge last week ruled that a 2023 Maryland law can’t prohibit licensed gun owners from carrying firearms in bars and restaurants and in private buildings without the owner’s permission. However, Chief U.S. District Judge George Russell upheld other gun restrictions in the state law. Those include bans on carrying firearms in health care facilities, schools, government buildings, amusement parks, mass transit facilities, race tracks, casinos, museums, state parks and stadiums.
Maryland lawmakers approved the law last year in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a New York law that was very similar to Maryland’s “good and substantial reason” standard for permits to carry concealed handguns.
One observer of the current Senate race in Louisiana noted that Sen. Bill Cassidy could lose his reelection bid.
Annie Flanagan for NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Annie Flanagan for NPR
Sen. Bill Cassidy lost Saturday’s Louisiana Republican primary according to a race call by the Associated Press.
Cassidy, who served two terms in the Senate, was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict President Trump after the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol. That vote put him at odds with Trump and his MAGA coalition, ultimately leading Trump to push Rep. Julia Letlow to run against Cassidy.
Cassidy’s bid for a third term was viewed as a test of Trump’s grip on the party–and of what voters want from their representatives in Washington. The primary pitted Cassidy, a veteran lawmaker, former physician and chair of the powerful Senate health committee, against Letlow, a political newcomer and a millennial MAGA loyalist.
A detailed view of a hat that reads, Run Julia Run, is seen at a campaign event for Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA) on May 6, 2026 in Franklinton, Louisiana.
Tyler Kaufman/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Tyler Kaufman/Getty Images
A former college administrator, Letlow won a special election in 2021 for the House seat her late husband, Luke, was set to assume before he died from COVID in 2020.
In Congress, Letlow sponsored a bill to collect oral histories from the pandemic and has focused on education and children. She introduced the “Parents Bill of Rights Act,” which would allow parents to review classroom materials like library books and require schools to notify parents if their child requests different pronouns, locker rooms or sports teams.
She also serves on the powerful appropriations committee and has embraced Trump’s agenda.
Letlow, who came first in Saturday’s primary, will face Louisiana state Treasurer John Fleming in the runoff on June 27. Cassidy came in third.
The election result is a victory for President Trump who has put Republican loyalty to the test on the ballot so far this year in Indiana state senate primaries and in Cassidy’s race.
Another major test of Trump’s influence comes in Kentucky’s primary on Tuesday when Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who has found himself at odds with the president, faces a challenger endorsed by Trump.
News
Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump returned from the spectacle of a Chinese state visit to a less than welcoming U.S. economy — with the military band and garden tour in Beijing giving way to pressure over how to fix America’s escalating inflation rate.
Consumer inflation in the United States increased to 3.8% annually in April, higher than what he inherited as the Iran war and the Republican president’s own tariffs have pushed up prices. Inflation is now outpacing wage gains and effectively making workers poorer. The Cleveland Federal Reserve estimates that annual inflation could reach 4.2% in May as the war has kept oil and gasoline prices high.
Trump’s time with Chinese leader Xi Jinping appears unlikely to help the U.S. economy much, despite Trump’s claims of coming trade deals. The trip occurred as many people are voting in primaries leading into the November general election while having to absorb the rising costs of gasoline, groceries, utility bills, jewelry, women’s clothing, airplane tickets and delivery services. Democrats see the moment as a political opportunity.
“He’s returning to a dumpster fire,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal think tank focused on economic issues. “The president will not have the faith and confidence of the American people — the economy is their top issue and the president is saying, ‘You’re on your own.’”
The president’s trip to Beijing and his recent comments that indicated a tone-deafness to voters’ concerns about rising prices have suggested his focus is not on the American public and have undermined Republicans who had intended to campaign on last year’s tax cuts as helping families.
Trump described the trip as a victory, saying on social media that Xi “congratulated me on so many tremendous successes,” as the U.S. president has praised their relationship.
Trump told reporters that Boeing would be selling 200 aircraft — and maybe even 750 “if they do a good job” — to the Chinese. He said American farmers would be “very happy” because China would be “buying billions of dollars of soybeans.”
“We had an amazing time,” Trump said as he flew home on Air Force One, and told Fox News’ Bret Baier in an interview that gasoline prices were just some “short-term pain” and would “drop like a rock” once the war ends.
Inflationary pain is not a factor in how Trump handles Iran
Trump departed from the White House for China by saying the negotiations over the Iran war depended on stopping Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.
That remark prompted blowback because it suggested to some that Trump cared more about challenging Iran than fighting inflation at home. Trump defended his words, telling Fox News: “That’s a perfect statement. I’d make it again.”
The White House has since stressed that Trump is focused on inflation.
Asked later about the president’s words, Vice President JD Vance said there had been a “misrepresentation” of the remarks. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the “administration remains laser-focused on delivering growth and affordability on the homefront” while indicating actions would be taken on grocery prices.
But as Trump appeared alongside Xi, new reports back home showed inflation rising for businesses and interest rates climbing on U.S. government debt.
His comments that Boeing would sell 200 jets to China caused the company’s stock price to fall because investors had expected a larger number. There was little concrete information offered about any trade agreements reached during the summit, including Chinese purchases of U.S. exports such as liquefied natural gas and beef.
“Foreign policy wins can matter politically, but only if voters feel stability and affordability in their daily lives,” said Brittany Martinez, a former Republican congressional aide who is the executive director of Principles First, a center-right advocacy group focused on democracy issues.
“Midterms are almost always a referendum on cost of living and public frustration, and Republicans are not immune from the same inflation and affordability pressures that hurt Democrats in recent cycles,” she added.
Democrats see Trump as vulnerable
Democratic lawmakers are seizing on Trump’s comments before his trip as proof of his indifference to lowering costs. There is potential staying power of his remarks as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend facing rising prices for the hamburgers and hot dogs to be grilled.
“What Americans do not see is any sympathy, any support, or any plan from Trump and congressional Republicans to lower costs – in fact, they see the opposite,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday.
Vance faulted the Biden administration for the inflation problem even though the inflation rate is now higher than it was when Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 with a specific mandate to fix it.
“The inflation number last month was not great,” Vance said Wednesday, but he then stressed, “We’re not seeing anything like what we saw under the Biden administration.”
Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 under Biden, a Democrat. By the time Trump took the oath of office, it was a far more modest 3%.
Trump’s inflation challenge could get harder
The data tells a different story as higher inflation is spreading into the cost of servicing the national debt.
Over the past week, the interest rate charged on 10-year U.S. government debt jumped from 4.36% to 4.6%, an increase that implies higher costs for auto loans and mortgages.
“My fear is that the layers of supply shocks that are affecting the U.S. economy will only further feed into inflationary pressures,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon.
Daco noted that last year’s tariff increases were now translating into higher clothing prices. With the Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s ability to impose tariffs by declaring an economic emergency, his administration is preparing a new set of import taxes for this summer.
Daco stressed that there have been a series of supply shocks. First, tariffs cut into the supply of imports. In addition, Trump’s immigration crackdown cut into the supply of foreign-born workers. Now, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the vital waterway used to ship 20% of global oil supplies.
“We’re seeing an erosion of growth,” Daco said.
Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, the Food and Drug Administration’s top drug regulator, said she was fired from the agency Friday after she declined to resign.
She said she did not know who had ordered her firing or why, nor whether Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knew of her fate. The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The departure reflected the upheaval at the F.D.A., days after the resignation of Dr. Marty Makary, the agency commissioner. Dr. Makary had become a lightning rod for critics of the agency’s decisions to reject applications for rare disease drugs and to delay a report meant to supply damaging evidence about the abortion drug mifepristone. He also spent months before his departure pushing back on the White House’s requests for him to approve more flavored vapes, the reason he ultimately cited for leaving.
Dr. Hoeg’s hiring had startled public health leaders who were familiar with her track record as a vaccine skeptic, and she played a leading role in some of the agency’s most divisive efforts during her tenure. She worked on a report that purportedly linked the deaths of children and young adults to Covid vaccines, a dossier the agency has not released publicly. She was also the co-author of a document describing Mr. Kennedy’s decision to pare the recommendations for 17 childhood vaccines down to 11.
But in an interview on Friday, Dr. Hoeg said she “stuck with the science.”
“I am incredibly proud of the work we were doing,” Dr. Hoeg said, adding, “I’m glad that we didn’t give in to any pressures to approve drugs when it wasn’t appropriate.”
As the director of the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, she was a political appointee in a role that had been previously occupied by career officials. An epidemiologist who was trained in the United States and Denmark, she worked on efforts to analyze drug safety and on a panel to discuss the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, during pregnancy. She also worked on efforts to reduce animal testing and was the agency’s liaison to an influential vaccine committee.
She made sure that her teams approved drugs only when the risk-benefit balance was favorable, she said.
The firing worsens the leadership vacuum at the F.D.A. and other agencies, with temporary leaders filling the role of commissioner, food chief and the head of the biologics center, which oversees vaccines and gene therapies. The roles of surgeon general and director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also unfilled.
-
World3 minutes agoWHO declares Ebola outbreak in Central Africa a public health emergency after 80 suspected deaths
-
Politics9 minutes agoTrump celebrates after UN climate committee moves away from its most extreme global warming scenario
-
Health15 minutes agoAncient Chinese movement shows promise for reducing blood pressure at home, study says
-
Sports21 minutes agoNapoleon Solo wins 151st Preakness Stakes
-
Technology27 minutes agoLicense plate cameras at Home Depot and Lowe’s spark privacy fears
-
Business33 minutes ago
Commentary: Trump’s ‘weird war’ on wind power will jeopardize our energy future and cost Americans billions
-
Entertainment39 minutes agoSpotify doubles down on video podcasts at its Hollywood studios
-
Lifestyle45 minutes agoArt is a sport, sport is an art. Both demand hustle — and make life worth living
