JonathanTurley
JUNE 23, 2022
In 2008, the Supreme Court recognized the right to bear arms as an individual right in District of Columbia v. Many of us were predicting a major loss for over a year and New York, as usual, litigated a bad case and made more bad law for gun control advocates. Two years after Heller, in McDonald v. We don’t back down.”
JonathanTurley
OCTOBER 12, 2021
I recently discussed the Supreme Court’s affirmance of a decision rejecting constitutional arguments that the District of Columbia is entitled to a vote in Congress. I have repeatedly testified and written on the constitutional barriers to such a vote absent statehood. TIME TO GIVE DC RESIDENTS A VOTE IN CONGRESS.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
OCTOBER 10, 2022
Brian Frazelle of the Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed a brief on behalf of constitutional law professors , said that the challengers are seeking a “dramatic expansion” of the law that would call many other kinds of laws into question.
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 27, 2022
Bruen invokes the authority of history but presents a version of the past that is little more than an ideological fantasy, much of it invented by gun-rights advocates and their libertarian allies in the legal academy with the express purpose of bolstering litigation such as Bruen. In District of Columbia v. June, 2022).
JonathanTurley
JUNE 4, 2022
New York has long been the source of major litigation over gun control. The reference may be to this Scalia quote from the District of Columbia v.Heller decision: There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
JonathanTurley
OCTOBER 18, 2021
In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. The Supreme Court accepted the case for review and was expected to overturn the law — until New York suddenly changed the law and then quietly sought to withdraw its case before any ruling. Two years after Heller, in McDonald v.
JonathanTurley
OCTOBER 25, 2021
The federal government also is subject to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the government and other covered entities like the District of Columbia from “substantially burden[ing]” a person’s exercise of religion. That, however, is precisely what these litigants are seeking to raise.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
53 
Let's personalize your content