Review of the week | Regulatory Review


Justice Department sues Arizona for voting restriction, President Biden announces updated rule for union pension plans, and more…


  • The US Department of Justice deposit a lawsuit against the state of Arizona challenging a vote right which requires Arizona voters to provide proof of citizenship before voting in federal elections. The Ministry of Justice alleged that the Arizona law violates the provisions of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Deputy Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice said that the Arizona law “turns back time on progress by imposing illegal and unnecessary requirements that would prevent eligible voters from getting on the registration rolls for certain federal elections.” The state law, passed in March 2022, could to prevent 31,500 people who vote in Arizona federal elections alone voted in the 2024 presidential election.
  • President Joseph R. Biden announcement an updated rule governing the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) program that will allow certain multi-employer and union pension plans to apply for additional government funding. These multi-employer plans have been projected become insolvent by 2026, threatening the retirement security of more than three million American workers, retirees and their families. The updated SFA rule will allow the government to to bring a valued Special financial assistance of $74 billion to $91 billion, which will allow eligible multiemployer plans to continue paying full pension benefits to retirees until 2051.
  • Governor of New Jersey Phil Murphy sign seven new gun regulations. These laws, which Governor Murphy describe as being based on “common sense”, include a mandate that individuals must complete firearms training to obtain firearms licenses and a requirement that new residents register their firearms within 60 days of their arrival in the state. opponents argued that the legislative effort – a third package gun regulations New Jersey has enacted since 2018 — unfairly burden “law-abiding citizens.” The Giffords Legal Center class New Jersey is second on its list of states with the strictest gun regulations.
  • The US Department of the Interior announcement an upcoming public comment period for a proposal program whereby the federal government leases public lands to oil and gas companies. The program would have assist the Home Office in determining how many areas, if any, it will make available for offshore oil and gas drilling between 2023 and 2028. In developing the plan, the Home Office considered industry interest and the distribution of environmental risks among the regions that would be affected. Drew Caputovice president of litigation at the environmental advocacy group landjustice, describe the proposal as “a failure of climate leadership”.
  • The US Department of Education published proposed regulations that would ease the burden of student debt for students with disabilities, whose schools have closed and who have met their commitments under the Cancellation of civil service loans Among other changes, the offers the regulations would prohibit colleges from requiring borrowers to sign class action waivers and eliminate strict limits on when borrowers can file a claim against a school that allegedly defrauded or otherwise took advantage of them. United States Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona Explain that the proposed settlement is part of the Biden administration’s commitment to build a “more accessible, affordable and accountable student loan system.”
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announcement updates to a proposed rule aimed at improving the resilience of the cellular network to natural disasters and other emergencies by imposing several previously voluntary measures. If adopted, this proposed rule develop when and where carriers can move onto each other’s networks in the event of a disaster, promote continuity of cellular service during disaster-related disruptions, and facilitate mutual assistance between wireless service providers in the event emergency. FCC President Jessica Rosenworcel said that this action “will help restore service more quickly, accelerate response coordination and keep more people connected in the event of a disaster”.
  • The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) offers a rule that would establish certain conditions that rural emergency hospitals must meet to participate in Medicare and Medicaid. Rural emergency hospitals were established in 2020 to provide care to regions most severely affected by health care inequities. In addition, rural emergency hospitals are designed to address the growing problem of rural hospital closures due to a lack of patient volume needed to maintain the level of services required to sustain Medicare funds. The offers terms would include transfer agreements with trauma centers and accommodation of relevant requirements from skilled nursing facilities. HHS and CMS intention proposed terms to elevate the medical capabilities of these hospitals and facilitate access to quality hospital care for rural Americans who are often impacted by poverty and have limited access to health care.
  • The US Department of Labor terminated the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Workers, which was established in 1974 to provide assistance to workers who have lost or were at risk of losing their jobs due to global trade. The program Free training, case management, income support, job search allowances and worker relocation allowances. The statutory authorization of the program under the Commerce Act 1974 expired on June 30, 2022, once the program termination clause entered into force. Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh said that the termination affects 100,000 workers who depend on the program’s assistance, and he stressed that “only Congress” can reauthorize the program.


  • In a Colombian Law Review article, Alexis KarteronAssociate Professor and Director of the Constitutional Rights Clinic at Rutgers School of Law, describes the “phantom system of family separation” that results from a criminal conviction. Karteron examined common parole conditions that lead to separation from family, such as restrictions on parolees’ associations with people who have been or are incarcerated and prohibitions on contact with children for parolees convicted of sexual offences. Karteron concluded that “conditions render thousands of families subject to correctional control long after incarceration has ended”. Karteron argued that such cases should be subject to scrutiny – forcing courts to balance individual and state interests rather than deferring to supervisory authorities – since they implicate family integrity rights.
  • In a article in the University of Chicago Law Journal, Daniel Hemelthen teacher at University of Chicago Law School, examined whether cost-benefit analysis in policy evaluation should consider income distribution. Hemel Noted that growing income and wealth inequality in the United States has made the case for incorporating distributional consequences into cost-benefit analysis more compelling. Hemel Explain that one method, distribution-weighted cost-benefit analysis, applies larger weights to the costs and benefits incurred by low-income individuals or groups. Yet Hemel defended the typical method of cost-benefit analysis, which does not take revenue into account because it “makes practical sense for US federal agencies”. More specifically, Hemel argued this distribution-weighted cost-benefit analysis imposes a greater informational burden on federal agencies by requiring the determination of the distribution of dollar gains and losses and the magnitude of those dollar gains and losses.
  • In a article in the Yale Journal of Regulation, Justin Gundlachlead attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Lawand Michael A. Livermoredirector of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment to University of Virginia School of Law, explored two methods of calculating greenhouse gas damages when considering policy changes. Gundlach and Livermore debated the comparative advantages of using the “social cost of carbon”, which represents, in monetary terms, the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions, versus the “marginal abatement costs”, which represent the costs of reduction of the last pollution unit of an emission reduction policy. Gundlach and Livermore argued that, on the one hand, in circumstances where it is important to weigh the net public welfare benefits of adopting a particular policy, the social cost of carbon should be used to measure the estimated impacts of change climate on well-being. On the other hand, Gundlach and Livermore supported that marginal abatement costs would be the best choice when a regulation targets a specific outcome and that there are several viable solutions because they take into account the cost-effectiveness of each alternative. Gundlach and Livermore laid that both parameters can be useful tools, and regulators should use one or the other whenever appropriate.



Comments are closed.