A federal judge has blocked a California gun law that emulated a controversial Texas abortion measure — and which was intended to provoke a court fight.

The injunction from Judge Roger Benitez sets California’s law, which enables private citizens to sue manufacturers of illegal guns, on a potential path to the U.S. Supreme Court. That could set up a test of both laws — an outcome that California Gov. Gavin Newsom has sought.

“I want to thank Judge Benitez. We have been saying all along that Texas’ anti-abortion law is outrageous. Judge Benitez just confirmed it is also unconstitutional," Newsom said in a statement Monday. "The provision in California’s law that he struck down is a replica of what Texas did, and his explanation of why this part of SB 1327 unfairly blocks access to the courts applies equally to Texas’ SB 8."

Benitez also underscored the ties between the two laws in his ruling, citing Newsom’s condemnations of the Texas measure that deputizes citizens to sue abortion providers as evidence that the California gun law is unconstitutional.

"'It is cynical.' 'It is an abomination.' 'It is outrageous and objectionable.' 'There is no dispute that it raises serious constitutional questions,'" Benitez wrote at the start of his ruling, quoting Newsom on the Texas law as evidence that "by implication," the same is true of California's law.

A Carson City judge on Monday blocked Gov. Steve Sisolak’s plan for a state board to consider reducing all Nevada death sentences to life without parole, saying the last-minute proposal did not offer enough advance notice to victims.

Judge James E. Wilson said that while the Nevada Pardons Board had the power to commute death penalties, he also found the proposed agenda item to be against Marsy's Law, a part of the Nevada Constitution that requires victims have at least 15 days’ notice before proceedings regarding commutation are discussed.

"The amended agenda was provided three business days before the hearing where the commutation … is going to be discussed," Wilson said.

Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks had asked the court to intervene.

A Carson City judge on Monday blocked Gov. Steve Sisolak’s plan for a state board to consider reducing all Nevada death sentences to life without parole, saying the last-minute proposal did not offer enough advance notice to victims.

Judge James E. Wilson said that while the Nevada Pardons Board had the power to commute death penalties, he also found the proposed agenda item to be against Marsy's Law, a part of the Nevada Constitution that requires victims have at least 15 days’ notice before proceedings regarding commutation are discussed.

"The amended agenda was provided three business days before the hearing where the commutation … is going to be discussed," Wilson said.

Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks had asked the court to intervene.

When voters in November elected to keep the current composition of the state's appellate courts intact, it caused supporters to breathe a sigh of relief.

The peace, however, may well be short lived.

Lawmakers are expected to again consider changes to the state's selection process for Kansas Supreme Court justices when they return in January, a topic that will be more charged than ever as Republicans seek to lay the groundwork for an eventual reversal of a landmark case establishing state constitutional protections for abortions.

The bulk of the court earned new six-year terms with their triumph in November, though the state-mandated retirement age of 75 looms for some of the justices within the next decade.

Lawmakers have considered whether to move towards a model that resembles the way U.S. Supreme Court and federal judges are picked, where the governor would select a nominee who would then need to be confirmed by the Kansas Senate.

Another option would be partisan elections for judges; an option used in eight states. Or, legislation already introduced by Rep. Brett Fairchild, R-St. John, would make it easier to impeach and remove justices for certain offenses.

"I'd like to see us move toward the middle of the road more like the federal model that we discussed," Sen. Mike Thompson, R-Shawnee, said. "And I think it would serve the state a little bit better and give people more voice in the process."

When voters in November elected to keep the current composition of the state's appellate courts intact, it caused supporters to breathe a sigh of relief.

The peace, however, may well be short lived.

Lawmakers are expected to again consider changes to the state's selection process for Kansas Supreme Court justices when they return in January, a topic that will be more charged than ever as Republicans seek to lay the groundwork for an eventual reversal of a landmark case establishing state constitutional protections for abortions.

The bulk of the court earned new six-year terms with their triumph in November, though the state-mandated retirement age of 75 looms for some of the justices within the next decade.

Lawmakers have considered whether to move towards a model that resembles the way U.S. Supreme Court and federal judges are picked, where the governor would select a nominee who would then need to be confirmed by the Kansas Senate.

Another option would be partisan elections for judges; an option used in eight states. Or, legislation already introduced by Rep. Brett Fairchild, R-St. John, would make it easier to impeach and remove justices for certain offenses.

"I'd like to see us move toward the middle of the road more like the federal model that we discussed," Sen. Mike Thompson, R-Shawnee, said. "And I think it would serve the state a little bit better and give people more voice in the process."

Raffi Melkonian
@RMFifthCircuit

CA5 strikes down the federal government's contractor vaccine mandate, 2-1. Judge Graves dissents.

I'm having trouble downloading the opinion - I'll put a link when I can.

A quick clarification. The court only affirms the preliminary injunction, but effectively that ends the program. Sorry about that.

On the merits, to cut through the many words, it's a form of the major questions doctrine.

Here is the opinion - finally figured out the technical issue.

Google Drive - Louisiana v Biden

Judge Graves says, in dissent: hey, wait a second, this isn't the MQD we've been talking about - this is at most a cousin we're not sure exists.

The majority responds, in a footnote, that nope, this is the MQD.

Marc E. Elias
@marceelias


People are asking about where to find our new podcast:

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/07HAe8X1NunXKa8bQyH6xf?si=DHov3c1_S7CIKoz8Qxi1DQ&nd=1
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/defending-democracy/id1660317917?i=1000590439797
Google: waiting for it to index.
On the Web: https://democracydocket.com/defendingdemocracy/

Thank you to everyone who has offered such positive feedback. Please listen and share.

WASHINGTON — On the eve of his one-year anniversary in the Oval Office, President Biden held his first press conference. It was mid-January, and the mood in Washington was dour. A new variant of the coronavirus called Omicron was sweeping across the country, closing schools and disrupting plans. Russia was moving troops toward its border with Ukraine.

“I know there’s a lot of frustration and fatigue in this country,” Biden said in his introductory remarks.

In the months to come his approval rating would continue to plummet, and calls for Democrats to find a new nominee for 2024 would grow ever louder. Republican attacks also sharpened. “Biden’s Presidency Filled With Failure, Weakness, and Chaos,” Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, a leading Republican in the House of Representatives, argued in a withering March 1 press release.

Nine months later, however, Biden appears to have revitalized his presidency through a series of lucky breaks and savvy moves. While his approval ratings remain low and his agenda far from realized, the president is still poised to enter 2023 significantly stronger than he started 2022.

Perhaps nothing symbolizes the president’s improving fortunes better than the price of gasoline, which climbed relentlessly for much of the first half of 2022, driven by constraints in supply caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But the president’s decision to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve appears to have paid off, and earlier this month, prices fell to where they had been in December 2021.

How an obscure Christian right activist became one of the most powerful men in America

On Thursday evening, a Trump-appointed judge named Matthew Kacsmaryk effectively ordered the Biden administration to reinstate a harsh, Trump-era border policy known as “Remain in Mexico,” which requires many immigrants seeking asylum in the United States to remain on the Mexican side of the border while their case is being processed. It’s the second time that Kacsmaryk has pulled this stunt — he did the same thing in 2021, and the Supreme Court overturned his decision last June.

It’s a significant decision in its own right, and will only prolong uncertainty at America’s southern border. But Kacsmaryk’s order in this case, Texas v. Biden, was merely the capstone of an unusually busy week for this judge. His busy week, and months of earlier actions, show the havoc one rogue federal judge can create, especially in today’s judiciary.

Kacsmaryk is one of many Trump appointees to the federal bench who appears to have been chosen largely due to his unusually conservative political views. A former lawyer at a law firm affiliated with the religious right, he’s claimed that being transgender is a “mental disorder,” and that gay people are “disordered.” As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said during his confirmation fight, “Mr. Kacsmaryk has demonstrated a hostility to the LGBTQ bordering on paranoia.”

And Kacsmaryk is just as fixated on what straight people are doing in their bedrooms. In a 2015 article, Kacsmaryk denounced a so-called “Sexual Revolution” that began in the 1960s and 1970s, and which “sought public affirmation of the lie that the human person is an autonomous blob of Silly Putty unconstrained by nature or biology, and that marriage, sexuality, gender identity, and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of liberated adults.”

Yet, thanks to an obscure rule governing which federal judges are assigned to hear cases in Texas federal courts — 95 percent of civil cases filed in Amarillo, Texas’s federal courthouse are automatically assigned to Kacsmaryk — this prurient man is now one of the most powerful public officials in the United States. Any conservative interest group can find a federal policy they do not like, file a legal complaint in the Amarillo federal courthouse challenging that policy, and nearly guarantee that their case will be heard by Kacsmaryk.

The North Carolina Supreme Court issued two important rulings in voting rights cases Friday, on gerrymandering and voter ID.

Both rulings found that Republican lawmakers had acted unconstitutionally to diminish the influence of Democratic voters — by passing a voter ID law with rules that intentionally discriminated against Black voters, and by redrawing the state’s political districts in such a way that rendered many Democrats’ votes essentially pointless in certain elections.

“The right to vote is a fundamental right, preservative of all other rights. If the right to vote is undermined, it renders illusory all ‘other rights, even the most basic,’” Justice Anita Earls wrote in the voter ID case, quoting from a civil rights case from 1964.

Both rulings were 4-3 decisions, purely along party lines with all the court’s Democrats in the majority and all the Republicans dissenting.