Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares151 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Democrats Reintroduce Legislation to Legalize Marijuana

      by

      The bill, which reflects growing support for legalization, would end the federal prohibition on cannabis. But it is unlikely to pass in an election year and a divided government.Senate Democrats reintroduced broad legislation on Wednesday to legalize cannabis on the federal level, a major policy shift with wide public support, but it is unlikely to be enacted this year ahead of November’s elections and in a divided government.The bill, which amounts to a Democratic wish list for federal cannabis policy, would end the federal prohibition on marijuana by removing it from a controlled substances list. The government currently classifies the drug as among the most dangerous and addictive substances.The legislation would create a new framework regulating cannabis and taxing the burgeoning cannabis industry, expunge certain federal marijuana-related offenses from criminal records, expand research into marijuana’s health impacts and devote federal money to helping communities and individuals affected by the war on drugs.The measure, which was first introduced in 2022, was led by Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader; Ron Wyden of Oregon, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Fifteen other Senate Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors.“Over the decades, millions of Americans, most often Americans of color, have had their lives derailed and destroyed by our country’s failed war on drugs,” Mr. Schumer, the first majority leader to call for federal legalization, said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “In place of the war on drugs, our bill would lay the foundation for something very different: a just and responsible and common-sense approach to cannabis regulation.”He reintroduced the measure one day after the Justice Department recommended easing restrictions on cannabis and downgrading it to a lower classification on the controlled substances list. That move did not go as far as some advocates and many Democrats have urged, but it was a significant shift reflecting the Biden administration’s efforts to liberalize marijuana policy.“Reclassifying cannabis is a necessary and long-overdue step, but it is not at all the end of the story,” Mr. Schumer said. “It’s time for Congress to wake up to the times and do its part by passing the cannabis reform that most Americans have long called for. It’s past time for Congress to catch up with public opinion and to catch up with the science.”But despite support from top Democrats, the legislation is highly unlikely to move in Congress during this election year. Republicans, many of whom have opposed federal cannabis legalization, control the House, and none have signed on to the bill. Congress has also labored to perform even the most basic duties of governance amid deep divisions within the Republican majority in the House. And few must-pass bills remain, leaving proponents without many opportunities to slip it into a bigger legislative package.Kevin Sabet, who served as a drug policy adviser during the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations, warned about the dangers of legalization and argued that such a bill would “commercialize” the marijuana industry and create “Big Tobacco 2.0.”“Let’s not commercialize marijuana in the name of social justice,” said Mr. Sabet, now the president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-legalization advocacy group. While he supported certain elements of the bill, such as expunging criminal records and removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, he said legalization was ultimately about “supersizing a commercial industry.”“And we really have to think long and hard after our horrible experience with Big Tobacco in our country,” he said, “whether that’s going to be good for us or not.”Still, the legislation reflects growing support among Democrats and across the country in both Republican- and Democratic-leaning states for legalizing access to marijuana, in addition to the issue’s potential political value ahead of an expected election rematch between President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.Legalization, in some form, is broadly popular across the country, with 88 percent of Americans saying marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, according to a January survey by the Pew Research Center. Twenty-four states have legalized small amounts of marijuana for adult recreational use, and 38 states have approved it for medicinal purposes. And where marijuana legalization has appeared on state ballots, it has won easily, often outperforming candidates in either party.Advocates of legalization have emphasized the issue’s political potency in trying to convince elected officials.“If anybody was looking at the political tea leaves, they would have to realize that obstructing cannabis policy reform — it is a losing proposition as a politician,” said Morgan Fox, the political director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, an advocacy group. “This is really a rallying point for people that care about cannabis policy reform.”At least one Democrat, Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, a leading cannabis advocate in Congress, has urged the Biden administration to embrace full legalization and make it a more prominent part of Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign. He has argued that the issue could help the president engage young people, whose support for him has faltered, but who could be crucial to victory in November.The Biden administration’s move to downgrade cannabis on the controlled substances list also reflects the president’s evolution on the issue. Mr. Biden has pardoned thousands of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses in an effort to remedy racial disparities in the justice system. And Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, has emphasized that Mr. Biden had been “very, very clear he doesn’t believe that anyone should be in jail or be prosecuted just for using or possessing marijuana.”Mr. Trump’s record on legalization is more mixed. In 2018, his administration freed prosecutors to aggressively enforce federal marijuana restrictions in states that had eased prohibitions on the drug. Mr. Trump later appeared to break with his administration, saying he was likely to support a legislative proposal to leave legalization to states, and he pardoned several nonviolent drug offenders.“This has not been an issue that is really coming up in conversation, at rallies or in media appearances and whatnot,” Mr. Fox said. “It’s kind of an unknown, how a future Trump administration would deal with cannabis.”Congress is considering more incremental bills that would ease restrictions on marijuana — such as by allowing legal cannabis businesses to access financial services — several of which have bipartisan support. But most are not expected to move during this Congress, given Republican opposition. More

    • 113 Shares89 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Alito Is Holding Trump to a Different Standard

      by

      I mentioned it in passing in my Friday column, but I was struck — disturbed, really — by one specific point made by Justice Samuel Alito during Thursday’s oral arguments in Trump v. United States.Alito began innocuously enough: “I’m sure you would agree with me that a stable democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully if that candidate is the incumbent.”“Of course,” answered Michael Dreeben, the lawyer arguing the case for the Department of Justice.“Now,” Alito continued, “if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”The implication of Alito’s question is that presidential immunity for all official acts may be a necessary concession to the possibility of a politically motivated investigation and prosecution: Presidents need to be above the law to raise the odds that they follow the law and leave office without incident.If this sounds backward, that’s because it is.There have been, in the nearly 236 years since Americans ratified the Constitution, 45 presidents. Of those, 10 sought but did not win re-election. In every case but one, the defeated incumbents left office without incident. There was no fear that they would try to overturn the results or subvert the process, nor was there any fear that their successors would turn the power of the state against them. Thomas Jefferson did not try to jail John Adams after the close-fought 1800 election; he assured the American people that “we are all republicans, we are all federalists.” Jimmy Carter did not sic the F.B.I. on Gerald Ford in the wake of his narrow victory; he thanked him for “all he has done to heal our land.”By Alito’s lights, this should not have been possible. Why would a president leave if he could be prosecuted as a private citizen? The answer is that the other nine people who lost had a commitment to American democracy that transcended their narrow, personal or partisan interests.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Can Weinstein’s Overturned New York Conviction Help Him Appeal California Case?

      by

      Harvey Weinstein faced similar sex crimes charges in New York and California, but the arguments used to overturn one case may not help in the other.The decision by New York’s top court on Thursday to overturn the conviction of Harvey Weinstein on sex crime charges raised many thorny legal questions. Perhaps chief among them: Will it bolster his chances of a successful appeal in a similar case in California?Mr. Weinstein’s lawyer in California, Jennifer Bonjean, plans to file that appeal next month, and has said she believes the New York decision helps her chances of winning. In both cases, prosecutors offered witnesses who said they had been assaulted by Mr. Weinstein, the disgraced Hollywood producer, even though their accounts were not tied to criminal charges.Prosecutors in sexual assault cases sometimes use such witnesses to establish a pattern of behavior, but it can be a risky move because defendants are typically supposed to be judged only on the crimes with which they have been charged. The tactic was at the heart of the 4-to-3 decision on Thursday by New York’s Court of Appeals, which concluded that the judge who presided over Mr. Weinstein’s case in 2020 had deprived him of a fair trial by allowing those witnesses to testify.Mr. Weinstein is expected to appear in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Wednesday for a procedural hearing that is the first step for prosecutors to restart the criminal case to try him again.New York and California law differ on the crucial issue of witnesses. The office of the Los Angeles district attorney, George Gascón, said that California’s law, unlike New York’s, allows evidence, at a judge’s discretion, that shows a defendant’s “propensity” to commit sexual assault.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 Shares121 Views

      in Elections

      Arizona Republicans Who Supported Repealing an Abortion Ban Face Blowback

      by

      On social media, Arizona lawmakers are accused of being baby killers, cowards and traitors.State Representative Matt Gress, a Republican in a moderate slice of Phoenix, was in line at his neighborhood coffee shop on Thursday when a customer stopped and thanked him for voting to repeal an 1864 law that bans abortion in Arizona.“I know you’re taking some heat,” he told Mr. Gress.More than some.Shortly after the repeal bill squeaked through the Arizona House on Wednesday with support from every Democrat, as well as Mr. Gress and two other Republicans, anti-abortion activists denounced Mr. Gress on social media as a baby killer, coward and traitor. The Republican House speaker booted Mr. Gress off a spending committee. And some Democrats dismissed his stance as a bid to appease swing voters furious over the ban during an election year.In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Gress said that he was trying to chart a middle path through a wrenching debate over abortion that has consumed Arizona politics in the two weeks since the State Supreme Court revived the Civil War-era ban.“There are extremes on both ends here,” he said. “To go from abortion being legal and constitutionally protected to nearly a complete ban overnight is not something that the electorate is going to be OK with.”Mr. Gress, 35, a former teacher and school-board member, worked as a budget director under Arizona’s previous governor, the Republican Doug Ducey. He was first elected in 2022 to represent a swath of Phoenix and Scottsdale that spreads from middle-class neighborhoods through strip malls, desert parks and wealthy gated communities.He speaks with the measured cadences of someone who has appeared on plenty of news programs, and had focused his attention on homelessness and teacher pay before abortion erupted into an all-consuming legislative battle.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 Shares93 Views

      in Elections

      A New Battery Warns Parents if Their Child Has Swallowed It

      by

      The new battery by Energizer, with “color alert technology,” comes nearly two years after a report warned that more children were swallowing batteries.Almost two years after a report warned that children were swallowing batteries at an alarming rate, Energizer is releasing a new battery designed to alert parents if their child has swallowed one.The new coin lithium battery features more secure packaging, a nontoxic bitter coating to discourage swallowing and “color alert technology” that activates a blue dye when the battery comes into contact with moisture, like saliva, so parents and caregivers know that medical attention could be required.The new battery was announced in a video last week by Energizer and Trista Hamsmith, whose 18-month-old daughter died after swallowing a button battery from a remote control.Ms. Hamsmith founded a nonprofit organization focused on children’s safety, successfully advocated for legislation, known as Reese’s Law, that requires a secure compartment of the batteries in products that use them as well as stronger warning labels on all packaging, and is now working to make the batteries themselves safer.Ingested coin or button batteries result in thousands of emergency hospital visits each year, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which notes that “the consequences of a child swallowing a battery can be immediate, devastating and deadly.”“A button cell battery can burn through a child’s throat or esophagus in as little as two hours if swallowed,” according to the agency.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      A Chinese Firm Is America’s Favorite Drone Maker — Except in Washington

      by

      U.S. authorities consider DJI a security threat. Congress is weighing legislation to ban it, prompting a lobbying campaign from the company, which dominates the commercial and consumer drone markets.The drones circled over the caves and crevices scattered around the mountain trails in northern Utah, feeding real-time video back to a search team on the ground looking for a missing hiker. Nineteen minutes later, they had her coordinates, bringing the rescue — a drill — closer to conclusion.“In this kind of environment, that’s actually pretty quick,” said Kyle Nordfors, a volunteer search and rescue worker. He was operating one of the drones, made by the Chinese company DJI, which dominates sales to law enforcement agencies as well as the hobbyist market in the United States.But if DJI’s drones are the tool of choice for emergency responders around the country, they are widely seen in Washington as a national security threat.DJI is on a Defense Department list of Chinese military companies whose products the U.S. armed forces will be prohibited from purchasing in the future. As part of the defense budget that Congress passed for this year, other federal agencies and programs are likely to be prohibited from purchasing DJI drones as well.The drones — though not designed or authorized for combat use — have also become ubiquitous in Russia’s war against Ukraine.Launching a DJI drone in the Donetsk region of Ukraine in March 2023.Tyler Hicks/The New York TimesCommercially available DJI drones have been widely used throughout Ukraine’s war with Russia.David Guttenfelder for The New York TimesWe 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

    • 163 Shares96 Views

      in Elections

      Congress Passed a Bill That Could Ban TikTok. Now Comes the Hard Part.

      by

      After President Biden signs the bill to force a sale of the video app or ban it, the legislation will face court challenges, a shortage of qualified buyers and Beijing’s hostility.A bill that would force a sale of TikTok by its Chinese owner, ByteDance — or ban it outright — was passed by the Senate on Tuesday and is expected to be signed quickly into law by President Biden.Now the process is likely to get even more complicated.Congress passed the measure citing national security concerns because of TikTok’s Chinese ties. Both lawmakers and security experts have said there are risks that the Chinese government could lean on ByteDance for access to sensitive data belonging to its 170 million U.S. users or to spread propaganda.The proposed law would allow TikTok to continue to operate in the United States if ByteDance sold it within 270 days, or about nine months, a time frame that the president could extend to a year.The measure is likely to face legal challenges, as well as possible resistance from Beijing, which could block the sale or export of the technology. It’s also unclear who has the resources to buy TikTok, since it will carry a hefty price tag.The issue could take months or even years to settle, during which the app would probably continue to function for U.S. consumers.“It’s going to be a royal mess,” said Anupam Chander, a visiting scholar at the Institute for Rebooting Social Media at Harvard and an expert on the global regulation of new technologies.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 Shares158 Views

      in Elections

      Surveillance Law Section 702 Keeps Us Safe

      by

      This is an extraordinarily dangerous time for the United States and our allies. Israel’s unpreparedness on Oct. 7 shows that even powerful nations can be surprised in catastrophic ways. Fortunately, Congress, in a rare bipartisan act, voted early Saturday to reauthorize a key intelligence power that provides critical information on hostile states and threats ranging from terrorism to fentanyl trafficking.Civil libertarians argued that the surveillance bill erodes Americans’ privacy rights and pointed to examples when American citizens got entangled in investigations. Importantly, the latest version of the bill adds dozens of legal safeguards around the surveillance in question — the most expansive privacy reform to the legislation in its history. The result preserves critical intelligence powers while protecting Americans’ privacy rights in our complex digital age.At the center of the debate is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Originally passed in 1978, it demanded that investigators gain an order from a special court to surveil foreign agents inside the United States. Collecting the communications of foreigners abroad did not require court approval.That line blurred in the digital age. Many foreign nationals rely on American providers such as Google and Meta, which route or store data in the United States, raising questions as to whether the rules apply to where the targets are or where their data is collected. In 2008, Congress addressed that conundrum with Section 702. Instead of requiring the government to seek court orders for each foreign target, that provision requires yearly judicial approval of the rules that govern the program as a whole. That way, the government can efficiently obtain from communication providers the calls and messages of large numbers of foreign targets — 246,073 in 2022 alone.Since then, Section 702 has supplied extraordinary insight into foreign dangers, including military threats, theft of American trade secrets, terrorism, hacking and fentanyl trafficking. In 2022 intelligence from 702 helped the government find and kill the Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri, one of the terrorists responsible for Sept. 11. Almost 60 percent of the articles in the president’s daily intelligence briefing include information from Section 702.Although Section 702 can be used only to target foreigners abroad, it does include Americans when they interact with foreign targets. Not only is such incidental collection inevitable in today’s globalized world; it can be vital to U.S. security. If a terrorist or spy abroad is communicating with someone here, our government must find out why.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