Business

Federal court rules California voter-passed law that requires background checks to buy bullets is unconstitutional

Published

5 months ago

July 25, 2025

A voter-backed California law requiring background checks for people who buy bullets is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday in a blow to the state’s efforts to combat gun violence.

In upholding a 2024 ruling by a lower court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law violates the Second Amendment. Voters passed the law in 2016 and it took effect in 2019.

Many states, including California, make people pass a background check before they can buy a gun. California went a step further by requiring a background check, which costs either $1 or $19 depending on eligibility, every time someone buys bullets.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez decided that the law was unconstitutional because if people can’t buy bullets, they can’t use their guns for self-defense.

The 9th Circuit agreed. Writing for two of the three judges on the appellate panel, Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta said the law “meaningfully constrains” the constitutional right to keep arms by forcing gun owners to get rechecked before each purchase of bullets.

“The right to keep and bear arms incorporates the right to operate them, which requires ammunition,” the judge wrote.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who supported the background checks, decried the court’s decision.

“Strong gun laws save lives — and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence,” Newsom said in a statement. “Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.”

The California Department of Justice said the state needs “common-sense, lifesaving” laws that prevent ammunition from falling into the wrong hands.

“We are deeply disappointed in today’s ruling — a critical and lifesaving measure that closes a dangerous loophole,” the department said in a statement. “Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options.”

Chuck Michel, president and general counsel of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, called the law “absurdly restrictive.”

“This case has been a long hard fight against overreaching government gun control, but a firearm cannot be effective without the ammunition to make it operable. The state of California continues to try to strip our rights, and we continue to prove their actions are unconstitutional,” Michel said.

The law remained in effect while the state appealed the lower court’s decision. Benitez had criticized the state’s automated background check system, which he said rejected about 11% of applicants, or 58,087 requests, in the first half of 2023.

California’s law was meant to help police find people who have guns illegally, such as convicted felons, people with certain mental illnesses and people with some domestic violence convictions. Sometimes they order kits online and assemble guns in their home. The guns don’t have serial numbers and are difficult for law enforcement to track, but the people who own them show up in background checks when they try to buy bullets.

John Parkin, president of Coyote Point Armory in Burlingame, California, said the law made it difficult or impossible for some legal gun owners to purchase ammunition. For example, out-of-state residents and California residents with old guns couldn’t buy bullets because they weren’t in the database of approved gun owners, he said.

“It was written to make California gun owners angry. There wasn’t a lot of logic to it,” Parkin said about the law. “I think there are better ways to keep the public safe.”

California has some of the nation’s toughest gun laws. Many of them are being challenged in court in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that set a new standard for interpreting gun laws. The decision said gun laws must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Two other California gun laws were struck down in recent years — one that banned detachable magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets and another that banned the sale of assault-style weapons. Those decisions have been appealed. Other laws being challenged include rules requiring gun stores to have digital surveillance systems and restrictions on the sale of new handguns.

Source link

Business

The job market is so bad, people in their 40s are resorting to going back to school instead of looking for work

Published

10 minutes ago

December 16, 2025

Jace Porter

This year’s job market has been bleak, to say the least. Layoffs hit the highest level in 14 years, job openings are barely budging, and quits figures are plummeting. It’s no wonder people feel stuck and discouraged—especially as many candidates have been on the job hunt for a year.

But some mid-career professionals are working with the cards they’ve been dealt by going back to school. Many are turning to data analytics, cybersecurity, AI-focused courses, health care, MBA programs, or trade certifications for an “immediate impact on their careers,” Metaintro CEO Lacey Kaelani told Fortune.

Metaintro is a job-search engine with 2 million active users that runs on open-source data processing more than 600 million jobs in real time.

“We absolutely see this trend [of adults going back to school] accelerating,” Kaelani said. “In combination with layoffs over the recent years plus the rise of required AI skills, experience is no longer enough.”

Kelsey Szamet, an employment attorney with Kingsley Szamet Employment Lawyers, said she’s noticed people over the age of 40 to go back to grad school or earn certifications.

While it’s not necessarily a completely new phenomenon, it’s becoming more frequently now that the job market is the pits.

Still, Szamet he sees “very consistent” reasons for people considering higher education at a later stage in life. Some believe they’ve “plateaued” in their career and education is the only option. Others have been affected by layoffs, and there are some “who have simply become burned out with work and want a meaningful profession,” she told Fortune.

“Then, too, come life circumstances. Some people have fewer responsibilities, better financial security, or a sense they will never make a change if they put it off now,” she said, adding she’s seeing more people pivot out of “dying industries,” those whose salaries have stagnated, or those who have job-security fears.

According to Hanover Research, the top master’s degrees on the rise include artificial intelligence, mechatronics, robotics, automation engineering, research methodology, quantitative methods, as well as construction engineering technology.

The cost of going back to school

Sometimes going back to school can also just feel like delaying the inevitable: student loans and other living costs.

While grad school can certainly offer the opportunity to level-up your career once you’ve completed a program, it comes with financial and personal sacrifices, like time. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, one year of grad school, on average, costs about $43,000 in tuition. That’s nearly 70% the average salary in the U.S.

“Going to school can be very beneficial, but it can be very costly too,” Szamet said. And, when people are older and going back to school, they should consider “the cost of education and how stressful it can be to juggle work and family responsibilities with education.” Overall, “one ought to assess if it will be a good investment,” she added.

That’s why it’s important to do your homework. Some degree programs have a better return-on-investment than others. According to an ROI analysis by the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, the median master’s degree increases lifetime earnings by $83,000, but some master’s degrees are worth more than $1 million. Computer science, engineering, and nursing are some of the highest-ROI master’s programs, with average ROIs of about $500,000, according to the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity analysis.

Still, 40% of master’s degrees actually “have no net financial value at all,” according to the report.

“In today’s job market, going back to school only works when it’s strategic and targeted [like a] specific technical certification in a high-demand field), but fails when it’s vague,” Kaelani emphasized. “It’s no longer ‘more education equals a better job.’”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Source link

Business

Female libido pill gets expanded approval for menopause by FDA

Published

7 hours ago

December 15, 2025

Jace Porter

U.S. health officials have expanded approval of a much-debated drug aimed at boosting female libido, saying the once-a-day pill can now be taken by postmenopausal women up to 65 years old.

The announcement Monday from the Food and Drug Administration broadens the drug’s use to older women who have gone through menopause. The pill, Addyi, was first approved 10 years ago for premenopausal women who report emotional stress due to low sex drive.

Addyi, marketed by Sprout Pharmaceuticals, was initially expected to become a blockbuster drug, filling an important niche in women’s health. But the drug came with unpleasant side effects including dizziness and nausea, and it carries a safety warning about the dangers of combining it with alcohol.

The boxed warning cautions that drinking while consuming the pill can cause dangerously low blood pressure and fainting. If patients have several drinks, the label recommends waiting a few hours before taking the drug, or skipping one dose.

Sales of Addyi, which acts on brain chemicals that affect mood and appetite, fell short of Wall Street’s initial expectations. In 2019, the FDA approved a second drug for low female libido, an on-demand injection that acts on a different set of neurological chemicals.

Sprout CEO Cindy Eckert said in a statement the approval “reflects a decade of persistent work with the FDA to fundamentally change how women’s sexual health is understood and prioritized.” The company, based in Raleigh, North Carolina, announced the FDA update in a press release Monday.

The medical condition for a troublingly low sexual appetite, called hypoactive sexual desire disorder, has been recognized since the 1990s and is thought to affect a significant portion of American women, according to surveys. After the blockbuster success of Viagra for men in the 1990s, drugmakers began pouring money into research and potential therapies for sexual dysfunction in women.

But diagnosing the condition is complicated because of how many factors can affect libido, especially after menopause, when falling hormone levels trigger a number of biological changes and medical symptoms. Doctors are supposed to rule out a number of other issues, including relationship problems, medical conditions, depression and other mental disorders, before prescribing medication.

The diagnosis is not universally accepted, and some psychologists argue that low sex drive should not be considered a medical problem.

The FDA rejected Addyi twice prior to its 2015 approval, citing the drug’s modest effectiveness and worrisome side effects. The approval came after a lobbying campaign by the company and its supporters, Even the Score, which framed the lack of options for female libido as a women’s rights issue.

___

This story has been updated to correct the age range of the FDA approval update. The agency approved the drug for postmenopausal women up to age 65, not older than 65.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Source link

Business

Gavin Newsom hires former CDC officials to work as public health consultants for state of California

Published

7 hours ago

December 15, 2025

Jace Porter

Two former senior officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including one fired by the Trump administration, will join California as public health consultants, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday.

California joined Washington and Oregon — two other states with Democratic governors — to launch an alliance in September to establish their own public health guidance and vaccine recommendations, as the Trump administration makes sweeping changes to vaccine and health policy.

Susan Monarez was fired as the CDC’s director and Dr. Debra Houry resigned as the agency’s chief medical officer and deputy director over disputes about changes at the agency. The two will work with California’s public health department to help build trust in “science-driven decision-making,” Newsom’s office said.

“By bringing on expert scientific leaders to partner in this launch,” Newsom said in a statement, “we’re strengthening collaboration and laying the groundwork for a modern public health infrastructure that will offer trust and stability in scientific data not just across California, but nationally and globally.”

California has increasingly positioned itself as a counterweight to federal health policy, and Newsom has amped up his criticisms of President Donald Trump and challenged the Republican’s policies in court. The governor’s final term ends in just over a year and he’s gearing up for a possible presidential run in 2028.

California state Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican, said the new initiative is an example of Newsom prioritizing his national political ambitions over the state.

“California has serious problems, and we need serious solutions from a serious leader,” Strickland said in a statement.

The White House and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to emails seeking comment on the hirings.

Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have repeated falsehoods about vaccines, and the administration has given health recommendations this year that experts say were not backed by science.

Trump in September urged pregnant women not to take Tylenol, saying it could pose a risk of autism to their babies, remarks medical experts said were irresponsible. The CDC website was changed last month to contradict the longtime scientific conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism. A federal vaccine advisory panel voted earlier this month to reverse decades-old guidance recommending that all U.S. babies get immunized against the liver infection hepatitis B on the day they’re born. The vaccine is credited with preventing thousands of illnesses.

Monarez, a former director of a federal biomedical research agency, was named acting director of the CDC in January. Trump later nominated her to to serve as director. She was confirmed by the Senate in July, making her the first nonphysician to serve in the role. But she was fired by the Trump administration in August after less than a month in the post.

Kennedy has said Monarez was fired after she told him she was untrustworthy. But Monarez said that was false in congressional testimony and that she was fired after refusing to endorse new vaccine recommendations that weren’t backed by science.

Houry, who spent more than a decade at the CDC, was among a handful of top officials at the agency who resigned around the time Monarez was fired. Houry said in August she was concerned about the rise of vaccine misinformation during the Trump administration, as well as planned budget cuts, reorganization and firings at the CDC.

She said she’s excited to join California’s new initiative.

“California will advance practical, scalable solutions that strengthen public health within the state and across states —showing how states can modernize data, share capacity, and work together more efficiently, while remaining focused on protecting people and communities,” Houry said in a statement.

___

Associated Press writer Trân Nguyễn contributed.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Source link