Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Liu, Edward C." 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).
-
Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center: Legal Issues [September 14, 2009]
"This report provides an overview of major legal issues likely to arise as a result of executive and legislative action to close the Guantanamo detention facility. It discusses legal issues related to the transfer of Guantanamo detainees (either to a foreign country or into the United States), the continued detention of such persons in the United States, and the possible removal of persons brought into the country. The report also discusses selected constitutional issues that may arise in the criminal prosecution of detainees, emphasizing the procedural and substantive protections that are utilized in different adjudicatory forums (i.e., federal civilian courts, court-martial proceedings, and military commissions). Issues discussed include detainees' right to a speedy trial, the prohibition against prosecution under ex post facto laws, and limitations upon the admissibility of hearsay and secret evidence in criminal cases."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Bazan, Elizabeth B.; Garcia, Michael John; Mason, R. Chuck . . .
2009-09-14
-
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Set to Expire in 2009 [October 29, 2009]
"Three amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are set to expire (sunset) on December 31, 2009. S. 1692, a bill reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, would extend the sunset date by four years and make various modifications to existing authorities. H.R. 3845 would likewise establish a new sunset of December 31, 2013, but it would reauthorize only two of the three expiring provisions. The three sunsetting amendments expanded the scope of federal intelligence-gathering authority following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Two were enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to permit multipoint, or 'roving,' wiretaps by adding flexibility to the degree of specificity with which the location or facility subject to electronic surveillance under FISA must be identified. Section 215 enlarged the scope of materials that could be sought under FISA to include 'any tangible thing.' It also lowered the standard required before a court order may be issued to compel their production. The third amendment was enacted in 2004, as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act (IRTPA). Section 6001(a) of the IRTPA changed the rules regarding the types of individuals who may be targets of FISA-authorized searches. Also known as the 'lone wolf' provision, it permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Henning, Anna C.; Liu, Edward C.
2009-10-29
-
State Secrets Privilege and Other Limits on Litigation Involving Classified Information [May 28, 2009]
"The state secrets privilege is a judicially created evidentiary privilege that allows the government to resist court-ordered disclosure of information during litigation, if there is a reasonable danger that such disclosure would harm the national security of the United States. The Supreme Court first described the modern analytical framework of the state secrets privilege in the 1953 case of United States v. Reynolds. In its opinion, the Court laid out a two-step procedure to be used when evaluating a claim of privilege to protect state secrets. First, there must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer. Second, a court must independently determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege, and yet do so without forcing a disclosure of the very thing the privilege is designed to protect. If the privilege is appropriately invoked, it is absolute and the disclosure of the underlying information cannot be compelled by the court. […]. Congressional action may affect the operation or coverage of the state secrets privilege. In 2008, a federal district court held that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act supplanted the state secrets privilege with respect to civil claims of unlawful electronic surveillance. In the 111th Congress, House and Senate versions of bills entitled 'the State Secrets Protection Act,' H.R. 984 and S. 417, have been introduced to codify the privilege."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2009-05-28
-
Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization [March 2, 2010]
"Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept e-mail and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. In some cases, evidentiary standards required to obtain court approval for the collection of information were lowered. Other approaches included expanding the scope of information subject to search, adding flexibility to the methods by which information could be collected, and broadening the purposes for which information may be sought. [...] Subsequent measures made most of the USA PATRIOT Act changes permanent. However, three authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are set to expire on February 28, 2011: the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA. The 111th Congress replaced an earlier expiration date with the 2011 date. Before that change was made, the impending expiration prompted legislative proposals which revisit changes made by the USA PATRIOT Act and related measures. [...] This report surveys the legal environment in which the legislative proposals arise."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Bazan, Elizabeth B.; Doyle, Charles; Henning, Anna C. . . .
2010-03-02
-
Government Access to Phone Calling Activity and Related Records: Legal Authorities [February 2, 2010]
"Public interest in the means by which the government may collect telephone call records has been raised by ongoing revelations regarding alleged intelligence activity by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). According to a USA Today article from May 11, 2006, the NSA allegedly sought and obtained records of telephone numbers called and received from millions of telephones within the United States from three telephone service providers; a fourth reportedly refused to provide such records. Additionally, a series of reports issued by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (DOJ OIG), most recently in January of 2010, indicate that, between 2002 and 2006, consumer records held by telephone companies had been provided to the FBI through the use of 'exigent letters' and other informal methods that fell outside of the national security letter (NSL) process embodied in statute and internal FBI policies." This report discusses several statutory provisions that relate to this case, including "'Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence and International Terrorism Investigations under FISA; Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices Generally, and for Use in an Ongoing Criminal Investigation; Access to Business Records for Foreign Intelligence and International Terrorism Investigations; Access to Stored Electronic Communications and Transactional Records;' and the 'Communications Act of 1934.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Bazan, Elizabeth B.; Stevens, Gina Marie; Liu, Edward C.
2010-02-02
-
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Set to Expire in 2009 [March 16, 2009]
From the Document: "Several recent amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will sunset on December 31, 2009. H.R. 1467, introduced in the 111th Congress, would extend these three provisions until December 31, 2019. Section 6001(a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act (IRTPA), also known as the 'lone wolf' provision, changed the rules regarding the types of individuals that could be targets of FISA-authorized searches. It permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism, without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT ACT amended FISA to permit multipoint, or 'roving,' wiretaps by adding flexibility to the degree of specificity with which the location or facility subject to electronic surveillance under FISA must be identified. Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT ACT enlarged the scope of documents that could be sought under FISA, and lowered the standard required before issuance of a court order compelling the production of documents. While these provisions will cease to be prospectively effective on December 31, 2009, a grandfather clause permits them to remain effective with respect to investigations that began, or potential offenses that took place, before the sunset date."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2009-03-16
-
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Set to Expire in 2009 [January 6, 2009]
This report discusses the impending expiration of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the expected consequences on the law following its expiration. "Several recent amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will sunset on December 31, 2009. Section 6001(a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act (IRTPA), also known as the 'lone wolf' provision, changed the rules regarding the types of individuals that could be targets of FISA-authorized searches. It permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism, without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT ACT amended FISA to permit multipoint, or 'roving,' wiretaps by adding flexibility to the degree of specificity with which the location or facility subject to electronic surveillance under FISA must be identified. Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT ACT enlarged the scope of documents that could be sought under FISA, and lowered the standard required before a court order could be issued compelling the production of documents. While these provisions will cease to be prospectively effective on December 31, 2009, a grandfather clause permits them to remain effective with respect to investigations that began, or potential offenses that took place, before the sunset date."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2009-01-06
-
Government Access to Phone Calling Activity and Related Records: Legal Authorities [February 2, 2009]
"Media disclosures regarding an alleged National Security Agency (NSA) program designed to collect and analyze information on telephone calling patterns within the United States have raised interest in the authorities under which the government may collect such information. Numerous lawsuits have been filed by civil liberties groups against federal defendants and several telecommunications companies on behalf of their customers and subscribers, for violations of the plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights. On September 19, 2008, while these cases were still being litigated, U.S. Attorney General Mukasey moved to dismiss the causes of action against the telecommunications defendants, pursuant to a retroactive immunity provision enacted as part of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The disposition of that motion to dismiss is still pending. The Supreme Court has held that there is no Fourth Amendment protection of telephone calling records held in the hands of third party providers, where the content of any call is not intercepted. However, this report summarizes existing statutory authorities regarding access by the government, for either foreign intelligence or law enforcement purposes, to information related to telephone calling patterns or practices. Where pertinent, it also discusses statutory prohibitions against accessing or disclosing such information, along with relevant exceptions to those prohibitions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Bazan, Elizabeth B.; Stevens, Gina Marie; Liu, Edward C.
2009-02-02
-
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Set to Expire May 27, 2011
"Three amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are set to expire (sunset) on May 27, 2011. The three sunsetting amendments expanded the scope of federal intelligencegathering authority following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Two amendments were enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to permit multipoint, or 'roving,' wiretaps by adding flexibility to the degree of specificity with which the location or facility subject to electronic surveillance under FISA must be identified. Section 215 enlarged the scope of materials that could be sought under FISA to include 'any tangible thing.' It also lowered the standard required before a court order may be issued to compel their production. The third amendment was enacted in 2004, as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA). Section 6001(a) of the IRTPA changed the rules regarding the types of individuals who may be targets of FISA-authorized searches. Also known as the 'lone wolf' provision, it permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2011-05-20
-
Government Access to Phone Calling Activity and Related Records: Legal Authorities [November 9, 2011]
"Public interest in the means by which the government may collect telephone call records has been raised by revelations in recent years regarding alleged intelligence activity by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). According to a 'USA Today' article from May 11, 2006, the NSA allegedly sought and obtained records of telephone numbers called and received from millions of telephones within the United States from three telephone service providers; a fourth reportedly refused to provide such records. Additionally, a series of reports issued by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (DOJ OIG), most recently in January of 2010, indicate that, between 2002 and 2006, consumer records held by telephone companies had been provided to the FBI through the use of 'exigent letters' and other informal methods that fell outside of the national security letter (NSL) process embodied in statute and internal FBI policies. […] Required disclosure of customer records to the government under certain circumstances is addressed under 18 U.S.C. Section 2703, including, among others, disclosure pursuant to a warrant or grand jury or trial subpoena. 18 U.S.C. Section 2709 is a national security letter provision, under which a wire or electronic service provider may be compelled to provide subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession. Finally, Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, protects customer proprietary network information, and violations of pertinent provisions of law or regulation may expose service providers to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, and forfeiture provisions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Stevens, Gina Marie
2011-11-09
-
Cybersecurity: Selected Legal Issues [July 23, 2012]
"The federal government's role in protecting U.S. citizens and critical infrastructure from cyber attacks has been the subject of recent congressional interest. Critical infrastructure commonly refers to those entities that are so vital that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating impact on national security, economic security, or the public health and safety. This report discusses selected legal issues that frequently arise in the context of recent legislation to address vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to cyber threats, efforts to protect government networks from cyber threats, and proposals to facilitate and encourage sharing of cyber threat information among private sector and government entities. This report also discusses the degree to which federal law may preempt state law. […] Private entities that share information may also be concerned that sharing or receiving such information may lead to increased civil liability, or that shared information may contain proprietary or confidential business information that may be used by competitors or government regulators for unauthorized purposes. Recent legislative proposals would seek to improve the nation's cybersecurity, and may raise some or all of the legal issues mentioned above. Some would permit information sharing between the public and the private sectors, while others would require all federal agencies to continuously monitor their computer networks for malicious activity and would impose additional cybersecurity requirements on all federal agencies and critical infrastructure networks. This report provides a general discussion of the legal issues raised by these proposals; however, a detailed description and comparison of these legislative proposals is beyond the scope of this report."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Stevens, Gina Marie; Ruane, Kathleen Ann
2012-07-23
-
2013 Cybersecurity Executive Order: Overview and Considerations for Congress [March 1, 2013]
The federal legislative framework for cybersecurity is complex, with more than 50 statutes addressing various aspects of it either directly or indirectly. Many observers do not believe that the current framework is sufficient to address the growing concerns about the security of cyberspace in the United States. However, no major cybersecurity legislation has been enacted since 2002. Several legislative proposals were made during the 112th Congress to close the gaps, but none were enacted. On February 12, 2013, President Obama issued Executive Order 13636, 'Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity'. The issuance of the executive order in the absence of congressional action raises several questions that are addressed in this report: [1] What are the kinds of threats to the national security and economic interests of the United States that the executive order is intended to address? [2] What steps does it take to address those threats? [3] What is the legislative and constitutional authority for the executive order? [4] How do its provisions relate to those in the major legislative proposals in the 112th and 113th Congresses?"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Fischer, Eric A.; Liu, Edward C.; Rollins, John . . .
2013-03-01
-
Smart Meter Data: Privacy and Cybersecurity [February 3, 2012]
"Fueled by stimulus funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), electric utilities have accelerated their deployment of smart meters to millions of homes across the United States with help from the Department of Energy's Smart Grid Investment Grant program. As the meters multiply, so do issues concerning the privacy and security of the data collected by the new technology. This Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) promises to increase energy efficiency, bolster electric power grid reliability, and facilitate demand response, among other benefits. However, to fulfill these ends, smart meters must record near-real time data on consumer electricity usage and transmit the data to utilities over great distances via communications networks that serve the smart grid. Detailed electricity usage data offers a window into the lives of people inside of a home by revealing what individual appliances they are using, and the transmission of the data potentially subjects this information to interception or theft by unauthorized third parties or hackers. Unforeseen consequences under federal law may result from the installation of smart meters and the communications technologies that accompany them. This report examines federal privacy and cybersecurity laws that may apply to consumer data collected by residential smart meters. It begins with an examination of the constitutional provisions in the Fourth Amendment that may apply to the data. As we progress into the 21st century, access to personal data, including information generated from smart meters, is a new frontier for police investigations. The Fourth Amendment generally requires police to have probable cause to search an area in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, courts have used the third-party doctrine to deny protection to information a customer gives to a business as part of their commercial relationship. This rule is used by police to access bank records, telephone records, and traditional utility records. Nevertheless, there are several core differences between smart meters and the general third-party cases that may cause concerns about its application. These include concerns expressed by the courts and Congress about the ability of technology to potentially erode individuals' privacy."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Murrill, Brandon J.; Liu, Edward C.; Thompson, Richard M., II
2012-02-03
-
Cybersecurity: Selected Legal Issues [March 14, 2012]
"The federal government's role in protecting U.S. citizens and critical infrastructure from cyber attacks has been the subject of recent congressional interest. Critical infrastructure commonly refers to those entities that are so vital that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating impact on national security, economic security, or the public health and safety. This report discusses selected legal issues that frequently arise in the context of recent legislation to address vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to cyber threats, efforts to protect government networks from cyber threats, and proposals to facilitate and encourage sharing of cyber threat information amongst private sector and government entities. This report also discusses the degree to which federal law may preempt state law. It has been argued that, in order to ensure the continuity of critical infrastructure and the larger economy, a regulatory framework for selected critical infrastructure should be created to require a minimum level of security from cyber threats. On the other hand, others have argued that such regulatory schemes would not improve cybersecurity while increasing the costs to businesses, expose businesses to additional liability if they fail to meet the imposed cybersecurity standards, and increase the risk that proprietary or confidential business information may be inappropriately disclosed. […] Several bills in the 112th Congress would seek to improve the nation's cybersecurity, and may raise some or all of the legal issues mentioned above."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Stevens, Gina Marie; Ruane, Kathleen Ann
2012-03-14
-
Cybersecurity: Selected Legal Issues [April 20, 2012]
"The federal government's role in protecting U.S. citizens and critical infrastructure from cyber attacks has been the subject of recent congressional interest. Critical infrastructure commonly refers to those entities that are so vital that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating impact on national security, economic security, or the public health and safety. This report discusses selected legal issues that frequently arise in the context of recent legislation to address vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to cyber threats, efforts to protect government networks from cyber threats, and proposals to facilitate and encourage sharing of cyber threat information among private sector and government entities. This report also discusses the degree to which federal law may preempt state law. It has been argued that, in order to ensure the continuity of critical infrastructure and the larger economy, a regulatory framework for selected critical infrastructure should be created to require a minimum level of security from cyber threats. On the other hand, others have argued that such regulatory schemes would not improve cybersecurity while increasing the costs to businesses, expose businesses to additional liability if they fail to meet the imposed cybersecurity standards, and increase the risk that proprietary or confidential business information may be inappropriately disclosed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Ruane, Kathleen Ann; Stevens, Gina Marie; Liu, Edward C.
2012-04-20
-
Stem Cell Research: Science, Federal Research Funding, and Regulatory Oversight [January 17, 2012]
"On March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13505, 'Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.' The Obama executive order permits the Secretary of HHS [Health and Human Services] through NIH [National Institutes of Health] to 'support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law' and directed NIH to review existing guidelines and 'issue new NIH guidance on such research' within 120 days of the date of the executive order. The Obama decision allows scientists to use federal funds for research using the many human embryonic stem cell lines that have been created since the Bush 2001 policy. The Obama policy also eliminates the need to separate federally funded research from research conducted with private funds on cell lines that were previously ineligible for federal funding under the Bush policy; this often required building new but duplicative laboratories under the Bush policy using funds that could have been spent on actual research. Draft NIH guidelines were released on April 23, 2009. Final guidelines were issued on July 6, 2009. The Obama decision allows scientists to use federal funds for research on stem cell lines 'that are posted on the new NIH Registry or they may establish eligibility by submitting an assurance of compliance' with the July 2009 guidelines. […] This report provides background information on stem cell research and its potential applications as well as a history of federal policy decisions related to research on human embryos and stem cells."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Johnson, Judith A. (Judith Ann), 1957-; Liu, Edward C.
2012-01-17
-
Protecting Classified Information and the Rights of Criminal Defendants: The Classified Information Procedures Act [April 2, 2012]
"A criminal prosecution involving classified information may cause tension between the government's interest in protecting classified information and the criminal defendant's right to a constitutionally valid trial. In some cases, a defendant may threaten to disclose classified information in an effort to gain leverage. Concerns about this practice, referred to as 'graymail,' led the 96th Congress to enact the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) to provide uniform procedures for prosecutions involving classified information. The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) provides criminal procedures that permit a trial judge to rule on the relevance or admissibility of classified information in a secure setting. It requires a defendant to notify the prosecution and the court of any classified information that the defendant may seek to discover or disclose during trial. During the discovery phase, CIPA authorizes courts to issue protective orders limiting disclosure to members of the defense team that have obtained adequate security clearances, and to permit the government to use unclassified redactions or summaries of classified information that the defendant would normally be entitled to receive. If classified information is to be introduced at trial, the court may allow substitutes of classified information to be used, so long as they provide the defendant with substantially the same ability to present a defense and do not otherwise violate his constitutional rights."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Garvey, Todd
2012-04-02
-
Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis [April 6, 2012]
"As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), P.L. 111-148, as amended, Congress enacted a 'minimum coverage provision,' which compels certain individuals to have a minimum level of health insurance (i.e., an 'individual mandate'). Individuals who fail to do so may be subject to a monetary penalty, administered through the tax code. Congress has never compelled individuals to buy health insurance, and there has been significant controversy and debate over whether the requirement is within the scope of Congress's legislative powers. Shortly after ACA was enacted, several lawsuits were filed that challenge the individual mandate on constitutional grounds. While some of these cases have been dismissed for procedural reasons, others have moved forward. These challenges have now reached the Supreme Court. During the last week of March, the Court heard arguments in HHS [Health and Human Services] v. Florida, a case in which attorneys general and governors in 26 states as well as others brought an action against the Administration, seeking to invalidate the individual mandate and other provisions of ACA. Besides evaluating the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the Court is examining the question of whether the Anti-Injunction Act currently prevents the Court from ruling on the merits of the case. It also is considering the extent to which the minimum coverage provision can be severed from the remainder of ACA, if it is found to be unconstitutional. Finally, the Court is analyzing ACA's expansion of the Medicaid program and whether it unconstitutionally 'coerces' states into compliance with federal requirements. This last issue will be addressed in CRS Report R42367, Federalism Challenge to Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act: Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, by Kenneth R. Thomas. […] This report analyzes certain constitutional issues raised by requiring individuals to purchase health insurance under Congress's authority under its taxing power or its power to regulate interstate commerce. It also addresses whether the exceptions to the minimum coverage provision to purchase health insurance satisfy First Amendment freedom of religion protections. Finally, this report discusses some of the more publicized legal challenges to ACA, as well additional issues that are currently before the Court."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Staman, Jennifer A.; Brougher, Cynthia M.; Liu, Edward C.
2012-04-06
-
Cybersecurity: Selected Legal Issues [May 3, 2012]
"For many, the Internet has become inextricably intertwined with daily life. Many rely on it to perform their jobs, pay their bills, send messages to loved ones, track their medical care, and voice political opinions, among a host of other activities. Likewise, government and business use the Internet to maintain defense systems, protect power plants and water supplies, and keep other types of critical infrastructure running. Consequently, the federal government's role in protecting U.S. citizens and critical infrastructure from cyber attacks has been the subject of recent congressional interest. This report discusses selected legal issues that frequently arise in the context of legislation to address vulnerabilities of private critical infrastructure to cyber threats, efforts to protect government networks from cyber threats, and proposals to facilitate and encourage sharing of cyber threat information amongst private sector and government entities. This report also provides an overview of the ways in which federal laws of these types may preempt or affect the applicability of state law."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Stevens, Gina Marie; Ruane, Kathleen Ann
2012-05-03
-
Tax Issues and the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: Legal Analysis of Payments and Tax Relief Policy Options [October 14, 2010]
"The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig and subsequent oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico has led to substantial damages, particularly in the form of lost wages and income. BP has begun to make interim payments to compensate for lost income resulting from the oil spill. Individuals and businesses impacted by the oil spill may file a claim with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, an independent entity established to administer the claims, with payments coming from an escrow account funded by BP. The tax consequences of these payments to the recipients will depend on the nature of the underlying claim. Payments received for lost wages or income will generally be taxable, while payments for other types of claims, such as physical injury or damage of property, may qualify for exclusion or deferral. Given the magnitude of the economic disruption resulting from the spill, however, policymakers may consider exploring alternative mechanisms for providing relief to the affected region. In the past, Congress has used the tax code as a tool to provide relief to disaster victims. While the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has not been classified as a federally declared disaster, the tax code could be used as a mechanism for delivering additional relief. Tax policy options that could be explored include added casualty loss deductions, an extended net operating loss (NOL) period, employment incentives, enhanced access to retirement savings, and incentives for charitable relief."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Lunder, Erika; Liu, Edward C.; Sherlock, Molly F.
2010-10-14
-
Would an Influenza Pandemic Qualify as a Major Disaster Under the Stafford Act? [October 20, 2008]
"This report provides a legal analysis of the eligibility of an influenza pandemic (flu pandemic) to be declared by the President as a major disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. In 1997, the discovery of a virulent H5N1 strain of avian influenza (bird flu) raised the possibility of a flu pandemic occurring in the United States. In such an event, the Stafford Act could provide authority for federal assistance. Although it is widely agreed that emergency assistance under the Stafford Act could be provided by the President in the event of a flu pandemic, questions remain as to whether major disaster assistance would be available. An analysis of the Stafford Act suggests that this issue was not addressed by Congress when it drafted the current definition of a major disaster, and that neither inclusion nor exclusion of flu pandemics from major disaster assistance is explicitly required by the current statutory language."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2008-10-20
-
Would an Influenza Pandemic Qualify as a Major Disaster Under the Stafford Act? [December 15, 2009]
"This report provides a legal analysis of the eligibility of an influenza pandemic (flu pandemic) to be declared by the President as a major disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Given the current influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, awareness has been raised regarding the potential effects of a severe flu pandemic occurring in the United States. In such an event, the Stafford Act could provide authority for federal assistance. Although it is widely agreed that emergency assistance under the Stafford Act could be provided by the President in the event of a flu pandemic, questions remain as to whether broader major disaster assistance would be available. An analysis of the text and history of the Stafford Act suggests that this question was not addressed by Congress when it drafted the current definition of a major disaster, and that neither inclusion nor exclusion of flu pandemics from major disaster assistance is explicitly required by the current statutory language. In the 111th Congress, S. 2863 would amend the Stafford Act to explicitly make major disaster assistance available to respond to pandemics and terrorist attacks."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2009-12-15
-
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Set to Expire February 28, 2010 [December 23, 2009]
From the Document: "Three amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are set to expire (sunset) on February 28, 2010. S. 1692, a bill reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, would extend the sunset date by four years and make various modifications to existing authorities. H.R. 3845 would likewise establish a new sunset of December 31, 2013, but it would reauthorize only two of the three expiring provisions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Henning, Anna C.; Liu, Edward C.
2009-12-23
-
COVID-19: Federal Travel Restrictions and Quarantine Measures [Updated May 28, 2020]
From the Document:"In response to the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the federal government has taken several actions to deter persons with potential COVID-19 infection from entering the country. This Legal Sidebar examines the legal authorities underlying two categories of these actions: First, restrictions on the entry of many non-U.S. nationals (aliens) who recently have been physically present in mainland China, Iran, much of Europe, and Brazil; and second, quarantine requirements imposed on all persons entering the United States, regardless of citizenship status. A separate Sidebar discusses additional actions the federal government has taken to restrict the movement of foreign nationals through ports of entry on the land borders with Canada and Mexico."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2020-05-28
-
Constitutional Authority to Regulate the Privacy of State-Collected Contact-Tracing Data [June 26, 2020]
Form the Document: "Amid the ongoing COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic, several states have developed and promoted contact-tracing mobile device apps to identify individuals who may have had contact with infected persons. Additionally, the two largest manufacturers of mobile device operating systems, Apple (iOS) and Google (Android), have announced plans to release application programming interfaces (APIs) to 'enable interoperability between Android and iOS devices using apps from public health authorities.' Several bills in the 116th Congress would regulate the privacy of information collected through such contact-tracing apps."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2020-06-26
-
Ripple Effects: Assessing Impacts of the Supreme Court's Risk Corridors Decision [July 16, 2020]
From the Summary: "Although most eyes tracking Affordable Care Act (ACA) litigation may be drawn to 'California v. Texas' during the Supreme Court's upcoming term, the Court handed down an ACA decision this past term that may have numerous ripple effects in other ACA cases and programs. Specifically, in 'Maine Community Health Options v. United States', the Court considered whether the United States is obligated, under the temporary Risk Corridors Program, to make payments to health insurance providers who offered coverage at a loss in the ACA's individual and small group markets. [...] [T]he Court held that the United States incurred obligations to insurers under the Risk Corridors statute for which insurers could obtain payment through litigation. This ruling is important in its own right for what it teaches about private parties' ability to sue the federal government to recover on statutory obligations, even when Congress has not provided for payment of such obligations outside of litigation. Notwithstanding the affirmance of this right, questions of the government's full liability for Risk Corridor payments could potentially linger for several years. Separately, the Court's decision may affect insurer claims for payment under the ACA's cost-sharing reduction (CSR) program, which compensates insurers to help cover the cost of required reductions in an insured's cost sharing. Finally, HHS [Health and Human Services] and insurers may need to consider how Risk Corridor settlements or judgments should be treated under the ACA's medical loss ratio calculation rules. This Sidebar examines each of these potential ripple effects in turn and notes considerations for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Stiff, Sean M.
2020-07-16
-
Biden Administration Extends the Pause on Federal Student Loan Payments: Legal Considerations for Congress [January 27, 2021]
From the Document: "Last year, both the Trump Administration and the 116th Congress granted temporary relief to certain student loan borrowers in response to the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic. On the first day of his presidency, President Joe Biden requested that the Department of Education (ED) extend the duration of this relief. This Legal Sidebar analyzes the asserted statutory bases for these relief measures and identifies pertinent legal considerations for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Lewis, Kevin M.; Liu, Edward C.
2021-01-27
-
Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization [June 16, 2011]
"Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept e-mail and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. In some cases, evidentiary standards required to obtain court approval for the collection of information were lowered. Other approaches included expanding the scope of information subject to search, adding flexibility to the methods by which information could be collected, and broadening the purposes for which information may be sought. […] Subsequent legislation made most of these changes permanent. However, a number of authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are still temporary. Three such provisions (the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA) are set to expire on June 1, 2015. Additionally, provisions added by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, relating to the use of foreign intelligence tools to target individuals while they are reasonably believed to be abroad, will expire on December 31, 2012."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Doyle, Charles; Liu, Edward C.
2011-06-16
-
Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center: Legal Issues [April 14, 2009]
From the Summary: "The closure of the Guantanamo detention facility may raise a number of legal issues with respect to the individuals formerly interned there, particularly if those detainees are transferred to the United States. The nature and scope of constitutional protections owed to detainees within the United States may be different than the protections owed to persons held at Guantanamo or elsewhere. This may have implications for the continued detention or prosecution of persons who are transferred to the United States. The transfer of detainees to the United States may also have immigration consequences. Notably, some detainees might qualify for asylum or other protections under immigration law. This report provides an overview of major legal issues likely to arise as a result of executive and legislative action to close the Guantanamo detention facility. It discusses legal issues related to the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees (either to a foreign country or into the United States), the continued detention of such persons in the United States, and the possible removal of persons brought to the United States. The report also discusses selected constitutional issues that may arise in the criminal prosecution of detainees, emphasizing the procedural and substantive protections that are utilized in different adjudicatory forums (i.e., federal civilian courts, courtmartial proceedings, and military commissions). Issues discussed include detainees' right to a speedy trial, the prohibition against prosecution under ex post facto laws, and limitations upon the admissibility of hearsay and secret evidence in criminal cases."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Bazan, Elizabeth B.; Garcia, Michael John; Liu, Edward C.
2009-04-14
-
Using the Power of the Purse to Change Policy: SCOTUS Case on ACA Risk Corridors Asks Important Appropriations Law Question [November 1, 2019]
From the Document: "In the world of recent litigation involving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), most attention has focused on the ongoing litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit surrounding the constitutionality of the individual mandate. However, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear several cases involving another, perhaps lesser known provision of the ACA concerning 'risk corridors.' While the risk corridors cases--three cases consolidated under the lead case of 'Maine Community Health Options v. United States'--do not raise a question as to the validity of the entire ACA, they do raise important issues regarding the interpretation of appropriations acts, particularly when such acts conflict with authorizing statutes. After providing some background on the statutory provisions at issue, this Sidebar discusses relevant Supreme Court precedent regarding resolution of those conflicts and the broader implications that the risk corridor cases may have."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2019-11-01
