Four years after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, dairy cattle herds across the U.S. are facing a pandemic of their own. Even after the lesson provided by the COVID-19 pandemic in disease preparedness and surveillance, the CDC is struggling to track the virus’ spread due to the lack of trust between dairy farmers and governmental agencies. Thus, the area between appropriate bio-surveillance and a farmer’s rights has been a difficult place to land. In an attempt to more effectively aim for this intersection, the Biden administration has released its plan to implement several farmer incentives, encouraging cooperation between the two perspectives.

H5N1, otherwise known as avian influenza, was found in a Texas dairy cattle herd on March 25th of this year. Because this virus has transferred species, this can now be referred to as bovine influenza. According to the CDC, this is the first time that this virus has been found in cattle. Since then, the USDA reports that it has spread to dairy herds across twelve different states, the most recent being Minnesota on July 2. In total, 139 dairy herds are confirmed to have been impacted by the avian influenza virus across the U.S. In other words, at least 139 dairy farmers have been impacted by the spread of avian influenza among their cattle. However, it is unclear how many farmers are actually reporting the sickness among their herds. Rick Naerebout, CEO of the Idaho Dairymen’s Association, asserted that, “[n]ationwide, the vast majority of cases are not reported.” Concerned that a positive test would draw unwanted regulatory attention, economic losses, or a reputational hit, farmers are reluctant to test their herd at all. Positive test or not, the virus has the potential to heavily impact farmers. Dairy cattle infected with the virus have been observed to produce less milk. In addition, the milk that farmers can draw from infected cows contains the virus. If identified, this milk will likely need to be disposed of, resulting in further milk losses for the farmer. A study funded by the National Institute of Health demonstrated that mammals can get infected with the virus by drinking infected milk. Although the same study showed pasteurization effective in making even infected milk safe to consume, select states still allow the sale of raw milk (usually with some restrictions). It is worth noting that there are states that allow the retail sale of raw milk and have had herds infected with the virus, such as New Mexico.

Amidst these food safety concerns, safe control and tracking of the virus is reliant on CDC and farmer collaboration. Surveillance of the virus is dependent on how much information farmers are willing to share–which in itself is completely dependent on the farmers’ trust or distrust of the government agencies trying to surveille them. Former CDC director, Tom Frieden, noted how the COVID-19 pandemic increased skepticism of public health agencies, especially in rural areas. When addressing the major concerns for farmers when it comes to the USDA and CDC handling of things, Frieden emphasized “the economic risks to farmers, many of whom are on the edge economically.” For farmers, likely already skeptical of the CDC, drawing potentially negative regulatory attention to their farms by inviting the CDC to investigate them is not worth the risk. As a result, there has been a lack of farmers interested in participating in CDC research regarding the virus. The Texas Department of State Health Services reported no dairy farms interested in partaking in CDC epidemiological field studies. In addition, public identification as a result of the surveys suggested by the CDC is another concern amongst farmers. As a positive test would draw USDA and CDC attention, additional quarantining protocol, and possible federal official involvement, farmers are potentially putting themselves at risk both reputationally and economically by testing for the virus.

While farms may be hesitant to work with the CDC, there does seem to be a greater willingness to work with local authorities. The Idaho Dairymen’s Association, for example, may take part in a CDC survey concerning the virus, provided it is shortened and performed by a local health department outside of the farmer’s property. Dr. Justin Smith, the Kansas animal health commissioner, describes that the CDC response team presence on a farmer’s property to be very intimidating to dairy farmworkers. Local, more familiar, public health offices may serve as a vessel to gain the data the CDC needs while easing the concerns of farmers.

Despite these challenges and possible compromises, the Biden administration has created a program in hopes of providing farms with an incentive to cooperate with governmental efforts to limit the spread of H5N1. The program is mainly directed towards providing farmers with indemnity. Farms could receive a maximum of $28,000 for testing sick cows and taking steps to protect their farmworkers. In addition, the costs of milk lost from farms impacted by the virus may also be compensated. In order to address the reluctance of farmers to join government studies regarding the virus, such as previously noted in Texas, farmers will be compensated. In addition, farms with avian influenza who participate in a federal study, and provide personal protective gear to their employees, will receive $2,000 a month. Along with these measures, the CDC is prepared to spend $93,000,000 to gain information on the virus and its spread. It is clear that under the Biden administration, efforts to surveille the virus are being taken very seriously, likely an agenda prioritized following the COVID-19 pandemic. While these measures are particularly aimed at making farms and government agencies more easily interact, there are also measures aimed at rewarding farmers for taking precautionary measures. In addition to the payment previously stated that, in part, requires protective equipment be given to employees, there is a $2000 monthly payment for safely eliminating milk containing the virus.

These efforts for cooperation are ultimately working towards the end goal of limiting the virus infection in humans. Although the virus has not been observed to jump between humans, humans can still be infected by cattle (through both raw milk and direct contact), giving the virus a chance to mutate and develop the ability to transfer between humans. Thus, minimizing the chance of this is a priority. So far, the CDC has described cases observed in humans during this outbreak as “mild” and of low risk to the public in the present moment.

Even though these measures are certainly hopeful, there is still a question as to whether these incentives will be enough to meaningfully engage farmers, especially when considering how various farms will value the incentives differently. According to the 2017 U.S. census, family-owned farms account for 96% of all U.S. farms. The segmented nature of this industry makes streamlining a nationwide response to the avian flu more difficult on both the private and governmental ends. Combined with the fact that the CDC has no legal authority over certain precautions farmers take, various farmers may differ in their response to these programs.

Looking into the future, farmworkers are likely to be provided with more than protective gear to prevent transmission to humans. Finland has already developed a vaccine for this type of avian flu, which will be provided to workers considered to be at high risk (that is, those working closely with cattle). Perhaps the United States will be next in providing a vaccine to both farmworkers and cattle.  

Suggestions for further reading:

1. How the USDA is Responding to the Avian Flu: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2024/04/24/usda-actions-protect-livestock-health-highly-pathogenic-h5n1-avian 
2. Most Recent CDC Update on the Avian Flu Outbreak in Dairy Herds: https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/spotlights/h5n1-response-07052024.html 
3. NIH-Funded Study Regarding Avian Flu-Infected Milk: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/assessing-avian-influenza-dairy-milk
4. Finland’s Response to the Bird Flu: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13568101/Finland-roll-vaccines-bird-flu-week-world-first.html
5. John Hopkins on the Avian Flu in Dairy Cattle: What’s Happening With Dairy Cows and Bird Flu | Johns Hopkins | Bloomberg School of Public Health (jhu.edu)
6. The Bird Flu’s Latest Spread: https://www.fooddive.com/news/bird-flu-dairy-cattle-iowa-minnesota-us-outbreak-widens/718314/
7. The Indemnity Program: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/10/us/politics/dairy-farms-bird-fluprotection.html#:~:text=Under%20the%20so%2Dcalled%20indemnity,with%20confirmed%20bird%20flu%20cases
8. Historical Context of the Avian Flu: https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillempert/2024/05/01/the-2024-avian-flu-origins-impact-and-the-global-response/
9. Farmers’ Responses to CDC Programs: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/06/bird-flu-dairy-farms-cdc-00156119 
10. Farmers’ Perspectives on CDC Recommended Protective Gear: Dairy farmers resist CDC push for PPE against bird flu virus | STAT (statnews.com)

“Remember, remember always, that all of us, you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.”

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Biden Administration: Recent Action

There is a significant debate regarding national security, particularly the security of the southern border. Since the Biden administration took office in 2020, there has been a massive influx of illegal crossings, with approximately 8 million occurrences over the past four years and 1.7 million undocumented immigrants continually residing in the United States. Furthermore, immigrants are arriving from more diverse locations than in the past, such as China and Africa. The discovery of eight ISIS-K fighters in several U.S. cities, allegedly having entered through the southern border, has intensified criticism of the Biden administration’s policies on the border. 

Due to these rising concerns, immigration has become the top priority for many Americans. Stories of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, the influx of fentanyl into drug markets, and political battles over relocating migrants from border states to major cities have highlighted the contentious issue of border security. However, the discourse on immigration often overlooks the social responsibility and humanitarian obligations of the United States. While the nation strives to provide human rights aid, balancing this with national security is challenging. The Department of Homeland Security reports a shortage of officers, delays in technological implementations, and insufficient legal aid to address humanitarian needs. Despite ongoing policy debates between liberals and conservatives, the reality in 2024 is a marked increase in illegal crossings and significant national security threats.  

In response to this call for action to secure the border, President Biden enacted two executive orders in June 2024 to signal to voters that he is serious about supporting humanitarian responsibilities, while also becoming more stringent on illegal border crossings.

On June 6th Biden issued his executive action to close the southern border between ports of entry when daily migrant crossings exceed 2,500 over a week. This move aims to curb asylum claims during high crossing periods, allowing immediate deportation of migrants, who would face a five-year reentry ban. Exceptions include unaccompanied children and certain humanitarian cases. The action, criticized by progressives and immigration advocates, follows failed bipartisan legislation efforts and mimics some Trump-era policies, though Biden emphasized humane differences and legal safeguards. 

In order to appeal to his more progressive base on June 18th, 2024, President Biden issued an executive order aimed at providing significant relief to undocumented immigrants married to U.S. citizens. This order allows these individuals, who have resided in the U.S. for at least ten years, to apply for lawful permanent residence without leaving the country, a process previously fraught with prolonged separation from their families. The policy change is expected to benefit approximately 500,000 spouses and 50,000 children. Additionally, the executive order streamlines the process for DACA recipients to access employment-based visas, ensuring they can continue contributing to the economy and their communities. These measures are part of Biden’s broader efforts to address family unity and provide stability to immigrant families in the U.S. despite ongoing political challenges and stalled legislation on comprehensive immigration reform. 

These two crucial executive actions are important because they highlight the politicization of immigration in the United States. With the upcoming election, Biden must navigate party politics, humanitarian action, and national security. Studying these executive orders and comparing their nature to past policy and the current national opinion will help reveal more about the weight of Biden’s decisions. 

Background & Context: Immigration Policy

The 2010s were marked by significant shifts in U.S. immigration policy across different administrations, reflecting the political divides between parties. Under President Obama, immigration policy init

ially focused on a balance between enforcement and relief measures. Obama’s administration introduced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012, protecting approximately 700,000 undocumented immigrants who arrived as children from deportation. This action faced substantial resistance from Republicans, who generally prioritized stricter enforcement measures and opposed broad amnesty efforts. 

In contrast, the Trump administration emphasized stringent immigration enforcement and border security. Policies included the “zero tolerance” policy leading to family separations, attempts to end DACA, and the implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed. This period saw a significant reduction in legal immigration and increased deportations.

Illegal border crossings fluctuated significantly during these years. Under Obama, crossings initially decreased, reaching a low in 2011, but spiked again towards the end of his term. During Trump’s administration, there was a notable increase in illegal crossings in 2019, with apprehensions reaching their highest levels in over a decade. These trends highlight the complex interplay between policy, enforcement, and migration patterns. 

This pattern is crucial as it highlights that illegal border crossings are driven by far more substantial factors than the executive stance on border policies. Several factors contribute to the phenomenon of illegal border crossings into the United States. Economic instability, violence, and political turmoil in migrants’ home countries serve as significant “push” factors. For example, regions such as CentralAmerica’s Northern Triangle (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador) experience high levels of violence and poverty, driving many to seek safer and more stable conditions elsewhere. Additionally, environmental disasters and poor governance exacerbate these issu

es, further compelling individuals to migrate.On the other hand, “pull” factors in the United States include the prospect of better economic opportunities, existing social networks, and perceptions of lenient immigration policies. The U.S. economy’s relative strength and demand for labor attract many migrants. Policies such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and historical asylum laws create an allure, even if the current enforcement practices remain

stringent. Moreover, the activities of transnational smugglers who facilitate illegal crossings also play a role by exploiting these conditions and promising entry into the U.S. During specific periods, changes in U.S. immigration policies and enforcement practices have also influenced migration patterns. For instance, the implementation of Title 42 during the COVID-19 pandemic allowed for rapid expulsions, whichled to higher recidivism rates as migrants made repeated attempts to cross the southern border.

= Outcomes: Will these Executive orders be effective?

Analyzing the effectiveness of President Biden’s executive orders from June 2024 in securing the border while maintaining humanitarian standards reveals a complex and nuanced picture. These actions were designed to quickly remove individuals without a legal basis to remain in the U.S., theoretically enhancing border security by streamlining the process and reducing backlog. However, the effectiveness of these orders in achieving true border security is debatable. While the increased speed of removals and the restriction on asylum eligibility might deter some illegal crossings, they do not address the underlying issuesdriving migration, such as economic instability, violence, and political turmoil in migrants’ home countries. Additionally, the “shout test” requirement, which necessitates migrants to explicitly express fear of persecution to qualify for asylum screening, could result in many legitimate asylum claims being ignored. This raises concerns about the fairness and humanitarian impact of these measures. Critics, such as the American Immigration Council, argue that focusing primarily on punitive measures without significantly expanding legal pathways, investing in ports of entry, or bolstering the immigration court system fails to create a sustainable solution. They contendthat these executive actions may temporarily reduce numbers but do not provide a long-term strategy for managing and securing the border effectively

Furthermore, while the executive orders include humanitarian exceptions and efforts to dismantle human smuggling networks, the overall emphasis on restricting asylum and rapid expulsions could inadvertently strengthen the operations of transnational criminal organizations, which exploit migrants in increasingly desperate situations. In conclusion, while Biden’s executive orders may offer short-term relief by reducing immediate border pressures and show voters effort before the election, these policies long-term effectiveness in securing the border and maintaining humanitarian standards remains uncertain. 

Suggestions for Further Reading

1. [Biden Grants Legal Protections to Dreamers and Undocumented Spouses](https://www.independent.com/2024/06/18/biden-grants-legal-protections-to-dreamers-and-undocumented-spouses-of-u-s-citizens/)

2. [DHS Announces New Process to Promote Unity and Stability for Families](https://www.dhs.gov/news/2024/06/17/fact-sheet-dhs-announces-new-process-promote-unity-and-stability-families)

3. [American Immigration Council: Biden Protections for Undocumented Spouses and DACA Recipients](https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/biden-protections-undocumented-spouses-daca-recipients)

4. [Politico: Biden’s Border Closure Executive Action](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/04/biden-border-close-executive-action-migrants-00161483)

5. [The Washington Post: The Root cause of Central American Migration? The US](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/08/root-cause-central-american-migration-united-states/)

6. [American Military News: Biden Unveils New Executive Actions to Slow U.S. Border Crossings](https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/06/biden-unveils-new-executive-actions-to-slow-us-border-crossings/)

7. [Historical Overview of Immigration Policy](https://cis.org/Historical-Overview-Immigration-Policy)

8. [Comparing Trump and Biden Major Immigration Policies](https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/comparing-trump-biden-major-immigration-policies)

9. [Oversight House: Biden’s Policies and Border Crisis](https://oversight.house.gov/release/wrap-up-biden-administrations-policies-have-fueled-worst-border-crisis-in-u-s-history%EF%BF%BC/)

10. [Solutions for Humane Border Policy](https://immigrantjustice.org/staff/blog/solutions-humane-border-policy)

The Rise of Anti-DEI Legislation in the South: A Closer Look at Texas and Florida

In recent years, a wave of legislation aimed at curtailing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives has swept through various states in the United States. This movement, largely driven by right-wing lawmakers, seeks to redefine the landscape of education and workplace policies. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the Southern states of Texas and Florida, where recent bills have sparked significant controversy and debate. As these legislative efforts gain momentum, it is crucial to understand their implications, the motivations behind them, and the potential impact on communities and institutions.

The DEI Movement: A Brief Overview

DEI initiatives have become a cornerstone in both educational institutions and corporate environments over the past few decades. These programs aim to promote diversity in the workplace and schools, ensure equitable opportunities for all individuals, and foster inclusive environments where everyone feels valued. DEI initiatives typically involve efforts to address systemic biases, support marginalized groups, and create policies that enhance representation and fairness.

The Legislative Backlash: Key Bills in Texas and Florida

Texas

In Texas, the legislature passed several bills that significantly impact DEI programs. Senate Bill 17, for instance, prohibits public universities from requiring diversity statements in hiring and promotion processes. Proponents argue that such measures are necessary to ensure that hiring is based solely on merit and qualifications, free from ideological considerations. Critics, however, contend that these requirements are crucial for addressing long-standing disparities and ensuring that marginalized groups have equal opportunities.

Another significant piece of legislation in Texas is House Bill 3979, which restricts how teachers can discuss race and gender in classrooms. The bill aims to eliminate what supporters call “divisive concepts” from educational curricula, such as the idea that individuals can be inherently racist or sexist based on their race or gender. Opponents argue that this bill stifles important conversations about systemic racism and sexism, ultimately hindering students’ ability to engage critically with these crucial issues.

Florida

Florida has also seen a surge in anti-DEI legislation. One of the most notable is House Bill 7, often referred to as the “Stop WOKE Act.” This bill places strict limits on how race-related topics can be taught in schools and training programs. It explicitly prohibits the teaching of critical race theory (CRT), an academic framework that examines the ways in which race and racism intersect with politics, culture, and the law. Governor Ron DeSantis, a vocal supporter of the bill, has stated that CRT promotes division and resentment, while critics argue that banning CRT prevents an honest reckoning with the country’s racial history.

Another critical piece of legislation in Florida is Senate Bill 1108, which requires public universities to conduct annual surveys of students and faculty to assess intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity. Supporters claim this will ensure that universities remain places of open dialogue and diverse perspectives. However, detractors worry that the surveys could be used to target and suppress academic viewpoints that do not align with the prevailing political climate.

Motivations Behind the Legislation

The push for anti-DEI legislation is rooted in a broader cultural and political context. Right-wing proponents of these bills often frame their efforts as a defense against what they see as leftist indoctrination and ideological conformity in educational and workplace settings. They argue that DEI initiatives, particularly those involving concepts like CRT, promote a divisive narrative that pits different groups against each other based on race and gender.

Furthermore, there is a growing sentiment among some conservatives that DEI programs have overstepped their bounds, imposing a particular worldview and stifling dissenting opinions. They argue that merit-based systems are being undermined by a focus on identity politics, leading to unfair advantages for some groups at the expense of others.

The Impact on Education and Beyond

The passage of these anti-DEI bills has far-reaching implications for education and society at large. In educational settings, these laws can limit teachers’ ability to engage students in critical discussions about race, gender, and inequality. This can hinder students’ understanding of complex social issues and reduce their ability to think critically about the world around them.

For universities, restrictions on DEI initiatives can impact faculty recruitment and retention, as well as the overall campus climate. Diverse and inclusive environments are often seen as more attractive to a broad range of students and faculty. Limiting DEI programs could make these institutions less appealing to prospective students and staff from marginalized backgrounds.

In the workplace, anti-DEI legislation can undermine efforts to create equitable and inclusive environments. Companies that prioritize DEI often see benefits such as increased employee satisfaction, better decision-making, and improved financial performance. Restricting these initiatives could result in a less inclusive workplace culture, potentially affecting employee morale and productivity.

The Response and Resistance

Despite the legislative momentum, there has been significant pushback against anti-DEI bills. Many educators, students, and advocacy groups are actively opposing these measures, arguing that they are essential for creating just and equitable societies. Legal c

hallenges are also underway, with opponents seeking to overturn these laws on constitutional grounds.

In Texas, several organizations have filed lawsuits challenging House Bill 3979, arguing that it violates First Amendment rights by restricting free speech and academic freedom. In Florida, civil rights groups have taken legal action against the “Stop WOKE Act,” contending that it infringes on educators’ ability to teach accurate and comprehensive history.

Furthermore, some universities and businesses are finding ways to navigate these restrictions while still promoting diversity and inclusion. This includes developing alternative training programs, finding creative ways to discuss sensitive topics, and emphasizing the importance of diversity in less overtly political terms.

Conclusion: A Path Forward

The rise of anti-DEI legislation in states like Texas and Florida highlights a deepening divide in American society over how to address issues of race, gender, and inequality. While proponents argue that these measures are necessary to protect meritocracy and prevent ideological indoctrination, opponents see them as a direct attack on efforts to create more inclusive and equitable communities.

As this debate continues to unfold, it is crucial for stakeholders to engage in thoughtful and informed discussions about the role of DEI initiatives. Finding common ground will require acknowledging the legitimate concerns of both sides while remaining committed to the principles of equity and inclusion. Only through open dialogue and collaboration can we hope to build a society that values and respects the diverse experiences and perspectives of all its members.

In the end, the battle over DEI is not just about policies and programs; it is about the kind of society we want to create. As students, educators, workers, and citizens, we all have a role to play in shaping that future. Whether through advocacy, education, or everyday interactions, we must strive to ensure that the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion remain central to our collective efforts to build a more just and equitable world.

Works Cited, Suggested, and Referenced:

https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/anti-dei-laws-take-aim-students-color-and-lgbtq-studentsLinks to an external site.

https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/anti-dei-legislation-tracker/#:~:text=Under%20the%20bill%2C%20DEI%20offices,be%20restricted%20from%20this%20billLinks to an external site..

https://abcnews.go.com/US/map-impact-anti-dei-legislation/story?id=108795967Links to an external site.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliekratz/2024/06/09/anti-dei-legislation-how-we-got-here-with-tips-to-combat-it/Links to an external site.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/diversity/2024/03/15/civil-rights-groups-push-back-against-wave-anti-dei-billsLinks to an external site.

The complex relationship between the United States and the International Criminal Court (ICC) is marked by a series of contradictions, reflecting tensions between geopolitical interests and the rhetoric of the rule of law. On the one hand, as a leading liberal democracy, the United States seeks to condemn conduct that violates liberal values. On the other hand, its quasi support for the ICC – the United States signed but never ratified the Rome Statute – is mediated by political, strategic, and power concerns, especially when warrants concern allies. As a major global power, the United States’ inconsistency in the degree of support it affords the ICC prosecutions casts a shadow over ICC’s ability to hold those who commit heinous crimes accountable.

The International Criminal Court was established by the Rome Statute in 2002. The statute established four international crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The concept of war crimes was developed when international humanitarian law was codified. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 (“Hague Law)” were a series of treaties and declarations that became among the first statements of the laws of war. The Geneva Conventions, comprising the 1864 Geneva Convention, the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, and the accompanying 1977 Additional Protocols (“Geneva Law”), subsequently codified norms of war, including identifying conduct that would amount to war crimes. In addition to the Hague Law and the Geneva Law, war crimes can be found in customary international law, international humanitarian law treaties, and in treaties of ad-hoc criminal tribunals (e.g., International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia). Twenty three cases, including warrant issuances, concerning war crimes have either been prosecuted or are currently pending at the ICC.

Support for the ICC varies by country. There are 124 countries that are party to the Rome Statute, as well as several other countries that signed the statute but did not ratify it. The European Union is a strong supporter of the ICC, and in 2011 adopted a resolution for a binding policy in support of the ICC in order to “continue the promotion of the universality and preservation of the integrity of the Rome Statute.” 

 The United States played a significant role in the establishment of the ICC. Originally, the Clinton administration signed the Rome Statute, but recommended that it not be ratified in the Senate due to concerns that the ICC prosecutor would have “unchecked power” and lead to politicized prosecutions. The Bush administration subsequently sent a note to the Secretary-General of the United Nations announcing that “the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty,” and that, “accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.”  The U.S. passed an act to prohibit U.S. agencies from assisting the ICC that stated that the U.S. “will not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC over US nationals.”

Today, the Biden administration has demonstrated a more cooperative attitude towards the ICC, but only in some instances. Last year, the U.S. provided evidence to support the ICC’s investigation into Russian war crimes in Ukraine, and has publicly “support(ed) the investigation conducted by the ICC as well as other accountability investigations,” when referring to Russia.

However, when the ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan submitted applications for arrest warrants regarding the situation in the State of Palestine, the Biden administration announced that it “fundamentally rejects” such actions. The U.S. argued that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the matter, since the U.S. does not recognize Palestine as a state, and Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute. However, Palestine is a state party to the ICC, and the ICC Pre-Trial chamber ruled in 2021 that it had jurisdiction over Gaza and the West Bank.[4]

In denouncing the prosecutor’s warrant application, President Biden argued that it falsely equated Israel and Hamas. Former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Germany’s Foreign Office, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala, and others denounced the request as well. 

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the subject of the arrest warrant application, condemned the request, saying it compared a democratic Israel with mass murderers (Hamas). He also called it an “absurd and false order” that is “pouring gasoline on the fires of antisemitism that are raging across the war.”

Khan’s charges against Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli Minister of Defense Gallant include allegations of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, and intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population. Charges against Hamas leaders included extermination, murder, taking hostages, rape and sexual assault, torture, and abuse of prisoners in harm to their personal dignity.

The allegations against Israel are supported by well-documented evidence. For example, Gaza went on a new UN famine alert on June 27 as “security experts warned that more than one in five households go entire days without eating.” According to the World Food Programme, child malnutrition in Gaza is higher than anywhere in the world. In March, two newborn baby girls died due to malnutrition and dehydration, and several humanitarian experts have warned of the catastrophic levels of hunger. Even the United States has consistently publicly said that Israel has not done enough to ensure humanitarian aid is entering Gaza, and President Biden has called the humanitarian situation “unacceptable.” Furthermore, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) has accused Israel of “deliberately blocking the delivery of water, food, and fuel, while willfully impeding humanitarian assistance.” HRW interviewed 11 Palestinians in Gaza who described having no food, water, or electricity. After October 7th, “Defense Minister Yoav Gallant of Israel said that ‘no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel’ would be allowed into Gaza, the crowded and impoverished coastal territory that is already under a 16-year blockade by Israel and Egypt.” Starvation is illegal under Article. 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Haaretz reported that “[T]he Israeli army says 9,000 terrorists have been killed since the Gaza war began. Defense officials and soldiers, however, tell Haaretz that these are often civilians whose only crime was to cross an invisible line drawn by the IDF.” This report is consistent with a quote from an IDF soldier in a +972 report who said “it was not clear from the reports whether soldiers had shot militants or unarmed civilians and many times, it sounded like someone was caught up in a situation, and we opened fire.” Even the United States said that it is reasonable to assume that there were instances in which Israel did not act in accordance with International Humanitarian Law, though did not actually accuse Israel of doing so. A U.S. State Department official who resigned said that a State Department report sent to Congress “falsely stated that Israel was not blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza.” The report noted that Israel “did not fully cooperate” with the U.S. and other efforts to get humanitarian aid into Gaza in the period after October 7th.

Khan’s accusations against Israeli war crimes are thus not meritless. Khan’s office also submitted evidence that included interviews with survivors, eyewitnesses, authenticated video, photo and audio material, and more. The request for warrants was also accompanied by an “impartial” group of international law experts, including “Sir Adrian Fulford PC, former Lord Justice of Appeal and former International Criminal Court Judge; Baroness Helena Kennedy KC, President of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute; Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC, former Deputy Legal Adviser at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Danny Friedman KC; and two of my Special Advisers – Amal Clooney and His Excellency Judge Theodor Meron CMG.”

Khan also rightly states that “Israel, like all States, has a right to take action to defend its population. That right, however, does not absolve Israel or any State of its obligation to comply with international humanitarian law.” Furthermore, those who argue the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this case also say that the ICC should intervene “only when States are unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out the investigation or prosecution of these crimes.”[14] However, “according to human rights experts in Israel, the country’s military has shown a lack of transparency and will to investigate its own soldiers,” and there has not been any prosecution of high level Israeli officials for alleged war crimes, nor has there been a meaningful change in Israeli operations. In the past, the Israeli Supreme Court dismissed a petition to remove settlements in the West Bank, which are largely considered (even by the United States) to be in violation of the International Humanitarian Law. 

The United States position regarding potential prosecution of Israeli officials stands in contrast to the support the U.S. showed for the ICC investigation of Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Historically, the U.S. has selectively supported ICC actions when they aligned with its interests. Ukraine is not an ICC member, but the United States has supported ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants against Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova. Their support for past ICC investigations goes beyond Russia. In 2011, the U.S. advocated and voted in favor to refer the situation in Libya to the ICC for investigation. In 2013, they helped facilitate the transfer of Bosco Ntaganda to the ICC, and in 2015 helped facilitate Dominic Ongwen’s transfer to the ICC. These instances reveal a pragmatic approach, where the U.S. endorses ICC interventions that coincide with its foreign policy objectives.

The United States’ disapproval of the request for arrest warrants against Israel goes beyond just verbal condemnation. Prior to Khan’s request for warrants, 12 U.S. senators threatened Khan in a written letter. “The United States will not tolerate politicized attacks by the ICC on our allies. Target Israel and we will target you. If you move forward with the measures indicated in the report, we will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees and associates, and bar you and your families from the United States. You have been warned.” Congress has also passed a bill to impose sanctions on the ICC. This threat against Khan highlights that United States interest lies in holding power with its allies, rather than upholding international law.

The United States’ position on the enforcement of international law is important as a leader of democracy and the rule of law. Their position on both warrants for Israeli and Russian officials reflect their geopolitical interests in the respective regions. The arguments against ICC jurisdiction in Palestine are not supported in law, and the threats made by United States officials towards Khan emphasize the attempt to protect their allies from being held accountable for their actions, using the fear factor. If major powers like the United States continue to undermine the legitimacy of the ICC, the court risks further criticism and puts the validity of the ICC at risk, which has already received substantial criticism for focusing overwhelming attention on African actors. In order to ensure that all people are held accountable for their severe criminal actions in times of conflict, the United States and other major powers need to adopt their policy and stance regarding the ICC.

10 Sources for Further Reading 

1. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2024/07/18/crimes-of-war-in-gaza-kenneth-roth/
2. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/role-icc#:~:text=The%20Hague%2Dbased%20ICC%20seeks,Russia%2C%20and%20the%20United%20States.
3. https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/east-mediterranean-mena/israelpalestine/all-eyes-hague-icc-prosecutors
4. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/02/qa-international-criminal-court-and-united-states
5. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2580&context=jil#:~:text=The%20ICC%20is%20currently%20facing%20significant%20challenges%20which%20may%20put,Russia%20and%20the%20United%20States.
6. https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2024/05/23/powerful-states-are-finding-it-harder-to-dodge-legal-challenges-says-marc-weller
7. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://palestine.un.org/en/271470-hamas-israel-committed-war-crimes-claims-independent-rights-probe&ved=2ahUKEwjmjd3rz6CHAxWUMlkFHS91CSIQFnoECDgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0brk9YZ0yMFBZNWXFLECbz
8. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-sergei-ivanovich-kobylash-and
9. https://www.csis.org/analysis/icc-wants-putin-now-what
10. https://cfj.org/news/amal-clooney-publishes-expert-report-supporting-icc-arrest-warrant-applications-for-crimes-in-israel-and-palestine/

Roe v. Wade and Its Impact on Abortion Rights in America 

Abortion has become one of the most contentious issues in the United States, characterized by intense political polarization, deep ideological divides, and passionate debates. 

The landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade established that, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, women have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. When concluding this decision, the Court considered both the right to get an abortion as well as individual states’ desire to protect women’s health and potential human life, which vary during different stages of pregnancy. 

Accordingly, the Court determined that in the first trimester, the state cannot regulate abortion; in the second trimester, the state can impose regulations to protect the mother’s health; and in the third trimester, once the fetus reaches the point of “viability,” the state may regulate or ban abortion, except when it is necessary to protect the mother’s life or health. This decision set a crucial legal precedent that significantly influenced national discourse on abortion. 

Over the subsequent decades, the Supreme Court faced numerous cases challenging whether various abortion laws infringed upon a woman’s right to an abortion. Ultimately, the decision’s precedent influenced more than 30 Supreme Court cases involving restrictions on abortion access. This precedent was highly controversial, and following the Court’s ruling, opponents of the decision pressured state and federal legislators to enact laws prohibiting or restricting abortion access. 

The Overturning of Roe v. Wade and Its Implications

In July 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in its decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. 

Planned Parenthood v. Casey addressed state regulations on abortion, such as informed consent, waiting periods, spousal notification, and parental consent for minors. The case established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they impose an “undue burden” on individuals seeking an abortion before fetal viability. 

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization challenged Mississippi’s law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. The majority opinion, led by Justice Samuel Alito, argued that the Constitution does not explicitly protect the right to abortion and suggested it is not fundamental to constitutional freedoms.

Justice Alito listed numerous reasons for overturning these precedents: 1) the Constitution does not explicitly mention abortion, 2) abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions, 3) the importance of state authority in balancing life interests against the desire for abortion, and 4) concerns that defining abortion as a right to autonomy could open the door to justifying other controversial rights like drug use or prostitution. 

This decision means that a woman’s ability to choose to continue a pregnancy or have an abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution. Instead, each state can now independently decide if abortion is legal or not. 

Rising Abortion Rates and Increased Travel Post-Roe

Despite hopes from anti-abortion groups that the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade would reduce abortions in the U.S., the opposite seems to be apparent. While some states have imposed new restrictions on abortions, overall abortion rates are increasing in abortion-legal states. 

Significant shifts in access to abortions across states are also evident. Republican-controlled states have imposed widespread bans or restrictions on abortions, resulting in significant increases in travel for abortions. According to U.S. News & World Report, in 2023, approximately 170,000 people traveled for abortion-related care, which is almost double the amount of people who traveled for an abortion in 2019 or 2020. Since the Dobbs decision, states where abortion is legal, like Illinois, have become destinations for out-of-state patients seeking abortions, with approximately 37,000 people from 41 states traveling there for abortions in 2023. Jennifer Welch, President and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood, emphasized, “As more states put forward these bans and restrictions on abortion care, more patients will be forced to travel.”

New restrictions continue to be imposed, even in states that have supported those seeking an abortion in the past. To prepare for the influx, states that legalized abortion have built new abortion centers along the borders and doubled the size of pre-existing ones.

How did SCOTUS’ Decision in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine Impact Abortion Pill Access?

In addition to people traveling to receive abortion care, thousands of women in states with abortion bans are obtaining abortion pills through websites or community-based distributors, which has also led to ideological divides.

On June 13th, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled against the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in the case FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. This lawsuit challenged the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a drug used in more than 60% of abortions in the United States. The plaintiffs wanted the FDA to impose stricter controls on mifepristone, making it harder for doctors to prescribe and for pregnant women to obtain. However, the plaintiffs — who consist of doctors and medical associations who do not prescribe or use mifepristone — failed to demonstrate direct monetary injuries, property injuries, or physical injuries from the FDA’s actions. Instead, they have primarily moral and ideological concerns about abortion. The Court acknowledged these concerns as legitimate but insufficient grounds under Article III of the Constitution to sue in federal court. 

Although the ruling was unanimous in favor of the FDA, there is speculation that this decision is unlikely to mark the end of efforts to restrict access to the pill or similar medications. According to NBC News, three states plan to take legal action to make abortion pills harder to obtain, and they anticipate more states will follow. Because of this trend, reproductive rights lawyers expect anti-abortion groups to seek out more plaintiffs to effectively challenge the legality of abortion pills in court. 

Impact of Recent Abortion Bans and Court Cases on Political Discourse

Following the overturning of Roe and recent developments in other abortion cases, public discourse on abortion has shifted to discuss the complexities of pregnancy and reproduction. The discussions are no longer just about access to abortion but also concerns like obtaining care during pregnancy complications, finding obstetricians in states with bans, hospital policies on miscarriages, and access to fertility treatments like in vitro fertilization. 

Elaine Kamarck, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, commented on the recent Supreme Court rulings, stating, “When the Dobbs case came down, I told my friends — somewhat but not entirely in jest — that America was about to be exposed to a lengthy seminar on obstetrics.”

More Republican women are now opposing their party’s “extreme” stance on abortion. Meanwhile, radical opponents of abortion argue that stories about women facing medical complications are exaggerated, claiming that “pro-abortion Democrats use fear-mongering to promote their radical agenda instead of providing women with the facts they deserve.” Despite these changes in individual views, partisan divides in abortion attitudes remain larger than before. Consequently, abortion and reproductive rights have become pivotal issues in the upcoming elections.

There has been a significant increase in the percentage of Americans identifying as single-issue voters on abortion rights, particularly among Black voters, Democrats, and women aged 18-29. According to the New York Times, the Biden campaign has capitalized on this shift by dispatching six women to battleground states to mobilize more voters, coinciding with the two-year anniversary of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The Biden campaign’s strategy around advocating for reproductive rights highlights the issue’s significance. The future of abortion rights in the United States will continue to shape the political landscape, influencing both policy and public opinion. 

Links for Further Reading:

1. Where Americans Go for Abortions in a Post-Roe World (US News & World Report) 

2. What the data says about abortion in the U.S. (Pew Research Center)

3. Abortion Debate Shifts as Election Nears: ‘Now It’s About Pregnancy’ (The New York Times) 

4. States where abortion is legal, banned, or under threat (The Washington Post)

5. Supreme Court Faces Another Major Abortion Decision (Newsweek)

6. Overturning Roe v. Wade: consequences for midlife women’s health and well-being (National Library of Medicine) 

7. Public Opinion on Abortion (Pew Research Center) 

8. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine: The Supreme Court could devastate nationwide access to safe and effective medication used in over 60% of all abortions (National Women’s Law Center) 

9. Where State Abortion Laws Stand Without Roe (US News & World Report) 

10. The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade 2 years ago. Here’s what’s happened since (CNN)

On June 13, pro-choice organizations across the nation celebrated the protection of medical abortion. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Drug Administration’s relaxed regulation of the abortion pill mifepristone against challenges from the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

Mifepristone, first approved by the FDA in 2000 under the drug Mifeprex, blocks the progesterone hormone to end pregnancy through ten weeks gestation when combined with a secondary drug, misoprostol. 

The use of mifepristone and misoprostol is the most common abortion procedure nationwide, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all abortions.

President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Jennifer Welch publicly praised the Court’s decision to protect access to mifepristone in a press release for Planned Parenthood of Illinois.

“This is a win for PPIL patients and people across the country who can continue to access safe and legal medical abortion,” Welch said.

Over the past two decades, routine reviews of Mifeprex have identified a low risk of drug complications with safety concerns resulting in only 0.4 percent of patients. 

However, anti-abortion advocates sought to challenge FDA regulations that allow patients to receive mifepristone by mail without first consulting with a doctor in-person.

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine — a conglomerate of anti-abortion groups such as the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Pediatricians, the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, and several individual physicians — argued that mifepristone complications have harmed the practices of doctors.

CEO and general counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom Kristen Waggoner led the challenge against the FDA, ultimately losing the first major reproductive rights case since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization which overturned constitutionally-protected access to abortion in 2022.

Prior to reaching the Supreme Court, Texas-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a former Christian legal advocate, ruled in favor of Waggoner’s claims that the FDA’s 2000 approval of mifepristone and 2021 decision to broaden access via telehealth harms patients and doctors. 

The FDA appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the ruling of the lower court in August 2023 before appealing to the Supreme Court.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion of the Court in favor of the FDA, overturning the opinions of the two lower courts. All justices agreed that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine lacked adequate standing – defined as the capacity of a party to bring a lawsuit to court – to challenge the FDA.

Kavanaugh wrote that parties do not have standing “simply because others are allowed to engage in certain activities – at least without the plaintiffs demonstrating how they would be injured by the government’s alleged under-regulation of others.”

The decision sparked an outcry from anti-abortion groups concerned about the increased likelihood that abusers and bad actors can acquire the drug without in-person patient-doctor visits.

State Policy Director of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a group that aims to end all abortion in the United States, Katie Daniel called it a “sad day for all who value women’s health and unborn children’s lives.”

However, pro-choice legal scholars question whether the Court may have inadvertently encouraged future challenges to mifepristone. 

The Court opinion outlined the legal thresholds a plaintiff must reach for the Court to intervene, leaving open the possibility for a different decision on access to mifepristone if anti-abortion groups leverage plaintiffs that meet the requirements outlined by the Court.

Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health and law at Georgetown University, said that “it would be foolish to declare a victory” for medical abortion when the Court’s decision still leaves room for challenges to arise.

Gostin and other legal scholars are currently contemplating whether a second Trump presidency could legally restrict medical abortion under the Court’s decision. 

The 1873 Comstock Act restricts the mailing of “obscene” materials and is often invoked in anti-abortion arguments to ban mifepristone. The Department of Justice under the Biden administration notes an exemption for mailing mifepristone, but the Trump administration could interpret this differently. 

“This is absolutely a threat,” Gostin said. “It would affect everybody in the entire country, including the bluest of blue states. This would be an effective nationwide ban on the most common method of abortion.”

Mary Zeigler, a professor of law specializing in reproduction, healthcare, and conservatism at the University of California, Davis, shares Gostin’s concerns about the future protection of mifepristone. 

Though Zeigler described the Alliance’s arguments as “extraordinarily bad” by failing to prove standing to challenge the FDA, she remains concerned that doctors could theoretically prove direct injury by being forced to provide abortion care against their moral conscience.

Zeigler points to 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2022), also argued by Waggoner, in which the Court upheld the right to refuse service on the basis of religious beliefs due to a broad interpretation of federal conscience protections that prevent individuals from performing mandatory procedures that violate their personal and moral views.

While it is unclear whether similar arguments could apply to doctors, the Court is expected to see future challenges, this time from states. 

Missouri, Idaho and Kansas are currently seeking to challenge mifepristone on the basis that state-run hospitals and insurance programs are directly harmed by paying for treatments to address mifepristone complications. 

Senate Democrats are rushing to protect access to abortion before this happens.

In the days following the Court’s ruling, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) with the co-sponsorship of Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) placed a vote for the Reproductive Freedom for Women Act on the legislative calendar.

“This measure affirms a woman’s fundamental right to choose and calls for enshrining the protections of Roe v. Wade into law, as most Americans say they want,” Schumer said.

The bill states that: “It is the sense of Congress that – (1) protections for access to abortion rights and other reproductive health care after the Dobbs v. Jackson, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) decision on June 24, 2022 should be supported; and (2) the protections enshrined in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) should be restored and built upon, moving towards a future where there is reproductive freedom for all.”

Senate Republicans such as Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD) criticized the act as a “show vote” strategy to boost Democratic polls ahead of the 2024 election.

On July 10, the bill failed in a 49-44 vote. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) were the only Republicans to vote in favor of affirming abortion and reproductive healthcare.

Amid legislative obstacles and tightening state restrictions around the country, the Court’s decision to uphold FDA regulations remains a beacon of hope for pro-choice groups.

“This case was always about politics, not medical science, evidence, or patient safety,” Pro-Choice North Carolina wrote in a statement on the ruling. “We know this is not the end of political challenges against medication abortion, but we welcome today’s news from the Court.”

—

Sources for further reading:

Brendix, Aria and Lawrence Hurley (June 14, 2024). NBC News. Abortion pill access could still face challenges after Supreme Court decision.

Federal Drug Administration (n.d.). Questions and Answers on Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy Through Ten Weeks Gestation. 

FioRito, Mary (June 22, 2024). National Catholic Register. FDA and Abortion Pills: Supreme Court’s Decision Solely About ‘Standing’ (National Catholic Register).

Fritze, John and Tierney Sneed (June 15, 2024). CNN. Supreme Court’s abortion pill ruling puts new focus on conservative Trump judge in Texas.

Klein, Betsy (June 13, 2024). CNN. Biden casts blame on GOP for attacks on medication abortion following Supreme Court ruling.

Johnson, Julia (June 23, 2024). FOX News. Balance of power: Schumer stretches abortion rights votes further into 2024, seizing on GOP vulnerability.

Lewis, Tanya (June 18, 2024). Scientific American. Abortion Pill Access Is Still Under Threat After SCOTUS Ruling, Legal Experts Warn.

McPhillips, Deidre (March 19, 2024). CNN. US abortions reach highest level in over a decade, sparked by surge in medication abortion. 

Nasman, Carl (May 23, 2024). BBC News. Louisiana designates abortion pills as controlled substances.

Planned Parenthood of Illinois (June 13, 2024). Planned Parenthood of Illinois Celebrates Protection of Abortion Pill.

Pro-Choice North Carolina (June 13, 2024). Pro-Choice North Carolina Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

Radford, Antoinette et al. (June 13, 2024). CNN. Supreme Court maintains access to abortion pill.

Rubin, Jordan (June 13, 2024). MSNBC. Supreme Court rejects mifepristone abortion pill challenge on standing grounds.

Supreme Court of the United States (June 13, 2024). Food and Drug Administration Et Al. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024).

A Brief History on Student Loan Debt

The cost of attending four-year private and public colleges have nearly tripled since 1980, even after accounting for inflation. This creates a burden on America’s middle class as the cumulative federal student loan debt reached $1.6 trillion and continues to rise as more than 45 million borrowers are forced to make high monthly payments. Understanding this, President Biden made a campaign promise in 2020 that he would forgive public colleges and universities student debt loans for low-income and middle class students.

Biden Administration’s Student Debt Relief Plan

Following up on his campaign promise, President Biden, in August of 2022, delivered a three-part plan that promised to cancel up to $20,000 of student debt for Pell Grant recipients and $10,000 for non-Pell Grant recipients. The three-part plan worked to provide low- and middle-income families with debt relief for up to 40 million people.

Legal Issues with Student Debt Relief Plan

However, Biden’s one-time student debt relief program was ruled upon by the Supreme Court in 2023 after the Biden v. Nebraska rose through the courts. In the Biden v. Nebraska case, six states came together and claimed that the forgiveness program violated the separation of powers and Administrative Procedure Act. These six states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina — argued that debt cancellation would negatively affect financial stability. Specifically, lenders’ financial stability is affected by their profit from student loan repayments and interest. Therefore, student debt relief harms the broader scope of the financial system. The petitioner, Biden, argued that under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) the Secretary of Education was given the authority to forgive student loans. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled to reject Biden’s plan by claiming that the Biden-Harris Administration overstepped its authority and that the HEROES Act does not grant the Secretary of Education authority to waive student loans. 

Plan B for Student Debt Relief

Despite this Supreme Court ruling, President Biden attempted to deliver on a key campaign promise and drafted another proposal less than a year after the Supreme Court ruling. On April 8th, 2024 in Wisconsin, the Biden-Harris Administration announced that there are new plans to provide debt relief to over 30 million Americans. Biden’s major push to fulfill the student debt campaign promise comes from the belief that following through with this plan will aid his standing amongst younger voters. 

With Wisconsin being seen as a toss up state in the upcoming presidential election, Biden campaigned hard to detail the new student debt initiative. It is reported by CNBC that around 70% of Gen Z voters agree that student debt cancellation is important to them in the 2024 election. One Gen Z student who is about to enter college wrote that “As a lower middle class American planning on attending college, I have found myself extremely stressed about the idea of having to go into debt to better my education”, showing how important student debt relief is to young voters.

Biden’s latest proposal takes on a more targeted approach by narrowing aid to specific groups of borrowers. These specific groups may include those experiencing financial hardship as well as those who have been repaying student debt for decades. Diving deeper into the differences between his initial student debt relief plan and the latest one, the White House states that Biden’s Plan B has a more limited scope. Even though the latest proposal is more tailored, the new student debt relief plan can still forgive up to an estimate of 30 million Americans. The paperwork filed by the Education Department for Plan B listed four categories of individuals who can gain relief. The first category allows borrowers who owe more than they originally borrowed to experience relief by eliminating up to $20,000 in interest. Those with annual incomes that are below $120,000 will be enrolled in income-driven repayment plans and will have all their interest erased. Additionally, individuals who have been paying undergraduate student loans for at least 20 years and those paying graduate loans at least 25 years will be a part of the debt relief group of borrowers. Individuals who attended colleges or programs with low financial value, earnings equal or below a high school diploma, and borrowers who are eligible for other forgiveness programs at the federal level would have their loans erased as well. In order to develop this proposal, several hearings under the federal rules process occurred through consulting outside experts, such as students, college officials, state officials, borrowers advocates, and loan services. In order to allow this new plan to legally stand strong, the White House argues the Higher Education Act rather than HEROES Act grants the Secretary of Education the power to waive student loans in specific cases, says Time Magazine. This new legal approach was pursued by the Department of Education who developed an alternative path for debt relief through negotiated rulemaking under the Higher Education Act.

Through more than 24 executive actions, the Biden-Harris Administration already approved $146 billion for the student debt relief plan which cancels the full amount for 4 million Americans as well as make millions of student loan payments easier through the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan and expansion of the existing income-driven repayment (IDR) plans. 

This approval included fixing Public Service Loan Forgiveness as well as Income-Driven Repayment plans in order to give borrowers relief. Furthermore, this plan launches the SAVE plan, which is the most affordable student loan repayment program yet. Through SAVE, undergraduate loans are cut in half and unpaid interest that causes debt to grow is eliminated which helps millions’ of borrowers monthly payments go down to $0. To date, nearly 8 million borrowers have enrolled in SAVE, with 4.5 million paying a monthly payment of $0 and 1 million more paying a monthly payment below $100. Additionally, the Pell Grants had its largest increase in a decade, resulting in even more debt relief. Student debt relief efforts are helping millions by relieving individuals of having to choose between paying off loans and their livelihood. One such individual is a single mother who noted “My electricity was regularly shut off; I was evicted at one point,” and that “Biden’s forgiveness program would’ve felt like a ‘clean slate.” The Biden-Harris Administration has been moving towards fulfilling Biden’s 2020 campaign promise by holding colleges accountable for causing millions of borrowers to have significant debt without job securement. 

Federal Courts Work to Block Biden Administration Again 

CBS News reports that on June 25th, 2024, Biden’s new plan for student debt relief was again targeted by the Republican party. Two federal courts blocked his administration from forgiving debt and lowering monthly payments by arguing, once again, that the Biden administration was overstepping its authority and creating financial harm to lenders. Through judges in Missouri and Kansas ruling in favor of these arguments, aspects of the SAVE plan were halted. Specifically, the issued injunctions prevented the Biden-Harris Administration from lowering monthly payments from 10% to 5% of borrowers’ discretionary income and paused loan forgiveness until a final decision was reached. 

Biden’s student loan repayment plan resumed on July 1st, 2024 when the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling granted the Biden Administration request to pause the decision made in the lower courts and allow them to continue with the SAVE plan. This ruling was a big win for Biden as the SAVE plan was one of the biggest accomplishments of his term. While the injunction from the federal judge in Kansas was quickly appealed by the Department of Justice and led to the appeals court allowing Biden to continue with lowering the monthly payments of borrowers, student loan forgiveness through SAVE is still on hold due to the second injunction by Missouri’s federal judge. This injunction resulted in the Biden administration not being able to forgive individual student debt under the SAVE plan. The Washington Post notes that the Department of Justice is expected to appeal Missouri’s decision soon. Many Republican-led states are arguing that the SAVE plan is Biden’s roundabout attempt to forgive student debt after the Supreme Court decision of Biden v. Nebraska struck his plan down last year. Despite the opposing parties’ best efforts, President Biden continues to fight for student debt relief. 

Links for Further Reading:

1. What to know about Biden’s latest attempt at student loan cancellation
2. Biden-Harris Administration Announces Additional $7.7 Billion in Approved Student Debt Relief for 160,000 Borrowers
3. President Biden’s Student Debt Relief Plan
4. The Biden-Harris Administration’s Student Debt Relief Plan Explained
5. President Joe Biden Outlines New Plans to Deliver Student Debt Relief to Over 30 Million Americans Under the Biden-⁠Harris Administration
6. Supreme Court strikes down Biden student-loan forgiveness program
7. Two courts just blocked parts of Biden’s SAVE student loan repayment plan. Here’s what to know.
8. 2020 presidential candidates on student loan debt
9. Biden administration will soon roll out a sweeping new student loan forgiveness plan
10. Biden student loan repayment plan to resume amid legal challenges, federal appeals court rules

Traffic in Manhattan during peak rush hour times 

According to the Kanas City Area Transportation Authority, approximately 85 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector are related to the surface transportation system. As a result, cities where there is a lot of traffic caused by cars are hurting due to air pollution and bad air quality. One way we can combat this pollution and greenhouse gas emissions is congestion pricing, a strategy designed to mitigate traffic congestion and environmental pollution by charging vehicles a fee to enter urban areas during peak times. Congestion pricing incentivizes people to use public transportation, one of the most effective actions individuals can take to conserve energy. For example, a person who switches from 20-mile commuting alone by car to existing public transportation can reduce their CO2 emissions by 20 pounds per day. This would result in a 10% reduction in all greenhouse gasses produced by a typical two-adult, two-car household. Not only does congestion pricing reduce traffic volumes and lower emissions, but the fee would generate revenue for public transportation improvements. New York City aimed to implement congestion pricing by imposing a $15 fee on vehicles entering Manhattan below 60th Street. NYC, known to have the worst traffic congestion in the United States, would be the first city to implement congestion pricing in the United States. 

Impacts of Congestion Pricing: 

Lower Emissions: A fee of a specific dollar amount encourages individuals to use public transportation, resulting in fewer vehicles on the road. This would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Cities implementing congestion pricing, such as London and Stockholm, have reported significant decreases in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM) levels. 

Revenue for Infrastructure Improvements: The fee would be used to upgrade New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) by modernizing subway signals, introducing electric buses, and extending the Second Avenue subway to Harlem. Such improvements would enhance the quality of public transportation and make it a more attractive option than driving​. 

With a long history, beginning in 2007 with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, congestion pricing was finally approved by the New York State Legislature in 2019. It was set to launch on June 30th, 2024, following the installation of necessary infrastructure like 110 toll gantries. However, on June 5th, 2024, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul announced an indefinite delay in implementing congestion pricing. There are a couple of consequences to this decision. The first is that traffic congestion within New York City will continue and might rise above the current levels. Secondly, there will be an immediate reduction in emissions, so climate change will keep occurring in NYC. Lastly, updating the MTA is postponed, which will continue the unreliability of public transportation in NYC.

Governor Kathy Hochul Delaying Congestion Pricing on June 5th, 2024

Reasons for the Delay

Economic Concerns: The Governor’s decision was based upon the high inflation and high cost of living in NYC; she believed placing the toll would burden New Yorkers. Governor Hochul stated, “In this moment of financial stress, high inflation, and already the high cost of living for so many New Yorkers, my focus must be on putting more money back in people’s pockets”.”

Political Concerns: The Governor also delayed congestion pricing because she thought it could hurt Democrats in competitive races for the House of Representatives in the New York suburbs, thus affecting their efforts to take control of the House in the November elections. In addition, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also worried that the toll would harm Democrats in November.

Reactions to the Delay: Support and Against

Support Delay: The decision to delay the implementation of congestion pricing has elicited various reactions. On one side, there has been support from local politicians: Some local politicians and suburban representatives have supported the delay, arguing that it protects constituents from additional financial burdens and potential economic drawbacks. New York Congressman Pat Ryan, representing parts of New York City’s suburbs, praised the decision, stating, “I am proud to say we have stopped congestion pricing in its tracks. Now it is time to get to work on a plan that makes sense for the entire state, not just New York City.”

Protestors rallied in NYC on the eve of what would have been the implementation of congestion pricing

Against Delay: Transit advocates and environmental groups have criticized the decision, stating that it stalls critical infrastructure improvements and undermines efforts to reduce emissions and traffic congestion in Manhattan. The Executive Vice President of the Regional Plan Association, Kate Slevin, described the delay as a “total betrayal of New Yorkers and our climate.” She emphasized that delaying congestion pricing would hurt millions of transit riders relying on improvements and hinder the economic success of the broader region​. 

Moving Forward

This delay now raises concerns for NYS legislators on improving public transportation while simultaneously combatting the environment. Without the anticipated $1 billion in annual revenue from congestion pricing, the MTA’s plans to modernize the aging subways, reduce train delays, invest in electric buses, and make the subway more accessible for people with disabilities could face significant setbacks. 

A flooding subway in NYC, showing the need for funds to modernize

Moreover, congestion pricing was vital in reducing urban air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The delay in congestion pricing means that traffic congestion in Manhattan will likely continue. Not only will travel times be high for all commuters, but high vehicle emissions will continue, contributing to poor air quality and health issues such as asthma and other respiratory problems.

Air Quality in New York City is among the worst in the United States, and a large factor is because of the amount of cars

Another concern is about equity and access. High-income users are more likely to benefit from faster trips by paying the congestion fee, while low-income users might opt for less expensive alternatives. The less expensive alternative would be the subway or public buses, but in this scenario, subways and public buses need improvement and more funding, so low-income users are hurting both ways. 

Conclusion

Governor Kathy Hochul’s decision to delay congestion pricing has sparked a significant debate about balancing economic pressures, environmental goals, and political strategy. As New Yorkers navigate this complex issue, the future of the city’s transportation and environmental policies remains to be determined. The decision underscores the complexity of implementing large-scale urban policy initiatives and the need for adaptive strategies considering current realities and future goals. Addressing these challenges will require innovative thinking and a commitment to economic and environmental sustainability.

Ten further Readings:

1. https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/05/business/ny-gov-hochul-delays-indefinitely-controversial-nyc-congestion-pricing-plan/index.html#:~:text=New%20York%20Governor%20Kathy%20Hochul%20announced%20Wednesday%20she%20is%20indefinitely,deal%20and%20a%20win%20for 
2. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/nyc-comptroller-lander-coalition-of-legal-experts-and-potential-plaintiffs-announce-plan-to-explore-legal-avenues-to-resume-congestion-pricing/
3. https://abc7ny.com/post/congestion-pricing-nyc-delay-deals-stunning-blow-city/14914824/
4. https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/joseph-p-addabbo-jr/statement-senator-joseph-p-addabbo-jr-congestion
5. https://www.liherald.com/stories/congestion-pricing-ed-ra-vehicles,208662
6. https://www.ctinsider.com/politics/article/ny-congestion-pricing-ct-gov-ned-lamont-response-19509371.php
7. https://congestionreliefzone.mta.info/tolling
8. https://lalota.house.gov/media/editorial/save-our-suburbs-sos-governor-hochuls-congestion-pricing-delay-misses-mark
9. https://www.amny.com/transit/congestion-pricing-mta-board-delay-june-2024/
10. https://greenercars.org/greenest/
11. https://citylimits.org/2024/07/11/whats-at-stake-for-the-environment-in-hochuls-decision-to-halt-congestion-pricing/#:~:text=It%20also%20means%20losing%20other,vehicles%20entering%20the%20congestion%20zone.

Introduction

Second Amendment rights have long been a contentious issue, but a recent Supreme Court decision was the first to break a series of major gun legislation that have been expanding gun rights since 2008. (APNews) The United States v. Rahimi case was a life-saving decision that reversed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that allowed abusers to own guns. (Everytown) Rahimi has brought renewed attention to the complex intersection of domestic violence convictions and gun ownership rights while addressing fundamental questions of public safety, constitutional rights, and the implications of criminal convictions on firearm possession. In this case, the court was not analyzing whether the ban on guns for abusers is a commendable policy goal, but rather if 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(8), a specific 1994 statute that upholds this ban, is constitutional under the Second Amendment. (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit) This law precisely concerns “the prohibition against disposal of firearms to, or receipt or possession of firearms by, persons who are subject to domestic violence protection orders.” (DOJ) Yet, in the middle of Rahimi’s court proceedings the Supreme Court decided incredibly relevant gun legislation. In 2022, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, a Supreme Court case, decided that “gun restrictions had to be analyzed based on a historical understanding of the right to bear arms.” (NBC). This undermined all existing gun laws and restrictions in the country, reversed Rahimi’s case, and ultimately moved a district court case into a Supreme Court case. 

Background and Context

U.S. v. Rahimi revolves around the arrest and subsequent legal proceedings involving Zackey Rahimi, who was convicted of domestic violence-related charges. In December 2019, Rahimi allegedly assaulted his ex-girlfriend, knocking her onto the ground in a parking lot before dragging and locking her inside his car. When Rahimi realized that a bystander had seen the entire assault occur, he took out a gun and fired at him. He subsequently threatened his ex-girlfriend with the firearm if she told anyone about the abuse. In February 2020, the court granted Rahimi’s ex-girlfriend a civil protection order to safeguard against his behavior. This did not stop Rahimi from returning to his ex-girlfriend’s house or becoming further involved in violent gun-related incidents. (Everytown) Between 2020-2021 Rahimi was involved in several violent shootings and a hit-and-run in Arlington, Texas. He was still under the Civil Protection Order (CPO) for assault against his ex-girlfriend during the time of the series of violent incidents. Thus, he was ultimately indicted for violating federal law 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(8), which makes it illegal for a person under a restraining order to possess firearms. (LII) Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment as violating his Second Amendment right, leading the Fifth Circuit of Appeals to reopen his case. (SCOTUS)                                                                                                                                                                                   

Fifth Circuit Ruling

Per Bruen, the Fifth Circuit reopened Rahimi’s case and reversed its decision, which applied in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. (Hopkins) The court acknowledged that Rahimi was far from a model citizen but that it was not constitutional to disarm him due to the protective order. (Hopkins) Bruen’s ruling created a new test to evaluate gun legislation. Judges had to discern whether current laws were consistent with the nation’s historical firearm regulations. Laws that specifically targeted domestic abusers did not exist during the time of the nation’s founding, and women as a class were underrepresented in the law. Yet, because the court found no identical law from the 1700s or 1800s, the Fifth Circuit court was able to overturn the ban on gun restrictions for abusers. (ACLU)

Joint Amicus Brief                                                           

The ACLU, Everytown for Gun Safety, and other advocacy organizations submitted a joint amicus brief, calling the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s decision. Sandra Park, a senior staff attorney in the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, stated, “We cannot stand by as federal courts rely on the historical subordination of women to strike down legal protections extended to survivors of domestic violence.” (ACLU) The brief also cited how the Fifth Circuit court had misinterpreted and applied the Bruen test and failed to recognize that the Second Amendment allows the government to disarm people who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens. (ACLU) Another statement on the brief was by Sasha Drobnick, Director of Appellate Litigation at Network for Victim Recovery of DC. She described how “if allowed to stand, the 5th Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Rahimi, women, children, and men will die. They will die despite their legal right to–and legally recognized need for– protection from domestic abusers because protection orders will no longer provide a critical remedy to keep them and others safe…No reading of history can support failure to regulate individuals who pose the clear danger that abusers with guns represent.” (TSSC)

Supreme Court Ruling

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal law prohibiting abusers who were issued a protective order from owning guns was constitutional within the Second Amendment, overturning the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. (Everytown) While the vote was an 8 to 1 decision in favor of the Biden Administration, the verdict still exposed division among gun rights issues as five justices each wrote a separate concurring opinion. (NBC) Chief Justice John Roberts gave the majority opinion, writing that “since the United States was founded, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.” (SCOTUS) Throughout the court’s discussion, the arguments that the Biden administration had made in favor of the law were overlooked, such as that the government can disarm people who are not “responsible gun users.” (NBC) Attorney General Merrick Garland was in favor of the ruling, citing that it “protects victims by keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals who pose a threat to their intimate partners and children.” Thomas, the only dissenting justice and strict originalist and textualist, described how “not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue.” (SCOTUS)

Implications of the Supreme Court’s Reversal

While federal law prohibits individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning guns, enforcement and compliance with these restrictions vary widely by state. The Rahimi decision essentially puts a life-saving law back in place nationally and ensures that violent abusers do not have the constitutional right to own guns. Rahimi also allowed the Supreme Court to clarify how lower courts will apply the Bruen framework in future Second Amendment cases. Chief Justice Roberts clarified how to satisfy the Bruen test; there does not have to be an exact historical match, instead the laws have to contain broad shared historical principles. (NYT) This legislation also meant the difference between life and death for many survivors of domestic abuse, as nearly every month, 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner. (Everytown) In almost 70% of mass shootings, the perpetrator first killed a partner or family member and often had a history of domestic violence. (Hopkins)

Conclusion

The United States v. Rahimi decision highlights ongoing challenges in the regulation of firearm ownership in the United States. Policymakers, legal experts, and advocacy groups continue to navigate the contentious debate surrounding the Second Amendment, but this case serves as a critical precedent for advancing public safety measures while upholding constitutional rights.

Suggestions for Further Reading:

1. https://www.everytown.org/rahimi-scotus/
2. SCOTUS (Rahimi) full case
3. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-upholds-domestic-violence-gun-restriction-rcna137782
4. https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/21/politics/supreme-court-guns-rahimi/index.htmlLinks to an external site.
5. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-915
6. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/2023/questions-and-answers-on-us-v-rahimi-the-major-gun-case-before-the-supreme-court-during-its-2023-2024-term
7. https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi
8. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-11001-CR2.pdf
9. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/2023/opinion-the-fifth-circuits-rahimi-decision-protects-abusers-access-to-guns-the-supreme-court-must-act-to-protect-survivors-of-domestic-violence
10. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2024/05/rahimi-decision-timing-and-opinion-writing-predictions
11. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-domestic-violence.html

One of the largest controversies of the Biden Administration has been the ongoing “border crisis,” which has seen untold millions of immigrants, both through legal and illegal means, cross the border.  This in turn has spurred large discussion over what this could mean for an already weakened economy, the labor market, and crime within the United States.  Recently, a ruling has provided a glimpse into how our judicial courts are navigating through immigration laws.  This ruling was Department of State v. Munoz.

The plaintiff, Sandra Munoz,

is a U.S. citizen who filed the case on behalf of her spouse Luis Asencio-Cordero, an El Salvadorian who entered the U.S. through illegal means.  Munoz had earlier filed an immigrant visa for Asencio-Cordero, however, he was required to leave the U.S. to apply for a visa.  Asencio-Cordero complied and left the U.S., but his visa was denied on the grounds of being suspected of belonging to MS-13, a violent gang.  A consular officer identified his membership through “gang-affiliated tattoos,” however Asencio-Cordero denies any involvement.  Munoz then sued on his behalf, claiming that the consulate had violated Munoz’s constitutional liberty and interest by not providing a sufficient reason that qualifies for “unlawful activity.”  The district court had agreed with the State Department that it had provided enough evidence to show “unlawful activity.”  However, the Ninth Circuit on appeal then reversed the decision on the grounds that Asencio-Cordero was not given a sufficient reason at the time of his denial, even if the State Department later gave evidence in favor of “unlawful activity.”  With two conflicting results between the district court and Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari.  On a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that Munoz does not hold a fundamental “interest” in Asencio-Cordero’s citizenship.

The vote was split on ideological grounds,

with Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivering the opinion of the court.  In her reasoning, Justice Barrett warns of “judicial overreach” and reaffirms trust in the Executive Department authority to make decisions without the discretion of the courts.  Interesting enough, Justice Barrett draws a fine line between the rights of marriage.  Within her opinion, Justice Barrett affirms the right of Munoz to marry Asencio-Cordero, but denies that the interest in marriage covers an interest in a spouse gaining citizenship within the U.S..  This is a good example of Justice Barrett’s long use of textualism within court decisions.  She affirms the rights provided to marriage but is unwilling to extend those to other issues such as citizenship.  In the end of her opinion, Justice Barrett confirms the dominant theme when it comes to immigration in the conservative Supreme Court, that “the United States can, as a matter of public policy forbid aliens or classes of aliens from coming within its borders, and no limits can be put by the courts upon that power.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissents. 

In her dissent, she largely emphasizes a humanitarian approach.  Munoz and Asencio-Cordero had lived in the U.S. since 2010 and raised a child together.  Asencio-Cordero’s visa wasn’t rejected until five years later.  The evidence concerning the tattoos belonging to MS-13 was faulty, as Asencio-Cordero had gotten them while a teenager and depicts imagery stereotypical of the latino community rather than a specific gang.  While Justice Sotomayor agrees that however faulty the evidence was, the State Department had provided a reason, which should have ended the case.  However, Justice Sotomayor decries what she sees as an aggressive overreach by the conservative justices as an effort to effectively limit marriage rights.  Her main fear is that this court opinion directly contrasts long-standing precedents made in Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges, which gave interracial and same-sex couples the right to marry.  Justice Sotomayor believes these cases give married couples the right to exercise their marriage wherever they choose.  This creates a worrying future where an executive branch or state government could effectively limit marriage depending on jurisdiction.

The long-standing effects of Munoz are murky. 

The Biden Administration on June 18th recently announced “Parole in Place” amnesty, which effectively grants alien spouses of U.S. citizens, and who have also resided in the U.S. for more than tens years, amnesty.  While this measure was likely put into place as a result of Munoz, it won’t completely undo the Supreme Court’s decision.  Even with amnesty, an illegal immigrant could still be denied a visa under Munoz, further complicating why the Biden Administration would decide to implement such a procedure.  It could point to the fact that the Biden Administration is four months away from an election cycle, making it unlikely to commit fully to a controversial amnesty program, and instead opted for a temporary solution.

This points then to the longstanding topic of immigration within the U.S., and one that will likely be a dominant theme heading into the presidential election.  Conservatives, especially the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank that has been influential within the Trump Administration, has pointed to the fact that 64% of federal arrests have been non-citizens, a shocking statistic considering they only account for 7% of the population.  This directly conflicts with more liberal theory, which has lauded increased immigration provided a much-needed boost to the economy, and has further strengthened job creation and the labor market.  What is actually true about immigration is rather murky, mainly due to the fact that immigration control has been a recent measure in the U.S., where the country had fairly open borders until the late 19th century.  The expansion of immigration reform and control has led to a vast network of complicated, and often conflicting, measures determining who qualifies for citizenship.  However, the surge of immigration to the U.S. has increased, and regardless of specific control measures, reform is needed to the system.  

This has become a pain for the Biden Administration,

as they have to find a middle-ground between meaningful national security and committing to the long-standing principles of the Democratic Party.  This has proved to turn in favor of former President Trump who has used President Biden’s gray immigration policies as a method of showing that Democrats are unable to commit to open-border policies, and instead point to more immigration control, which is proving to sway moderate voters who want a more defined plan for immigration policies.  

Overall, Munoz is a continuance of how the Judicial Branch and Executive Branch intersect in immigration control, and sets the stage for the upcoming presidential election where it will be a dominant theme in voter’s minds.

(more…)

Paramount

     Paramount has been a part of the fabric of American entertainment since 1912. It remains the largest operating and only remaining major studio in Hollywood, serving as the production site for thousands of notable movies and television programs. Paramount’s influence has been profound. The cultural impact from their films and television shows have entertained generations of people across the world, shaping societal trends, and influencing popular culture. From classics, like “The Godfather” and “Titanic, to fan favorites like “Star Trek” to “Indiana Jones” and the “Mission Impossible Movies,” Paramount has showcased some of the most famous movies seen all around the world. 

     Paramount has changed ownership hands over its history, but one of the most impactful owners, Sumner Redstone, bought Paramount for about $10 billion in 1994. Redstone transformed Paramount into a media monolithic empire by combining Paramount Pictures, CBS, Viacom and National Amusements. Paramount at its zenith was an unsinkable, Titanic-like powerhouse once valued at over $80 billion before Sumner’s daughter, Sheri Redstone, took over the company in 2016. Unfortunately, like the ship from one of Paramount’s highest grossing films, Titanic, the once unsinkable empire has hit a massive performance iceberg and has been sinking over the years. After strategic business model shifts and attempts to further expand failed, the boat finally sank. On July 8, 2024, Sheri Redstone agreed to sell the once mighty Paramount for $8 billion to entertainment company Skydance and private equity firm RedBird Capital Partners.

Changing Entertainment Industry

     The entertainment industry has always been evolving over the years. New technology has seen the industry change drastically as silent and black/white films, gave way to sound and color films. Television grew exponentially and peaked. Home viewing has transformed from VCRs to DVDs and now to streaming services. Content, as well as technology to deliver, has become critical especially as media competition has evolved. Film studio giants of old, have been replaced by new production houses. Disney/PIXAR, Netflix, Amazon, Apple TV, and other smaller social media platforms have taken away from the standard means of television and show entertainment. With the introduction of social media platforms in the early 2000s the traditional entertainment industry was drastically impacted. With platforms like YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, how and what people watched changed making traditional network television less captivating for many consumers. Streaming platforms have become a standard in the entertainment industry following the Covid-19 pandemic with media companies, like Paramount, chasing the leader Netflix in both content as well as viewership. 

Where did it all go wrong?

     Paramount had been growing under the direction of Sumner Redstone. He retired from the company in 2017 and gave leadership to his daughter Shari. Upon Sumner’s passing away in 2020, as part of his estate planning, his daughter, Shari Redstone, inherited most of his shares and the controlling interest in Paramount. The market cap and valuation of Paramount has greatly depreciated since her father’s death. Paramount’s strategy to stay with traditional network (CBS) and premium television (Showcase) has been met with rising costs and declining viewership. Attempts to build a streaming platform (Paramount+) came late to a saturated streaming market. That business lost $1.66 billion for all of 2023 as Paramount never quite figured out how to capitalize on their content and gain enough paying subscribers versus the cost of running the operations. At the end of 2023, the company’s long-term debt was $14.6 billion, leading to its debt rating to be slashed by the credit rating agency S&P Global in March of 2024. Since Shari Redstone took over the reins of her father’s helm the valuation of the company has crumbled as the share price has lumbered in the teens despite all attempts to turn the company around. 

Complex Policy Issues / What could go wrong with the merger?

• FTC, Department of Justice and FCC approval is needed

     The merger of Paramount and Skydance is subject to formal review by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice. U.S. antitrust laws have been designed to prevent anticompetitive mergers or acquisitions. “Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, the FTC and the Department of Justice review most of the proposed transactions that affect commerce in the United States and are over a certain size, and either agency can take legal action to block deals that it believes would ‘substantially lessen competition.’” Further, given Paramount is a media company which owns television stations, their merger with Skydance must also be reviewed and approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 

     Although the FTC has been focused over the last few years on limited the power of Big Tech and Media companies, the deal with Skydance doesn’t present the same issues as if Comcast (NBC), Fox or Disney (ABC) bought the company as Skydance doesn’t own a broadcast network. With this suitor, it’s possible the FTC or FCC requires Paramount to divest CBS or affiliated stations before the merger is completed, but it is not likely. 

     Further, Paramount had been subject to antitrust issues prior to this pending merger. The Department of Justice first sued Paramount in 1938 under the Sherman Antitrust Act for “conspiring to create a monopoly in restraint of trade” when it attempted to buy and expand upon its theaters for exclusive distribution of its movies. In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled that Paramount and other studios cannot own theater chains for distribution of their product. In April 2020, a federal judge determined that major studios could again own the theaters where their films were shown. Paramount, through its national Amusements entity, owns more than 1,500 theaters and it is possible that the FTC could require the company to divest those as a condition to the closing of the merger. 

Fiduciary Duty/Shareholder class-action lawsuits

     Every corporation is made up on residual claimants who own the property rights to the free cash flows of a company. This gets incredibly complex with non-voting stock being released. Unlike common stock, non-voting stock entails exactly what it sounds like, no voting rights. Usually this stock has some type of premium taken off in order to incentivize people to purchase such stock. Paramount has issued both class A, common stock, and class B, non-voting stock over the years. For Paramount, Shari Redstone, the heir to her father Sumner’s empire, has the most to benefit from the deal. Redstone’s combined stake in the company’s Class A and B shares is around 10%, but she holds nearly 80% of the Class A shares. While the board had to approve the merger, Shari sits on the board as the non-executive chairwoman since her father’s death in 2020. Shari Redstone given her outsized ownership stake is driving the decision regarding who to sell the company to regardless of board oversight. She decides the fate of both the Class A and Class B stock and can thus hold almost absolute power over the terms of the contract. It blurs the line of fiduciary responsibility on who she is liable to beside herself and the other Class A voting stock members. Other Paramount shareholders “had ripped Redstone for seeking a premium for her stock over other that of other Paramount investors” and Mario Gabelli, a major investor, has threatened a $100 million-plus class action lawsuit in the past over this situation. For the latest version of the deal, there is still disparity between the value class A shareholders and Class b shareholders will be received. Class A investors will be able to sell at $23 per share. A tender offer was made from Skydance which would allow Class B to sell their shares directly to Skydance for $15 per share. “This will allow investors who feel shortchanged by the Skydance deal to get rid of the company’s stock at a premium to its current price of $11.81.” Given how recent this deal was announced, it is unclear whether the new terms will be deemed sufficient for all shareholders or if investor class action lawsuits will be raised.

So how does this movie end?

     It seems like the antitrust issues associated with the merger are not insurmountable and it’s likely the FTC, Department of Justice and the FCC will permit the merger to go through with few stipulations. But there are very good odds that a meaningful investor class action lawsuit will be filed and it’s important that the Paramount board is able to prove valuation and structure were reviewed and approved at arms-length from Shari Redstone. While I’m never one to spoil a good movie ending, and it may not be as predictable as I suspect, I will say that at the height of Sumner Redstone’s reign at Paramount it likely seemed that “God himself could not sink the ship.” Unfortunately, for many investors, they may want to seriously take the Skydance tender offer to seek drier land.

Further Readings:

1. Paramount Global Must Get Skydance Approval for Any Paramount+ Joint Venture or Bundling Deals With Biggest U.S. Streamers
2. Paramount Can Extend Skydance Merger’s Go-Shop Period if It Enters ‘Good Faith’ Talks With a Rival Bidder
3. Paramount Agrees To Skydance Merger, Seemingly Ending Saga
4. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL’S SPECIAL COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES MERGER WITH SKYDANCE MEDIA
5. Paramount agrees to merge with Skydance, ending months long negotiations and Redstone era
6. Skydance Deal In Hand, Paramount Lays Out What Happens If A Rival Offer Emerges
7. Paramount’s Merger With Skydance to Test DOJ’s Tolerance for Big Media Consolidation
8. Could Skydance-Paramount Deal Trigger New NFL Talks With CBS? Roger Goodell Doesn’t Dismiss It
9. SEC Filling Form 8-K
10. The FTC still needs to bless the Paramount and Skydance merger   

America’s Obesity and Spending Epidemic

The United States spends more on prescription drugs than any other country in the world. It has drastically expanded its net spending on prescription drugs over time, with a 764% increase from $47 billion in 1992 to $406 billion in 2022. And this value is projected to increase. The introduction of breakthrough weight-loss drugs, also known as GLP-1 antagonists, such as Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic and Wegovy, has the potential to virtually double prescription drug spending in the United States. Compared to other high-income countries, the United States ranks first in obesity prevalence. This statistic can be further explained by the 42% of American adults who are obese. 

The cost of supplying just half of these adults with drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy, at the current drug prices, is projected to cost $411 billion a year, according to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. The most comparable class of drugs with this large of an audience were statins (cholesterol medication) over forty years ago. No drug has come close to statin’s level of popularity and relevance until weight-loss drugs. 

The National Weight-Loss Drug Phenomenon

Despite their high costs, the country has become consumed by these drugs and their effects. The megahit popularity of Ozempic and Wegovy has taken over the news, social media, and daily conversations. These drugs along with Eli Lilly and Company’s Mounajaro and Zepbound have become household names as they alter the landscape of treating obesity. Oprah Winfrey, a long-time spokesperson for weight loss, has come out in strong support for the usage of GLP-1 antagonists. Some have gone as far as comparing these drugs to be as “omnipresent … as Taylor Swift or the iPhone” in our generation. This excitement stems from the proven results from randomized clinical trials that showed patients lost up to 15% of their body weight from these drugs. 

In an interview with Today, a woman named Sabrazsia Gardner describes Wegovy’s drastic impact on her eating habits. She explains how it changed the way she thought about food and completely altered her cravings and eating habits for the better. After taking Wegovy, she says, “I eat because I’m supposed to. You eat to live, not live to eat.” Gardner was able to finally achieve the weight loss she struggled with for years and also experienced a significant shift in her daily life that used to be dictated by her eating habits. The change in hunger described by Gardner can be attributed to the science behind these weight-loss drugs. Semaglutide, the active ingredient in Wegovy and Ozempic, curbs hunger signals – also called “food noise” –  in the brain. Additionally, it allows people to feel full faster by “slow[ing] down stomach emptying.”

International Comparisons and Domestic Impact

Unfortunately, this revolutionary weight loss technology is largely unavailable in the United States and is likely to decrease in availability due to one main factor: cost. According to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, Ozempic and Wegovy cost $936 and $1,349 for a one-month supply, respectively. To add perspective, Ozempic costs 10x less in the United Kingdom ($93/one-month supply), and Wegovy costs 4x less in Germany ($326/for one-month supply). It is also important to note that a recent study published in JAMA found these drugs could be produced for under $5/one-month supply. This study only adds insult to injury to the bankrupting prices of these drugs in the United States.

In North Carolina, the State Health Plan was forced to end coverage of these weight-loss drugs, effective April 2024, to avoid doubling its premiums for state beneficiaries. Similarly, West Virginia’s Public Employees Insurance Agency was forced to cancel its pilot program that included the coverage of weight-loss drugs. While this decision was necessary due to the adverse financial consequences of covering these drugs, its psychological and medical impacts were deeply distressing. West Virginia ranks “among the poorest states in the country, with the highest rates of obesity, at 41%.” Physicians and patients alike were infuriated by this decision. Without insurance covering or at least partially covering the cost of these drugs, they are essentially inaccessible. One physician gloomily remarks, “[these drugs] may as well have never been created.” West Virginians were given a glimpse of a new obesity landscape only to have it ripped from their grasp. 

Congressional Response to Cost

In response to the growing scrutiny of the excessively high costs of Ozempic and Wegovy and the resulting backlash in states like North Carolina and West Virginia, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Chairman of the Senate HELP Committee announced that the CEO of Novo Nordisk, Lars Jørdgensen, would testify in front of the HELP Committee in September 2024 on the high costs Americans pay for Ozempic and Wegovy. In his press release, Senator Sanders, a long-time critic of “Big Pharma,” stated that “the American people are sick and tired of paying, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.” The deep frustration of Senator Sanders and the American people is blatantly clear in this statement. Researchers from the Majority Staff of HELP found that the high price of these drugs “have the potential to bankrupt our entire health care system.” 

In response to this planned hearing, Novo Nordisk stated that CEO Jørdgensen “[looks] forward to discussing solutions that ensure access and affordability for all patients within the complex US healthcare system.” While this statement is promising, its language is interesting. The description of the United States healthcare system as “complex” alludes to the larger issues regarding prescription drug pricing in the United States compared to countries of similar socioeconomic status. 

A Possible Explanation to the Cost Crisis

Although the costs of weight-loss drugs are undoubtedly steep in the United States, it is necessary to acknowledge the different organization of the United States healthcare system compared to countries with lower drug costs. It is the particular structuring within the United States that has unfortunately, but also inevitably, led to unaffordable drug prices for Americans. One of the chief reasons for the high costs of weight-loss drugs and all prescription drugs in the United States is the lack of one primary entity (e.g. the government) designated to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. 

While the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 has altered this reality with the introduction of Medicare negotiating 10 drugs, the free market still largely dictates the cost of drugs. Drug companies often find that the United States is the buyer where they can make the most money since costs are kept lower in other countries due to regulated markets. As a result, “Americans are essentially subsidizing the cost of drugs for the rest of the world.”

Another factor that contributes to the costs of these drugs in the United States is the high demand. The United States spent 5x more money on weight-loss drugs than the second largest buyer (Europe, Middle East, and Africa). In a healthcare system driven by the market, the current consumer necessity is unforgiving to Americans’ pockets. Pharmaceutical companies capitalize off the needs of the United States at the expense of Americans.

Looking Forward

Healthcare in the United States is a contentious and costly issue. Throughout the summer of 2024, Congress has regularly discussed the need to address various economic problems within the current system, ranging from healthcare cost transparency to medical debt. And now soon joining the discussion: prescription drug prices. Legislators on both sides of the aisle collectively agree the cost of United States healthcare has become out of control. While there are undoubtedly disagreements on how to approach this financial dilemma, it is clear that there is widespread interest in finding solutions. As healthcare continues to remain a front-and-center topic, there is plausible hope for new improvements to accessibility and affordability.

Suggestions for Further Reading

1. Sanders targets ‘unacceptable’ price of weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy
2. Senate Committee Investigates Ozempic and Wegovy Costs
3. America’s weight-loss drug boom, explained
4. In States That Won’t Pay for Obesity Drugs, ‘They May as Well Have Never Been Created’
5. Steep Ozempic, Wegovy prices face fresh scrutiny from officials
6. The Federal Perspective on Coverage of Medications to Treat Obesity: Considerations From the Congressional Budget Office
7. How Weight Loss Drugs Could Bankrupt American Health Care
8. How Does Ozempic Work?
9. Estimated Sustainable Cost-Based Prices for Diabetes Medicines
10. Six Reasons Drug Prices Are So High in the U.S.

Introduction to the Chevron Doctrine

In June of 2024 the Supreme Court overturned a forty year old precedent called the ‘Chevron doctrine’, under which a court, if it determines that statutory language used by Congress is ambiguous, mus

t defer to the relevant federal agency’s interpretation of that statute, so long as a federal court determines the agency interpretation is not arbitrary, capricious or in direct conflict with the statute’s intentions. The idea behind such deference, as expressed by the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) was that “expert agencies, accountable to an elected president, are better suited than federal judges to make the policy choices that Congress left open.”  Though it may sound strange, this 1984 precedent named after one of the most notorious gas companies in the world has been used in thousands of cases to uphold environmental protections and protect the Environmental Protection Agency’s influence in environmental regulation. For example, when the EPA’s strict interpretation of the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor Provision” was challenged in 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the EPA due to the fact that “the agency is entitled under Chevron to interpret the Clean Air Act as it likes, as long as it is trying to accomplish the law’s lofty goals of clean air.” 

Why Do We Need To Protect Against Climate Change?

As a member of a generation that has grown up with environmental degradation as an inescapable reality, I have always been acutely aware of the danger climate change poses to the future of both the United States and our planet at large. According to NASA, sea levels have already risen about 8 inches due to the expansion caused by seawater warming and the melting of sea ice and are projected to rise another 1 to 6.6 feet by 2100. Moreover, within the U.S. it is estimated that “human-caused climate change has already doubled the area of forest burned in recent decades…[and by] 2050, the amount of land consumed by wildfires in Western United States is projected to further increase by two to six times.” In addition to these direct effects on the environment, according to the EPA climate change can, has, and will continue to have dire effects on the health and safety of humans, particularly through its ability to degrade hospitable land and disrupt agricultural processes thus leading to food shortages. 

How the Chevron Doctrine Has Been Used To Defend Environmental Regulation

Of the utmost importance in the United States’ fight against climate change is legislative action- setting standards, regulating emissions, and promoting sustainable practices across various sectors. Significantly, according to Supreme Court Justice Kagan, often the language used in such legislation is left intentionally broad or arbitrary in order to allow for adaptability overtime as new climate developments, scientific information, and technologies emerge. It is when such arbitrary language was used that federal agencies, such as the EPA, have historically played a critical role, thanks to the Chevron doctrine. 

Since 1984, the Chevron doctrine has been crucial in protecting the ability of specially focused federal agencies, including but not limited to the EPA, to lend their expertise to making reasonable decisions concerning regulations and standards where Congressional law is (often intentionally) ambiguous. In terms of climate regulation alone, the Chevron doctrine has been used in an estimated thousands of cases to uphold clean air, water, and energy standards. For instance, the Chevron doctrine was used by the Supreme Court to uphold the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gasses as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, despite the Act not explicitly mentioning greenhouse gasses, in the 2006 case of Massachusetts v. EPA. Greenhouse gas emissions, which include carbon dioxide and methane, have been proven to be significant contributors to rising temperatures and poor air quality. If it weren’t for the Chevron doctrine, the court would have had no requirement to defer to the EPA, and would have had the freedom to rule that since they were not mentioned explicitly, greenhouse gasses should not be considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and thus would go unregulated. This illustrates just how vital the doctrine is in the EPA’s ability to truly protect against pollution. 

However, the Chevron doctrine was by no means a blank check that federal agencies could use to exercise unchallenged authority on all statutory ambiguities. Chevron grants interpretive primacy to an agency only when “it is acting, as Congress specified, in the heartland of its delegated authority,” such as when the EPA was given deference on statutory questions related to air pollution.

How The Overturn of The Chevron Doctrine Will Impair Effective Climate Policy

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine. The overturn was accomplished through the conservative majority Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, separated across partisan lines, in the pair of cases Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, both of which challenged the forty year old precedent. The overturning of the Chevron doctrine will have far reaching consequences in diverse areas of United States policy, but the most catastrophic effect may be the resulting limitation on the United States’ ability to come together to combat climate change and prevent environmental degradation. This will happen in three key ways.

Firstly, the Environmental Protection Agency is comprised of professionals with technical expertise and specialized knowledge that enables them to make informed judgements on what specific climate regulations can achieve specific goals. As Justice Kagan says in her dissenting opinion, “agencies often know things about a statute’s subject matter that courts could not hope to…[and] the point is especially stark when the statute is of a ‘scientific or technical nature.’” To illustrate the absurdity of deferring to the judiciary to resolve ambiguities that would have fallen under the jurisdiction of a specialized federal agency under the Chevron doctrine, Justice Kagan provides an example of the type of ambiguity that now would be decided by the court: the question of what is considered a protein in The Public Health Service Act. Under the act, the FDA must regulate “biological product[s]” including “protein[s].” As Justice Kagan observed herself, judges are not expected nor required to know how to answer such ambiguities. These types of complex, scientific questions are abundant when one considers climate policy. Moreover, without technical knowledge, judges cannot be expected to understand the significance of seemingly negligible changes in climate. For example, to many people (judges included) a rise in temperature of just one degree celsius may seem trivial, however the reality (as the EPA is well aware) is that such a small increase would have massive effects on weather patterns, food security, and the health of global ecosystems. The overturn of Chevron allows courts to ignore the specific technical expertise the EPA brings when it considers ambiguities in Congressional statutes related to climate. This is irresponsible because it puts technical decisions into the hands of those who are ill-prepared and have no resources to help them prepare to answer such questions—creating the risk of developing regulatory policies that are less informed, more subject to corporate interests, and, in turn, less effective.

Secondly, the overturn of Chevron allows for a larger voice of private corporations in environmental regulation. It should be noted that according to The New York Times, the plaintiffs in both cases that resulted in the overturn of Chevron were represented by attorneys from a conservative law firm with connections to the Koch brothers—whose oil and other industrial interests are particularly threatened by strict environmental regulation like that typically supported by the EPA. Clearly, it was in the interest of big oil and fossil fuels to overturn Chevron. After its overturn, though representatives from federal agencies will still be able to present their findings to courts, judges will now have no requirement to listen. The voice of the EPA will now carry no more authority than that of other stakeholders such as industrial lobbyists, politicians and corporate representatives, who come with private interests unrelated to the preservation of the climate. 

Finally, the overturn of the Chevron doctrine will focus the attentions and energies of courts, lawmakers, lawyers, lobbyists and environmentalists on the past rather than the future of environmental regulation. According to Justice Kagan’s dissenting opinion, the Supreme Court has used the Chevron doctrine 70 times, while lower courts have applied the framework in thousands of cases—each of which is now open to challenge. According to the Carbon Brief, industries with vested financial interests in challenging previously accepted EPA interpretations of arbitrary statutes supported by the Chevron doctrine (e.g., fossil fuel companies, chemical manufacturers, large agricultural companies, etc.) are notoriously wealthy, and thus have great capacities to empower lobbyists and instigate legal challenges to environmental regulations established using the now-overturned Chevron doctrine. As Jennifer Jones, the director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted, “by paralyzing federal agencies and inviting lawsuits against the rules these agencies implement, this decision will profoundly undermine bedrock laws.” Such prolonged legal battles over both emerging and decades-old regulations will consume valuable time and resources of the EPA that could otherwise be directed towards innovative policy making, forcing them into a defensive stance at a time when aggressive offensive measures are needed to combat the climate crisis.

For all these reasons, the ability of the EPA to engage in effective environmental regulation is under threat due to the overturn of the Chevron doctrine- with profound effects on the health and safety of Americans. As Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, summarizes profoundly, the overturn of the Chevron doctrine “undermines vital protections for the American people at the behest of powerful polluters.”

Suggestions for Further Reading:

1. What Chevron’s end could mean for EPA climate regulations – Politico  
2. The Supreme Court Ends Chevron Deference—What Now? – National Resource Defense Council 
3. What the Supreme Court Chevron Decision Means for Environmental Rules – Washington Post
4. Climate Change and Human Health – Environmental Protection Agency 
5. Justice Kagan Dissent in Loper – The Supreme Court of The United States 
6. How the Supreme Court’s Chevron Decision Benefits Big Oil and Gas – The Equation 
7. US Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Doctrine: What it Means for Climate Change Policy – Carbon Brief 
8. Chevron Overturned: Impacts on Environmental, Energy, and Natural Resources Regulation – Arnold & Porter
9. What Overruling Chevron Could Mean for Environmental Law – Georgetown Environmental Law Review
10. Stanford’s Deborah Sivas on SCOTUS’ Loper Decision overturning Chevron and the Impact on Environmental Law – Stanford Law School  
11.  Environmental Lawyers Say End of Chevron Deference Could Hurt Wisconsin Water Quality – Wisconsin Examiner 
12. The Supreme Court Overturns the Chevron Doctrine, Gutting Federal Environmental Protections – The Sierra Club 

Safeguarding Food Safety Post-Supreme Court’s Decision on Chevron Deference – Food Safety News