LIVE UPDATES: Supreme Court repeals New York’s gun law


(J Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press)
(J Scott Applewhite/The Associated Press)

Aside from today’s ruling on guns, the Supreme Court today issued three other opinions. Here’s what it’s all about:

GOP lawmakers could step in to defend North Carolina’s voter identity law, Supreme Court rules

Two Republican leaders in North Carolina The legislature can intervene to defend a state’s voter identity law The Supreme Court said though that the state’s attorney general, who is a Democrat, is already doing so.

This view will make it easier for other state government officials to intervene in some cases in lawsuits when the state government is divided.

The Supreme Court makes it easier for those on death row to challenge the method of execution

The Supreme Court ruled In favor of a death sentence in Georgia, who defies the state’s lethal injection protocol and seeks to die by firing squad – a method currently not authorized in the state.

The court said an inmate can file an appeal under the federal civil rights law, which allows individuals to seek remedies when their constitutional rights are violated. The decision may make it easier for inmates to challenge a possible implementation method.

Supreme Court limits its ability to enforce Miranda rights

court Restriction of the ability to enforce Miranda’s rights In a ruling, he said suspects who were not warned about their right to remain silent could not sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was eventually used against them in their criminal trial.

The ruling will reduce the individual’s protection against self-incrimination by preventing the possibility of obtaining compensation. It also means that a failure to administer the warning will not expose a law enforcement official to potential damages in a civil lawsuit. However, this will not affect the exclusion of such evidence in a criminal trial.

The court made clear that while Miranda’s warning protects a constitutional right, the warning itself is not a right that would trigger the ability to bring a civil action.

brain2gain