New York
Supreme Court lets state enforce gun law during lawsuit
WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” such as schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out.
The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect.
The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future.
In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, two of the court’s conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, said the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But they said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.”
New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws.
The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square.
U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, however, declared multiple portions of the law unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction barring certain provisions’ enforcement. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had put that ruling on hold while it considers the case. Challengers to the law had asked the high court to step in and allow Suddaby’s ruling blocking parts of the law to go into effect while the case continues. It was that request the justices declined.
Maine
Lawyer for Guantanamo detainees could lose license
BANGOR, Maine (AP) — A defense lawyer in Maine who once represented detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison could lose his license after criminal charges.
Scott Fenstermaker was charged with trespassing, assault, reckless conduct and attempted theft in November, court records state. A letter from the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar states that the prosecutor working on Fenstermaker’s case is seeking his disbarment.
Fenstermaker told the Bangor Daily News that the November charge s stemmed from an incident in which he was trying to convince a towing company owner to release his client’s car from an impound lot when an argument ensued. He said he was working in his capacity as a lawyer at the time and it’s “not like I was going out and burglarizing homes in my free time.”
The court case against Fenstermaker is currently awaiting a new judge.
Fenstermaker worked as a lawyer in New York for three decades and once represented an alleged courier for Osama bin Laden.
He was also previously among a group of lawyers in Maine who were eligible to represent people who cannot afford a lawyer. The agency that oversees that roster of lawyers has barred him from taking on cases.
North Dakota
State bill over abortion court leak struck down
Months after the unprecedented leak of the U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, lawmakers in North Dakota considered — and struck down — a bill to criminalize court leaks on Tuesday.
Introduced by the North Dakota Supreme Court, the bill would have let prosecutors charge people with misdemeanors for leaking information on pending court decisions in the state. Republican Rep. Landon Bahl, of Grand Forks, said the bill was a direct response to the leak of the Dobbs decision.
But he also said during the debate that lawmakers weren’t aware of any court leaks in North Dakota.
“Our state does not face these issues,” Bahl said. “If these issues arise in the future, they can be dealt with internally, as most professionals sign confidentiality agreements” or are governed by ethics boards.
The bill failed on a 43-49 vote in the House.
Majority Republicans were divided on the issue.
“We don’t have to wait around for the issue to happen. We have to send the message now that this is unacceptable,” Rep. Austen Schauer, of West Fargo, said before voting in favor of the bill.
Rep. Bernie Satrom, of Jamestown, also voted in favor. “All of our judges should have the freedom to deliberate and make lawful decisions without concern for being threatened, harassed or intimidated,” he said.
But Rep. Lawrence Klemin, of Bismarck, voted against the bill. He told lawmakers a media representative had testified earlier that the bill would put “undue pressure” on journalists to disclose the identities of leakers.
The bill is expected to die unless a majority of House members agree to bring it back for reconsideration Wednesday, Klemin said in an email to The Associated Press.
After the leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s draft decision that ultimately stripped away constitutional protections for abortion rights, Chief Justice John Roberts and other conservative justices were the subject of protests and threats.
The security concerns reached alarming levels in early June, when police arrested an armed man near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house after he called 911 and said he was going to kill Kavanaugh.
The nation’s highest court has said little since then about its investigation and whether anyone has been identified for leaking the draft last May.
