Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Gaffney, Jonathan M." 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).
-
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: A Brief Introduction [November 18, 2019]
From the Document: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) provides the exclusive forum for veterans and other claimants, such as veterans' surviving spouses, to appeal U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions denying various veterans' benefits. This In Focus describes the CAVC's creation, jurisdiction, authority, and procedures before identifying several issues that may interest the 116th Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2019-11-18
-
Army of Many: Veterans' Benefits Class Actions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims [Updated December 11, 2019]
From the Document: "'On December 6, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued a decision in Skaar v. Wilkie certifying a class action in an appeal of a Board of Veterans' Appeals decision regarding disability compensation based on in-service exposure to ionizing radiation. The majority reasoned that, "absent any express indication from either Congress or the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the] Federal Circuit" that the court lacked the authority to do so, it would employ class action procedures in appeals. The certified class includes veterans whose claims have been denied by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); veterans whose claims are pending before VA; and veterans who have not yet filed VA claims. One judge dissented in part, arguing that the majority improperly included veterans who had not yet filed claims, while excluding other veterans who could no longer appeal previously denied claims. Three judges dissented in full, arguing that the court exceeded its jurisdiction and "seized more power than Congress allotted to it with unsound legal innovations." VA will likely appeal this decision to the Federal Circuit.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2019-12-11
-
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: A Brief Introduction [Updated April 22, 2021]
From the Document: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) provides the exclusive forum for veterans and other claimants, such as veterans' surviving spouses, to appeal U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) decisions denying various veterans' benefits. This In Focus describes the CAVC's creation, jurisdiction, authority, and procedures before identifying several issues that may interest the 117th Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2021-04-22
-
Expanding the Selective Service: Legal Issues Surrounding Women and the Draft [June 8, 2020]
From the Document: "Should American women be required to register for the draft alongside their male counterparts? On March 25, 2020, the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (the Commission) released a report addressing this and other questions relating to military, national, and public service. The Commission recommended that women should be required to register with the Selective Service System and be included in any future draft. The Commission's report comes just over a year after a U.S. district court ruled that the male-only draft is unconstitutional, and three weeks after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) held oral arguments in the appeal of that decision. This Sidebar provides a brief legal background of the Selective Service System, including legal consequences of failing to register. It next describes judicial challenges to the male-only draft and legislative efforts to require women to register. The Sidebar then discusses the creation and conclusions of the Commission. Finally, it examines issues for the 116th Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2020-06-08
-
Expanding the Selective Service: Legal Issues Surrounding Women and the Draft [Updated September 14, 2020]
From the Document: "Should American women be required to register for the draft alongside their male counterparts? On March 25, 2020, the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (the Commission) released a report addressing this and other questions relating to military, national, and public service. The Commission recommended that women should be required to register with the Selective Service System and be included in any future draft. While the Commission considered changes to the law, recent court decisions have taken diverging views on whether the current male-only registration requirement is constitutional. Most recently, on August 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) ruled that a nearly forty-year-old Supreme Court case, which held that male-only registration is constitutional, is still controlling law. This Sidebar provides a brief legal background of the Selective Service System, including legal consequences of failing to register. It next describes judicial challenges to the male-only draft and legislative efforts to require women to register. The Sidebar then discusses the creation and conclusions of the Commission. Finally, it examines issues for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2020-09-14
-
Judicial Review Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) [December 8, 2020]
From the Document: "Federal agencies administer a wide range of areas by adopting rules, adjudicating disputes and claims, and providing guidance on matters within their purview. Given the potential impact of these agency actions on individual rights, the Supreme Court has recognized a 'strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of agency action'; this presumption is embodied in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). For agency actions not governed by another statute, the APA defines the federal courts' 'scope of review--how' courts review agency actions, including the legal standards used to review those actions. This Sidebar provides a brief summary of the APA's judicial review requirements before exploring the scope of that review. It does not address other issues affecting judicial review of agency actions, such as subject-matter jurisdiction or the case-or-controversy requirement."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2020-12-08
-
Unrest at the Capitol: Potential Violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice [February 5, 2021]
From the Document: "After the unrest at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, sources reported that current and former military servicemembers were among the participants in the unrest. These reports prompted several Members of Congress to ask the Department of Defense to investigate servicemembers' participation and take disciplinary action. The military is investigating whether any active-duty servicemembers participated in the unrest, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a memorandum condemning the 'violent riot' and actions 'that were inconsistent with the rule of law.' This Legal Sidebar examines potential violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), codified in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, those servicemembers may have committed. The Sidebar begins by discussing which current and former servicemembers are subject to the UCMJ. It then examines offenses under the UCMJ that current or former servicemembers may have committed on January 6, 2021, including potential sentences for each offense. It concludes with several considerations for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2021-02-05
-
Veteran Involvement in the U.S. Capitol Breach: Possible Effects on VA Benefits [February 5, 2021]
From the Overview: "On January 6, 2021, a crowd gathered on the U.S. Capitol grounds, breached security, entered and occupied portions of the Capitol building, and damaged federal property. The breach resulted in injuries to nearly 140 District of Columbia Metropolitan and U.S. Capitol Police officers. In addition, the breach led to at least five deaths. According to some media reports' analysis of the Department of Justice's list of individuals charged, approximately 20% of those involved in the disturbances at the U.S. Capitol have served or are currently serving in the U.S. military. This In Focus discusses how a veteran's involvement in the events of January 6 could affect, terminate, or ultimately bar a veteran from access to benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or the Department of Defense (DOD)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Salazar, Heather M.; Gaffney, Jonathan M.; Kamarck, Kristy N.
2021-02-05
-
U.S. Nationals and Foreign Military Service [March 28, 2022]
From the Background: "International law grants rights to and imposes duties upon a neutral state during an armed conflict between belligerent nations. One of these duties is that neutral states shall not furnish troops to belligerent states, except this duty does not include independent actions by a neutral state's citizens. A state's neutrality is usually unaffected if its citizens willingly serve in a belligerent state's armed forces. International law permits such service, but a state's internal law may prohibit it. U.S. nationals (including both citizens and other persons owing allegiance to the United States (8 U.S.C. [United States Code] §1101)) have performed foreign military service at various times since 1788. This In Focus examines the laws governing U.S. national foreign military service during armed conflicts."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer; Gaffney, Jonathan M.; Ott, Alan
2022-03-28
-
'Hacktivists' and the Ukraine-Russia Conflict: Legal Considerations [May 13, 2022]
From the Document: "Since Russia's February 24, 2022, invasion of Ukraine, a growing number of nongovernmental hackers motivated by social or political objectives--so-called 'hacktivists' [hyperlink]--have [hyperlink] conducted offensive cyberspace operations against Russia. Some of these groups and individuals may be responding to a February 26 tweet [hyperlink] by Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine's Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Digital Transformation, who called for the creation of a volunteer 'IT [information technology] Army.' One scholar has cited [hyperlink] this invitation as 'the first time that states have openly called for citizens and volunteers to cyberattack another state.' Ukraine's volunteer IT Army--which may include [hyperlink] 'hundreds of thousands of hackers' from within and outside Ukraine--may be working on 'operational tasks [hyperlink]' identified by the Ukrainian government. This volunteer organization joins the International Legion of Ukraine [hyperlink] as a way for foreign volunteers to participate in the conflict. However, just as participation in the International Legion might result in adverse legal consequences [hyperlink] for volunteers who are U.S. nationals, various federal statutes might be implicated should U.S. persons join the IT Army or otherwise conduct cyberspace operations against Russian assets. This Sidebar considers potential civil and criminal liability under federal law for individuals within the United States who hack foreign governmental or nongovernmental computers. It first discusses the potential applicability of two federal statutes to alleged hostile or malicious cyber activities targeting Russia by hacktivists residing in the United States: the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Neutrality Act. It then presents several considerations for Congress as this situation evolves. Although this Sidebar generally discusses volunteers acting on Ukraine's behalf, the analysis below would also likely apply to U.S. persons acting on Russia's behalf against Ukraine."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2022-05-13
-
Military Courts-Martial Under the Military Justice Act of 2016 [August 28, 2020]
From the Summary: "This report provides an overview of the military justice system and the reforms enacted through the MJA [Military Justice Act of 2016] and other legislation. It begins with a discussion of due process followed by a background of constitutional underpinnings for the military justice system and Congress's role in it. It follows with a discussion of military jurisdiction, military offenses set forth in the punitive articles of the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice], and the three types of court-martial. The report continues with overviews of pretrial and trial process, sentencing and post-trial process, and appellate procedures. The report concludes with a table comparing selected constitutional protections as they apply in general courts-martial with those that operate in federal criminal court."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer; Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2020-08-28
-
Supreme Court Considers Statute of Limitations for Military Rape Cases [Updated January 4, 2021]
From the Document: "In the consolidated cases 'United States v. Briggs' and 'United States v. Collins', decided on December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court overturned two lower court decisions and reinstated the rape convictions of three former servicemembers. The cases turned on the applicable statute of limitations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for prosecuting rapes committed by military servicemembers between 1986 and 2006. Before 1986, the statute of limitations--the time after which an offense cannot be punished--was three years; since 2006, there is no statute of limitations under the UCMJ for rape. But between 1986 and 2006, the length of the statute of limitations depended on whether rape was interpreted as an offense 'punishable by death' under the UCMJ. In its decision, the Court held that rape was punishable by death during this period under the UCMJ's terms and, accordingly, there was no statute of limitations between 1986 and 2006. This Sidebar begins by discussing the relevant legislative history and judicial interpretations of the UCMJ's statute of limitations and punitive provisions for rape. It then summarizes the factual and procedural history in 'Briggs' and 'Collins', outlines the parties' arguments before the Supreme Court, and discusses the Court's decision. The Sidebar concludes with some considerations for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2021-01-04
-
Watching the Watchers: A Comparison of Privacy Bills in the 116th Congress [April 3, 2020]
From the Document: "As a growing number of states enact or consider consumer privacy protection measures, many in Congress are pushing for a comprehensive federal consumer privacy framework. In 2019, both the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce held hearings on protecting consumer privacy. [...] Although details vary somewhat from bill to bill, each regulates the use of personal information by: (1) recognizing individuals' rights to control their personal information; (2) requiring a defined class of entities to take steps to respect those rights; and (3) creating procedures to enforce those requirements. The five proposals differ, however, in three key respects: (1) which federal agency would have enforcement power; (2) whether to preempt state privacy laws; and (3) whether to provide a private right of action. The sixth bill, S. 3300, takes a different approach: it would create a new agency vested with the power to enforce existing federal privacy laws and authorize that agency to issue broadly applicable privacy regulations. This Sidebar highlights the main components of and key differences between these proposals before identifying several issues for the 116th Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2020-04-03
-
Domestic Terrorism: Overview of Federal Criminal Law and Constitutional Issues [July 2, 2021]
From the Summary: "Federal statute defines domestic terrorism to include dangerous criminal acts intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence or affect government policy or conduct within the jurisdiction of the United States. Despite the federal statutory definition, no federal criminal provision expressly prohibits 'domestic terrorism.' Nevertheless, numerous federal statutes offer prosecutors options in charging violent and destructive conduct consistent with the statutory definition of domestic terrorism. [...] As a number of proposals introduced in the 116th and 117th Congresses reflect, Congress remains interested in additional legislation addressing domestic terrorism, and any legislative action in this area would take place against the backdrop of a broader discussion of potential policy concerns and constitutional considerations. For instance, some observers dispute whether there is a gap in the existing federal domestic terrorism legal regime that leaves some violent or destructive conduct outside the scope of federal jurisdiction, and, if so, what new criminal provisions would be required. Additionally, certain constitutional constraints, such as First Amendment protections, Fourth Amendment restrictions on government searches, and broader federalism-based limitations on federal jurisdiction, may be relevant should Congress consider new domestic terrorism law."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Foster, Michael A. (Legislative attorney); Berris, Peter G.; Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2021-07-02
-
Ransomware and Federal Law: Cybercrime and Cybersecurity [October 5, 2021]
From the Introduction: "This report explores legal issues implicated by two potential approaches to combatting ransomware. First, the report summarizes the potential for criminal prosecution under federal statutes such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Economic Espionage Act (EEA). This section of the report also discusses legal issues facing ransomware victims--in particular, whether victims risk legal liability by making ransomware payments. Second, the report summarizes federal laws governing public and private sector cybersecurity, including preparedness and incident response. This report does not cover technological and policy considerations involving ransomware, as these topics may be found in other CRS [Congressional Research Service] products."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Berris, Peter G.; Gaffney, Jonathan M.
2021-10-05
-
Department of Veterans Affairs' Potential Role in Addressing the COVID-19 Outbreak [March 20, 2020]
From the Summary: "The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides a range of benefits to eligible veterans and their dependents. [...] Based on limited information from VA, this report provides an overview of VA's response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that is affecting communities throughout the United States. It also discusses recent congressional action as it pertains to the veterans' benefits and services, as well as the supplemental appropriations for the department."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Panangala, Sidath Viranga; Sussman, Jared S.; Dortch, Cassandria . . .
2020-03-20
-
Federal Response to COVID-19: Department of Veterans Affairs [May 1, 2020]
From the Summary: "The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides a range of benefits to eligible veterans and their dependents. The department carries out its programs nationwide through three administrations and the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA). [1]The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is responsible for health care services and medical and prosthetic research programs. [2] The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is responsible for, among other things, providing disability compensation, pensions, and education assistance. [3] The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) is responsible for maintaining national veterans cemeteries; providing grants to states for establishing, expanding, or improving state veterans cemeteries; and providing headstones and markers for the graves of eligible persons, among other things. With a vast integrated health care delivery system spread across the United States, the VHA is statutorily required to serve as a contingency backup to the Department of Defense (DOD) medical system during a national security emergency and to provide support to the National Disaster Medical System and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as necessary, in support of national emergencies. These functions are known as VA's 'Fourth Mission.' Since the onset of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Congress has passed a number of relief measures affecting the VA and its Fourth Mission."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Panangala, Sidath Viranga; Sussman, Jared S.; Dortch, Cassandria . . .
2020-05-01
-
Overview of the American Data Privacy and Protection Act, H.R. 8152 [June 30, 2022]
From the Document: "On June 21, 2022, the House Energy and Commerce Committee introduced the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA), H.R. 8152 [hyperlink], which would create a comprehensive federal consumer privacy framework. Some commentators have noted [hyperlink] the bill's novel compromises on two issues--whether to preempt state privacy laws and whether to create a private right of action--that have impeded [hyperlink] previous attempts to create a national privacy framework. The bipartisan bill is co-sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. and Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rogers and promoted in the Senate by Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Roger Wicker. In a joint statement, Representatives Pallone and McMorris Rodgers and Senator Wicker described the bill [hyperlink] as 'strik[ing] a meaningful balance' on key issues. Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, however, has critiqued [hyperlink] the ADPPA as having 'major enforcement holes,' prompting other commentators to question [hyperlink] whether the Senate will pass the bill. Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee raised additional concerns [hyperlink] during a markup hearing on June 23, 2022. Still, some scholars [hyperlink] are hopeful that Congress will pass the bill. This Sidebar first provides a summary of the ADDPA. It then compares several of the bill's key provisions to other privacy bills from the 117th and 116th Congresses before examining some considerations for Congress, including potential next steps for the legislation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Gaffney, Jonathan M.; Linebaugh, Chris D.; Holmes, Eric N.
2022-06-30
1
