AFJ Action Campaign is tracking the votes of every senator up for reelection in 2020 on Trump’s worst of the worst judges. Each senator who voted to confirm these judges owns the decisions—these decisions are harming people every day. See how your senator voted for some of the worst of the worst judges here.
In Duncan v. Becerra, Ninth Circuit judge Kenneth Lee held unconstitutional a ban on possession of magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, like those used in the San Bernardino and Thousand Oaks mass shootings. As the dissent pointed out, the decision was contrary to every other circuit to address the issue.
Although not in the majority, in Mance v. Sessions, Fifth Circuit judges James Ho, Don Willett, Kyle Duncan, and Kurt Engelhardt voted to reconsider a decision upholding a federal gun law that allows states to establish and enforce their own gun laws.
In Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General of New Jersey, Third Circuit judge Stephanos Bibas dissented in a case upholding a ban on large capacity magazines.
In Kanter v. Barr, Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett dissented from a decision holding a federal law restricting felons’ gun rights was constitutional as applied to a felon convicted of mail fraud. The two Reagan appointees in the majority pointed out that Barrett’s position conflicted with every appellate court that has addressed the issue.
In Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v, Hogan, Fourth Circuit judge Julius N. Richardson dissented and would have ruled that Maryland’s ban on bump stocks and other devices that allow for rapid-fire of firearms is unconstitutional. The ban was passed in response to a wave of deadly mass shootings across the U.S.
In Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. New Jersey, Third Circuit judge Paul Matey dissented from a panel decision that upheld New Jersey’s ban on large-capacity magazines, those that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
In Mai v. United States, Ninth Circuit judges Patrick Bumatay, Lawrence VanDyke, Daniel Collins, Mark Bennett, Bridget Bade, Daniel Bress, and Danielle Hunsaker argued in dissent that the full court should rehear and reverse a previous ruling that rejected a challenge to a federal law that prohibits firearms possession by people who had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
In Defense Distributed v. Attorney General, Third Circuit Judge Peter Phipps would have held that pro-gun groups could appeal orders that put their litigation on pause while federal courts in Texas resolved a similar case involving the broad distribution of computer programs that can be used to make firearms with a 3D printer. The case challenged actions taken by the Attorney General of New Jersey to block the publication of programming files that would allow people to make guns. Phipps thought the lawsuit should be able to proceed even though, as the district court had pointed out, “it’s just a rule of the courts that you don’t proceed in two courts at the same time, same parties, same issue.”
|Overview||Health Care||Reproductive Health||Racial Justice|
|Police Misconduct||Voting Rights||Worker Protections||Consumer Protections|
|LGBTQ Equality||Immigrant Rights||Clean Air and Water||Gun Safety|
|Rule of Law||Tribal Rights||Education|