July, 17 2013, 04:58pm EDT
Federal Court to Hear Oral Argument on "Docs V. Glocks" Gag Law
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will be hearing arguments on Thursday July 18, 2013 in Miami on the unprecedented and highly controversial Florida "Docs v. Glocks" gag law that could strip doctors of their medical licenses if they discuss firearm safety with patients. Lawyers with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, along with the law firm of Ropes & Gray, brought suit against the law in June 2011 on behalf of several Florida doctors and medical groups, and last year won an injunction from U.S.
WASHINGTON
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will be hearing arguments on Thursday July 18, 2013 in Miami on the unprecedented and highly controversial Florida "Docs v. Glocks" gag law that could strip doctors of their medical licenses if they discuss firearm safety with patients. Lawyers with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, along with the law firm of Ropes & Gray, brought suit against the law in June 2011 on behalf of several Florida doctors and medical groups, and last year won an injunction from U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, who ruled the law was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Court will hear Florida's appeal on Thursday, July 18th at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building at 99 N.E. 4th Street, Miami, Florida. Court convenes at 9 am.
"The gun lobby's attempt to stop doctors from warning about the severe risks posed by guns in the home is outrageous and unconstitutional," said Jonathan Lowy, co-counsel for the Plaintiffs and Director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project. "With more than 4,000 children shot in gun accidents every year, doctors must be able to give patients frank advice about the serious risks posed by guns in the home."
The Florida law, H.B. 155, also known as the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, would subject health care providers to possible sanctions, including fines and loss of license, if they discuss or record information in a patient's chart about firearms safety that a medical board later determined was not "relevant" or was "unnecessarily harassing." The law, however, did not define these terms. The lawsuit charged that the law is unconstitutionally vague and violates the First Amendment by restricting and having a severe chilling effect on confidential, life-saving discussions.
One third of U.S. homes with children younger than eighteen have a firearm. More than 40 percent of gun-owning households with children store their guns unlocked and one quarter of those homes store them loaded. Children aged 5 to 14 years in the United States are 11 times more likely to be killed accidentally with a gun than similarly aged children in other developed countries. Because of these well-documented risks, pediatricians advise parents to keep guns away from children, secured with gun locks, and stored separately from ammunition.
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier of Ropes & Gray in Washington, D.C. is arguing the case for the Plaintiffs. The suit was filed by attorneys with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the law firms Ropes & Gray and Astigarraga Davis on behalf of individual doctors as well as organizations representing 11,000 health care providers, including the Florida Pediatric Society/Florida Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics; American Academy of Family Physicians, Florida Chapter; and the American College of Physicians, Florida Chapter.
Brady United formerly known as The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and its legislative and grassroots affiliate, the Brady Campaign and its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence. We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
LATEST NEWS
‘It Does Not Have to Be This Way’: Child Hunger Set to Surge as Trump Withholds SNAP Funds
Two federal courts ruled Friday that the White House must release contingency food assistance funds, but officials have suggested they will not comply with the orders.
Oct 31, 2025
Though two federal judges ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must use contingency funds to continue providing food assistance that 42 million Americans rely on, White House officials have signaled they won't comply with the court orders even as advocates warn the lapse in nutrition aid funding will cause an unprecedented child hunger crisis that families are unprepared to withstand.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is planning to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on Saturday as the government shutdown reaches the one-month mark, claiming it can no longer fund SNAP and cannot tap $5 billion in contingency funds that would allow recipients to collect at least partial benefits in November.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that his administration is "going to get it done," regarding the funding of SNAP, but offered no details on his plans to keep the nation's largest anti-hunger program funded, and his agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, would not commit on Friday to release the funds if ordered to do so.
"We're looking at all the options," Rollins told CNN before federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ordered the administration to fund the program.
The White House and Republicans in Congress have claimed the only way to fund SNAP is for Democratic lawmakers to vote for a continuing resolution proposed by the GOP to keep government funding at current levels; Democrats have refused to sign on to the resolution because it would allow healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to expire.
The administration previously said it would use the SNAP contingency funds before reversing course last week. A document detailing the contingency plan disappeared from the USDA's website this week. The White House's claims prompted two lawsuits filed by Democrat-led states and cities as well as nonprofit groups that demanded the funding be released.
On Thursday evening, US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) addressed her followers on the social media platform X about the impending hunger emergency, emphasizing that the loss of SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans—39% of whom are children—is compounding a child poverty crisis that has grown since 2021 due to Republicans' refusal to extend pandemic-era programs like the enhanced child tax credit.
"One in eight kids in America lives in poverty in 2024," said Jayapal. "Sixty-one percent of these kids—that's about 6 million kids— have at least one parent who is employed. So it's not that people are not working, they're working, but they're not earning enough."
"I just want to be really clear that it is a policy choice to have people who are hungry, to have people who are poor," she said.
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, an economist at Georgetown University, told The Washington Post that the loss of benefits for millions of children, elderly, and disabled people all at once is "unprecedented."
“We’ve never seen the elderly and children removed from the program in this sort of way,” Schanzenbach told the Post. “It really is hard to predict something of this magnitude."
A Thursday report by the economic justice group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) emphasized that the impending child hunger crisis comes four months after Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashed food assistance by shifting some of the cost of SNAP to the states from the federal government, expanding work requirements, and ending adjustments to benefits to keep pace with food inflation.
Meanwhile, the law is projected to increase the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of US households by 3.7% while reducing the incomes of the poorest 20% of Americans by an average of 3.8%.
Now, said ATF, "they're gonna let hard-working Americans go hungry so billionaires can get richer."
At Time on Thursday, Stephanie Land, author of Class: A Memoir of Motherhood, Hunger, and Higher Education, wrote that "the cruelty is the point" of the Trump administration's refusal to ensure the 61-year-old program, established by Democratic former President Lyndon B. Johnson, doesn't lapse for the first time in its history.
"Once, when we lost most of our food stamp benefit, I mentally catalogued every can and box of food in the cupboards, and how long the milk we had would last," wrote Land. "They’d kicked me, the mother of a recently-turned 6-year-old, off of food stamps because I didn’t meet the work requirement of 20 hours a week. I hadn’t known that my daughter’s age had qualified me to not have to meet that requirement, and without warning, the funds I carefully budgeted for food were gone."
"It didn’t matter that I was a full-time student and worked 10-15 hours a week," she continued. "This letter from my local government office said it wasn’t sufficient to meet their stamp of approval. In their opinion, I wasn’t working enough to deserve to eat. My value, my dignity as a human being, was completely dependent on my ability to work, as if nothing else about me awarded me the ability to feel satiated by food."
"Whether the current administration decides to continue to fund SNAP in November or not, the intended damage has already been done. The fear of losing means for food, shelter, and healthcare is the point," Land added. "Programs referred to as a 'safety net' are anything but when they can be removed with a thoughtless, vague message, or scribble from a permanent marker. It’s about control to gain compliance, and our most vulnerable populations will struggle to keep up."
On Thursday, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) expressed hope that the president's recent statement saying the White House will ensure people obtain their benefits will "trigger the administration to use its authority and precedent to prevent disruptions in food assistance."
"The issue at hand is not political. It is about ensuring that parents can put food on the table, older adults on fixed incomes can meet their nutritional needs, and children continue to receive the meals they rely on. SNAP is one of the most effective tools for reducing hunger and supporting local economies," said the group.
"Swift and transparent action is needed," FRAC added, "to restore stability, maintain public confidence, and ensure that our state partners, local economies and grocers, and the millions of children, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans who participate in SNAP are not left bearing the consequences of federal inaction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Immigration Agents Cause Chaos In Chicago Suburb as New Report Documents 'Pattern of Extreme Brutality'
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out," said Evanston, Illinois Mayor Daniel Biss.
Oct 31, 2025
Officials in Evanston, Illinois are accusing federal immigration officials of "deliberately causing chaos" in their city during a Friday operation that led to angry protests from local residents.
As reported by Fox 32 Chicago, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss and other local leaders held a news conference on Friday afternoon to denounce actions earlier in the day by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials.
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out of Evanston," Biss said during the conference.
In a social media post ahead of the press conference, Biss, who is currently a candidate for US Senate, described the agents' actions as "monstrous" and vowed that he would "continue to track the movement of federal agents in and around Evanston and ensure that the Evanston Police Department is responding in the appropriate fashion."
As of this writing, it is unclear how the incident involving the immigration officials in Evanston began, although witness Jose Marin told local publication Evanston Now that agents on Friday morning had deliberately caused a car crash in the area near the Chute Elementary School, and then proceeded to detain the vehicle's passengers.
Videos taken after the crash posted by Chicago Tribune investigative reporter Gregory Royal Pratt and by Evanston Now reporter Matthew Eadie show several people in the area angrily confronting law enforcement officials as they were in the process of detaining the passengers.
“You a criminal!” Evanston residents angrily confront immigration agents pic.twitter.com/t7jVaC4czq
— Gregory Royal Pratt (@royalpratt) October 31, 2025
Another video of ICE grabbing at least two people after a crash on Oakton/Asbury in Evanston
Witnesses say at least three were arrested by Feds pic.twitter.com/DStgCrKWTA
— Matthew Eadie (@mattheweadie22) October 31, 2025
The operation in Evanston came on the same day that Bellingcat published a report documenting what has been described as "a pattern of extreme brutality" being carried out by immigration enforcement officials in Illinois.
Specifically, the publication examined social media videos of immigration enforcement actions taken between October 9 to October 27, and found "multiple examples of force and riot control weapons being used" in apparent violation of a judge's temporary restraining order that banned such weapons except in cases where federal officers are in immediate danger.
"In total, we found seven [instances] that appeared to show the use of riot control weapons when there was seemingly no apparent immediate threat by protesters and no audible warnings given," Bellingcat reported. "Nineteen showed use of force, such as tackling people to the ground when they were not visibly resisting. Another seven showed agents ordering or threatening people to leave public places. Some of the events identified showed incidents that appeared to fall into more than one of these categories."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Offers Easy Path for States to Make Tax Code Fairer by Targeting the Rich
"For too long, our tax systems have favored wealth over work," said the report's co-author. "State wealth proceeds taxes would take a major step toward correcting that imbalance.”
Oct 31, 2025
Taxing the passive proceeds of extreme wealth—including capital gains and stock dividends—is an easy way for states to generate billions of dollars in revenue, reduce inequality, and boost fairness in tax systems, according to a report published Thursday.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) report shows how state-level wealth proceeds taxes of just 4% on profits generated by means including capital gains, dividends, and passive business income could raise more than $45 billion a year in revenue nationwide, while an enhanced version of such a levy would generate $57 billion annually.
According to the report, approximately three-quarters of such revenue would come from households with annual incomes exceeding $1 million—and only 4.4% of US taxpayers would owe anything at all.
Wealth inequality gets worse when working households pay more in taxes than wealthy owners.States have a simple way to address this problem and raise much-needed revenue.It's well past time for a Wealth Proceeds Tax.
[image or embed]
— ITEP (@itep.org) October 30, 2025 at 10:44 AM
Other key findings of the report include:
- A state wealth proceeds tax would help correct an imbalance in which most of the income generated by passive wealth currently faces effective federal tax rates roughly 40% lower than wages and salaries;
- A wealth proceeds tax is easy to implement—states can piggyback on federal filings, minimizing administrative costs for both taxpayers and state revenue agencies; and
- For a successful example of a wealth proceeds tax, look to Minnesota.
In 2023, Minnesota became the first state to enact a law piggybacking a wealth proceeds tax on the federal net investment income tax (NIIT), a levy on certain earnings from high-income individuals, estates, and trusts. Minnesota's 1% tax only applies to such wealth exceeding $1 million and is expected to raise more than $60 million in revenue in 2026.
Other states, while not having a wealth proceeds tax, apply higher levies on certain types of proceeds. Massachusetts, for example, imposes a short-term capital gains that is 3.5% higher than the ordinary state income tax rate, while Maryland enacted a 2% levy on short- and long-term capital gains for households earning more than $350,000 annually.
“States have an untapped opportunity to tax extremely wealthy families," ITEP senior analyst and report co-author Sarah Austin said in a statement. “The federal government already defines what counts as wealth-derived income, so states can easily adapt that framework to make their tax codes fairer and more robust.”
The report's other author, ITEP research director Carl Davis, said: "For too long, our tax systems have favored wealth over work. State wealth proceeds taxes would take a major step toward correcting that imbalance.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular