Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Carpenter, David Hatcher" in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Financial Regulatory Reform and the 111th Congress [June 1, 2010]
"The financial regulatory reform being considered in the 111th Congress is the continuation of a policy debate beginning before the September 2008 financial panic. For example, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson issued a blueprint for financial reform in March 2008. In September 2008, after this blueprint was issued but before congressional action, the financial system suffered severe distress as Lehman Brothers and AIG failed. This accelerated the review of financial regulation and refocused some of the policy debate on areas that experienced the most distress. […] One issue in financial reform is the potential reorganization of the financial system regulatory architecture. Currently, the United States has many regulators, some with overlapping jurisdictions, but many believe there are gaps in the oversight of some issues. This structure evolved largely in reaction to past financial crises, with new agencies and rules created to address the perceived causes of the particular financial problems at that time. One option would be to consolidate agencies that appear to have similar missions. […] This report reviews issues related to financial regulation. It provides brief descriptions of the two main comprehensive reform bills in the 111th Congress that address these issues. This report will be updated to reflect congressional activity in financial regulatory reform."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shorter, Gary W.; Murphy, Edward Vincent; Miller, Rena S. . . .
2010-06-01
-
'Volcker Rule': Proposals to Limit 'Speculative' Proprietary Trading by Banks [June 30, 2010]
"In 1933, during the first 100 days of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Glass-Steagall Act (GSA) were enacted, setting up a pervasive regulatory scheme for the public offering of securities and generally prohibiting commercial banks from underwriting and dealing in those securities. Banks are subject to heavy, expensive prudential regulation, while the regulation of securities firms is predominately built around registration, disclosure of risk, and the prevention and prosecution of insider trading and other forms of fraud. While there are two distinct regulatory systems, the distinguishing lines between the traditional activities engaged in by commercial and investment banks became increasingly difficult to discern as a result of competition, financial innovation, and technological advances in combination with permissive agency and judicial interpretation. One of the benefits of being a bank, and thus being subject to more extensive regulation, is access to what is referred to as the 'federal safety net,' which includes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC's) deposit insurance, the Federal Reserve's discount window lending facility, and the Federal Reserve's payment system. In the wake of the Great Recession of 2008, there have been calls to reexamine the activities that should be permissible for commercial banks in light of the fact that they receive governmental benefits through access to the federal safety net. Some have called for the reenactment of the provisions of the GSA that imposed affiliation restrictions between banks and securities firms, which were repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) in 1999."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher; Murphy, M. Maureen
2010-06-30
-
'Volcker Rule': Proposals to Limit 'Speculative' Proprietary Trading by Banks [June 22, 2010]
"In 1933, during the first 100 days of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Glass-Steagall Act (GSA) were enacted, setting up a pervasive regulatory scheme for the public offering of securities and generally prohibiting commercial banks from underwriting and dealing in those securities. Banks are subject to heavy, expensive prudential regulation, while the regulation of securities firms is predominately built around registration, disclosure of risk, and the prevention and prosecution of insider trading and other forms of fraud. While there are two distinct regulatory systems, the distinguishing lines between the traditional activities engaged in by commercial and investment banks became increasingly difficult to discern as a result of competition, financial innovation, and technological advances in combination with permissive agency and judicial interpretation. One of the benefits of being a bank, and thus being subject to more extensive regulation, is access to what is referred to as the 'federal safety net,' which includes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC's) deposit insurance, the Federal Reserve's discount window lending facility, and the Federal Reserve's payment system. In the wake of the Great Recession of 2008, there have been calls to reexamine the activities that should be permissible for commercial banks in light of the fact that they receive governmental benefits through access to the federal safety net. Some have called for the reenactment of the provisions of the GSA that imposed affiliation restrictions between banks and securities firms, which were repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) in 1999."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher; Murphy, M. Maureen
2010-06-22
-
Recess Appointment Power After 'Noel Canning v. NLRB': Constitutional Implications [March 27, 2013]
"Under the Appointments Clause, the President is empowered to nominate and appoint principal officers of the United States, but only with the advice and consent of the Senate. In addition to this general appointment authority, the Recess Appointments Clause permits the President to make temporary appointments, without Senate approval, during periods in which the Senate is not in session. On January 4, 2012, while the Senate was holding periodic 'pro forma' sessions, President Obama invoked his recess appointment power and unilaterally appointed Richard Cordray as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Terrence F. Flynn, Sharon Block, and Richard F. Griffin Jr. as Members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The President's recess appointments were ultimately challenged by parties affected by actions taken by the appointed officials, and on January 25, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) became the first court to evaluate the merits of the President's appointments. In a broad decision entitled 'Noel Canning v. National Labor Relations Board', the court invalidated the appointment of all three NLRB Board Members. In reaching its decision, the D.C. Circuit concluded that under the Recess Appointments Clause, the President may only make recess appointments during a formal intersession recess (a recess between the end of one session of Congress and the start of another), and only to fill those vacancies that arose during the intersession recess in which the appointment was made."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garvey, Todd; Carpenter, David Hatcher
2013-03-27
-
Troubled Asset Relief Program and Foreclosures [February 17, 2009]
"Increasing foreclosure rates and problems in financial markets are some of the issues addressed in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343), which created the Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP). The law authorized $700 billion in spending. The initial $350 billion was appropriated. The second $350 billion would be appropriated unless Congress disapproved the request from the President for the funds. H.R. 384 was introduced in the House on January 9, 2009; it was passed and sent to the Senate on January 21, 2009. The legislation would provide for additional home foreclosure relief and broaden safe-harbor provisions affecting the modification of loans in mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Other provisions would require additional public reporting on Treasury actions under TARP, increase TARP oversight, authorize direct loans to the automobile industry, and provide additional housing and financial assistance. This report is concerned with Title II of the bill, which would require the Treasury to spend a minimum of $40 billion of the second $350 billion on foreclosure mitigation. The bill, as passed by the House, would require the Secretary of the Treasury to develop a plan by March 15, 2009."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Murphy, Edward Vincent; Getter, Darryl E.; Carpenter, David Hatcher . . .
2009-02-17
-
Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance [September 17, 2013]
"Throughout the history of social assistance programs, administrators have attempted to limit access only to those families considered 'worthy' of assistance. Policies about worthiness have included both judgments about need--generally tied to income, demographic characteristics, or family circumstances--and judgments about moral character, often as evidenced by behavior. Past policies evaluating moral character based on family structure have been replaced by today's policies, which focus on criminal activity, particularly drug-related criminal activity. The existing crime and drug-related restrictions were established in the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, when crime rates, especially drug-related violent crime rates, were at peak levels. While crime rates have since declined, interest in expanding these policies has continued. The three programs examined in this report--the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), and federal housing assistance programs (public housing and Section 8 tenant and project-based assistance)--are similar, in that they are administered at the state or local level. They are different in the forms of assistance they provide. TANF provides cash assistance and other supports to low-income parents and their children, with a specific focus on promoting work. SNAP provides food assistance to a broader set of poor households including families with children, elderly households, and persons with disabilities. The housing assistance programs offer subsidized rental housing to all types of poor families, like SNAP."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McCarty, Maggie; Aussenberg, Randy Alison; Falk, Gene . . .
2013-09-17
-
Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance [July 30, 2013]
"The three programs examined in this report--the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), and federal housing assistance programs (public housing and Section 8 tenant and project-based assistance)--are similar, in that they are administered at the state or local level. They are different in the forms of assistance they provide. TANF provides cash assistance and other supports to low-income parents and their children, with a specific focus on promoting work. SNAP provides food assistance to a broader set of poor households including families with children, elderly households, and persons with disabilities. The housing assistance programs offer subsidized rental housing to all types of poor families, like SNAP. All three programs feature some form of drug- and other crime-related restrictions and all three leave discretion in applying those restrictions to state and local administrators. Both TANF and SNAP are subject to the statutory 'drug felon ban,' which bars states from providing assistance to persons convicted of a drug-related felony, but also gives states the ability to opt-out of or modify the ban, which most states have done. Housing assistance programs are not subject to the drug felon ban, but they are subject to a set of policies that allows local program administrators to deny or terminate assistance to persons involved in drug-related or other criminal activity. Housing law also includes mandatory restrictions related to specific crimes, including sex offenses and methamphetamine production. All three programs also have specific restrictions related to fugitive felons."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McCarty, Maggie; Aussenberg, Randy Alison; Falk, Gene . . .
2013-07-30
-
Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance [May 13, 2013]
"This report describes and compares the drug- and crime-related policy restrictions contained in selected federal programs that provide assistance to low-income individuals and families: the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), and the three primary federal housing assistance programs (the public housing program, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, and the project-based Section 8 rental assistance program). These programs were chosen because they serve many of the same families. However, the programs also differ. They have different drug- and other crime-related restrictions, with varying levels of federal administration and discretion for state or local administrators. The drug- and crime-related restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and the housing assistance programs were developed at different times in different laws, but it appears they are intended to serve similar purposes. To some extent, they are intended to deter people from engaging in drug-related and other criminal activity. They may also be intended to punish individuals for engaging in undesirable behavior. Further, when resources are limited, these policies may be intended to direct assistance to other households who are deemed more worthy of assistance. Additionally, particularly for housing assistance programs, drug- and crime-related restrictions may be intended to protect vulnerable communities from the consequences of drug-related and other criminal activity. The report begins by providing a brief overview of the history and evolution of policies establishing drug- and crime-related restrictions in federal assistance programs. It then briefly describes TANF, SNAP, and the three housing programs, and then discusses the specific policies in those programs related to drug testing and drug-related and other criminal activity. It concludes by comparing and contrasting those policies and highlighting considerations for policymakers."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McCarty, Maggie; Falk, Gene; Aussenberg, Randy Alison . . .
2013-05-13
-
Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance [September 6, 2012]
"Throughout the history of social assistance programs, administrators have attempted to limit access only to those families considered 'worthy' of assistance. Policies about worthiness have included both judgments about need--generally tied to income, demographic characteristics, or family circumstances--and judgments about moral character, often as evidenced by behavior. Past policies evaluating moral character based on family structure have been replaced by today's policies, which focus on criminal activity, particularly drug-related criminal activity. The existing crime and drug-related restrictions were established in the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, when crime rates, especially drug-related violent crime rates, were at peak levels. While crime rates have since declined, interest in expanding these policies has continued. The three programs examined in this report--the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), and federal housing assistance programs (public housing and Section 8 tenant and project-based assistance)--are similar, in that they are administered at the state or local level. They are different in the forms of assistance they provide."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McCarty, Maggie; Falk, Gene; Aussenberg, Randy Alison . . .
2012-09-06
-
Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance [November 18, 2015]
"Throughout the history of social assistance programs, administrators have attempted to limit access only to those families considered 'worthy' of assistance. Policies about worthiness have included both judgments about need--generally tied to income, demographic characteristics, or family circumstances--and judgments about moral character, often as evidenced by behavior. Past policies evaluating moral character based on family structure have been replaced by today's policies, which focus on criminal activity, particularly drug-related criminal activity. The existing crime and drug-related restrictions were established in the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, when crime rates, especially drug-related violent crime rates, were at peak levels. While crime rates have since declined, some remain interested in expanding these policies. The three programs examined in this report--the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), and federal housing assistance programs (public housing and Section 8 tenant and project-based assistance)--are similar, in that they are administered at the state or local level. They are different in the forms of assistance they provide. TANF provides cash assistance and other supports to low-income parents and their children, with a specific focus on promoting work. SNAP provides food assistance to a broader set of poor households including families with children, elderly households, and persons with disabilities. The housing assistance programs offer subsidized rental housing to all types of poor families, like SNAP."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McCarty, Maggie; Falk, Gene; Aussenberg, Randy Alison . . .
2015-11-18
-
Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance [August 28, 2015]
"Throughout the history of social assistance programs, administrators have attempted to limit access only to those families considered 'worthy' of assistance. Policies about worthiness have included both judgments about need--generally tied to income, demographic characteristics, or family circumstances--and judgments about moral character, often as evidenced by behavior. Past policies evaluating moral character based on family structure have been replaced by today's policies, which focus on criminal activity, particularly drug-related criminal activity. The existing crime and drug-related restrictions were established in the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, when crime rates, especially drug-related violent crime rates, were at peak levels. While crime rates have since declined, some remain interested in expanding these policies. The three programs examined in this report--the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), and federal housing assistance programs (public housing and Section 8 tenant and project-based assistance)--are similar, in that they are administered at the state or local level. They are different in the forms of assistance they provide. TANF provides cash assistance and other supports to low-income parents and their children, with a specific focus on promoting work. SNAP provides food assistance to a broader set of poor households including families with children, elderly households, and persons with disabilities. The housing assistance programs offer subsidized rental housing to all types of poor families, like SNAP."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McCarty, Maggie; Aussenberg, Randy Alison; Falk, Gene . . .
2015-08-28
-
CDC's Federal Eviction Moratorium [Updated August 31, 2021]
From the Document: "On August 26, 2021, the Supreme Court blocked enforcement [hyperlink] of the new order temporarily imposing an eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Court determined [hyperlink] that the plaintiffs were 'virtually certain to succeed on the merits of their argument that the CDC has exceeded its authority.' The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the moratorium, and lower courts may still issue decisions on its legality even as evictions are allowed to proceed. (See this Legal Sidebar [hyperlink] for discussion of the Supreme Court ruling.) The CDC originally imposed a nationwide, temporary federal moratorium on residential evictions for nonpayment of rent on September 4, 2020 ('initial order') [hyperlink]. The CDC extended the initial order several times, until it expired on July 31, 2021. On August 3, 2021, the CDC issued a new order [hyperlink] implementing another eviction moratorium through October 3, 2021 [hyperlink] ('new order'). The new order was applicable only in counties with heightened rates of COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] [hyperlink] community transmission. Both CDC orders were intended to prevent the spread of COVID-19 by preventing homelessness and overcrowded housing conditions resulting from eviction. The CDC's actions, which followed an Executive Order [hyperlink] directing it to consider such measures, are unprecedented, both in terms of the breadth of the agency's use of this public health authority [hyperlink] and its reach into what is traditionally [hyperlink] state and local governance of landlord-tenant law."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McCarty, Maggie; Perl, Libby; Carpenter, David Hatcher
2021-08-31
-
Supreme Court Blocks Enforcement of the CDC's Eviction Moratorium [August 30, 2021]
From the Document: "On August 26, 2021, the Supreme Court blocked enforcement [hyperlink] of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) nationwide temporary eviction moratorium issued on August 3, 2021. In granting [hyperlink] the plaintiffs' emergency motion to vacate a lower court's ruling allowing the moratorium to remain in place pending appeal, the Court determined [hyperlink] that the plaintiffs were 'virtually certain to succeed on the merits of their argument that the CDC has exceeded its authority.' The Court did not reach a decision on the merits of the underlying case regarding whether the CDC has the legal authority to impose an eviction moratorium, as that case is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ('D.C. Circuit'). The CDC originally imposed a nationwide, temporary federal moratorium on residential evictions for nonpayment of rent on September 4, 2020 [hyperlink], shortly after a narrower set of eviction protections established by the CARES [Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security] Act (§ 4024) expired [hyperlink]. [...] Citing [hyperlink] a surge of cases spurred by the Delta variant, the CDC issued a new order [hyperlink] on August 3, 2021 implementing another eviction moratorium through October 3, 2021 [hyperlink]."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher
2021-08-30
-
CDC's Federal Eviction Moratorium [Updated August 10, 2021]
From the Document: "On September 4, 2020, [hyperlink] the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) imposed a nationwide temporary federal moratorium on residential evictions for nonpayment of rent. The moratorium was extended several times, until it expired on July 31, 2021. On August 3, 2021, the CDC issued a new order [hyperlink] implementing another eviction moratorium through October 3, 2021 [hyperlink]. Rather than applying nationwide, the new order is only applicable in counties with heightened rates of COVID-19 [hyperlink] community transmission. Both orders are intended to prevent the spread of COVID-19 by preventing homelessness and overcrowded housing conditions resulting from eviction. The CDC's actions, which followed an Executive Order [hyperlink] directing it to consider such measures, are unprecedented, both in terms of the agency's reach into what is traditionally state and local governance of landlord-tenant law and its use of a public health authority [hyperlink]. Courts have issued conflicting decisions on the initial order's legality, leaving a cloud of uncertainty [hyperlink] regarding the order's enforceability [hyperlink]."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McCarty, Maggie; Perl, Libby; Carpenter, David Hatcher
2021-08-10
-
President Obama's January 4, 2012, Recess Appointments: Legal Issues [January 23, 2012]
"This report analyzes the legal issues associated with the President's asserted exercise of his Recess Appointments Clause power on January 4, 2012. The report begins with a general legal overview of the Recess Appointments Clause. This is followed by an analysis of two legal principles, standing and the political question doctrine, which may impede a reviewing court from reaching the merits of a potential legal challenge to the appointments. The examination of these justiciability issues is followed by an analysis of the constitutional validity of the appointments; potential statutory restrictions on a recess appointee's authority to exercise the powers of the CFPB [Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection]; and how actions taken by the recess appointees could be impacted by a court ruling that the appointments are unlawful. "
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher; Chu, Vivian S.; Garvey, Todd
2012-01-23
-
Constitutional Analysis of Suspicionless Drug Testing Requirements for the Receipt of Governmental Benefits [February 24, 2012]
"Federal or state laws that condition the initial or ongoing receipt of governmental benefits on passing drug tests without regard to individualized suspicion of illicit drug use are vulnerable to constitutional challenge. To date, only two state laws requiring suspicionless drug tests as a condition to receiving governmental benefits have sparked litigation, and neither case has been fully litigated on the merits. To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has not rendered an opinion on such a law; however, the Court has issued decisions on drug testing programs in other contexts that have guided the few lower court opinions on the subject. [...] Constitutional challenges to suspicionless governmental drug testing most often focus on issues of personal privacy and Fourth Amendment protections against 'unreasonable searches.' The reasonableness of searches generally requires individualized suspicion, unless the government can show a 'special need' warranting a deviation from the norm. However, governmental benefit programs like TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families], SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], unemployment compensation, and housing assistance do not naturally evoke special needs grounded in public safety that the Supreme Court has recognized in the past. Thus, if lawmakers wish to pursue the objective of reducing the likelihood of taxpayer funds going to individuals who abuse drugs through drug testing, legislation that only requires individuals to submit to a drug test based on an individualized suspicion of drug use is less likely to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, governmental drug testing procedures that restrict the sharing of test results and that limit the negative consequences of failed tests to the assistance program in question will be on firmer constitutional ground."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher
2012-02-24
-
Insolvency of Systemically Significant Financial Companies: Bankruptcy vs. Conservatorship/Receivership [April 20, 2009]
"This report first discusses the purposes behind the creation of a separate insolvency regime for depository institutions. The report then compares and contrasts the characteristics of depository institutions with SSFCs [Systemically Significant Financial Companies]. Next, the report provides a brief analysis of some important differences between the FDIC's [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] conservatorship/receivership authority and that of the Bankruptcy Code. The specific differences discussed are: (1) overall objectives of each regime; (2) insolvency initiation authority and timing; (3) oversight structure and appeal; (4) management, shareholder, and creditor rights; (5) FDIC 'superpowers,' including contract repudiation versus Bankruptcy's automatic stay; and (6) speed of resolution. This report makes no value judgment as to whether an insolvency regime for SSFCs that is modeled after the FDIC's conservatorship/receivership authority is more appropriate than using (or adapting) the Bankruptcy Code. Rather, it simply points out the similarities and differences between SSFCs and depository institutions, and compares the conservatorship/receivership insolvency regime with the Bankruptcy Code to help the reader develop his/her own opinion."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher
2009-04-20
-
COVID-19 and Federal Procurement Contracts [March 24, 2020]
From the Document: "The COVID [coronavirus disease]-19 pandemic and related mandates and recommendations to practice social distancing, work from home, shelter in place, and self-quarantine impact government contracts by disrupting supply chains and business operations. These disruptions may make it difficult and potentially impossible for some federal contractors to perform government procurement contracts as originally contemplated. Disruptions will likely alter government procurement priorities and have prompted questions about how the novel COVID-19 pandemic might affect federal acquisitions and government contractor performance. The pandemic's effect on existing federal contracts will depend in large part upon agency needs, the duration of pandemic response actions, and each contract's type and terms. Legal principles underlying standard contract clauses that often must be incorporated in procurement contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and agency-specific FAR supplements like the Department of Defense's (DoD's) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) will likely guide how agencies and contractors respond to the pandemic. Additionally, federal emergency response laws, such as the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) and the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA), could impact how agencies acquire goods and services to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher
2020-03-24
-
CARES Act Eviction Moratorium [April 7, 2020]
From the Document: "The COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic has disrupted business operations nationwide, leading to dramatic job losses that threaten the ability of many to meet their financial obligations, including housing rental payments. To aid individuals and businesses harmed by the pandemic, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136). Section 4024 of the CARES Act provides a temporary moratorium on eviction filings as well as other protections for tenants in certain rental properties with federal assistance or federally related financing. These protections are designed to alleviate the economic and public health consequences of tenant displacement during the COVID-19 outbreak."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McCarty, Maggie; Carpenter, David Hatcher
2020-04-07
-
Constitutional Analysis of Suspicionless Drug Testing Requirements for the Receipt of Governmental Benefits [March 6, 2015]
"For decades, federal policymakers and state administrators of governmental assistance programs, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants (formerly Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, and their precursors, have expressed concern about the 'moral character' and worthiness of beneficiaries. For example, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 made individuals who have three or more convictions for certain drug-related offenses permanently ineligible for various federal benefits. A provision in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 went a step further by explicitly authorizing states to test TANF beneficiaries for illicit drug use and to sanction recipients who test positive. Some policymakers have shown a renewed interest in conditioning the receipt of governmental benefits on passing drug tests. For example, in February 2012, the President signed into law an amendment to the Social Security Act that authorizes states to condition the receipt of certain unemployment compensation benefits on passing drug tests. Additionally, lawmakers in a majority of states reportedly proposed legislation in 2011, 2012, 2013, and/or 2014 that would require drug testing beneficiaries of governmental assistance under certain circumstances, while at least 12 state governments over that time have enacted such legislation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher
2015-03-06
-
Marijuana: Medical and Retail - Selected Legal Issues [April 8, 2015]
"The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) outlaws the possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana except for authorized research. More than 20 states have regulatory schemes that allow possession, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Four have revenue regimes that allow possession, cultivation, and sale generally. The U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause preempts any state law that conflicts with federal law. Although there is some division, the majority of state courts have concluded that the federal-state marijuana law conflict does not require preemption of state medical marijuana laws. The legal consequences of a CSA violation, however, remain in place. Nevertheless, current federal criminal enforcement guidelines counsel confining investigations and prosecutions to the most egregious affront to federal interests. Legal and ethical considerations limit the extent to which an attorney may advise and assist a client intent on participating in his or her state's medical or recreational marijuana system. Bar associations differ on the precise boundaries of those limitations. State medical marijuana laws grant registered patients, their doctors, and providers immunity from the consequences of state law. The Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and Alaska retail marijuana regimes authorize the commercial exploitation of the marijuana market in small taxable doses."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garvey, Todd; Doyle, Charles; Carpenter, David Hatcher
2015-04-08
-
Constitutional Analysis of Suspicionless Drug Testing Requirements for the Receipt of Governmental Benefits [January 29, 2014]
"For decades, federal policymakers and state administrators of governmental assistance programs, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants (formerly Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, and their precursors, have expressed concern about the 'moral character' and worthiness of beneficiaries. […] Constitutional challenges to suspicionless governmental drug testing most often focus on issues of personal privacy and Fourth Amendment protections against 'unreasonable searches.' For searches to be reasonable, they generally must be based on individualized suspicion unless the government can show a 'special need' warranting a deviation from the norm. However, governmental benefit programs like TANF, SNAP, unemployment compensation, and housing assistance do not naturally evoke special needs grounded in public safety that the Supreme Court has recognized in the past. Thus, if lawmakers wish to pursue the objective of reducing the likelihood of taxpayer funds going to individuals who abuse drugs through drug testing, legislation that only requires individuals to submit to a drug test based on an individualized suspicion of drug use is less likely to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, governmental drug testing procedures that restrict the sharing of test results and limit the negative consequences of failed tests to the assistance program in question would be on firmer constitutional ground."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher
2014-01-29
-
Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy [January 24, 2012]
"Sales of locally produced foods comprise a small but growing part of U.S. agricultural sales. USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] estimates that farm-level value of local food sales totaled about $4.8 billion in 2008, or about 1.6% of the U.S. market for agricultural products. An estimated total of 107,000 farms are engaged in local food systems, or about 5% of all U.S. farms. There is no established definition of what constitutes a 'local food.' Local and regional food systems generally refer to agricultural production and marketing that occurs within a certain geographic proximity (between farmer and consumer) or that involves certain social or supply chain characteristics in producing food (such as small family farms, urban gardens, or farms using sustainable agriculture practices). Some perceive locally sourced foods as fresher and higher in quality compared to some other readily available foods, and also believe that purchasing local foods helps support local farm economies and/or farmers that use certain production practices that are perceived to be more environmentally sustainable. […] The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) contained a few program provisions that directly support local and regional food systems. However, many farm bill-related programs benefiting agricultural producers may provide support and assistance for such food systems. These include federal farm support and grant programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which may be grouped into several broad program categories: marketing and promotion; business assistance; rural and community development; nutrition and education; agricultural research and cooperative extension; and farmland conservation. Examples include USDA's farmers' market programs, rural cooperative grants, and selected child nutrition programs, among myriad other grant and loan programs, as well as USDA's research and cooperative extension service."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher; Chu, Vivian S.; Garvey, Todd
2012-01-24
-
Holocaust-Era Insurance Claims: Background and Proposed Legislation [Updated March 17, 2008]
From the Summary: "In November 1998, following several high-profile class-action lawsuits against European insurance companies alleged never to have honored hundreds of thousands of Holocaust-era insurance policies, U.S. insurance regulators, six European insurers, international Jewish organizations, and the State of Israel agreed to establish the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC). ICHEIC was tasked with identifying policyholders and administering payment of these policies. It ended its claims process in March 2007, having facilitated the payment of just over $300 million to 47,353 claimants. An additional $190 million was allocated to a 'humanitarian fund' for Holocaust survivors and Holocaust education and remembrance. Throughout its existence, ICHEIC was criticized, including by some Members of Congress, for delays in its claims process, for conducting its activities with a lack of transparency, and for allegedly honoring an inadequate number of claims. Although they acknowledge initial delays in the claims process, ICHEIC supporters -- among them the Bush Administration and European governments -- argue that the process was fair and comprehensive, especially given the unprecedented legal and historical complexities of the task. […] This report aims to inform consideration of H.R. 1746 and possible alternatives by providing: background on Holocaust-era compensation and restitution issues; an overview of ICHEIC, including criticism and support of its claims process and Administration policy on ICHEIC; and an overview of litigation on Holocaust-era insurance claims and the proposed legislation. It will be updated as events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Belkin, Paul; Carpenter, David Hatcher; Rubin, Janice E.
2008-03-17
-
Constitutional Analysis of Suspicionless Drug Testing Requirements for the Receipt of Governmental Benefits [January 19, 2012]
From the Summary: "For decades, federal policymakers and state administrators of governmental assistance programs, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, and their precursors, have been concerned about the 'moral character' and worthiness of beneficiaries. For example, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 made individuals who have three or more convictions for certain drug-related offenses permanently ineligible for various federal benefits. A provision in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 went a step further by explicitly authorizing states to test TANF beneficiaries for illicit drug use and to sanction recipients who test positive. In part prompted by tight state and federal budgets and increased demand for federal and state governmental assistance resulting from precarious economic conditions, some policymakers recently have shown a renewed interest in conditioning the receipt of governmental benefits on passing drug tests. For example, the House of Representatives, on December 13, 2011, passed a provision that would have authorized states to require drug testing as an eligibility requirement for certain unemployment benefits. Additionally, lawmakers in a majority of states reportedly proposed legislation in 2011 that would require drug testing beneficiaries of governmental assistance under certain circumstances. Federal or state laws that condition the initial or ongoing receipt of governmental benefits on passing drug tests without regard to individualized suspicion of illicit drug use are vulnerable to constitutional challenge. To date, only two state laws requiring suspicionless drug tests as a condition to receiving governmental benefits have sparked litigation, and neither case has been fully litigated on the merits. To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has not rendered an opinion on such a law; however, the Court has issued decisions on drug testing programs in other contexts that have guided the few lower court opinions on the subject."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher
2012-01-19
-
Litigation of the CDC's Eviction Moratorium [August 2, 2021]
From the Document: "On August 1, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) order [hyperlink] imposing a nationwide, temporary federal moratorium on residential evictions for the nonpayment of rent expired [hyperlink]. The order was designed to prevent the further spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by preventing [hyperlink] homelessness and overcrowded housing conditions that would result from evictions. [...] The eviction moratorium represented a broad federal inroad into what is traditionally [hyperlink] state and local governance of landlord-tenant law and an unprecedented use of a public health authority [hyperlink] for this purpose. A number of courts have addressed challenges to the CDC's legal authority to issue the order and reached conflicting conclusions on the order's legality. This Legal Sidebar analyzes the court decisions on the CDC's eviction moratorium order and examines ways in which Congress, if it determines that the CDC should be delegated such authority, might explore means to increase clarity regarding the CDC's legal authority to halt evictions in response to a pandemic in the future."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Carpenter, David Hatcher
2021-08-02
-
CDC's Federal Eviction Moratorium [Updated June 30, 2021]
From the Document: "On September 4, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) imposed a nationwide temporary federal moratorium on residential evictions [hyperlink] for nonpayment of rent. The order is intended to prevent the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by preventing homelessness and overcrowded housing conditions resulting from eviction. The action, which followed an Executive Order [hyperlink] directing the CDC to consider such a measure, was unprecedented, both in terms of the federal reach into what is traditionally state and local governance of landlord-tenant law and its use of a public health authority [hyperlink]. Since the issuance of the order, several courts have issued conflicting decisions on the eviction moratorium's legality and, while no court has issued an order enjoining the moratorium's enforcement nationwide, the conflicting judicial rulings have left a cloud of uncertainty [hyperlink] regarding the order's enforceability."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McCarty, Maggie; Perl, Libby; Carpenter, David Hatcher
2021-06-30
-
Holocaust-Era Insurance Claims: Background and Proposed Legislation [Updated February 4, 2008]
From the Summary: "In November 1998, following several high-profile class-action lawsuits against European insurance companies alleged never to have honored hundreds of thousands of Holocaust-era insurance policies, U.S. insurance regulators, six European insurers, international Jewish organizations, and the State of Israel agreed to establish the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC). ICHEIC was tasked both with identifying potential policyholders and administering the payment of these policies. It ended its claims process in March 2007, having facilitated the payment of $306.25 million to approximately 48,000 of about 90,000 claimants. Throughout its existence, ICHEIC was criticized, including by some Members of Congress, for delays in its claims process, for conducting its activities with a lack of transparency and accountability, and for allegedly honoring an inadequate number of claims. Although they acknowledge initial delays in the claims process, ICHEIC supporters -- among them the Bush Administration and European governments -- argue that the process was fair and comprehensive, especially given the unprecedented legal and historical complexities of the task. […] This report aims to inform consideration of H.R. 1746 and possible alternatives by providing: background on Holocaust-era compensation and restitution issues; an overview of ICHEIC, including criticism and support of its claims process and Administration policy on ICHEIC; and an overview of litigation on Holocaust-era insurance claims and the proposed legislation. It will be updated as events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Belkin, Paul; Carpenter, David Hatcher; Rubin, Janice E.
2008-02-04
-
CDC's Federal Eviction Moratorium [May 17, 2021]
From the Document: "On September 4, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) imposed a nationwide temporary federal moratorium on residential evictions [hyperlink] for nonpayment of rent. The stated purpose of the order was to prevent the further spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), specifically by preventing homelessness and overcrowded housing conditions resulting from eviction. The action, which followed an Executive Order [hyperlink] directing the CDC to consider such a measure, was unprecedented, both in terms of the federal reach into what is traditionally state and local governance of landlord-tenant law and its use of a public health authority [hyperlink] for this purpose. Since the issuance of the order, several courts have addressed challenges to the CDC's legal authority to issue the eviction moratorium. As discussed below, these courts have issued conflicting decisions on the eviction moratorium's legality and, while no court has issued an order enjoining the moratorium's enforcement nationwide, the conflicting judicial rulings have left a cloud of uncertainty [hyperlink] regarding the order's enforceability in their wake. This Insight provides a brief description of the moratorium, as well as its current status."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McCarty, Maggie; Perl, Libby; Carpenter, David Hatcher
2021-05-17
-
Unemployment Compensation (UC): Issues Related to Drug Testing [Updated November 4, 2019]
From the Document: "Recent interest in Unemployment Compensation (UC) drug testing has grown at both the federal and state levels. The policy interest in mandatory drug testing of individuals who are applying for or receiving UC benefits parallels two larger policy trends. First, some state legislatures have considered drug testing individuals receiving public assistance benefits. While UC is generally considered social insurance (rather than public assistance), the concept of drug testing UC recipients (who are receiving state-financed benefits from a program authorized under state laws) could be interpreted as a potential extension of this state-level interest. Second, over recent years, Congress has considered issues related to UC program integrity, including drug testing, which may be viewed as addressing UC program integrity concerns. [...] Some stakeholders also expressed concern that expanded UC drug testing could create barriers to UC benefit receipt among eligible individuals and discourage UC claims filing. Stakeholders have also raised at least two legal concerns with the new final UC drug testing rule: (1) some commenters have argued that the new final rule may violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and (2) some commenters have argued that the new final rule improperly delegates authority to the states to identify occupations that regularly conduct drug testing. Other policy issues to consider related to expanding UC drug testing include administrative concerns, such as state establishment of a drug testing program for UC claimants as well as the potential provision of and funding for drug treatment services."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Isaacs, Katelin P., 1980-; Carpenter, David Hatcher; Whittaker, Julie M. . . .
2019-11-04
