# data[].attributes.body
After posting several uses of profanity on her Snapchat, the 14-year-old received a suspension from school and will not be allowed to try out for the cheerleading squad. This addresses our conservations in class concerning how much authority the school truly has.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brandi Levy poses for a portrait provided by the ACLU outside her former high school in Pennsylvania. (Danna Singer)

The high school cheerleader relegated to the JV squad for another year responded with a fleeting fit of frustration: a photo of her upraised middle finger and another word that begins with F.

"F--- school, f--- softball, f--- cheer, f--- everything," 14-year-old Brandi Levy typed into Snapchat one spring Saturday. Like all "snaps" posted to a Snapchat "story," this one sent to about 250 "friends" was to disappear within 24 hours, before everyone returned to Pennsylvania's Mahanoy Area High School on Monday.

Instead, an adolescent outburst and the adult reaction to it has arrived at the Supreme Court, where it could determine how the First Amendment's protection of free speech applies to the off-campus activities of the nation's 50 million public school students.

"This is the most momentous case in more than five decades involving student speech," said Justin Driver, a Yale law professor and author of " The Schoolhouse Gate: Public Education, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for the American Mind."

"Much of the speech from students is off-campus and increasingly online," Driver said. "When I talk to school administrators, they consistently tell me that off-campus speech bedevils them, and the lower courts desperately need some guidance in this area."

That shouldn't be a surprise, as cellphones have become an extension of almost every teenager's hand and social media a preferred mode of communication. And for the past year, many students have not gone near a school campus, with their "speech" happening in their homes during Zoom classes.

The First Amendment does not "force schools to ignore student speech that upends the campus environment simply because that speech originated off campus," says a brief filed by Mahanoy Area School District, which upheld the school's decision to kick Levy off the cheer squad.

"Wherever student speech originates, schools should be able to treat students alike when their speech is directed at the school and imposes the same disruptive harms on the school environment."

Supreme Court rules First Amendment protects church's right to picket funerals

The school board's brief, as well as Driver's book title, refers to the foundational Supreme Court case regarding student speech, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The 1969 decision famously held that students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

But it also held that schools have broader authority over students than the state generally does when restricting speech and that authorities can discipline students for on-campus speech that causes or is likely to cause "material and substantial" disruption of school functions. (The court ruled 7 to 2 for Mary Beth Tinker because, it said, the black armband she wore to protest the Vietnam War was not disruptive.)

In the half-century since, the Supreme Court's decisions have been few and lean toward school administrators. The justices have upheld school disciplinary action regarding lewd speech by students, a student newspaper that operated at the direction of school officials and a nonsensical sign with a seemingly pro-marijuana message - "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" - held by a student at a school activity.

Levy's case is different. It concerns speech far beyond the schoolhouse gate, made online and on a weekend, unconnected to a school event.

"This may seem like a very narrow case about a minor temper tantrum on Snapchat, but it is about speech anywhere and everywhere, by students of all ages," said Frank LoMonte, director of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida.

Because it is somewhat rare for the justices to take a student speech case, "they are writing broadly the standards that will apply for two or three generations," LoMonte said. "And they are writing the standards for all forms of speech across all media."

None of that was on Levy's mind, of course, when she and a friend were at the Cocoa Hut, a 24-hour convenience store in Mahanoy City, a town in Pennsylvania's coal country about 40 miles southwest of Wilkes-Barre. After a year on the Golden Bears junior varsity squad, she had hoped to move up to varsity. Worse, in her view, a rising freshman had gotten a spot ahead of her.

"I was just feeling really frustrated and upset at everything that day," said Levy, now 18 and a college student studying accounting.

Besides the snap in which she and her friend posed with middle fingers extended, she sent another: "Love how me and [another student, whom Levy identified by name] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but that doesn't matter to anyone else?" She signed off with an upside-down smiley face.

It was sent to about 250 people who received Levy's snaps, which dissolve within 24 hours. "I didn't think it would have had an effect on anyone, and it didn't really," Levy said.

But one person took a screenshot and showed it to another, who happened to be the daughter of one of the cheerleading coaches. Some cheerleaders complained about Levy's message, and the coaches decided to suspend her from the squad for a year.

The coaches said Levy's snap violated the team rules she had agreed to, including showing respect, avoiding "foul language and inappropriate gestures," and a strict policy against "any negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or coaches placed on the Internet."

Brandi's parents, Larry and Betty Lou, appealed to the athletic director, the principal, the superintendent and the school board, to no avail.

Then, with the help of the ACLU, they filed a federal lawsuit.

A district judge agreed that the suspension from the squad violated the First Amendment, noting that Brandi's speech was not disruptive. He ordered her reinstated to the JV squad in her sophomore year, and she made varsity her junior and senior years.

"It was a little awkward," she said, but the most lasting effect of the case is that fellow students sometimes call her "B.L." because the case is Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, acting on the school board's appeal, went further than the district judge. Disagreeing with other courts that have considered the question, Judge Cheryl Ann Krause said Tinker's grant of authority to school administrators does not extend to off-campus speech.

Her opinion defined that as "speech that is outside school-owned, -operated, or -supervised channels and that is not reasonably interpreted as bearing the school's imprimatur."

The court was mindful of the challenges administrators face to "manage the school environment in the digital age," Krause wrote.

"We are equally mindful, however, that new communicative technologies open new territories where regulators might seek to suppress speech they consider inappropriate, uncouth, or provocative. And we cannot permit such efforts, no matter how well intentioned, without sacrificing precious freedoms that the First Amendment protects."

Judge Thomas L. Ambro disagreed with his colleagues regarding off-campus speech and said it would have been enough for his colleagues to simply have ruled in Levy's favor because her speech was not substantially disruptive.

The school district told the Supreme Court that allowing the 3rd Circuit's ruling to stand would be dangerous.

"Since the dawn of public education, schools have exercised authority to discipline speech that disrupts the campus or harms other students, whether that speech originates on campus or off," said the school district's brief filed by Washington lawyer Lisa S. Blatt.

Supreme Court: Lying about military medals is protected by Constitution

The district, supported in the Supreme Court by the Biden administration, poses a number of problems: the student who publishes answers to the test; the player who undermines the coach with an avalanche of tweets about his play-calling; the disruptive student across the street with a bullhorn.

More seriously: "The laws in the District of Columbia and at least 25 states require schools to address off-campus harassment or bullying that substantially disrupts the school environment or interferes with other students' rights," the brief states. "Students who encourage classmates to kill themselves, target black classmates with photos of lynchings, or text the whole class photos of fellow students in compromising positions, do not limit their invective to school hours."

A coalition of groups concerned about cyberbullying filed a brief filled with examples of such tragic results, including "another cheerleader, a two-hour drive away" who took her own life after relentless online harassment.

The 3rd Circuit opinion said because Levy's case did not raise those issues, it was "reserving for another day the First Amendment implications of off-campus student speech that threatens violence or harasses others."

"Schools need to deal with cyberbullying," said Witold J. Walczak, head of the Pennsylvania ACLU. "What separates us [the ACLU and the school board] is how much power the school is given to address those problems. We feel like the school district's approach is too big a power grab."

Levy has drawn support from a wide and ideologically diverse coalition of more than 100 organizations, 250 individuals and nine Republican state attorneys general.

"You won't find another case in the past decade with such a diverse range of groups on the same side," said David Cole, ACLU national legal director, who will argue the case when the Supreme Court hears it Wednesday. "We have support from the right to the left, from students to administrators, from civil rights groups, religious liberty organizations and red states."

The issue comes before a Supreme Court that seems to pride itself on protecting unpopular speech. As LoMonte wrote in Slate, "The Roberts court has reliably said that . . . the First Amendment requires us to tolerate all manner of unpleasantness. That even includes anti-gay hate speech ( Snyder v. Phelps), lying about military heroism ( United States v. Alvarez), or selling videos of graphically violent dog fights( United States v. Stevens)."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has called himself "probably the most aggressive defender of the First Amendment on the court."

But he wrote the Morse v. Frederick decision in 2007, which upheld school administrators' decision to discipline the student in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case.

"The Roberts court has been noticeably hesitant to vindicate free speech rights when it comes to public school students," said Driver, who notes that the court accepted for review a case in which the student prevailed.

Other justices have history, too. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Morse that Tinker was wrongly decided and that the Constitution "does not protect student speech in public schools."

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who has complained about the speech rights of conservatives on campuses not being respected, reluctantly joined the majority in Morse regarding speech about illegal drugs.

But he said he viewed that regulation "as standing at the far reaches of what the First Amendment permits. I join the opinion of the court with the understanding that the opinion does not endorse any further extension."

Five of the justices were not on the court for Morse, the court's last major student speech case.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, joined an opinion that sided with school administrators who barred a student from running for student council after she wrote in a blog post that officials were "douchebags" for interfering with a battle of the bands concert.

LoMonte said it is the relatively low stakes of student speech cases - the silly sign, a band concert, suspension from the cheerleading squad - that brings the possibility that judges and the public will trivialize them.

But he analogizes it to a police officer handing out $5 tickets to people wearing T-shirts with political statements the government doesn't like.

"No federal judge in America would say, 'Suck it up and pay the ticket,' " LoMonte said. "Even a very small amount of government punishment that is meant to deter you from speaking is enough to violate the First Amendment, and judges understand that very well every place other than schools."

Today's Headlines

The most important news stories of the day, curated by Post editors and delivered every morning.

By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A cheerleader's Snapchat rant leads to 'momentous' Supreme Court case on student speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The high school cheerleader relegated to the JV squad for another year responded with a fleeting fit of frustration: a photo of her upraised middle finger and another word that begins with F. "F--- school, f--- softball, f--- cheer, f--- everything," 14-year-old Brandi Levy typed into Snapchat one spring Saturday.

# data[].attributes.body
The case, arising from a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, could undermine the constitutional right established in Roe v. Wade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The case, arising from a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, could undermine the constitutional right established in Roe v. Wade.

Activists demonstrating for and against abortion rights in front of the Mississippi State Capitol in 2019. Credit... Andrea Morales for The New York Times

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday plunged back into the contentious debate over abortion, agreeing to hear a case that will give its newly expanded conservative majority an opportunity to pare back the constitutional right to abortion established nearly a half century ago in Roe v. Wade.

The new case, concerning a Mississippi law that seeks to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy - about two months earlier than Roe and subsequent decisions allow - is seen by both sides as potentially pivotal in establishing how aggressively the court's new six-justice conservative majority will move to place new constraints on abortion rights.

Supporters of abortion rights denounced the court's decision to take up the case, saying that merely by agreeing to hear it the conservative justices were signaling a willingness to revisit Roe.

"Alarm bells are ringing loudly about the threat to reproductive rights," Nancy Northup, the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. "The Supreme Court just agreed to review an abortion ban that unquestionably violates nearly 50 years of Supreme Court precedent and is a test case to overturn Roe v. Wade."

Backers of the Mississippi law said that it was necessary to protect fetal life and expressed confidence that it would be judged constitutional by the Supreme Court.

"The Mississippi Legislature enacted this law consistent with the will of its constituents to promote women's health and preserve the dignity and sanctity of life," Lynn Fitch, the state's Republican attorney general, said in a statement. "I remain committed to advocating for women and defending Mississippi's legal right to protect the unborn."

The justices will hear the case in their next term, starting in October, and are likely to deliver a decision in the spring or early summer next year, as the 2022 midterm elections are gearing up. The stakes of the case ensure that the abortion debate will remain a political flash point, rallying conservative and liberals alike.

Last summer, the Supreme Court struck down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law by a 5-to-4 margin, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. providing the decisive vote. His concurring opinion, which expressed respect for precedent but proposed a relatively relaxed standard for evaluating restrictions, signaled an incremental approach to cutting back on abortion rights.

But that was before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September. Her replacement by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative who has spoken out against "abortion on demand," has changed the dynamic at the court, diminishing the chief justice's power to guide the pace of change.

Since the retirement in 2018 of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a cautious supporter of abortion rights, state legislatures have enacted scores of restrictions and bans in the hope that personnel changes at the Supreme Court will spur it to reconsider its abortion jurisprudence.

President Donald J. Trump vowed to name justices who would overrule Roe, and three of his appointees now sit on the court. Two of them - Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh - dissented from the Louisiana decision last year.

The justices considered taking the Mississippi case more than a dozen times during their private conferences before deciding to do so, a possible indication of continued sharp divisions among the court's conservatives about how boldly to address the constitutional status of abortion rights.

The Supreme Court's next term now includes two blockbusters: the abortion case and one on whether the Second Amendment protects a constitutional right to carry guns outside the home.

"The Republican-appointed justices appear to be moving even quicker than analysts predicted to make good on their supermajority status," Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice, a progressive advocacy group, said in a statement.

Responding to calls to expand the size of the Supreme Court to counteract recent conservative gains, President Biden has appointed a commission to consider ways to overhaul its structure and processes. Mr. Fallon said the court's docket reflected its lack of concern about the commission's eventual report.

"In opting to hear major cases next term on guns and now abortion," he said, "the Roberts court conservatives have issued their verdict on President Biden's commission: They consider it a complete nothing burger."

The new case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19- 1392, concerns a law enacted in 2018 by the Republican-dominated Mississippi Legislature that banned abortions if "the probable gestational age of the unborn human" was determined to be more than 15 weeks. The statute, a calculated challenge to Roe, included narrow exceptions for medical emergencies or "a severe fetal abnormality."

Lower courts said the law was plainly unconstitutional under Roe, which forbids states from banning abortions before fetal viability - the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 23 or 24 weeks.

Mississippi's sole abortion clinic sued, saying the law ran afoul of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that affirmed Roe's core holding.

Judge Carlton W. Reeves of Federal District Court in Jackson, Miss., blocked the law in 2018, saying the legal issue was straightforward and questioning the state lawmakers' motives.

"The state chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade," Judge Reeves wrote. "This court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Mississippi Legislature."

"With the recent changes in the membership of the Supreme Court, it may be that the state believes divine providence covered the Capitol when it passed this legislation," he wrote. "Time will tell. If overturning Roe is the state's desired result, the state will have to seek that relief from a higher court. For now, the United States Supreme Court has spoken."

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, affirmed Judge Reeves's ruling. "In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and reaffirmed) a woman's right to choose an abortion before viability," Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham wrote for the majority.

Judge James C. Ho wrote a reluctant concurring opinion expressing misgivings about the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence.

"Nothing in the text or original understanding of the Constitution establishes a right to an abortion," he wrote. "Rather, what distinguishes abortion from other matters of health care policy in America - and uniquely removes abortion policy from the democratic process established by our founders - is Supreme Court precedent."

Ms. Fitch, Mississippi's attorney general, urged the justices to hear the state's appeal in order to reconsider their abortion jurisprudence. "'Viability' is not an appropriate standard for assessing the constitutionality of a law regulating abortion," she wrote.

The precise question the justices agreed to decide was "whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional." Depending on how the court answers that question, it could reaffirm, revise or do away with the longstanding constitutional framework for abortion rights.

Ms. Northup, of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the clinic challenging the Mississippi law, said the last possibility was alarming.

"The consequences of a Roe reversal would be devastating," she said. "Over 20 states would prohibit abortion outright. Eleven states - including Mississippi - currently have trigger bans on the books, which would instantaneously ban abortion if Roe is overturned."

Lawyers for the clinic said the case was straightforward. The law, they wrote, "imposes, by definition, an undue burden."

"It places a complete and insurmountable obstacle in the path of every person seeking a pre-viability abortion after 15 weeks who does not fall within its limited exceptions," they wrote. "It is unconstitutional by any measure."

Previous abortion cases have considered restrictions on who can perform the procedure, what kinds of standards clinics must meet and what methods are permissible. The new case will address a far more fundamental issue, said Father Frank Pavone, the national director of Priests for Life.

"This is not a case simply on regulations of the procedure or the places where it is performed," he said in a statement. "This goes right to the matter of prohibitions on abortion, or, as we would say, protections of the baby."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Case Challenging Roe v. Wade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The case, arising from a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, could undermine the constitutional right established in Roe v. Wade. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday plunged back into the contentious debate over abortion, agreeing to hear a case that will give its newly expanded conservative majority an opportunity to pare back the constitutional right to abortion established nearly a half century ago in Roe v.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses the laws being changed in Texas that tend to lean more on the conservative point of view.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explained: How 'constitutional carry' will change gun laws in Texas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Known by supporters as "constitutional carry," House Bill 1927 will allow Texans to carry handguns - openly or concealed - without obtaining a state-issued license, so long they are not excluded from possessing a firearm by another federal or state law.

# data[].attributes.body
For quite some time, gun control has been seen as an issue debated between both sides of the spectrum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Democrats in New York are making a new push for stronger gun control laws in the remaining days of this year's legislative session, including a provision that would allow individuals to sue gun manufacturers in the aftermath of a crime.

Lawmakers rallied in Albany Tuesday to support the package, which aims to restrict gun ownership in certain cases, while adding additional requirements for those seeking a firearm.

"We have seen New York state move swiftly in other crises, and now we are looking for this state Legislature to do the same in this critical month," said Assemblymember Diana Richardson, a Democrat from Brooklyn.

Part of the package would create more hurdles for individuals seeking to purchase a gun, which Democrats said would help cut down on unlawful gun ownership while protecting firearm users who obtain their weapon legally.

One bill would require those seeking to purchase a gun to clear a mental health evaluation and pass a drug test - both of which would have to be certified by a doctor.

The legislation would also require prospective gun owners to undergo a five-hour gun safety course, and complete a live firing test with at least 90% accuracy at a shooting range using the type of firearm they intend to purchase.

That bill would also require individuals to apply for a hunting license before they purchase a gun, and provide proof that they've bought a safe storage depository for the firearm.

Assemblymember Demond Meeks, a Democrat from Rochester who sponsors that bill, said it's intended to prevent guns from falling into the hands of those who may choose to use them unlawfully, and that the issue isn't going away on its own.

"We had a school shooting two weeks ago, outside the school, students weren't involved. Then, just this past week, we had two individuals who were shot while worshipping in their church," Meeks said. "Enough is enough."

Some of the bills included in the package are targeted at gun manufacturers, rather than those seeking to purchase a firearm.

One bill would allow individuals in New York to sue gun manufacturers that don't take steps to prevent their products from being sold and purchased illegally. Those lawsuits would be brought when someone claims the industry has caused harm to the public.

That legislation is intended to put pressure on gun manufacturers to beef up safety measures that could prevent firearms from being trafficked into New York, said Sen. Zellnor Myrie, a Democrat from Brooklyn who sponsors the bill.

"I again ask this industry: what are you going to do about your products that are killing our people?" Myrie said. "You have experienced record profits this past year ... and while you make record profits, we experienced record death.

Republicans in the state Legislature were critical of that bill Tuesday, saying at a separate press conference that it wouldn't address the broader problem of gun violence in New York.

"The idea that you're going to hold gun manufacturers responsible ... I don't see how that changes anything," said Senate Republican Leader Rob Ortt, R-Niagara.

Ortt, and other Republicans, said they'd prefer to see stronger enforcement of the state's current laws on illegal gun possession in communities prone to violence instead.

Democrats are also seeking a series of other changes in their gun control package, including a new funding stream to research gun violence, programs geared toward gun violence education in public schools, and a liability insurance requirement for gun owners.

Lawmakers are seeking to garner support for the package before the end of this year's legislative session, which is scheduled to conclude late next week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democrats Seek New Gun Laws in New York to Curb Shootings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democrats in New York are making a new push for stronger gun control laws in the remaining days of this year's legislative session, including a provision that would allow individuals to sue gun manufacturers in the aftermath of a crime.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think there should be more territories added to the fifty states. It seems as though we already have enough trouble with this many, so why would we add more? The government should focus on the issues at hand rather than creating more.

# data[].attributes.body
This year has been a major whirlwind, but a major turning point that has occurred recently is the Pfizer vaccine being accessible for children ages 12-15. This is great news in terms of the steps as we begin to return back to normal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immunizations will quickly begin nationwide, officials predicted.

High schoolers getting vaccinated in Connecticut last month. Some states expect to start inoculating 12- to 15-year-olds as soon as Thursday. Credit... Jessica Hill/Associated Press

The federal government on Wednesday took a final step toward making the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine available to adolescents in the United States, removing an obstacle to school reopenings and cheering millions of families weary of pandemic restrictions.

An advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention votedto recommend the vaccine for use in children ages 12 to 15. The C.D.C. director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, formally adopted the recommendation on Wednesday evening.

"Approving Covid-19 vaccines for children 12 to 15 years of age is an important step in removing barriers for vaccinating children of all ages," said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, who represents the American Academy of Pediatrics on the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Many parents are eagerly anticipating the availability of vaccines for children, at least in part to speed their return to schools. Roughly one-third of eighth graders, usually 13 or 14 years old, are still learning fully remotely.

Vaccinations of adolescents have already begun in a few states, like Maine. Others plan to offer the vaccine as early as Thursday. There are nearly 17 million 12- to 15-year-olds in the United States, accounting for 5.3 percent of the population.

Nearly all states now have a supply of vaccine doses that could be quickly redirected to adolescents. The dose used to immunize adults is also safe and effective for these adolescents, clinical trials have shown.

"Sometimes we lose the importance of children and adolescents in the midst of pandemic - there's such a focus on older adults in particular," said Dr. Grace Lee, a member of the committee and professor of pediatrics at Stanford University.

While children's risk of severe illness is low compared with that of adults, the coronavirus has infected more than 1.5 million children and sent more than 13,000 to hospitals, more than are hospitalized for flu in an average year, according to data collected by the C.D.C.

"It is currently one of the top 10 causes of death in children since the pandemic began," Dr. Maldonado noted.

Young children are thought to spread the virus less often than adults do, but their ability to transmit increases with age. Teenagers, particularly those in high school, may transmit the virus as readily as adults. Children aged 12 to 17 years represent an increasing proportion of Covid cases in the country.

Vaccinating children should increase the level of immunity in the U.S. population, helping to bring down the number of cases.

"Every person with Covid-19 provides the virus with an opportunity to spread and continue to mutate and further expose our communities," said Dr. Bill Gruber, a senior vice president at Pfizer. "The decisions from health authorities this week bring us one step closer to protecting adolescents and achieving herd protection."

Pfizer announced in March that the vaccine seemed to be at least as effective in 12- to 15-year-olds as it has been in older teenagers and adults. Apart from a slight increase in the frequency of fevers, the shots also seemed to have comparable, mostly negligible side effects.

The company plans to continue monitoring trial participants for two years after the second dose to assess the vaccine's long-term safety and efficacy.

The Food and Drug Administration reviewed the clinical data and on Monday authorized the Pfizer vaccine for use in these children, capping weeks of anticipation from parents and children about a swifter return to normalcy.

"While it's true that children are generally spared from severe disease, the fact that they've been unable to be vaccinated has caused major disruptions in their lives that have real developmental consequences," said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. "Vaccination of this age cohort will allow these children to more fully return to their normal lives."

In remarks at the White House on Wednesday, President Biden touted the benefits of the Covid vaccine for children ages 12 and older, saying it was "safe, effective, easy, fast and free."

"As of tomorrow, more than 15,000 pharmacies will be ready to vaccinate this age group," Mr. Biden noted, adding that pharmacies would make it easy for teenagers to get the first shot in one location and a second shot elsewhere if necessary.

Image

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, left, and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the C.D.C. director, before a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday. Credit... Pool photo by Jim Lo Scalzo

Some experts have expressed ethical concerns about vaccinating children who are at low risk from the virus, even as health care workers and older adults in many countries remain in danger.

"Thinking purely as a parent, if I had teenagers, I'd probably be happy to vaccinate my children," said Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

But, she added, "I greatly worry about a situation where the few countries in the world that have had enough vaccines to protect their adults now continue to hoard those vaccines to use in low-risk kids."

School reopenings have sputtered across the nation, as parents, teachers, unions and school boards have worried about outbreaks. Research shows that children are mostly spared severe disease and are not significant drivers of coronavirus spread, as they are for influenza.

"Clearly this flawed risk perception will divert vaccination priorities away from what would be the optimal strategic use of the vaccines globally," Dr. Adalja said.

The committee also recommended administering the Covid-19 vaccine along with other important vaccines that teenagers may have missed over the year. The agency had encouraged waiting two weeks before and after immunization against Covid-19 before receiving other vaccines.

The most important hurdle may be parental hesitancy. More than 40 percent of parents of adolescents said they would not get their children vaccinated or would do so only if required by a school, according to a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Some of those parents may change their minds, as other children safely receive vaccines and resume in-person schooling, or rejoin team sports like football and basketball that involve close contact, the researchers suggested.

Others may wait until they must comply with school requirements. Public schools in all 50 states require certain vaccines, but officials may not be able to enforce compliance until the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine gains the F.D.A.'s full approval.

The vaccine has emergency authorization now. Pfizer has applied to the F.D.A. for full approval, but that process is expected to take several months. Even after approval, students may still opt out by citing medical reasons or religious beliefs.

State and local leaders will need to make particular efforts to reach children in low-income families or in communities of color. Black and Hispanic adults have among the lowest rates of vaccination: As of May 3, just 25 percent of Black people and 27 percent of Hispanic people had been inoculated, compared with 39 percent of white people.

Making the vaccine accessible to these communities will require easier transportation and storage of doses. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can be stored for only five days in standard refrigerators. The companies are planning to ship smaller packs for use in doctors' offices, and are developing a formulation that can be refrigerated for up to 10 weeks.

Pfizer and BioNTech plan in September to submit requests for authorization of the vaccine in children ages 2 to 11.

Annie Karni contributed reporting from Washington.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
C.D.C. Advisers Endorse Pfizer Vaccine for Children Ages 12 to 15

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immunizations will quickly begin nationwide, officials predicted. The federal government on Wednesday took a final step toward making the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine available to adolescents in the United States, removing an obstacle to school reopenings and cheering millions of families weary of pandemic restrictions.

# data[].attributes.body
I would get rid of all of the drug laws and replace them with civil penalties, such as fining dealers hundreds of thousands of dollars for failing to meet FDA regulatory requirements. I don’t use drugs, but I recognize that the US “war on drugs” has been a complete failure. It has not stopped people from using drugs, which you can see from the opioid crisis (just one recent example).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OAKLAND (CBS SF) - Graduation day is always special for high school seniors, but there was just a little extra pride when Oakland Tech held its commencement ceremony Saturday.

When Ahmed Muhammad walked up to the microphone, he became the first Black male to ever give the valedictorian address.

READ MORE: Vallejo Police Investigate Shooting; At Least 3 Hospitalized

A straight-A student, star athlete and young entrepreneur, Muhammad had nearly a dozen of the country's best schools among them Stanford, Princeton and Harvard to just name a few hoping he would attend their university next year.

Ultimately, he has chosen to stay close to home and attend Stanford in the Fall where he will study engineering.

Muhammad and his classmates faced many obstacles on their way to graduation, but none greater than the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. More than a year of remote learning completely disrupted their high school experience.

READ MORE: San Jose Officials Redouble Efforts to Reduce Illegal Fireworks

"We are the class of social distancing and N95 masks," he told his classmates. "And we are the class of Black Lives Matter and Stop Asian American and Pacific Islander hate. Yes, we're the class that has obnoxious TikTok dances."

"We've been in our proverbial cocoon over the last year or so," Muhmmad added. "But today, Class of 2021, we emerge new. We have matured into something special. If we know nothing else, we know we are capable. Within every single one of us exists potential. Untapped and immeasurable."

While Muhammad noted his achievement, he said many of his classmates were also creating their own historical moment.

MORE NEWS: Fully-Vaccinated Napa Woman Dies of COVID-19

"While I may be the first young Black man to be our school's Valedictorian, I won't be the last," he said. "I'm not the only first in this crowd. Many of us here are the first in our family to live in America, the first to graduate high school, and will be the first to attend college."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ahmed Muhammad Becomes First Black Male Valedictorian In Oakland Tech's 107-Year History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OAKLAND (CBS SF) - Graduation day is always special for high school seniors, but there was just a little extra pride when Oakland Tech held its commencement ceremony Saturday. When Ahmed Muhammad walked up to the microphone, he became the first Black male to ever give the valedictorian address.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A mob of people supporting President Donald Trump storm the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6. Rioters smashed windows, broke through doors and damaged furniture, art and other property. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

U.S. prosecutors this week put a price tag on damage to the U.S. Capitol from the Jan. 6 breach - $1.5 million so far - and for the first time are asking defendants to cover some of the bill in plea offers, prosecutors and defense lawyers said.

The U.S. attorney's office in Washington cited the damage estimate Wednesday in court and in plea papers filed in the case of Paul Hodgkins, 38. The Tampa crane operator pleaded guilty to one felony count of obstructing an official proceeding of Congress and faces sentencing July 19 in Washington.

"Your client acknowledges that the riot that occurred on January 6, 2021, caused as of May 17, 2021, approximately $1,495,326.55 damage to the United States Capitol," stated a plea agreement letter sent by Assistant U.S. Attorney Mona Sedky and signed by Hodgkins and his attorney in May.

The document said Hodgkins agreed to pay $2,000 restitution to the Treasury Department as part of the plea.

Several defense attorneys said prosecutors with the U.S. attorney's office in Washington are seeking to require restitution of $2,000 in each felony case and $500 in each misdemeanor case.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department and U.S. attorney's office declined to comment beyond court filings.

One veteran defense attorney representing several defendants, speaking on the condition of anonymity because talks are pending, said the terms remain under negotiation. Another defense attorney, who spoke under the same conditions, questioned whether a judge could sentence a person to pay restitution if they were not actually charged with causing damage.

A sprawling investigation: What we know so far about the Capitol riot suspects

The basis of the $1.5 million damage estimate is not clear. Prosecutors gave no details, but the estimate appears to reflect the immediate costs of replacing broken windows, doors and other property. A spokeswoman for the Architect of the Capitol said the agency gave damage assessments to the Justice Department, which calculated the per case penalty.

Federal law allows judges at sentencing to order convicted offenders to reimburse victims for property damage and other losses, enforceable over 20 years. Whether restitution can be required usually depends on the crime as set by statute and whether losses are a direct and foreseeable result of an offender's crime.

But the law also makes restitution a negotiable item pursuant to plea agreement.

The Capitol mob desecrated a historical workplace - and left behind some disturbing artifacts

If a court finds that more than one defendant contributed to the loss, it "may make each defendant liable for payment of the full amount of restitution or may apportion liability among the defendants," federal statute said.

Prosecutors appear to be reasoning that all Jan. 6 defendants bear some liability for what happened that day and should pay to repair the Capitol to some degree, even if they are charged separately or entered the Capitol after or where no damage was done.

To spare having to litigate each defendant's liability or to ask judges to order everyone to pay the full $1.5 million when most couldn't, "it is likely that the prosecutors are setting an amount that they think most people charged will be able to pay and that collectively will cover the costs of the damage," said Cortney E. Lollar, a law professor at the University of Kentucky. "This is a way for the prosecutors to set payment amounts in a manner they think is most likely to be collectible."

Crews began to clean up and assess the damage at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 7, a day after hundreds of pro-Trump rioters stormed the building. (Lee Powell, Ray Whitehouse/The Washington Post)

Ashton T. Kirsch, a Wisconsin lawyer whose clients include insurers for minority-owned businesses damaged in protests against racial injustice in Minneapolis last year, said the approach will save the government time, money and effort.

"The building was not insured, so the costs are going to fall on taxpayers - on all of us - if it doesn't fall on the persons who caused the damage," Kirsch said. "The hard part is what's more fair - to have it paid by taxpayers or by some broad set of defendants who may or may not have caused the specific damage in question?"

The government will hardly reap a windfall under this approach, given that even if every defendant agreed to terms and pleaded guilty, the total paid would be well below $1 million.

At the same time, allowable fines for some felony charges could exceed $75,000 - as in Hodgkins's case - a more draconian scenario for defendants. While restitution is paid to compensate victims, fines are punitive and sent to the Justice Department, although in Capitol riot cases, the victim is the federal legislative branch.

In the aftermath of the attack, authorities reported art and furniture with historical value was damaged, a 19th-century gold mirror was smashed, and residue from gas agents and fire extinguishers was left behind.

Hundreds of people stormed the Capitol. Most won't face hefty prison terms, legal experts say.

The costs of the Capitol attack, however, go well beyond the $1.5 million estimate prosecutors cited this week. A $1.9 billion security funding bill passed by the House included $40 million for the Architect of the Capitol for direct attack-related costs, part of more than $730 million set aside to reimburse the National Guard and other agencies for expenses in responding to rioting that authorities said contributed to five deaths, assaults on 140 police officers and the evacuation of a joint session of Congress.

The bill, passed May 20 and pending before the Senate, includes another $529.7 million for the Architect of the Capitol for security improvements, including $250 million to harden the Capitol complex through retractable or mobile fencing, bulletproof doors and windows, new entrance vestibules, and cameras.

Architect of the Capitol spokeswoman Laura Condeluci said the agency provided House appropriators with separate damage assessments than it gave the Justice Department to include labor costs and other reimbursements, new and additional security measures and coronavirus pandemic response.

About 200 people have been charged so far solely with misdemeanors - typically trespassing and/or disorderly or violent conduct in the restricted Capitol building or grounds - which usually do not require first offenders to serve time in prison. However, plea terms require defendants to agree to a federal conviction.

The rest of those charged - slightly more than half of the total - face felony counts, including charges such as obstructing Congress's confirmation of the 2020 presidential election results, assaulting police, impeding police in a civil disorder, or stealing or damaging more than more than $1,000 of federal property.

Today's Headlines The most important news stories of the day, curated by Post editors and delivered every morning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jan. 6 riot caused $1.5 million in damage to Capitol - and U.S. prosecutors want defendants to pay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. prosecutors this week put a price tag on damage to the U.S. Capitol from the Jan. 6 breach - $1.5 million so far - and for the first time are asking defendants to cover some of the bill in plea offers, prosecutors and defense lawyers said. The U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Know:
- Presidents
- Most Important Laws
- Types of Government Jobs
- Important Government News
Need to Knows:
- New Laws
- Landmark Cases
- Political Spectrum
- Supreme Court Impact

# data[].attributes.body
Being mindful and respectful towards the different religions others practice that are distinct from yours is just an example of human decency. Because of the First Amendment, we have the freedom to exercise any religion and exercise our beliefs, which may appear differently to others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Employers and workers should be aware that handshakes, direct eye contact and socialising in the pub may be awkward for Muslim colleagues, says a report on Islamophobia produced by the Muslim Council of Britain.

The organisation, an umbrella group representing more than 500 Muslim bodies in the UK, recommends that workplaces wanting to foster an inclusive environment should consider cultural differences.

Its report, Defining Islamophobia, published on Tuesday, suggests companies offer a range of social and team-building activities so Muslim employees can take part and the chances of building rapport among workers from different backgrounds increase.

Employers and staff should "be aware of cultural differences around handshaking and direct eye contact - placing of a hand on heart (instead of a handshake between genders) in greeting is practised in many Muslim communities and seen as a highly respectful act, as is Muslim men lowering their gaze when interacting with women, another marker of utmost respect and means of maintaining a modest disposition".

The report urges employers to consider how dress codes and uniforms can incorporate headscarves, and whether flexitime can allow Muslim workers to take part in Friday prayers.

It suggests companies look into whether halal food and vegetarian dishes are offered in canteens, and how to accommodate requests for leave for the Eid festivals and pilgrimages. Simple adaptations to the working day, such as changing meeting times or working through breaks, could help Muslim workers during Ramadan, the holy month of fasting.

Among other recommendations in the 150-page report are dedicated lessons in schools on Islamophobia and the recruitment of teachers from minority groups, including Muslims. Citing polling from 2015 which shows that 31% of young people agreed to some extent with the statement "Muslims are taking over England", it says: "Islamophobic discourse has seemingly become normalised within the hearts and minds of young, school-going children."

Universities are urged to encourage applications from Muslims and foster a culture of inclusivity by, for example, providing prayer rooms.

Muslim workers should be encouraged to join trade unions and report instances of Islamophobia.

A spokesperson for the Muslim Council of Britain said: "The recommendations in our report should be used as guiding principles by those who want to take practical and meaningful steps to tackle Islamophobia and to make society comfortable for those of all faiths and none. Rather than rules to be followed dogmatically, our suggestions encourage constructive reflection on the diversity of Muslim experiences."

The report endorses the definition of Islamophobia drawn up by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims in 2018, saying it has the broad support within Muslim communities and has been adopted by most major political parties, with the exception of the Conservative party.

This definition says: "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness."

The report includes a section on what does not constitute Islamophobia, which includes criticism of Islam unless the language of racism or Islamophobia is used, critiquing specific practices such as dress or religious slaughter of animals, and calling out criminality involving Muslims without impugning all Muslims.

Tensions between the MCB and the government are evident in the report's conclusions which say: "Given the approach taken on racism by the current government ... we are unlikely to see much action taken to tackle Islamophobia ... without popular pressure."

The MCB reported the Conservative party to the Equality and Human Rights Commission in 2019, and a year later submitted a further dossier of instances of Islamophobia within the party.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Workplace habits may make Muslim colleagues uncomfortable, says report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Employers and workers should be aware that handshakes, direct eye contact and socialising in the pub may be awkward for Muslim colleagues, says a report on Islamophobia produced by the Muslim Council of Britain. The organisation, an umbrella group representing more than 500 Muslim bodies in the UK, recommends that workplaces wanting to foster an inclusive environment should consider cultural differences.

# data[].attributes.body
With the growing issue of gun violence, Joe Manchin is a pushing to pass a popular gun control bill that will enforce background checks regularly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's difficult to remember now, but one of the last major items on the table for Congress before the novel coronavirus swept the globe last year was a gun control bill. Early in 2019, House Democrats passed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, which would have established universal background checks by closing a loophole in existing law that exempts unlicensed gun sellers from performing checks, as licensed gun shops must. This measure sits squarely among those reforms that gun control advocates tend to call "common sense." The public agrees: Polling the previous August showed more than 90 percent support for the policy; 22 states have already passed laws filling in at least some of the loophole for private sales. And that fall, President Trump engaged in talks about moving background checks forward with a bipartisan trio of lead negotiators in the Senate⁠-Pat Toomey, Chris Murphy, and Joe Manchin.

Nothing came of those talks, and Congress was soon preoccupied with impeachment and the pandemic. But this week, Democrats introduced the Background Checks Expansion Act, or BCEA, putting gun control on the new Democratic Congress's already crowded post-Covid docket alongside an immigration overhaul and the H.R. 1 package of voting reforms, which passed the House on Wednesday. Like the other two bills, and all other potential gun control bills, the BCEA is an ordinary piece of nonfiscal legislation that would have to reach a 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster and pass - budget reconciliation isn't a real option here.

But unlike the other two, the passage of the BCEA would finally implement a policy Joe Manchin has been instrumental in pushing for the better part of a decade. It probably won't happen unless Manchin changes his mind on the filibuster and encourages the caucus's remaining holdouts to join him. And major gun control groups are already pushing for it: A letter from more than 60 progressive groups to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer urging the abolition of the filibuster early last month included Brady: United Against Gun Violence, March for Our Lives, and the Newtown Action Alliance as signatories.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Joe Manchin Wants to Pass a Popular Gun Control Bill That Will Save Lives, but He Loves the Filibuster More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's difficult to remember now, but one of the last major items on the table for Congress before the novel coronavirus swept the globe last year was a gun control bill. Early in 2019, House Democrats passed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, which would have established universal background checks by closing a loophole in existing law that exempts unlicensed gun sellers from performing checks, as licensed gun shops must.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that each student in the United States should have a free college education at public universities, regardless of family income. Moreover, this directly ties into canceling all student loan debt for the 45 million Americans who owe about $1.6 trillion and place a cap on student loan interest rates going forward at 1.88 percent. In turn, this will end equity gaps in higher education attainment.

# data[].attributes.body
Democrats in Congress are on the verge of passing the first big bill of President Joe Biden’s term: a $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief package.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Democrats in Congress are on the verge of passing the first big bill of President Joe Biden's term: a $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief package.

The first thing that's notable about the bill is how absolutely massive it is. At $1.9 trillion, the cost comes in at roughly double the stimulus package that President Obama signed into law during the Great Recession in 2009. And that's after Congress separately approved $2.2 trillion and $900 billion relief bills last year. This all adds up to a huge, unprecedented undertaking to shore up the economy.

According to some analyses, the latest relief bill could actually put the economy in even stronger shape than it was before Covid-19, at least temporarily. The Brookings Institution projected the impact of the legislation (as proposed by Biden, so there are some differences with the congressional bill) compared to no additional support, summarizing its findings in this chart:

The bill accomplishes this through diverse policies - simultaneously combating the pandemic, stimulating the economy and filling the hole left by Covid-19, and providing broader economic relief to Americans.

Here are the major items likely to make it in the bill (with a caveat that they're subject to change as House and Senate negotiations continue):

$1,400 stimulus checks to most Americans: The full checks will go to individuals making up to $75,000 a year and couples filing jointly making up to $150,000 a year, including adult dependents for the first time. But the phaseout beyond those limits will be more aggressive than the previous $600 checks.

A continued $300-a-week boost to unemployment insurance: Those getting jobless benefits will reportedly continue to get an extra $300 through September, and the first $10,200 in benefits won't be taxable, retroactively. The boost in benefits was set to expire on March 14 otherwise.

A boost to the child tax credit and other tax credits: The child tax credit will go up to $3,600 for children under 6 and $3,000 for children up to 17, and more people will fully qualify. Other tax credits, like the child and dependent care tax credit and earned income tax credit, get boosts too.

Funding for K-12 schools and higher education: About $170 billion is geared toward helping schools reopen, while also providing relief to students and trying to address some concerns over "learning loss" as schools shut down in the last year.

Improved access to health care: The bill includes a boost to individual marketplace tax subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare), additional incentives for states to expand Medicaid, and extra subsidies for COBRA, which continues health coverage for people who recently lost their jobs.

Public health efforts against Covid-19: With tens of billions in new funding, the legislation supports coronavirus testing and contact tracing, vaccines, and increasing the size of the public health workforce.

Relief for state, local, and tribal governments: After a year in which some jurisdictions saw tax revenues drop and budgets get tighter, the relief package will provide $350 billion to help them.

One thing that won't make it in: a $15 minimum wage hike. The Senate parliamentarian ruled the hike is not allowed under the reconciliation process Congress is using to pass the bill. And even if the hike survived the rules, Senate moderates Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) - crucial swing votes - opposed the idea.

Still, the remaining measures in the bill - adding up to that whopping $1.9 trillion cost - will certainly boost the economy and anti-Covid-19 efforts as the pandemic ( hopefully) reaches an end. It's a truly wide-ranging effort to help Americans as quickly as possible after a year marked by so much suffering.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Covid-19 stimulus bill, explained in 600 words

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democrats in Congress are on the verge of passing the first big bill of President Joe Biden's term: a $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief package. The first thing that's notable about the bill is how absolutely massive it is.

# data[].attributes.body
This past week, Texas decided to lift its required mask mandate as they plan to fully reopen businesses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas Drops Its Virus Restrictions as a Wave of Reopenings Takes Hold (Published 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As coronavirus cases fall, states are rescinding mask mandates and reopening businesses and schools, prompting people to emerge after months of isolation despite uncertainty about the pandemic’s future.

# data[].attributes.body
Biden calls off strike on a second military target in Syria to protect civilians.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON-After 10 days of deliberations, President Biden had ordered the Pentagon to conduct airstrikes on two targets inside Syria Feb. 26 when an aide delivered an urgent warning about 30 minutes before the bombs were scheduled to fall.

A woman and a couple of children were in the courtyard at one of the sites, according to battlefield reconnaissance. With the F-15Es in flight to the targets, Mr. Biden scratched the second target but ordered the strike on the first objective to proceed.

The previously undisclosed episode involving Mr. Biden's first known use of force as commander in chief was an unexpected coda to a methodical decision-making approach in which the Biden administration sought to balance competing interests in the Middle East tinderbox.

The goal was to signal to Iran that the new White House team would respond to a Feb. 15 rocket attack in northern Iraq against the U.S.-led coalition but wasn't seeking to escalate a confrontation with Tehran, senior administration officials said, describing the days leading to the strike in interviews with The Wall Street Journal.

To reinforce the point, a confidential message was sent to Tehran after the U.S. airstrike, administration officials disclosed, without providing details.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WSJ News Exclusive | Biden Called Off Strike on a Second Military Target in Syria Last Week

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON-After 10 days of deliberations, President Biden had ordered the Pentagon to conduct airstrikes on two targets inside Syria Feb. 26 when an aide delivered an urgent warning about 30 minutes before the bombs were scheduled to fall. A woman and a couple of children were in the courtyard at one of the sites, according to battlefield reconnaissance.

# data[].attributes.body
Johnson & Johnson’s one-shot vaccine is increasing distribution throughout the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Johnson & Johnson's one-shot vaccine is allowing states to rethink distribution, even as health officials and experts worry some will view it as inferior.

Barbara Schmalenberger, 86, of Hilliard, Ohio, receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine on Tuesday. Credit... Reuters

In North Dakota this week, health officials are sending their first Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccines to pharmacies and urgent care clinics, where people who don't necessarily have a regular doctor can get the single jab. In Missouri, doses are going to community health centers and rural hospitals. And in North Carolina, health providers are using it to inoculate meatpacking, farm and grocery workers.

Since Johnson & Johnson revealed data showing that its vaccine, while highly protective, had a slightly lower efficacy rate than the first shots produced by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, health officials have feared the new shot might be viewed by some Americans as the inferior choice.

But the early days of its rollout suggest something different: Some people are eager to get it because they want the convenience of a single shot. And public health officials are enthusiastic about how much faster they could get a single shot distributed, particularly in vulnerable communities that might not otherwise have access to a vaccine.

"This is a potential breakthrough," said Dr. Joseph Kanter, the top health official in Louisiana. With its first allotted doses, the state is holding a dozen large Johnson & Johnson vaccination events at civic centers and other public places, modeled after what has worked for flu vaccines.

As Johnson & Johnson's production ramps up over the next few months, Dr. Kanter said the shot would allow his state to slash costs for staffing and operations related to the second doses: "The J & J vaccine brings a lot to the table."

Judged by how well it prevents severe disease, hospitalization and death, the Johnson & Johnson shot is comparable to those made by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. And although it has a lower overall efficacy rate in the U.S. - 72 percent, compared with roughly 95 percent for the others - experts say comparing these numbers is problematic because the companies' trials were conducted in different places at different times.

Image

Orders of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine were filled at a shipping facility in Shepherdsville, Ky., on Monday. Credit... Pool photo by Timothy D. Easley

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine also can be kept at normal refrigeration temperatures for three months - ideal for distribution at nonmedical sites such as stadiums and convention centers.

"There are circumstances in which it is going to be a really good option or maybe the best option," said Dr. Matthew Daley, a senior investigator at Kaiser Permanente Colorado's Institute for Health Research and a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's independent vaccine advisory committee.

Only four million doses were shipped this week, and the company's manufacturing lags mean that it will be at least a month before states start receiving significant supplies. Because of that gap, state officials are treating the first wave of doses as a moment to test different ways to deploy them.

Patrick Allen, the director of the Oregon Health Authority, said that the first doses in the state went to a variety of settings, "to see if we learn anything from its use." Those included mass vaccination sites around Portland, adult foster care homes and pharmacies not included in the federal government's pharmacy program. Health officials will evaluate the success of each of those sites to figure out a plan for the larger shipments.

Many state health officials said they were focused on getting the vaccine to people who might be harder to reach for a second dose, such as those who are homeless or on the verge of release from prison. In North Carolina, this category includes the mobile agricultural communities in the state with three- or four-week work seasons. Mandy Cohen, the state's health secretary, said that large meatpacking plants in the state such as Smithfield and Tyson Foods were interested in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and had been consulting with her department.

Dr. Darrell Gaskin, a health policy professor at Johns Hopkins University, said it was crucial to emphasize the vaccine's benefits. Credit... Valerie Plesch for The New York Times

And because the vaccine tends to have fewer side effects than the other options, it's appealing to people who don't want to risk missing a day of work to recover from chills or fever, she said: "There are a lot of folks who are like, 'I'm much more interested now that you tell me I only have to get a shot one time instead of two."

"I don't think it's an inferior vaccine, and that's why I'm taking it for myself," said Ms. Cohen, who was scheduled to get the Johnson & Johnson shot on Friday.

At small, independent pharmacies, the vaccine has caused a surge of excitement. Steve Hoffart, the owner of Magnolia Pharmacy in Magnolia, Texas, a small town outside of Houston, has received calls and emails from residents anticipating its arrival this week. He said he hopes to hold a Johnson & Johnson event for teachers on March 13. Schools in the area have struggled to find substitute teachers during the pandemic, and a vaccine that does not require a second visit and more time off was a significant development, he said.

Tim and Joyce Staab, who live in Chillicothe, Ohio, a town of about 20,000 an hour's drive from Columbus, were two of the first Americans to receive the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Both had general vaccine appointments scheduled for later in the week. But then they got notice Wednesday that an independent pharmacy near them had received 100 doses of Johnson & Johnson's shot. Ms. Staab, 68, is hesitant about needles and liked the one-and-done approach.

Mr. Staab, 67, said he thought the vaccine was a better choice for health providers like the pharmacy where he received it. "They don't have the resources, I don't think, to be dealing with really hard to store" vaccines, he said.

States have been able to customize and tinker with distribution plans in part because the federal government did not issue prescriptive guidelines for where and who the vaccine should go to.

This winter, as the Food and Drug Administration's authorization of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine approached, federal officials involved in vaccine distribution pushed for the shot to be used in a more centralized way, either at large stadiums and mass vaccination sites run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or only in pharmacies, according to officials familiar with these discussions. But the White House preferred to allow states to tailor their own plans, as they had done for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.

Doses of the new vaccine arriving at a mass vaccination site at the NRG Stadium in Houston on Tuesday. Credit... Harris County Public Health, via Reuters

Although health experts are enthusiastic about the potential public health benefits of the new vaccine, some also fear that the public's interest will wane once vaccines become less scarce. If given the choice among brands, some people may reject Johnson & Johnson's, seeing it as an inferior choice.

At Black churches across the Mid-Atlantic region this winter, Darrell J. Gaskin, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University and a pastor, and Rupali Limaye, a scientist at the university who studies vaccine hesitancy, have counseled and reassured hundreds of pastors and congregation members of African Methodist Episcopal Zion churches in virtual presentations, emphasizing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine's safety and prevention of severe Covid-19 and death, including among the Black volunteers in the company's trial.

Dr. Gaskin said it was crucial for officials to emphasize the benefits of the vaccine at the beginning of its distribution, so people "don't feel like there's a luxury vaccine and then the non-luxury vaccine."

"We're facing disparities related to Covid," Dr. Limaye said. "How do we reduce disparities? We get a product out that's one dose and that's stable."

One of Dr. Gaskin's church's members, Patricia Cooper, a teacher in Washington, D.C., said that President Donald J. Trump's efforts to claim credit for a vaccine last year and the label "emergency use authorization" suggested to her that the federal government may have rushed its reviews of vaccines, leaving her jittery about their safety. But she said she was eager to get a vaccine, especially Johnson & Johnson's.

"This one is more appealing to me," she said. "Who likes to get stuck more than once?"

Dr. Rupali Limaye, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University. "We're facing disparities related to Covid," she said. "How do we reduce disparities? We get a product out that's one dose and that's stable." Credit... Valerie Plesch for The New York Times

But Mr. Allen, the Oregon health official, warned that using it in more specialized ways could contribute to skepticism about its quality.

"If you start getting a little too cute about targeting its use, you maybe feed distrust potentially of, 'Well, why am I getting that vaccine? And, I'm in this special population and people who aren't in this special population aren't getting this vaccine,'" he said.

Federal health officials have promised a way to crack down on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine potentially being used in inequitable ways. Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, the chairwoman of the Biden administration's new health equity task force, said at a White House news conference this week that distribution of the vaccine "should be even across communities."

"We will be tracking biometrics, such as ZIP code and social vulnerability, to see where vaccines are going," she said. "And should certain vaccines go consistently to certain communities, we will be able to intervene."

Some state officials believe that pairing the new and old vaccines can help show that they are equally important.

Mr. Allen said that Oregon was creating similar distribution plans for Johnson & Johnson and Moderna because both vaccines can be stored in refrigerators for the short term. The state is treating the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as the one with "special considerations," with its stricter shipping requirements and large packages of vials more suited to mass vaccination sites, he said.

Managing the vaccines from Johnson & Johnson and Moderna in similar ways, he said, would help avoid "equity questions and potential concerns, based on perceived differences between the vaccines, some of which are real and some of which aren't."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
One and Done: Why People Are Eager for Johnson & Johnson's Vaccine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Johnson & Johnson's one-shot vaccine is allowing states to rethink distribution, even as health officials and experts worry some will view it as inferior. In North Dakota this week, health officials are sending their first Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccines to pharmacies and urgent care clinics, where people who don't necessarily have a regular doctor can get the single jab.

# data[].attributes.body
Children continue to be detained at the border despite President Biden's promises.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Biden vowed to create a humane approach to immigration. But thousands of children who crossed the border alone are being confined in government shelters.

Migrants are detained by a U.S. Border Patrol agent this month as they turn themselves in to request asylum after crossing into El Paso, Texas, as seen from Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Credit... Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters

LOS ANGELES - Thousands of unaccompanied migrant children have been making their way to the southwestern border in recent weeks, presenting a new challenge for the Biden administration as it strives to create a humanitarian approach to unauthorized immigration.

Most of the children, who are arriving from Central America by the hundreds each day, are being placed under Covid-19 quarantine for 10 days and then shuttled to shelters around the country - prompting complaints that President Biden is returning to one of the most controversial practices of the Trump administration, the extended detention of migrant children.

In the last week, the Border Patrol intercepted more than 2,000 young migrants traveling without adults, most of them in their teens but some as young as 6. There is widespread concern that their numbers in coming months could break the record set in May 2019, when 11,000 underage migrants were encountered by the Border Patrol.

"We are seeing minors up and down the line. In South Texas, we are being hammered," said one Homeland Security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to talk publicly about the situation.

The arrival of unaccompanied children in large numbers compounds a difficult situation already in the making, with migrant families and single adults arriving at the border in ever larger numbers in recent months.

Many migrants - not all - are being turned back by U.S. authorities under an emergency public health law invoked by former President Donald J. Trump at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. But the Biden administration has decided not to refuse entry to minors, and they are now crowding border processing facilities and straining government shelters.

Human rights groups have criticized the decision to hold children in detention during the weeks or months it takes to place them with relatives, a policy they say harks back to the Trump administration's construction of tent camps along the border to hold an overflow of migrant children.

Last week, the Biden administration reopened a temporary shelter in Carrizo Springs, Texas, to house up to 700 migrant teenagers. The shelter, which faced a barrage of criticism, was closed in July 2019 after the number of children arriving at the border sharply declined.

"It seems this administration can't think their way through to a new way to handle the situation," said Joshua Rubin, an activist with Witness at the Border, which was preparing to stage protests outside a soon-to-reopen migrant children's center in Florida. "Spending time in these large, impersonal places traumatizes them."

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York who was a longtime critic of the Trump administration's immigration policies, said on Twitter that "this is not okay, never has been okay, never will be okay - no matter the administration or party."

Critics of the administration's policies say most of the children arrive with the address and phone number of a relative in the United States and should be allowed to promptly join their families. Covid-19 quarantines are not necessary for children who test negative for the virus at the border, they say.

Pressure on the border had waned after the Trump administration put into place a bevy of policies that effectively blocked migrants from entering the United States to request asylum.

Within days of taking office, Mr. Biden swiftly signed a series of executive orders to reverse several of those measures. But the pressure seems to be escalating before his administration has had time to make the preparations it says are needed to manage a substantial number of new arrivals - ramping up border facilities, adding to the staff and coordinating with Mexico. The latest arrivals are fueled in part by deteriorating conditions in Central America and perceptions by migrants that they will receive a friendlier reception from Mr. Biden.

"The reality is, we had to pull the pin out of Trump's brutal policies, and Biden is trying to do it in a responsible, sequenced way," said Seth Stodder, a former assistant secretary of homeland security in the Obama administration. "But some of the dynamics are not in his control."

The pandemic has exacerbated the challenge.

The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for overseeing the care of migrant children who arrive alone, operates a shelter network with 13,000 beds around the country. To comply with Covid-19 protocols, the agency has reduced the facilities' occupancy to 60 percent. At least one shelter operator said his network was adhering to that capacity.

Faced with a housing crunch, the agency this week opened the temporary emergency shelter at Carrizo Springs and is reportedly preparing to reopen an even larger facility, in Homestead, Fla., which inspectors previously had deemed unhealthy and unsafe for children. A search is underway across federal property for places where additional shelters can be erected.

Image

The Biden administration is expected to reopen a center for migrant children in Homestead, Fla., shown in 2019, that inspectors had deemed unhealthy and unsafe. Credit... Eve Edelheit for The New York Times

These shelters have been criticized because they generally hold hundreds of children in soft-sided structures, such as tents, that do not have the amenities of longer-term shelters, which are licensed and inspected.

"If they haven't done a substantial remodel, they are opening a place like Homestead that has dangerous conditions for children," said Hope Frye, a lawyer who was a member of an inspection team that visited in 2019.

Shelter operators around the country said they have been told that the Homestead facility would be reopened, but a Health and Human Services official said the agency had not made a formal decision yet. "We are not going to take any shortcuts," the official said. "We are not going to put kids in dangerous situations."

By law, the government cannot keep migrant children in holding facilities at the border for more than 72 hours; it must either transfer them to a shelter or release them. The Homeland Security official said many children in recent weeks have been stranded in the border processing centers for longer. "We can only get them out of our care as fast as H.H.S. can accept them," the official said.

During the surge of Central American migrants in 2019, the Trump administration came under attack after child welfare inspectors found that overcrowding had turned the temporary shelters into filthy, dehumanizing environments where children suffered neglect.

"Children must be swiftly transferred to state-licensed shelters for children, as required by law, and not detained for weeks in Border Patrol facilities that are fundamentally inappropriate and unsafe for children," said Neha Desai, director of immigration at the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland, Calif. She is one of the lawyers charged with ensuring that the government follows standards for migrant children established by a 1997 court settlement decree, known as the Flores agreement.

Once the children are in shelters, the Office of Refugee Resettlement arranges to send them to family members, following guidelines to make sure they are not released to traffickers and will be well cared for in their new homes. But releases in recent weeks have been delayed by a requirement that the young migrants remain in quarantine for 10 days and twice test negative for the coronavirus.

During a news briefing this week, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, conceded that the administration faced a "tough choice."

Their options are to send children back to danger in their home countries or to families in the United States who have not been properly vetted, she said.

"Our best option, in our view, is to get these kids processed through H.H.S. facilities where there are Covid protocols in place, where they are safe, where they can have access to education and medical care," Ms. Psaki said.

In an attempt to expedite releases and free up beds, the government advised shelter operators in a memo this week that it would pay airfare for young migrants to join sponsors in cases where families could not pay for tickets themselves. The government said it would also pay airfare for an escort when necessary.

Family members who serve as sponsors have long been required to pay transportation costs, though the requirement was temporarily waived by the Obama administration in 2016. Paying airfare, in the end, may be cheaper than holding children: Costs at a temporary emergency shelter like Carrizo Springs average about $700 per child a day because of the need to install infrastructure like a kitchen, generators and showers.

The United States began to see a significant increase in the number of unaccompanied children arriving from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras in 2011, many of them facing threats of violence from gangs. Those problems continue to plague the region. Hurricanes battered Guatemala and Honduras recently, and climate change has rendered land less productive, further pushing people to journey to the United States in a gamble for a better life.

This year, shelter operators said they expected that the numbers of young people could dwarf what was seen during the Obama and Trump administrations.

The Trump administration faced widespread criticism for summarily deporting minors who had arrived at the border without an adult. In November, a federal judge in the District of Columbia prohibited such expulsions, but an appeals court stayed the ruling last month.

Mr. Biden opted not to resume the expulsions, a decision that was applauded by immigrant advocates and essentially opened the floodgates.

"If Trump hadn't expelled all these children, the arrivals would have been staggered and we wouldn't be where we are now," Ms. Frye said.

Migrant families, expecting a more relaxed border policy, began gathering on the Mexican side of the border even before Mr. Biden took office. His announcement that the public health emergency would not be lifted, and that adults would not be allowed to enter the country in large numbers, did not dissuade them.

Upon release from Customs and Border Protection custody, families are dropped off at a bus station in Brownsville, Texas, where they are tested for the coronavirus. Credit... Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York Times

Since U.S. border authorities began processing migrant families in small numbers this month along the Texas border, thousands of people who had been turned back elsewhere, from as far away as Tijuana, have flocked to the Mexican towns near those border posts, hoping to apply for asylum.

Aid groups are rushing to try to help provide shelter and supplies for the stranded families.

One memo circulating among volunteers laid out the problem clearly: "DIAPERS ARE NEEDED EVERYWHERE."

James Dobbins contributed reporting from Carrizo Springs, Texas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thousands of Migrant Children Detained in Resumption of Trump-Era Policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Biden vowed to create a humane approach to immigration. But thousands of children who crossed the border alone are being confined in government shelters. LOS ANGELES - Thousands of unaccompanied migrant children have been making their way to the southwestern border in recent weeks, presenting a new challenge for the Biden administration as it strives to create a humanitarian approach to unauthorized immigration.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that everything happens for a reason and that the energy you invest will be reciprocated back into your life, good or bad.

# data[].attributes.headline
An issue that needs to be addressed by the government:

# data[].attributes.subject
An issue that needs to be addressed by the government:

# data[].attributes.body
Climate change is an urgent issue that impacts the entire world, but our duty to help ease the effects.

# data[].attributes.body
During his first three days in office, President Biden issued three executive orders that repealed orders formally issue by ex-President Trump. These executive orders are related to energy regulation policy, regulatory practice, and civil service.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Checks and Balances Letter delivers news and information from Ballotpedia's Administrative State Project, including pivotal actions at the federal and state levels related to the separation of powers, due process and the rule of law.
This edition:
In this month's edition of Checks and Balances, we review executive orders issued by President Joe Biden (D) that rescinded executive orders related to the administrative state issued by former President Donald Trump (R). We also examine the reintroduction of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act) in the 117th Congress as well as new federal legislation aimed at strengthening the nondelegation doctrine.

At the state level, we take a look at a ruling from the Oklahoma Supreme Court that reaffirmed the nondelegation doctrine in the state; executive agency reorganization efforts from governors in Vermont and South Dakota; and two constitutional amendments in Pennsylvania aimed at limiting the governor's emergency powers.

We also highlight a new analysis that found a federal regulations-to-laws ratio of 19-to-1 in 2020. As always, we wrap up with our Regulatory Tally, which features information about the 113 proposed rules and 235 final rules added to the Federal Register in January and OIRA's regulatory review activity.

In Washington
Biden revokes Trump executive orders on the administrative state

What's the story? President Joe Biden (D) in his first days in office issued three executive orders that revoked executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump (R) related to energy regulation policy, regulatory practice, and the civil service.

In Executive Order 13990, Biden revoked a Trump executive order that established the Trump administration's policy for energy regulation.

Biden's E.O. 13992 revoked six Trump administration executive orders on regulatory practice. The revoked orders included the Trump administration's 2-for-1 regulatory policy, which required agencies to eliminate two old regulations for each new regulation issued. Other revoked policies included the elimination of certain non-statutory advisory committees, a prohibition on binding agency guidance, a requirement that agencies provide the public with fair notice of regulations, and a requirement that agencies consider cost reduction efforts in administrative actions.

Biden's E.O. 14003 revoked four Trump administration executive orders on the civil service. The revoked policies included the creation of a new Schedule F in the excepted service for competitive service employees who serve in policy-related roles, efforts to streamline collective bargaining activities and reduce associated taxpayer costs, and a bid to expedite removal procedures for poor-performing federal employees.

REINS Act reintroduced in 117th Congress

What's the story? U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on January 27 joined 24 Republican U.S. senators to reintroduce the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act), which would require Congress to approve new major rules proposed by executive branch agencies before they can be enforced.

The REINS Act defines major agency regulations as those that have financial impacts on the U.S. economy of $100 million or more, increase consumer prices, or have significant harmful effects on the economy.

Republican lawmakers have introduced the REINS Act during every session of Congress since the 112th Congress (2011-2012).

Wisconsin became the first and only state to implement the REINS Act at the state level in 2017.

Federal legislation aims to strengthen nondelegation doctrine

What's the story? A new bill aims to prohibit Congress from delegating legislative power to other branches of government, including administrative agencies. The bill would strengthen the federal nondelegation doctrine-an administrative law principle that holds that legislative bodies cannot delegate their legislative powers to executive agencies or private entities.

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the legislation on January 28.

The bill would also direct the Comptroller General of the United States to issue a report to Congress detailing what the proposed legislation describes as, in its words, "the extent of the problem of unconstitutional delegation to the end that such delegations can be phased out."

In the states
Oklahoma Supreme Court decision reaffirms nondelegation doctrine

What's the story? The Oklahoma Supreme Court on January 26 reconfirmed the state court's jurisprudence in support of the nondelegation doctrine in the gambling case Treat v. Stitt.

Oklahoma lawmakers sued Governor Kevin Stitt (R), arguing that he had exceeded his authority when he entered into two 2020 tribal gambling compacts on behalf of the state.

The Oklahoma governor's authority to enter into tribal compacts is statutory rather than constitutional-meaning that it is delegated to the governor by the legislature through specific laws.

Under the State Tribal Gaming Act, the Oklahoma governor can negotiate tribal gambling compacts within the bounds of the statute's Model Compact. If the governor seeks to enter into a treaty that differs from the Model Compact, they must obtain approval from the legislature's Joint Committee, which oversees agreements between tribes and the state.

The court held that Stitt had unlawfully entered into the tribal gambling compacts because the compacts deviated from the bounds of the Model Compact. It also held that Stitt failed to obtain the approval of the Joint Committee for the non-standard compacts.

The court in July had previously held that two other tribal gambling compacts entered into by Stitt were similarly unlawful.

Justice James Winchester authored the case opinion. Justices Richard Darby, Yvonne Kauger, Douglas Combs, Noma Gurich, and John Reif concurred. Justices James Edmunson and Tom Colbert recused themselves from the case. John Kane dissented, claiming that the tribes should have been indispensable parties to the lawsuit.

Justice Dustin Rowe concurred with the result, but also argued that approval of the compacts by the Joint Committee would violate the nondelegation doctrine because the committee does not have the authority to amend Oklahoma law.

Want to go deeper?

Governors focus on agency reorganization

What's the story? Governors in two states have recently issued executive orders aimed at reorganizing agencies of the executive branch-with different results.

The Vermont House of Representatives on February 5 voted 108-40 to block Vermont Governor Phil Scott's (R) executive order that would have established a new state law enforcement agency.

Scott's executive order, issued on January 14, would have merged all of the state's law enforcement divisions under a newly created Agency of Public Safety.

Legislators argued that the proposed agency merger raised concerns about costs and agency independence that would be better addressed through the legislative process.

Vermont legislators previously blocked two of Scott's executive orders aimed at reorganizing executive agencies. One of these orders-a proposal to merge the Vermont Lottery Commission and the Department of Liquor Control-was later approved via legislation.

In a statement following the House vote, Scott expressed appreciation for lawmakers' interest in pursuing the reorganization plan through legislation.

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R) on January 19 issued a similar executive order that would restructure executive branch agencies by merging the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to form a new Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR). Noem claims that the merger will strengthen agriculture operations in the state while promoting conservation efforts.

The state legislature has the authority to oppose the merger, but no lawmakers had raised objections as of February 5.

Want to go deeper?

Pennsylvania voters will decide whether to limit governor's emergency powers

What's the story? The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on February 5 approved two constitutional amendments that will allow Pennsylvania voters to decide whether to limit the governor's emergency powers.

The Pennsylvania State Senate previously approved the constitutional amendments on January 26. Both Republican-controlled chambers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly voted to approve the constitutional amendments largely along party lines.

The first constitutional amendment would limit a governor's emergency disaster declaration to 21 days and allow state legislators to extend the declaration by passing a concurrent resolution. Under the current state constitution, the governor's emergency disaster declaration can last up to 90 days and be extended indefinitely.

The second constitutional amendment would authorize the General Assembly to terminate an emergency disaster without the governor's approval. When the General Assembly passed concurrent resolutions to terminate the governor's coronavirus-related emergency disaster last summer, the state Supreme Court ruled that gubernatorial approval was required.

Republican lawmakers claim that the constitutional amendments would balance the separation of powers in the state and bring emergency power closer to the hands of the people. Democratic opponents, including Governor Tom Wolf, argue that the constitutional amendments seek to usurp executive power and would slow down the state's emergency response by requiring legislative action.

The constitutional amendments will appear on the May 18, 2021, primary ballot.

Thirty-three state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, have moved in 2021 to place limits on executive emergency authority as of February 8.

Want to go deeper?

____________________________________________________________________________

Study finds 19 regulations for every law passed in 2020

New analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) found that the number of regulations issued by federal administrative agencies outpaced on a 19-to-1 ratio the number of laws passed by Congress and enacted by the president in 2020. Congress and the president enacted 178 laws in 2020 while federal agencies issued 3,353 regulations. The same analysis found the following regulations-to-laws ratios over the past decade:

Regulatory tally

The Federal Register in January reached 7,614 pages.

The January Federal Register included 113 proposed rules and 235 final rules. These included changes to immigration fees and revisions to drinking water regulations, among other rules.

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
OIRA's January regulatory review activity included the following actions:

Review of 132 significant regulatory actions.

Seven rules approved without changes; recommended changes to 57 proposed rules; 67 rules withdrawn; one rule subject to a statutory or judicial deadline.

As of February 1, 2021, OIRA's website listed 14 regulatory actions under review.

Want to go deeper?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Checks and Balances: REINS Act reintroduced in 117th Congress - Ballotpedia News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Checks and Balances Letter delivers news and information from Ballotpedia's Administrative State Project, including pivotal actions at the federal and state levels related to the separation of powers, due process and the rule of law.