Opinion of the Court SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 20–843 NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UcuL5brBWtNlnBahN1QwQsagiJ4Rz3jG/view?usp=sharing

Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 20–843

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

[June 23, 2022]

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guaran­tees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government offic­ers some special need. That is not how the First Amend­ment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Four­teenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further pro­ceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

ALITO, J., concurring (pages 70-78)

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring (79-81)

BARRETT, J., concurring (pages 82-83)

BREYER, J., dissenting (pages 84-135)

REFERENCE:

Supreme Court Rejects New York Special Need Limitation on Carrying a Firearm, Affirms Inherent Right to Carry

June 23, 2022 | Sundance

In a 6-3 ruling [pdf HERE] the Supreme Court has ruled that New York state cannot require an individual to prove a “special need” in order to carry a firearm for self-protection.  The ruling, likely to have ramifications for other gun restricting states, affirms the constitutional right of an individual to carry a firearm, and blocks the efforts of states to make the individual prove they have a need for one.

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court: ‘We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.’

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B8MVhQJf0T8Jut8uxcM1TYB3BUOZlhlt/view?usp=sharing

1st Draft

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors. in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 19-1392

THOMAS E. DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF

THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

ET AL., PETITIONERS u. JACKSON WOMEN'S

HEALTH ORGANIZATION, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

[February_, 2022]

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.

We bold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely-the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

 

Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey's controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe's abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. 

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting." Casey, 505 U. S., at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.

VI

We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

 Opinion of the Court

APPENDIX A

This appendix contains statutes criminalizing abortion at all stages of pregnancy in the States existing in 1868. The statutes appear in chronological order.

14. California (1850):

And every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or taken, any medical substances, or shall use or cause to be used any instruments whatever, with the intention to procure the miscarriage of any woman then being with child, and shall be thereof duly convicted, shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Prison for a term not less than two years, nor more than five years: Provided, that no physician shall be affected by the last clause of this section, who, in the discharge of his professional duties, deems it necessary to produce the miscarriage of any woman in order to save her life.81

81 Cal. Sess. Stats. ch. 99, § 45 (1849-1850) (emphasis added).

REFERENCE:

POLITICO

Exclusive

Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.

 

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Supreme Court fast tracks Biden Vaccine Mandate

Supreme Court fast tracks Biden Vaccine Mandate
by Jeff Miller
December 23, 2021

As COVID cases increase around the nation, the Supreme Court has fast-tracked cases over the Biden administration’s moves to boost vaccinations. On Wednesday, the justices announced that they will hear arguments on Jan. 7th on two of Biden’s policies: “a vaccine-or-test mandate for workers at large employers, and a vaccine mandate for health care workers at facilities that receive federal funding,” Scotusblog reported.

REFERENCE:
SCOTUS NEWS

Justices will hear arguments on Jan. 7 in challenges to Biden vaccine policies
By Amy Howe
on Dec 22, 2021 at 8:55 pm

Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction, Relief Requested by Friday, August 13, 2021, In the Supreme Court of the United States, Ryan Klaassen, Jaime Carini, Daniel J. Baumgartner, Ashlee Morris, Seth Crowder, Macey Policka, Margaret Roth, and Natalie Sperazza, Applicants, v. The Trustees of Indiana University Respondent

Aug 12 2021Application (21A15) denied by Justice Barrett.

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 21A15

Title: Ryan Klaassen, et al., Applicants
v.
Trustees of Indiana University

Docketed: August 6, 2021

Lower Ct. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Case Numbers: (21-2326) (21-2326)

 

DATE Aug 06 2021

PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS

Application (21A15) for injunctive relief, submitted to Justice Barrett.

Main Document Proof of Service Other

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SvR5uKs4svo1K1ZiaqavuOz36mgxrjRW/view?usp=sharing 

 No. 21A-

In the Supreme Court of the United States

_______________

Ryan Klaassen, Jaime Carini, Daniel J. Baumgartner, Ashlee Morris, SethCrowder, Macey Policka, Margaret Roth, and Natalie Sperazza,

Applicants,

v. 

The Trustees of Indiana University 

Respondent

_______________

Emergency Application for Writ of Injunction,

Relief Requested by Friday, August 13, 2021  

To the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and

Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit

August 6, 2021

 

Questions Presented

I.Whether heightened scrutiny applies to Indiana University’s Mandate thatall IU students take the COVID vaccine in violation of their constitutional rights tobodily integrity and autonomy and medical treatment choice so that IU must provethat its Mandate is justified, which the courts below erroneously failed to do.

II.Whether IU failed to prove that its Mandate is justified under heightened scrutiny.

 

To the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice of theSupreme Court and Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit:

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 22 and 23, and 28 U.S.C. § 1651, Applicants(“Students”) respectfully request a writ of injunction by Friday, August 13—related to Indiana University (“IU”) mandating that all students receive a COVIDvaccine (“IU’s Mandate”) in violation of Students’ Fourteenth Amendment1 rights.

Students thus respectfully request that this Circuit Justice grant the requestedrelief or refer this application to the Court.

 

Introduction

Students challenged IU’s Mandate requiring students to take COVIDvaccinations, despite their objection. Students’ refusal is based on legitimateconcerns including underlying medical conditions, having natural antibodies, andthe risks associated with the vaccine. All students are adults, are entitled to maketheir own medical treatment decisions, and have a constitutional right to bodilyintegrity, autonomy, and of medical treatment choice in the context of a vaccinationmandate. IU, however, is treating its students as children who cannot be trusted tomake mature decisions and has substituted itself for both the student and herattending physician, mandating a choice which is the student’s to make, based onher physician’s advice.

The only way such rights can be infringed is for IU to justify its override of thestudent’s choice within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. The courts below,

however, did not require this, because they erroneously applied rational basisscrutiny instead of the heightened scrutiny appropriate to infringements of therights at stake here. Under proper heightened scrutiny, IU’s Mandate cannot bejustified and should be enjoined.

 

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o2a21QB0fbsIiq0xKGRXuBLw_GccxmYE/view?usp=sharing 

Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

United States District Court

Northern District of Indiana

Ryan Klaassen, Jaime Carini, D.J.B., by and though his next friend and father, Daniel G. Baumgartner, Ashlee Morris, Seth Crowder, Macey Policka, Margaret Roth, and Natalie Sperazza, Plaintiffs, 

v.

The Trustees of Indiana University, Defendant. 

Civ. No. 1:21-cv-238

 

 

Introduction

1. This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the Fourteenth Amendment and Indiana Code § 16-39-11-5 (Indiana’s “Vaccine Passport Law”).

2. It concerns the constitutionality of Indiana University’s Vaccine Mandate (“IU’s Mandate”), which requires that all students to receive one of the available COVID vaccines.

3. IU’s Mandate violates the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which includes rights of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, and the right to reject medical treatment.

4. IU’s Mandate also violates Indiana’s new Vaccine Passport Law which prohibits state and local units (including Indiana University (“IU”)) from requiring or issuing vaccine “passports” that indicate an individual’s COVID immunization status.

 

Count I

IU’s Mandate Violates Fourteenth Amendment Liberty.

Count II

IU’s Mandate Violates Indiana’s Vaccine Passport Law.

 

Prayer for Relief

Wherefore, Plaintiffs request the following relief:

250. Declare IU’s Vaccine Mandate unconstitutional on its face;

251. Declare IU’s Mandate unconstitutional as applied to each Plaintiff;

252. Enjoin IU from enforcing IU’s Mandate on its face or as applied;

253. Grant Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and any other applicable authority; and

254. Grant any and all other such relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

Dated: June 21, 2021

    

REFERENCE:

Klaassen v. The Trustees of Indiana University (1:21-cv-00238)

District Court, N.D. Indiana

Last Updated: July 31, 2021, 2:20 p.m. EDT

Assigned To: Damon R. Leichty

Referred To: Susan L. Collins

Date Filed: June 21, 2021

Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other

Jury Demand: None

Jurisdiction Type: Federal Question