The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has officially overturned California’s “one-gun-a-month” restriction, issuing a mandate Thursday that makes the court’s earlier ruling enforceable.
The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two federally licensed firearms dealers, and six private citizens, including Michelle Nguyen.
Under the overturned law, most California residents were prohibited from purchasing more than one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle from a licensed dealer within any 30-day period. Supporters of the challenge argued the measure unfairly restricted law-abiding citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment.
The August 14 mandate follows a June 20, 2025, decision by a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel that affirmed a lower court ruling against the restriction. Writing for the majority, Judge Danielle Forrest stated:
“California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
The decision marks the first time the Ninth Circuit has issued a final judgment striking down a law under the Second Amendment, according to the Firearms Policy Coalition.
With the mandate now in effect, California’s one-gun-per-month purchasing limit is no longer enforceable.
Today, FPC announced that the Ninth Circuit has issued its mandate in FPC’s victory over California’s "one-gun-per-month" gun ban law, making it the first time the Circuit has issued a final judgment striking down a law under the Second Amendment. https://t.co/rETVHA7Jyo
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/1200px-Gun_section_in_Stans_Merry_Mart_Wenatchee.jpg9011200kfranceshttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngkfrances2025-08-15 11:55:312025-08-15 11:52:26Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California’s ‘One-Gun-Per-Month’ Law
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that South Carolina is allowed to block Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood clinics in the state.
The case was brought by Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a Medicaid patient after South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) signed an executive order in 2018 seeking to exclude the abortion giant from its Medicaid program. The abortion organization argued the order violated federal law and contended that Medicaid patients had a right to sue the state under Section 1983, part of the Civil Right Act of 1871, to choose their own qualified healthcare provider.
The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision disagreeing with Planned Parenthood’s arguments and siding with South Carolina, essentially allowing the state to defund Planned Parenthood after being blocked from doing so for years by lower courts.
NEW: In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case about whether there is a private right to bring a lawsuit challenging South Carolina's decision to end Planned Parenthood's participation in the state's Medicaid program, the court holds that there is not.
“Section 1983 permits private plaintiffs to sue for violations of federal spending-power statutes only in ‘atypical’ situations … where the provision in question ‘clear[ly]’ and ‘unambiguous[ly]’ confers an individual ‘right,’” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, adding that the law in question “is not such a statute.”
“After all, the decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy,” Gorsuch continued. “New rights for some mean new duties for others. And private enforcement actions, meritorious or not, can force governments to direct money away from public services and spend it instead on litigation. The job of resolving how best to weigh those competing costs and benefits belongs to the people’s elected representatives, not unelected judges charged with applying the law as they find it.” (Read more from “Supreme Court Allows State to Defund Planned Parenthood” HERE)
The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to more quickly deport illegal migrants to countries not specified in their removal orders.
A majority temporarily blocked a lower court order that required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to give migrants notice and allow them to raise concerns about potential threats of torture before deporting them to a “third country.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan dissented from the decision.
“Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled,” Sotomayor wrote. “That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.”
The Trump administration argued the order interfered with their ability to deport “some of the worst of the worst illegal aliens” in its emergency application. (Read more from “Supreme Court Hands Trump Admin Victory On Efforts To Deport ‘Worst’ Illegal Migrants” HERE)
By MSNBC. The Supreme Court has upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care [sic] for minors, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts over dissent from the court’s Democratic appointees.
The Republican-appointed majority said Wednesday that the state law isn’t subject to heightened scrutiny under the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Reasoning that the law doesn’t discriminate based on sex, Roberts wrote that it “prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex.”
. . . Defending the law, the state [of Tennessee] said it’s “not unconstitutional discrimination to say that drugs can be prescribed for one reason but not another.” The state further argued that its law doesn’t classify people based on sex but rather creates two groups: “minors seeking drugs for gender transition and minors seeking drugs for other medical purposes.” (Read more from “Major SCOTUS Victory for America’s Families: State Bans on Hormone Blockers, Trans-Surgeries for Kids Upheld” HERE)
Supreme Court Ruling on Trans Treatments for Minors Decried by Media as ‘Huge Setback for Transgender Rights’
By Fox News. The legacy media was united in its disapproval of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling upholding Tennessee’s ban on transgender medical treatment for minors.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a challenge to a Tennessee law restricting access to puberty blockers and hormone treatment to children who identify as the opposite sex.
Several news organizations framed the ruling negatively and implied it was a “setback for transgender rights” for all ages, despite the decision affecting only minors. The result was also described as a “major blow,” a “devastating loss,” and a “stunning setback.”
“BREAKING: The Supreme Court upholds a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors in a huge setback for transgender rights,” the Associated Press reported on X Wednesday.
“BREAKING: Supreme Court upholds a Tennessee law restricting gender transition care for minors, delivering a major blow to transgender rights,” NBC News similarly posted. (Read more from “Supreme Court Ruling on Trans Treatments for Minors Decried by Media as ‘Huge Setback for Transgender Rights’” HERE)
The Supreme Court Did the Right Thing. I Know Because I Was Part of a Horrifying Gender Transition
By Fox News. The issues raised at the U.S. Supreme Court in United States of America v. Skrmetti are pretty academic to most Americans. The court concluded on June 18 that states can protect children from dangerous gender-transition procedures. Most people don’t have to know more than they want to about what is taking place in many hospitals in America.
But it’s different for me and for thousands of other people who have been defrauded by negligent doctors and harmful policies. I was part of the experiment.
The “procedures” the lawyers debated involve doctor-prescribed, counselor-encouraged drugs and surgeries that have been described as harmful, unnecessary, and high-risk by research and rigorously reviewed studies.
I wasn’t informed of all the risks involved when I was told to take these drugs. I wasn’t given ethical or evidence-based treatment. I was given life-altering drugs and surgeries based on pseudoscience and the singular fact that I hated myself.
I believed the lies my doctors told me because I was vulnerable from abuse and trauma. By the time I was 14, I’d been raped, became pregnant, and suffered a miscarriage. By 16, I had been diagnosed with anorexia, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder and was hospitalized for depression and self-harm. I tried to kill myself several times. A medical resident talked with me — once — and suddenly decided, despite all my other documented physical and mental health struggles, that my real trouble was a “gender-identity crisis.” (Read more from “The Supreme Court Did the Right Thing. I Know Because I Was Part of a Horrifying Gender Transition” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/5486338003_22baa78f1b-904153444.jpeg365500Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2025-06-18 21:59:382025-06-18 21:24:45Major SCOTUS Victory for America’s Families: State Bans on Hormone Blockers, Trans-Surgeries for Kids Upheld
A transgender influencer started pointing fingers at other members of the community regarding the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling Wednesday, which upheld Tennessee’s law banning child sex change procedures.
Trans woman Brianna Wu, who formerly ran for election to the U.S. House of Representatives to represent Massachusetts in 2020, said it’s the “legal precedent that will allow red states to ban HRT for adults.”
Wu aimed his criticism at “the narcissists” at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented the plaintiff, and more specifically at Chase Strangio, a transgender person who served as the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs of United States v. Skrmetti.
Wu said that Strangio was worse for the trans movement than Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who has been openly critical of the trans ideology, “because she’s not actively laying the legal framework that hurts actual transsexuals.”
Wu said Strangio was “destroying” transgender rights with her “arrogance in your extreme gender ideology.”
This non-binary, self-ID nonsense is the legal basis for SCOTUS dismantling transsexual rights today.
And the logic makes perfect sense. This isn’t just a medical condition, thanks to the progressive fringe. It’s now a category anyone can self ID into.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/14212092781_933829823b_b-2960407742.jpeg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2025-06-18 21:37:062025-06-18 12:39:46‘Hell Is Not Enough for You’: SCOTUS Decision on Child Sex Changes Sparks Trans Infighting
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of nuns fighting against New York’s abortion mandate that forced religious organizations to pay for employee abortions.
The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic organization that serves the elderly, fought the state on its abortion mandate that violates religious liberties for years, but multiple New York courts have ruled in favor of the abortion mandate.
New York mandated in 2017 that employers pay for “not just abortifacients, but even surgical abortions” as part of employee health care. The state had indicated that it would protect religious groups, but “narrowed the exemption to protect only religious entities that primarily employ and serve people of their own faith,” according to Becket Religious Liberty for All. The only religious exemption was for “religious groups that primarily teach religion and primarily serve and hire those who share their faith,” a Becket press release said.
In response Catholic nuns led a group of religious groups spanning different denominations who banded together to push back against the state forcing Christians to provide insurance plans that pay for killing babies as “health care.”
The mandate “violat[ed] their deepest religious convictions about the sanctity of life,” according to Becket. “New York wants to browbeat nuns into paying for abortions for the great crime of serving all those in need,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel of Becket. (Read more from “SCOTUS Sides With Nuns Fighting New York Mandate That Made Them Pay For Abortions” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/18527552054_5fcd6706ca_c.jpg370799Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2025-06-16 21:27:172025-06-16 16:31:29SCOTUS Sides With Nuns Fighting New York Mandate That Made Them Pay For Abortions
The Supreme Court unanimously sided with a woman on Thursday who claimed her employer discriminated against her because she is straight.
The court held that members of majority groups should not have to face a “heightened evidentiary standard” to prove a discrimination claim.
“By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ —without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in the court’s opinion. (Read more from “Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Woman Who Says She Lost Job For Not Being Gay” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/7432022562_aaa2dd4fe5-459316742.jpeg332500Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2025-06-05 21:28:502025-06-05 13:00:31Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Woman Who Says She Lost Job For Not Being Gay
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday in three cases concerning challenges to President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. The question before the high court was not, however, the constitutionality of the EO, but rather whether the lower courts had authority to issue injunctions on a nationwide basis to bar implementation of an EO. You would be hard pressed to know that, though, from the justices’ questions — the overwhelming number of which focused instead on how to stop Trump.
“So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents,” Justice Sotomayor declared early in the argument, referring to the Trump Administration’s EO on birthright citizenship. “And you are claiming that not just the Supreme Court — that both the Supreme Court and no lower court can stop an executive from — universally from violating that holding — those holdings by this Court,” Justice Sotomayor further charged. “[W]hy should we permit those countless others to be subject to what we think is an unlawful executive action,” the justice pushed, when a nationwide injunction could immediately remedy the executive branch’s unlawful action.
Justice Kagan likewise framed the question for the Court as how to promptly halt the implementation of a president’s EO which is “dead wrong” on the law. “[E]very court has ruled against you” on the birthright citizenship question, she intoned to Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
“If one thinks — and, you know, look, there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions, but I think that the question that this case presents is that if one thinks that it’s quite clear that the EO is illegal, how does one get to that result in what time frame on your set of rules without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?” Justice Kagan further questioned the Trump Administration.
Those excerpts were but a few exchanges during the nearly three-hour hearing, with Justices Sotomayor and Kagan monopolizing much of last week’s oral argument with their questions focused solely on a solution: In effect, how do the courts expeditiously stop Trump, other than with a nationwide injunction? In positing this question, Justice Kagan even acknowledged “there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions . . . ” (Read more from “SCOTUS Oral Argument in Nationwide Injunction Case Illustrates Courts’ Coup Against Trump” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/th-3822888744.jpg244474Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2025-05-19 22:11:582025-05-19 22:04:52SCOTUS Oral Argument in Nationwide Injunction Case Illustrates Courts’ Coup Against Trump
The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must provide alleged Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members with more notice, prior to deporting them under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
In a 7-2 decision on Friday, the Supreme Court found that Venezuelan migrants facing deportation under the AEA had not received enough notice regarding their deportation, while also not weighing in on whether or not the Trump administration was able to deport suspect illegal alien gang members, according to CNBC.
Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the majority justices wrote in the ruling.
Justice Alito, whom Justice Thomas joined, said the court has no role in setting rules for the AEA implementation. (Read more from “SCOTUS Punts on Alien Enemies Act, Says Gangsters Deserve Time to Hire Lawyers” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/illegal_migrant_caravan.jpg399600Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2025-05-16 21:01:492025-05-16 19:10:01SCOTUS Punts on Alien Enemies Act, Says Gangsters Deserve Time to Hire Lawyers
The Supreme Court is hearing its first set of Trump-related arguments in the second Trump presidency. The case stems from the executive order President Donald Trump issued on his first day in office that would deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The executive order marks a major change to the provision of the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to people born in the United States, with just a couple of exceptions.
Immigrants, rights groups and states sued almost immediately to challenge the executive order. Federal judges have uniformly cast doubt on Trump’s reading of the Citizenship Clause. Three judges have blocked the order from taking effect anywhere in the U.S., including U.S. District Judge John Coughenour. “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour said at a hearing in his Seattle courtroom.
The Supreme Court is taking up emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration asking to be able to enforce the executive order in most of the country, at least while lawsuits over the order proceed. The constitutionality of the order is not before the court just yet. Instead, the justices are looking at potentially limiting the authority of individual judges to issue rulings that apply throughout the United States. These are known as nationwide, or universal, injunctions. (Read more from “Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Case Over Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/7432022562_aaa2dd4fe5-459316742.jpg332500Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2025-05-15 19:37:522025-05-15 11:43:39Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Case Over Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
