SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
clarence thomas
In 'Major Smackdown' of 5th Circuit, Supreme Court Upholds Biden-Era Ghost Gun Ban
"Today, seven members of the Supreme Court followed the law and did not capitulate to special interests like the NRA, and our streets will be safer for it," said one Democratic senator.
Mar 26, 2025
In what one gun control group hailed as "a BIG win for public safety," the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Biden-era rule regulating ghost guns, which can be made using 3D printers, obtained without background checks, and smuggled into high-security locations.
The high court ruled 7-2—with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting—in Bondi v. Vanderstock that ghost guns, which are virtually untraceable, are firearms subject to regulation by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
NEW: The Supreme Court just upheld ATF’s critical ghost gun rule 👏👏👏 They ruled that ghost gun kits are legally firearms, meaning they must have serial numbers and can only be sold by licensed sellers after a background check. This is a BIG win for public safety.
[image or embed]
— GIFFORDS ( @giffords.org) March 26, 2025 at 7:57 AM
In 2022, the Biden administration enacted rules including a licensing requirement for companies making and selling ghost gun parts, mandating serial numbers for such components, and subjecting buyers to background checks. Ghost gun component manufacturers and Second Amendment advocates sued the government, claiming that ghost guns are not firearms as defined by the landmark Gun Control Act of 1968.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs in a 2023 decision striking down the ATF ghost gun rules.
However, while conceding that some ghost gun kits may not qualify as firearms under the law, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that others "'contain all components necessary' for 'a complete pistol' and can be completed in perhaps half an hour using commonly available tools."
"But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its intended function as instrument of combat is obvious," Gorsuch added. "Really, the kit's name says it all: 'Buy Build Shoot.'"
Today's decision is a pretty major smackdown for the 5th Circuit, which angrily rejected the ghost gun regulations as an egregiously unlawful assault on the rights of at-home gunsmiths. Gorsuch's opinion says the 5th Circuit badly misapplied the law in a number of ways. When you've lost Gorsuch...
— Mark Joseph Stern ( @mjsdc.bsky.social) March 26, 2025 at 7:16 AM
Responding to the ruling, David Pucino, the legal director and deputy chief counsel at the Giffords Law Center, said: "Ghost guns are the gun industry's way of skirting commonsense gun laws and arming dangerous people without background checks. We are thrilled that the Supreme Court has upheld the ATF rule that treats ghost guns as what they are: guns."
"We've seen how the rise in ghost guns has contributed to increases in crime and gun deaths in communities across the United States," Pucino added. "The Supreme Court's ruling is a huge win for public safety."
The legal division of Everytown for Gun Safety also hailed what it called the court's "lifesaving decision."
"We applaud the Supreme Court for doing the right thing by upholding a lawful and critical rule that protects public safety, and by rejecting the gun lobby's extreme legal agenda," Everytown Law executive director Eric Tirschwell said. "The ATF ghost gun rule has broad support from state and federal law enforcement, who have all affirmed it is crucial to keeping our communities safe—and data shows it is reducing the number of ghost guns recovered at crime scenes nationwide. We look forward to seeing this downward trend continue."
As Everytown noted, "early data indicates a drop in ghost gun recoveries at crime scenes since the ATF's rule went into effect," and "New York City, Baltimore, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Oakland, and other cities reported declines in ghost gun recoveries" in 2023.
Great news coming out of the Supreme Court! In a 7-2 decision, Justices have upheld the ban on ghost guns. These untraceable weapons have no legitimate use and are the perfect firearms for use in crime. This is a victory for public safety!
— Team ENOUGH ( @teamenough.org) March 26, 2025 at 7:16 AM
"At 17, my son, Guy, was badly wounded when he was shot with a ghost gun by a minor too young to legally purchase a pistol. No one should have to go through the trauma of learning that your child has been shot and may not survive," Denise Wieck, a volunteer with the gun control advocacy group Moms Demand Action, said following Wednesday's ruling.
"Though Guy suffers the consequences of the gunshot wound to this day—including an epilepsy diagnosis, anxiety, and the loss of an eye—we have both turned our grief into power through education and advocacy," Wieck added. "We are deeply relieved by today's ruling, which will help ensure that a tragedy like ours never happens again."
Democratic lawmakers also welcomed Wednesday's ruling.
"Ghost guns have been a terror on our streets, haunting our communities, and taking lives," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. "For years, I have been warning of the dangers of these untraceable guns, and I strongly supported the Biden administration's rule to crack down on these treacherous kits."
"Today, seven members of the Supreme Court followed the law and did not capitulate to special interests like the NRA, and our streets will be safer for it," Schumer added, referring to the National Rifle Association. "Senate Democrats will continue to push Republicans to take commonsense actions to keep ghost guns off the streets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alito and Thomas Urged to Recuse From Key Case Over 'Cozy Ties' to Right-Wing Kingpin
"Americans deserve a legal system that isn't influenced by billionaires and special interest backers pushing an agenda at the expense of working families," said a watchdog group leader.
Mar 19, 2025
Ahead of U.S. Supreme Court arguments next week, a watchdog group asserted Wednesday that right-wing Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas must recuse themselves from a case "whose outcome could have sweeping consequences," citing "significant conflicts of interest" due to their relationships with "conservative kingpin Leonard Leo."
In Federal Communications Commissionv. Consumers' Research, a right-wing group is challenging the constitutionality of the FCC's Universal Service Fund program.
Vox's Ian Millhiser reported Wednesday that "if the Supreme Court accepts an argument raised by a federal appeals court, which struck down the federal program, it would bring about one of the biggest judicial power grabs in American history, and hobble the government's ability to do, well, pretty much anything."
In the new report about Alito and Thomas, the watchdog Accountable.US issued a similar warning about the case's potential impacts: "Effectively defunct for almost a century, the nondelegation doctrine prohibits Congress from passing off its legislative power to federal agencies... Reviving the doctrine would cripple agencies' ability to govern consumer safeguards, social security, Medicare, and more during a time when the Trump administration has begun to slash federal agencies."
"Now before the high court, the case presents an obvious conflict of interest for many of the justices who are personally tied to (and in some cases, friends of) the conservative activist Leonard Leo, who is closely connected to Consumers' Research," the analysis explains, pointing to reporting that Leo is the group's "main backer."
While "all six conservatives now sitting on the Supreme Court can credit Leo with helping to shepherd their confirmations," the watchdog's report states, the right-wing legal activist is "close personal friends" with Alito and Thomas.
According to the report:
- Leo has known Justice Thomas since the early 1990s when Leo was clerking in D.C. Since then, Leo has traveled with Thomas and invited him to his personal residence in Maine. The justice is also the godfather to one of Leo's daughters. Justice Thomas' wife, Ginni, has previously called Leo her "hero" and "mentor." Over the past 15 years, Leo and Ginni have worked together on several projects, operationalizing the outside game of conservative dark money and politics.
- Leo has also traveled with Justice Alito, most notably to Alaska on a private fishing trip (which Justice Alito did not disclose at the time). Leo's Federalist Society has also sponsored numerous trips overseas for Alito, some of them attended by Leo himself.
"Americans deserve a legal system that isn't influenced by billionaires and special interest backers pushing an agenda at the expense of working families. Justices Thomas and Alito's cozy ties to Leonard Leo and thereby Consumers' Research fly straight in the face of that, and present a clear conflict of interest impeding their ability to rule impartially on the case," said Accountable.US president Caroline Ciccone in a statement.
"Public trust in the Supreme Court is already at an all-time low because of misguided conduct by justices–this case threatens to degrade it further," Ciccone continued. "The Supreme Court simply cannot be trusted to defend the Constitution if it doesn't adopt an obligatory, enforceable code of conduct that cleans up the impropriety that's existed on the court for years. Thomas and Alito must recuse themselves and restore a semblance of integrity to the highest court."
In addition to releasing the report, Accountable.US and two other groups, Take Back the Court and United for Democracy, argued for Alito and Thomas' recusal in a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts—who on Tuesday publicly condemned right-wing attacks on the federal judiciary.
"The Supreme Court has been engulfed by corruption scandals, many of which centering around the right-wing justices' overly friendly relationships with powerful billionaires and special interests," United for Democracy senior adviser Meagan Hatcher-Mays said Wednesday. "At the same time that Justices Thomas and Alito were accepting lavish gifts and trips from billionaires, they were hearing cases with those same billionaires' legal interests at stake."
"It's impossible for the American public to trust in Supreme Court rulings when this kind of glad-handing is taking place," she added. "The appearance of impropriety is clear in FCC v. Consumers' Research given Leonard Leo's long-time friendship with Justices Thomas and Alito and his financial entanglements with Consumers’ Research. Justices Thomas and Alito must recuse themselves immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Right-Wing Supreme Court Won't Save Us From This Right-Wing President
Today especially, remember that we celebrate President's Day—not Dictator's Day—for a reason.
Feb 17, 2025
It is well to remind ourselves that today is President’s Day, not Dictator’s Day.
Of all the things the framers of the Constitution worried about, their biggest worry was that a president would become as powerful as a king. Which is why they created Congress and the judiciary — to check and constrain him.
Fast forward to the first Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century, when inequalities of income and wealth had become extreme that the so-called “Robber Barons” of the era (think Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg) controlled the economy, and corruption was rampant. (I say “first” Gilded Age because we are now clearly in the second.)
Reformers of that era created an income tax to try to limit the Robber Barons’ incomes, limits on corporate campaign expenditures to limit their political reach, and independent regulatory agencies to limit their power. The Federal Trade Commission, for example, was established as an independent agency in 1914, to take on corporate monopolies and fraud.
Fast forward again to today. There are by now 19 independent regulatory agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Office of Special Counsel.
These independent agencies, staffed with experts, have become a major countervailing power to the political clout of large corporations.
But I fear that the Supreme Court is about to end their independence.
On Sunday, White House lawyers asked the justices to allow Trump to fire the head of an independent watchdog agency. It’s the first case to reach the Supreme Court arising from the blizzard of actions taken by Trump in the early weeks of the new administration.
The White House’s emergency application asks the Supreme Court to vacate a federal trial judge’s order temporarily reinstating Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel.
The Office of Special Counsel — a little-known but important independent agency — enforces federal whistleblower laws, which protect whistleblowers from political retribution, and the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in most political activity.
In the 1978 law that established the Office of Special Counsel, Congress gave the Counsel a five-year term and provided that he or she could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
But Trump’s one-sentence email to Dellinger on Feb. 7 gave no reasons for firing him, effective immediately.
Dellinger sued. He called his removal illegal and argued that nothing about his performance could possibly meet the standard Congress laid out for dismissing a special counsel:
“Since my arrival at OSC last year, I could not be more proud of all we have accomplished. The agency’s work has earned praise from advocates for whistleblowers, veterans, and others. The effort to remove me has no factual nor legal basis — none — which means it is illegal.”
Since February 7, Dellinger has continued to police the government against Hatch Act and whistle-blower violations — even when they have involved federal workers who allegedly discriminated against Trump. (In a complaint filed last Tuesday, Dellinger alleged that, during a hurricane response in October, an aid supervisor for the Federal Emergency Management Agency illegally instructed FEMA workers not to visit homes with Trump signs.)
Last Monday night, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump from firing Dellinger.
Judge Jackson wrote that the 1978 law “expresses Congress’s clear intent to ensure the independence of the special counsel and insulate his work from being buffeted by the winds of political change,” adding that the government’s “only response to this inarguable reading of the text is that the statute is unconstitutional.”
On Saturday, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Trump’s emergency motion for a stay of Judge Jackson’s ruling. The unsigned majority opinion said the government’s motion was premature.
“The question here is not whether the president is entitled to prompt review of his important constitutional arguments. Of course he is. The issue before us is whether his mere claim of extraordinary harm justifies this court’s immediate review, which would essentially remove the legal issues from the district court’s ambit before its proceedings have concluded.”
In its Sunday filing before the Supreme Court, the White House said the Supreme Court “should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will.” Translated: Congress can not limit the president’s power to fire heads of independent agencies.
Make no mistake. This is a fundamental challenge to the basic idea — part of the fabric of our government for well over a century — that Congress has the power to create independent agencies.
Trump’s emergency application took direct aim at a precedent from 1935 in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress can shield independent agencies from politics.
That case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, concerned a federal law that protected commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission, saying they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” — the same language that Congress used decades later to protect the Special Counsel.
Franklin D. Roosevelt nonetheless fired a commissioner, William Humphrey, arguing only that Humphrey’s actions were not aligned with the administration’s policy goals. The Supreme Court held that the firing was unlawful and the law establishing the independence of the Federal Trade Commission was constitutional.
Fast forward again. The Roberts Supreme Court doesn’t like independent regulatory agencies. Most of the current justices subscribe to what’s called the “unitary executive” theory, a bonkers notion that the framers intended for a president to have total control over every aspect of the executive branch.
In 2020, the Roberts Supreme Court laid the groundwork for reversing Humphrey’s Executor in a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The law that created the Bureau — again, using language identical to that at issue in Humphrey’s Executor and in Dellinger’s case — said the president could remove its director only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down that provision, ruling that it violated the separation of powers and that the president could remove the bureau’s director for any reason. Roberts, writing for the majority, said the presidency requires an “energetic executive.” He continued:
“In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the president, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead.”
Two justices — Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — would have pulled the plug on independent agencies then and there. Thomas wrote:
“The decision in Humphrey’s Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people. With today’s decision, the court has repudiated almost every aspect of Humphrey’s Executor. In a future case, I would repudiate what is left of this erroneous precedent.”
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for what was then the court’s four liberals, dissented, saying the Constitution did not address the scope of the president’s power to fire subordinates. Congress should therefore be free, she said, to grant agencies “a measure of independence from political pressure.”
That 2020 decision by the majority of the Supreme Court anticipated the Supreme Court’s decision last July that granted Trump, then a private citizen, immunity from prosecution for any “official” conduct during his first term.
So what now? I’m afraid the Trump White House and the Supreme Court have teed up the Dellinger case to mark the end of Humphries Executor — and therefore the practical end of independent agencies. They may carve out the Federal Reserve on some pretext, but they are bent on centralizing presidential power.
I wish I could be more hopeful, but I honestly don’t see any other decision emerging from this high court.
Celebrate President’s Day today, not Dictator’s Day. And don’t, whatever you do, give up hope. This is all part of democracy’s stress test. I guarantee that eventually democracy will come out stronger for it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular