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).
-
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
-
Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Expiring on December 15, 2019 [Updated April 11, 2016]
From the Summary: "In summer 2013, media began reporting on several foreign intelligence activities conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA), including the bulk collection of telephone metadata under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. After a one-day lapse in the expiring authorities, Congress enacted the USA FREEDOM Act, which placed new limitations on the scope of the government's foreign intelligence activities, while simultaneously extending the expired provisions through December 15, 2019. Although these provisions are set to sunset at the end of 2019, grandfather clauses permit 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.
2016-04-11
-
CRS Issue Statement on Civil Liberties and National Security [January 13, 2010]
From the Document: "Tactics employed to detect national security threats continue to implicate individuals' civil liberties. Electronic surveillance of communications to and from foreign intelligence targets can also capture innocent conversations and chill the exercise of First Amendment rights. New technologies may more effectively screen for explosives or other weapons, but simultaneously produce more revealing images of passengers' bodies. The broadened use of national security letters can provide investigators with a fuller picture to better allocate resources toward more serious threats, but also subject a larger universe of private financial or personal documents to disclosure. As Congress attempts to strike an appropriate balance between the need to detect and thwart activities that pose a threat to U.S. national security and the need to safeguard the civil liberties of U.S. persons, the following issues are likely to remain of interest."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2010-01-13
-
Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Appropriations Process: FAQs Regarding Potential Legislative Changes and Effects of a Government Shutdown [October 2, 2013]
"Congress has yet to complete legislative action on any of the 12 regular appropriations bills to fund the routine operations of federal agencies for FY2014, which began on October 1, 2013. Moreover, lawmakers have been unable to agree on a continuing appropriations bill, or continuing resolution (CR), to provide funding for part or all of the new fiscal year. As a result, the federal government has begun a shutdown of programs that lack budget authority to continue operations in FY2014, except in certain circumstances. Congress is deeply divided over implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the health reform law enacted in March 2010. Some lawmakers opposed to the ACA have advocated the use of the appropriations process to eliminate funding for the law or to delay its implementation. On September 20, 2013, the House approved an FY2014 CR (H.J.Res. [House of Representatives Joint Resolution] 59) to provide temporary funding for the federal government until December 15, 2013. H.J.Res. 59, as passed by the House, incorporated language that would prohibit the use of any federal funds to carry out the ACA. The Senate amendment to H.J.Res. 59 did not incorporate the House ACA defunding language. The House then proposed changes to the Senate amendment to delay the ACA's implementation, but the Senate rejected those changes. With the two chambers unable to reach agreement on H.J.Res. 59 by October 1, 2013, the government commenced a partial shutdown of its operations."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Redhead, C. Stephen; Tollestrup, Jessica; Liu, Edward C. . . .
2013-10-02
-
Legal Authority to Repurpose Funds for Border Barrier Construction [Updated December 30, 2019]
From the Document: "President Trump has prioritized the construction of border barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. Over the course of negotiations for FY2019 appropriations, the Administration asked Congress to appropriate $5.7 billion to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for that purpose. When Congress appropriated $1.375 billion to DHS for border fencing, the President announced that his Administration would fund the construction of border barriers by repurposing funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) and transferring funds from the Department of the Treasury."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer K.; Liu, Edward C.
2019-12-30
-
Fifth Circuit Holds the Individual Mandate Unconstitutional: Implications for Congress [December 23, 2019]
From the Document: "On December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) issued its decision in 'Texas v. United States' on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) requirement for individuals to maintain health insurance (the so-called 'individual mandate') and the continued validity of the remainder of the Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate, as amended by the subsequent 2017 tax revision, but declined to resolve a broader issue: what happens now to the ACA's remaining provisions? The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision on this severability question and sent the case back to the district court to 'explain with precision how particular portions of the ACA as it exists post-2017 rise or fall on the constitutionality of the individual mandate.' This Sidebar provides background on 'Texas'; discusses the Fifth Circuit's decision; highlights potential effects of the decision and possible next steps for the case; and identifies legislative options for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Staman, Jennifer A.; Shen, Wen S.; Liu, Edward C.
2019-12-23
-
Fifth Circuit Holds the Individual Mandate Unconstitutional: Implications for Congress [Updated March 3, 2020]
From the Document: "On December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) issued its decision in 'Texas v. United States' on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) requirement for individuals to maintain health insurance (the so-called 'individual mandate') and the continued validity of the remainder of the Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate, as amended by the subsequent 2017 tax revision, but declined to resolve a broader issue: what happens now to the ACA's remaining provisions? The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision on this severability question and sent the case back to the district court to 'explain with precision how particular portions of the ACA as it exists post-2017 rise or fall on the constitutionality of the individual mandate.' This Sidebar provides background on 'Texas'; discusses the Fifth Circuit's decision; highlights potential effects of the decision and possible next steps for the case; and identifies legislative options for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Staman, Jennifer A.; Liu, Edward C.; Shen, Wen S.
2020-03-03
-
Analysis of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 [March 11, 2013]
From the Introduction: "Given its size, strength, location and the enormity of its impact, Hurricane Sandy was a storm of historic proportions and importance. The damage inflicted by this huge storm rivaled the damages of the Gulf Coast storms during the summer of 2005, particularly due to the population density and overall development of the areas that received the brunt of the storm's impact. As with other major natural disaster events, Members of Congress responded to Hurricane Sandy by holding a series of hearings, visiting the affected region, and introducing and acting on legislation. […] This report examines the potential effect of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 on disaster assistance procedures and programs. Part of the legislative intent of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 is to streamline administrative procedures and improve the effectiveness of several disaster assistance programs authorized by the Stafford Act, namely the Public Assistance Program, the Individual Assistance Program, and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The law reforms the Stafford Act in part by reauthorizing several 'pilot' programs established previously in Title VI of P.L. 109-295, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA). P.L. 113-2 also authorizes tribes to request a declaration of an emergency or major disaster, as was previously only allowed for states. It also directs FEMA to establish procedures for arbitrating disputes relating to disaster assistance, and directs FEMA to create a national strategy for mitigating the cost of future disasters. In the context of overall supplemental funding for disaster relief being debated by the Congress, the disaster assistance programs modified by the law are funded by the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). More detailed explanations of the modifications enacted by the law are provided below."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brown, Jared T.; McCarthy, Francis X.; Liu, Edward C.
2013-03-11
-
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
-
Can the Department of Defense Build the Border Wall? [January 10, 2019]
"This Sidebar provides an overview of the NEA [National Emergencies Act] ; the military construction authorities available in the event of a declared emergency that the Administration may rely upon to deploy border fencing; and other statutory authorities that may provide the DOD with the authority to engage in certain construction operations. The Sidebar also discusses the availability of judicial review of a decision to invoke such authorities, along with critical questions that would arise in litigation over the lawfulness of a DOD border fencing project. Because the NEA and related military construction authorities do not appear to have been employed to construct barriers along the U.S. border, the invocation of such authorities for that purpose would raise a variety of novel legal issues, including (1) the circumstances in which conditions along the border rise to the level of a 'national emergency' that 'requires use of the armed forces,' and the circumstances in which military construction is 'necessary to support such use of the armed forces'; (2) the meaning of the term 'military construction' in the MCCA [Military Construction Codification Act] ; (3) how a court would review different segments of border wall construction; and (4) the relationship between military construction authorities and various other federal laws and constitutional considerations that shape the manner in which federal agencies carry out construction projects."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer K.; Liu, Edward C.; Sykes, Jay B.
2019-01-10
-
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
-
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
-
Judicial Review of Rescissions and Deferrals Under the Impoundment Control Act [May 14, 2018]
From the Document: "On May 8, 2018, the Trump Administration proposed rescissions totaling approximately $15.4 billion of unobligated funds appropriated in prior fiscal years. The proposed rescissions target funds appropriated for a variety of federal activities, including, but not limited to, animal and plant health programs, rural rental assistance, U.S. Forest Service land acquisition, loans to automobile manufacturers to produce advanced technology vehicles, and funding to states under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In many cases, the proposed rescissions relate to programs whose authority has lapsed or programs that are not expected to require the amounts proposed to be rescinded under current spending projections. As a result, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that the proposed rescission of $15.4 billion in appropriated funds would translate to a $3 billion reduction in outlays from the Treasury. A proposed rescission is one of two types of presidential actions authorized under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA), which was enacted to regularize the process by which the Executive impounded, or withheld, funds that had been appropriated by Congress. Although impoundments of federal funds have been made by the executive branch as far back as the Jefferson Administration to avoid waste or inefficient spending, it was the increased use of impoundments during the 1970s in furtherance of broader policy or economic goals that precipitated the enactment of the ICA."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2018-05-14
-
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
-
Legal Authority to Repurpose Funds for Border Barrier Construction [Updated October 2, 2019]
From the Document: "President Trump has prioritized the construction of border barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. Over the course of negotiations for FY2019 appropriations, the Administration asked Congress to appropriate $5.7 billion to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for that purpose. When Congress appropriated $1.375 billion to DHS for border fencing, the President announced that his Administration would fund the construction of border barriers by repurposing funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) and transferring funds from the Department of the Treasury."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer K.; Liu, Edward C.; Hayes, Benjamin
2019-10-02
-
Legal Authority to Repurpose Funds for Border Barrier Construction [September 10, 2019]
From the Document: "President Trump has prioritized the construction of border barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. Over the course of negotiations for FY2019 appropriations, the Administration asked Congress to appropriate $5.7 billion to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for that purpose. When Congress appropriated $1.375 billion to DHS for border fencing, the President announced that his Administration would fund the construction of border barriers by repurposing funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) and transferring funds from the Department of the Treasury."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer; Hayes, Benjamin; Liu, Edward C.
2019-09-10
-
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
-
Employment-Based Health Coverage and Health Reform: Selected Legal Considerations [June 12, 2009]
"It has been estimated that nearly 170 million individuals, or approximately 64% of the nonelderly population, have employer-based health coverage in the United States. While under federal law, employers are not required to provide coverage to employees, many do so voluntarily. Employment-based insurance has several strengths, including risk pools that are not formed on the basis of health status, ease of acquisition by workers, and tax subsidies that exceed those for individual market insurance. In addition, employers may have greater negotiating power with an insurance company than does an individual consumer. On the other hand, plans chosen by employers may not meet individual workers' needs, and changing jobs may require obtaining both new insurance and new doctors. Nevertheless, given that employers are a large source of financing for health coverage in the United States, whether employment-based insurance should be strengthened, weakened, or kept the same is likely to be evaluated by Congress. If Congress chooses to amend the employer-based system as part of a federal health reform effort, it is possible that two primary federal laws governing employer-based coverage, Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code, may be the vehicle for making changes. This report provides an analysis of selected legal considerations in amending these two federal laws."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Staman, Jennifer A.; Liu, Edward C.
2009-06-12
-
Department of Health and Human Services Halts Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) Payments [October 26, 2017]
"Over the past three years, the House of Representatives and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been adverse parties in a suit challenging HHS's payment of cost-sharing reduction (CSR) subsidies under Section 1402(c)(3) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). CSR payments are made to compensate those insurers that are required by the ACA to reduce out-of-pocket costs (such as co-pays and deductibles) for lower-income enrollees. After the House obtained a judgment against HHS from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2016, an appeal has been pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit). However, the case, currently captioned House of Representatives v. Hargan, took a sharp turn on October 13, 2017, when HHS informed the D.C. Circuit that the agency would immediately comply with the House's demand and cease cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments to insurers."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.; Staman, Jennifer A.
2017-10-26
-
Requiring Individual to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis [November 15, 2011]
"As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), P.L. 111-148, as amended, Congress enacted a 'minimum essential coverage requirement,' a provision compelling 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. Although the federal government provides health coverage for individuals through federal programs such as Medicare, it had never before required individuals to purchase health insurance. This report analyzes certain constitutional issues raised by compelling individuals to purchase health insurance. It addresses the authority of Congress to pass a law of this nature under its taxing power or its power to regulate interstate commerce. With regard to the taxing power, the requirement to purchase health insurance might be construed as a tax and upheld so long as it was found to comply with the constitutional restrictions imposed on direct and indirect taxes. […] On August 12, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit held that the minimum essential coverage requirement is unconstitutional. Conversely, the Sixth Circuit in 'Thomas More Law Center v. Obama' upheld the minimum essential coverage requirement as a constitutional exercise of the Commerce Clause. Other courts, such as the Fourth Circuit in 'Virginia v. Sebelius and Liberty University v. Geithner', dismissed these challenges, not based on the merits of the case, but for procedural reasons. Several petitions for Supreme Court review were filed, and on November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal in the Florida case. Oral arguments in this case are expected to take place in March 2012."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Staman, Jennifer A.; Brougher, Cynthia M.; Liu, Edward C.
2011-11-15
-
COVID-19: Current Travel Restrictions and Quarantine Measures [Updated March 17, 2020]
From the Document: "The United States, along with many countries, is responding to an outbreak of a respiratory disease, now referred to as COVID-19, which is caused by a novel coronavirus first detected in mainland China's Hubei Province in late 2019. Cases of COVID-19 have now been detected in several countries, including the United States. To date, the federal government has taken two key actions to deter persons with suspected COVID-19 infection from entering the country or spreading the virus to persons within the United States. First, the federal government has restricted the entry of many non-U.S. nationals (aliens) who recently have been physically present in mainland China, Iran, or much of Europe. Second, the federal government has imposed a quarantine requirement on all persons entering the United States, regardless of citizenship status, who have recently been to those areas. This Legal Sidebar examines the legal authorities underlying these actions, as well as possible legal challenges to their use."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2020-03-17
-
COVID-19: Current Travel Restrictions and Quarantine Measures [March 5, 2020]
From the Document: "The United States, along with many countries, is responding to an outbreak of a respiratory disease, now referred to as COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019], which is caused by a novel coronavirus first detected in mainland China's Hubei Province in late 2019. Cases of COVID-19 have now been detected in several countries, including the United States. To date, the federal government has taken two key actions to deter persons with suspected COVID-19 infection from entering the country or spreading the virus to persons within the United States. First, the federal government has restricted many non-U.S. nationals (aliens) who recently travelled to mainland China or Iran from entering the United States. Second, the federal government has imposed a quarantine requirement on all persons entering the United States, regardless of citizenship status, who have recently been to mainland China. This Legal Sidebar examines the legal authorities underlying these actions, as well as possible legal challenges to their use."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Liu, Edward C.
2020-03-05
-
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
-
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
-
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
