Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Chuck Schumer Postpones Book Tour Amid Spending Bill Vote Backlash

      by

      Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, on Monday postponed a multicity tour to promote his forthcoming book, citing security concerns amid backlash to his decision to vote with Republicans for a stopgap spending bill to stave off a government shutdown.Mr. Schumer was scheduled to participate in promotional events in Atlanta, Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York, as well as a few stops in California, for his new book, “Antisemitism in America: A Warning.” Many Democratic activists, desperate for their leaders to stand up to President Trump, have been staging protests outside of Mr. Schumer’s Brooklyn home and calling for his resignation. Online, they have been organizing protests for every stop on his book tour.A spokeswoman for Mr. Schumer said that the tour was being rescheduled because of “security concerns.” But the move was immediately criticized by both the right and the left, who accused Mr. Schumer of being unwilling to face a restive public.Since voting on Friday for the stopgap bill, Mr. Schumer has been defending his decision to stave off a government shutdown, which he has said was the less devastating of two bad options that Senate Democrats were presented with. “I’ll take some of the bullets,” Mr. Schumer said of the vitriol directed at him.“There is no off-ramp,” for a government shutdown, Mr. Schumer said in an interview Friday from his office just off the Senate floor. “The off-ramp is in the hands of Donald Trump and Elon Musk and DOGE. We could be in a shutdown for six months or nine months,” he said, referring to Mr. Musk’s cost-cutting team, the Department of Government Efficiency.Mr. Schumer said that a shutdown would have allowed Mr. Trump to decide which programs were essential, and which were not. “The day after the shutdown, they can say all of SNAP is not essential, we’re not funding it,” Mr. Schumer said, referring to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. “In a shutdown, it is solely the executive branch that determines what is essential and what is nonessential. There is no court check.”Still, the backlash has been unrelenting.Over the weekend, Mr. Schumer met with Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, in Brooklyn. The meeting was first reported by Punchbowl News. Mr. Jeffries and House Democrats, who stuck together to oppose the government funding bill in the House, have criticized Mr. Schumer’s decision. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Mr. Schumer’s decision “unacceptable.” And Mr. Jeffries has avoided expressing any confidence in Mr. Schumer’s leadership since the vote.On Friday, asked at a news conference whether it was time for new leadership in the Senate, Mr. Jeffries responded curtly.“Next question,” he said. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Venezuelan Families Fear for Relatives as Trump Celebrates Deportations to El Salvador

      by

      Mirelis Casique last spoke to her 24-year-old son on Saturday morning while he was being held in a detention center in Laredo, Texas. He told her he was going to be deported with a group of Venezuelans, she said, but he didn’t know where they were headed.Shortly after, his name disappeared from the website of U.S. immigration authorities. She has not heard from him since.“Now he’s in an abyss with no one to rescue him,” Ms. Casique said on Sunday in an interview from her home in Venezuela.The deportation of 238 Venezuelans to El Salvador this weekend has created panic among families who fear that their relatives are among those handed over by the Trump administration to Salvadoran authorities, apparently without due process.The men were described by a spokeswoman for the White House, Karoline Leavitt, as “terrorists” belonging to the Tren de Aragua gang and “heinous monsters” who, she said, had recently been arrested, “saving countless American lives.” But several relatives of men believed to be in the group say their loved ones do not have gang ties.On Sunday, the Salvadoran government released images of the men being marched into a notorious mega-prison in handcuffs overnight, with their heads newly shaven.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      The Democratic Divide: Would a Shutdown Have Helped or Hurt Trump?

      by

      When Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, announced that he would vote with Republicans to clear the way for passage of a stopgap spending bill, he argued that a government shutdown would further empower President Trump and Elon Musk to defund government programs and shrink federal agencies.“Under a shutdown, the Trump administration would have full authority to deem whole agencies, programs and personnel nonessential, furloughing staff with no promise that they would ever be rehired,” Mr. Schumer said on Thursday.But many Democrats, who were stunned and enraged by Mr. Schumer’s stance, argued that it was in fact the spending extension that would clear the way for Mr. Trump’s executive orders and Mr. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to continue to reshape the government, running roughshod over Congress in the process.Behind the political divide over how best to push back against Mr. Trump was a practical question: Does the White House have more power or less when the government shuts down?It’s a complicated subject. Here’s what to know:What happens in a government shutdown?When the government shuts down, agencies continue essential work, but federal employees and contractors are not paid. Many employees are furloughed until Congress acts to extend new funding.Federal agencies typically make contingency plans that lay out who should keep working and what programs need to operate during a shutdown. But spending experts said the decisions about what is deemed “necessary” or “essential” ultimately rest with the White House Office of Management and Budget, currently run by Russell T. Vought.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

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Chuck Schumer: Trump and Musk Would Love a Shutdown. We Must Not Give Them One.

      by

      Over the past two months, the United States has confronted a bitter truth: The federal government has been taken over by a nihilist.President Trump has taken a blowtorch to our country and wielded chaos like a weapon. Most Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, have caved to his every whim. The Grand Old Party has devolved into a crowd of Trump sycophants and MAGA radicals who seem to want to burn everything to the ground.Now, Republicans’ nihilism has brought us to a new brink of disaster: Unless Congress acts, the federal government will shut down Friday at midnight.As I have said many times, there are no winners in a government shutdown. But there are certainly victims: the most vulnerable Americans, those who rely on federal programs to feed their families, get medical care and stay financially afloat. Communities that depend on government services to function will suffer.This week Democrats offered a way out: Fund the government for another month to give appropriators more time to do their jobs. Republicans rejected this proposal.Why? Because Mr. Trump doesn’t want the appropriators to do their job. He wants full control over government spending.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Top Law Firms Defend Overhaul of America’s Business Court

      by

      After backlash from Elon Musk and companies like Meta, Big Law is publicly supporting a bill seeking to reform the Delaware Court of Chancery.As Delaware lawmakers prepare to hold hearings tomorrow about a bill that could reshape corporate America, some of the biggest corporate law firms are coming out in favor of it.On Tuesday, 21 law firms — including Simpson Thacher and Bartlett; Cravath, Swaine & Moore; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison — will publish a letter strongly supporting legislation that would override a series of decisions by the Delaware Court of Chancery. These rulings have prompted backlash from companies and led many, including Meta, to contemplate moving their incorporation outside the state.The bill is “an important step in maintaining Delaware’s status as the jurisdiction of choice for sophisticated clients when they create companies,” the law firms write.Delaware has been ensnared in controversy after several rulings, including Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick’s decision last year to nullify a big payout for Elon Musk at Tesla. While Mr. Musk’s ire over that decision brought attention to the chancery court, many corporate lawyers say they’re more broadly frustrated with the court’s treatment of companies with controlling shareholders, arguing that it has been overly deferential to noncontrolling shareholders.Given how corporate America fuels Delaware’s budget, a group of Delaware state senators proposed a bill last month to amend the state constitution that would effectively override years of case law by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The group sidestepped the usual process for proposing bills, allowing it to move swiftly — but critics say that it also left out early input from key members of the influential Delaware bar.The issue was a major topic at Tulane University’s Corporate Law Institute conference, a big gathering of deal makers held last week in New Orleans. “We are disempowering Delaware courts,” said Ned Weinberger, a partner at the plaintiffs’ law firm Labaton Keller Sucharow, arguing that the amendment would erode the voice of minority shareholders.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

      Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Law Banning Conversion Therapy

      by

      Colorado, like more than 20 other states, bars licensed therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors in their care.The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will hear a First Amendment challenge to a Colorado law banning professional counseling services engaged in conversion therapy intended to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation.More than 20 states have similar laws, which are supported by leading medical groups. Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor, challenged the constitutionality of the Colorado law in federal court, saying it violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.The challenged law prohibits licensed therapists in Colorado from performing conversion therapy, which it defines to include efforts “to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” That includes trying “to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”The law, adopted in 2019, allow treatments that provide “acceptance, support and understanding.” It exempts therapists “engaged in the practice of religious ministry.”Ms. Chiles’s lawyers told the justices in her petition seeking review that as “a practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.”In her lawsuit, Ms. Chiles said she wanted to help her clients achieve their goals, which can include “seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body.”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

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Wants to Kill Carried Interest. Wall Street Will Fight to Keep It.

      by

      President Trump has been trying to eliminate the tax loophole, which benefits Wall Street, but Congressional Republicans may stand in the way.Nearly a month has passed since President Trump last spoke publicly of his desire to kill the carried interest loophole. (Yes, we know, some of you don’t consider it a “loophole.”) And yet the private equity industry, which stands to lose big if the president upends the tax break, is still bracing for a fight.This is the biggest challenge to the provision since it was nearly neutered three years ago under former President Joe Biden, Grady McGregor writes for DealBook.A reminder: the carried interest rule means that executives at hedge funds and P.E. and venture capital firms pay roughly 20 percent tax on their profits, a rate that’s so low it’s drawn criticism from Warren Buffett and from progressive senators like Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts.One Washington lawyer described the lobbying effort to DealBook as “significant,” a sign of the escalating stakes.Consider what’s happened in the past month: The American Investment Council, the private equity lobbying group, is reportedly circulating memos on Capitol Hill reminding lawmakers that private equity is a jobs creator. Venture capitalists, seemingly omnipresent in Trump’s Washington, grumble that they have to keep returning to Congress to “educate lawmakers” about the rule’s benefits. So-called free market groups, meanwhile, have banded together to ask Congress to maintain the status quo.“They’ll fight tooth-and-nail on any sort of change,” said Jessica Millett, a tax partner at Hogan Lovells.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

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Said to Be Preparing Order That Aims to Eliminate Education Dept.

      by

      President Trump is preparing to sign an order that would instruct Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin dismantling her agency, setting the stage for a potential power struggle with Congress and another round of legal challenges from opponents.An administration official said the order could be signed as soon as Thursday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak about private deliberations.No modern president has ever tried to unilaterally shut down a federal department. The Education Department was created by an act of Congress in 1979, and federal lawmakers would likely have to approve eliminating it.Mr. Trump’s order was expected to spark another legal fight for the administration, which is already embroiled in multiple lawsuits over actions in its first six weeks.The American Federation of Teachers noted in a statement late Wednesday that the Education Department was “legally required” to distribute federal funds — money approved for poor students, those with disabilities and others — to states.“Any attempt by the Trump administration or Congress to gut these programs would be a grave mistake, and we will fight them tooth and nail,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the union.A draft of Mr. Trump’s order circulated in Washington on Wednesday ahead of a potential announcement. The Wall Street Journal first reported that Mr. Trump could sign the order as soon as Thursday.Mr. Trump has been blunt about his desire to do away with the department entirely. He remarked recently that he hoped Ms. McMahon would effectively put herself out of a job.He told reporters last month that the Education Department was “a big con job” and that “I’d like to close it immediately.”Ms. McMahon’s first action as education secretary was to email the department’s staff about its “final mission,” an indication of how she planned to fulfill Mr. Trump’s goal of shuttering the department. More