Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Elsea, Jennifer" 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).
-
'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001': Claims Against Saudi Defendants Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) [December 27, 2013]
"Practical and legal hurdles, including the difficulty of locating hidden al Qaeda members and the infeasibility of enforcing judgments in terrorism cases, hinder victims' attempts to establish liability in U.S. courts against, and recover financially from, those they argue are directly responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. Instead, victims have sued numerous individuals and entities with only indirect ties to the attacks, including defendants who allegedly provided monetary support to al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001. […] A threshold question in 'In re Terrorist Attacks' was whether U.S. courts have the power to try these Saudi defendants. In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissals of all claims against the Saudi defendants, holding that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over the claims. Specifically, the court of appeals held that in this case, U.S. courts lack (1) subject matter jurisdiction over the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, because the Kingdom is entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the FSIA) and no statutory exception to immunity applies; (2) subject matter jurisdiction over the Saudi charity and Saudi princes acting in their official capacities, because they are 'agents or instrumentalities' of the Kingdom and thus, under the FSIA, are entitled to immunity to the same extent as the Kingdom itself; and (3) personal jurisdiction over Saudi princes sued in their personal capacities, because the princes had insufficient interactions with the forum to satisfy the 'minimum contacts' standard for personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment due process clause."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2013-12-27
-
Recent Migration to the United States from Central America: Frequently Asked Questions [Updated January 29, 2019]
From the Document: "Over the last decade, migration to the United States from Central America--in particular from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (known collectively as the Northern Triangle)--has increased considerably. Families migrating from this region, many seeking asylum, have made up an increasing share of the migrants seeking admission to the United States at the U.S.-Mexico border. In the past year, news reports of migrant 'caravans' from the Northern Triangle traveling toward the United States have sparked intense interest and questions from Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Wilson, Jill, 1974-; Bruno, Andorra; Elsea, Jennifer . . .
2019-01-29
-
'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001': Claims Against Saudi Defendants Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) [Updated May 17, 2016]
From the Document: "'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001', is a consolidated case that includes, among other claims, claims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, several Saudi princes, a Saudi banker, and a Saudi charity. Plaintiffs argued that these Saudi defendants played a 'critical role' in the September 11 attacks by giving money to Muslim groups, which in turn funded Al Qaeda. In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissals of the claims against the Saudi defendants. However, part of the reasoning for the dismissals was later overturned, and the plaintiffs were permitted a second chance to bring their suit against the Saudi government and government-owned charity. This effort also failed on sovereign immunity grounds at the district court, however, and is once again on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This report explains the legal bases for the dismissals and provides an update to the status of the case. To address some issues involving the interpretation of the FSIA [Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act], among other related matters, Congress is considering the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (S. 2040, H.R. 3815). This report addresses relevant legislative developments in its final section."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2016-05-17
-
OLC: Congressional Notice Period Prior to Withdrawing from Treaty Unconstitutional [May 18, 2021]
From the Document: "On May 22, 2020, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced [hyperlink] the United States' intent to withdraw from the multilateral Treaty on Open Skies [hyperlink] (Open Skies Treaty), an arms control treaty permitting parties to fly over each other's territories for security surveillance purposes, to the treaty's parties. But a provision [hyperlink] of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2020 [hyperlink] (FY2020 NDAA) required the Secretary to provide Congress at least 120-day notice before officially notifying parties to the treaty that the United States intended to exercise its right to withdraw under Article XV of the treaty. The Trump Administration disregarded the 120-day FY2020 NDAA notification requirement, however, based on advice [hyperlink] from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) that the FY2020 NDAA provision unconstitutionally intruded into presidential prerogatives to execute treaties and conduct diplomacy. Withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty became final [hyperlink] on November 22, 2020. OLC released its full opinion [hyperlink] on the provision in December 2020. This Legal Sidebar discusses the NDAA provision, summarizes the OLC opinion, and suggests issues for Congress to consider."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2021-05-18
-
Emergency Authorities Under the National Emergencies Act, Stafford Act, and Public Health Service Act [Updated July 14, 2020]
From the Summary: "The Supreme Court has explained that the President's authority 'must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.' Because Article II of the Constitution does not grant the Executive general emergency powers, the President generally must rely on Congress for such authority. Congress has historically given the President robust powers to act in times of crisis. These emergency powers are scattered throughout the 'U.S. Code' and touch on matters ranging from international emergencies to public health crises to natural disasters, among many other things. Many of these authorities are triggered from declarations made under three frameworks: the National Emergencies Act (NEA), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), and the Public Health Service Act (PHSA)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer; Sykes, Jay B.; Lampe, Joanna R. . . .
2020-07-14
-
Emergency Authorities Under the National Emergencies Act, Stafford Act, and Public Health Service Act [June 3, 2020]
From the Summary: "The Supreme Court has explained that the President's authority 'must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.' Because Article II of the Constitution does not grant the Executive general emergency powers, the President generally must rely on Congress for such authority. Congress has historically given the President robust powers to act in times of crisis. These emergencies powers are scattered throughout the 'U.S. Code' and touch on matters ranging from international emergencies to public health crises to natural disasters, among many other things. Many of these authorities are triggered from declarations made under three frameworks: the National Emergencies Act (NEA), the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), and the Public Health Service Act (PHSA)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer; Sykes, Jay B.; Lampe, Joanna R. . . .
2020-06-03
-
Foreign Sovereign Immunity and COVID-19 Lawsuits Against China [May 15, 2020]
From the Document: "Putative classes of plaintiffs have launched at least five class action lawsuits against the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC or China) for losses in the United States associated with the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic. Two states--Missouri and Mississippi--have also lodged claims in federal court against China and Chinese entities for COVID-19 associated losses in those states. The lawsuits essentially allege that the PRC government's early failure to accurately inform the World Health Organization and the world community about the contagiousness and scope of outbreak of the disease in China, along with other actions to conceal vital information, prevented containment of the coronavirus and directly led to its reaching global pandemic proportions. Each of these lawsuits faces a common initial hurdle: jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). This Legal Sidebar analyzes two possible exceptions under the FSIA that these lawsuits have asserted as a jurisdictional basis and describes some legislative efforts to overcome foreign sovereign immunity. Because the complaints are similar but the Missouri complaint seems to be the most detailed in its foreign sovereign immunity claims, this Legal Sidebar focuses on the lawsuit by the State of Missouri."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2020-05-15
-
Supreme Court Permits Retroactive Punitive Damages Against Sudan in Terrorism Cases [May 28, 2020]
From the Document: "More than two decades after the U.S. embassies bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, some plaintiffs who alleged that Sudanese support of Al Qaeda contributed to the attacks have won the opportunity to obtain punitive damages against the government of Sudan. The Supreme Court decided 8-0 (with no participation by Justice Kavanaugh) in 'Opati v. Republic of Sudan' that Congress intended to make punitive damages available on a retroactive basis when it updated the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) in 2008. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) had decided otherwise, invalidating $4.3 billion in punitive damages and halving the 'Opati' plaintiffs' award for the embassy bombings. Under 'Opati', the D.C. Circuit is to reinstate some or all of those punitive damages."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2020-05-28
-
Comparison of Rights in Military Commission Trials and Trials in Federal Criminal Court [November 19, 2009]
"Attorney General Holder's decision to try certain detainees in federal criminal court, including those accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and to try other detainees by military commission, has focused attention on the procedural differences between trials in federal court and those conducted under the Military Commissions Act, as recently amended. Some who are opposed to the decision argue that bringing detainees to the United States for trial poses a security threat and risks disclosing classified information, or could result in the acquittal of persons who are guilty. Others have praised the decision as recognizing the efficacy and fairness of the federal court system and have voiced confidence in the courts' ability to protect national security while achieving justice that will be perceived as such among U.S. allies abroad. Some continue to object to the planned trials of detainees by military commission, despite the amendments Congress enacted as Title XVIII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, P.L. 111-84, because they say it demonstrates a less than full commitment to justice or that it casts doubt on the strength of the government's case against those detainees. This report provides a brief summary of legal issues raised by the choice of forum for trying accused terrorists and a table comparing selected military commissions rules under the Military Commissions Act, as amended, to the corresponding rules that apply in federal court."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2009-11-19
-
Protection of Classified Information: The Legal Framework [January 10, 2013]
"This report provides an overview of the relationship between executive and legislative authority over national security information, and summarizes the current laws that form the legal framework protecting classified information, including current executive orders and some agency regulations pertaining to the handling of unauthorized disclosures of classified information by government officers and employees. The report also summarizes criminal laws that pertain specifically to the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, as well as civil and administrative penalties. Finally, the report describes some recent developments in executive branch security policies and relevant legislative activity."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2013-01-10
-
No-Fly Zones: Strategic, Operational, and Legal Considerations for Congress [March 18, 2011]
"The ongoing uprising in Libya against the government of Muammar al Qadhafi has been the subject of ongoing domestic and international debate about potential international military intervention, including the proposed establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya. Congress may wish to consider issues surrounding the strategy, international authorization, congressional authorization, operations, and costs of establishing and maintaining no-fly zones. The military strategy designed to support the grand strategy, it has been suggested, might be based on these considerations: the operational-level military objectives that need to be achieved, to support the overall grand strategy; and the extent to which a no-fly zone--as one set of ways and means--helps achieve those objectives."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gertler, Jeremiah; Blanchard, Christopher M.; Daggett, Stephen . . .
2011-03-18
-
No-Fly Zones: Strategic, Operational, and Legal Considerations for Congress [May 3, 2013]
"In conflicts in Kosovo, Iraq, and Libya, the United States has taken part in establishing and maintaining no-fly zones. As no-fly zones represent a significant commitment of U.S. forces, and may prove a precursor to other military actions, Congress may wish to consider issues surrounding the strategy, international authorization, congressional authorization, operations, and costs of establishing and maintaining no-fly zones. The military strategy designed to support U.S. grand strategy, it has been suggested, might be based on these considerations: the operational-level military objectives that need to be achieved, to support the overall grand strategy; and the extent to which a no-fly zone--as one set of ways and means--helps achieve those objectives. Practitioners and observers have debated what constitutes international 'authorization' for the establishment of a no-fly zone. Given the paucity of relevant precedents, and the dissimilarities among them, there may not exist a single, clear, agreed model. The concept of authorization is typically considered to be linked to the ideas of both 'legality' and 'legitimacy'--the three concepts overlap but are all distinct. The precise meaning of each of the terms is still debated. Express authorization from the U.N. Security Council provides the clearest legal basis for imposing a no-fly zone."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gertler, Jeremiah; Blanchard, Christopher M.; Dale, Catherine . . .
2013-05-03
-
'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001': Dismissals of Claims Against Saudi Defendants Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) [December 20, 2012]
"Numerous legal and practical obstacles, such as the infeasibility of locating al Qaeda operatives, stand in the way of victims seeking to establish liability in U.S. courts against, and recover damages from, the terrorists who planned and carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks. Victims, however, have sued numerous individuals and groups with only indirect ties to the attackers, including defendants who allegedly provided monetary support to al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001. 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001', is a consolidated case that includes, among other claims, claims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, several Saudi princes, a Saudi banker, and a Saudi charity. Plaintiffs argued that these Saudi defendants played a 'critical role' in the September 11 attacks by giving money to Muslim groups, which in turn funded al Qaeda. However, in August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissals of the claims against the Saudi defendants. This report examines the legal bases for those dismissals."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2012-12-20
-
Intelligence Identities Protection Act [April 10, 2013]
"Concern that government documents obtained by WikiLeaks and disclosed to several newspapers could reveal the identities of United States intelligence agents or informants focused attention on whether the disclosure or publication of such information could give rise to criminal liability. This report summarizes the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA; P.L. [Public Law] 97-200), enacted by Congress in 1982 to address the unauthorized disclosure of information that exposes covert U.S. intelligence agents. The act, as amended, is codified at 50 U.S.C. Sections 421-426, and provides criminal penalties in certain circumstances for intentional, unauthorized disclosure of information identifying a covert agent, where those making such a disclosure know that the information disclosed identifies the covert agent as such and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal the covert agent's foreign intelligence relationship to the United States. The act prescribes punishments for disclosing the identities of covert agents with increasing severity according to the level of access to classified information the offender exploited. Offenders without authorized access to classified information are subject to punishment only if they participated in a pattern of activity designed to discover and reveal the identities of covert agents and have reason to believe that such disclosure will harm U.S. intelligence operations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2013-04-10
-
Proposed Change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Under S. 113 [Updated May 19, 2003]
"The Senate recently passed S. 113, a bill in the 108th Congress to extend the coverage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ('FISA') to non-United States persons who engage in international terrorism or activities in preparation for international terrorism, without a showing of membership in or affiliation with an international terrorist group. FISA provides a means by which the government can obtain approval to conduct electronic surveillance (wiretap) and other searches with respect to a foreign power or its agents in order to obtain intelligence related to espionage, terrorism, or other matters involving national security."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2003-05-19
-
Trying Terrorists as War Criminals [October 29, 2001]
"In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the question of whether to treat the attacks as acts of war or criminal acts has not been fully settled. The purpose of this report is to clarify the rationale for treating the acts as war crimes and the ramifications of applying the law of war rather than criminal statutes to prosecute the perpetrators. The discussion focuses on the trial of alleged terrorists and conspirators by a military commission rather than the federal courts."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2001-10-29
-
'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001': Claims Against Saudi Defendants Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) [May 17, 2016]
"Numerous legal and practical obstacles, such as the infeasibility of locating Al Qaeda operatives, stand in the way of victims seeking to establish liability in U.S. courts against, and recover damages from, the terrorists who planned and carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks. Victims, however, have sued numerous individuals and groups with less direct ties to the attackers, including defendants who allegedly provided monetary support to Al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001. 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001', is a consolidated case that includes, among other claims, claims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, several Saudi princes, a Saudi banker, and a Saudi charity. Plaintiffs argued that these Saudi defendants played a 'critical role' in the September 11 attacks by giving money to Muslim groups, which in turn funded Al Qaeda. In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissals of the claims against the Saudi defendants. However, part of the reasoning for the dismissals was later overturned, and the plaintiffs were permitted a second chance to bring their suit against the Saudi government and government-owned charity. This effort also failed on sovereign immunity grounds at the district court, however, and is once again on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This report explains the legal bases for the dismissals and provides an update to the status of the case."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2016-05-17
-
Naval Station Guantanamo Bay: History and Legal Issues Regarding Its Lease Agreements [November 17, 2016]
"This report briefly outlines the history of the establishment of the U.S. naval station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during the first decade of the twentieth century, its changing relationship to the community around it, and its heightened importance with military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also explains in detail the legal status of the lease of the land on which the naval station stands, the statutory and treaty authorities granted to the President with regard to any potential closure of the naval station, and the second-order effects on such a closure that Cuba sanctions laws might have. A short list of additional readings ends the report."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer; Else, Daniel H.
2016-11-17
-
International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use [March 20, 2019]
From the Document: "The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the act's enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute's oversight provisions are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President upon declaration of a state of emergency."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Casey, Christopher A.; Fergusson, Ian F.; Rennack, Dianne E. . . .
2019-03-20
-
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA): Section-By-Section Summary [Updated March 25, 2019]
From the Document: "Congress enacted the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) in 2003 in response to the increased deployment of Reserve and National Guard military and as a modernization and restatement of the protections and rights previously available to servicemembers under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (SSCRA). The SCRA has been amended since its initial passage, and Congress continues to consider amendments from time to time."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2019-03-25
-
Definition of National Emergency under the National Emergencies Act [March 1, 2019]
From the Document: "States and various organizations have filed a number of lawsuits challenging President Trump's proclamation of a national emergency in order to secure funding for the construction of physical barrier along the U.S. southern border. The lawsuits assert that no national emergency exists and that the President has overstepped his authority. Some observers are concerned that the declaration of a national emergency under present circumstances will set a precedent for future presidents to declare national emergencies to override Congress on other policy matters. Others have raised alarm about the number of and nature of statutes that provide the President specific authorities once he has proclaimed a national emergency."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2019-03-01
-
High Court to Determine Proper Method to Serve Process on a Foreign Government [Updated March 27, 2019]
From the Document: "In its October 2018 term, the Supreme Court is to hear 'Republic of Sudan v. Harrison', a case concerning the interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) as it relates to the permissible methods of serving process on a foreign government in order to gain jurisdiction to pursue a civil lawsuit. Specifically, Sudan urges the Court to toss out a $315 million default judgment against it for its support to terrorists responsible for the U.S.S. Cole bombing in Yemen in October 2000. Sudan claims it was improperly notified of the lawsuit because the plaintiffs addressed the complaint to its foreign minister via its embassy in the United States. The judgment creditors urge the Court to uphold that particular means of serving process as compatible with the relevant provision of the FSIA."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2019-03-27
-
Criminal Prohibitions on Disclosing the Identities of Covert Intelligence Assets [February 6, 2018]
"The recent arrest of a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer with knowledge of human intelligence operations targeting China that reportedly have been compromised raises questions regarding possible legal recourse the United States may take. The alleged perpetrator, Jerry Chun Shing Lee, was arrested in New York and is being transferred to Virginia on a criminal complaint alleging willful retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act. Such an offense is punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine. If other reported allegations regarding the damage to the U.S. human intelligence network can be substantiated, more charges may be possible. For example, if, as alleged, the retained information was disclosed to any person not authorized to receive it, the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §793(e) could also be charged."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2018-02-06
-
Judge Neil M. Gorsuch: His Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court [March 8, 2017]
From the Document: "On January 31, 2017, President Donald J. Trump announced the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Tenth Circuit) to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. Judge Gorsuch was appointed to the Tenth Circuit by President George W. Bush in 2006. The Tenth Circuit's territorial jurisdiction covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, and parts of Yellowstone National Park that extend into Idaho and Montana. […] This report provides an overview of Judge Gorsuch's jurisprudence and discusses how the Supreme Court might be affected if he were to succeed Justice Scalia. In particular, the report focuses on those areas of law where Justice Scalia can be seen to have influenced the High Court's approach to particular issues or provided a fifth and deciding vote on the Court, with a view toward how the nominee might approach those same issues. The report begins by discussing the nominee's views on two cross-cutting issues-the role of the judiciary and statutory interpretation. It then addresses fourteen separate areas of law, arranged in alphabetical order, from 'administrative law' to 'takings.' The report includes a table that notes the cases where the Supreme Court has reviewed majority opinions written or joined by Judge Gorsuch. Another set of tables in this report analyzes the nominee's concurrences and dissents and those of his colleagues on the Tenth Circuit."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Nolan, Andrew; Lewis, Caitlain Devereaux; Manuel, Kate . . .
2017-03-08
-
Israel and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement [June 9, 2017]
"This report provides information and analysis on a boycott, divestment, and sanctions ('BDS') movement against Israel. The BDS movement is generally seen as a loose grouping of actors from various countries who advocate or engage in economic measures against Israel or Israel-related individuals or organizations, though defining precisely what may or may not constitute BDS activity is subject to debate. The report also analyzes economic measures that 'differentiate' or might be seen as differentiating between (1) Israel in general and (2) entities linked with Israeli-developed areas and settlements (whose legality is questioned under international law). Such settlements are found in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights- areas that Israel has controlled and administered since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Debate is ongoing in the United States and elsewhere about whether economic differentiation (such as with regard to product labeling policies) between Israel proper and Israeli settlements constitutes a form of BDS. The report also discusses [1] Anti-BDS or anti-differentiation efforts to date, including U.S. legislative action and proposals at the federal and state level […] [and] [2] Legislative considerations arising from existing antiboycott law, First Amendment issues, and issues regarding congressional powers over commerce and foreign affairs. "
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Zanotti, Jim; Weiss, Martin A.; Ruane, Kathleen Ann . . .
2017-06-09
-
Protection of Classified Information: The Legal Framework [May 18, 2017]
"This report provides an overview of the relationship between executive and legislative authority over national security information. It summarizes the current laws that form the legal framework protecting classified information, including current executive orders and some agency regulations pertaining to the handling of unauthorized disclosures of classified information by government officers and employees. The report also summarizes criminal laws that pertain specifically to the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, as well as civil and administrative penalties. Finally, the report describes some recent developments in executive branch security policies and relevant legislative activity."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2017-05-18
-
Defense Primer: Congress's Constitutional Authority with Regard to the Armed Forces [December 7, 2016]
From the Document: "The power 'To declare War' has long been construed to mean not only that Congress can formally take the nation into war, but also that it can authorize the use of the Armed Forces for military expeditions that may not amount to war. While a restrictive interpretation of the power 'To declare War' is possible, for example, by viewing the Framers' use of the verb 'to declare' rather than 'to make' as an indication of an intent to limit Congress's ability to affect the course of a war once it is validly commenced, Congress's other powers over the use of the military would likely fill any resulting void. In practice, courts have not sought to delineate the boundaries of each clause relating to war powers or identify gaps between them to find specific powers that are denied to Congress. However, the Supreme Court has suggested that Congress might overstep its bounds into presidential territory if it were to interfere with the conduct of military operations. Debates relating to legislation and regarded by some as interfering with the President's Commander-in-Chief authority are frequently framed in terms of legislative meddling in military operations, but the line between regulating the Armed Forces and directing campaigns has proved elusive. Congress has also used its authority to provide for the organization and regulation of the Armed Forces to determine how military personnel are to be organized and employed. For example, earliest statutes prescribed in fairly precise terms how military units were to be formed and commanded."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Mason, R. Chuck; Elsea, Jennifer
2016-12-07
-
Defense Primer: Legal Authorities for the Use of Military Forces [December 7, 2016]
From the Document: "By the Framers' apparent design, in order to keep the nation's 'purse' and the 'sword' in separate hands and in other ways hinder its embroilment in unnecessary wars, the Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the President. Congress is empowered to declare war, provide for and regulate the Armed Forces, and issue letters of marque and reprisal, as well as to call forth the militia to suppress an insurrection, repel an invasion, or 'execute the Laws of the Union.' The President, as the Commander in Chief, has the responsibility to direct the Armed Forces as they conduct hostilities, put down insurrections, or execute the law when constitutionally authorized to do so. But the extent to which the President has independent authority under the Constitution, without explicit statutory support, to use the military for purposes other than to repel a sudden attack is the subject of long-standing debate. At the same time, efforts in Congress to exercise its constitutional war powers in some way that is perceived to constrain military operations have met with objections that the constitutional separation of powers is imperiled."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer
2016-12-07
-
Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications [April 18, 2014]
"This report provides historical background on the enactment of declarations of war and authorizations for the use of force and analyzes their legal effects under international and domestic law. It also sets forth their texts in two appendices. The report includes an extensive listing and summary of statutes that are triggered by a declaration of war, a declaration of national emergency, and/or the existence of a state of war. The report concludes with a summary of the congressional procedures applicable to the enactment of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of force and to measures under the War Powers Resolution. The report will be updated as circumstances warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer; Weed, Matthew C.
2014-04-18
-
Wartime Detention Provisions in Recent Defense Authorization Legislation [March 14, 2016]
"In recent years, Congress has included provisions in annual defense authorization bills addressing issues related to detainees at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and, more broadly, the disposition of persons captured in the course of hostilities against Al Qaeda and associated forces. The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012 (2012 NDAA; P.L. 112-81) arguably constituted the most significant legislation informing wartime detention policy since the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF; P.L. 107-40), which serves as the primary legal authority for U.S. operations against Al Qaeda and associated forces. Much of the debate surrounding passage of the 2012 NDAA centered on what appeared to be an effort to confirm or, as some observers view it, expand the detention authority that Congress implicitly granted the President via the AUMF in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. But the 2012 NDAA addressed other issues as well, including the continued detention of persons at Guantanamo. [...] This report offers a brief background of the salient issues raised by the detainee provisions of the FY2012 NDAA, provides a section-by-section analysis, and discusses executive interpretation and implementation of the act's mandatory military detention provision. It also addresses detainee provisions in subsequent defense authorization legislation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer; Garcia, Michael John
2016-03-14
