Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
WLF Urges Supreme Court to Overrule Humphrey's Executor and Restore Agency Accountability
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Oct. 14, 2025:
* * *
WLF Urges Supreme Court to Overrule Humphrey's Executor and Restore Agency Accountability
"For far too long, Humphrey's Executor has allowed unaccountable agencies like the FTC to wield executive power without meaningful oversight."
--Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule its 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States and hold that Congress cannot restrict the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Oct. 14, 2025:
* * *
WLF Urges Supreme Court to Overrule Humphrey's Executor and Restore Agency Accountability
"For far too long, Humphrey's Executor has allowed unaccountable agencies like the FTC to wield executive power without meaningful oversight."
--Cory Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule its 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States and hold that Congress cannot restrict thePresident's authority to remove FTC commissioners at will. WLF contends that the removal protections built around the FTC's commissioners gravely distort the Constitution's history, text, and structure.
The case stems from President Trump's removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause, prompting her to file suit under the FTC Act challenging her removal. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocked the firing, citing Humphrey's Executor's insulation of multi-member agencies like the FTC from at-will removal, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether such restrictions violate Article II.
In its amicus brief, WLF explains that the FTC has evolved into a powerful executive enforcer since 1935, issuing regulations, seeking penalties, and adjudicating cases--powers incompatible with Humphrey's rationale that the agency was merely a legislative or judicial aid. Overruling the 90-year-old precedent would ensure accountability while preserving the President's duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." WLF urges reversal to realign Congress's view of agency independence with constitutional limits.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2025/10/14/communicating/wlf-urges-supreme-court-to-overrule-humphreys-executor-and-restore-agency-accountability/
[Category: Law/Legal]
SLF Calls for US Special Counsel to Investigate Comey & DOJ for Violating Records Act to Conceal Steele Dossier That Fed "Russian Hoax" Against Trump
ROSWELL, Georgia, Oct. 15 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Oct. 13, 2025:
* * *
SLF calls for US Special Counsel to investigate Comey & DOJ for violating Records Act to conceal Steele Dossier that fed "Russian Hoax" against Trump
Today, Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) formally requested that the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) open an investigation into the intentional and fraudulent concealment of key documents about the now-infamous "Steele Dossier" by the offices of James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper.
SLF President Kim
... Show Full Article
ROSWELL, Georgia, Oct. 15 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release on Oct. 13, 2025:
* * *
SLF calls for US Special Counsel to investigate Comey & DOJ for violating Records Act to conceal Steele Dossier that fed "Russian Hoax" against Trump
Today, Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) formally requested that the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) open an investigation into the intentional and fraudulent concealment of key documents about the now-infamous "Steele Dossier" by the offices of James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper.
SLF President KimHermann said, "Former FBI Director James Comey is under indictment by a grand jury for lying to Congress. That comes as no surprise to us at SLF. Thanks to a bombshell whistleblower report we now know that for years, Obama and Biden's FBI, CIA, and ODNI lied to us and federal courts, concealing documents that show manufactured intelligence funded by the Clinton-campaign was used to influence the 2016 election and undermine President Trump's first term."
"It is time to know the truth - who was behind the Russia-hoax and who instructed the Intelligence Community to rely on the now-debunked Steele Dossier. Was it intentionally orchestrated to influence an election for Hillary Clinton and later Joe Biden? Using the FBI as a political weapon is not only immoral and un-American, it is illegal. Withholding information responsive to a FOIA is also illegal. We hope the Special Counsel under Donald Trump will begin an immediate investigation into Biden's suppression efforts. Was this yet another cover up by the Biden White House? Americans deserve to know."
In a legal letter to the Special Counsel, SLF argues the offices of Comey, Brennan, and Clapper illegally withheld public records responsive to record requests under the Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) in 2019. The documents will be critical to understanding how both Obama and Biden's White House and federal agencies handled the Steele Dossier, which played a major role in feeding the investigations of now disproven ties between Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Rightfully, this whole attempt by is now known as the "Russian Hoax."
SLF previously sued the FBI and DOJ after the agencies refused to produce documents from the Foreign Intelligence Security Court (FISC) which would have been necessary to obtain the federal warrant to spy on the Trump campaign in the 2016 election.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.slfliberty.org/slf-calls-for-us-special-counsel-to-investigate-comey-doj-for-violating-records-act-to-conceal-steele-dossier-that-fed-russian-hoax-against-trump/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Investor-Owned Housing Helps Renters
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 14, 2025:
* * *
Investor-Owned housing helps renters
It is not the infusion of capital from investors that disrupts housing markets; it is local government policies that do not let supply keep up with demand.
By Adrian Moore, Vice President of Policy; and Eliza Terziev, Housing Policy Analyst
Newsfeeds and social media are full of stories about how institutional investors like BlackRock are buying up housing and fueling the housing crisis. People as politically far apart as former Vice President
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 14, 2025:
* * *
Investor-Owned housing helps renters
It is not the infusion of capital from investors that disrupts housing markets; it is local government policies that do not let supply keep up with demand.
By Adrian Moore, Vice President of Policy; and Eliza Terziev, Housing Policy Analyst
Newsfeeds and social media are full of stories about how institutional investors like BlackRock are buying up housing and fueling the housing crisis. People as politically far apart as former Vice PresidentKamala Harris and current Vice President J.D. Vance have blamed private equity firms for high housing prices and rents. Not to be outdone, at least half a dozen states saw legislation introduced to restrict private equity ownership of housing, again ranging across the political spectrum from California to Texas and from Georgia to Minnesota.
The common thread from stories to political campaigns to proposed legislation is the claim that institutional investors buy up homes to rent them out for profit, and in doing so, crowd out families who want to buy homes to live in. At the same time, these investors also drive up rents and tend to be absentee landlords who don't take care of properties. But a closer look at what's actually happening in the market shows that almost the opposite of all that is happening: Institutional investors are actually helping renters.
The first clue that institutional investors are not likely to be the driver of housing costs or rents is that they only own about two percent of the total single-family housing stock in the United States, though they own almost 40% of apartment buildings. There are good reasons for both numbers.
When the housing market crash triggered the Great Recession in 2008, millions of mortgages went into default, and many of those homes wound up owned by banks and by federal lending institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At that time, only institutional investors were in a position to buy those homes from the lenders and get them back on the market. In fact, before 2011, no investors owned more than 1,000 units.
A similar shift occurred during the pandemic, as thousands of landlords saw their rental income plummet, leading many to sell out or walk away. Again, institutional investors had the capital to get those homes back into the rental market. Without institutional investment in stores, millions of homes likely would have sat vacant for years.
Neither of those crisis opportunities for institutional investors is happening today. Housing analyst Kevin Erdmann has pointed out that almost all purchases of homes by institutional investors happened at the time of crisis, and their growth has been minimal since then. A shift in ownership years ago is not what is driving housing prices and availability today. Erdmann notes that in 2004, there were 33 million rental households, which grew to 44 million by 2016. But during that same time, only three million single-family homes were built, so about eight million single-family homes shifted from being owned to being rented. Despite that shift, census data shows that the homeownership rate in the U.S. increased by over two percent since 2015, even as investor ownership grew.
In fact, in the subsequent years, while the rate of homeownership was growing, the rate of building permits was half the rate at the peak of U.S. homeownership, and the rate of construction of new homes was flat. So, homeownership was growing as homes shifted back from being rented to being owned.. Institutional investor-owned rentals have not been crowding out homeowners; instead, rising numbers of homeowners combined with slow growth in housing stock mean homeowners have been crowding our rental housing!
Meanwhile, there's no evidence that institutional investors are letting the housing they own fall apart. The Urban Institute argues that institutional investors tend to purchase homes in need of repair and "can repair these properties more quickly and efficiently than an owner-occupant generally can." It makes sense: Fixer-uppers cost less, and with economies of scale, it will cost less per unit to remodel and repair a large number of homes in an area than just a single home alone.
Banning investor-owned housing doesn't work--Dutch city Rotterdam tried it in 2021 and promptly saw rents increase and displace low-income families. In truth, fears surrounding investor-owned housing are just red herrings in trying to understand the housing crisis.
The real culprit is local government restrictions on housing supply. Homeownership growth since 2016, not investor-owned housing, has crowded out rental housing. If rental housing permits and construction had kept up, increased home ownership would not be a problem, but permitting of new rental housing has not kept pace with demand.
Persistent regulatory barriers, including zoning restrictions, minimum lot sizes, limits on multifamily housing, and long and costly permitting processes, have made it difficult, if not impossible, to adjust to the rise in demand in a cost-effective way. According to a recent paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, barriers to building have led to fewer homes being built: "If the U.S. housing stock had expanded at the same rate from 2000-2020 as it did from 1980-2000, there would be 15 million more housing units."
This is why states as politically diverse as California, Texas, Vermont, and Montana have passed laws in the past few years that require local governments to allow more housing to be built and reduce restrictions, costs, and delays on new housing.
It really works. Austin, Texas, pursued one of the most aggressive efforts to change policies to allow more housing construction, allow more density in parts of the city, and allow a wider range of housing types. The result is that average rents dropped by 22 percent, about $400/month.
It is not the infusion of capital from investors that disrupts housing markets; rather, it is local government policies that fail to allow supply to keep up with demand. Banning institutional investors will not help, but allowing housing supply to fulfill the needs of both renters and owners will.
* * *
Adrian Moore, Ph.D., is vice president of policy at Reason Foundation.
Eliza Terziev is a housing and land use policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/investor-owned-housing-helps-renters/
Reforming the TSA So Airport Security Isn't Impacted by Government Shutdowns
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 13, 2025:
* * *
Reforming the TSA so airport security isn't impacted by government shutdowns
Congress should remove TSA's conflict of interest as both the provider and regulator of airport security shift and shift the funding of security to a dedicated local airport user fee.
By Marc Scribner, Senior Transportation Policy Analyst
During a lapse in congressional appropriations and a partial government shutdown, most federal employees are not paid. This includes the Transportation Security Administration's
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 14 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Oct. 13, 2025:
* * *
Reforming the TSA so airport security isn't impacted by government shutdowns
Congress should remove TSA's conflict of interest as both the provider and regulator of airport security shift and shift the funding of security to a dedicated local airport user fee.
By Marc Scribner, Senior Transportation Policy Analyst
During a lapse in congressional appropriations and a partial government shutdown, most federal employees are not paid. This includes the Transportation Security Administration's(TSA's) workforce that staffs security checkpoints at airports across the country. Yet TSA's screeners have a high attrition rate in normal times, so missed paychecks will likely result in significant numbers of them calling out sick or resigning to seek other employment opportunities. Indeed, Congress was ultimately persuaded to end the last government shutdown in 2018-2019 in part because many unpaid TSA screeners stopped showing up to work, leading to long lines at airport security checkpoints and causing entire terminals to be closed at major airports in Houston and Miami.
This is simply no way to run airport security screening and underscores the need for reforming the TSA. Reason Foundation has long supported reforms to TSA's governance model to improve the provision of airport security screening in the United States. To insulate airport security screening from congressional bickering and government shutdown risk, as well as improve its efficiency and effectiveness, we propose the following three reforms: separate the provision of airport security screening from its regulation; allow airports to contract directly with private security providers; and convert the 9/11 Security Fee into a dedicated local user fee.
To that end, we have developed draft legislation, which we are calling the TSA Reform Act, to detail and help implement these reforms. This proposed legislation is contained in Appendix A of this memorandum (https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/reforming-tsa.pdf).
Separate the provision of airport security screening from its regulation
Following the enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/senate-bill/1447/text) of 2001, U.S. airport security screening was centralized under TSA. Importantly, the law tasked TSA with both providing screening services and regulating those services. This dual mandate combines the regulator with the regulated entity and represents an inherent conflict of interest.
As with airlines, railroads, and automobiles, arm's-length regulation by a government regulator and regulated entities is necessary to reduce the risks of regulatory capture. In the case of European Union member states, airport screening is the legal responsibility of airport operators. These airports either provide screening services themselves or contract with private providers.
Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly known as the Chicago Convention) contains the International Civil Aviation Organization's standards and recommended practices for aviation security. Paragraph 3.5.1(a) states that parties--including the United States, which is a founding signatory and the treaty's depositary--should ensure the "independence of those conducting oversight from those applying measures implemented under the national civil aviation security programme."
As a combined regulator and provider, TSA's current institutional design fails to align with international consensus standards.
To address TSA's core self-regulator design flaw and to align U.S. screening with global best practices, TSA should be reformed to focus strictly on the regulation of security services. Section 110(b) of ATSA replaced an earlier requirement that airport security screening be conducted "by an employee or agent of an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier" with a mandate that screening "shall be carried out by a Federal Government employee" (presently codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 44901(a)).
We propose that this be amended to require instead that airport security screening be conducted by "an employee or agent of an airport" who would be certified and regulated by TSA.
Allow airports to contract directly with security providers
The major exception to TSA's general security screening monopoly under ATSA Section 110(b) is the Screening Partnership Program, which allows airports to apply to seek the services of private screening companies (49 U.S.C. Sec. 44920). TSA's website lists 20 airports that are currently enrolled in the Screening Partnership Program, mostly small airports, but also includes Kansas City International, Orlando Sanford International, and San Francisco International.
Growth in the number of airports opting for private screening has stalled. Observers have identified a complicated, time-consuming, opaque, and biased process as the principal cause for the lack of interest in airport security contracting. A normal government contracting process typically involves a government agency issuing a request for proposals from qualified firms and then initiating a competitive bidding process. In the case of airport security, this would perhaps involve a sponsor airport beginning procurement from a list of security companies certified by the security regulator and then selecting the firm that best fits the airport's particular needs.
This is not how the Screening Partnership Program is designed. Instead, under current law, an airport seeking to opt in to private screening must submit a detailed request to TSA. If TSA decides to grant the airport entry into the Screening Partnership Program, it will then determine which security company it believes best fits the needs of the airport applicant. As part of this selection process, the airport has only a minor advisory role. The security company is then assigned to the airport, and the private screening company is contracted to TSA; rather than a contract between the company and the airport it would serve.
We propose that the basic statutory framework of the Screening Partnership Program be amended to allow airports to contract directly with security screening providers or to self-provide screening services. The screening companies should be certified by TSA to be eligible for selection by individual airports, and airports should be able to choose the screening companies that best fit their needs and terminate contracts with those that fail to provide adequate service. Airports that choose to self-provide screening services should be subject to the same TSA certification and oversight as private screening companies.
Convert the 9/11 security fee into a dedicated local user fee
The principal barrier to direct airport contracting with security screening providers is payment responsibility. Under the Screening Partnership Program, rates are determined by TSA, which then pays the contracted providers and assigns them to willing airports. An unfunded mandate on airports to provide certain security services without compensation would surely be opposed by the airport industry.
To address these legitimate concerns, we recommend that Congress reform the existing security service fee, commonly referred to as the 9/11 Security Fee, which is assessed on airline tickets. Currently, airlines are required to impose security fees of $5.60 per one-way trip and a maximum of $11.20 for round-trip tickets (49 U.S.C. Sec. 44940(c)(1)). Airlines then remit the fee revenue to TSA. However, since the enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, Congress has diverted one-third of 9/11 Security Fee revenue for deficit-reduction purposes (49 U.S.C. Sec. 44940(i)).
To fund airports' security screening operations, Congress should convert the 9/11 Security Fee into a dedicated local airport user fee akin to the passenger facility charge (PFC). Congress authorizes enplaning airports to impose PFCs of up to $4.50 per flight segment, with a maximum of two PFCs per one-way trip ($9) and four PFCs per round trip ($18) (49 U.S.C. Sec. 40117(b)(1)). Airlines collect the fees on passenger tickets and remit the revenue directly to the airports at which the passengers enplaned. The Federal Aviation Administration regulates the use of airport PFC revenue by project eligibility criteria (14 C.F.R. Part 158). Despite these restrictions, PFC revenue now accounts for a large share of commercial service airport capital investment, particularly on terminal projects.
A PFC-style 9/11 Security Fee would restore the 9/11 Security Fee to its original purpose of advancing aviation security. Like the Federal Aviation Administration's oversight of the passenger facility charge, TSA should regulate the use of these funds to ensure they are spent on security-related projects and operations. Revenue from a reformed 9/11 Security Fee would be sufficient to cover security screening services at most airports, although Congress should require, as part of these reforms, that TSA conduct a detailed financial analysis. Low-volume airports that might be unable to raise sufficient revenue to provide effective security screening should be supported by a separate account established by Congress and funded through annual appropriations, along with TSA administrative costs and other activities lawmakers deem appropriate.
Conclusion
These reforms to the Transportation Security Administration would significantly improve airport security governance and effectiveness in the United States. They are long overdue and are justified on their own terms. But the latest government shutdown, with the looming threat of commercial air travel chaos, underscores the need for these reforms. Airport security screening is simply too important to be left to the whims of Congress.
Reason Foundation's proposed TSA Reform Act is available here (https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/reforming-tsa.pdf).
* * *
Marc Scribner is a senior transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/reforming-tsa-airport-security-government-shutdowns/
Pennsylvania EMT/Rescue Workers File Second Petition for 'Decertification' Vote to Remove Teamsters Local 205
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Oct. 14 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Pennsylvania EMT/Rescue Workers File Second Petition for 'Decertification' Vote to Remove Teamsters Local 205
*
At Teamsters' behest, NLRB official blocked earlier election request citing non-statutory NLRB 'bar' to decertification after card check unionization
Huntingdon, PA (October 14, 2025) - Shannon Martin, an employee of North Huntingdon EMS/Rescue, has filed a second petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a "decertification" election
... Show Full Article
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Oct. 14 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Pennsylvania EMT/Rescue Workers File Second Petition for 'Decertification' Vote to Remove Teamsters Local 205
*
At Teamsters' behest, NLRB official blocked earlier election request citing non-statutory NLRB 'bar' to decertification after card check unionization
Huntingdon, PA (October 14, 2025) - Shannon Martin, an employee of North Huntingdon EMS/Rescue, has filed a second petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking a "decertification" electionto remove Teamsters Local 205 union officials as the employees' "representative." Martin is receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.
Martin's second request comes after the NLRB's Regional Director for Region 6 in Pittsburgh shot down her first petition. At the behest of Teamsters union lawyers, the Regional Director dismissed the employees' request for a secret ballot election. That decision cited the agency's non-statutory "voluntary recognition bar" that prohibits worker-requested secret ballot elections from being held for at least six months and up to one year after a union gains monopoly bargaining power over workers through the abuse-prone "card check" process.
The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a task that includes administering elections to install (or "certify") and remove (or "decertify") unions. The Board-created "bar" cited to stifle Martin and her colleagues' election request is nowhere to be found in the text of the NLRA, but is rather a bureaucratic invention of the agency that is often used by union officials to block workers from having their voices heard.
In the dismissal notice, the NLRB Regional Director stated that "since the petition was filed eight days short of six-months from the parties' first bargaining session, a voluntary recognition bar exists and I am therefore dismissing the petition." The premise upon which Martin's petition was thrown out was that the union demanded and was granted recognition from North Huntingdon EMS/Rescue to be the workers' monopoly representative without holding a secret ballot NLRB-administered election. Because the parties had been bargaining for less than six months, the Regional Director dismissed the petition, despite the text of the NLRA stating that the Board "shall direct an election" when a question concerning the union's status as the employees' representative is raised.
Because Pennsylvania lacks Right to Work protections, Teamsters union bosses are able to impose union monopoly bargaining contracts that force employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Without a decertification election to remove the union, Martin and her colleagues will likely be forced to pay union dues or fees under threat of termination.
The Foundation has seen a rise in the requests for assistance from independent-minded workers seeking support in their efforts to be free of unwanted union bosses. This includes recent cases in Texas and Kentucky where other workers are seeking to remove the Teamsters from their workplace.
"Teamsters union brass, increasingly unable to hold onto their rank and file, are choosing to silence worker voices by not allowing them the chance to have their wishes expressed via secret ballot elections," stated National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "This attempt to use any means to keep workers trapped in a union they oppose and never even voted for demonstrates why the NLRB should move to eliminate the various Board-created hurdles that workers face when attempting to exercise their statutory right to hold decertification elections."
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print Share
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
Posted on Oct 14, 2025 in News Releases
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/emt-petition-teamsters-decertification-10142025/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Checkpoint Britain
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Oct. 12, 2025:
* * *
Checkpoint Britain
The UK plans for mandatory ID.
By Reem Ibrahim
It has finally happened. The British Government has announced plans to introduce mandatory Digital ID.
The new "BritCard" will be a requirement for anyone working in the UK. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said:
"I know working people are worried about the level of illegal migration... Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Oct. 12, 2025:
* * *
Checkpoint Britain
The UK plans for mandatory ID.
By Reem Ibrahim
It has finally happened. The British Government has announced plans to introduce mandatory Digital ID.
The new "BritCard" will be a requirement for anyone working in the UK. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said:
"I know working people are worried about the level of illegal migration... Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, makingour borders more secure. And it will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly -- rather than hunting around for an old utility bill."
The Government is selling the idea on two main grounds. First, that it will reduce illegal migration by making it more difficult for illegal migrants to work and, therefore, reduce the "pull-factor," and second, that it will make life more convenient for those who need to prove their right to work.
The thing about people who migrate illegally is that they are not particularly deterred by the law. Employers are already required to check that their staff have the right to work in the UK, and face fines if they don't. Illegal migrants do not apply for jobs in the "normal" way. They often work in the shadow economy, where they already subvert current right-to-work checks. Some employers ignore the law and pay said employees cash-in-hand.
If some employers already fail to check their employees' legal status, why would they check their Digital ID?
The answer is that they won't. People who break the law will continue to break the law. The "BritCard" will not have a major impact on illegal migration, if any at all.
What about convenience? Well, Digital IDs may make verification easier. But if it is about convenience, why must it be mandatory? We already have passports, driving licenses, and other forms of identification.
Crucially, if it is about making life more convenient, then people who oppose them should not be required to have them. There are a plethora of reasons why someone may reasonably oppose Digital ID.
Digital IDs are not simply an online version of existing ID systems.
So many features of modern life involve online verification. Whether it be online shopping or booking train tickets, login screens and prompts to give up personal information are entirely ordinary. But whilst digital identification is an ordinary part of everyday life, mandatory centralized Digital ID systems are not.
Crucially, Digital ID systems are linked to centralized Government databases. They create a unique identifier for every single user, linking personal data across Government departments.
Every single time a person uses their digital ID, it creates a recorded map of his or her movements, updated in real time. Whether you use the Digital ID to apply for a job, rent a home, or go into a bar, this system can track your movements.
Who, what, where, when? All of this information, held in a central Government database, is aggregated, categorized, and searchable.
This would be an unprecedented amount of personal information collected about every single person in the country. This information could, in the future, be used against you.
The question then becomes: Do you trust the Government with this data?
Even if the Government has no malicious aims, do you trust it to keep your data safe?
A few months ago, the Government was embroiled in a major scandal in which they accidentally leaked the personal information of almost 19,000 people helping the UK Government in Afghanistan. These were people fleeing the Taliban, and the leak put their lives at risk.
If the Ministry of Defence can't be trusted with sensitive data, how could anyone trust the Government to safeguard detailed personal information of the entire UK population? Even without incompetence or malicious intent, the data could be a honeypot for hackers and foreign adversaries.
This threat is not speculative. The NHS experienced a data breach that allowed hackers to access thousands of patients' data, including how to access some of their homes (for those receiving at-home care).
Almost 3 million people have signed a petition against the introduction of Digital ID. The Government's response ignored these concerns, and began with "We will introduce a Digital ID within this Parliament..."
Perhaps Orwell ought to have been taken more seriously.
* * *
Reem Ibrahim
Reem Ibrahim is the Acting Director of Communications and Linda Whetstone Scholar at the Institute of Economic Affairs.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/checkpoint-britain/
Federal court halts Texas' 'no First Amendment after dark' campus speech ban
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Oct. 14 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release:
* * *
VICTORY: Federal court halts Texas' 'no First Amendment after dark' campus speech ban
*
AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 14, 2025 -- A federal judge today issued a preliminary injunction blocking the University of Texas System from enforcing a new Texas law that bans virtually all protected expression on public university campuses after dark.
In his ruling, Judge David Alan Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found that students challenging the
... Show Full Article
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Oct. 14 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release:
* * *
VICTORY: Federal court halts Texas' 'no First Amendment after dark' campus speech ban
*
AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 14, 2025 -- A federal judge today issued a preliminary injunction blocking the University of Texas System from enforcing a new Texas law that bans virtually all protected expression on public university campuses after dark.
In his ruling, Judge David Alan Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas found that students challenging thelaw on First Amendment grounds were likely to succeed on the merits, and blocked the law from going into effect while the case makes its way through the courts.
"The First Amendment does not have a bedtime of 10:00 p.m.," the District Court held. "The burden is on the government to prove that its actions are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. It has not done so."
"Today's ruling is a victory not only for our plaintiffs, but all of those who express themselves on college campuses across Texas," said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression senior supervising attorney JT Morris. "The First Amendment protects their freedom of speech on campus, every hour of the day, every week of the year."
Passed in the wake of several protests over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Senate Bill 2972 reversed Texas's previously strong statute enshrining campus free speech protections into state law, and would have forced public universities to ban "expressive activities" from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m., which it defined as "any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment."
That's a shockingly sweeping ban that would have empowered colleges to punish everything from wearing a T-shirt with a message, to writing an op-ed, to playing music -- even worship. That's an intolerable attack on freedom of speech at public universities, where First Amendment protections must remain indispensable.
"Texas' law is so overbroad that any public university student chatting in the dorms past 10 p.m. would have been in violation," said FIRE senior attorney Adam Steinbaugh. "We're thankful that the court stepped in and halted a speech ban that inevitably would've been weaponized to censor speech that administrators disagreed with."
Another provision from Texas' law required public universities to ban students from inviting outside speakers, or using amplified sound or percussive instruments during the last two weeks of any academic term. FIRE challenged those provisions on behalf of a diverse group of student groups and organizations who would be adversely affected if Texas's law was allowed to go into effect on UT System campuses:
* The Fellowship of Christian University Students (FOCUS) at UT-Dallas, a campus ministry group whose evening prayer gatherings and guest-led services would be curtailed by the law's nighttime ban on "expressive activities" and its ban on invited speakers.
* The Retrograde, an independent student newspaper at UT-Dallas whose newsgathering, writing, and posting often occur after 10 p.m.
* Young Americans for Liberty, an Austin-based, pro-liberty nonprofit with campus chapters throughout Texas that organize petitions, protests, and speaker events. (FIRE is also representing Zall Arvandi, a student member of YAL who attends UT-Austin).
* Texas Society of Unconventional Drummers, a UT-Austin student percussion performance group known for their end-of-semester shows that would be barred by the law's ban on percussion during finals week.
* Strings Attached, a UT-Dallas student music group that stages public concerts -- including in the final two weeks of term and sometimes using amplification.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought--the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation's campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.
CONTACT:
Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org
***
Original text here: https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-federal-court-halts-texas-no-first-amendment-after-dark-campus-speech-ban
