» High court dodges cases on gun control, sanctuary cities.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a slate of controversial issues, including gun control and the debate over “sanctuary cities” for immigrants.
The court passed on a group of gun cases that included restrictions on permits to carry firearms in public places and bans on certain types of weapons — something of a surprise because conservative justices at various times have said such a review is necessary.
The justices also declined to take up a form of immunity that has shielded police officers from lawsuits alleging excessive force and other civil rights violations. Academics and civil rights groups on the left and right had called for the court’s intervention, and its most liberal and conservative justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, respectively — had expressed interest. The issue of qualified immunity found renewed attention after nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd last month in police custody.
The court did not give reasons Monday for denying the cases.
Among the batch of Second Amendment cases the court did not accept were challenges to regulations in Maryland and New Jersey for carrying handguns outside the home. The court earlier this term had dismissed a challenge from New York about transporting guns. Three justices objected, with the newest, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, adding that it seemed likely lower courts have been too quick to uphold state and local gun control measures.
Thomas also dissented Monday from the court’s refusal to hear eight cases presenting reconsideration of the doctrine of qualified immunity that establishes protection from civil suits for government officials, particularly police officers. Thomas called on his colleagues to revisit the doctrine and expressed “strong doubts” about the court’s past approach.
The doctrine, created by the Supreme Court decades ago, allows civil suits only when it can be shown that an official’s actions violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. To determine this, courts consider whether a reasonable official would have known that the actions were a violation.
In practice, the “clearly established” test often means that for lawsuits to proceed, civil rights plaintiffs must identify a nearly identical violation that has been recognized by the Supreme Court or appellate courts in the same jurisdiction.
Floyd’s death in Minneapolis on May 25 amplified calls for the court — and Congress — to act. Changing qualified immunity is part of the House Democrats’ policing legislation, and some senators have called for action. Trump has opposed those efforts.
“The Supreme Court’s deeply disappointing decision today to punt on the critical issue of official immunity, in this time of national reckoning over police violence, places the ball squarely in Congress’s court,” David Cole, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement Monday.
“We have seen the deadly consequences play out on the streets, and black Americans have largely paid the price,” he added.
The court’s qualified-immunity decisions have for years raised concerns among lawyers and academics. Legal scholars have criticized the court for what they say is a rewrite of an important civil rights law meant to ensure that federal courts provide protection to all Americans.
The court also let stand California’s sanctuary law that forbids local law enforcement in most cases from cooperating with aggressive federal action to identify and deport undocumented immigrants.
The law passed after Trump took office and was challenged by his administration. The most significant measure limits police from sharing information unless the immigrants have been convicted of violent or serious crimes.
Justices Samuel Alito and Thomas indicated that they would have heard the administration’s appeal.