Archive by Author

NotedDC — Supreme Court ruling throws curveball in gun debate

The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday expanding gun rights is throwing a curveball into debate over anti-gun violence efforts as lawmakers scramble to pass legislation.

The Senate has teed up a vote on a bipartisan gun-safety bill for Friday, and the high court’s ruling is fueling a sense of urgency among Democrats to quickly pass the bill.

Democrats have touted new funds for red flag laws and prohibiting guns for five years from dating partners accused of domestic violence as the bill’s biggest achievements.

But as The Hill’s John Kruzel reports, the court’s latest ruling raises questions about whether it could hamper efforts to pass modern gun-safety measures.

Adam Winkler, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, said a gun law must be consistent with historical patterns of gun regulation to be constitutionally permissible.

“There is no historical tradition of taking guns away from people who are in crisis,” Winkler told Kruzel.

Gun control activists have brushed off such concerns, as our colleague Zach Schonfeld reported, even as they condemned the court’s ruling Thursday.

“I believe what the Senate is considering and hopefully will be passing today is clearly constitutional,” said Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel at the Brady Campaign.

Shannon Watts, founder of pro-gun control group Moms Demand Action, tweeted that the ruling “doesn’t touch the policy areas” of the bill.

The 6-3 ruling, which fell along ideological lines, struck down a century-old New York state law that made it more difficult to obtain a permit to carry a handgun in public.

And while the court’s decision in part overshadows the Senate’s effort advancing the bipartisan gun bill, it’s also energized Democrats to push for more action.

“Democrats will never relent in our fight to end the scourge of gun violence,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, vowing the House will continue to push for a ban on assault-style weapons and other measures the Senate excluded from its bill.

Republicans who opposed the bill have also cited the ruling to justify their positions. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said in a statement that it was an “ever-present reminder” of the “brazen attacks from the left” on the Second Amendment. 

John LaBombard, former communications director to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), said Democrats should emphasize the rare achievement of bipartisanship in today’s Congress.

“They have set an example for how Washington can work when leaders tune out partisan purists in both parties and do the hard work of forging common ground around common values,” LaBombard said. 

“That’s what everyday voters across the country want, and it’s an achievement that even today’s court decision can’t undermine,” he added.

Welcome to NotedDC: Your guide to politics, policy and people of consequence in D.C. Send us tips: Elizabeth Crisp & Kelsey Carolan. Not on the list? Subscribe here.

White House faces limited options on abortion

The White House is urging states to prepare for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, with a Supreme Court ruling on the issue coming as soon as Friday.

• Why it’s important: The federal government doesn’t have many avenues to protect access to abortion.
• Democrats’ efforts to codify abortion rights in Congress were also blocked in May shortly after a draft opinion on the issue was leaked.

Vice President Harris has been vocal on the issue, meeting with state attorneys general on Thursday to push them to issue legal guidance and resources.

• “We’ve started preliminary discussions about how attorneys general … may have the power, at the very least, to issue guidance to ensure that the people of their state know their rights, that they have the power to assess and potentially challenge the constitutionality of laws being passed in their state,” Harris said.
• The vice president didn’t lay out any specific details about what the White House may try to do, likely a nod to the limited options.

The Hill previously reported that administration officials met with state officials and advocacy groups, asking questions about access to abortion pills and state laws prohibiting expenses for travel to receive an abortion.

A big question — how will Biden respond? The president, who has long had a discomfort talking about abortion because of his Catholic faith and views on access, has faced criticism for only recently saying the word “abortion.”

• However, the president’s response will be in the spotlight with the conservative-majority court poised to hand down a major decision on abortion rights.
• Mass protests are expected and the court has beefed up its security in the past two months, while Congress passed expanded security for justices’ families.

Congress zooms toward packed July agenda

Lawmakers are scheduled to leave town this weekend for the July 4 holiday. When they return, it will be a mad-dash to pass priority legislation ahead of Congress’ annual month-long August recess.

The looming midterm elections — which will decide which party controls the House and Senate — add to the pressure on Congress to quickly wrap up its work as members head back on the campaign trail.

And while leaders have been cool to President Biden‘s proposed three-month suspension of the federal gas tax, lawmakers will have plenty of other items on their plate in July.

Here’s a look at some of the top issues:

1. Insulin, burn pits

• Leaders say they expect a bill capping insulin prices will likely be taken up in July.
• Legislation meant to provide aid to veterans who are victims of burn pits and other toxic exposures has broad support, but a technical issue in the text created a last-minute hurdle that delayed its final passage.

2. Big spending measures

• Lawmakers have major spending proposals to hash out. Appropriations panels have been hearing testimony from Biden officials about priorities for a possible long-term budget plan — knocking off a key starting point for deeper talks.
• Congress also has yet to approve the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), but committees have been working toward an agreement.

3. Reconciliation redux?

• Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has resumed private meetings with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to try again to reach a deal on a slimmed-down version of Democrats’ sweeping spending bill.

4. Capitol riot hearings resume

• Following what officials have described as a massive influx of information, the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol will extend its hearings into July, when House members return from the break.

PHIL ON THE HILL

TV personality Dr. Phil McGraw was on Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss mental health with lawmakers, including Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who is also a doctor.

Kennedy Center not lifting mask mandate

New York City’s famed Broadway theaters will be allowed to drop their mask mandates starting July 1, but D.C. arts lovers will still have to mask-up to go to shows at the Kennedy Center for the time being.

“At this time, the Kennedy Center will continue to require masks at all indoor performances,” a spokesman for the center told NotedDC. “We do not currently have plans to lift that requirement.”

The Kennedy Center, which has consulted with the Cleveland Clinic and Inova to navigate the coronavirus pandemic, currently requires masks only during indoor performances, when audience members are not actively eating or drinking.  

Masks aren’t required in public, non-performance areas, including the Hall of States, Hall of Nations and Grand Foyer, where masks are optional.  

The center initially required proof of vaccination, as well, but reversed its position on that policy in April. 

Summer solstice events in Washington

Finally, you can celebrate the start of summer with the Smithsonian this Saturday by staying up late and dancing on the National Mall.

Here are the museums that will be open until midnight: 

• The Smithsonian Castle and Haupt Garden 
• Arts and Industries Building 
• National Museum of African Art 
• National Museum of Asian Art 
• National Museum of Natural History 

Some fun activities at the museums: 

• Glow in the dark while doing yoga at the Haupt Garden 
• Enjoy a performance of John Luther Adam’s “Earth and the Great Weather” at the Hirshhorn Museum
• Celebrate the life of musician Tito Matos at the Folklife Festival on the Mall 

Learn more about the full day of events here.

ONE NUMBER TO KNOW

15

The number of Republicans who voted to advance the gun-safety bill to a final vote, expected to take place Friday. The Hill’s Alexander Bolton has a rundown on each member. 

Stay with TheHill.com for the latest and recommend NotedDC to others: thehill.com/noted. See you next week.

VIEW FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

Suspect shot and killed guard at Arkansas jail: police

A suspect shot and killed a guard at a detention facility in central Arkansas while being booked on drug charges Wednesday night, police said.

Arkansas State Police said Roderick Lewis, 37, shot Jeremiah Story with a pistol at a county jail in Perryville, Ark., which is located 35 miles northwest of Little Rock.

“State police special agents were called to the jail by local sheriff’s department authorities to begin the investigation, which is continuing,” state police said in a release.

It is not clear what prompted the shooting.

Story was taken to a hospital in the nearby town of Conway, where he later passed away. He was 21 years old.

Authorities said the incident happened in a bathroom where Lewis was changing into jail-issued attire. A witness to the shooting subsequently disarmed Lewis, according to police.

He was later transferred to the Faulkner County Detention Center in Conway as state police investigate, but Lewis has not yet been charged in relation to the shooting.

“ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!” the National Fraternal Order of Police tweeted in response to the incident.

Lewis is scheduled to face trial in November on charges of aggravated assault against a family or household member and interference with emergency communication in connection with an incident last fall, according to Pulaski County court records.

Source: TEST FEED1

Equilibrium/Sustainability — Los Angeles weighs ban on new gas stations

Los Angeles officials are considering a ban on the construction of new gas stations as part of a push to curb the development of fossil fuel infrastructure.

“We are ending oil drilling in Los Angeles. We are moving to all-electric new construction. And we are building toward fossil fuel-free transportation,” LA council member Paul Koretz (D) told The Guardian, referring to other recent policy decisions.

“Our great and influential city, which grew up around the automobile, is the perfect place to figure out how to move off the gas-powered car,” Koretz said.

If LA does move forward with these plans, it would become the biggest city to ban new gas stations, The Guardian noted.

Los Angeles would be following in the footsteps of Bay-area city Petaluma, Calif., which became the first U.S. city last year to do so, as The Hill reported. 

Welcome to Equilibrium, a newsletter that tracks the growing global battle over the future of sustainability. We’re Saul Elbein and Sharon Udasin. Send us tips and feedback. Subscribe here.

Today we’ll examine the leaks rattling U.S. natural gas and carbon dioxide pipelines, followed by a look at the dangerous heat plaguing much of the country. Then we’ll explore whether hosting virtual conferences could help curb global emissions.

US gas pipeline leaks occur every 40 hours: report

America’s natural gas pipelines incur the equivalent of one leak every 40 hours, a new report has found. 

From 2010 to 2021, almost 2,600 such leaks occurred that were serious enough to require federal reporting — with 850 resulting in fires and 328 in explosions, according to the study, released by U.S. Public Interest Research Groups (U.S. PIRG) Education Fund. 

• These incidents killed 122 people and injured 603, the authors observed.  
• Total costs in property damage, emergency services and the value of unintentionally released gas totaled nearly $4 billion.   

On par with cars: Such events also led to the leakage of 26.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas — equal to the annual emissions generated by 2.4 million passenger vehicles, according to the report. 

A nationwide issue: “House explosions and leaking pipelines aren’t isolated incidents — they’re the result of an energy system that pipes dangerous, explosive gas across the country and through our neighborhoods,” co-author Matt Casale, of U.S. PIRG Education Fund, said in a statement. 

To draw their conclusions, Casale and his colleagues sifted through federal leak reporting data available through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. 

Impact: The authors, who referred to natural gas by its primary component of methane, stressed that the amount of gas leaking into the environment is likely far greater than the quantity captured in federal leak reporting. 

• That’s because the database pertains only to the pipeline system, which doesn’t include non-pipeline sources such as those coming in and out of homes, according to the study. 
• Moving forward, the authors recommended that the U.S. curb its reliance on natural gas for home heating and cooking, as well as incentivize a transition to all-electric buildings and renewable energy.
• In the interim, they suggested focusing gas infrastructure investments on fixing leaks.   

Industry’s response? The American Gas Association said that gas utilities invest $91 million daily to enhance the safety of distribution and transmission systems — a move they say has resulted in a 69 percent decline in related emissions since 1990. 

Since the same year, the miles of gas mains made of modern, leak-resistant sources “have more than tripled,” according to the association.  

“Natural gas utilities remain committed to upgrading our nation’s pipeline network to enhance safety while contributing to a declining trend in emissions,” the statement added. 

To read the full story, please click here.

Carbon dioxide pipelines face farmer opposition

A key piece of the Biden climate agenda — plans to build a massive network of pipelines that would reroute industrial carbon emissions underground — is getting pushback from those whose lands the pipelines would cross.

Farmers, Native nations and other landowners are organizing against a pair of carbon dioxide pipelines slated to cross the Midwest — suggesting the Department of Energy’s ambitious goals may be challenging to reach. 

• Such carbon capture, transport and storage systems are a large component of U.S. climate goals, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has said. 
• Pipeline companies Navigator and Summit Carbon Solutions claim they are making ethanol — and therefore gasoline — more sustainable by capturing some of the heat-trapping carbon dioxide gas released in the process to be stored underground.  

Brewing discontent: Hundreds of landowners in multiple states have filed positions opposing the pipelines, for reasons ranging from concerns about safety, to skepticism over environmental benefits to worries about losing the use of their land. 

• “They’re telling us it will be perfectly safe — just like the fracking injection people did,” Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party and founder of Bold Nebraska, a landowner activist group, told Equilibrium. 
• The group also opposes the potential seizure of land by the pipeline companies, describing the practice as “eminent domain for private gain,” according to Kleeb. 

Pushback from tribal nations: The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska has asked for an environmental impact statement.

• “There is just too much unknown for these pipelines, that’s why it’s important that this study be conducted,” Tribal Secretary Lorelei DeCora told Nebraska-based TV station WOWT. 
• The tribe also supports farmers opposing the plan, the tribal chairwoman told the outlet. 

Carbon removal: The pipelines from Navigator and Summit Carbon Solutions would transport carbon dioxide emitted from ethanol plants in states like Iowa and Nebraska to be stored underground in deep caverns. 

Once there, it would use a similar storage mechanism that we covered at a carbon removal facility in Iceland last week. That process, called carbon removal, involves binding carbon dioxide into subterranean rock formations where it turns to stone. But getting it there remains a problem. 

• Summit’s 2,000-mile pipeline project would capture and store 20 million tons of carbon dioxide released from ethanol production, according to the company.
   
• Navigator’s Heartland Greenway would transport carbon dioxide 1,300 miles, ultimately storing 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, a statement from the second firm said. 

In their press statements, both firms have laid out sweeping plans for an expanded network of carbon capture pipelines. 

Big plans: The companies market the plan as a means of making Midwestern ethanol more attractive to states like California and Oregon, the Nebraska Examiner reported. 

• The fuel itself still releases carbon dioxide when burned. 
•  “We don’t think this is a climate solution. It just lets oil and gas companies pretend they’re making progress toward net zero,” Kleen said. 

Real risk: Even carbon dioxide alone — an odorless, colorless gas — can be dangerous. 

• A 2020 pipeline rupture in Mississippi sent dozens of people to the hospital, according to E&E News. 
• Had the winds been different, or “if it’d been later when people were sleeping, we would have had deaths,” county emergency manager Jack Willingham told the Huffington Post. 

Much of US facing dangerous heat this weekend

The high-pressure atmospheric dome hovering over much of the U.S. like the lid to a pressure cooker will stay in place throughout the weekend. 

That means persistent and even dangerous daytime temperatures for most of the South and West, Greg Carbin, chief of forecast operations at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, told Equilibrium. 

Like a nozzle: A ridge of dense air — an area featuring high pressure that tends to generate fair weather — has become trapped over the Ohio Valley and is generating additional heat as it sinks toward the surface, Carbin said.  

• “It’s like when you fill a tire with air, and the nozzle gets hot, because it’s compressing air around a smaller domain,” he said. 
• The clear skies beneath the ridge also allows in additional solar heat, he added. 

Mild relief is coming: The ridge should “erode from the sides over the next few days, so next week should bring a bit of relief,” which means temperatures in the 90s rather than the 100s, Carbin said. 

Don’t get too comfortable: “But as we go through the summer, the probability is high that we’ll see another ridge build across the middle of the country,” he added. 

ICYMI: Check out our guide on staying cool if your power goes out in a heatwave.

The virtue of going virtual 

Maintaining the option of virtual attendance at professional conferences could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new study. 

Comparing data from an annual conference that occurred both before and during the pandemic, researchers found that considerable emissions were spared during the virtual version. They published the results of their analysis on Thursday in JAMA Oncology.

Big differences: The authors looked specifically at attendance records for the American Radium Society Annual meeting, which occurred as an in-person summit in 2019 and as a virtual online conference in 2021. 

Their findings? The total emissions that would have been incurred but ended up spared during the 2021 meeting would have been about 469.4 metric tons, according to the study. 

That’s the equivalent of the annual emissions of 102.4 passenger vehicles, the authors noted. 

How did they get there? They sorted through attendance numbers and associated travel for the 2019 in-person meeting as well as the 2021 virtual session. 

• They found that 252 people attended in person in 2019, while 338 attended in 2021 — a 34 percent increase in attendance.  
• For the 2019 conference, they estimated that the total carbon dioxide emissions generated was about 170.5 metric tons, or 0.68 metric tons per attendee.   

Do virtual conferences generate any emissions? Yes, but comparatively little. The authors calculated that the total emissions associated with online streaming at the 2021 conference was about 0.91 metric tons, while food delivery amounted to about 0.70 metric tons.  

This is just one conference. Why is it so important? Researchers estimate that conference attendance makes up 35 percent of a scientist’s total carbon emissions, the authors stressed, citing a 2013 article in the journal Ecological Indicators.  

With in-person meetings resuming during the post-pandemic era, the authors suggested that professional societies consider prioritizing sustainability when planning their meetings. 

Other options? The researchers identified several solutions:

• Hybrid conferences with in-person and virtual options 
• Alternating annual meetings between in-person and online events 
• Making meetings biannual 
• Decentralizing meetups with multiple regional conference venues 

Thursday Threats 

Water edition: Heat waves worsen hurricanes, La Niña celebrates her third birthday and the portent of power loss in Lake Mead. 

Heat waves could incubate hurricanes 

• This week’s hot weather is spiking temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, which is increasing the risk of hurricanes, according to NBC News. Temperatures are “well above what a hurricane needs to survive,” Nan Walker of Louisiana State University told NBC. 

‘Triple’ La Niña likely to roll into 2023: researchers 

• A La Niña event that has caused flooding in eastern Australia and exacerbated U.S. and East African drought could continue into 2023 — rolling into a third consecutive year, according to Nature. While such a “triple dip” La Niña has happened only twice since 1950, climate change could make future such conditions worse, researchers warned. 

Dead pool looms for Nevada’s Lake Mead 

• Drought has brought Nevada’s crucial hydropower reservoir of Lake Mead to just 150 feet above “dead pool,” when water is too low to flow downstream, NBC News reported. “This is deadly serious stuff,” Robert Glennon of University of Arizona said to NBC.

NOT SO THREATENING

A floating city is taking shape in a turquoise lagoon in the Indian Ocean, just
10 minutes by boat from Male, the capital of the Maldives, CNN reported.

The project, a joint venture between developer Dutch Docklands and the government of the Maldives, is “being built as a practical solution to the harsh reality of sea-level rise,” according to CNN. 

The Maldives could disappear by century’s end if warming isn’t slowed, the country’s environment minister told the World Economic Forum last year, CNBC reported. 

Please visit The Hill’s Sustainability section online for the web version of this newsletter and more stories. We’ll see you tomorrow.

VIEW FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP lawmakers stick by McCarthy despite Jan. 6 strategy criticism

House Republicans are sticking by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) decision to boycott the Jan. 6 select committee, softening the blow from former President Trump publicly bashing McCarthy’s strategy as splashy hearings paint him in a negative light.

One of McCarthy’s original picks for the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), expressed a desire to counter the Democrats on the panel but took a what’s-done-is-done attitude.

“It would have been nice to be on the committee,” Nehls said. “But I respect the leader. It’s not my decision, it was his. He made the decision and I live with it.”

Rep. Kelly Armstrong (N.D.), another one of McCarthy’s picks, said that the GOP leader “100 percent” made the right choice to boycott the committee.

“Sometimes in the minority, you have two bad choices. Kevin made the only choice he can make, and I stand by him,” Armstrong said.

By not appointing members to the committee, Republicans lost the ability to be present during closed-door depositions, leaving Trump and his team with little insight as to what information the committee might release next. They also have no opportunity to shape the hearings or counter the Democrats’ questioning

“I think it would have been good if we had representation,” Trump told Punchbowl News in an interview this week. “We should’ve picked other people” after Pelosi blocked him from the committee, he added.

In another interview with conservative talk show host Wayne Allyn Root over the weekend, Trump said it was a “foolish decision” to not have members on the panel defending him.

Nearly a year ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made the unprecedented move of vetoing two of McCarthy’s five picks to sit on the select committee, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Jim Banks (R-Ind.). In response, McCarthy pulled his other three picks: Reps. Rodney Davis (Ill.), Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) and Nehls.

Trump isn’t the only one who has criticized McCarthy for pulling his picks. Former Trump White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, who was arrested this month for contempt of Congress in defying a subpoena from the committee, in December called McCarthy’s decision his “original sin.”

“What an idiot,” Navarro told Newsmax. “I mean, he plays checkers in a chess world at a critical time. He refused to put Republicans on that committee other than Liz Cheney, who’s not a Republican, so we lost our opportunity to publicly press that advantage.”

McCarthy is standing by his decision.

“I do not regret not appointing anybody at all,” McCarthy said Thursday. “How can you have an honest investigation if the Speaker can appoint and pick and choose who can be on it?”

McCarthy, whose eye is on taking the Speaker’s gavel next year in a GOP majority, must tread carefully as Trump fumes about the hearing. Trump separately noted in the Wayne Allyn Root interview that he has not yet endorsed McCarthy to be Speaker. McCarthy said that he had talked to Trump the day after the interview. 

Jordan, who has backed McCarthy to be Speaker next year and will likely be chair of the House Judiciary Committee in a GOP Majority, said that he thought Pelosi would have kept vetoing McCarthy’s picks until she got the “partisan” committee that she wanted. 

“She was going to get a committee that can be totally partisan. I think that was always the goal,” Jordan said.

But Jordan declined to say that the criticism from Trump was fair or unfair.

“I think McCarthy has done as good a job as you can possibly do,” said Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.). “When Nancy Pelosi jerked a couple of people off the committee, then, you know, that wasn’t abiding by the rules. So he declared it an illegitimate committee.”

Publicly, top Republicans dismiss the committee as partisan because the only two Republicans on the panel, Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), were appointed by Pelosi and have broken with the majority of the House GOP conference on Trump. They have also argued publicly and in court that the panel is illegitimate due to it not having any GOP-appointed members. Federal courts have repeatedly upheld the committee’s authority.

But privately, some GOP members say that the Jan. 6 committee hearings have been effective, with each hearing being crafted to tell a story about a particular aspect of Trump’s denial of election results and the lead-up to the riot.

Aspects that make the hearings engaging, though — such as one member of the committee leading the hearing like a presentation and asking questions of witnesses, interjected with video clips — are largely due to no Republican-appointed members sitting on the committee. Typical congressional hearings have a witness selected by the minority and give each member five minutes to ask questions.

“It’s not him who made this decision,” Armstrong said. “Every time the Speaker says ‘unprecedented,’ she changes the rules. When you take off the guy who’s going to be the next chair of Judiciary, and you take off the guy who leads the largest conference in the Republican Party, it’s not about the two members. It’s about silencing entire constituencies.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Congress should put an end to in-house courts at the SEC

How would you feel if a police officer gave you a traffic ticket based on information he had received — and the same officer was sitting in robes at the judge’s bench when you went to court to contest the ticket? Do you think you’d get an open-minded and fair hearing? Some federal agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission have just such a system, though it’s now being criticized by courts and could be subject to further challenges. 

Recently, in Jarkesy v. SEC, the Fifth Circuit found several features of the SEC’s in-house courts to be unconstitutional. The court of appeals was concerned about the right to a jury trial in civil cases. The SEC had sued a defendant for securities fraud, found a violation, and imposed a monetary penalty. The appellate court reasoned that fraud cases for a monetary penalty had been tried by juries in common-law courts for many years, and Congress could not eliminate the jury trial right just by permitting an agency to bring such a case as an administrative proceeding. 

The decision also faulted the statutes giving the SEC total discretion to assign an enforcement case either to the in-house court or to a federal district court. Congress should have given the SEC a basis for choosing one or the other in a particular case but had not.  

A final problem identified by the court of appeals was that the president could not exercise sufficient control over the SEC administrative law judge who tried the defendant’s case before it went to the SEC commissioners for review. The president faced two levels of restrictions on his ability to remove the judge, which impeded the control the president needed over an officer of the United States. 

The flaws the Fifth Circuit found only begin to address the constitutional problems with the use of an administrative agency’s internal court system for the agency’s own enforcement cases. At the SEC and other agencies, officials investigate and charge a person for violating a law and then use a streamlined process within the same agency to decide whether the person committed the violation. The heads of the agency, such as the commissioners of the SEC, both start a case alleging that a person broke a law and then later determine that, yes, the defendant did it. 

The most fundamental objection to SEC administrative proceedings is that they either are inherently unfair to defendants and biased in favor of the SEC or appear to be unfair. Defendants caught up in the process emerge with a sense that they did not receive the same even-handed and impartial consideration that they would have received in federal court. 

For instance, the procedures used at the trial level of an administrative proceeding hamper a defendant’s ability to prepare and present a full defense. The SEC rules are a skeletal version of the procedures used in federal district courts and severely restrict a defendant’s ability to obtain information to defeat the allegations of misconduct. In a complicated case, the SEC schedule is too short. 

The decisionmaker in an SEC administrative proceeding is initially an administrative law judge who is not sufficiently independent of agency enforcement goals. The SEC commissioners, who may review this judge’s initial decision, also have an interest in the SEC’s enforcement program and are sometimes the very same commissioners who charged the defendant. Their impartiality is certainly open to question. 

A defendant is entitled to go to federal court only after the layers of proceedings at the SEC. Even in federal court, the defendant faces a steep uphill climb because the facts found by the SEC are generally treated as conclusive and courts often defer to the SEC’s legal analysis. 

Congress should give serious consideration to abolishing SEC administrative proceedings. They are not necessary to an effective securities enforcement program, and they fail to meet the standards of impartiality and fairness we expect from federal institutions. 

Contrary to some observers’ fears, this would not be the end of the administrative state. It would strengthen confidence in the operations of agencies that have enforcement powers. It would say that those agencies may no longer judge their own cases and that a charge of misconduct must be supported with evidence and legal argument persuasive enough to convince an impartial and objective decisionmaker. 

Andrew N. Vollmer is a senior affiliated scholar with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, former professor of law, general faculty, at the University of Virginia School of Law, and former deputy general counsel of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Source: TEST FEED1

Judge asks DOJ to explain whether Meadows is immune from House Jan. 6 subpoena

A federal judge on Friday asked the Justice Department to explain its view on whether former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is immune from a congressional subpoena issued by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

The inquiry from U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols comes a little over three weeks after the department said it would not prosecute Meadows for contempt of Congress despite the House referring him for criminal charges for defying the select committee’s subpoena.

Nichols is presiding over a civil suit Meadows filed against the select committee late last year challenging its subpoena. His brief order issued on Thursday appears to give the department the option of declining to weigh in on the matter.

The judge invited the DOJ to address “its view as to whether Plaintiff is entitled to absolute or qualified testimonial immunity from the subpoena at issue in this case.”

If the department chooses to weigh in, it will provide the first public explanation of why it chose to spare Meadows from prosecution, while filing criminal contempt charges against former White House trade advisor Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, who had once served as a White House strategist to former President Trump. The Justice Department also declined to charge Trump’s social media guru Dan Scavino for defying a select committee subpoena.

In his legal case against the committee, Meadows has cited DOJ advisory legal memoranda dating back to the 1980’s that have consistently held that senior White House officials enjoy absolute immunity from congressional subpoenas.

With the select committee in the midst of its series of public hearings and appearing to wrap up its investigation, it’s unclear whether lawmakers will be able to secure anything of value from Meadows at this point.

But the DOJ’s refusal to charge Meadows has added to the tension between the two branches’ respective Jan. 6 investigations. Earlier this month, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the chair and vice chair of the select committee, blasted the DOJ for its decision.

“While today’s indictment of Peter Navarro was the correct decision by the Justice Department, we find the decision to reward Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino for their continued attack on the rule of law puzzling,” Thompson and Cheney said in a joint statement on June 3. “Mr. Meadows and Mr. Scavino unquestionably have relevant knowledge about President Trump’s role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events of January 6th. We hope the Department provides greater clarity on this matter.”

Source: TEST FEED1

At least four House GOP lawmakers asked for pardons after Jan. 6

The Jan. 6 committee investigating the attack on the Capitol revealed Thursday that Republican Reps. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) Mo Brooks (Ala.) Louie Gohmert (Texas) and Andy Biggs (Ariz.) asked for a presidential pardon for their role in voting to overturn election results in certain states on Jan. 6, 2021.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a member of the panel who played an elevated role in Thursday’s proceedings, presented an email from Brooks, dated Jan. 11, 2021, in which the congressman asked for presidential pardons for himself, Gaetz, and lawmakers who objected to the Electoral College vote for Arizona and Pennsylvania.

“President Trump asked me to send you this letter. This letter is also pursuant to a request from Matt Gaetz,” the email reads.

“As such, I recommend that President give general (all purpose) pardons to the following groups of people:,” the email adds. “Every Congressman and Senator who voted to reject the electoral vote submission of Arizona and Pennsylvania.”

The panel also showed a video of former special assistant to the president Cassidy Hutchinson saying Gaetz and Brooks “both advocated for there to be a blanket pardon” for members of Congress involved with a meeting that took place on Dec, 21, 2020, presumably the huddle at the White House that focused on overturning the 2020 presidential election.

She also said Gaetz and Brooks advocated for a blanket pardon for “a handful of other members that weren’t at the Dec. 21 meeting.” Those were meant to be “preemptive pardons,” she noted.

Additionally, Hutchinson said “Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon, and he was doing so since early December,” but said she did not know why.

Gaetz reached out to Hutchinson asking for a meeting with Meadows “about receiving a presidential pardon,” according to her closed-door testimony presented at Thursday’s hearing.

Hutchinson said Biggs, Gohmert and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) also asked for pardons, but did not reveal more details.

And she said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a fierce defender of Trump, “talked about congressional pardons, but he never asked me for one,” noting that he was largely inquiring about whether or not the White House was going to grant the lawmaker pardons.

Updated at 5:47 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Filmmaker: Trump ‘irate,’ ‘depressed’ following Jan. 6

A filmmaker who recorded interviews with former President Trump, former Vice President Mike Pence and members of Trump’s family in the lead-up to and following the 2020 election said Trump appeared “quite irate and quite depressed and frustrated” when he interviewed him after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. 

Alex Holder spoke to CBS’s Norah O’Donnell after sitting for a private two-hour deposition with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. The committee issued a subpoena to Holder last week for material he obtained while filming the end of Trump’s reelection campaign for a three-part documentary. 

Holder said in a statement on Tuesday that he provided to the committee interviews he conducted with Trump, Pence, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump since September 2020, along with footage of the Capitol riot. 

Holder told O’Donnell that he also spoke to Trump a second time following the insurrection, in Bedminster, N.J., where he said the former president was “more jovial and content.” 

He said Trump did not seem to realize his role in encouraging the rioters who were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6. He said it would be “fair” to say Trump did not accept any responsibility for what happened on that day. 

“I think what was staggering was that he essentially gave the reason why they were there without fully understanding that he was responsible for that reason,” Holder said. 

He said that viewers may have different impressions about whether Trump expressed remorse about the day’s events. 

CBS reported that Holder told reporters he also interviewed Trump once before the insurrection occurred.

A representative for Holder said in a statement on Thursday that the Trump family did not request and were not granted any editorial control for the documentary.

Source: TEST FEED1

Protectionist buzzwords could ruin the World Trade Organization

The news out of Geneva last week was that the World Trade Organization (WTO) will live to see another day.

That’s because the 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12) did enough to get members talking about the need to reconvene for MC13. The “deliverables” include a deal on fisheries, a declaration on food security and a waiver on intellectual property with respect to COVID-19 vaccines. There are many details still to be worked out. Several topics, like dispute settlement, were left to future meetings.

Now comes the hard work. Trade ministers need to get support back home for what they did in Geneva. This task will be made more difficult by two buzzwords of the day: “near-shoring” and “friend-shoring.” Both terms can only serve to politicize supply chains and give protectionists the upper hand. In the limit, they spell autarky.

The purported reason for near- and friend-shoring is that COVID and the war in Ukraine have led to disruptions in trade. The suggested “fix” is to bring more of the things we need home, or at least to countries that are close by or friendly. The irony is that the WTO is designed to reduce the risk of “hold up,” a theme made clear in MC12’s declaration on food security. But where the WTO puts its faith in markets, proponents of near- and friend-shoring want to prioritize politics.

First, some thoughts about a few of MC12’s deliverables. There are key innovations in the fisheries deal, which aims to curtail subsidies on illegal fishing. The buzz about the deal is that it’s the WTO’s first to directly get at an environmental concern, and may even cover labor standards.

The declaration on “food insecurity” is a useful pledge by members to resist imposing the type of export and other restrictions that proved popular as COVID raged. It doesn’t do anything enforceable, but it sets the right tone at a time when the war in Ukraine is reminding us that food markets are inextricably intertwined.

The waiver on intellectual property is just theater. There already exists a global over-supply of COVID vaccines. Few developing countries have the capacity to make vaccines, and making more of them will further strain delicate supply chains. In this light, the waiver seems to be more about industrial policy ambitions than redressing an inequity of access. Moreover, this bit of theater will hurt innovation when the next pandemic rolls around. Especially if, in six months, members expand the waiver to cover diagnostics and therapeutics, which could mean just about anything and everything.

MC12 also vowed to jump-start talk about reforming WTO dispute settlement. In a teaser, the “Outcome Document” promises discussions with a view to getting the system “fully and well-functioning” by 2024. The hope is that, among other things, this means fixing the Appellate Body.

So, was MC12 a success? Critics argue it simply kicked the can down the road. Proponents urge that it’s a win because anyone is even talking about the need to get back together for MC13. But what sold in Geneva may not sell in capitols. It’s not just a question of political will. The jargon is also getting in the way.

Near- and friend-shoring tap an intuition that geographic proximity and alliances are good for trade. In fact, there’s research showing that physical distance, and cordial relations, explain a lot about trade flows. As policy prescription, however, near- and friend-shoring aren’t about commercial gravity among friends, but about how markets can’t be trusted.

Consider, for example, a recent bipartisan bill introduced in Congress titled the “Western Hemisphere Nearshoring Act.” It authorizes the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to fund the relocation of suppliers to nearby friendly countries. The cost of doing this would be staggering, especially since the bill also covers the “necessary workforce development costs” on top of moving expenses.

But key supply chains, like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, can’t be near- or friend-shored. The same goes for rare earths and critical materials, for which electric vehicles and other technologies have a voracious appetite.

As for intellectual property, the waiver nearly failed over whether China would be allowed to use it. The heated debate that followed led to a footnote in the waiver that disqualifies China. But this debate distracted from a more central point: Waiving intellectual property will hurt innovation regardless of whether physically close free riders are friends or foe.

The package of deliverables agreed to at MC12 deserve to be debated. But make no mistake, near- and friend-shoring are protectionist buzzwords that will leave WTO members, including the U.S., less wealthy and less secure.

Marc L. Busch is the Karl F. Landegger Professor of International Business Diplomacy at the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Follow him on Twitter @marclbusch.

Source: TEST FEED1