Congressional Action Research Articles

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program: The Need for Better Employment Eligibility Regulations

People will start seeking tax-exempt debt forgiveness under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (“PSLF”) program in October of 2017 after satisfying the requirements of 10 years of post-October 1, 2007 employment in a “public service job.” I estimate that eventually 200,000 people a year or more will obtain debt forgiveness under this program, at a total cost to the Treasury of $12 billion/year or more. Estimates are that up to one-quarter of all employment will qualify as a public service job. For such a large and costly program the precise eligibility criteria are crucial. The statutory definition of a public service job is very broad and specifically lists numerous categories of public service, and is in some ways ambiguous. The Department of Education (“DOE”) in 2008 issued regulations regarding PSLF program employment eligibility, but those regulations have serious deficiencies. First of all, the regulations improperly define a public service job in a manner that is inconsistent with the statute by imposing a “public service organization” employer requirement that is not in the statute. This requirement works to disqualify some statutorily-listed public service employment from debt forgiveness eligibility, in particular public services employment provided on behalf of for-profit businesses or certain non-profit employers, and also improperly allows eligibility for debt forgiveness for some employees of private non-profit employers who are not employed to provide a qualifying public service. Second, the regulations fail to clarify vague statutory language regarding what constitutes “public” service, most importantly regarding the scope of “public interest law services.” The DOE has also recently rescinded several previously granted certifications of employment as qualifying on the basis of a newly imposed restrictive “primary purpose of the employer” requirement that is not in the governing statute nor in the DOE regulations, actions that have been challenged in court by the American Bar Association. Even if this restriction is upheld, which appears unlikely, there is a strong argument that the DOE should be estopped from rescinding prior certifications. In order to avoid unnecessary litigation once the expected large number of applications for debt forgiveness begin to be filed after October of 2017, I recommend that the DOE first seek Congressional action to clarify the contours of the PSLF program’s employment eligibility statute, and while awaiting such action it should rescind its public service organization eligibility requirement that is inconsistent with the statute, clarify that there is no primary purpose of the employer requirement, and provide much more detailed guidance regarding the contours of the various statutorily-specified forms of qualifying public service, especially public interest law service. If PSLF program eligibility is to be either narrowed or expanded this should be done through appropriate legislation, and not through unauthorized and somewhat covert DOE actions.

Youth Call Climate Change a Generational Justice Issue

Students and educators urge congressional action on climate change.

Law at the End of War

As the United States begins to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in the coming year, courts will increasingly face the task of interpreting the dozens of federal laws whose operation depends on the existence of war. The 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA), for instance, makes offenses triable by military commission “only if the offense is committed in the context of and associated with hostilities.” The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) empowers the President to target or detain certain individuals only “for the duration of these hostilities.” Scholars have long assumed that the determination whether or not the United States is at war is a political question, beyond the power of the courts to consider. This Article challenges that view, demonstrating that courts have repeatedly engaged such questions in statutory interpretation in conflicts past, and arguing that the temporal limits of the AUMF and MCA pose similarly justiciable questions. Yet while questions of war’s existence may be susceptible of judicial resolution, the possibility that a court’s answer may prevail over a differing view of the executive seems instinctively troubling. Separation of powers theory has long recognized interests in allocating decision-making authority among the branches so as to promote political accountability and take advantage of comparative institutional expertise. Such interests would seem to require that courts at least defer to executive determinations of war’s existence. Recognizing the constitutional salience of such interests, this Article contends that courts should only defer when doing so will in fact serve them. And those goals are not invariably advanced by deference to the executive in interpreting the AUMF and MCA. Active judicial participation in statutory interpretation may create incentives for congressional action that had previously been absent, making it harder for Congress to shirk participation in democratic debates in which the Constitution expects it to engage. Likewise, while some aspects of the existence-of-war inquiry may turn on predictive judgment, best reserved to executive expertise, other aspects of the inquiry turn on objective factual assessments – the kind the judiciary regularly undertakes. These dynamics, coupled with the equally salient separation-of-powers purpose of protecting individual rights, suggest a broader role for the judiciary in interpreting existence-of-war conditions than has been previously understood.

Patently Unconstitutional: The Geographical Limitation on Prior Art in a Small World

This Article argues that the U.S. Patent Act's geographical limitation on prior art is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the constraints embodied in the Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution. This geographical limitation, which appears in various subsections of section 102 of the Patent Act of 1952, prevents evidence of public knowledge and/or use of an invention in a foreign country from being used to assess the novelty and non-obviousness of that invention in the United States. While various commentators have criticized the policy implications of the section 102 geographical limitation, none have undertaken an analysis of the provision in light of the boundaries on congressional action set by the Intellectual Property Clause. The Article's analysis draws together evidence of 1) the framers' intent in drafting the Clause, 2) congressional and judicial interpretations of the Clause, and 3) changes in the public accessibility of foreign public knowledge and/or use, to inform the conclusion that prior art must be defined globally, to effectuate constitutional purposes. Because the section 102 geographical limitation on prior art allows the patenting of inventions in the public domain, i.e., inventions that lack novelty and non-obviousness, it is unconstitutional and must be eliminated. In addition to constitutional arguments, the Article also expands and provides a fresh perspective on policy arguments supporting the elimination of the section 102 geographical limitation, including those relating to biopiracy, patent policy, and patent harmonization efforts. The Article ultimately concludes that while the limitation may have been appropriate when first enacted in 1836, it is clearly unconstitutional in this technologically advanced, 21st century world and must be eliminated, either by Congress or the Supreme Court.

The Amazing, Elastic, Ever-Expanding Exportation Doctrine and Its Effect on Predatory Lending Regulation

Recent dramatic growth in predatory lending practices has reinvigorated calls for more effective regulation of consumer credit, primarily at the state level. This paper argues that a banking law principle known as the Exportation Doctrine has rendered individual state laws largely ineffectual in curbing predatory lending. However, this paper concludes that the expanded Exportation Doctrine, with a little bit of tweaking, could be shaped into a potent legal tool for regulating predatory lending, more effective than individual state legislation currently under consideration. The Exportation Doctrine has evolved from a discrete statutory privilege enacted during the Civil War to promote the national bank system, to an expansive legal doctrine allowing almost any type of corporate entity to establish a nationwide consumer lending program unrestrained by individual state consumer credit laws. This evolution was the result of a confluence of forces, including: individual depository institutions challenging various banking regulations; banking regulatory agencies accommodating their constituencies; power plays among the federal banking agencies, as well as among the state and the federal banking agencies; occasional Congressional actions in discrete, often seemingly unrelated areas of banking law; and courts almost uniformly deferring to the judgments of the federal banking agencies in issues related to the regulation of financial institutions. The Doctrine originated in a federal banking law permitting national to charge at the rate allowed under the laws of the state where the bank is located (12 U.S.C. Section 85). This paper traces the historical expansion of the Exportation Doctrine along three distinct dimensions. First, the geographic reach of the Doctrine was expanded, to transform the location of a bank from a meaningful restrictive concept to matter of choice. Second, the substantive scope of the Doctrine was expanded, as the term interest was interpreted to include not just numerical rates, but all credit terms material to the determination of the rate. Third, the orbit of the beneficiaries of the Doctrine was expanded, initially to include state and savings and loan associations, and, more recently, to include corporate entities acquiring nonbank banks (such as credit card banks, unitary thrifts, or industrial loan companies) or entering into contractual arrangements with to offer products such as cobranded credit cards, refund anticipation loans, and payday loans. After describing the evolution of the Doctrine, this paper analyzes whether the various dimensions of the expansion are justified under basic principles of banking law. The paper concludes that the expansion of the geographic reach and substantive scope of the Doctrine is compatible with banking law doctrine and probably not susceptible to legal challenge. However, the expansion of the orbit of the beneficiaries of the Doctrine is incompatible with the separation of banking and commerce, and thus susceptible to legal challenge. Nevertheless, after examining the recent actions of the federal banking regulators in curbing predatory lending practices conducted by depositary institutions, this paper concludes that a robust Exportation Doctrine might be the most effective legal mechanism that exists for curbing predatory lending practices.

LGBT-Who? You’re Fired: Addressing Employment Discrimination Through Congressional Representation Rather than Judicial Appointment

Although today’s society is much more accepting, LGBT discrimination is still very real. Using the momentum from the landmark case Obergerfell, LGBT advocates have directed their attention to employment discrimination protections. These efforts have come in several forms, including legal action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. After some success, there is currently a circuit split on whether or not Title VII protection extends to sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Regardless of the recent progress from LGBT claimants, this Article contends that the judicial approach will be ineffective, given the recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice and other obstacles. Rather, this Article recommends congressional action and the enactment of the Equality Act as the solution for LGBT employment discrimination. Instead of solely relying on nine individuals that may not provide a clear solution, the Equality Act would provide an unambiguous, effective solution that serves as a direct representation of what the nation’s citizens need and want.

Congressional Processes and Public Approval of New Laws

Does how Congress makes a law affect public approval of that law? This question has been little studied, but the rising use of unorthodox processes in Congress raises concerns about the perceived legitimacy of congressional action among the public. Utilizing two unique survey experiments, I present evidence that when people are aware of the use of unorthodox legislative processes they express lower levels of approval for new laws. This effect is especially pronounced among partisans already inclined to be in opposition to the law, further solidifying their opposition. These findings have important implications for a Congress that in recent years has increasingly turned to unorthodox legislative processes to pass legislation.

The threat of monument designation as a technique for successful wilderness legislation: Using the Antiquities Act as a carrot or a stick

Congress provides the highest level of federal lands protection when it creates wilderness using the Wilderness Act. There are times, however, when Congress refuses or seems unwilling or unable to take such environmental policy action. In a handful of instances, presidents have strategically used the threat of or actual unilateral monument designation under the Antiquities Act to get Congress to create new wilderness under the Wilderness Act. Under the Antiquities Act presidents may, without stakeholder or congressional input or approval, unilaterally create national monuments covering public lands that fall within the parameters of its provisions, including lands that would be considered wilderness. This strategy may be used by future presidents that wish to encourage Congress to enact environmental policy protecting remaining pristine federal lands with a wilderness designation. This article analyzes three instances where this strategy was successfully used and identifies specific steps taken in each situation that ultimately led to congressional action creating new wilderness.

Determinants of invasive species policy: Print media and agriculture determine U.S. invasive wild pig policy

AbstractConflicts between wildlife, invasive species, and agricultural producers are increasing. Although direct management actions taken to mitigate these conflicts remain controversial, most stakeholders agree that better policies are needed to balance socioeconomic considerations with invasive species management, wildlife conservation, and agriculture. However, the interaction between societal and biological drivers that influence human–invasive species–wildlife conflict mitigation policy is poorly understood. We identify factors influencing policy leading to the establishment of a new federal program to control invasive wild pigs (IWPs) in the United States. We fit generalized linear models relating frequency of congressional policy activity, such as congressional hearings and reports, to frequency of print newspaper media and percent of the U.S. agricultural industry co‐occurring with IWPs for 29 yr preceding the establishment of the federal program in 2013. Our models explained 89% of the deviance in congressional policy activity indicating a strong linkage between congressional IWP policy activity and predictors representing the number of negative of newspaper articles, geographic distribution of print media, and percent of agricultural producers co‐occurring with IWPs. These effects translated to 3.7% increase in the number of congressional policy actions for every additional five states with negative news media. Invasive wild pig congressional policy activity increased 6.7% for every additional 10 negative newspaper articles. Increases in co‐occurrence of agriculture and IWPs had the largest effect; for every 1% increase in co‐occurrence, there was a 41% increase in congressional policy activity. Invasive wild pig congressional policy activity that explicitly addressed livestock increased at nearly twice the rate of policy activity addressing crop agriculture. These results suggest that agriculture and media coverage may act as determinants for invasive species policy. Our approach may provide early insight into emerging policy areas enabling proactive policy development by agencies or early engagement by scientists to find solutions before the policy area becomes gridlocked. Our results can also support policy and program evaluation providing a means of determining if the implemented policies match the original policy determinants ensuring best alignment with public, environmental, and stakeholder interests.

The uncertain fate of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) pediatric research portfolio.

The amount of federal dollars allocated to improving the health of our pediatric population can serve as an indicator of the priority placed on child well-being. Although Congress has established novel mechanisms that marginally increase pediatric research funding, the pediatric research portfolio is facing an increasingly uncertain fate. This work examines pediatric, perinatal and pediatric research initiative (PRI) spending using data collected by the NIH that uses the novel research, condition and disease categorization system. Further, this work reports on recent policy developments in pediatric biomedical research and offers recommendations to insulate this portfolio from future uncertainty. Federal support for pediatric research has declined with average annual growth rates of NIH pediatric spending dropping from 12.8% (FY 1998-2003) to 1.7% (FY 2004-2015). After taking into account Biomedical Research and Development Price Index growth, the pediatric research portfolio's purchasing power has declined by 15.9% (FY 2004-2015). Federal support for pediatric biomedical research has plateaued in nominal terms and declined significantly in real terms. Future congressional action will be necessary to protect gains and to expand the capacity of the pediatric portfolio.

Effective National Menu Labeling Requires Accuracy and Enforcement

In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act amended the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to require the disclosure of nutrition information of foods and beverages sold in chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments. 1 21 CFR §101.11. Nutrition labeling of standard menu items in covered establishments (2015). Google Scholar The FDA issued the final rules on menu labeling in December 2014, and the regulations were expected to go into effect in December 2015. 2 Food and Drug Administration. Food labeling; nutrition labeling of standard menu items in restaurants and similar retail food establishments. Final rule. Federal Register 2014. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/12/01/2014-27833/food-labeling-nutrition-labeling-of-standard-menu-items-in-restaurants-and-similar-retail-food. Accessed April 11, 2018. Google Scholar This timeline was delayed several times 3 Food and Drug Administration FDA issues final guidance on menu labeling [press release]. http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm498356.htm. Accessed Published 2016. September 2, 2017. Google Scholar and, at the time of this writing, there has been congressional action in the House of Representatives that could both change the timeline and weaken the labeling requirement if also passed in the Senate. 4 Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2017. S.261—115th Congress (2017-2018). Google Scholar Failing further legislative action, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has expressed his support of menu labeling and his intent to move ahead with the revised compliance date of May 7, 2018. 5 Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, on the FDA’s role in ensuring Americans have access to clear and consistent calorie and nutrition information; forthcoming guidance will provide greater clarity and certainty [press release]. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm573277.htm. Published 2017. Accessed September 2, 2017. Google Scholar , 6 Food and Drug Administration. Food labeling; nutrition labeling of standard menu items in restaurants and similar retail food establishments; extension of compliance date; request for comments. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/04/2017-09029/food-labeling-nutrition-labeling-of-standard-menu-items-in-restaurants-and-similar-retail-food. Published May 4, 2017. Accessed March 19, 2018. Google Scholar In this commentary, we review the literature on restaurant nutrition mislabeling, and argue that enforcement is a crucial component of menu labeling law implementation. Y. Huang is a research scholar, Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA. S. B. Cash is Bergstrom Foundation Professor in Global Nutrition and an associate professor, Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA. J. L. Pomeranz is an assistant professor, Department of Public Health Policy and Management, College of Global Public Health, New York University, New York.

Brief history of US debt limits before 1939

Between 1776 and 1920, the US Congress designed more than 200 distinct securities and stated the maximum amount of each that the Treasury could sell. Between 1917 and 1939, Congress gradually delegated all decisions about designing US debt instruments to the Treasury. In 1939, Congress began imposing a limit on the par value of total federal debt outstanding. By summing Congressional borrowing authorizations outstanding each year for each bond, we construct a time series of implied federal debt limits before 1939.

International Law and Extraterritoriality: Brief of International and Extraterritorial Law Scholars as Amici Curiae (U.S. v. Microsoft)

Written by international and extraterritorial law scholars, the attached amicus brief was submitted in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. That case involves whether Congress, when it enacted the Stored Communications Act, intended to provide federal and local law enforcement authority to unilaterally seize the private email communications of foreign citizens stored abroad. The amicus brief explains how the Charming Betsy canon and the law of extraterritoriality are part of a well-defined body of law the U.S. Supreme Court has developed for determining how American law applies abroad. These doctrines exist independently: one aims to avoid unsanctioned violations of international law. The other prevents the improper projection of American legal power beyond our borders. But they share much in common. Both rest on a properly restrained understanding of the judiciary’s place in our constitutional order, under which the often-delicate issues of foreign affairs in lawmaking are properly reserved to Congress, not courts. And both are grounded on shared insights the Court has gained over time about Congress’s approach to lawmaking: Its preference for “domestic, not foreign matters;" its respect for other nations’ sovereignty; its regard for international law; its inclination toward international collaboration; and perhaps most importantly of all, its avoidance of international friction and strife — unless some overriding policy need compels congressional action despite the risk of such strife. The brief explains why the Court should preserve the assumptions about extraterritoriality that the legislative and judicial branches have shared since the Republic’s early days. These shared assumptions properly constrain law enforcement and other governmental actors. They also prevent the march of technological progress from introducing an extraterritorial creep into laws that Congress intended to remain domestically fixed. And they push the Executive to engage with Congress to address cross-border challenges, including transnational crime. It explains why the electronic seizure of electronic records physically located in another country is an exercise of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction in violation of international law, and why the Court's extraterritoriality jurisprudence prohibits assuming, when no indication exists in the statute, that Congress authorized borderless law enforcement.

Placing the Ball in Congress’ Court: Supreme Court Requests for Congressional Action

The U.S. Supreme Court’s invitations for congressional action have been the subject of extensive interest but with limited empirical study. As a result, despite the obvious political implications of the cross-institutional policy and rule construction interactions, little is understood of the factors precipitating such requests or their efficacy. In this article, I propose a legal development hypothesis. Specifically, I argue invitations are useful for the majority seeking to secure their policy preferences in the law, as the invitation serves to strategically frame subsequent debate at the Court through identifying Congress as the venue for any future reversal of the majority’s policy preferences. Utilizing an original data set of Supreme Court requests for congressional action, I find strong and consistent evidence to support the legal development hypothesis. By inviting congressional action, justices structure in their favor future debates at the Court over policy intervention.

Sex and the Civil War: Soldiers, Pornography, and the Making of American Morality by Judith Giesberg

Reviewed by: Sex and the Civil War: Soldiers, Pornography, and the Making of American Morality by Judith Giesberg Brie Swenson Arnold (bio) Sex and the Civil War: Soldiers, Pornography, and the Making of American Morality. By Judith Giesberg. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2017. Pp. 152. $29.95 cloth; $19.99 ebook) While historians have directed substantial attention to the influence of gender in nineteenth-century America, much remains to be uncovered and explained about the history of sexuality during the Civil War era. In this slim volume, Civil War women's and gender history expert Judith Giesberg offers the first scholarly examination of the erotica and pornography circulated among U.S. Army soldiers during the Civil War and connects this story to its antebellum roots and postwar implications. The volume is based on presentations given by Giesberg as part of the Brose Lectures in the Civil War Era in which leading scholars discuss topics that "chart new directions for research in the field and offer scholars and general readers fresh perspectives on the Civil War era" (frontispiece). In four chapters that span a fifty year period bridging the antebellum, Civil War, and postbellum periods, [End Page 538] Giesberg shows how the Civil War "bisected" two critically important moments in American sexual culture and "antipornography activism" (p. 100). Chapter one details the antebellum proliferation of erotic publications (made possible by such things as advances in printing and distribution and the prevalence of antislavery literature containing scenes some found titillating) as well as "transatlantic attempts to control … circulation" of erotic materials (p. 9). The sexual culture of the antebellum North contributed to "a wartime explosion of porn," which, as chapter two details, was quite evident in U.S. Army camps (pp. 13–14). Giesberg resourcefully mined the Congressional record, postal laws, court-martial proceedings, regimental order books, letters, newspapers, publishers' circulars, and private as well as public archival collections of erotica to show how yellow-covered novels, cartes de visite, stereographs, and many other items made their way into the camps. Documenting "the sexual culture of the camps" and considering U.S. military policy and congressional action with regard to erotica yields insights into the ways "pornography helped to sustain" midcentury gender roles and gendered spaces (pp. 10, 37, 57). Chapter three focuses on the "profoundly unsettling" Civil War military experiences of Anthony Comstock, the famous crusader for and namesake of postwar anti-obscenity laws (p. 62). Indeed, Comstock "provides the key link between a wartime concern about pornography and the postwar antipornography campaign" (p. 10). Chapter four follows the "postwar surge of interest in … stabilizing a gender order that the war had upset," which came to include legislative measures that sought to regulate marriage and crack down on pornography (p. 84). Though such measures originated in wartime concerns about protecting male soldiers from pornography, they ultimately also suppressed access to birth control and abortion. This volume is a significant contribution to Civil War and nineteenth-century gender and sexuality studies that many will want to consult (though, by nature of its subject matter, it is best suited to mature rather than general audiences). It sheds more light on the sexual lives of Civil War soldiers and the war's critical role in antiobscenity [End Page 539] campaigns and legislation. It speaks to broader questions about the influence of the war on reform movements, gender roles and systems, the expansion of the federal government, and the growth of state intervention in Americans' everyday lives, as well as the ways in which legacies of the war continue to reverberate in the present. In taking sexuality seriously—as a method of analysis and an area meriting study—and in assessing its substantial role in the lives of individual Americans, the Civil War, and the nation, this path-breaking study raises important questions that will assuredly inspire additional work and conversations about the still surprisingly understudied history and significance of sexuality during the Civil War era. Brie Swenson Arnold BRIE SWENSON ARNOLD is associate professor of history at Coe College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. She is the author of articles on gender and sexuality in the print and political culture of the...

Unpopular Sovereignty: Mormons and the Federal Management of Early Utah Territory. By Brent M. Rogers

Brent Rogers has expanded and refined the provocative argument he first put forth in his doctoral dissertation. He hypothesizes that the creation of Utah Territory presented the U.S. government unique challenges in the decade before the Civil War that continued both during and after the conflict itself. The challenges centered on how a territory could create a political system that ultimately would culminate in statehood for the territory. Rogers focuses on the tensions between Republicans in the federal government, who viewed new territories as an extension of national control, and Democrats and many residents of new territories, who perceived their status as allowing them to develop their own laws and political institutions without unnecessary interference from Washington interests. He briefly contrasts the conflicts over whether Kansas would become a slave or a free state with the polygamy question that prevented Utah becoming a state for decades. The bulk of the book focuses on how specific issues became the focus of both public perception and Congressional actions against Utah and the Mormons. These issues included the well-known topic of polygamy that fired public imagination, questions about whether the Mormons could ever develop a republican form of government when the church dominated life in the territory, and the role of the church in government-Indian relations.

Emoluments and Implications from Conflict of Interest Laws and Private Sector Fiduciary Duty

In this article, the ethics of public service and the relatively untested Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution will be considered and contrasted with the jurisprudence surrounding conflict of interest in the private sector. Part I establishes the framers’ understanding of law and ethics for U.S. public service. Part II considers the clause itself, and whether it applies to the office of the President. Part III relates just a few of the foreign-based business interests of the 45th U.S. President and how they could compromise his loyal discharge of duties to the nation he serves. Part III also analyzes the President’s plan to avoid conflicts of interest, finds it inadequate, and concludes that only full disclosure of his tax returns would reveal the complete range of conflicts that might color his judgment as President of the United States. Moving beyond the descriptive to the more normative business ethics issues, Part IV describes the insights of behavioral psychology to demonstrate how common it is for people and politicians to overlook their own conflicts of interest, even where those conflicts strongly influence their decisions. Part V summarizes observations related to conflict of interest laws and fiduciary duties in business, lending support to the conclusion that Trump’s attempt to hold the office of president would be untenable in other contexts. Returning to legal issues raised by the President’s conflicts of interest, Part VI describes the federal lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). CREW seeks an injunction on Mr. Trump’s holding office while holding various assets subject to foreign governmental influence, and Part IV offers insight into how a challenge to standing could be overcome. Both courts and Congress — the ultimate judges of the President’s conflicts of interest, at least until the next election cycle — should support the original intent and plain meaning of the Emoluments Clause. Without Congressional action, however, it is unlikely that the President’s conflicts of interest will be resolved early in his term of office.

Congressional action on rising drug prices remains a possibility

More than a dozen distinct bills addressing prescription drug prices have been introduced in the 115th Congress, with legislators proposing such ideas as drug importation and price negotiations for Medicare Part D–covered drugs, according to a summary prepared by ASHP. None of the bills has progressed beyond assignment to a committee or subcommittee. And none is expected to leave its committee as a self-standing bill, said Joseph Hill, director of the ASHP Government Relations Division. The more likely scenario, Hill said, is that language in a drug pricing bill will become part of a larger bill, such as the next iteration of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which funds FDA’s drug approval activities. That bill could be a vehicle for a drug pricing bill that focuses on FDA, he said. Support. The nonpartisan Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing, with ASHP on the steering committee, supports 3 of the drug pricing bills, said spokesman Will Holley.

Challenges To Reducing Discrimination And Health Inequity Through Existing Civil Rights Laws.

More than fifty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, health care for racial and ethnic minorities remains in many ways separate and unequal in the United States. Moreover, efforts to improve minority health care face challenges that differ from those confronted during de jure segregation. We review these challenges and examine whether stronger enforcement of existing civil rights legislation could help overcome them. We conclude that stronger enforcement of existing laws-for example, through executive orders to strengthen enforcement of the laws and congressional action to allow private individuals to bring lawsuits against providers who might have engaged in discrimination-would improve minority health care, but this approach is limited in what it can achieve. Complementary approaches outside the legal arena, such as quality improvement efforts and direct transfers of money to minority-serving providers-those seeing a disproportionate number of minority patients relative to their share of the population-might prove to be more effective.

Opportunity and Overrides: The Effect of Institutional Public Support on Congressional Overrides of Supreme Court Decisions

Existing theories of legislative-judicial relations emphasize the role of public support for the judiciary on the likelihood of legislative compliance. Although Congress can strengthen or weaken the Supreme Court’s decisions after initial compliance, the role of public support for the judiciary on subsequent legislative action is unclear. We develop a theory of legislative-judicial interactions, which suggests that Congress considers the court’s current level of public support when determining whether to override a Supreme Court decision. We test our theory using data on congressional overrides of US Supreme Court decisions, finding that high levels of public support for the court shield the court from hostile congressional action. The results underscore the vital role played by the public in interbranch relations, suggesting that public support plays a role in the legacy of a judicial decision beyond ensuring initial compliance.