Key events<\/p>\n
Supreme court strikes down Hawaii’s gun restrictions in major second amendment ruling<\/p>\n
The US supreme court<\/a> has struck down a Hawaii law requiring people to get permission to carry guns into stores and hotels, in its latest opinion backing second amendment rights.<\/p>\n The court\u2019s 6-3 decision means that people can carry guns onto privately owned property like shopping malls and gas stations, unless the owners specifically say guns are banned at their establishments.<\/p>\n It comes after the court found last week that marijuana users can\u2019t be completely barred from owning firearms<\/a>.<\/p>\n Today\u2019s ruling is a win for the Trump administration, which argued that the law violates the second amendment. The measure was sometimes referred to as a \u201cvampire rule\u201d because it required people with guns get permission to enter.<\/p>\n Hawaii argued that the 2023 measure ensured private owners could decide whether they wanted firearms on their property. The state passed the law as thousands more people got legal permission to carry guns in the wake of a 2022 supreme court ruling<\/a> that opened the door for almost all law-abiding Americans to carry concealed and loaded handguns in public.<\/p>\n About four other states have enacted similar laws, though presumptive restrictions for guns on private property open to the public have also been blocked elsewhere.<\/p>\n Hawaii also restricts guns in places like parks, beaches and restaurants that serve alcohol, but those rules weren\u2019t before the court. They are being challenged in lower courts, however.<\/p>\n The suit before the supreme court was filed by a gun rights group and three people from Maui. A judge originally blocked the measure, but an appeals court allowed it to be enforced. The Trump administration backed the supreme court appeal.<\/p>\n With the Associated Press.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a010.19 EDT<\/p>\n US judge blocks Trump’s mail-in voting executive order<\/p>\n A federal judge in Boston has blocked implementation of Donald Trump\u2019s executive \u2060order directing his administration to compile a national voter file and to restrict the use of mail-in ballots, preventing it from taking force ahead of November\u2019s midterm elections that will decide control of \u2060Congress.<\/p>\n US district judge Indira \u2060Talwani sided \u200bwith several Democratic-led states who argued that the president is trying to unlawfully interfere with the states\u2019 administration of federal elections.<\/p>\n Trump signed the order on 31 March<\/a> after calling for years for tighter rules on voting by mail and pushing the false claim that \u2060his 2020 election defeat was the result of widespread voter fraud.<\/p>\n Repeated studies and investigations have shown there is no widespread voter fraud, including fraud through mail-in voting. The president himself voted by mail<\/a> the week before signing his executive order.<\/p>\n Under the US constitution, states \u200bare assigned the role of administering \u200cfederal elections. His order directs \u200cthe US Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit to the states a list \u200cof confirmed US citizens eligible to vote in each state, derived from citizenship and naturalization records and other federal databases.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s order also requires the US Postal Service to only deliver ballots to voters on each state\u2019s approved mail-in ballot list. USPS recently moved to implement Trump\u2019s directive by issuing new proposed rules requiring states to provide the names and \u200cbarcodes tied to their mail-in ballots.<\/p>\n The order also directs the US Department of Justice to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of state and \u200blocal election officials who issue federal ballots to people deemed \u201cnot eligible\u201d to vote.<\/p>\n Voting rights groups sued the administration along with 23 states and the District of Columbia, arguing Trump\u2019s order is unconstitutional and that he lacks any legal authority to assert presidential power over election administration.<\/p>\n The \u2060states alleged that allowing Trump\u2019s order to stand would force them to \u200brush to overhaul their \u200belection systems before November, causing chaos \u200band likely disenfranchising eligible voters.<\/p>\n Talwani, an Obama appointee, \u200bruled after a \u200cdifferent jurist, Trump-appointed \u200bUS district judge Carl \u200bNichols in Washington DC, declined to issue a preliminary injunction in a related lawsuit brought by Democrats challenging Trump\u2019s order.<\/p>\n Nichols found that the Democrats\u2019 request was premature as Trump\u2019s order had yet to be implemented. They are appealing.<\/p>\n With Reuters.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Supreme court to release opinions with high-stakes cases still to be decided<\/p>\n The supreme court is due to release more opinions<\/a> in the next few minutes, with the end of the term approaching and many major cases still to be decided, including Donald Trump\u2019s highly controversial bid to end birthright citizenship, his efforts to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians in the US, and his firing of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook. We\u2019ll bring you all the key rulings here.<\/p>\n The supreme court in Washington DC. Photograph: Shawn Thew\/EPAShare<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a010.05 EDT<\/p>\n A reminder that the restrictive voting bill passed the House but stalled in the Senate, where Democrats have vowed to oppose it, leaving it short of the votes needed to overcome the filibuster.<\/p>\n Yesterday, Mike Johnson unveiled an idea to try to get around that. He proposed to advance a grant program tied to the bill in a GOP reconciliation package, so that the majority party could bypass the filibuster. The House speaker said he had told Donald Trump that this could be the only path forward for the legislation.<\/p>\n But GOP hardliners are not happy. They argue that Johnson\u2019s plan amounts an incentive program and is therefore insufficient as it would enact only a watered-down version of the Save America Act, creating a fund to encourage states to tap into in order to adopt provisions of the bill rather than enacting the full legislation.<\/p>\n The aforementioned Anna Paulina Luna, the Florida Republican leading the rebellion<\/a>, wrote on X after Johnson\u2019s press conference:<\/p>\n double quotation markThe save America act cannot be placed in reconciliation and I\u2019m not drinking the Kool-Aid. Neither should you.<\/p>\n And representative Chip Roy of Texas, who is the policy chair of the far-right House Freedom Caucus and a major proponent of the bill, told The Hill<\/a> he thinks \u201cgrant programs are what they are. They\u2019re incentives.\u201d<\/p>\n double quotation markStates who want to do it would take the incentive. States who don\u2019t wouldn\u2019t necessarily. Maybe it\u2019s pressure. I\u2019m not saying I\u2019m opposed to putting something like that on if there is a moving vehicle that\u2019s otherwise moving in order to get some elements of the election integrity done, but let\u2019s not kid ourselves that it would be full Save. It wouldn\u2019t be.<\/p>\n He added that \u201cevery effort should be made to attach the Save America Act to moving vehicles, for example, the housing bill.\u201d<\/p>\n And as if Johnson\u2019s pitch today wasn\u2019t tricky enough, Trump was asked by reporters in the Oval Office yesterday if he would be open to a compromise of including provisions of the Save Act in a reconciliation bill. The president replied<\/a>:<\/p>\n double quotation markNot really, no, the Save Act should be \u2026 there\u2019s no compromise, it\u2019s voter ID, it\u2019s proof of citizenship, and it\u2019s also the mail-in ballots.<\/p>\n Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Wednesday. Photograph: Andrew Harnik\/Getty ImagesShare<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a009.45 EDT<\/p>\n Per our last post, House speaker Mike Johnson is meeting with the president at 2pm ET to try to find a way through the gridlock after a rebellion from GOP hardliners effectively shut down the floor yesterday.<\/p>\n The group of Maga loyalists, led by representative Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, is insisting that no other legislation can pass until the Senate clears the so-called Save America Act. She posted<\/a> on X after the upper chamber abruptly went into recess last night:<\/p>\n double quotation markIt is 10pm and Thune just got unanimous consent (meaning not one senator objected) for the Senate to adjourn 19 days (July 13th) meaning the Senate is going home after tonight\u2019s votes.<\/p>\n I will not be voting to re-open the floor until the Senate gets back to Washington. The Senate is literally running and not ONE senator objected to going on vacation before 4th of July.<\/p>\n [Senate majority leader] John Thune is running and hiding because he doesn\u2019t want to get voter ID across the finish line.<\/p>\n If Donald Trump can\u2019t help Johnson break the impasse, the House will also go on recess for the week, sources have told Politico.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a009.03 EDT<\/p>\n Trump to meet House speaker amid showdown on Capitol Hill<\/p>\n Hello and welcome to the US politics<\/a> live blog.<\/p>\n A dramatic day is in store in Washington DC as Donald Trump<\/a> heads for a crucial meeting with Mike Johnson, the House speaker, in an attempt to break a legislative gridlock as huge political fireworks have detonated on Capitol Hill far ahead of anything resembling a Fourth of July celebration.<\/p>\n