SCOTUS takes on new cases, including a Mexican lawsuit against US gun makers | Nation

The Supreme Court on Friday added more than a dozen cases for its term that begins Monday, including a lawsuit from the Mexican government seeking to hold U.S. gun makers liable for violence there, an appeal against the death penalty and a lawsuit from a woman who says she was discriminated against. because you are heterosexual.

Mexico took legal action in 2021 against leading firearms manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson, Beretta and Colt, accusing the companies of profiting for decades from the illegal smuggling of dangerous weapons to the country’s powerful criminal organizations.

The lawsuit does not accuse the gun manufacturers of directly colluding with the cartels, but does say that the manufacture of assault rifles and weapons with high-capacity magazines has fueled the violence. They also claim that the manufacturers should have placed stricter controls on sales to prevent the weapons from making their way south.

Mexico wrote in its letter that approximately 350,000 to 600,000 weapons made by the manufacturers are smuggled into Mexico each year and that nearly half of all weapons recovered from crime scenes come from U.S. companies. Mexico claims that most of these weapons were originally purchased by “straw buyers” in the United States, who sell them to smugglers or sell them to the cartels.

“The flow of petitioners’ firearms from sources in the United States to cartels in Mexico is not a coincidence,” the Mexican government wrote in a brief letter. “It is the result of petitioners’ conscious and conscious choice to supply their products to bad actors, to permit reckless and unlawful practices that fuel the crime weapons pipeline, and to design and market their products in a way that, according to the applicants, will increase demand among the population. cartels.”

The seven gunmakers strongly denied responsibility for the violence in Mexico.

“Mexico’s lawsuit has no merit in a U.S. court,” the gunmakers wrote in their letter to the Supreme Court.

The companies claim the lawsuit is prevented by the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects gun manufacturers from criminal acts involving their weapons. A federal district court in Boston agreed and dismissed the case, before it was revived on an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The gun manufacturers then asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

The Supreme Court’s new term begins Monday with oral arguments. The court will hear its first major case the next day, when it hears a challenge to the Biden administration’s regulations on “ghost guns,” the untraceable firearms made from homemade kits. Also on the docket are cases involving state bans on gender-affirming medical treatments for adolescents and age verification requirements to protect minors from online pornography.

On Wednesday, the court will hear the long-running death penalty case against Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma man convicted of murder in 1997. Prosecutors and defense attorneys say Glossip should get a new trial after an independent investigation revealed prosecutorial misconduct.

The court added a second death penalty case to its calendar on Friday and announced it would review the request of a Texas death row inmate seeking access to DNA testing that he said would prove his innocence in a 1998 murder. judges intervened to delay the execution of Ruben Gutierrez, who was convicted of murder 25 years ago.

In 2020, the court stayed Gutierrez’s execution after he challenged a Texas law that banned a spiritual adviser from being present with him in the execution chamber.

Gutierrez has been trying for years to test the biological evidence collected at the crime scene, where an 85-year-old retired teacher was beaten to death in her mobile home, where she kept large amounts of cash. Evidence showed that two men entered the mobile home and the victim, Escolastica Harrison, was stabbed to death. Gutierrez’s lawyers have said he never entered her home.

In a statement after the court announcement, Gutierrez’s attorney Shawn Nolan said his client is “one step closer to finally completing the DNA testing that will overturn Ruben’s wrongful conviction and death sentence.”

The Texas attorney general’s office has denied his requests for DNA testing, saying state law does not allow testing to avoid the death penalty after conviction.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled against Gutierrez, saying his case was not affected by a separate Supreme Court decision involving a death row inmate in Texas who wanted access to DNA testing.

The justices will also consider when law enforcement officers can be held responsible for the use of deadly force in a case involving a fatal traffic stop in Texas. Ashtian Barnes was killed by an officer outside Houston in 2016 after he was pulled over while driving a rental car that had unpaid tolls.

As Barnes began to drive away, Officer Roberto Felix stood on the car’s carpet and fired two shots, striking Barnes in the head and killing him, according to court documents. Barnes’ mother has filed a lawsuit alleging the use of deadly force against her son, which she claims is a violation of his constitutional rights.

The 5th Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that the officer’s actions were reasonable under the current appeals court standard of review, but called on the Supreme Court to clarify how courts should determine when deadly force is reasonable and constitutional.

In another case, the justices will hear the workplace discrimination complaint involving Marlean Ames, who sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services, saying she was passed over for a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual.

Ames, who worked for the department for more than a decade, said her boss, a lesbian, selected a less qualified woman, also a lesbian, for the promotion Ames was seeking. Ames was subsequently demoted and her former position was filled by a gay man, who Ames also felt was less qualified.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit sided with the state agency. Ames’ attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to address what they say is a higher bar for “majority group” employees to bring workplace discrimination claims.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost urged the justices to reject Ames’ claims, saying the department had “legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for hiring anyone other than Ames” and that she failed to provide evidence that the people making the hiring decisions were aware of her sexual orientation.

In addition, the Supreme Court will consider the thorny issue of spent fuel storage. The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court a decision by the Fifth Circuit of Appeals that allowed Texas to challenge a federal plan to store tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste in the state’s Permian Basin.

The case will be the latest in a series of cases brought by the court in recent times to challenge the power of federal agencies. The Court will determine who can challenge an agency action, potentially making it easier for more parties to seek judicial review.