Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Ohio Governor Signs Bathroom Restrictions for Transgender Students

      by

      The state is one of at least a dozen states to set restrictions on bathrooms for transgender students at public schools.Transgender students in Ohio, from kindergarten through college, will be prohibited from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity after Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, signed a bill on Wednesday imposing the restrictions. Ohio is among at least a dozen states in recent years to adopt laws setting restrictions on bathrooms for transgender students at public schools.Passage of the Ohio bill comes as transgender issues are increasingly seen by Republicans as an effective tool to divide Democrats, and some Democrats are worrying that their party’s support of trans rights may be a political liability.Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio was one of several Democrats to lose races this year after being targeted in Republican television ads referencing transgender people’s access to bathrooms and involvement in sports. Earlier this month, after Sarah McBride became the first openly transgender person elected to Congress, Republicans in Congress moved to bar transgender people from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity on Capitol Hill.The Ohio measure goes beyond several other states’ laws regulating bathroom use by transgender people by extending the restrictions to individuals over the age of 18, and by including private schools and colleges. The law classifies individuals as “male” or “female” based on how they were identified at birth, and requires schools to designate separate bathrooms, locker rooms and overnight accommodations “for the exclusive use by students of the male biological sex only or by students of the female biological sex only.’’Schools may designate facilities for single-use or for families, the law says, but are prohibited from providing “a multi-occupancy facility that is designated as nongendered, multigendered, or open to all genders.’’ The measure says that higher education institutions may “not knowingly permit” a “member of the female biological sex” to use a facility designated for males, or vice versa. The measure, which is to take effect in 90 days, does not include penalties or other details of how it should be enforced.Last year, Governor DeWine vetoed a measure that bans gender-transition medical treatments for minors and blocks transgender girls and women from participating on high school or college sports teams that match their gender identity. However, his veto was overridden. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had urged the governor to not sign the bathroom measure, saying in a statement that it “ignores the material reality that transgender people endure higher rates of sexual violence and assaults, particularly while using public restrooms, than people who are not transgender.”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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Los Angeles City Council Passes ‘Sanctuary’ Ordinance in Response to Trump

      by

      The swift action, two weeks after Donald J. Trump’s presidential win, signaled a sense of urgency from city leaders.The Los Angeles City Council passed a so-called sanctuary ordinance on Tuesday that would prohibit city resources from being used to carry out federal immigration enforcement, the first deportation-related move by a major U.S. city since Donald J. Trump won the presidential election two weeks ago.Though Los Angeles had already declared itself a “city of sanctuary” during Mr. Trump’s first term, it had done so only through a resolution and an executive directive rather than by establishing a new city ordinance. The ordinance passed on Tuesday would enshrine protections in city law and give them more legal weight, officials said.The unanimous vote came a week after Mayor Karen Bass called for “swift action” to protect immigrants in Los Angeles, and it required the expediting of a draft ordinance that was introduced last year. The ordinance will now go to Ms. Bass for her signature and would take effect 10 days after she signs it.The leaders of the Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation’s second largest school system, were also poised to enact their own immigrant protections later on Tuesday.The prompt actions by Los Angeles leaders signaled a sense of urgency to protect the city’s large immigrant population ahead of the inauguration of President-elect Trump, who has promised to pursue mass deportations of undocumented immigrants across the country.The ordinance would prohibit the use of city resources — including city workers and city property — to arrest or detain someone as part of a federal immigration enforcement effort. It would also bar city employees from asking about someone’s citizenship or immigration status. (The Los Angeles Police Department has had an order in place since 1979 that prohibits its officers from asking about immigration status or making arrests because of someone’s legal status.)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

      Wyoming’s Abortion Bans Are Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

      by

      The ruling found that two state laws — one barring use of abortion pills, and one banning all forms of abortion — violated the state Constitution’s “fundamental right to make health care decisions.” A Wyoming judge ruled on Monday that two state abortion bans — including the first state law specifically banning the use of pills for abortion — violated the Wyoming Constitution and could not be enforced.Judge Melissa Owens of Teton County District Court wrote in her ruling that both the ban on medication abortion and a broader ban against all methods of abortion “impede the fundamental right to make health care decisions for an entire class of people, pregnant women.” She added, “The abortion statutes suspend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions during the entire term of a pregnancy and are not reasonable or necessary to protect the health and general welfare of the people.”Enforcement of the two abortion bans, passed last year, had been temporarily halted by Judge Owens while the court case proceeded. Her decision on Monday blocks the laws permanently, although the state is expected to appeal. Efforts to reach the state attorney general’s office and the governor’s office were unsuccessful on Monday night.The suit to block the bans was filed by a group of plaintiffs that included two abortion providers in Wyoming; an obstetrician-gynecologist who often treats high-risk pregnancies; an emergency-room nurse; a fund that gives financing to abortion patients; and a woman who said her Jewish faith required access to abortion if a pregnant woman’s physical or mental health or life was in danger.An amendment to the Wyoming Constitution, approved by an overwhelming majority of the state’s voters in 2012, guarantees adults the right to make their own health care decisions.In court last year, the state, represented by Jay Jerde, a special assistant attorney general for Wyoming, argued that even though doctors and other health providers must be involved in abortions, there were many instances in which abortion was not “health care” because “it’s not restoring the woman’s body from pain, physical disease or sickness.”Mr. Jerde also argued that the constitutional amendment allowing people to make decisions about their own health care did not apply to abortion because terminating a pregnancy affected not just the woman making the decision, but the fetus as well.Judge Owens rejected both of those arguments. She wrote: “The uncontested facts establish that the abortion statutes fail to accomplish any of the asserted interests by the state. The state did not present any evidence refuting or challenging the extensive medical testimony presented by the plaintiffs.”Dr. Giovannina Anthony, an obstetrician-gynecologist and abortion provider who was one of the plaintiffs in the case, said on Monday night that she was “grateful and relieved that the judge agreed that abortion is health care and that abortion bans violate the rights of pregnant women.”Dr. Anthony said she expected the state to appeal. “This is not the end of the fight in Wyoming, but for now we can continue to provide evidence-based care without fear of a prison sentence.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s FDA Wish List: Raw Milk, Stem Cells, Heavy Metals

      by

      Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s advisers on health, is taking aim at the agency’s oversight on many fronts.Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been unflinching in his attacks on the Food and Drug Administration in recent weeks, saying he wants to fire agency experts who have taken action against treatments that have sometimes harmed people or that teeter on the fringe of accepted health care practice.How much influence Mr. Kennedy will have in President-elect Donald J. Trump’s next administration remains unclear, with some suggesting that he could act as a White House czar for policy over several federal health agencies. Mr. Trump has voiced support for Mr. Kennedy in recent weeks, saying he will let him “go wild on health.” In his acceptance speech, Mr. Trump reiterated his support for Mr. Kennedy’s involvement on health matters.Some of Mr. Kennedy’s priorities are relatively standard, such as focusing on the health effects associated with ultraprocessed foods. Yet others threaten to undermine F.D.A. authority to rein in inappropriate medical treatments or to warn about products that can damage the public health.A spokeswoman for Mr. Kennedy did not respond to interview requests.Days before the election, in a post on X that has received 6.4 million views, Mr. Kennedy threatened to fire F.D.A. employees who have waged a “war on public health.” He listed some of the products that he claimed the F.D.A. had subjected to “aggressive suppression,” including ivermectin, raw milk, vitamins as well as therapies involving stem cells, and hyperbaric oxygen.Some items that he singled out had become flash points for conservative voters during the coronavirus pandemic, including ivermectin, which was found to be an ineffective treatment against Covid.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

      Older Workers to Get ‘Super’ 401(k) Catch-Up Contributions in 2025

      by

      Workers who are 60 to 63 will be able to put in up to $11,250 in extra contributions, if they can afford it.Will you be age 60 to 63 next year? Lucky you! You have the option to contribute several thousand dollars more to your workplace retirement plan.That’s if you can afford it, and many workers will find it’s a stretch.Federal tax law already allows people 50 and older to make extra contributions, above the annual deferral limit, to a 401(k) or similar employer retirement plan. This year and next, that standard “catch-up” contribution is $7,500.But starting next year, the catch-up contribution limit will be higher for people in their early 60s, as part of the federal Secure 2.0 tax law passed in 2022. They can contribute up to $11,250 next year — an additional $3,750 in catch-up contributions — beyond the general 2025 deferral limit of $23,500, the Internal Revenue Service said. That means they can potentially contribute up to $34,750 in total to a workplace retirement account.This additional contribution — sometimes called an “enhanced” or “super” catch-up option — is available to workers ages 60, 61, 62 and 63. You’re eligible if you reach that age during the calendar year, said Dan Snyder, director of personal financial planning for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (Once savers turn 64, they’re no longer eligible for the extra savings but can contribute the standard catch-up amount.)The idea is to give people who are nearing retirement age, but are behind in savings, the chance to accumulate more money for their post-work lives. “This is an opportunity to make up for mistakes from the past,” said David John, senior strategic policy adviser at the AARP Public Policy Institute, which focuses on issues relevant to older Americans.Getting Americans to save more for retirement is a concern as the population ages, especially as the number of companies offering pensions dwindles. The typical household headed by people ages 55 to 64 has just $10,000 saved in a retirement account, according to an analysis of federal data by the Economic Policy Institute and the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Lawsuit Against Meta Over Section 230, Tech Shield Law, Is Dismissed

      by

      A professor sued pre-emptively to release software that would let users automatically unfollow everyone in their Facebook feed.An attempt to sue Meta using a law that shields tech giants from liability is dead for now.A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a suit brought by a professor who wants to build a tool that allows Facebook users to unfollow everyone in their feed. Ethan Zuckerman, who teaches public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, had asked a federal court to rule that Meta, Facebook’s owner, couldn’t sue him if he went through with his plan.Mr. Zuckerman and his lawyers, who work at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, were relying on a little-used portion of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that shields Meta and other tech giants from lawsuits over content posted by their users.Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Meta’s request to dismiss the lawsuit on Thursday, according to court records. The judge said Mr. Zuckerman could refile the lawsuit at a later date.“We’re disappointed the court believes Professor Zuckerman needs to code the tool before the court resolves the case,” said Ramya Krishnan, one of Mr. Zuckerman’s lawyers. “We continue to believe that Section 230 protects user-empowering tools, and look forward to the court considering that argument at a later time.”A spokesman for Meta pointed to an earlier statement by the company that called the lawsuit “baseless.”Mr. Zuckerman’s lawsuit was a novel salvo in a fight over who gets to control the experience on social media platforms. He wants to create a tool that will wipe a Facebook user’s feed clean. But Meta has previously sent a threatening legal letter to a software developer who released a similar tool.Mr. Zuckerman’s case hinged on a portion of Section 230 that protects the ability to restrict obscene or troublesome content, saying it should apply to any content that users don’t want to see. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      California County to Pay $300,000 Over Butchering of Girl’s Goat

      by

      The girl and her family reached a settlement after accusing the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office of unlawfully seizing a pet goat that was sold and slaughtered.A California county’s sheriff’s office agreed to pay $300,000 after it seized a 9-year-old girl’s pet goat, which was later slaughtered, according to court documents made public Friday.Jessica Long, the girl’s mother, sued the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, the Shasta District Fair, which auctioned the goat, and some of its employees in 2022 for taking “a young girl’s beloved pet goat” to be sold and slaughtered, despite the family’s efforts to spare the animal, according to court records.Ms. Long bought the goat for her daughter, who called him Cedar or Cedes, so the girl could participate in a 4-H program, according to the family’s lawyer, Ryan Gordon.Ms. Long’s daughter, who is identified as E.L. in the lawsuit because she is a minor, initially raised the goat to be auctioned at the Shasta District Fair in Northern California.But as auction day approached, the girl, who had been feeding and walking with the goat on a leash everywhere, became attached to Cedar and did not want to sell him.The fair ignored the family’s pleas and sold Cedar for $902, of which the fair was owed $63 as part of the sale.The family offered to pay the fair the money it was owed, and as the dispute continued, offered to pay the full auction price. Fair officials refused to withdraw the sale, however, according to court documents.As the family attempted to keep Cedar, fair officials threatened criminal theft charges.During the dispute, Ms. Long took Cedar to a farm 200 miles away in Sonoma County to be kept safe, the lawsuit said.Two Shasta County sheriff’s deputies drove to the farm and seized the goat, though it remains unclear who got the deputies involved, Mr. Gordon said. Law enforcement did not have a warrant to search and seize Cedar from the farm, he added.Cedar was eventually slaughtered but where his remains ended up is still unknown, and the winning bidder never paid the $902, Mr. Gordon said.In settling with the girl and her family, Shasta County admitted no wrongdoing. The lawsuit against the Shasta District Fair and some of its workers remains pending. Representatives of Shasta County and the Shasta District Fair did not immediately return requests for comment.“They can never get justice for Cedar, he’s gone,” Mr. Gordon said. “But this is a good first step.”The money will be held in a trust until Ms. Long’s daughter, who is now 11, is a legal adult, he said.In a 2022 interview with The New York Times, Mr. Gordon, who is the co-director of Advancing Law for Animals, a nonprofit law firm specializing in complex cases of animal law, said the sheriff’s deputies were “not the judge” and had no right to deem who was Cedar’s rightful owner.When Ms. Long’s daughter learned of Cedar’s fate weeks after he was taken, she ran to her bed and cried under her covers, Ms. Long said. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Mexico Passes Bill Barring Legal Challenges to Constitutional Changes

      by

      The bill has drawn criticism from legal scholars who say it would bulldoze any judicial oversight of constitutional matters. Mexico’s lower house of Congress approved sweeping new measures on Wednesday that would prevent legal challenges to constitutional amendments, allowing lawmakers to reshape the country’s charter without any judicial review — even from the Supreme Court.The bill, which was already passed by the Senate last week, has drawn criticism from legal scholars and human rights experts, who say it would bulldoze any judicial oversight of constitutional matters and hand the ruling Morena party seemingly unchecked power to pass profound changes to the laws governing the nation.Most state legislatures are expected to approve the measure in the coming days, paving the way for the president to sign it into law.The move comes at a tense moment for Mexico, in which the major branches of government barreling toward open conflict over the fundamental makeup of the judicial system and the role it should play in the country’s democracy.“This reform, if it passes, does place us in a context of an exercise of unlimited power,” said Guadalupe Salmorán Villar, a researcher on global rule of law and constitutional democracy based in Mexico City. “It’s an overt attempt by the federal government, with the support of the large congressional majority of Morena and its allies, to politically subjugate the judiciary.”Olga Sánchez Cordero, a Morena lawmaker, said that while the initiative would bar courts from weighing in on the content of constitutional amendments, it would not prohibit challenges on procedural grounds. Until now, she said, the Constitution has not been clear on how changes to the charter could be revised, but now there would be “a clear, explicit, unequivocal mechanism” for evaluating them.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