By Hannah Rabinowitz, CNN

(CNN) — The Justice Department sued Denver on Tuesday, alleging that the city’s decades-old ban on semi-automatic weapons violates the Second Amendment.

Enacted nearly 40 years ago, the Denver ordinance restricts firearms with magazines over 15 rounds, including any weapons that have been modified to do so. The civil lawsuit filed Tuesday asks a judge to stop the city and its police department from enforcing the weapons ban and to implement policies that “correct” instances in which people’s rights were violated.

“Law-abiding Americans, regardless of what city or state they reside in, should not have to live under threat of criminal sanction just for exercising their Second Amendment right to possess arms which are owned by tens of millions of their fellow citizens,” Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a statement.

The Justice Department has vowed to sue state and local governments across the country for gun policies it claims violate the Constitution. The DOJ established a Second Amendment Section last year to lead the charge in filing those cases.

The Justice Department division has filed other lawsuits, including one against Washington, DC, for its restrictions on AR-15-style weapons. The department has also sued the Virgin Islands Police Department for permitting delays it says are unreasonable.

The AR-15 is among the popular rifles owned in the US.

Dhillon first warned the city of a potential lawsuit in late April, writing that Denver could avoid the process if officials agreed to stop enforcing the ban and acknowledge it was unconstitutional.

City leaders rejected the notion, crediting the ordinance in part for a drop in violent crime and noting that courts across the country have previously rejected similar cases.

“Your request is baseless, irresponsible, and a clear overreach of the federal government’s power,” City Attorney Miko Brown said in a response letter dated Monday, adding that “reversing a common-sense ban that has worked for 37 years and bringing assault weapons back into the City’s neighborhoods is not one of them.”

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Justice Department launches court battle over Denver’s semi-automatic weapons ban appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

The post Free Will Astrology appeared first on The Santa Barbara Independent.

CNN

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The November election is still a long way off, but patience is already running thin at the Supreme Court.

An explosive exchange between three conservative justices and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson late Monday underscored a tension that has developed in voting cases as the court runs headlong into an election-heavy docket that will have far-reaching implications for the midterms.

Jackson accused the court of rolling over its “principles” in pursuit of influencing the November election.

Justice Samuel Alito fired back, calling that “insulting.” The conservative justice said Jackson’s dissent raised “trivial” and “baseless” arguments.

The heated back-and-forth over what amounted to a technical question about Louisiana’s congressional map comes as the high court is already juggling other appeals that could have consequences for this year’s election – not to mention a flood of short-fuse litigation expected this summer and fall.

“To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position,” Jackson wrote in a scathing dissent on Monday. “But, today, the court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation.”

“What principle has the court violated?” Alito fired back in a concurring opinion joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. “The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?”

Within the world of the Supreme Court, those words were unusually harsh, but it’s the latest example of tension behind the curtain slipping into public view.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, issued a rare public apology last month for suggesting earlier that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s privileged upbringing influenced his approach to an emergency immigration case last year. A day earlier, Jackson spent more than an hour lambasting the court’s conservative majority for its handling of quick-turn cases.

More election decisions incoming

For decades, the Supreme Court cautioned courts against changing the rules of an election at the last minute. The “Purcell principle,” rooted in a 2006 Supreme Court decision, warns federal courts to avoid making late changes to the status quo.

But in the coming weeks, the court will rule on a Republican push to lift caps on how much money political parties may spend in coordination with candidates – a decision that could benefit Republicans by offsetting the advantage Democrats have typically enjoyed in small-dollar donations.

The court will also decide before June whether states may receive mail ballots that arrive after Election Day – a case inspired by baseless allegations from President Donald Trump about widespread vote-by-mail fraud. In March, the court indicated during oral arguments that it was Read more

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The November election is still a long way off, but patience is already running thin at the Supreme Court.

An explosive exchange between three conservative justices and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson late Monday underscored a tension that has developed in voting cases as the court runs headlong into an election-heavy docket that will have far-reaching implications for the midterms.

Jackson accused the court of rolling over its “principles” in pursuit of influencing the November election.

Justice Samuel Alito fired back, calling that “insulting.” The conservative justice said Jackson’s dissent raised “trivial” and “baseless” arguments.

The heated back-and-forth over what amounted to a technical question about Louisiana’s congressional map comes as the high court is already juggling other appeals that could have consequences for this year’s election – not to mention a flood of short-fuse litigation expected this summer and fall.

“To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position,” Jackson wrote in a scathing dissent on Monday. “But, today, the court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation.”

“What principle has the court violated?” Alito fired back in a concurring opinion joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. “The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?”

Within the world of the Supreme Court, those words were unusually harsh, but it’s the latest example of tension behind the curtain slipping into public view.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, issued a rare public apology last month for suggesting earlier that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s privileged upbringing influenced his approach to an emergency immigration case last year. A day earlier, Jackson spent more than an hour lambasting the court’s conservative majority for its handling of quick-turn cases.

More election decisions incoming

For decades, the Supreme Court cautioned courts against changing the rules of an election at the last minute. The “Purcell principle,” rooted in a 2006 Supreme Court decision, warns federal courts to avoid making late changes to the status quo.

But in the coming weeks, the court will rule on a Republican push to lift caps on how much money political parties may spend in coordination with candidates – a decision that could benefit Republicans by offsetting the advantage Democrats have typically enjoyed in small-dollar donations.

The court will also decide before June whether states may receive mail ballots that arrive after Election Day – a case inspired by baseless allegations from President Donald Trump about widespread vote-by-mail fraud. In March, the court indicated during oral arguments that it was prepared to side with Republicans in that appeal.

More immediately, the justices are being asked to decide in short order what to do with a request from Alabama to throw out a lower court decision that barred that state fr

By Brian Stelter, CNN

(CNN) — James Murdoch may be the next owner of New York magazine and Vox Media’s podcast network.

Murdoch’s investment company, Lupa Systems, is in talks to acquire the assets for $300 million or more, two people with knowledge of the discussions told CNN. It is unclear if there are active talks with other bidders.

Vox Media has been exploring a sale in whole or in parts in a punishing environment for digital media businesses.

Murdoch may see an opportunity to grow his media holdings, which already include stakes in the Tribeca Film Festival and a major entertainment producer in India.

New York magazine’s portfolio includes the flagship print magazine as well as well-known websites like The Cut, Vulture and Intelligencer.

Vox’s podcast network features dozens of original programs, including “Pivot,” hosted by Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway, and “Today, Explained,” a popular daily news show.

For Murdoch, the brand could give him a significant foothold in the US media market.

Murdoch, 53, is the youngest son of Rupert Murdoch, the right-wing media mogul who controls Fox News, the New York Post and other outlets around the world. (The elder Murdoch owned New York magazine from 1976 until 1991.)

James Murdoch, who served as CEO of 21st Century Fox until 2019, broke with his family’s media empire in 2020, resigning from the board of Fox Corp amid disagreements — and in some cases disgust — with the editorial bent of the family’s brands.

James has also been a prominent Democratic donor, reflecting deep concern about President Donald Trump’s takeover of the GOP. His politics are widely viewed as more moderate than his father’s.

The deal talks with Murdoch were first reported by The Wall Street Journal. Vox did not respond to a request for comment.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post James Murdoch in talks to buy New York magazine and Vox podcasts for $300M or more appeared first on News Channel 3-12.