Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Schwartz, Mainon A." 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).
-
Puerto Rico's Financial Oversight and Management Board: The Supreme Court's Analysis and What it Means for Congress [November 23, 2020]
From the Document: "The Supreme Court's recent decision in 'Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC (Aurelius)', in which the Court rejected an Appointments Clause challenge to Puerto Rico's Financial Oversight and Management Board's (Board) composition, is significant to Congress for several reasons. First, it allows Puerto Rico's debt adjustment proceedings under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) to proceed. More generally, 'Aurelius' reinforces Congress's authority to create offices that do not require Senate confirmation if the individuals filling those offices perform primarily local duties in the Territories (e.g., American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), or the District of Columbia. This Sidebar analyzes the Court's ruling and its potential import."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Schwartz, Mainon A.; Lewis, Kevin M.
2020-11-23
-
High Court to Review Tribal Police Search and Seizure Case [December 14, 2020]
From the Document: "On November 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court added 'United States v. Cooley' to the cases it will hear this term. 'Cooley' brings into focus the jurisdictional maze complicating criminal law enforcement on Indian reservations. The Court is to evaluate whether (or to what extent) a tribal police officer may detain and search a non-Indian on a public highway running through an Indian reservation. More specifically, the parties disagree about the scope of a tribal police officer's authority to investigate--through questioning or search--when criminal behavior is reasonably suspected, but is not 'apparent' or 'obvious.' This case implicates the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it also raises questions about the scope of tribal sovereignty and tribes' authority to protect their lands and members from criminal activity. Congress may wish to consider legislation to clarify the rights and responsibilities of tribal and non-Indian parties when conflicts like this arise. [...] Before discussing the lower court decisions and Supreme Court petition, this Sidebar will briefly describe how the courts have distinguished tribal authority for conducting investigations of non-Indians within an Indian reservation from general non-tribal police authority to conduct searches and seizures."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Murphy, M. Maureen; Schwartz, Mainon A.
2020-12-14
-
Federal Indian Law: Judicial Developments in the October 2018 Supreme Court Term [July 29, 2019]
From the Document: "Each term, the Supreme Court typically hears arguments in one or more cases concerning the rights and status of Indian tribes and their members. Prominent issues addressed by the Supreme Court in recent terms have included (1) tribes' civil jurisdiction over nonmembers, (2) the scope of tribal sovereign immunity, and (3) termination of Indian parents' rights in adoption cases."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Schwartz, Mainon A.
2019-07-29
-
Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Citizenship Question on the 2020 Census [Updated July 5, 2019]
From the Document: "On June 27, 2019,the Supreme Court issued its decision in Department of Commerce v. New York--the case involving several challenges to the decision by the Secretary of the Department of Commerce (Commerce), Wilbur Ross, to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion for a majority of the Court, though different combinations of Justices comprised the majority for different parts of the opinion. In that opinion, the Supreme Court held that the Secretary's decision did not violate the Enumeration Clause of the U.S. Constitution or the Census Act, and that the Secretary's decision was supported by evidence before the agency. However, the Chief Justice--joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan--concluded that the Secretary's decision was unlawful because the reason he gave for adding the citizenship question was not the actual reason for his decision. The Court thus instructed that the case be sent back to Commerce to allow the Secretary to provide a non-pretextual justification for his decision. But the window for the agency to provide that justification is closing: the United States has represented that the deadline for finalizing the 2020 census questionnaire is the end of June 2019 while the plaintiffs have suggested that the deadline is the end of October 2019. Moreover, at least one ongoing lawsuit challenging the Secretary's decision involves a legal argument not addressed by the Supreme Court's decision, thus presenting another possible barrier to the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Schwartz, Mainon A.; Hayes, Benjamin
2019-07-05
-
Eliminating the SBP-DIC Offset for Surviving Spouses of Military Servicemembers: Current Proposals and Related Issues [Updated July 5, 2019]
From the Document: "Efforts to eliminate' benefits offset' that affects surviving spouses--widows and widowers of deceased military service members--have gained steam in the 116th Congress. Bills to accomplish this have been introduced for several years, but recent proposals have gained bipartisan significant support. More than three-fourths of the Members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors of H.R. 553, the Surviving Spouses Equity Act (which has 352 House co-sponsors at the time of this Sidebar's publication), or S.622, the Military Widow's Tax Elimination Act of 2019 (which has 75 Senate co-sponsors). The text of S. 622 has also been offered as a proposed amendment (S. Amdt. 269) to the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act. This Sidebar first explains the legal background of the current benefits offset, which involves two military benefits: the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), a taxable annuity paid by the Department of Defense to survivors of active duty or retired service members, and Dependent Indemnity Compensation (DIC), a non-taxable benefit paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to survivors of service members who died in the line of duty or had a service-connected injury or disease. This Sidebar then describes how a change in federal tax law drew further attention to this issue and closes with a summary of proposed legislation, including H.R. 553 and S. 622."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Schwartz, Mainon A.
2019-07-05
-
Firearms-Related Appropriations Riders [November 22, 2019]
From the Document: "Congress's spending power gives it substantial control over the activities of executive branch agencies. For instance, through appropriations riders, Congress can direct agencies to engage, or to refrain from engaging, in particular activities in order to receive appropriated funds. Over the years, Congress has inserted several firearms-related riders into appropriations bills. Perhaps the most well-known riders are the Dickey and Tiahrt Amendments, in reference to the Members of Congress who first advanced them. Still in force today, these riders restrict agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) from engaging in certain activities related to federal firearms regulation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Schwartz, Mainon A.
2019-11-22
-
Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired Pay and Veteran Disability: Background and Issues for Congress [Updated March 25, 2020]
From the Summary: "'Concurrent' receipt in the military context typically means simultaneously receiving two types of federal monetary benefits: military retired pay from the Department of Defense (DOD) and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Prior to 2004, existing laws and regulations dictated that a military retiree could not receive two payments from federal agencies for the same purpose; military retired pay and VA disability compensation were considered to fall under that restriction. As a result, military retirees with physical disabilities recognized by the VA had their (taxable) military retired pay 'offset', or reduced dollar-for-dollar, by the amount of their (nontaxable) VA compensation. Legislative activity on the issue of concurrent receipt began in the late 1980s and culminated in the provision for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) in the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 107-314). Since then, Congress has added Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments (CRDP) for those retirees with a disability rated at 50% or greater, extended concurrent receipt to additional eligible populations, and further refined and clarified the program. Concurrent receipt is applicable only to persons who are both (1) military retirees and (2) eligible for VA disability compensation. An eligible retiree cannot receive both CRDP and CRSC. The retiree may choose whichever is most financially advantageous to him or her and may make benefit changes during an annual open season."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kamarck, Kristy N.; Schwartz, Mainon A.
2020-03-25
-
Confederate Symbols: Relation to Federal Lands and Programs [Updated July 28, 2020]
From the Introduction: "The iconography of the Confederate states in the U.S. Civil War is a contested part of American historical memory. [...] Congress is considering the role of Confederate symbols on federal lands and in federal programs. While no comprehensive inventory of such symbols exists, numerous federal agencies administer assets or fund activities in which Confederate memorials and references to Confederate history are present. The National Park Service (NPS, within the Department of the Interior), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Department of the Army within the Department of Defense (DOD) all administer national cemeteries that may display the Confederate flag at certain times. [...] This report focuses primarily on Confederate symbols administered by three federal entities-- NPS, VA, and DOD. Each of these entities manages multiple sites or programs that involve Confederate symbols. The report begins with a discussion of recent legislative proposals, and then discusses the agencies' current policies with respect to Confederate symbols, along with issues for Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Comay, Laura B.; DeSantis, Mark K.; Salazar, Heather M. . . .
2020-07-28
-
CARES Act: Implications for Tribes [April 9, 2020]
From the Document: "Congress's third legislative response to the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] outbreak--the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act--became P.L. 116-136 on March 27, 2020. Much of the CARES Act's aid and relief is available to, or will otherwise affect, federally recognized Indian tribes or tribal business entities. This In Focus discusses the provisions that most directly implicate tribes and tribal interests, though the agencies responsible for enacting these provisions will likely issue additional guidance and interpretation in the days ahead."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Schwartz, Mainon A.
2020-04-09
-
Monuments and Memorials: Federal Criminal Law Protections [July 8, 2020]
From the Document: "On June 26, 2020, President Trump issued an 'Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Violence' (June 26 Order). Among other things, the June 26 Order directed the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to prioritize prosecutions under existing federal statutes protecting monuments, memorials, and statues. On July 3, 2020, President Trump issued an 'Executive Order on Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes' (July 3 Order). The July 3 Order decried vandalizing or destroying national monuments and created an Interagency Task Force for Building and Rebuilding Monuments to American Heroes (Task Force). The July 3 Order also assigned the Task Force to 'establish a statuary park named the National Garden of American Heroes (National Garden).' This In Focus analyzes two federal criminal statutes that may protect monuments and memorials from removal or intentional damage, potentially including future monuments in the National Garden."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Schwartz, Mainon A.
2020-07-08
-
Removal of Nazi Symbols and Inscriptions on Headstones of Prisoners of War in VA National Cemeteries [June 26, 2020]
From the Overview: "On May 12, 2020, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation's Founder and President, Michael L. Weinstein, called on Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA), Robert Wilkie, to immediately remove three World War II-era headstones located in two VA national cemeteries. These prisoner-of-war (POW) headstones each bear the Iron Cross insignia, representing a Prussian and German military honor that included a swastika when awarded by Nazi Germany. Two of these headstones also have a German-language inscription that translates to 'He died far from his home for Führer, people and Fatherland.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Salazar, Heather M.; DeSantis, Mark K.; Torreon, Barbara Salazar . . .
2020-06-26
-
Supreme Court October Term 2019: A Review of Selected Major Rulings [September 4, 2020]
From the Summary: "The Supreme Court term that began on October 7, 2019 was one of the most eventful in recent history. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic colored much of the Court's work, leading the Court to close its building to the public indefinitely, postpone oral arguments originally scheduled for March and April of 2020, and, for the first time in history, telephonically conduct oral arguments in roughly a dozen cases over two weeks in May 2020. The Court, which typically recesses for the summer in late June, continued to issue opinions through the second week of July 2020 because of delays caused by the pandemic. And substantively, the October 2019 Term included the Court issuing several orders concerning litigation over various state-government responses to the pandemic. Beyond the effects of the pandemic, the October 2019 Term was notable because the Court issued a host of significant decisions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Brannon, Valerie C.; Cole, Jared P.; Garvey, Todd . . .
2020-09-04
-
Removal of Nazi Symbols and Inscriptions on Headstones of Prisoners of War in VA National Cemeteries [Updated February 12, 2021]
From the Overview: "During World War II, hundreds of thousands of German, Italian, and Japanese prisoners of war (POWs) were held in the United States at various military installations. During this time, the U.S. military standardized gravestones for its servicemembers but not for POWs. Under article 120 of the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the United States must 'ensure that prisoners of war who have died in captivity are honourably buried ... and that their graves are respected, suitably maintained and marked so as to be found at any time.' [...] In 2020, three of these POW headstones became a topic of controversy. [...] On May 12, 2020, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation's Founder and President, Michael L. Weinstein, called on then-Secretary of VA [Department of Veterans Affairs], Robert Wilkie, to immediately remove the three World War II-era headstones located in the two VA national cemeteries. VA said it appears that these three headstones are the only ones bearing a swastika or a Nazi Germany-related inscription, and proceeded with the Section 106 Review process under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). On December 23, 2020, the VA cemetery director and workers at Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery removed and replaced the two controversial headstones. As of February 2021, it is unknown whether the third headstone, located in Utah, has been removed or replaced."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Salazar, Heather M.; DeSantis, Mark K.; Torreon, Barbara Salazar . . .
2021-02-12
-
High Court to Review Tribal Police Search and Seizure Case [Updated April 1, 2021]
From the Document: "'Update: On March 23, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments [hyperlink] in the tribal police search and seizure case covered in this post,' United States v. Cooley. 'A decision in United States v. Cooley is expected before the Court's summer recess [hyperlink].' On November 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court added 'United States v. Cooley' [hyperlink] to the cases it will hear this term. 'Cooley' brings into focus the jurisdictional maze complicating criminal law enforcement on Indian reservations. The Court is to evaluate whether [hyperlink] (or to what extent) a tribal police officer may detain and search a non-Indian on a public highway running through an Indian reservation. More specifically, the parties disagree about the scope of a tribal police officer's authority to investigate--through questioning or search--when criminal behavior is reasonably suspected, but is not 'apparent' or 'obvious.' This case implicates the constitutional right [hyperlink] to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it also raises questions about the scope of tribal sovereignty and tribes' authority to protect their lands and members from criminal activity. Congress may wish to consider legislation to clarify the rights and responsibilities of tribal and non-Indian parties when conflicts like this arise. [...] Before discussing the lower court decisions and Supreme Court petition, this Sidebar will briefly describe how the courts have distinguished tribal authority for conducting investigations of non-Indians within an Indian reservation from general non-tribal police authority to conduct searches and seizures."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Murphy, M. Maureen; Schwartz, Mainon A.
2021-04-01
1
