update -Fed judge rules Trump admin must restore $100's of millions AmeriCorps grant funding
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Friday to hear a challenge to the legality of a restriction imposed by Washington, D.C., on large-capacity ammunition magazines in a case that gives the justices a chance to further expand gun rights.
The justices turned away the challengers' appeal of a lower court's ruling that upheld the Democratic-governed city's ban on virtually all ammunition-feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower court rejected arguments that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."
The four men who challenged the law had asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the Second Amendment allows a categorical ban on arms that are commonly used throughout the United States for generally lawful purposes such as self-defense. The challengers all hold concealed-carry pistol licenses for the District of Columbia and regularly carry a pistol there.
The Supreme Court has dramatically expanded the Second Amendment in recent decades, including in a landmark 2008 ruling that struck down a strict gun control law in Washington and declared that individuals have a right to own guns for such lawful purposes as self-defense in the home.
In 2022, powered by its 6-3 conservative majority, the court made it harder to defend gun restrictions under the Second Amendment, requiring that such limits be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
The District of Columbia's government makes it illegal to possess or sell any ammunition-feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds, with only a narrow exception. The city's lawyers in court papers wrote that it has restricted the capacity of gun magazines "in some form for close to a century."
Washington-based U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras in 2023 ruled in favor of the city, finding that large-capacity magazines are not "typically possessed for self-defense," citing evidence showing that around two shots on average are fired in self-defense situations. The judge also found the city was likely to prevail in the case because it had demonstrated that its law is consistent with firearms regulation grounded in the "historical tradition" of the United States.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 decision upheld the judge's ruling in October 2024, prompting the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court on June 2 declined to hear a similar challenge to Rhode Island's ban on large-capacity magazines, as well as a challenge to a ban in Maryland on powerful semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s, after lower courts upheld these restrictions.
The court on March 26 upheld a federal regulation targeting largely untraceable "ghost guns." In two rulings last year, it upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns but rejected a federal rule banning "bump stocks" - devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham and Lisa Shumaker)
US Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to Washington, DC's high-capacity gun magazine ban
The justices turned away the challengers' appeal of a lower court's ruling that upheld the Democratic-governed city's ban on virtually all ammunition-feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds. The lower court rejected arguments that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."
The four men who challenged the law had asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the Second Amendment allows a categorical ban on arms that are commonly used throughout the United States for generally lawful purposes such as self-defense. The challengers all hold concealed-carry pistol licenses for the District of Columbia and regularly carry a pistol there.
The Supreme Court has dramatically expanded the Second Amendment in recent decades, including in a landmark 2008 ruling that struck down a strict gun control law in Washington and declared that individuals have a right to own guns for such lawful purposes as self-defense in the home.
In 2022, powered by its 6-3 conservative majority, the court made it harder to defend gun restrictions under the Second Amendment, requiring that such limits be "consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
The District of Columbia's government makes it illegal to possess or sell any ammunition-feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds, with only a narrow exception. The city's lawyers in court papers wrote that it has restricted the capacity of gun magazines "in some form for close to a century."
Washington-based U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras in 2023 ruled in favor of the city, finding that large-capacity magazines are not "typically possessed for self-defense," citing evidence showing that around two shots on average are fired in self-defense situations. The judge also found the city was likely to prevail in the case because it had demonstrated that its law is consistent with firearms regulation grounded in the "historical tradition" of the United States.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 decision upheld the judge's ruling in October 2024, prompting the challengers to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court on June 2 declined to hear a similar challenge to Rhode Island's ban on large-capacity magazines, as well as a challenge to a ban in Maryland on powerful semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s, after lower courts upheld these restrictions.
The court on March 26 upheld a federal regulation targeting largely untraceable "ghost guns." In two rulings last year, it upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to have guns but rejected a federal rule banning "bump stocks" - devices that enable semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham and Lisa Shumaker)
US Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to Washington, DC's high-capacity gun magazine ban
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security Administration data.
The conservative-majority court, with its three liberal justices objecting, granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration asking the justices to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland.
The unsigned order said that members of the DOGE team assigned to the Social Security Administration should have "access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work."
The lawsuit challenging DOGE’s actions was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers — as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans.
"This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE’s affiliates to steal Americans’ private and personal data."
The White House praised the ruling.
"The Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law," White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in a statement.
Follow live politics coverage here
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion questioning the need for the court to intervene on an emergency basis.
"In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government’s stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes," she added.
DOGE, set up by billionaire Elon Musk before his falling out with President Donald Trump, says it wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. The data it seeks includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information.
“These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government’s records to much-needed scrutiny,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court papers.
The lawsuit alleged that allowing broader access to the personal information would violate a federal law called the Privacy Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.
"The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure — and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," the challengers' lawyers wrote in court papers.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had ruled that DOGE had no need to access the specific data at issue. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision, leading to the Trump administration to file its emergency request at the Supreme Court.
Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano welcomed Friday's ruling by the high court.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries,” Bisignano said in a statement.
In a separate order issued Friday in another case involving DOGE, the Supreme Court granted another request filed by the Trump administration.
That decision allows the Trump administration to, for now, shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material.
The move formalizes a decision issued by Chief Justice John Roberts on May 23 that temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. The court also told lower courts to limit the scope of what material could be disclosed.
It means the government will not have to respond to requests for documents and allow for the deposition of the DOGE administrator, Amy Gleason, as a lower court had ruled, while litigation continues.
The three liberal justices noted their disagreement with that decision, too.
A spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which filed the lawsuit, said the group was "obviously disappointed" with the decision but "pleased that the court allowed discovery to proceed."
A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the order.
www.nbcnews.com
The conservative-majority court, with its three liberal justices objecting, granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration asking the justices to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland.
The unsigned order said that members of the DOGE team assigned to the Social Security Administration should have "access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work."
The lawsuit challenging DOGE’s actions was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers — as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans.
"This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," the groups said in a statement. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE’s affiliates to steal Americans’ private and personal data."
The White House praised the ruling.
"The Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law," White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in a statement.
Follow live politics coverage here
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion questioning the need for the court to intervene on an emergency basis.
"In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government’s stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes," she added.
DOGE, set up by billionaire Elon Musk before his falling out with President Donald Trump, says it wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. The data it seeks includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information.
“These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government’s records to much-needed scrutiny,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court papers.
The lawsuit alleged that allowing broader access to the personal information would violate a federal law called the Privacy Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.
"The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure — and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," the challengers' lawyers wrote in court papers.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had ruled that DOGE had no need to access the specific data at issue. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, declined to block Hollander's decision, leading to the Trump administration to file its emergency request at the Supreme Court.
Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano welcomed Friday's ruling by the high court.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries,” Bisignano said in a statement.
In a separate order issued Friday in another case involving DOGE, the Supreme Court granted another request filed by the Trump administration.
That decision allows the Trump administration to, for now, shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material.
The move formalizes a decision issued by Chief Justice John Roberts on May 23 that temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. The court also told lower courts to limit the scope of what material could be disclosed.
It means the government will not have to respond to requests for documents and allow for the deposition of the DOGE administrator, Amy Gleason, as a lower court had ruled, while litigation continues.
The three liberal justices noted their disagreement with that decision, too.
A spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which filed the lawsuit, said the group was "obviously disappointed" with the decision but "pleased that the court allowed discovery to proceed."
A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the order.
Supreme Court allows DOGE to access Social Security data
The dispute concerns efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency, largely led by Elon Musk, to access sensitive data, including Social Security numbers.
The Trump administration must restore hundreds of millions of dollars in AmeriCorps grant funding and thousands of service workers in about two dozen states, a federal judge ruled Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman granted a temporary block on the agency’s cancellation of grants and early discharge of corps members, but only for the states that sued the administration in April.
The federal lawsuit, filed by Democratic state officials across the country, accused President Donald Trump’s cost-cutting efforts through the Department of Government Efficiency of reneging on grants funded through the AmeriCorps State and National program, which was budgeted $557 million in congressionally approved funding this year.
Boardman also said all AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps members that were discharged from their service terms early should be reinstated, if they are willing and able to return.
But Boardman allowed the 30-year-old federal agency for volunteer service to proceed with its reduction in force, denying the states’ request to restore the majority of staff that were put on administrative leave in April. The agency employs more than 500 full-time federal workers and has an operating budget of roughly $1 billion.
AmeriCorps did not immediately respond to request for comment. The Department of Justice declined to comment.
The 30-year-old agency created to facilitate volunteer service across the country oversees several programs that dispatch hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of people to serve in communities.
It sends roughly 200,000 corps members across the country as part of its service programs. Most corps members get a living stipend during their service and become eligible for funding for future education expenses or to apply for certain student loans.
As part of the AmeriCorps State and National grant program, state volunteer commissions distributed more than $177 million in formula-based distributions, as well as $370 million in competitive grants that supported nearly 35,000 corps members serving at 300 organizations, according to announcements last year.
Notices of grants being terminated were sent late on a Friday in April, explaining “the award no longer effectuates agency priorities” and directing grantees to immediately shut down the projects, according to a copy reviewed by The Associated Press.
The states that sued the administration said those extensive and immediate cancellations did not provide the legally required notice and comment period. They said the result would be severely curtailed services and programs for vulnerable populations since states and organizations could not fill the funding void.
AmeriCorps argued in court filings that a temporary block on the agency’s actions as the lawsuit proceeds would disrupt efforts to comply with Trump’s executive order creating DOGE and to “act as responsible stewards of public funds,” according to court filings.
Despite bipartisan support, AmeriCorps has long been a target of critics who decry bloat, inefficiencies and misuse of funds.
“President Trump has the legal right to restore accountability to the entire Executive Branch,” Anna Kelly, White House deputy press secretary, previously said in a statement after the lawsuit was filed.
The lawsuit was filed by officials in Maryland, Delaware, California, Colorado, Arizona, Connecticut, Washington, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
apnews.com
U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman granted a temporary block on the agency’s cancellation of grants and early discharge of corps members, but only for the states that sued the administration in April.
The federal lawsuit, filed by Democratic state officials across the country, accused President Donald Trump’s cost-cutting efforts through the Department of Government Efficiency of reneging on grants funded through the AmeriCorps State and National program, which was budgeted $557 million in congressionally approved funding this year.
Boardman also said all AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps members that were discharged from their service terms early should be reinstated, if they are willing and able to return.
But Boardman allowed the 30-year-old federal agency for volunteer service to proceed with its reduction in force, denying the states’ request to restore the majority of staff that were put on administrative leave in April. The agency employs more than 500 full-time federal workers and has an operating budget of roughly $1 billion.
AmeriCorps did not immediately respond to request for comment. The Department of Justice declined to comment.
The 30-year-old agency created to facilitate volunteer service across the country oversees several programs that dispatch hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of people to serve in communities.
It sends roughly 200,000 corps members across the country as part of its service programs. Most corps members get a living stipend during their service and become eligible for funding for future education expenses or to apply for certain student loans.
As part of the AmeriCorps State and National grant program, state volunteer commissions distributed more than $177 million in formula-based distributions, as well as $370 million in competitive grants that supported nearly 35,000 corps members serving at 300 organizations, according to announcements last year.
Notices of grants being terminated were sent late on a Friday in April, explaining “the award no longer effectuates agency priorities” and directing grantees to immediately shut down the projects, according to a copy reviewed by The Associated Press.
The states that sued the administration said those extensive and immediate cancellations did not provide the legally required notice and comment period. They said the result would be severely curtailed services and programs for vulnerable populations since states and organizations could not fill the funding void.
AmeriCorps argued in court filings that a temporary block on the agency’s actions as the lawsuit proceeds would disrupt efforts to comply with Trump’s executive order creating DOGE and to “act as responsible stewards of public funds,” according to court filings.
Despite bipartisan support, AmeriCorps has long been a target of critics who decry bloat, inefficiencies and misuse of funds.
“President Trump has the legal right to restore accountability to the entire Executive Branch,” Anna Kelly, White House deputy press secretary, previously said in a statement after the lawsuit was filed.
The lawsuit was filed by officials in Maryland, Delaware, California, Colorado, Arizona, Connecticut, Washington, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
AmeriCorps must restore grant funding and members to states that sued over cuts, federal judge rules
A federal judge has issued a temporary block on the Trump administration’s cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in AmeriCorps grant funding and thousands of service workers in about two dozen states that sued in April.
apnews.com
