Few things are as chaotic as this Supreme Court’s gun cases.
News
The Supreme Court appears to have found a gun regulation it actually likes
Just last June, the Court’s Republican majority legalized “bump stocks,” devices that effectively convert ordinary semi-automatic weapons into machine guns. The Court’s landmark Second Amendment decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) requires courts to strike down any gun law that is not “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” a test so confusing that more than a dozen judges have published judicial opinions begging the justices to explain what, exactly, Bruen means.
Yet, while this Court’s approach to guns is frequently hostile to gun laws, a majority of the justices appeared to meet a gun regulation on Tuesday they are actually willing to uphold.
Tuesday morning’s oral argument in Garland v. VanDerStok involves “ghost guns,” ready-to-assemble kits that can easily be used to build a fully operational firearm. These kits appear to exist to evade two federal laws, one of which requires guns to have serial numbers that can be used to track them if they are used in a crime, and the other which requires gun buyers to receive a background check before they can make that purchase.
Under federal law, the background check and serial number requirements apply to “any weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” They also apply to “the frame or receiver of any such weapon,” the skeletal part of a gun that houses other components, such as the barrel or firing mechanism.
Ghost gun kits seek to evade this law by selling a kit with an incomplete frame or receiver, though it is often trivially easy to convert this incomplete part into a fully operational one. Some kits can be turned into a working gun after the buyer drills a single hole in the frame or receiver. Others require the user to sand off a single plastic rail.
The most right-wing appeals court in the federal system, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, concluded that a single missing hole is enough to exempt a gun from regulation. Frames missing a hole, that court claimed, are “not yet frames or receivers.” The Fifth Circuit also argued that ghost gun kits cannot “readily be converted” into a working gun because this phrase “cannot be read to include any objects that could, if manufacture is completed, become functional at some ill-defined point in the future” — even though some ghost gun kits can be converted into a firearm in a matter of minutes.
In any event, at least five members of the Court — and possibly one or two more — appeared to reject the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning on Tuesday. All three members of the Court’s Democratic minority seemed like clear votes for the government, which is arguing ghost guns need to be subject to the same rules as any other gun, as did Chief Justice John Roberts, who barely spoke during Tuesday’s argument, and who spent the bulk of his question time seeming to mock Peter Patterson, the lawyer for the ghost gun manufacturers.
Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, seemed particularly unconvinced by Patterson’s arguments, at one point telling him that a key part of his proposed legal framework “seems a little made up.”
If these five justices hang together against ghost guns, that won’t be a particularly unexpected plot twist. This same case already reached the Court in 2023 on the justices’ “shadow docket,” a mix of emergency motions and other issues that the Court deals with on an expedited basis. The first time VanDerStok reached the Court, it voted 5-4 (with Roberts and Barrett joining the Democrats) to temporarily leave in place a federal rule establishing that ghost guns are regulated like any other firearm.
Now, the question is whether that temporary decision will be made permanent. After Tuesday, it appears likely that it will.
VanDerStok turns on Barrett’s definition of an “omelet”
Tuesday’s argument started to go off the rails for the ghost gun makers before Patterson even stepped up to the podium.
Early in the argument, while Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar was making the government’s case, Justice Samuel Alito asked her a series of hypotheticals about incomplete objects. Is a pen and a blank pad of paper a “grocery list?” Does a bunch of uncooked eggs, ham, and peppers constitute an “omelet?” Alito’s point appeared to be that, just like untouched ingredients don’t constitute an “omelet,” an incomplete firearm is not a gun.
But Barrett seemed unconvinced. Almost immediately after Alito finished grilling Prelogar, Barrett asked about a slightly different hypothetical. What if someone purchased an omelet kit from Hello Fresh, a service that delivers ready-to-cook meal kits to people’s homes. Barrett’s point was pretty clear: While a bunch of uncooked ingredients may not always constitute an “omelet,” the answer is different when someone buys a kit whose sole purpose is to be put together into an omelet.
The same rule, Barrett suggested, should apply to ghost gun kits.
Roberts, meanwhile, was more direct than Barrett. “What is the purpose of selling a receiver without the holes drilled in it?” the Chief Justice asked Patterson. In response, Patterson claimed, somewhat implausibly, that people may buy a ghost gun kit because they enjoy the experience of building a gun much like some hobbyists enjoy working on their own car.
But Roberts didn’t buy this argument at all. “Drilling a hole or two,” he dryly responded to Patterson, “I would think doesn’t give the same sort of reward that you get from working on your car on the weekend.”
Later in the argument, after Prelogar was back at the podium, she stuck the knife in Patterson’s argument. Federal law, she noted, doesn’t ban ghost gun kits, it merely requires ghost gun sellers to follow the same background check and serial number laws as any other gun seller. So, if there were a market for law-abiding hobbyists who want to drill a couple holes before they fire their gun, those hobbyists could still get a ghost gun if they submitted to a background check.
But what actually happened is, once the government issued a rule stating that ghost guns are subject to the same laws as any other gun, the market for this product dried up. Turns out, hobbyists weren’t interested in buying almost-complete guns with missing holes.
The biggest wild card in the case is Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who revealed that he voted in favor of ghost guns in 2023 because he was concerned that a gun seller who was ignorant of the law might accidentally sell an unregulated kit without realizing it was illegal to do so and then be charged with a crime.
But, as Prelogar told Kavanaugh, a gun seller can only be charged with a crime if they “willfully” sell a gun without a serial number or if they knowingly sell a gun without a background check. So Kavanaugh’s fears appear unfounded.
Will that be enough to bring Kavanaugh into the government’s camp? Unclear. But, ultimately, Kavanaugh is likely to be the sixth vote against ghost guns if he does flip. After Tuesday, it does seem like there are five solid votes for the proposition that ghost guns are subject to the same laws as any other firearm.
News
Cuba says 32 Cuban fighters killed in US raids on Venezuela
Havana declares two days of mourning for the Cubans killed in US operation to abduct Nicolas Maduro.
Cuba has announced the death of 32 of its citizens during the United States military operation to abduct and detain Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in Caracas.
Havana said on Sunday that there would be two days of mourning on January 5 and 6 in honour of those killed and that funeral arrangements would be announced.
list of 4 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
The state-run Prensa Latina agency said the Cuban “fighters” were killed while “carrying out missions” on behalf of the country’s military, at the request of the Venezuelan government.
The agency said the slain Cubans “fell in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of the bombing of the facilities” after offering “fierce resistance”.
Cuba is a close ally of Venezuela’s government, and has sent military and police forces to assist in operations in the Latin American country for years.
Maduro and his wife have been flown to New York following the US operation to face prosecution on drug-related charges. The 63-year-old Venezuelan leader is due to appear in court on Monday.
He has previously denied criminal involvement.
Images of Maduro blindfolded and handcuffed by US forces have stunned Venezuelans.
Venezuelan Minister of Defence General Vladimir Padrino said on state television that the US attack killed soldiers, civilians and a “large part” of Maduro’s security detail “in cold blood”.
Venezuela’s armed forces have been activated to guarantee sovereignty, he said.
‘A lot of Cubans’ killed
US President Donald Trump, speaking to reporters on board Air Force One on Sunday, said that “there was a lot of death on the other side” during the raids.
He said that “a lot of Cubans” were killed and that there was “no death on our side”.
Trump went on to threaten Colombian President Gustavo Petro, saying that a US military operation in the country sounded “good” to him.
But he suggested that a US military intervention in Cuba is unlikely, because the island appears to be ready to fall on its own.
“Cuba is ready to fall. Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall. I don’t know how they, if they can, hold that, but Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil,” Trump said.
“They’re not getting any of it. Cuba literally is ready to fall. And you have a lot of great Cuban Americans that are going to be very happy about this.”
The US attack on Venezuela marked the most controversial intervention in Latin America since the invasion of Panama 37 years ago.
The Trump administration has described Maduro’s abduction as a law-enforcement mission to force him to face US criminal charges filed in 2020, including “narco-terrorism” conspiracy.
But Trump also said that US oil companies needed “total access” to the country’s vast reserves and suggested that an influx of Venezuelan immigrants to the US also factored into the decision to abduct Maduro.
While many Western nations oppose Maduro, there were many calls for the US to respect international law, and questions arose over the legality of abducting a foreign head of state.
Left-leaning regional leaders, including those of Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Mexico, have largely denounced Maduro’s removal, while countries with right-wing governments, from Argentina to Ecuador, have largely welcomed it.
The United Nations Security Council plans to meet on Monday to discuss the attack. Russia and China, both major backers of Venezuela, have criticised the US.
Beijing on Sunday insisted that the safety of Maduro and his wife be a priority, and called on the US to “stop toppling the government of Venezuela”, calling the attack a “clear violation of international law“.
Moscow also said it was “extremely concerned” about the abduction of Maduro and his wife, and condemned what it called an “act of armed aggression” against Venezuela by the US.
News
Here’s a partial list of U.S. elected officials opposing Trump’s invasion of Venezuela
Protesters rally outside the White House Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, in Washington, after the U.S. captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a military operation.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP
President Trump’s move to depose Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has drawn praise inside the United States, especially from Republican leaders. But the invasion also faces significant skepticism, questions about legality, and full-throated opposition from some elected officials across the political spectrum.
Here’s a survey.
Some Republicans condemn, or question, Trump’s invasion
While most conservative lawmakers voiced support for Trump’s action, a small group of Republican House members and GOP Senators described the move as unlawful or misguided.

“If the President believes military action against Venezuela is needed, he should make the case and Congress should vote before American lives and treasure are spent on regime change in South America,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, speaking on the House floor. “Do we truly believe that Nicolás Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq or Syria?”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posting on social media, voiced skepticism that the true goal of Trump’s invasion was to stop the flow of drugs into the United States. She also described the military action as a violation of conservative “America First” principles.
“Americans disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going,” Greene posted on X. “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General, generally praised the military operation, but he also said the precedent of U.S. military intervention could embolden more aggressive action by authoritarian regimes in China and Russia.
“Freedom and rule of law were defended last night,” Bacon said on X, referring to the invasion of Venezuela, “but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.”
At least three Republican Senators also voiced concern or skepticism about the invasion and its legal justification, while also celebrating the fall of Maduro.
“In this case, a leader who monopolized central power is removed in an action that monopolizes central power,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wrote on the platform X. “Best though, not to forget, that our founders limited the executive’s power to go to war without Congressional authorization for a reason—to limit the horror of war and limit war to acts of defense.”
GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, both of Alaska, said Maduro’s ouster would make the United States and the world safer, but suggested the operation could turn into a quagmire for U.S. troops.
“Late last year, I voted to proceed to debate on two resolutions that would have terminated the escalation of U.S. military operations against Venezuela absent explicit authorization from Congress,” Murkowski wrote on the platform X. She added that she expects further briefings from Trump officials on the “legal basis for these operations.”
“The lessons learned from what took place after the United States deposed another Latin American indicted drug lord—Panama’s Manuel Noriega in 1989—could prove useful, as could the painful and difficult lessons learned after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003,” Sullivan wrote on X.

Most Democrats condemn the invasion
Most Democratic lawmakers and elected officials also described Maduro as a dictator, but they generally condemned Trump’s action. At a press conference Saturday, New York City’s new Mayor Zohran Mamdani told reporters he phoned Trump and voiced opposition to the invasion.
“I called the President and spoke with him directly to register my opposition to this act and to make clear that it was an opposition based on being opposed to a pursuit of regime change, to the violation of federal and international law,” Mamdani said.
Democratic minority leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York accused Trump of acting in bad faith and violating the U.S. Constitution. “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said in a post on X. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”
According to Schumer, the Trump administration assured him “three separate times that it was not pursuing regime change or or military action without congressional authorization.”
California’s Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, a frequent Trump critic, posted a series of comments on X describing Saturday’s military action and Trump’s proposed U.S. occupation of Venezuela as potentially disastrous.
“Acting without Congressional approval or the buy-in of the public, Trump risks plunging a hemisphere into chaos and has broken his promise to end wars instead of starting them,” Schiff wrote.
“Donald Trump has once again shown his contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a video posted on social media, where he described the U.S. invasion as “imperialism.”
“This is the horrific logic of force that Putin used to justify his brutal attack on Ukraine,” Sanders said.
Trump campaigned on an “America First” platform. Now he wants to “run” Venezuela?
60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Health care is collapsing. Housing is unaffordable.
Trump should address these major crises at home and end his illegal military adventurism abroad. pic.twitter.com/vyoNpEcn4a
— Sen. Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 3, 2026
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, also spoke harshly of the military strike, describing it as an effort by Trump to distract attention from domestic troubles in the United States.

“It’s not about drugs. If it was, Trump wouldn’t have pardoned one of the largest narco traffickers in the world last month,” Ocasio-Cortez said, referring to Trump’s decision to free former Honduran President Orlando Hernandez, who had been convicted in the U.S. of helping smuggle more than 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S.
“It’s about oil and regime change. And they need a trial now to pretend that it isn’t. Especially to distract from Epstein + skyrocketing healthcare costs,” Ocasio-Cortez added on X.
News
Who is Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s leader after Maduro’s capture? | CNN
Following the capture of President Nicolás Maduro during a US military operation in Venezuela, the command of the South American country has fallen into the hands of Executive Vice President Delcy Rodríguez.
That is what Venezuela’s constitution outlines in its different scenarios anticipating a president’s absence. Under Articles 233 and 234, whether the absence is temporary or absolute, the vice president takes over the presidential duties.
Rodríguez – also minister for both finance and oil – stepped into the role on Saturday afternoon. Hours after the capture of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, she chaired a National Defense Council session, surrounded by other ministers and senior officials, and demanded the couple’s “immediate release” while condemning the US military operation.
Standing before the Venezuelan flag, Rodríguez said the early-morning operation represents a blatant violation of international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty. She added that the action must be rejected by Venezuelans and condemned by governments across Latin America.
“We call on the peoples of the great homeland to remain united, because what was done to Venezuela can be done to anyone. That brutal use of force to bend the will of the people can be carried out against any country,” she told the council in an address broadcast by state television channel VTV.
Rodríguez, 56, is from Caracas and studied law at the Central University of Venezuela.
She has spent more than two decades as one of the leading figures of chavismo, the political movement founded by President Hugo Chávez and led by Maduro since Chávez’s death in 2013.
Alongside her brother Jorge Rodríguez, the current president of the National Assembly, she has held various positions of power since the Chávez era. She served as minister of communication and information from 2013 to 2014 and later became foreign minister from 2014 to 2017. In that role, she defended Maduro’s government against international criticism, including allegations of democratic backsliding and human rights abuses in the country.
As foreign minister, Rodríguez represented Venezuela at forums such as the United Nations, where she accused other governments of seeking to undermine her country.
In 2017, Rodríguez became president of the Constituent National Assembly that expanded the government’s powers after the opposition won the 2015 legislative elections. In 2018, Maduro appointed her vice president for his second term. She retained the post during his third presidential term, which began on January 10, 2025, following the controversial July 28, 2024, elections. Until the president’s capture, she served as Venezuela’s chief economic authority and minister of petroleum.
Venezuela’s opposition maintains that the 2024 elections were fraudulent and that Maduro is not a legitimately elected president. They insist that the true winner was former ambassador Edmundo González Urrutia, a position supported by some governments in the region.
José Manuel Romano, a constitutional lawyer and political analyst, told CNN that the positions Rodríguez has held show she is a “very prominent” figure within the Venezuelan government and someone who enjoys the president’s “full trust.”
“The executive vice president of the republic is a highly effective operator, a woman with strong leadership skills for managing teams,” Romano said.
“She is very results-oriented and has significant influence over the entire government apparatus, including the Ministry of Defense. That is very important to note in the current circumstances,” he added.
On the path to an understanding with the US?
Hours after Maduro’s capture, and before Rodríguez addressed the National Defense Council, US President Donald Trump said at a press conference that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with the vice president. According to Trump, she appeared willing to work with Washington on a new phase for Venezuela.
“She had a conversation with Marco. She said, ‘We’re going to do whatever you need.’ I think she was quite courteous. We’re going to do this right,” Trump said.
Trump’s remarks, however, surprised some analysts, who believe Rodríguez is unlikely to make concessions to the United States.
“She is not a moderate alternative to Maduro. She has been one of the most powerful and hard-line figures in the entire system,” Imdat Oner, a policy analyst at the Jack D. Gordon Institute and a former Turkish diplomat based in Venezuela, told CNN.
“Her rise to power appears to be the result of some kind of understanding between the United States and key actors preparing for a post-Maduro scenario. In that context, she would essentially serve as a caretaker until a democratically elected leader takes office,” the analyst added.
In her first messages following Maduro’s capture, Rodríguez showed no signs of backing down and, without referencing Trump’s statements, closed the door to any potential cooperation with the United States.
Earlier in the morning, during a phone interview with VTV, Rodríguez said the whereabouts of Maduro and Flores were unknown and demanded proof that they were alive. Later in the afternoon, during the National Defense Council session, she escalated her rhetoric, condemned the US operation and, despite the circumstances, insisted that Maduro remains in charge of Venezuela.
“There is only one president in this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros,” said Rodríguez — now, by force of events, the most visible face of the government.
Reuters news agency contributed to this report.
-
World1 week agoHamas builds new terror regime in Gaza, recruiting teens amid problematic election
-
Indianapolis, IN1 week agoIndianapolis Colts playoffs: Updated elimination scenario, AFC standings, playoff picture for Week 17
-
Business1 week agoGoogle is at last letting users swap out embarrassing Gmail addresses without losing their data
-
Southeast1 week agoTwo attorneys vanish during Florida fishing trip as ‘heartbroken’ wife pleads for help finding them
-
Politics1 week agoMost shocking examples of Chinese espionage uncovered by the US this year: ‘Just the tip of the iceberg’
-
News1 week agoRoads could remain slick, icy Saturday morning in Philadelphia area, tracking another storm on the way
-
World1 week agoPodcast: The 2025 EU-US relationship explained simply
-
News1 week agoMarijuana rescheduling would bring some immediate changes, but others will take time