The Supreme Court has refused to block a Biden administration rule aimed at preventing legacy toxic waste from closed coal plants from seeping into and contaminating nearby groundwater.<\/p>\n
In a brief order, the court denied an emergency request from the East Kentucky Power Cooperative to temporarily halt the rule while ongoing litigation challenging it is resolved, The Hill reported.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for its decision to reject the power cooperative\u2019s petition, and no dissents were noted, the outlet said.<\/p>\n
The ruling does not necessarily indicate that the justices believe the rule is lawful; it simply means they are not prepared to block it before lower courts have ruled on the challenges.<\/p>\n
The rule in question targets \u201ccoal ash,\u201d a byproduct of coal plants containing hazardous substances such as mercury and arsenic. It mandates that coal plants closed before October 19, 2015, take measures to prevent coal ash from leaking out of storage ponds.<\/p>\n
The East Kentucky co-op asked the court to halt the rule, arguing that it would suffer from \u201cunrecoverable compliance costs\u201d if it did not.<\/p>\n
Earlier this week, the nation\u2019s highest court passed up an opportunity to correct a ruling by Hawaii\u2019s Supreme Court that appears to violate Second Amendment interpretations.<\/p>\n
In a February ruling, the Hawaii court openly rejected landmark Second Amendment cases that have been decided by the highest court in the country, finding the \u201cspirit of Aloha clashes with a federally mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIn Hawaii, there is no state constitutional right to carry a firearm in public,\u201d the super-blue state court wrote.<\/p>\n
Justice Clarence Thomas explained in a statement joined by Justice Samuel Alito that fixing the state court\u2019s error \u201cmust await another day.\u201d<\/p>\n
Thomas, Alito, and Neil Gorsuch criticized the Hawaii court\u2019s decision but stated they could not take up the case at this time. They further explained that the defendant, Christopher Wilson, has yet to stand trial on other charges. Wilson was arrested in 2017 for trespassing on private property while carrying an unlicensed pistol.<\/p>\n
\u201cWilson moved to dismiss only some of his charges, most notably leaving for trial a trespassing charge on which his Second Amendment defense has no bearing,\u201d Thomas wrote in a statement joined by Justice Samuel Alito. \u201cHe thus seeks review of an interlocutory order over which we may not have jurisdiction.\u201d<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, Thomas remarked that Hawaii\u2019s highest court would have deemed the state\u2019s licensing regulations \u201cunconstitutional and supported the dismissal of Wilson\u2019s public-carry charges\u201d if it had adhered to the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s interpretation of the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n
\u201cI agree with the Court\u2019s decision to deny certiorari in this posture,\u201d he wrote. \u201cIn an appropriate case, however, we should make clear that Americans are always free to invoke the Second Amendment as a defense against unconstitutional firearms-licensing schemes.\u201d<\/p>\n
Advertisement
\nGorsuch, in a separate statement, indicated that the issue could be revisited in the future if Hawaii\u2019s highest court does not alter its approach as the case progresses.<\/p>\n
In October, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violence restraining order.<\/p>\n
The vote is 8-1 with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe court holds that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment,\u201d SCOTUS Blog reported.<\/p>\n
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that, \u201cSince the founding, our Nation\u2019s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court has refused to block a Biden administration rule aimed at preventing legacy toxic waste from closed coal plants from seeping into and contaminating nearby… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26261","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n