Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Considering Executive Order That Could Restrict Asylum at the Border

      by

      The action under consideration could prevent people from making asylum claims during border crossing surges. The White House says it is far from a decision on the matter.President Biden is considering executive action that could prevent people who cross illegally into the United States from claiming asylum, several people with knowledge of the proposal said Wednesday. The move would suspend longtime guarantees that give anyone who steps onto U.S. soil the right to ask for safe haven.The order would put into effect a key policy in a bipartisan bill that Republicans thwarted earlier this month, even though it had some of the most significant border security restrictions Congress has contemplated in years.The bill would have essentially shut down the border to new entrants if more than an average of 5,000 migrants per day tried to cross unlawfully in the course of a week, or more than 8,500 tried to cross in a given day.The action under consideration by the White House would have a similar trigger for blocking asylum to new entrants, the people with knowledge of the proposal say. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.The move, if enacted, would echo a 2018 effort by President Donald J. Trump to block migration, which was assailed by Democrats and blocked by federal courts.Although such an action would undoubtedly face legal challenges, the fact that Mr. Biden is considering it shows just how far he has shifted on immigration since he came into office, promising a more humane system after the Trump years.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Oregon Tries and Fails to Eliminate Daylight Saving Time, for Now

      by

      Also, did you know Oregon has two time zones?Oregon’s state senate failed to advance a bill on Tuesday that would have abolished daylight saving time in most of the state and switched it to standard time for the entire year, the latest chapter in an effort by states to settle on whether clocks need to fall back or spring forward at all.The bill proposed that the part of the state in the Pacific Time Zone — almost all of the state is, save Malheur County, which is on Mountain time — abolish “the annual one-hour change in time from standard time to daylight saving time.”The measure isn’t entirely dead: The state senate sent the bill back to committee to be amended to make sure that if it were to happen Oregon wouldn’t be the only state in the region switching to permanent standard time.Lawmakers in Oregon’s neighboring states have proposed similar bills. In Idaho this week, a bill was introduced to get rid of daylight saving time, and there is a similar bill in front of California’s Assembly. In Washington State, a bill to abolish daylight saving time and return to permanent standard time failed last month.“We are leading the way,” Kim Thatcher, a sponsor of the Oregon bill, said on the State Senate floor this week before the bill’s failure. “I think we’re not going to be alone in this, but there might be a little weirdness at first, just know that.”Oregon would have been the first West Coast state to spend its entire year on standard time. Arizona (except for the Navajo nation) and Hawaii also observe standard time year-round. And in 2022, Mexico ended daylight saving time for most of the country, but carved out an exception for the area along the U.S. border.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A State Court Ruling on I.V.F. Echoes Far Beyond Alabama

      by

      Frozen embryos in test tubes must be considered children, judges ruled. The White House called it a predictable consequence of the overturn of Roe v. Wade.An Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos in test tubes should be considered children has sent shock waves through the world of reproductive medicine, casting doubt over fertility care for would-be parents in the state and raising complex legal questions with implications extending far beyond Alabama.On Tuesday, Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said the ruling would cause “exactly the type of chaos that we expected when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and paved the way for politicians to dictate some of the most personal decisions families can make.”Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as President Biden traveled to California, Ms. Jean-Pierre reiterated the Biden administration’s call for Congress to codify the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law.“As a reminder, this is the same state whose attorney general threatened to prosecute people who help women travel out of state to seek the care they need,” she said, referring to Alabama, which began enforcing a total abortion ban in June 2022.The judges issued the ruling on Friday in appeals cases brought by couples whose embryos were destroyed in 2020, when a hospital patient removed frozen embryos from tanks of liquid nitrogen in Mobile and dropped them on the floor.Referencing antiabortion language in the state constitution, the judges’ majority opinion said that an 1872 statute allowing parents to sue over the wrongful death of a minor child applies to unborn children, with no exception for “extrauterine children.”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

      ICE Considers Slashing Detention Capacity Because of Budget Shortfall

      by

      The agency has circulated a money-saving proposal after Republicans in Congress blocked a bill that would have provided billions in funding.U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is considering a plan to reduce its detention capacity significantly after Republicans in Congress blocked a bill that would have provided the agency with more than $7 billion, officials said Wednesday.To stay within its current budget, ICE would need to cut detention levels by more than 10,000 spots within months, according to documents laying out the proposal, which were obtained by The New York Times. The agency could either release some of the 38,000 people currently in custody, or decline to fill vacant spots as cases get resolved.Three officials familiar with the plan said it was under active consideration within ICE. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss what they described as contingencies.Erin Heeter, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, did not comment on specifics of the proposal. “The fact that we are always considering options does not mean we will take action immediately, or at all,” she said.The proposal was first reported by The Washington Post.The plan comes at a moment of crisis over immigration in the United States, with record numbers of people crossing into the country and the asylum system all but broken. Bitter politics have paralyzed any movement on the issue, as Republicans seize on it as a political weapon against President Biden.Mr. Biden has implored Congress to pass bipartisan legislation that would have clamped down on migration at the southern border. But his predecessor and likely challenger in this year’s election, former President Donald J. Trump, pressured Republicans to block the deal, saying it would be a “gift” to Democrats.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      New N.Y. Law Mandates More Transparency in Credit Card Surcharges

      by

      The state law, which goes into effect Sunday, requires businesses to include any surcharges in the prices listed for the products or services they sell.A new law going into effect on Sunday will require businesses in New York to clearly post the cost of purchasing items with a credit card, including any surcharges being imposed, for customers before checkout.The law, signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul in December, also prevents businesses from imposing more in credit card surcharges than what they are charged by processing companies.Businesses can choose either to solely display the higher credit card price for the products or services they sell or to list both the credit card price and the lower cash price for the items.The new disclosure requirements will “ensure individuals can trust that their purchases will not result in surprise surcharges,” Ms. Hochul said in a statement this week.“Transparency is crucial in building trust between businesses and communities, and now patrons will be empowered to budget accordingly,” she said.In New Jersey, Gov. Philip D. Murphy signed a similar law last year requiring merchants to notify consumers before checkout about the amount of any credit card surcharges to be applied. It also prohibited merchants from charging consumers more than the processing fee the businesses paid.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

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Don’t Underestimate the Mobilizing Force of Abortion

      by

      Poland recently ousted its right-wing, nationalist Law and Justice Party. In 2020, a party-appointed tribunal severely restricted the country’s abortion rights, sparking nationwide protests and an opposition movement. After a trip to Poland, the Times Opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg came to recognize that similar dynamics could prevail in the United States in 2024. In this audio essay, she argues that Joe Biden’s campaign should take note of what a “powerful mobilizing force the backlash to abortion bans can be.”(A full transcript of this audio essay will be available by Monday, and can be found in the audio player above.)Illustration by Akshita Chandra/The New York Times; Photograph by Getty ImagesThe Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, X (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram.This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Jillian Weinberger. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin and Alison Bruzek. Engineering by Isaac Jones and Sonia Herrero. Original music by Isaac Jones, Sonia Herrero. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Senators Work Into Weekend on Ukraine and Israel Bill as G.O.P. Slows Progress

      by

      The $95 billion package appeared on track for eventual passage, but Republicans who killed a bipartisan version were still trying to make changes.The long-stalled emergency national security package to send aid to Ukraine and Israel is back on track in the Senate and headed toward passage within days — but not before Republican senators try to take a few partisan shots at the legislation.The senators are slowing progress on the $95 billion measure as they seek votes on proposed revisions, particularly concerning border security — despite having voted this week to kill a version of the bill that included a bipartisan deal to crack down on immigration.The demands amount to an exercise in political face-saving. Republicans said for months that they would never approve funds to help Ukraine fight off a Russian invasion without simultaneously taking significant steps to secure the U.S. border with Mexico. But their decision to kill a proposal to do just that means the aid will move forward without immigration restrictions.Now, they are settling for staging a series of votes that aim to show the right-wing Republican base, the G.O.P.-led House and former President Donald J. Trump that they tried to muscle through tough new border policies — and blame Democrats for blocking them.Senators planned a rare weekend session to work through the bill, with a critical vote on the legislation expected Sunday.“Democrats are willing to consider reasonable and fair amendments here on the floor,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said on Friday.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Employers Can Now Enroll Workers in Some Emergency Savings Accounts

      by

      But many companies are spurning the “clunky” legal requirements for accounts linked to retirement plans. Instead, some have stand-alone rainy day offerings.Starting this year, a federal law allows employers to enroll workers in emergency savings accounts that are linked to their retirement accounts. But some companies, put off by the law’s complex rules, have begun offering rainy day benefits outside workplace retirement plans.“I do think there is tremendous interest in emergency savings programs,” said Matt Bahl, vice president and head of workplace financial health at the Financial Health Network, a nonprofit that promotes financial well-being. “Having access to liquid cash can greatly reduce levels of financial stress.”The Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit, found that about three-fourths of large employers (those with 500 or more workers) offered or planned to offer hardship or emergency assistance programs to workers last year. Of those, about a third said they offered an emergency savings account feature and another third planned to do so in the next year or two.But while the law, known as Secure 2.0, has helped draw attention to the need for rainy day savings, its rules for setting up emergency accounts within retirement plans are “clunky,” Mr. Bahl said. For instance, only workers making under a certain income limit ($155,000 for 2024) may participate, and their emergency savings are limited to $2,500, though employers can set lower ceilings. And though employers can help with contributions, they must deposit any match into the worker’s retirement account — not the emergency savings account.While employers may eventually choose to offer such “sidecar” savings accounts, stand-alone emergency savings programs are already available from financial technology start-ups and established retirement plan administrators. With emergency savings offerings, “it’s really important to be broadly available and simple to use,” said Emily Kolle, a vice president who oversees the emergency savings offering from Fidelity Investments, one of the largest retirement plan administrators.Emergency savings — a cash cushion available in the event of a job loss or surprise expenses like car repairs or medical bills — are a concern for many Americans. In a recent survey by the financial site Bankrate, about a third said they would have to borrow to cover a $1,000 unexpected expense. And almost a quarter of consumers have no savings set aside for emergencies, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.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