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

RFK Jr. responds to snake-handling critics with new video showing him wrangling a venomous rattlesnake

Published

on

RFK Jr. responds to snake-handling critics with new video showing him wrangling a venomous rattlesnake

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shared another snake-handling video Wednesday after social media users raised concerns over his earlier encounter with a pair of black racer snakes.

Kennedy Jr. posted an Instagram video captioned, “In response to the many comments about venomous snakes, this video shows how Cheryl and I handled a recent rattlesnake rescue.”

The clip begins with Kennedy Jr. sitting in his home office before someone alerts him to a snake in the driveway.

“Hold on, guys. I’ll be back in a flash,” he says before grabbing a bucket and a small net and heading outside.

Advertisement

RFK JR BAREHANDS A PAIR OF SNAKES ON DR. OZ’S PATIO IN WILD VIDEO

RFK Jr. wrangles a Western Diamondback rattlesnake during a rescue video shared to Instagram Wednesday. (Instagram/RFKJr.)

The HHS secretary then carefully scoops up the rattlesnake as onlookers react in amazement.

After placing the snake in a bucket, Kennedy Jr. later pins it behind the head and lifts it toward the camera while explaining how to identify the reptile.

“His fangs are in there. I don’t want to touch them,” he said. “This is a beautiful snake. This is a Western Diamondback. You can tell by these rings at the end of his tail.”

Advertisement

Kennedy Jr. then asked his wife, actress Cheryl Hines, to bring him a pillowcase before transporting and releasing the snake back into the wild.

ACTRESS CHERYL HINES CLASHES WITH ‘THE VIEW’ OVER HER HUSBAND RFK JR’S RECORD SERVING AMERICANS

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. proudly displays a pair of black North American racer snakes he caught on Dr. Oz’s patio. (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.)

The Instagram post appeared to respond directly to criticism and concern sparked by another snake video Kennedy Jr. shared Tuesday on X.

In that clip, Kennedy Jr. grabbed two black North American racer snakes with his bare hands while visiting Dr. Mehmet Oz’s patio as Hines watched in apparent horror.

Advertisement

“Honey, honey … why?” Hines yelled as Kennedy Jr. cornered the snakes.

Kennedy Jr. then lunged at the reptiles and eventually lifted both by their tails as they repeatedly bit his hands.

CHERYL HINES SHARES HARROWING EVACUATION FROM WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS’ DINNER AS GUNSHOTS RANG OUT

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cheryl Hines attend the 2026 White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., on April 25, 2026. (Taylor Hill/WireImage)

“Black snakes, they’re biting me,” Kennedy Jr. said with a smile.

Advertisement

The snakes continued striking at his hands as Hines pleaded, “Bobby, please! Bobby, Bobby, please,” before later telling him, “You are nuts.”

Kennedy Jr. later posted the video to X with the caption, “Cheryl cheerleads the removal of a pair of Black Racers from Dr Oz’s patio.”

According to the Florida Museum of Natural History, black racer snakes are nonvenomous and generally harmless to humans, though they will “readily bite to defend themselves.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The earlier video showed Kennedy Jr. handling nonvenomous snakes, while Wednesday’s Instagram clip focused on a venomous Western Diamondback rattlesnake, prompting some social media users to question whether the HHS secretary was taking unnecessary risks.

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Robert McGreevy contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

Newsom vows to levy 100% tax on California recipients of Trump’s $1.8-billion ‘slush fund’

Published

on

Newsom vows to levy 100% tax on California recipients of Trump’s .8-billion ‘slush fund’

Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to tax 100% of the money Californians receive from President Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund for his political allies.

Trump’s Justice Department had announced last week that it would establish a $1.776-billion fund to compensate allies of the president who claim they have “suffered weaponization and lawfare” under the Biden administration’s Justice Department.

“Anyone from California that receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100% of those proceeds,” the governor told reporters Thursday.

“That’s an action the state of California can take …[and] it’s an action we look forward to taking.”

Just how Newsom would do so remains unclear. He indicated that he would need action from the Democratic-led California Legislature to impose the new tax. If adopted, the measure would likely face legal challenge.

Advertisement

The fund has prompted outrage from Democrats and some Republicans — including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who said in a statement that the “slush fund,” which would “pay people who assault cops,” was “utterly stupid.”

Newsom’s remarks about Trump’s settlement fund came on Thursday as he signed a bill designed to prevent election interference ahead of Tuesday’s primary.

The bill, Senate Bill 73, restricts law enforcement agencies and officers — including those from federal agencies — from interfering with state and local election officials, such as confiscating ballots, voter rolls or voting machines without a warrant.

The governor said the bill is meant to address “legitimate anxiety” over threats to election integrity after Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s decision to seize ballots from the county’s voter registrar as part of a fraud probe. Bianco, a long-time Trump supporter, is one of the top Republicans running to succeed Newsom after the end of his second and final term as governor.

Newsom also pointed to ICE and Border Patrol’s decision last November to stage an event near Dodger Stadium, calling it a “show of force designed to intimidate free expression and free speech.”

Advertisement

“That’s why we have to step up and we have to draw the line,” Newsom said. “We have to clarify the rules of engagement… there are fines associated with this, criminal fines and jail time of three years, so that’s a warning [to] the folks out there that think they can do the bidding of the Trump administration.”

Newsom said he expects Trump to interfere with the upcoming election — noting that the president has falsely claimed that he “won” California in the last election.

“Every single thing that Donald Trump is saying only suggests that he will do more, not less, to intimidate and to impact the outcome of this election,” Newsom said. “I absolutely expect the worst again, because we’ve been on the receiving end of it.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

See Where the Gerrymandering Wars Have Redrawn U.S. Congressional Maps

Published

on

See Where the Gerrymandering Wars Have Redrawn U.S. Congressional Maps

Advertisement

Tap on a state to jump to its maps.

The nationwide gerrymandering battle has escalated in recent weeks, after a landmark Supreme Court ruling in April weakened the Voting Rights Act and set off a scramble to redraw maps in some Southern states that have yet to hold primaries.

Advertisement

Eight states have redrawn their congressional districts since President Trump pressured Texas lawmakers last summer to pass a new map favoring Republicans. Republican lawmakers in two states are pushing to use a new map ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Here is a look at how district lines have changed in each of the states that have redrawn maps, and how the new maps would have fared in the 2024 presidential election.

Advertisement

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers moved quickly to redraw California’s congressional districts in response to Texas’ gerrymandered map. The new California map, which lawmakers approved in August and voters passed in November of last year, was designed to flip five red districts.

The Supreme Court upheld the map in February, dismissing Republican claims that the state’s new district boundaries illegally favored Latino voters.

Advertisement

Florida’s Legislature passed a new map just days after the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act. The map creates four more Republican-leaning House seats, splitting up a Democratic-leaning district in the Tampa area and eliminating a Democratic-leaning district in the Orlando area.

Advertisement

In late September, Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, signed into law a new map that slices the Democrat-leaning core of Kansas City into districts with heavily Republican rural areas. Republicans hope to add one Republican seat, ousting longtime Representative Emanuel Cleaver and leaving the state with just one solidly Democratic district in the St. Louis area.

Advertisement

Advertisement

In North Carolina, Republicans control both houses of the legislature and approved a new map in October of last year. The new map could give Republicans an extra seat in the First Congressional District, which previously included all eight of the state’s majority Black counties and was redrawn to include more conservative-leaning counties.

Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, cannot veto redistricting plans, per the state Constitution.

Advertisement

Ohio’s bipartisan redistricting commission approved a new map in October of last year that could add up to two Republican seats. The new map dilutes Democrat-held districts near Toledo and Cincinnati.

Unlike many other states pursuing maps ahead of the normal timeline, Ohio had been required under its state Constitution to redraw its congressional maps before the 2026 midterms.

Advertisement

Tennessee Republicans moved swiftly after the Supreme Court decision that weakened the Voting Rights Act. Gov. Bill Lee signed a new map into law in early May that carves up the only Democratic district in the state, a majority Black district encompassing the Memphis area, splitting it into three neighboring districts.

A coalition of voters and Democratic candidates sued Tennessee officials in federal court over the new map, arguing that it was unconstitutional to implement new district lines this close to the state’s Aug. 6 primary.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Texas was the first state to redistrict last year, after President Trump urged Republican leaders to redraw maps ahead of the midterm elections.

Advertisement

The new map, signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott in August of last year, could add up to five Republican seats in the state. Democrats argued that the new lines cut into majority Black and Hispanic districts in violation of the Voting Rights Act, but the Supreme Court upheld the map in December.

Advertisement

A Utah state judge in November tossed out a congressional map proposed by the state’s Republican Legislature, instead adopting a map offered by a centrist coalition. That map adds a Democratic-leaning district surrounding Salt Lake City.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Alabama had faced a ban on middecade redistricting until after the 2030 census. But after the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act, Republicans in Alabama sought to revert back to a map first proposed in 2023 that had previously been rejected as a violation of the act.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court removed a critical obstacle for the use of that map in May, which would most likely do away with one of two majority-Black districts in the state.

Still, legal challenges remain. A panel of federal judges on May 26 rejected the new map, saying that the districts discriminated against Black people and could not be used so shortly before a vote. Alabama has appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Advertisement

Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, delayed House primary elections after the Supreme Court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act tossed out Louisiana’s current maps. Ballots cast in the state’s primaries, where early voting began just days after the decision, did not count. New primary elections will be held in November.

The Louisiana Legislature is continuing to debate a new map, but is expected to eliminate at least one of the state’s two majority-Black districts.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending