Law and Legislation

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares23 Views

    Sleep-Deprived Lawmakers Stay Up All Night to Pass the ‘Big, Beautiful’ Bill

    by

    Some napped, others pulled all-nighters, and most were bleary-eyed as they slogged to the end of a marathon House debate over President Trump’s signature domestic policy legislation.As they arrived at the Capitol not long after dawn on Thursday to vote on a sweeping domestic policy bill to deliver President Trump’s agenda, members of the House of Representatives were divided by more than just partisan lines.The far more visible split was among those who had managed to get some sleep and those who hadn’t.“Here come the troops,” Representative Glenn Thompson, Republican of Pennsylvania, said cheerfully as he welcomed a bleary-eyed procession of lawmakers to the marble corridors just after 6 a.m.“Clock in on your left,” he added with a smile, gesturing toward the House chamber, where members would soon cast their votes on the wide-ranging bill overhauling key government programs.Many arrived clutching coffee cups or cans of energy drinks, struggling to stay alert after a week’s worth of all-night committee sessions capped off by an overnight floor debate that unfolded as House Republican leaders raced to deliver Mr. Trump a major victory on what he calls the “big, beautiful bill” before a self-imposed Memorial Day deadline.As party leaders delivered their final remarks, some lawmakers stood at attention, clapping and cheering the concluding arguments for and against the bill. Others slumped in peripheral seats or disappeared into the far corners of the chamber, barely awake and struggling to stay that way until the final vote.In a room near the floor, Republican leaders had laid out provisions — not the legislative kind — that would have to suffice for breakfast: dozens of boxes of pizza and a polished silver bowl of fruit snacks, pretzels and chips.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares28 Views

      in Elections

      My Father Was a Nazi Hunter. Then He Died in the Lockerbie Bombing.

      by

      On an early summer day in 1986 in a federal building in Newark, my father, Michael Bernstein, sat across a conference table from an elderly man named Stefan Leili. Then a young prosecutor at the Department of Justice, my father spent the previous day and a half deposing Leili, who emigrated to the United States from Germany three decades earlier. While applying for an entry visa, the U.S. government claimed, Leili concealed his service in the Totenkopfverbände — the infamous Death’s Head units of the SS, which ran the Nazi concentration and extermination camps. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that such an omission was sufficient grounds for denaturalization and deportation. If my father could prove that Leili lied, the United States could strip him of his citizenship and kick him out of the country.Listen to this article, read by Robert PetkoffIn an earlier interview, Leili repeatedly denied guarding prisoners at Mauthausen, one of a cluster of work camps in Austria, notorious for a stone quarry where slave laborers spent 11-hour days hauling slabs of granite up a steep rock staircase. But my father and a colleague sensed that this time around, the weight of hundreds of detailed queries might finally be causing Leili to buckle. Leili had begun to concede, bit by grudging bit, that he was more involved than he first said. My father had been waiting for such a moment, because he had a piece of evidence he was holding back. Now he decided that it was finally time to use it.Leili sat next to his college-age granddaughter and a German interpreter. Earlier in the deposition, the young woman said her grandfather was a sweet man, who couldn’t possibly have done anything wrong. Indeed, it would have been hard to look at this unremarkable 77-year-old — bald, with a sagging paunch — and perceive a villain.Certainly, the story Leili first told my father was far from villainous. Born in a small town in 1909 in Austria-Hungary, present-day Romania, Leili was an ethnic German peasant, who like millions of others had been tossed from place to place by the forces convulsing Europe. In 1944, Leili said, the Red Army was advancing toward his village. He had to choose whether to join the Hungarian Army or, like many ethnic Germans from his region, the SS. The Schutzstaffel promised better pay and German citizenship, plus money for his family if he was killed. And besides, if he hadn’t gone along with what the SS wanted, Leili said, he would “have been put against the wall and shot.”Leili told my father he spent much of his time in the SS pretending to be ill so he wouldn’t have to serve. Then he guarded some prisoners working in a Daimler munitions factory. These were soldiers, not civilians. They had friendly relations, he told my father. They worked short days. They were well fed, even “plump.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares54 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Advances Crypto Regulation Bill With Bipartisan Support

      by

      Democrats who had sided with the rest of their party last week to block the measure over concerns that President Trump could benefit dropped their objections. They argued that regulating the industry was urgent.The Senate on Monday revived a first-of-its-kind bill to regulate parts of the cryptocurrency industry, after a small number of Democrats who had joined the rest of their party in blocking the measure joined Republicans in allowing it to advance.The vote was 66 to 32 to move forward with the legislation, which would create a regulatory framework for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency tied to the value of an existing asset, often the U.S. dollar. Sixteen Democrats joined the majority of Republicans in support, acting over the opposition of most others in their party, who were concerned that President Trump and his family were inappropriately profiting from crypto.The vote was a victory for the cryptocurrency industry, which has made significant advances in Washington with the backing of Mr. Trump and a bipartisan group of lawmakers. It suggested that the measure would have enough support to pass the Senate and potentially make it to Mr. Trump’s desk in short order. A parallel effort in the House has faced similar backlash from Democrats, who earlier this month blocked a hearing on the legislation but are unlikely to have the votes to prevent it from passing.In the Senate, a bloc of Democratic supporters had pressed in recent days to include stronger consumer protections and transparency requirements in the legislation, as well as provisions aimed at combating money laundering and terrorism financing.But the most animating worry for Democrats was that the legislation could enable the president and his family to profit by issuing their own stablecoins. Concerns over the Trump family’s involvement in the industry intensified after reporting by The New York Times showed how a firm associated with the president had recently become one of the most influential players in the industry.In a prolonged round of bipartisan negotiations over the bill, Republicans steadfastly refused to consider adding any provision to rein in Mr. Trump’s involvement in the industry, or make any modification that could interfere with his or his family’s ability to benefit.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares84 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Tax Bill May Hurt the Lowest Earners and Help the Richest

      by

      Even though most Americans may see lower taxes, Republicans’ spending cuts could outweigh those benefits and leave some worse off.As Representative Jason Smith commenced a marathon session this week to consider a sprawling and expensive Republican tax package, he took special care to emphasize his party’s commitment to “hard-working Americans.”“Pro-growth tax policy will shift our economy toward one that serves them, not the wealthy and well-connected,” Mr. Smith, the Missouri lawmaker who leads the House’s top tax panel, proclaimed.But the proposal he is trying to get to President Trump’s desk ultimately tells a more complicated story. The Republican tax plan may offer only modest gains to everyday workers, according to a wide range of tax experts, and some taxpayers may actually be left in worse financial shape if the bill becomes law.The latest assessment arrived Friday from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a nonpartisan scorekeeper closely watched on Capitol Hill. Economists found that many Americans who make less than $51,000 a year would see their after-tax income fall as a result of the Republican proposal beginning in 2026.The Penn Wharton estimate sought to analyze the full scope of the Republican tax package, computing the effects of the tax cuts as well as the plan to pay for them by slashing federal spending on other programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. Combined, those policies could fall disproportionately on the poorest, including those near or below the poverty line, the economists found.People making between about $51,000 and $17,000 could lose about $700 on average in after-tax income beginning in 2026, according to the analysis, when factoring in both wages and federal aid. That reduction would worsen over the next eight years. People reporting less than $17,000 in income would see a reduction closer to $1,000, on average, also increasing over time, a shortfall that underscores their reliance on federal benefits.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares78 Views

      in Elections

      Several Supreme Court Justices Have Been Critical of Nationwide Injunctions

      by

      Across the ideological spectrum, justices have been troubled by rulings that touch everyone affected by a challenged law, regulation or executive action.Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum have said they are troubled by at least some nationwide injunctions, and several have long called for the court to address their proper scope.“It just can’t be right,” Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022 at Northwestern University’s law school, “that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”It is one thing for federal trial judges to resolve the dispute before them in rulings that are binding on the parties to the case, several justices have said. It is another to issue nationwide injunctions — sometimes called “universal” injunctions — that apply to everyone affected by the challenged law, regulation or executive action.In 2018, in a concurring opinion in a decision upholding President Trump’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious.” He added that “if federal courts continue to issue them, this court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so.”In 2020, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, urged his colleagues to give lower courts guidance on when such injunctions were appropriate.“The routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable,” Justice Gorsuch wrote, “sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”In 2023, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a statement joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett when the court refused to revive a Florida law barring children from drag performances.“The question of whether a district court, after holding that a law violates the Constitution, may nonetheless enjoin the government from enforcing that law against nonparties to the litigation is an important question that could warrant our review in the future,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.Justices Kagan, Thomas and Gorsuch all said that the availability of nationwide injunctions can spur forum shopping, the practice of filing lawsuits in friendly jurisdictions, as it takes only one judge to block a program even if several others reject similar challenges.“In the Trump years,” Justice Kagan said in 2022, “people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas.”Challengers in the birthright citizenship cases said that some issues, like school segregation and racial gerrymandering, required universal relief rather than case-by-case litigation. Birthright citizenship, they wrote, is also such an issue.“The universal injunction in this case preserves the uniformity of United States citizenship, an area in which nationwide consistency is vitally important,” lawyers for the challenger wrote. “Whether a child is a citizen of our nation should not depend on the state where she is born.”A nationwide injunction blocking Mr. Trump’s order, they wrote, “serves the public interest by preventing chaos and confusion.” More

    • 138 Shares93 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Allow Venezuelan Deportations to Resume

      by

      The solicitor general contended that a group of migrants had barricaded themselves inside a Texas detention center and threatened to take hostages.The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday evening for permission to deport a group of nearly 200 Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members and detained in Texas.In a filing to the court, the administration contended that “serious difficulties have arisen” from the detention of the group of 176 migrants, who were shielded from deportation in an emergency overnight ruling by the court in mid-April.According to a declaration by a Homeland Security Department official included in the court filing, a group of 23 migrants had barricaded themselves inside a housing unit for several hours on April 26. The group threatened to take hostages and harm immigration officers, and tried to flood the unit by clogging the toilets, according to the filing.“The government has a strong interest in promptly removing from the country” gang members “who pose a danger to ICE officers, facility staff and other detainees while in detention,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court filing.The details of the episode, which had not been previously reported, occurred at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Texas, where migrants “barricaded the entrance doors of their housing unit using bed cots, blocked the windows and covered surveillance cameras,” according to a declaration by Joshua D. Johnson, a Homeland Security official and the acting director of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement’s Dallas Field Office.The group then “threatened to take hostages” and to “injure” ICE officers and facility staff members, and “remained barricaded in the housing unit for several hours,” Mr. Johnson said in the declaration.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares117 Views

      in Elections

      Newsom Asks Cities to Ban Homeless Encampments, Escalating Crackdown

      by

      “There are no more excuses,” the California governor said in pushing for municipalities to address one of the most visible byproducts of homelessness.Gov. Gavin Newsom escalated California’s push to eradicate homeless encampments on Monday, calling on hundreds of cities, towns and counties to effectively ban tent camps on sidewalks, bike paths, parklands and other types of public property.Mr. Newsom’s administration has raised and spent tens of billions of dollars on programs to bring homeless people into housing and to emphasize treatment. But his move on Monday marks a tougher approach to one of the more visible aspects of the homelessness crisis. The governor has created a template for a local ordinance that municipalities can adopt to outlaw encampments and clear existing ones.California is home to about half of the nation’s unsheltered homeless population, a visible byproduct of the temperate climate and the state’s brutal housing crisis. Last year, a record 187,000 people were homeless in the state, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Two-thirds were living unsheltered in tents, cars or outdoors.Mr. Newsom cannot force cities to pass his model ban, but its issuance coincides with the release of more than $3 billion in state-controlled housing funds that local officials can use to put his template in place. And though it’s not a mandate, the call to outlaw encampments statewide by one of the best-known Democrats in the country suggests a shift in the party’s approach to homelessness. Once a combative champion of liberal policies and a vocal Trump administration critic, Mr. Newsom has been stress-testing his party’s positions, to the point of elevating the ideas of Trump supporters on his podcast. The liberal approach to encampments has traditionally emphasized government-funded housing and treatment, and frowned on what some call criminalizing homelessness.The model ordinance Mr. Newsom wants local officials to adopt does not specify criminal penalties, but outlawing homeless encampments on public property makes them a crime by definition. Cities would decide on their own how tough the penalties should be, including arrests or citations to those who violate the ban. The template’s state-issued guidance says that no one “should face criminal punishment for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares126 Views

      in Elections

      Bangladesh Bans the Political Party of Its Ousted Former Ruler

      by

      Sheikh Hasina fled the country after a mass uprising against her government, but the party she led remained a factor in Bangladeshi politics.The interim government of Bangladesh on Saturday announced that it would ban all activities of the Awami League, the political party of the country’s ousted leader Sheikh Hasina, under the country’s antiterrorism act until several legal cases against the party and its leaders have concluded.The government, led by the Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, also amended a law to ensure that an entire party can be tried for certain crimes, not just individual members.Last summer, Ms. Hasina’s authoritarian government was toppled by a student protest movement. She fled to India, but the Awami League maintained a presence in Bangladesh.When Hasnat Abdullah, one of the leaders of last year’s uprising, was attacked last week, supporters of Ms. Hasina’s party were blamed. That prompted more student outrage and demands for tougher action against the Awami League.“Our ultimate goal is to see that the Awami League is banned,” Mr. Hasnat said during a protest on Saturday. “Even if I make no further announcements, don’t leave the streets until the Awami League is banned.”Hundreds of people, including students in wheelchairs or on crutches who had been injured during protests last year, joined the rally and demanded that the Awami League be banned. Other political parties, including the student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, Islami Andolan, and members of Hefazat-e-Islam, a nonpolitical Islamic pressure group, also joined the demonstration.On Saturday evening, the law minister, Asif Nazrul, said the government would ban “all activities” of the Awami League under Bangladesh’s Anti-Terrorism Act “until the trials of the party and its leaders at the International Crimes Tribunal are completed.”The tribunal, despite its name, is a domestic court, and will eventually rule on accusations that Awami League members committed atrocities during the 2024 protests. The interim government says that the legal amendment was to ensure that a political party is not able to disown an individual member as a bad actor while continuing to back bad behavior.An inquiry commission formed by the interim government said in December that Ms. Hasina orchestrated mass disappearances during her 15 years in power.Separately, a United Nations fact-finding committee said in February that at least 1,400 people, including children, were killed by law enforcement and members of Ms. Hasina’s party during last year’s protests.In a Facebook post, the Awami League alluded to the unelected nature of the interim government in a comment on the amendment: “Decisions of an illegitimate government are also illegitimate themselves.”In 2024, student protests against a job reservation system grew into a huge uprising fueled by frustration and anger at Ms. Hasina’s rule. Tensions escalated after the death of a protester in mid-July, which led her administration to block the internet, impose curfews and order army, paramilitary and police forces to crack down on the protesters.Ms. Hasina fled Bangladesh on Aug. 5, narrowly escaping the thousands of protesters marching toward her residence. Three days later, Mr. Yunus took an oath as the new head of the government. More

    • 163 Shares118 Views

      in Elections

      Does Trump Have the Power to Install Jeanine Pirro as Interim U.S. Attorney?

      by

      By using another interim appointment to fill a vacancy for the top prosecutor in Washington, the White House is bypassing Senate confirmation and potentially claiming expansive authority.President Trump’s announcement that he was making the Fox News host Jeanine Pirro the interim U.S. attorney in Washington has raised questions about whether he had legitimate legal authority to do so.Under a federal law, the attorney general can appoint an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days. But soon after taking office in January, the Trump administration installed a Republican lawyer and political activist, Ed Martin, in that role.The question is whether presidents are limited to one 120-day window for interim U.S. attorneys, or whether they can continue unilaterally installing such appointees in succession — indefinitely bypassing Senate confirmation as a check on their appointment power. Here is a closer look.What is a U.S. attorney?A U.S. attorney, the chief law enforcement officer in each of the 94 federal judicial districts, wields significant power. That includes the ability to start a criminal prosecution by filing a complaint or by requesting a grand jury indictment. Presidents typically nominate someone to the role who must secure Senate confirmation before taking office.What is an interim U.S. attorney?When the position needs a temporary occupant, a federal statute says the attorney general may appoint an interim U.S. attorney who does not need to undergo Senate confirmation. The statute limits terms to a maximum of 120 days — or fewer, if the Senate confirms a regular U.S. attorney to fill the opening.Is the president limited to one 120-day window?This is unclear. The ambiguity underscores the aggressiveness of Mr. Trump’s move in selecting Ms. Pirro. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Democrats on the panel “will be looking into this.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More