Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Newsom Signs Bills to Fight Trump, Including Legal Aid for Immigrants

      by

      Two days after meeting with President Trump at the White House to seek disaster aid, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California signed legislation on Friday that authorized $50 million in state funds intended to counter the president’s agenda.Half of the money was dedicated to legal aid, including for undocumented immigrants who have faced deportation threats from the Trump administration, and the other half was intended to cover additional state litigation costs as California spars with the federal government in court.Mr. Newsom signed a pair of bills with no news cameras, bringing to a quiet end an effort he launched with vigor two days after the election. Three months ago, he asked state lawmakers to move quickly to defend the state from presumed incursions by Mr. Trump and called for a special legislative session.The governor seemed to be positioning himself as a national leader of the Democratic resistance in the days following the election. But he has treaded more cautiously in recent weeks after the president threatened to withhold disaster aid from California. On Wednesday, he met with Mr. Trump for more than an hour in the Oval Office.The bills signed by Mr. Newsom passed on a party-line vote, but proved trickier than first thought in the state’s Democratic-led Legislature as Mr. Trump and Republican state lawmakers have tried to distinguish between the deportation of criminal undocumented immigrants and others they say they are not targeting for now.Democratic lawmakers, in an attempt to inoculate themselves from arguments that they were using state dollars to help violent offenders, added a message to clarify that the state legal aid was not meant to help immigrants with criminal backgrounds — a clear acknowledgment of Republican criticisms and the mood of the electorate.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      California Asks Insurers to Spare Wildfire Victims ‘the List’

      by

      The state’s regulator wants insurance carriers to pay full policy limits without requiring victims to itemize every object in their destroyed homes.California’s top insurance regulator urged insurance carriers on Thursday to pay policyholders the full amount of the belongings in their coverage without requiring them to itemize every object lost — an undertaking that has burdened thousands of residents whose homes were destroyed by wildfires last month.In a notice that said policyholders are “overwhelmed,” Ricardo Lara, California’s insurance commissioner, gave insurance companies a deadline of Feb. 28 to inform the state agency on whether they would comply.Consumer advocates have long criticized the demand by many insurance carriers that homeowners to make detailed lists if they hope to get their full coverage amount.The stress is compounded in places like California’s burn zone, where many families are scrambling to find new places to live and new schools for their children. The monumental task of remembering all items inside a home that no longer exists is adding unbearable strain, said Michael Soller, the deputy insurance commissioner, in an interview.Mr. Soller said he and his colleagues continue to hear from homeowners about “the agony of having to go through the process of filling out an inventory after you just lost everything.”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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Lawsuit Seeks to Block New York’s Climate Change Law Targeting Energy Companies

      by

      Emboldened by President Trump, West Virginia and other states are challenging a law that makes corporate polluters pay for past emissions.Twenty-two states, led by West Virginia, are suing to block a recently approved New York law that requires fossil fuel companies to pay billions of dollars a year for contributing to climate change.Under the law, called the Climate Change Superfund Act, the country’s biggest producers of greenhouse gas emissions between the years 2000 and 2024 must pay a combined total of $3 billion annually for the next 25 years.The collected funds will help to repair and upgrade infrastructure in New York that is damaged or threatened by extreme weather, which is becoming more common because of emissions generated by such companies. Some projects could include the restoration of coastal wetlands, improvements to storm water drainage systems, and the installation of energy-efficient cooling systems in buildings.The measure, which was signed into law in December, is slated to go into effect in 2028.At a news conference on Thursday unveiling the legal challenge, the attorney general of West Virginia, John B. McCuskey, said the legislation overreached by seeking to hold energy companies liable in New York no matter where they are based.“This lawsuit is to ensure that these misguided policies, being forced from one state onto the entire nation, will not lead America into the doldrums of an energy crisis, allowing China, India and Russia to overtake our energy independence,” Mr. McCuskey said in a statement.West Virginia, a top producer of coal, is joined in the lawsuit by 21 other states, including major oil, gas or coal producers like Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and North Dakota. The West Virginia Coal Association and the Gas and Oil Association of West Virginia are also among the plaintiffs.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Says He Supports an End to Daylight Savings Time

      by

      President-elect Donald J. Trump said on social media that the time change is “inconvenient” and that the Republican Party would try to put an end to it.President-elect Donald J. Trump called daylight saving time “inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation” in a social media post on Friday and said the Republican Party would try to “eliminate” it, in the latest effort to end the twice-yearly time change.Most states change their time by one hour — in March, when clocks spring forward, and in November, when clocks fall back.Over the years, many elected officials, including Mr. Trump, have expressed support for ending the changes.“Making Daylight Saving Time permanent is OK with me!” Mr. Trump posted on social media in March 2019.He reiterated his support to end the time switches on Friday, posting on X, “The Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time, which has a small but strong constituency, but shouldn’t!”On social media, there was support for Mr. Trump’s post.Many people called the time changes antiquated. Some noted that daylight saving time would most likely not be eliminated, as his post suggested, but rather would be made permanent, and the time changes would be eliminated.Ending the clock change would require the approval of Congress. There have been many bipartisan efforts to pass such a bill, but all have failed. In 2022, the Senate unanimously passed a bill to make daylight saving time permanent, but it died in the House. An effort to pass a similar bill in 2023 also failed.The idea behind daylight saving time is to move an hour of sunlight from the early morning to the evening, so that people can make more use of daylight.William Willet, an English builder, is credited with popularizing daylight saving time in the early 1900s, when he urged British lawmakers to shift the clocks to benefit the economy. Parliament rejected the proposal in 1909, but then embraced it a few years later under the pressures of World War I.Other countries followed suit in an effort to cut energy costs, including the United States starting in March 1918. But there is no consensus on whether daylight saving time actually does reduce energy use.Small-business owners say that when it stays light after work, people are more likely to go out and spend money. But many Americans consider the time switch a nuisance.Parents say it throws off bedtimes for their children. And no one likes losing an hour of sleep when clocks move forward in March.In 2020, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine called for an end to daylight saving time, saying that the change disrupts the body’s natural clock and can cause health issues. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      After Weeks of Drone Sightings, New Jersey Remains on Edge

      by

      In the Garden State, where the rash of sightings started a month ago, residents are looking to the skies, wondering why they still don’t have definitive answers from officials.The day after Thanksgiving, Susan and Lorelai Woodruff saw approximately 10 brightly lit objects banking and turning quickly in the night sky above their home in Elsinboro, in southern New Jersey.Every night since, they say, the objects have been back, emitting a strange, humming whir and flashing red, green and white.“I think it’s like an invasion,” said Lorelai Woodruff, 52. “I feel like our privacy is kind of invaded.”A month after reports of mysterious flying objects began spreading across the state, investigations by federal, state and local agencies into what they are and where they are coming from are ongoing. Many residents, like the Woodruffs, believe the objects are drones and have been left frustrated and perplexed at the lack of answers from authorities.Emily Ferguson, 49, said a rash of sightings near her home in Mendham, in northern New Jersey, had been the talk of the town, and that her three children had started asking questions about them that she could not answer.“The kids are all asking, ‘What’s going on?’ and ‘Why do we have to close all of our blinds?’ which is something we never do,” Ms. Ferguson said.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Court Denies TikTok’s Request to Freeze Sale-or-Ban Law

      by

      TikTok had sought to temporarily freeze a law that requires its Chinese parent to sell the app or face a U.S. ban next month. The case may now head to the Supreme Court.A federal court on Friday denied TikTok’s request to temporarily freeze a law that requires its Chinese parent company to sell the app or face a ban in the United States as of Jan. 19, a decision that puts the fate of the app in the Supreme Court’s hands.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in a filing late on Friday that an injunction was “unwarranted,” and that it had expedited its decision so that TikTok and its users could seek an emergency freeze from the Supreme Court.A week ago, three judges in the same court unanimously denied petitions from the company and its users to overturn the law. TikTok then asked the court on Monday to temporarily block the law until the Supreme Court decided on TikTok’s planned appeal of that decision, and sought a decision by Dec. 16.The court said on Friday that TikTok and its users “have not identified any case in which a court, after rejecting a constitutional challenge to an Act of Congress, has enjoined the Act from going into effect while review is sought in the Supreme Court.”It isn’t clear whether the Supreme Court will agree to temporarily freeze the law and hear the case, though experts say that is likely.Michael Hughes, a spokesman for TikTok, said, “As we have previously stated, we plan on taking this case to the Supreme Court, which has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech.” He said that American users’ voices would be “silenced” if the law were not stopped.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

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      New York City Council Sues Adams for Blocking Solitary Confinement Ban

      by

      The lawsuit charges that Mayor Eric Adams exceeded his authority when he declared a state of emergency to block a ban on the practice in city jails.The New York City Council filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to force Mayor Eric Adams to carry out a law banning solitary confinement in city jails.The lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court, argues that the mayor went beyond his legal authority when he blocked the law earlier this year using emergency executive orders.“Mayor Adams’s emergency orders are an unlawful and unprecedented abuse of power,” Adrienne Adams, the City Council speaker, said in a statement.It is the latest escalation of tensions between Mr. Adams and Ms. Adams, who are not related. They have disagreed over housing policies, a law to document more police stops, budget cuts to libraries, and closing the Rikers Island jail complex, among other issues.The City Council approved a bill last December banning solitary confinement in most cases in city jails, arguing that the practice amounted to torture. Mr. Adams vetoed the bill, and the Council overrode his veto.In July, on the day before the law was set to go into effect, Mr. Adams declared a state of emergency and issued an order that blocked key parts of the law. The mayor has repeatedly extended the emergency 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

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Head of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s Party Calls for His Impeachment

      by

      The statement by Han Dong-hoon makes it more likely that President Yoon Suk Yeol will be impeached in a parliamentary vote on Saturday.In a surprise about-face, the leader of President Yoon Suk Yeol’s governing party said on Friday that he supported the impeachment of the president, calling him unfit to lead South Korea after his short-lived martial law decree catapulted the country’s democracy into turmoil.“I think that President Yoon Suk Yeol should be suspended from office as soon as possible,” said Han Dong-hoon, the leader of the People Power Party, or P.P.P., during an emergency party leadership meeting.It was not clear how many members of the party shared Mr. Han’s view. But his comments increased the likelihood that the impeachment bill against Mr. Yoon would gain enough support to pass through the National Assembly. A vote is scheduled for Saturday evening. The bill needs two-thirds of the 300-member Assembly to pass. With all 192 opposition lawmakers supporting the bill, they would need at least eight votes from the 108 legislators in Mr. Yoon’s governing camp to impeach the president.How the Impeachment of South Korea’s President Could UnfoldA detailed look at each stage of the impeachment process, and what is to come for President Yoon.The opposition party proposed impeaching Mr. Yoon this week, arguing that he had committed “insurgency” and other anti-constitutional crimes when he declared martial law on Tuesday night. He banned all political activities and sent troops to take over the National Assembly. Legislation on martial law banned such acts, the opposition said in its impeachment bill formally submitted on Thursday.If impeached, Mr. Yoon would be suspended from office until the Constitutional Court decides whether to reinstate or remove him.Mr. Yoon’s martial law lasted only six hours, until early Wednesday. He was forced to lift it following the Assembly’s vote to reject the military rule. But the short-lived episode, which the opposition likened to a failed “palace coup” by an extremely unpopular leader, triggered outrage across South Korea. Even if briefly, it also exposed the fragility of the democracy South Koreans have been proud of.On Thursday, Mr. Han said he opposed impeaching Mr. Yoon for fear of creating more national confusion. But on Friday he said, “There is fear that if President Yoon stays in office, he may repeat extreme actions like martial law.”“If that happens, South Korea and its people will fall into a bigger crisis,” he said.Some opposition lawmakers have warned that Mr. Yoon might attempt to impose martial again out of desperation. More