U.S. Congress
Here's a look at documents from all members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate
Featured Stories
Rep. Gill Bill Cracks Down on DC Crime, Headed to House Floor
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, issued the following news release:* * *
Rep. Gill Bill Cracks Down on DC Crime, Headed to House Floor
*
Congressman Brandon Gill's (TX-26) DC Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act yesterday passed the House Committee on Oversight and Government markup and is eligible for consideration on the House floor.
"Under President Trump's bold leadership, Washington D.C. is being rapidly restored from decades of being a crime-riddled hellhole," said Rep. Gill. "My new legislation ensures people who commit heinous crimes of assault, robbery, and sexual ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, issued the following news release: * * * Rep. Gill Bill Cracks Down on DC Crime, Headed to House Floor * Congressman Brandon Gill's (TX-26) DC Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act yesterday passed the House Committee on Oversight and Government markup and is eligible for consideration on the House floor. "Under President Trump's bold leadership, Washington D.C. is being rapidly restored from decades of being a crime-riddled hellhole," said Rep. Gill. "My new legislation ensures people who commit heinous crimes of assault, robbery, and sexualabuse can be charged as a felon in court. This is a long-needed reform to DC's governance. In President Trump's America, our capital city will be safe and secure for Americans to enjoy."
Rep. Gill introduced the DC Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act, which lowers the age of eligibility for juveniles to be transferred from juvenile court to felony court for certain violent crimes down from age 16 to 14.
Under current law, minors under 16 are generally under the jurisdiction of the D.C. Family Court for juvenile matters. The legislation would lower the threshold to 14, meaning that minors 14 and older can be placed under adult criminal court jurisdiction. The violent crimes covered are murder, first-degree sexual abuse, burglary in the first degree, robbery while armed, or assault with intent to commit any such offense. Moreover, the legislation would result in an increase in the number of cases that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia can try.
"We can't develop strong communities in America if our streets aren't safe - and we can't enter a Golden Age if our national capitol is full of crime. The Bull Moose Project supports the DC Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act and commends Rep. Gill for taking on this crucial issue," said Aiden Buzzetti, President of the Bull Moose Project.
Cosponsors (2): Reps. Burchett, Higgins
Supporting Groups: Bull Moose Project
Background:
* In 2024, Washington, D.C.'s homicide rate was 27.3 per 1,000,000 residents (link is external). This was the fourth highest in the country. In 2022, the D.C. council passed a pro-crime, anti-police bill called the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Act (link is external), proving they don't take the problem of crime seriously and Congress must act.
* In D.C., there have been steady increases since 2020 (link is external) in crimes committed by people under the age of 18. To make matters worse, many of these criminals have already been arrested for violent crimes. In 2024, nearly 200 juveniles arrested (link is external) for violent crimes had prior violent crime arrests. Violent criminals should not be treated like children and given lenient sentences only to commit more crimes and endanger our constituents.
* In 2021, Uber Eats Driver Mohammed Anwar was killed in Washington, D.C., during an altercation after two teenage girls attempted to carjack him. One of the criminals was 15 years old, charged with felony murder, received the maximum possible sentence under D.C. law, and will be out on the street when she turns 21 years old. If enacted before the murder, the legislation would have made it much easier for the criminal to be tried as an adult for felony murder, possibly resulting in a life sentence instead of a slap on the wrist.
***
Original text here: https://gill.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-gill-bill-cracks-down-dc-crime-headed-house-floor
Bennet, Collins, Bipartisan House Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Expand Tax Deduction To Include Early Childhood Educators
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- Sen. Michael F. Bennet, D-Colorado, issued the following news release:* * *
Bennet, Collins, Bipartisan House Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Expand Tax Deduction To Include Early Childhood Educators
*
Surveys Show That Teachers Spend an Average of $895 of Their Own Earnings on Classroom Materials
Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Senators Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, and Susan Collins (R-Maine), a member of the U.S. Senate Education Committee, reintroduced the Supporting Early-Childhood Educators' Deductions (SEED) Act. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- Sen. Michael F. Bennet, D-Colorado, issued the following news release: * * * Bennet, Collins, Bipartisan House Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Expand Tax Deduction To Include Early Childhood Educators * Surveys Show That Teachers Spend an Average of $895 of Their Own Earnings on Classroom Materials Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Senators Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, and Susan Collins (R-Maine), a member of the U.S. Senate Education Committee, reintroduced the Supporting Early-Childhood Educators' Deductions (SEED) Act.The bill would help early childhood educators cover the cost of supplies, books, and other classroom materials by allowing them to claim the above-the-line $300 tax deduction currently available only to K-12 teachers. U.S. Representatives Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.), David Valadao (R-Calif.), Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"As a former school superintendent, I know that many educators often spend their own money to provide their students with the supplies they need to succeed," said Bennet. "We must ensure that all educators - especially those who teach our youngest children - can deduct these costs from their taxes. I'm grateful to work with bipartisan partners in Congress and in Colorado to pass this bill and deliver for educators and kids."
"In Maine and across the country, we are fortunate to have so many dedicated educators who work hard to ensure that every child has a learning environment that is safe, welcoming, and enriching," said Collins. "In spite of tight budgets and their own modest salaries, it is truly remarkable how often teachers use money out of their own pockets to purchase classroom supplies for their children. As the author of the original tax credit for K-12 teachers, I am delighted to join this effort to expand this benefit to pre-K educators. This tax credit would help more people by reimbursing early childhood educators for the resources they invest in our children's future."
"Early childhood educators often reach into their own pockets to cover the cost of classroom materials for their students," said Panetta. "The SEED Act would allow them to claim the same tax deduction already available to K-12 teachers. This change not only provides relief for those educators but also shows that we value their commitment to giving our youngest children the foundation they need to thrive."
"Access to quality education is one of the most important issues facing Central Valley families, and that begins with early childhood education," said Valadao. "Teachers spend on average $860 per year on classroom supplies to ensure their students can succeed, but while K-12 educators can claim the educator expense deduction, those teaching Pre-K and younger cannot. No teacher should have to choose between paying out of pocket or providing basic classroom needs, and this bipartisan bill expands the deduction so early childhood educators can focus on teaching the next generation rather than worrying about costs."
"Teaching is the ultimate act of optimism and safeguard of our democracy. America's early childhood educators pour their hearts into their work, and far too often, their own money, just to do their jobs," said Goodlander. "These educators deserve the same tax deduction other teachers get, and I am proud to lead this commonsense, bipartisan bill that'll do just that."
"For early childhood teachers, every crayon, book, and learning tool is more than a supply -- it's an investment in a child's future. In PA-1 and across the nation, our educators routinely reach into their own paychecks because they refuse to let a student go without," said Fitzpatrick. "The SEED Act affirms their dedication by extending to pre-K educators the same classroom deduction K-12 teachers already receive, correcting an unfair exclusion, strengthening the workforce, and putting more resources into our children's hands during their most critical years."
Surveys show that teachers spend an average of $895 of their own money on classroom materials. In 2002, Congress created an above-the-line educator expense deduction to allow qualifying K-12 teachers and other eligible educators, such as counselors and principals, to deduct up to $250 of expenses incurred for classroom supplies. However, educators of children in pre-Kindergarten and younger can not currently deduct similar expenses.
"Early educators play a vital role in helping children learn and grow while preparing them to enter kindergarten ready to succeed, yet too often they pay out of pocket for necessary classroom supplies. The SEED Act is a commonsense, bipartisan proposal from Representatives Panetta, Goodlander, Valadao, and Fitzpatrick that would ease this burden and support the educators our youngest learners and their families rely on every day," said Sarah Rittling, Executive Director, First Five Years Fund.
Bennet and Collins first introduced the SEED Act in 2021. In 2023, the lawmakers reintroduced the legislation and expanded the total tax credit from $250 to $300.
The SEED Act is supported by a broad coalition of education and child advocacy organizations, including the Center for American Progress, the American Federation of Teachers, Teach For America, the First Five Years Fund, and Trying Together.
The text of the bill is available HERE.
***
Original text here: https://www.bennet.senate.gov/2025/09/16/bennet-collins-bipartisan-house-colleagues-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-expand-tax-deduction-to-include-early-childhood-educators/
At FBI Oversight Hearing, Klobuchar Praises Law Enforcement Response in Recent Shootings
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, issued the following news release:* * *
At FBI Oversight Hearing, Klobuchar Praises Law Enforcement Response in Recent Shootings
*
WASHINGTON -- At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) commended the local law enforcement and first responders who quickly responded to the assassination of Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman and the attempted assasination of Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette Hoffman, as well as the shooting ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, issued the following news release: * * * At FBI Oversight Hearing, Klobuchar Praises Law Enforcement Response in Recent Shootings * WASHINGTON -- At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) commended the local law enforcement and first responders who quickly responded to the assassination of Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman and the attempted assasination of Senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette Hoffman, as well as the shootingat Annunciation Catholic Church. Klobuchar recognized the tragic loss of eight-year-old Fletcher Merkel and 10-year-old Harper Moyski, and noted that the first officer was on the scene just four minutes after the first 9-1-1 call and more than 20 people were transported to hospitals within 14 minutes.
"I did want to focus on one local law enforcement moment that I'm not sure has made with all the news going on in Minnesota. When the first 9-1-1 call - and you've heard about other places where this waited and waited - the first 9-1-1 call was made at 8:27 AM. The first officer was on the scene just 4 minutes later, local Minneapolis police, at 8:31 AM," said Klobuchar. "Chief O'Hara shared with me the actual numbers - listen to this: over 20 people were in ambulances in just 14 minutes, all of them, after the police got on the scene, 14 minutes after the first call, tourniquets, stretchers, and they got them all to Hennepin County Medical Center or Minneapolis Children's Hospital. And I think it is worth looking at what happened there because one of the dads whose daughter was severely injured, still in the hospital, that I met on Sunday, told me that there is absolutely no way his beautiful daughter would have survived if police hadn't been there."
A rough transcript of Klobuchar's opening remarks and related questions are below, and the video can be found here.
Senator Klobuchar : Mr. Chair, we have seen too much political violence in this country. We all know that.
Just last week, Director, your friend Charlie Kirk was gunned down on a college campus. I'm sorry for your loss. In Minnesota, only two months ago, a madman took the life of my friends, Melissa and Mark Hortman, and shot Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, a combined 17 times. And evidence indicates that he would have killed a lot more if law enforcement hadn't intervened.
Just last month in my state, we were again shook to the core when little kids were shot down through stained glass windows in Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis. And while the victims weren't politicians in this case, they were six-year-olds and eight-year-olds, the manifesto that the shooter left behind was political. But in the words of your own federal law enforcement, this person was an all-purpose hater. He went after Blacks, Hispanics, the President, Muslims, Jews, nearly everyone. And this happened during the first Mass of the year for these kids, they were excited to see their friends meet their new teachers, and two children, eight-year-old Fletcher Merkel, 10-year-old Harper Moyski,? were murdered. 21 other people injured, some of the kids, 18 kids, severely.
Fletcher was just starting third grade. He loved his family, his friends. He loved fishing and cooking. In his dad's words, "any sport he was allowed to play."
Harper, the other child, we celebrated her life this Sunday, thousands of people. Her parents described her as bright, joyful, and a deeply loved 10-year-old whose laughter, kindness, and spirit touched everyone that she knew. We've heard the words of young children who were saved because 12-year-olds laid on top of them, or a kid with disabilities who was paralyzed, whose teacher pulled him out of the wheelchair, threw him under the pew, and laid on top of him.
We do thank the local FBI Director and the local US Attorney's Office for their work in both of these cases, the Hortman case and this. But I did want to focus on one local law enforcement moment that I'm not sure has made with all the news going on in Minnesota. When the first 9-1-1 call - and you've heard about other places where this waited and waited - the first 9-1-1 call was made at 8:27 AM. The first officer was on the scene just 4 minutes later, local Minneapolis police, at 8:31 AM.
Chief O'Hara shared with me the actual numbers - listen to this: over 20 people were in ambulances in just 14 minutes, all of them, after the police got on the scene, 14 minutes after the first call, tourniquets, stretchers, and they got them all to Hennepin County Medical Center or Minneapolis Children's Hospital. And I think it is worth looking at what happened there because one of the dads whose daughter was severely injured, still in the hospital that I met on Sunday, told me that there is absolutely no way his beautiful daughter would have survived if police hadn't been there.
So it is worth looking at for all of us. So my focus, on behalf of these parents, because I promised I would do this on Sunday, was just to figure out how we can do anything to stop this from happening again. So expanded background checks, ghost gun bans - every shooting is different. Raising the minimum age to purchase assault weapons, even if we're not going to ban them, I favor banning them. But that's one idea that's out there.
With so many of these shootings, people are 18, 19, 20, 21, the one at Annunciation Church was 23. Both shooters in Uvalde and Buffalo had just turned 18 when they purchased the assault weapon. I'm not saying any one of these things would prevent every single shooting, but I really ask everyone to look at these.
We also need to tackle social media, and I really did appreciate Senator Graham's questions. I think we have to protect free speech and not engage in censorship. But for years, I have supported repealing Section 230, which was made when these companies were little companies starting up in garages. And I think it is one way to get at making this better environment online and preventing violence.
***
Original text here: https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=3E750F46-C1DA-4A8A-9C50-1EE448928DE5
Blumenthal & Johnson Introduce Legislation to End Forced Arbitration & Restore Accountability for Consumers, Workers
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, issued the following news release:* * *
Blumenthal & Johnson Introduce Legislation to End Forced Arbitration & Restore Accountability for Consumers, Workers
*
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] - U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and U.S. Representative Hank Johnson (GA-04), Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet, introduced the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act re-establishing Americans' Seventh Amendment right to seek justice and accountability ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, issued the following news release: * * * Blumenthal & Johnson Introduce Legislation to End Forced Arbitration & Restore Accountability for Consumers, Workers * [WASHINGTON, D.C.] - U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and U.S. Representative Hank Johnson (GA-04), Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet, introduced the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act re-establishing Americans' Seventh Amendment right to seek justice and accountabilitythrough the court system.
Blumenthal and Johnson made the announcement during a virtual roundtable discussion on forced arbitration that included consumer advocacy groups The FAIR Act has more than 80 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and 34 co-sponsors in the Senate.
Watch the virtual roundtable here.
The bill passed the House of Representatives during the 116 th and 117 th Congresses.
The FAIR Act would eliminate forced arbitration clauses in employment, consumer, and civil rights cases. Instead of forcing arbitration, the FAIR Act, would allow consumers and workers to choose between arbitration and the Court system after a dispute occurs.
"Forced arbitration clauses restrict Americans' access to justice by stripping consumers and workers of their right to go to court. Instead, they are forced into a rigged system where corporations can write the rules and everything can be done in secret. What is at stake today is basic fairness. Congress can show that it's on the side of everyday Americans and not corporate wrongdoers by passing the FAIR Act," said Blumenthal.
"Forced arbitration is an underhanded maneuver that corporations use to trick consumers, workers and small businesses out of their right to go to court and seek damages from a jury of their peers," said Johnson, who has been introducing arbitration reform legislation since 2007. "You can't get a cell phone or credit card or even a job nowadays unless you sign away your rights because that's what every corporation requires. They force you into binding arbitration because it benefits them, and it's at your expense. If this sounds unfair, it is. Big businesses that already had all the power in the relationship between themselves and someone like you or me, stacked the deck so that they can avoid the only thing out there that could hold them accountable -- the United States justice system."
"From NFL coaches fighting racial discrimination to kids just trying to access a school lunch, forced arbitration limits our ability to identify corporate wrongdoing and routinely strips people of their fundamental rights," said Christine Chen Zinner, Director of Federal Research and Advocacy at Alliance for Justice. "The FAIR Act will level the playing field and restore access to the courts where people have a fair chance to seek justice when they are harmed."
The bill is co-sponsored in the Senate by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-W), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Forced arbitration clauses restrict Americans' access to justice by stripping consumers and workers of their right to go to court. Instead, consumers and workers are forced into an unfair arbitration system where corporations can write the rules; everything can be done in secret, without public rulings; discovery can be limited, making it hard for consumers to get the evidence they need to prove their case; and there's no meaningful judicial review, so consumers and employees are often unable to appeal a decision even if the arbitrator gets it wrong. In 2015 investigative series, The New York Times documented the ills of forced arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice.
"The FAIR Act's ban on forced arbitration clauses in the corporate fine-print is urgently needed to restore critical legal protections, which would ensure consumers, workers, and small businesses can seek to hold corporate bad actors accountable in court for the harm they cause," said Christine Hines, legislative director at the National Association of Consumer Advocates.
"The practical effect of forced arbitration is that corporations can break the law and harm consumers, workers, families, and small businesses without consequences. The FAIR Act would enable all of us to seek justice in court and deter corporations from breaking the law in the first place," said Leah Nicholls, Director of the Access to Justice Project at Public Justice.
"Forced arbitration is a rigged system that stacks the deck against consumers, workers, and victims, while allowing corporations to defraud, discriminate, and hurt Americans. The FAIR Act would restore the rights of individuals to seek justice and public accountability when corporations break the law, and I thank Congressman Hank Johnson and Senator Richard Blumenthal for their steadfast leadership on this issue," said American Association for Justice (AAJ) CEO Linda Lipsen.
The FAIR Act is supported by: American Association for Justice; Americans for Financial Reform; Center for Auto Safety, Center for Biological Diversity; Center for Economic Integrity, Center for Economic Justice; Center for Justice & Democracy; Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement & Research (CLEAR); Center for Progressive Reform; Center for Responsible Lending; Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America; Consumer Reports; Consumer Watchdog; Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; DC Consumer Rights Coalition; Earthjustice; Economic Policy Institute; Essential Information; Farmworker Association of Florida; Food & Water Watch; Impact Fund; Indiana Community Action Poverty Institute; Justice in Aging; Kansas Holistic Defenders; Long Term Care Community Coalition; Mobilization for Justice; National Association of Consumer Advocates; National Association of the Deaf; National Center for Law and Economic Justice; National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients), National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care; National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care; National Consumers League, National Disability Rights Network (NDRN); National Employment Law Project; National Employment Lawyers Association; National Institute for Workers' Rights; National Urban League, National Women's Law Center, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; Northwest Workers' Justice Project,; Oregon Consumer League; Public Citizen; Public Good Law Center; Public Justice; Public Justice Center; Rise Economy (formerly California Reinvestment Coalition); South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center; Student Borrower Protection Center; Texas Appleseed; The Sikh Coalition; Tzedek DC; United Way of Central Texas, Center for Community Impact; Virginia Citizens Consumer Counsel.
-30-
***
Original text here: https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-and-johnson-introduce-legislation-to-end-forced-arbitration_restore-accountability-for-consumers-workers
Blumenthal & Johnson Introduce Legislation to End Forced Arbitration & Restore Accountability for Consumers, Workers
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, issued the following news release:* * *
Blumenthal & Johnson Introduce Legislation to End Forced Arbitration & Restore Accountability for Consumers, Workers
*
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] - U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and U.S. Representative Hank Johnson (GA-04), Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet, introduced the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act re-establishing Americans' Seventh Amendment right to seek justice and accountability ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, issued the following news release: * * * Blumenthal & Johnson Introduce Legislation to End Forced Arbitration & Restore Accountability for Consumers, Workers * [WASHINGTON, D.C.] - U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and U.S. Representative Hank Johnson (GA-04), Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet, introduced the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act re-establishing Americans' Seventh Amendment right to seek justice and accountabilitythrough the court system.
Blumenthal and Johnson made the announcement during a virtual roundtable discussion on forced arbitration that included consumer advocacy groups The FAIR Act has more than 80 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and 34 co-sponsors in the Senate.
Watch the virtual roundtable here.
The bill passed the House of Representatives during the 116 th and 117 th Congresses.
The FAIR Act would eliminate forced arbitration clauses in employment, consumer, and civil rights cases. Instead of forcing arbitration, the FAIR Act, would allow consumers and workers to choose between arbitration and the Court system after a dispute occurs.
"Forced arbitration clauses restrict Americans' access to justice by stripping consumers and workers of their right to go to court. Instead, they are forced into a rigged system where corporations can write the rules and everything can be done in secret. What is at stake today is basic fairness. Congress can show that it's on the side of everyday Americans and not corporate wrongdoers by passing the FAIR Act," said Blumenthal.
"Forced arbitration is an underhanded maneuver that corporations use to trick consumers, workers and small businesses out of their right to go to court and seek damages from a jury of their peers," said Johnson, who has been introducing arbitration reform legislation since 2007. "You can't get a cell phone or credit card or even a job nowadays unless you sign away your rights because that's what every corporation requires. They force you into binding arbitration because it benefits them, and it's at your expense. If this sounds unfair, it is. Big businesses that already had all the power in the relationship between themselves and someone like you or me, stacked the deck so that they can avoid the only thing out there that could hold them accountable -- the United States justice system."
"From NFL coaches fighting racial discrimination to kids just trying to access a school lunch, forced arbitration limits our ability to identify corporate wrongdoing and routinely strips people of their fundamental rights," said Christine Chen Zinner, Director of Federal Research and Advocacy at Alliance for Justice. "The FAIR Act will level the playing field and restore access to the courts where people have a fair chance to seek justice when they are harmed."
The bill is co-sponsored in the Senate by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-W), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR).
Forced arbitration clauses restrict Americans' access to justice by stripping consumers and workers of their right to go to court. Instead, consumers and workers are forced into an unfair arbitration system where corporations can write the rules; everything can be done in secret, without public rulings; discovery can be limited, making it hard for consumers to get the evidence they need to prove their case; and there's no meaningful judicial review, so consumers and employees are often unable to appeal a decision even if the arbitrator gets it wrong. In 2015 investigative series, The New York Times documented the ills of forced arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice.
"The FAIR Act's ban on forced arbitration clauses in the corporate fine-print is urgently needed to restore critical legal protections, which would ensure consumers, workers, and small businesses can seek to hold corporate bad actors accountable in court for the harm they cause," said Christine Hines, legislative director at the National Association of Consumer Advocates.
"The practical effect of forced arbitration is that corporations can break the law and harm consumers, workers, families, and small businesses without consequences. The FAIR Act would enable all of us to seek justice in court and deter corporations from breaking the law in the first place," said Leah Nicholls, Director of the Access to Justice Project at Public Justice.
"Forced arbitration is a rigged system that stacks the deck against consumers, workers, and victims, while allowing corporations to defraud, discriminate, and hurt Americans. The FAIR Act would restore the rights of individuals to seek justice and public accountability when corporations break the law, and I thank Congressman Hank Johnson and Senator Richard Blumenthal for their steadfast leadership on this issue," said American Association for Justice (AAJ) CEO Linda Lipsen.
The FAIR Act is supported by: American Association for Justice; Americans for Financial Reform; Center for Auto Safety, Center for Biological Diversity; Center for Economic Integrity, Center for Economic Justice; Center for Justice & Democracy; Center for LGBTQ Economic Advancement & Research (CLEAR); Center for Progressive Reform; Center for Responsible Lending; Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America; Consumer Reports; Consumer Watchdog; Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; DC Consumer Rights Coalition; Earthjustice; Economic Policy Institute; Essential Information; Farmworker Association of Florida; Food & Water Watch; Impact Fund; Indiana Community Action Poverty Institute; Justice in Aging; Kansas Holistic Defenders; Long Term Care Community Coalition; Mobilization for Justice; National Association of Consumer Advocates; National Association of the Deaf; National Center for Law and Economic Justice; National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients), National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care; National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care; National Consumers League, National Disability Rights Network (NDRN); National Employment Law Project; National Employment Lawyers Association; National Institute for Workers' Rights; National Urban League, National Women's Law Center, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; Northwest Workers' Justice Project,; Oregon Consumer League; Public Citizen; Public Good Law Center; Public Justice; Public Justice Center; Rise Economy (formerly California Reinvestment Coalition); South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center; Student Borrower Protection Center; Texas Appleseed; The Sikh Coalition; Tzedek DC; United Way of Central Texas, Center for Community Impact; Virginia Citizens Consumer Counsel.
-30-
***
Original text here: https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-and-johnson-introduce-legislation-to-end-forced-arbitration_restore-accountability-for-consumers-workers
American Public Human Services Association Food & Nutrition Services Manager Green Testifies Before House Agriculture Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture released the following written testimony by Chloe Green, manager of food and nutrition services at the American Public Human Services Association, from a Sept. 9, 2025, hearing entitled "Exploring State Options in SNAP." SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.* * *
Chairman Finstad, Ranking Member Hayes, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. It is an honor to appear on behalf of the American Public Human Services Association ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture released the following written testimony by Chloe Green, manager of food and nutrition services at the American Public Human Services Association, from a Sept. 9, 2025, hearing entitled "Exploring State Options in SNAP." SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. * * * Chairman Finstad, Ranking Member Hayes, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. It is an honor to appear on behalf of the American Public Human Services Association(APHSA) and to contribute to this important conversation on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) - a vital program serving more than 40 million people in our country each month.
* * *
The American Public Human Services Association
APHSA is the bipartisan, nonprofit membership association that has served as the voice of state, county, and city human services agencies for more than 90 years. We bring together leaders from across the human services sector to advance policies and practices that build thriving communities, promote economic mobility, and strengthen the well-being of families and individuals.
Our membership represents the top-level executives of state and local health and human service agencies, as well as the leaders responsible for administering core programs such as SNAP, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), child welfare, child care, and additional supportive services. Through convening these leaders, APHSA provides a trusted forum to build common ground and develop pragmatic solutions that ensure programs work both for those who deliver them and for those who benefit from them.
* * *
My Role at APHSA
In my capacity at APHSA, I lead our work on SNAP and nutrition policy and serve as staff lead for two of our member affinity groups: the American Association of SNAP Directors (AASD) and the National Association of Program Information and Performance Measurement (NAPIPM), which focuses extensively on SNAP quality control.
I began my work with APHSA in early 2020 and had the privilege of working alongside SNAP directors as they managed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, supported their emergency response efforts, and guided the subsequent "unwinding" process as SNAP directors moved their programs into post-pandemic operations. From this vantage point, I witnessed firsthand how SNAP can adapt quickly to meet urgent needs of families when states are given the necessary flexibility to innovate.
* * *
SNAP as a National Program
SNAP currently serves nearly 42 million people each month. It is our nation's most effective evidence-based tool for reducing hunger, expanding access to nutritious food, and alleviating deep poverty. Its strength lies in its design as a national program with consistent federal standards, ensuring access to benefits for people across the country while also allowing states to make targeted programmatic choices to meet unique local needs.
Unlike "block grants" or other funding structures, SNAP's funding model is highly prescriptive. Congress establishes the framework in statute, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issues detailed regulations. As a result, states that operate SNAP must maintain federally-established benefit levels, eligibility rules, benefit calculations, and required program components such as SNAP Employment & Training and the SNAP Quality Control system. In other words, states do not have the ability to modify SNAP benefit amounts or make significant changes to their eligibility levels. This uniformity ensures that families are able to access the same benefits, regardless of where they live.
At the same time, there are critical areas where states have flexibilities. These options shape how individuals experience the program in their state - how they apply, recertify, and report changes in circumstances. This balance between federal uniformity and targeted state flexibility is at the heart of today's hearing.
* * *
State Options in SNAP
Mechanisms for State Flexibilities:
States may exercise options and pursue flexibilities through several mechanisms, listed here in order of increasing burden and requirements for state agencies:
* Policy Options: Available in annual state plans and already approved for use without further application or approval by USDA.
* Major Changes: Requiring USDA acknowledgment and additional state reporting.
* Waivers: Allowing temporary suspension of regulations with USDA approval.
* Demonstration Projects: Authorized under Section 17(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act, states may submit ideas for approval to USDA that temporarily suspend other requirements of the Act, and projects are required to include rigorous evaluation, cost neutrality, and meet strict criteria (such as prohibiting changes to eligibility).
These tools vary in administrative complexity but together provide avenues for states to tailor administration to their residents' needs. Within SNAP case processing, some steps allow for more flexibilities and options than others. The following outlines primary areas where states can elect to pursue changes.
Examples of Flexibilities throughout the SNAP Case-Processing Cycle:
* Applications: States may design joint applications with other human services programs to help align services and streamline customer experience. For example, they can offer online or mobile access to applications to support virtual enrollment, or simplify applications for certain populations such as for elderly or disabled individuals through the Elderly Simplified Application Project (ESAP, currently used by 25 states), or for those who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) through the Combined Application Project (CAP, currently used by 17 states)./1
Many of these changes reduce administrative burdens for SNAP applicants and eligibility staff alike. Federal law, however, still requires that applications include certain core information (name, address, and signature) and that all valid applications be accepted and processed.
* Eligibility: Core eligibility rules - such as income and asset limits - are nationally set. Households must have income below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), including both earned and unearned income, and assets below $3,000 for most households (or $4,500 for those with an elderly or disabled member).
One permitted flexibility is Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), which is used by 44 states to adjust gross income limits to 200% FPL and/or adjust or waive asset limits in alignment with the TANF non-cash benefit program./2
This flexibility is limited to households receiving a TANF or Maintenance of Effort-funded non-cash benefit and is only the first step in determining eligibility. All households, whether or not BBCE is applied, must have a net income below 100% FPL to qualify for SNAP benefits. In other words, under BBCE, more people may be able to have their applications reviewed for eligibility, but ultimately their actual net income must still qualify them for SNAP at the same levels of non-BBCE applicants. States often adopt BBCE because it reduces "churn" (when a household briefly loses benefits only to requalify within three months), decreases benefit cliffs, and helps families transition more successfully off SNAP as their income and savings rise.
* Deductions & Benefit Calculations: While maximum benefit levels and the overall formula are uniform across states, some deductions that are used to calculate total benefit amounts vary. For example, all states must set their own Standard Utility Allowances to be used as a deduction, and states may adopt a Standard Medical Deduction (SMD) as a demonstration project for households with elderly or disabled members to standardize their deduction amount - currently used by 25 states./3
These deductions generally help reduce the administrative burden of both SNAP applicants and eligibility workers by leveraging existing statewide data and can ensure a household's utility costs are reflected in the calculation of their benefit allotment.
* Ongoing Eligibility - Work Requirements: Another critical aspect of ongoing eligibility is work requirements. SNAP has three layers of work requirements: the General Work Requirement (preventing voluntary job loss), the Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) time limit, and SNAP Employment & Training (E&T). While these requirements are federally established, states have limited options to adapt them. For example, states may request waivers of the ABAWD time limit in areas with unemployment above 10 percent, and they may choose whether to structure E&T participation as mandatory for all people subject to and not meeting the work requirement, or voluntary for those who are interested in using E&T as a means to help upskill. These decisions directly affect access to SNAP for working-aged people, and these decisions also carry impacts for workload and funding needs of state agencies.
* * *
1 SNAP State Options Report, 17th Edition.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
* * *
* Certification Periods & Reporting: Most households can be certified as eligible for SNAP for a period of up to 12 months, as prescribed by Federal law. States may choose shorter intervals such as 4 or 6 months, which is commonly recommended for households with increased risk of changes, such as those with fluctuating incomes. While longer certification periods reduce the number of recertifications (and consequently, staff workload), they may increase the risk of missing changes to circumstances. This is why states are encouraged to consider different certification lengths for different populations to balance the need for accuracy and capacity. For households with elderly or disabled members, states may allow certification periods of up to 24 months - or up to 36 months if participating in an ESAP demonstration project and the household has no earned income.
Most states employ simplified reporting of household circumstance, meaning that they typically require reports of changes from SNAP recipients at the middle and end of their assigned certification period. Despite these timeframes, however, Federal law requires that households still report within 10 days when their gross income exceeds 130% FPL for their household size, when an ABAWD fails to meet 80 work hours per month, or when lottery or gambling winnings of $4,500 or more are received. Additional reporting may be required in some states even if it may not change their eligibility - this is also referred to as change reporting. Only one state currently employs this for all households, and it is known to create significant administrative burden for staff.
* * *
Primary Decision Factors in State Options
In general, states make decisions about whether or not to take on flexibilities based on delivering effective services to customers and managing their agency capacity and outcomes. As I shared earlier, state SNAP options show up primarily in how a customer interacts with the agency. Thus, flexibilities can often be utilized to enhance a customer's experience by making applications or report forms more user-friendly to complete, reducing the paperwork they need to submit, and enhancing how they can receive information from the agency. Many flexibilities are also used to streamline processes and reduce the time and capacity needed to complete each case. Over the last five years, we have heard constantly from state agencies about their reduced staffing levels and increased turnover - this has further heightened the need to simplify and streamline processes where applicable.
These decisions must also be balanced with the ultimate outcomes that a state agency is looking to deliver. This includes the direction from their leadership in the Governor's office and state legislature, as well as taking into consideration the funding that would need to be invested to make flexibilities successful, such as investing in new technology and staff to ensure the work is done well.
Additionally, states must weigh their own performance metrics such as their Payment Error Rates and timeliness to understand if the waivers or flexibilities could help improve or harm these. All of these decisions are nuanced and will be especially so in the coming years when states will be forced to reassess all of their flexibilities and options in light of the new funding, eligibility, and performance requirement changes enacted by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
* * *
Recommendations
Based on the experience of our members across the country, APHSA respectfully offers the following recommendations for strengthening state options within SNAP:
1. Support Innovation. Congress should continue to empower states to test new waivers and demonstration projects, particularly in areas such as technology, automation, user research, and artificial intelligence, which can improve efficiency and customer experience.
2. Make Proven Flexibilities Permanent State Policy Options. Demonstrations that have been shown to work - such as ESAP, the Standard Medical Deduction, and the Combined Application Project - should be transitioned into permanent policy options for states to elect, freeing state capacity to test additional innovations.
3. Balance Accountability with Flexibility. With the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, states face increased pressure to reduce payment errors while operating with fewer resources. One of the top reasons that we hear from our members that they are hesitant to experiment with new flexibilities and innovations is because of potential impacts to the PER, and the current environment will potentially make them more reticent to innovate. As states shoulder greater administrative costs, Congress should consider expanding flexibilities to allow them to adapt to their unique circumstances.
4. Engage State and Local Leaders. Ongoing engagement with agency leaders is vital to understanding which flexibilities will be most impactful in achieving our shared goals of reducing hunger and improving program integrity.
* * *
Conclusion
SNAP is one of the most effective federal programs for reducing hunger and poverty. Its national framework ensures fairness and consistency, while carefully designed state options allow for innovation and responsiveness. By supporting state flexibility in thoughtful ways, Congress can help SNAP continue to serve households effectively and equitably across the nation.
Thank you, Chairman Finstad, Ranking Member Hayes, and Members of the Subcommittee, for your commitment to strengthening SNAP and for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look forward to your questions.
* * *
URL: American Public Human Services Association
* * *
Original text here: https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/testimony_green_09.09.2025.pdf
American Loggers Council Executive Director Dane Testifies Before House Agriculture Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture released the following testimony by Bradley 'Scott' Dane, executive director of the American Loggers Council, from a Sept. 10, 2025, hearing entitled "Promoting Forest Health and Resiliency Through Improved Active Management":* * *
Chairman LaMalfa and Committee Members, on behalf of the American Loggers Council, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding Promoting Forest Health and Resiliency Through Improved Active Management.
I am the Executive Director of the American Loggers Council ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- The House Agriculture Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture released the following testimony by Bradley 'Scott' Dane, executive director of the American Loggers Council, from a Sept. 10, 2025, hearing entitled "Promoting Forest Health and Resiliency Through Improved Active Management": * * * Chairman LaMalfa and Committee Members, on behalf of the American Loggers Council, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding Promoting Forest Health and Resiliency Through Improved Active Management. I am the Executive Director of the American Loggers Councilwhich represents members in 49 states.
I would like to begin by addressing silviculture (forest management), which is the science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, and health of forests and woodlands and societal objectives, such as producing timber, maintaining wildlife habitat, improving forest health, recreation, and protecting watersheds on a sustainable basis. This is accomplished by a range of practices including planting, thinning, and harvesting to guide the development of a forest stand for desired outcomes.
These sustainable forest management activities are not being fully utilized on our National Forests, particularly as they apply to timber harvesting. Over the past few decades, the volume of timber harvest on National Forests has declined by over 75%, from a high of 13 billion board feet to 3 billion board feet.
Additionally, silvicultural standards establish tree stand density (trees per acre) that is optimal for achieving healthy forest objectives. According to top forest researchers: "... low-density stands that largely eliminate tree competition are key to creating forests resilient to the multiple stressors of severe wildfire, drought, bark beetles and climate change." They conclude that "managing for resilience requires drastically reducing densities - as much as 80% of trees, in some cases."/1
Tree mortality for the first time (2016), according to USFS reports,/2 exceeds tree growth by two times. Let me repeat that - twice as many trees are dying in the National Forests than are growing. Much of this mortality is driven by wildfire. It is not timber harvesting. Timber harvesting is only 25% of the net tree growth, and seven times more trees are dying than are being harvested. Logging isn't the problem; in fact, it is the solution. I have included a copy of this report for the Congressional Record.
These statistics clearly indicate that National Forest management policy for the past three decades has not worked. The health of National Forests is in severe decline.
This brings me to wildfire. Millions of acres of forests burn annually. Fire science is basic. Three components are necessary for fire: an ignition source (quite often lightning strikes), oxygen, and fuel. The only one that we can control is fuel, and in the case of wildfires, unhealthy forests that are overstocked and filled with dying and dead timber.
In an effort to begin reducing hazardous fuels from National Forest lands, the American Loggers Council, in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service, developed the Biomass Transportation Incentive Pilot project that removed 120,000 green tons of hazardous fuels (primarily biomass) and utilized it as feedstock for biomass power generation. This successful demonstration evolved into the USDA/USFS Hazardous Fuels Transportation Assistance Program that continues to remove hazardous fuels from National Forest landscapes.
This public/private partnership is one of many opportunities available to collaboratively mitigate wildfire threats and severity by reducing fuel loads and addressing the backlog of landscape treatment.
The USFS has developed a Wildfire Crisis Strategy to begin addressing 50 million acres of high-risk forest firesheds. The primary component of the Wildfire Crisis Strategy is fuel (timber) reduction.
The Administration recognizes these facts and has issued numerous Executive Orders, initiated trade investigations, issued policy directives, and taken other actions to improve forest management and support the U.S. timber and forest products industries.
These directives need to be codified to ensure their long-term implementation. This crisis is a problem - decades in the making and it will require decades to correct. The most comprehensive legislation to codify this and other forest management reforms is the Fix Our Forests Act. Passing this legislation will ensure that forest management and wildfire mitigation regulations, policies, and procedures survive political cycles.
With the new Congress and Administration, the American Loggers Council prepared A Road Map to Recovery/3 that identified the top seven priority issues and actionable Congressional and Administration responses. I have included a copy with my testimony to be included in the Congressional Record.
With over 150 mills closed across the country in the past 36 months, markets are seriously compromised. To Promote Forest Health and Resiliency Through Improved Active Management, markets are necessary.
* * *
NO MARKETS, NO MANAGEMENT
We are at a crossroads. Congress and the Administration must take action to improve forest health through active management, before the logging and mill infrastructure deteriorates to a point that forest management will not be possible.
* * *
Footnotes:
1 Operational resilience in western US frequent-fire forests www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112721010975?dgcid=author#preview-section-abstract Authors:
Malcolm P. North, USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station
Ryan E. Tompkins, Department of Plant Sciences, University of CA, Davis
Alexis A. Bernal, University of CA Cooperative Extension, Plumas-Sierra
Brandon M. Collins, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, Ecosystem Sciences Division, University of California, Berkeley Scott L. Stephens, Center for Fire Research and Outreach, Univ. of CA, Berkeley Robert A. York, USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station
2 Annual Net Growth, Mortality, and Harvest on National Forest on National Forest Timberlands 1952-2016
3 A Roadmap to Recovery, American Loggers Council 2025
* * *
URL: American Loggers Council
* * *
Original text here: https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/testimony_dane_09.10.2025.pdf
Ahead of Fed Nominee's Confirmation Vote, Warren Presses Miran on the Role of Trump Administration's Tariffs on Higher Consumer Prices
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, issued the following news release on Sept. 15, 2025:* * *
Ahead of Fed Nominee's Confirmation Vote, Warren Presses Miran on the Role of Trump Administration's Tariffs on Higher Consumer Prices
Miran: "I mean sure, you know, eventually, you know, a meteor is going to strike, or whatever. But we've been waiting...and that evidence has just not emerged"
*
Today, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, issued the following news release on Sept. 15, 2025: * * * Ahead of Fed Nominee's Confirmation Vote, Warren Presses Miran on the Role of Trump Administration's Tariffs on Higher Consumer Prices Miran: "I mean sure, you know, eventually, you know, a meteor is going to strike, or whatever. But we've been waiting...and that evidence has just not emerged" * Today, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and UrbanAffairs Committee, sent a letter to Stephen Miran, President Trump's nominee to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve with questions about the role the Trump Administration's tariffs have played in increasing consumer prices. This request comes after the release of August Consumer Price Index (CPI) data, which showed inflation accelerating for groceries and other tariff-impacted goods, and Miran's previous remarks comparing the likelihood that President Trump's tariffs would increase costs for American consumers to a "meteor strike." Miran currently serves in the White House as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.
"President Trump's tariffs have 'contributed to the uptick in overall inflation,'" wrote Ranking Member Warren. "The new CPI data shows that '(m)any types of goods that rely heavily on imports saw significant price hikes'; some companies, meanwhile, are now reporting that they are 'passing on tariff-related costs to consumers' after months of absorbing the costs themselves."
The Ranking Member continued: "If confirmed as a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, it will be your job to evaluate economic data and listen to what businesses and consumers are experiencing. And, to return to your July metaphor: it appears that a meteor has struck -- with American households paying the price."
Ranking Member Warren concluded by calling on Dr. Miran to respond to questions on September CPI numbers: "As the Senate prepares to vote on your nomination, your reaction to September CPI numbers will help inform lawmakers as they weigh their votes and evaluate whether you will truly be an independent voice on the Fed Board -- or whether you'll remain a spokesperson for President Trump who ignores the real impact of his policies, which you've helped design, on businesses, workers, and consumers."
Senator Warren's letter comes ahead of Dr. Miran's floor vote to be confirmed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Senator Warren has also raised concerns ondiscrepancies in Dr. Miran's financial disclosures and his failure to demonstrate his independence from Trump.
* * *
September 15, 2025
To: The Honorable Dr. Stephen Miran, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20502
Dear Dr. Miran,
On July 8, 2025, in a televised interview on CNBC, you compared the likelihood that President Trump's sweeping tariffs would increase costs for American consumers to a "meteor strike." Specifically, in response to a question about whether inflation would eventually increase because of the tariffs, you stated: "I mean sure, you know, eventually, you know, a meteor is going to strike, or whatever. But we've been waiting...and that evidence has just not emerged."1
Consumer Price Index (CPI) data released on September 11, 2025, provided the evidence. In August, American families paid more for basics than they did in July, including:
* Groceries: Prices for "food at home" rose 0.6 percent from July to August.2 This marks the highest monthly increase since August 2022, when that same measure was falling from its peak during the pandemic recovery. Since January, for example, prices for coffee rose 26 percent;3 beef rose 14 percent;4 bananas rose 7 percent;5 and milk rose 4 percent.6
* Consumer goods: Prices for core goods including cars, furniture, and appliances (but not food or energy) rose 0.3 percent in August, and 0.8 percent since January.7 Most notably, year-over-year core goods inflation was negative throughout 2024 and has accelerated since April after President Trump first announced his sweeping tariffs.8 On average over the last three months, for example, the costs of household paper products (like paper towels and toilet paper) rose 0.7 percent, motor vehicle parts and equipment rose 0.7 percent (leading to the big jump in used cars and trucks prices in August), and TVs and audio equipment rose 1 percent and 1.4 percent, respectively.9
President Trump's tariffs have "contributed to the uptick in overall inflation."10 The new CPI data shows that "[m]any types of goods that rely heavily on imports saw significant price hikes"; some companies, meanwhile, are now reporting that they are "passing on tariff-related costs to consumers" after months of absorbing the costs themselves.11 The Federal Reserve regional banks, in the August "Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions" (i.e., Beige Book), all reported that businesses across the country are increasingly passing on costs to consumers, with "contacts ... reporting that tariffs were especially impactful on the prices of inputs."12 Whether businesses are passing through legitimate tariff-related cost increases or using "tariff noise" as "air cover" for opportunistic price hikes,13 the underlying driver remains the President's chaotic tariffs themselves.
If confirmed as a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, it will be your job to evaluate economic data and listen to what businesses and consumers are experiencing. And, to return to your July metaphor: it appears that a meteor has struck--with American households paying the price. But President Trump, you, and many others in the Administration continue to deny that households and businesses are facing higher prices as a result of the President's policies.
As the Senate prepares to vote on your nomination, your reaction to August CPI numbers will help inform lawmakers as they weigh their votes and evaluate whether you will truly be an independent voice on the Fed Board--or whether you'll remain a spokesperson for President
Trump who ignores the real impact of his policies, which you've helped design, on businesses, workers, and consumers. Therefore, I request answers to the following questions:
1. Do you believe that the Trump Administration's tariffs played any role in the uptick in consumer prices in August? If not, why not?
2. On September 10, 2025, President Trump stated on social media: ""Just out: No Inflation!!!"14 Mr. Trump's statement does not align with recently released CPI data.
a. Do you agree with Mr. Trump that there is "No Inflation!!!" facing the American public? If so, why?
b. If you do not agree with Mr. Trump, why not?
c. What information, if any, did you or other Council of Economic Advisers employees provide the President to explain and contextualize the September 11, 2025, CPI data release?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Warren, Ranking Member, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
* * *
1 CNBC, "White House: Odds of tariff-related inflation are low, like 'pandemics or meteors,'" Kevin Breuninger, July 8, 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/08/tariff-prices-trump-miran-meteor.html.
2 FRED, "Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Food at Home in U.S. City Average," Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, updated September 11, 2025, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SAF11.
3 FRED, "Average Price: Coffee, 100%, Ground Roast All Sizes (Cost per Pound/453.6 Grams) in U.S. City Average" Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, updated September 11, 2025, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000717311.
4 FRED, "Average Price: Ground Beef, 100% Beef (Cost per Pound/453.6 Grams) in U.S. City Average," Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, updated September 11, 2025, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000703112.
5 FRED, "Average Price: Bananas (Cost per Pound/453.6 Grams) in U.S. City Average," Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, updated September 11, 2025, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000711211.
6 FRED, "Average Price: Milk, Fresh, Whole, Fortified (Cost per Gallon/3.8 Liters) in U.S. City Average," Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, updated September 11, 2025, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000709112.
7 FRED, "Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Commodities Less Food and Energy Commodities in U.S. City Average," Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, updated September 11, 2025, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SACL1E.
8 Id.
9 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News Release, Consumer Price Index, updated September 11, 2025, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.t02.htm.
10 ABC News, "Inflation climbed in August as Trump's tariffs intensified," Max Zahn, September 11, 2025, https://abcnews.go.com/Business/inflation-expected-climbed-august-fed-weighs-interest-rate/story?id=125436582.
11 CBS News, "Tariff-fueled price hikes have arrived--and hitting these items first," Megan Cerullo, September 11, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tariffs-consumer-price-hikes-inflation-coffee-autos-apparel-cpi/.
12 U.S. Federal Reserve System, "The Beige Book: Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions by Federal Reserve District." August 2025, https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/BeigeBook_20250903.pdf.
13 The Wall Street Journal, "To Understand the Economy, This Fed President Is Ditching His Desk," Nick Timiraos, July 4, 2025, https://www.wsj.com/economy/tom-barkin-richmond-fed-profile-b800d337.
14 X, Post by @WhiteHouse, September 10, 2025, https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1965767167544361451.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/ahead-of-fed-nominees-confirmation-vote-warren-presses-miran-on-the-role-of-trump-administrations-tariffs-on-higher-consumer-prices
@EdWorkforceCmte Will Mark Up Bills to Strengthen Retirement Security, Promote Workplace Safety, and Support America's Workforce
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Michigan, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, issued the following news release:* * *
@EdWorkforceCmte Will Mark Up Bills to Strengthen Retirement Security, Promote Workplace Safety, and Support America's Workforce
Wednesday, at 10:15 a.m., the Committee on Education and Workforce, chaired by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), will mark up six bills to strengthen retirement security, promote workplace safety, and support America's workforce.
What: Markup of H.R. 1723, Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2025; H.R. 2958, Balance the Scales ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 -- Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Michigan, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, issued the following news release: * * * @EdWorkforceCmte Will Mark Up Bills to Strengthen Retirement Security, Promote Workplace Safety, and Support America's Workforce Wednesday, at 10:15 a.m., the Committee on Education and Workforce, chaired by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), will mark up six bills to strengthen retirement security, promote workplace safety, and support America's workforce. What: Markup of H.R. 1723, Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 2025; H.R. 2958, Balance the ScalesAct; H.R. 2869, EBSA Investigations Transparency Act; H.R. 2844, Michael Enzi Voluntary Protection Program Act; H.R. 3495, Direct Seller and Real Estate Agent Harmonization Act; and H.R. 5169, Retire through Ownership Act
When: 10:15 a.m. on Wednesday, September 17, 2025
Where: 2175 Rayburn House Office Building
Press: The markup is open to the press and will be live-streamed on the Committee's YouTube page (https://youtube.com/live/968JIUXnpxU?feature=share).
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=412748
"Sanctuary" Jurisdictions - Legal Overview Topic of White Paper From CRS
WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 (TNSLrpt) -- The Congressional Research Service issued the following Legal Sidebar white paper (No. LSB11321) on Sept. 15, 2025, by Legislative Attorney Alejandra Aramayo:* * *
"Sanctuary" Jurisdictions: Legal Overview
Several state and local jurisdictions have adopted policies that limit their cooperation with federal agencies charged with immigration enforcement. Some observers and policymakers describe these states and municipalities as "sanctuary" jurisdictions, though there is no agreement as to whether the term applies to a particular entity. Since taking office on ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 (TNSLrpt) -- The Congressional Research Service issued the following Legal Sidebar white paper (No. LSB11321) on Sept. 15, 2025, by Legislative Attorney Alejandra Aramayo: * * * "Sanctuary" Jurisdictions: Legal Overview Several state and local jurisdictions have adopted policies that limit their cooperation with federal agencies charged with immigration enforcement. Some observers and policymakers describe these states and municipalities as "sanctuary" jurisdictions, though there is no agreement as to whether the term applies to a particular entity. Since taking office onJanuary 20, 2025, President Trump has issued several executive orders (EOs) relating to "sanctuary" jurisdictions, including Protecting the American People Against Invasion, Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders, and Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens. Since the EOs were issued, multiple lawsuits have been filed by various cities and states, as well as by the Department of Justice (DOJ), relating to "sanctuary" policies. This Legal Sidebar provides a brief overview on what may be considered to be a "sanctuary" jurisdiction and summarizes pending litigation. This Sidebar also identifies several considerations for Congress. For further discussion regarding "sanctuary" jurisdictions' policies, see this CRS In Focus.
What Is a "Sanctuary" Jurisdiction?
There is no legal definition in federal statute for what constitutes a "sanctuary" jurisdiction. Some observers have used different methodologies to identify states or municipalities as "sanctuary" jurisdictions. In addition, while some government entities have, at times, described themselves as "sanctuary" jurisdictions, others have disputed being labeled as such, particularly when those jurisdictions have authorized some degree of cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
One recently issued EO defines a "sanctuary" jurisdiction as one that interferes "with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations." Another EO defines "sanctuary" jurisdictions as those "that obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws." The Attorney General issued a memorandum on February 5, 2025, that defines "sanctuary" jurisdictions as those that "refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373, or willfully fail to comply with other applicable federal immigration laws."
Jurisdictions described by observers as having "sanctuary" policies typically limit state or local law enforcement assistance with federal immigration authorities in enforcing civil violations of federal immigration law that would render aliens removable from the United States. Jurisdictions that restrict state or local participation in civil immigration enforcement activities may still permit state or local law enforcement to assist in enforcing criminal violations of federal immigration law. Some measures adopted by state and local governments that bar police from assisting in the enforcement of federal criminal immigration laws are closely related to civil immigration violations, including laws that penalize an alien's unlawful entry, presence, or employment in the United States.
In seeking to limit cooperation, some states and localities have adopted measures that either prevent or restrict police officers from arresting individuals solely for alleged civil immigration law violations. In addition, some jurisdictions may restrict state or local government agencies from sharing information with federal immigration authorities. For example, some jurisdictions have adopted policies stating that the police cannot ask a person his or her immigration status unless it is part of a criminal investigation, thereby limiting the circumstances when state and local law enforcement might collect information relevant to federal immigration authorities. Other policies adopted by some jurisdictions more broadly limit officials from obtaining information about a person's immigration status unless required by law.
In addition, some jurisdictions may limit law enforcement's ability to honor an immigration detainer issued by the federal government. As discussed in more detail in this CRS Legal Sidebar, immigration officials within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may issue detainers for aliens who are in the custody of a state or local law enforcement agency (LEA). Through a detainer, DHS formally requests that a state or local LEA hold an alien in custody for up to forty-eight hours after the alien would otherwise be released so that DHS may acquire custody of the alien to facilitate his or her removal. A detainer request is permissive, and LEAs have the option of complying with these requests. Several federal courts have also confirmed that detainer requests are not "compulsory commands" to LEAs.
Recent Executive Actions
Shortly after President Trump took office for a second term, his Administration issued a number of directives intended to deter states and localities from implementing "sanctuary" policies. EO 14159, "Protecting the American People Against an Invasion," seeks to, among other things, limit federal funds to "sanctuary" jurisdictions; directs the Secretary of DHS and the Attorney General to "evaluate and undertake any other lawful actions, civil or criminal" against jurisdictions that interfere with enforcement of federal immigration law; and instructs the Secretary of DHS to ensure compliance with 8 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1373 and 1644 (two federal statutes, discussed in more detail below, that bar measures that prevent state and local governments from voluntarily communicating with federal immigration officials regarding individuals' immigration statuses). On February 5, 2025, the Attorney General issued a memorandum (AG Memo) detailing how "sanctuary" jurisdictions would no longer receive federal funds from DOJ.
EO 14218, "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders," directs federal agencies to ensure that funding to "States and localities do not, by design or effect, facilitate the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration, or abet so called 'sanctuary' policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation." On April 24, 2025, the Department of Transportation (DOT) wrote a letter to all recipients of DOT funding reminding them of their duty to comply with federal law, "including cooperating with and not impeding" DHS and ICE enforcement of immigration law, and that failure to do so could result in loss of federal funding. EO 14287, "Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens," directs the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of the DHS, to "publish a list of States and local jurisdictions that obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws (sanctuary jurisdictions)" and directs federal agency heads to "identify appropriate Federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, including grants and contracts, for suspension and termination." For "sanctuary" jurisdictions that "remain in defiance of Federal law," the order requires the Attorney General and the Secretary of DHS to "pursue all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures to end these violations and bring such jurisdictions into compliance with the laws of the United States." On August 5, 2025, DOJ published the list of "sanctuary" jurisdictions as required by EO 14287, including 13 states, 18 cities, and four counties.
Constitutional Considerations
As discussed below, lawsuits have been brought challenging both the legality of "sanctuary" policies and federal measures that seek to deter them. In adjudicating these challenges, courts must frequently consider the scope of states' authority to decline federal requests for assistance, whether state or local measures are preempted by federal immigration law, and whether federal efforts to deter "sanctuary" measures are consistent with the Constitution's federalism-based limitations on the federal government's ability to compel states or localities to enforce federal policies.
The Supremacy Clause and Preemption
The Supreme Court has held that the federal government has plenary power over immigration, including as to the entry and removal of aliens. Pursuant to that power, Congress has enacted a comprehensive set of rules, largely codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act, that govern the admission and removal of aliens, along with conditions for aliens' continued presence within the United States.
Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law preempts conflicting state or local measures, rendering them unenforceable. Questions arise as to what extent a state and local "sanctuary" policy, which may appear to be in conflict with the federal government's immigration authority, is enforceable. When a state passes a law or policy that attempts to regulate immigration, either directly or indirectly, the Supreme Court has generally held that, under the Supremacy Clause, federal law will typically preempt the state law or policy. On the other hand, the Court has recognized that not every state measure "which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se preempted." For a more detailed discussion on preemption in the immigration context, see this CRS report.
Federalism-Based Limitations
Even though the federal government has extensive power to preempt state and local policies and laws that touch on immigration, that power is not absolute. The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the federal government and the states, which is confirmed by the Tenth Amendment's reservation of the powers not delegated by the Constitution to the national government "to the States respectively, or to the people." The Supreme Court has held that the anti-commandeering doctrine, which is rooted in the Tenth Amendment, instructs that "even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts" on behalf of the federal government. The Court most recently applied the anti-commandeering doctrine in 2018 in Murphy v. NCAA, where it struck down a federal law that prohibited state and local governments from authorizing sports gambling because federal law "dictate[d] what a state legislature may and may not do" and, as a result, states were "put under the control of Congress."
In the immigration context, the anti-commandeering doctrine has been discussed in cases involving immigration detainers. For example, in Galarza v. Szalczyk, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) held that, if states and localities were forced to comply with immigration detainer requests, they would have to use their funds and resources "to effectuate a federal regulatory scheme" in violation of the anti-commandeering doctrine. The Third Circuit also held that the requirement "to detain federal prisoners at state expense is exactly the type of command that has historically disrupted our system of federalism." In addition, some federal courts have also held that states or localities honoring detainer requests may be violating the Fourth Amendment when the requests lack a probable cause determination. Some states and localities have argued that honoring constitutionally defective detainers may subject them to civil liability.
Congress may also not use its spending power to place conditions on funds distributed to the states that require them to take certain actions that Congress otherwise could not directly compel the states to perform. To meet constitutional scrutiny, generally a funding condition (1) must provide clear notice to the recipient of what actions are required in exchange for federal funds and the consequences for noncompliance, (2) must be related to the underlying purpose of the spending, (3) cannot be coercive to the point it turns into compulsion, and (4) cannot induce states to otherwise act unconstitutionally. As discussed in this CRS report, during the first Trump Administration, some courts ruled that restrictions imposed by DOJ upon "sanctuary" jurisdictions' eligibility for certain grant awards were unconstitutional funding conditions.
Key Federal Statutes
The primary federal statutes addressing "sanctuary" policies are 8 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1373 and 1644. Section 1373 bars any restriction on a federal, state, or local governmental entity or official's ability to send or receive information regarding "citizenship or immigration status" to or from federal immigration authorities. Section 1644 similarly bars these measures. State or local entities, however, are not required to share information with federal immigration authorities. Courts have disagreed as to whether these laws permissibly preempt conflicting state or local policies or instead run afoul of the anti-commandeering doctrine. In 1996, the Second Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to Sections 1373 and 1644 and held that these statutes prohibited state and local governments from restricting "the voluntary exchange" of information between federal and state authorities and did not compel state authorities to administer and enforce a federal regulatory program. The Second Circuit also held that the Tenth Amendment does not give states and local entities an "untrammeled right to forbid all voluntary cooperation by state or local officials with particular federal programs." In 2018, two federal district courts decided that Section 1373 violated the anti-commandeering doctrine. Among other things, the courts held that Section 1373 displaces "local control of local officers" and prevents the cities from detaching themselves from federal immigration enforcement. The courts' decisions in these cases were affirmed on appeal but without the appellate courts reaching the issue of Section 1373's constitutionality.
There is also a question as to what information Sections 1373 and 1644 cover. For example, "sanctuary" jurisdictions contend that these provisions are narrow and cover the sharing of information about immigration status but not, for example, the release date of an alien held in state or local custody.
Recent Litigation
The second Trump Administration has filed a number of suits against jurisdictions that it claims have implemented "sanctuary" policies preempted by federal law. Some jurisdictions, in turn, have brought suit challenging executive efforts to limit federal funding for jurisdictions believed to impede federal immigration enforcement efforts. During the first Trump Administration, multiple lower courts rejected efforts by the first Trump Administration to condition a state or local government's eligibility for certain federal grants upon its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts. It is unclear whether these new initiatives will be treated differently.
City and County of San Francisco v. Trump
In 2025, a group of plaintiffs sued the Trump Administration and moved to block recent executive actions targeting "sanctuary" jurisdictions. The plaintiffs argue that, in the absence of congressional authorization to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal funding, the executive actions, including EOs 14159 and 14218 and the AG Memo, violate separation of powers principles. The plaintiffs argue that these actions also violate the Spending Clause because the funding conditions are ambiguous, they cannot be applied because Congress already appropriated some of those funds to the states and localities, there is no nexus between most categories of the relevant funding and immigration enforcement, and the conditions limiting federal funding are unconstitutionally coercive to the point of compulsion. The plaintiffs further claim that the executive actions violate their Fifth Amendment rights because they do not meaningfully define key terms, granting the Attorney General and DHS Secretary authority to subjectively determine what qualifies as a "sanctuary" jurisdiction and discretionarily deny federal funds through an unknown process. The plaintiffs next claim that the executive orders violate the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment because the orders force them to either give up federal funding or "acquiesce to Defendants' unconstitutional assertion of power over local policymaking." Finally, the plaintiffs claim that the AG Memo violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is unconstitutional, was issued "in excess of statutory authority," is arbitrary and capricious, and needed to provide a better justification for the change in policy.
On April 24, 2025, the federal district court granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on each of these claims. On April 28, 2025, President Trump issued EO 14287, which also relates to "sanctuary" jurisdictions. On May 9, 2025, the federal district court issued an order clarifying the preliminary injunction because it had not considered EO 14287 in the decision to grant the preliminary injunction on April 24, 2025, and held that no government action that "postdates the Preliminary Injunction can be used as an end run around the Preliminary Injunction Order." In June 2025, the defendants appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. On August 7, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. On August 22, 2025, the district court granted a motion to include 34 more localities as plaintiffs and extended the preliminary injunction to cover them. The court also clarified that the injunction also reaches conditions the Department of Housing and Urban Development placed on certain grants because the grants do not share "a nexus with immigration enforcement." On August 26, 2025, the Trump Administration filed a motion to dismiss. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for November 5, 2025.
Similar lawsuits were filed in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. In Massachusetts, two cities sued the Trump Administration and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on June 3, 2025. In Rhode Island, several states, including Rhode Island, filed two separate lawsuits against the Trump Administration--one relating to federal funding for victims of crimes and another relating to federal transportation grants and cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. As of the date of publication, these lawsuits remain pending.
United States v. Illinois and United States v. New York
In early 2025, the Trump Administration sued various "sanctuary" jurisdictions on preemption and related grounds. In United States v. Illinois, the federal government challenged provisions of Illinois laws that "have the purpose and effect of making it more difficult for, and deliberately impeding, federal immigration officers' ability to carry out their responsibilities in those jurisdictions." The laws in question, according to the federal government, severely limit or prohibit cooperation with federal immigration officials by preventing state and local LEAs from honoring civil detainer requests or providing basic information about aliens, among other things. The federal government argues that these provisions generally prevent the federal government from being able to effectively detain and remove unlawfully present aliens and expressly violate Sections 1373 and 1644 "with respect to the information-sharing and maintenance restrictions." The defendants (including Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, and several individually named defendants, such as Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker) filed multiple motions to dismiss, principally claiming that their laws are not preempted by federal law and that they are protected by the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine. On July 25, 2025, the federal district court agreed with the defendants, granted the motions to dismiss, and gave the federal government an opportunity to amend its complaint by August 22, 2025.
The district court first held that the federal government had standing to sue the state and localities but that it had no standing to sue the individually named defendants. The court then held that Sections 1373 and 1644, which pertain only "to information regarding a person's legal classification under federal law," do not expressly preempt the state and city laws in question, as those cover "contact information, custody status, [and] release date," none of which is "directly related to citizenship or immigration status." The court further held that Section 1373 is not a preemptive statute "because it does [not] regulate private actors in language or effect," reminding of the requirement established by the Supreme Court in Murphy that for a federal statute to have preemptive effect it must meet this requirement. The court then held that the state and city policies regarding detainers and sharing of information are not conflict preempted because they do not pose an obstacle to immigration law and that collaboration between federal and state authorities regarding these provisions is permissive and not mandatory. Finally, the court held that the challenged state and local laws and policies are protected by the anti-commandeering doctrine. On August 26, 2025, after not receiving an amended complaint from the federal government, the court converted the July 25, 2025, dismissal to one with prejudice and the case was closed. The federal government did not appeal the case.
Similarly, in United States v. New York, the federal government is challenging New York's "Green Light Law," which "generally bars the sharing of New York State Department of Motor Vehicles ('DMV') records or information ... with federal immigration agencies" and "requires New York's DMV Commissioner to promptly tip off any ... alien when a federal immigration agency has requested his or her information." The federal government argues that the Green Light Law prevents the federal government from accessing critical information, interferes with its "ability to arrest and remove [] aliens," threatens immigration officers' safety, and prevents the federal government from "sharing information across all its law enforcement agencies unimpeded." On March 25, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, principally claiming that the law is a valid exercise of the state's police powers and that it does not conflict with federal immigration law. On April 25, 2025, the federal government filed a motion for summary judgment. The Trump Administration filed a similar lawsuit against Rochester, NY, on April 24, 2025; against Colorado on May 2, 2025; against several cities in New Jersey on May 22, 2025; against New York City, NY, on July 24, 2025; and against Boston, MA, on September 4, 2025. All of these lawsuits remain pending.
Considerations for Congress
Congress has options if it decides to address "sanctuary" jurisdiction laws and policies relating to federal immigration enforcement. Several bills introduced in the House and Senate in the 119th Congress would seek to deter "sanctuary" policies, including by limiting jurisdictions' ability to receive federal funds (see, e.g., No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act [H.R. 32], HELD Act [H.R. 1821], Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act [S. 685], No DOT Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act [H.R. 4565]). Other bills introduced in the 119th Congress would directly or tangentially address "sanctuary" jurisdiction policies. The UPLIFT Act (H.R. 1680) would, among other things, amend and expand the existing federal detainer statute and bar restrictions on state and local LEAs' ability to share information about aliens who are suspected of criminal activity with federal immigration officials. Still other bills would alter "sanctuary" jurisdictions' eligibility for federal benefits and services. The Save SBA from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025 (H.R. 2931) passed the House on June 5, 2025, and would, among other things, relocate certain offices of the Small Business Administration in "sanctuary" jurisdictions. The No Student Visas for Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025 (H.R. 3237) would limit student visas for institutions in "sanctuary" jurisdictions. The No Tax Breaks for Sanctuary Cities Act (H.R. 1879) would deny tax-exempt status for bonds issued by "sanctuary" jurisdictions. This In Focus provides a list of additional past proposed legislation introduced in the 118th Congress.
* * *
The white paper is posted at: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11321/LSB11321.2.pdf
[Category: CRSCRS]