Summary: U.S. Supreme Court rejects gun industry appeal New York law permits lawsuits against gun makers 2nd Circuit upheld law in prior ruling   On June 15, the U.S. Supreme Court turned away a gun industry challenge to a New York law that permits lawsuits against gun makers, wholesalers and dealers for endangering people's safety through sales of firearms and ammunition. The justices declined to hear an appeal by an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, of a lower court's ruling upholding the law, which New York calls a public nuisance statute. The group had argued that the law unconstitutionally conflicted with federal law. Gun companies including Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer and Sturm joined the appeal. The Supreme Court in 2025 spared Smith & Wesson from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing the company of aiding illegal gun trafficking to drug cartels. The New York law, signed by former Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2021, requires the gun industry to use reasonable safeguards to protect against gun trafficking, theft and the use of "straw purchasers" who buy firearms for someone else. It allows civil lawsuits by New York state and local officials as well as members of the public. The National Shooting Sports Foundation said the law was preempted by a 2005 federal law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that shields the gun industry from civil liability when its products are used in crimes. Under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, federal laws take precedence over state laws that conflict with them. The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld New York's law last year. Circuit Judge Eunice Lee, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, wrote that Congress intended to preserve "at least some causes of action" when a defendant's knowing violation of federal or state firearms sales and marketing laws was a proximate cause of harm. Concurring, Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs, an appointee of Republican former President George H.W. Bush, agreed that the New York law was not preempted, but accused state lawmakers of having "contrived a broad public nuisance statute that applies solely to gun industry members and is enforceable by a mob of public and private actors." 'CRUSHING' LIABILITY The appeal did not hinge on the Constitution's Second Amendment protections of the right to keep and bear arms. But the trade group said laws such as New York's imperil such rights by allowing lawsuits that could saddle companies with "crushing liability" for crimes they had nothing to do with. "This Court's review is sorely needed to ensure that states hostile to Second Amendment rights cannot frustrate their exercise by trying to bankrupt the licensed (and heavily regulated) industry members that make the exercise of those constitutional rights possible," it told the justices. The group also said the so-called "predicate exception" in the federal law at issue subjected the industry to liability only for failures to comply with specific obligations or prohibitions within its control. "The decision below blows a gaping hole in a statute that Congress enacted for the express purpose of protecting the firearms industry from exactly the kinds of lawsuits New York seeks to usher back in," the group said, referring to the 2nd Circuit ruling. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT New York called the ruling consistent with the Supreme Court decision in the Mexico case, and that the predicate exception allowed liability for some "downstream acts" of third parties. It also said at least nine states have passed laws to satisfy the exception, and the Supreme Court should let challenges wind through the courts rather than declare New York's law unconstitutional in every respect. The gun industry appeal was supported in filings by the National Rifle Association, 24 Republican state attorneys general and several dozen Republican members of Congress. The Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in three major decisions since 2008, when it found that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Will Dunham

Summary: Class action filed in Marion County Circuit Court Plaintiffs include Dominique Jenkins-Millage and Orlando Pouncey Oregon Justice Resource Center leads legal challenge Five incarcerated individuals on June 11 filed a class action lawsuit against the Oregon Department of Corrections, its director, deputy director, inspector general and two other leaders, arguing that the state subjects hundreds to "dangerous and degrading" solitary confinement practices that violate the state's constitution and disability rights law. “Solitary confinement is cruel and unnecessary. It causes harmful mental, emotional, and behavioral changes and worsens existing symptoms of mental illness. It increases violence and instability in prisons and impairs rehabilitation. Solitary confinement prevents people from working, taking classes, joining in prison programs, and preparing to reenter society,” said Ben Haile, senior counsel at Oregon Justice Resource Center. “There are better, safer, less brutal alternatives. The people of Oregon are ready to push ODOC to move past this dark chapter in our State’s history.” The Oregon Justice Resource Center filed the complaint alongside the Prison Law Office, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Field LLP on behalf of the five plaintiffs and hundreds of others. The lawsuit, filed in Marion County Circuit Court, said the conditions to which the plaintiffs and others in ODOC custody are subjected to violate Article 1, Section 13 of the Oregon Constitution, which says that: "No person arrested, or confined in jail, shall be treated with unnecessary rigor." "For weeks, months, and even years on end, people held in ODOC’s solitary confinement units typically spend 23 to 24 hours a day inside a stark, windowless box that is smaller than a parking space. They are generally forbidden from spending any time outside. They rarely even see sunlight," the complaint alleged. The lawsuit asks the court to declare ODOC's practices unconstitutional and discriminatory. They're also asking for an injunction limiting or changing solitary practices and for an order requiring "effective monitoring and reporting by ODOC." Who is suing the Oregon Department of Corrections? The five individuals named in the complaint, Dominique Jenkins-Millage, Orlando Pouncey, Rolando Martinez-Farías, Martin Kirk-Varela, and Linsey Duvall, are currently held in various solitary confinement statuses in ODOC facilities across the state. They are "uniformly subjected to severe and unnecessary restrictions, including extreme limitations on out-of-cell time, exercise and recreation, meaningful human contact, mental stimulation, and hygiene," the lawsuit added. They are incarcerated for crimes ranging from assault, robbery and murder. Pouncey was sentenced to life in prison in 2016 for the murder of a man in Tigard. Kirk-Varela was sentenced to 25 years in 2020 in Marion County for manslaughter in the fatal shooting of his friend in Salem. The lawsuit outlines harsh and inhumane treatment in solitary confinement and includes images of the cells used to house people for 23 to 24 hours a day. The cells are described as cinderblock walls, "tiny" with no exterior windows. They are sometimes locked continuously for 40 or more hours on weekends, holidays and during lockdown. Some of the cells are sealed with heavy steel doors with narrow slit windows, while others are sealed with thick, solid plexiglass or perforated steel, as described in the lawsuit. Jenkins-Millage is described as a man currently in solitary at the Snake River Correctional Institution who was transferred from solitary at the Oregon State Penitentiary. He expected to spend at least seven months in solitary for a fight with other prisoners, lawyers said. His solitary means 23 to 24 hours a day inside a small cell where he is prohibited from programming, is severely restricted from outside contact, and deprived of mental stimulation that has led to the development of mental health symptoms of depression or bipolar disorder, the complaint said. “People hear the term 'solitary confinement' and think it's simply being alone. It’s not,” said Jenkins-Millage in a statement. “It's being cut off from human connection, day after day, sometimes for months or years. The isolation changes you. The silence becomes overwhelming, your sense of time disappears, and the physical, psychological and emotional toll can be devastating. This is the lowest point of my entire life, and I’ve been shot and experienced homelessness.” “I don’t wish this on anybody,” added Jenkins-Millage in a statement. “ because I wish it was a little bit better in the future, even if not for me.” Pouncey is in solitary confinement at the Oregon State Penitentiary and is expected to remain there for a year. He has spent a cumulative 11 years in solitary, according to the lawsuit. He has been diagnosed with depression and PTSD and has experienced new symptoms like auditory hallucinations and uncontrollable self-talk, the lawsuit said. Pouncey also has a "severe vision disability" that ODOC has not adequately accommodated and has worsened his isolation, the suit added. Martinez-Farias has been incarcerated in solitary at the Oregon State Penitentiary for three months and expects to spend another five and a half months there. He has spent three and a half years in solitary confinement across the ODOC. His anxiety and depression began during a stay in solitary that lasted a year and a half. The complaint said he has seen mental health staff a single time during his time in solitary. Martinez-Farias has also been unable to contact his three teenage children. Kirk-Varela expects to spend more than seven months in solitary at the Snake River Correctional Institution. He's spent seven to eight years in solitary confinement and has been diagnosed with depression and PTSD, which the complaint said has worsened because of his current conditions. He was an "eager participant" in programming while in general population housing but has been "stripped" of all rehabilitative opportunities in solitary, the lawsuit said. “My children don’t know where their father is and I don’t know where they are. It is unbearably distressing to not know, constantly having to question. I can’t be the father I want to be and who my children deserve to have,” said Kirk-Varela in a statement. Duvall is in solitary confinement at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility. She's been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, anxiety and PTSD, and also suffers from celiac disease and "severe" nerve, skeletal, and muscular pain that requires the use of a wheelchair. Her mental illness has been exacerbated, the lawsuit said, and the cell is not wheelchair-accessible. She has repeatedly injured herself against the metal corner of her bed, the OJRC said. The complaint said she also struggles to sleep in her unit because of the screams of other incarcerated people experiencing acute mental health crises. The lawsuit said class members are deprived of contact with those outside of prison and cut off from contact with parents, partners and children during crises. One unnamed class member was unable to communicate with their child undergoing treatment for stage 3 cancer. Another learned his mother had a stroke while in solitary and had also been in solitary when his child died. Lawsuit claims Oregon Department of Corrections is aware of dangerous and unnecessary program "ODOC understands that its solitary confinement program is destructive and ineffective," the lawsuit said. The complaint points to a 2016 study of solitary confinement in ODOC at the invitation of its leadership, which found those in the Disciplinary Segregation Unit, Intensive Management Unit, and Administrative Segregation units spent an average of 23 hours a day in conditions “marked by isolation, idleness, and sensory deprivation." The Vera Institute, which conducted the study, recommended increasing out-of-cell and outdoor time, access to visitation and telephone privileges, entertainment devices, and mental health professionals, but those recommendations remain largely unimplemented a decade later, according to the complaint. ODOC also signed a memorandum of understanding to implement remedies, including increasing out-of-cell time in its high acuity mental health unit with Disability Rights Oregon, after its investigation in 2015 found people being kept in "small, stifling cells" up to 23 hours a day with few psychiatric services. Those same reforms have gone unimplemented in other solitary confinement units, the lawsuit said. And in 2023, a Gender Informed Practices Assessment of Coffee Creek warned ODOC that it was failing to meet the needs of incarcerated women. Their findings included multiple reports that disciplinary segregation "continues to be overutilized." They "are locked in their cells for 22 hours a day, which is a form of sensory deprivation that is a barrier to stability and learning. This kind of response does not motivate or change behavior and has been proven to cause psychological and physical harm," wrote investigators in 2023. The lawsuit also highlights comments from ODOC's own leadership that the complaint said highlight their knowledge that ODOC's solitary confinement policies and practices are harmful and unnecessary. Oregon Department of Corrections claims work continuing to address issues around solitary confinement Earlier in 2026, ODOC settled a wrongful death lawsuit for $2.3 million filed by the mother of Grayson James Allen Painter, a 22-year-old man who died by suicide while in solitary confinement at the Oregon State Correctional Institution in Salem. Oregon Justice Resource Center also represented Painter's mother. ODOC said the settlement "reflects our commitment to evaluating the policies and practices that can prevent in-custody deaths," ODOC said in January. Also in 2026, Coffee Creek Correctional Facility Superintendent Charlotte Thrasher provided testimony before Gov. Tina Kotek’s Racial Justice Council, where she conceded that “the use of segregation isn’t an effective tool to change behavior” and noted that she supported efforts to reduce the use of solitary confinement, the lawsuit said. In an email, a spokesperson for ODOC said the agency continues to develop "long‑term, evidence‑based strategies to improve safety and reduce the need for special housing." The spokesperson claimed ODOC has increased out‑of‑cell time in specialized units, implemented "Resource Teams" modeled after Norwegian practices, enhanced violence‑prevention tools, piloted transition programs for adults leaving Intensive Management Units, built a Peer Mentorship Certification Program to promote pro‑social behavior and expanded supports for individuals with substance use disorders. ODOC also has a public-facing dashboard of disciplinary housing statistics, ODOC said. There were 451 adults in custody assigned to disciplinary segregations units as of June 1, according to the dashboard. SCRI was the facility with the most adults in custody assigned to segregation units with 128. Two Rivers Correctional Institution followed with 119. "These initiatives are ongoing and will take time, staffing stability, and sustained collaboration with state partners, labor organizations, and external stakeholders. DOC remains committed to this long‑term cultural transformation and to ensuring our practices continue to evolve in alignment with research, safety needs, and constitutional standards," ODOC said. The agency said it would not comment further on the allegations because litigation is pending. Dianne Lugo covers the Oregon Legislature and equity issues. Reach her at [email protected] X @DianneLugoor Bluesky @diannelugo.bsky.social This article originally appeared on Salem Statesman Journal: Oregon prisons hit with class lawsuit over solitary confinement program Reporting by Dianne Lugo, Salem Statesman Journal / Salem Statesman Journal

Summary: 2nd Circuit affirms Bankman-Fried fraud conviction Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years for FTX collapse Judge Barrington Parker authors unanimous appeals court opinion Sam Bankman-Fried on Friday lost his bid to overturn his fraud conviction and 25-year prison sentence over the collapse of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange he founded.  In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said prosecutors' evidence against Bankman-Fried "was, conservatively stated, robust."  "While he was publicly reassuring customers, investors and regulators that FTX customer funds were safe, he was simultaneously using FTX as his own personal piggy bank, spending customer funds on real estate, political contributions, and investments," Circuit Judge Barrington Parker wrote on behalf of the panel.  Bankman-Fried's lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. They may next ask all the active judges on the 2nd Circuit to hear the case or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.  Bankman-Fried is also seeking a pardon from President Donald Trump, according to the Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney. Neither the White House nor the Justice Department immediately responded to requests for comment.  'FRAUD OF EPIC PROPORTIONS'  Bankman-Fried, who had been one of the cryptocurrency sector's most influential figures and a multibillionaire before FTX's spectacular collapse in 2022, was found guilty on seven felony charges by a federal jury in Manhattan in 2023.  Prosecutors with the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office said he stole $8 billion from FTX customers to plug losses at his crypto-focused hedge fund, Alameda Research, in what they termed a "fraud of epic proportions."  Bankman-Fried had pleaded not guilty to the two counts of fraud and five counts of conspiracy that he faced. At his trial, he admitted to making mistakes running FTX, but testified that he never stole funds.  In appealing the conviction, Bankman-Fried's defense lawyers argued that U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who oversaw the trial, improperly prevented Bankman-Fried from introducing evidence to back up his belief that FTX had enough funds to cover customer withdrawals.  The appeals court disagreed, pointing to legal precedent holding that fraud occurs the moment a defendant tricks someone into handing over money or property, even if the defendant intends to eventually make the victim whole.  "FTX customers were defrauded as soon as Bankman-Fried transferred their money to Alameda regardless of how strongly he believed he might later return the money," Parker wrote.  BANKMAN-FRIED ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE IN 2044  Before FTX collapsed, Bankman-Fried was a rising star in the rough-and-tumble crypto industry who burnished his reputation with lavish philanthropic and political donations.  At his March 2024 sentencing hearing, Kaplan said Bankman-Fried knew his actions were wrong but "made a very bad bet about the likelihood of getting caught."  Three of Bankman-Fried's former deputies pleaded guilty over their involvement in the case and testified against their onetime boss at his trial.  Bankman-Fried is being held at a low-security federal prison near Santa Barbara, California. He is eligible to be released in 2044.  Reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama