WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a much-anticipated decision Thursday that mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, can remain available under current prescribing guidelines.

The high court unanimously rejected attempts by anti-abortion groups to roll back access to what was in place more than eight years ago, writing that they lacked standing to bring the case.

Those limits would have made it more difficult for patients to get a prescription for mifepristone, which the Food and Drug Administration has approved for up to 10 weeks gestation and is used in about 63% of U.S. abortions.

Erin Morrow Hawley, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued the case in front of the court on behalf of the legal organization, doesn’t believe this is the end of efforts to challenge access to mifepristone.

She said on a call shortly after the ruling was released the three states that intervened in a lower court — Idaho, Kansas and Missouri — could still advance their arguments against mifepristone and potentially hold standing, the legal right to bring a case.

“I would expect the litigation to continue with those three states,” Hawley said.

Kavanaugh writes opinion

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion in the united ruling from the Supreme Court, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing a concurring opinion.

“Plaintiffs are pro-life, oppose elective abortion, and have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to mifepristone being prescribed and used by others,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The four anti-abortion medical organizations and four anti-abortion doctors who originally brought the lawsuit against mifepristone have protections in place to guard against being forced to participate in abortions against their moral objections, he noted.

“Not only as a matter of law but also as a matter of fact, the federal conscience laws have protected pro-life doctors ever since FDA approved mifepristone in 2000,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The plaintiffs have not identified any instances where a doctor was required, notwithstanding conscience objections, to perform an abortion or to provide other abortion-related treatment that violated the doctor’s conscience.”

“Nor is there any evidence in the record here of hospitals overriding or failing to accommodate doctors’ conscience objections,” he added.

Alliance Defending Freedom has not “identified any instances where a doctor was required, notwithstanding conscience objections, to perform an abortion or to provide other abortion-related treatment that violated the doctor’s conscience since mifepristone’s 2000 approval,” the opinion said.

Kavanaugh might have also included hints on how the court will rule later this session on a separate abortion access case that addresses the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act, known as EMTALA.

“EMTALA does not require doctors to perform abortions or provide abortion-related medical treatment over their conscience objections because EMTALA does not impose obligations on individual doctors,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Thomas agrees but questions who can sue

Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in the case, saying that he agreed with the court’s unanimous decision, which he did join, but brought up concerns with how a certain type of standing is used by the Court.

“Applying these precedents, the Court explains that the doctors cannot establish third-party standing to sue for violations of their patients’ rights without showing an injury of their own,” Thomas wrote.

“But, there is a far simpler reason to reject this theory: Our third-party standing doctrine is mistaken,” Thomas added. “As I have previously explained, a plaintiff cannot establish an Article III case or controversy by asserting another person’s rights.”

Reaction pours in

Politicians, anti-abortion groups and reproductive rights organizations all reacted to the ruling within hours of its release, often pointing to November’s elections as a potential next step.

President Joe Biden released a written statement saying the “decision does not change the fact that the fight for reproductive freedom continues.”

“It does not change the fact that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, and women lost a fundamental freedom,” Biden added. “It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states.”

Former President Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, was in meetings most of Thursday with U.S. House Republicans and then separately with Republican U.S. Senators.

Neither Trump nor his campaign released a statement by early Thursday afternoon addressing the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, ranking member on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, wrote in a statement that the justice didn’t actually address the merits of the case.

“The Court did not weigh in on the merits of the case, but the fact remains this is a high risk drug that ends the life of an unborn child,” Cassidy wrote. “I urge FDA to follow the law and reinstate important safeguards.”

President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Stella Dantas related a statement saying the ruling “provides us with long-awaited relief.”

“We now know that patients and clinicians across the country will continue to have access to mifepristone for medication abortion and miscarriage management,” Dantas wrote. “Decades of clinical research have proven mifepristone to be safe and effective, and its strong track record of millions of patient uses confirms that data.”

Hawley from Alliance Defending Freedom wrote in a written statement the organization was “disappointed that the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the FDA’s lawless removal of commonsense safety standards for abortion drugs.”

“While we’re disappointed with the court’s decision, we will continue to advocate for women and work to restore commonsense safeguards for abortion drugs—like an initial office visit to screen for ectopic pregnancies,” Hawley wrote. “And we are grateful that three states stand ready to hold the FDA accountable for jeopardizing the health and safety of women and girls across this country.”

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, wrote in a statement she had “both relief and anger about this decision.”

“Thank goodness the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this unwarranted attempt to curtail access to medication abortion, but the fact remains that this meritless case should never have gotten this far,” Northup wrote.

“The FDA’s rulings on medication abortion have been based on irrefutable science,” Northup wrote. “Unfortunately, the attacks on abortion pills will not stop here — the anti-abortion movement sees how critical abortion pills are in this post-Roe world, and they are hell bent on cutting off access.”

Scientific evidence argued

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in March, during which Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued the FDA’s guidelines for prescribing mifepristone were based on reputable scientific evidence and years of real-world use.

“Only an exceptionally small number of women suffer the kinds of serious complications that could trigger any need for emergency treatment,” Prelogar said. “It’s speculative that any of those women would seek care from the two specific doctors who asserted conscience injuries. And even if that happened, federal conscience protections would guard against the injury the doctors face.”

Hawley of ADF told the court that conscience protections in federal law didn’t do enough to protect anti-abortion doctors from having to possibly treat patients experiencing complications from medication abortion.

“These are emergency situations,” Hawley said. “Respondent doctors don’t necessarily know until they scrub into that operating room whether this may or may not be abortion drug harm — it could be a miscarriage, it could be an ectopic pregnancy, or it could be an elective abortion.”

The case reached the Supreme Court within two years of ADF originally filing the lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where ADF wrote the FDA “exceeded its regulatory authority” when it originally approved mifepristone in 2000.

ADF filed the case on behalf of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Pediatricians and Christian Medical & Dental Associations, as well as four doctors from California, Indiana, Michigan and Texas.

Kacsmaryk ruling started journey to high court

Judge Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk essentially agreed with the anti-abortion groups, in a ruling in April 2023, where he wrote he did “not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly.”

“But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns — in violation of its statutory duty — based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions,” Kacsmaryk wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay at the request of the Justice Department, which put the district court’s ruling on hold until the appeal process could work itself out.

The Justice Department also appealed the district court’s ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana, where a three-judge panel heard the case in May 2023.

The panel — composed of Jennifer Walker Elrod, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, as well as James C. Ho and Cory T. Wilson, who were both appointed by former President Donald Trump — issued its ruling in August 2023.

The appeals court disagreed with the district court’s ruling that mifepristone’s original approval should be overturned, though it said that the FDA erred in making changes to prescribing guidelines in 2016 and 2021.

“It failed to consider the cumulative effect of removing several important safeguards at the same time. It failed to consider whether those ‘major’ and ‘interrelated’ changes might alter the risk profile, such that the agency should continue to mandate reporting of non-fatal adverse events,” the appeals judges wrote. “And it failed to gather evidence that affirmatively showed that mifepristone could be used safely without being prescribed and dispensed in person.”

That ruling didn’t take effect under the Supreme Court’s earlier stay.

The Department of Justice wrote to the high court weeks later in September, urging the justices to take up an appeal of the 5th Circuit’s decision.

“The loss of access to mifepristone would be damaging for women and healthcare providers around the Nation,” the DOJ wrote in the 42-page document. “For many patients, mifepristone is the best method to lawfully terminate their early pregnancies. They may choose mifepristone over surgical abortion because of medical necessity, a desire for privacy, or past trauma.”

Briefs filed with court

Dozens of abortion rights organizations and lawmakers filed so-called amicus curiae or friend of the court briefs to the Supreme Court calling on the justices to keep access to mifepristone in line with the FDA guidelines.

A group of more than 16 medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association, wrote that “restricting access to mifepristone will not only jeopardize health, but worsen racial and economic inequities and deprive women of the choices that are at the very core of individual autonomy and wellbeing.”

Anti-abortion groups and lawmakers opposed to mifepristone wrote numerous briefs as well.

Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming sent in a 28-page brief.

They wrote that the availability of mifepristone undermined states’ rights, since some of their states had sought to restrict abortion below the 10 weeks approved for mifepristone use or had sought to bar access to medication abortion.

“The FDA’s actions undermine these laws, undercut States’ efforts to enforce them, and thus erode the federalism the Constitution deems vital,” the attorneys general wrote. “Given these harms to federalism, this Court should view the FDA’s actions with skepticism.”

During oral arguments in March, several Supreme Court justices brought up conscience protections that insulate health care workers from having to assist with or perform procedures they have a religious objection to, like abortion.

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she was “worried that there is a significant mismatch in this case between the claimed injury and the remedy that’s being sought.”

“The obvious, common-sense remedy would be to provide them with an exemption that they don’t have to participate in this procedure,” Jackson said.

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch said the case seemed “like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule, or any other federal government action.”

by Jennifer Shutt, Virginia Mercury

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and X.

Nearly three weeks after the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration proposed loosening a federal prohibition on marijuana, the next phases of policy fights over the drug’s status are starting to take shape.

Public comments, which the DEA is accepting on the proposal until mid-July, will likely include an analysis of the economic impact of more lenient federal rules.

Administrative law hearings, a venue for opponents to challenge executive branch decisions, will likely follow, with marijuana’s potential for abuse a possible issue.

Congress, meanwhile, could act on multiple related issues, including banking access for state-legal marijuana businesses and proposals to help communities harmed by the decades of federal prohibition.

U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat from Oregon and longtime advocate for legalizing marijuana who’s retiring at the end of the year, is encouraging his colleagues to build on the administration’s action by taking up bills on those related issues.

The politics of the issue should favor action, even in the face of an upcoming campaign season that typically slows legislative action, Blumenauer said in a May 17 interview, noting the popularity of a more permissive approach to the drug.

“Congress may not do a lot between now and November, but they should,” the 14-term House member said. “Because it’s an election year, there’s no downside to being more aggressive.”

Economic impact

In a proposed rule published in the Federal Register last month, the DEA specifically asked commenters to weigh in on the economic impacts of moving the drug from Schedule I to the less-restrictive Schedule III list under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

That will likely mean the agency will consider the impact of allowing state-legal marijuana businesses to deduct business expenses from their federal taxes, Mason Tvert, a partner at Denver-based cannabis policy and public affairs firm Strategies 64, said in an interview. Under current law, no deductions are allowed.

That issue is seen by advocates, including Blumenauer and fellow Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, who chairs the tax-writing U.S. Senate Finance Committee, as paramount for the industry.

Thousands of state-legal businesses struggle to earn a profit or operate at a loss under the current system, Blumenauer said.

Potential for abuse

The DEA typically looks at three factors when assessing how strictly to regulate a drug: its medicinal value, potential for abuse relative to other drugs and ability to cause physical addiction.

A 2023 analysis by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that looked at data from states where medicinal marijuana is legal showed that “there exists some credible scientific support for the medical use of marijuana.”

That finding could lead DEA to look at other factors, Tvert said.

“The battleground that we’ll see will be around how we define potential for abuse,” he said.

Agencies split?

But the DEA proposed rule revealed a divided view among government agencies about the drug’s potential harms, Paul Armentano, the deputy director for the longtime leading advocacy group National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, told States Newsroom.

The text of the proposed rule shows “a lack of consensus” among HHS, the Attorney General’s Office and the Drug Enforcement Administration, he said.

“There are several points in the DEA’s proposed rule where they express a desire to see additional evidence specific to concerns that the agency has about the potential effects of cannabis, particularly as they pertain to abuse potential and potential harms,” Armentano said.

“The HHS addresses those issues, but the DEA essentially says, ‘We’d like to see more information on it.’”

Kevin Sabat, the president and CEO of the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, agreed that the DEA did not appear to agree with the HHS conclusion that medical uses exist.

The proposed rule “just brings up all these issues with the HHS’s determination and it basically invites comment on all those issues,” he said.

Administrative law hearing

Sabat’s group will also be petitioning for a DEA administrative hearing, he said. An administrative law judge could rule that the proposal should not go through or that it should be amended to remain stricter than the initial proposal described.

“We’re going to highlight the fact that, first of all, this does not have approved or accepted medical use,” he said.

Tvert said the accepted medical value question is likely not to be a major factor in an administrative law hearing. Several medical organizations and states that allow medicinal use have already endorsed its medicinal value, he said.

Instead, the focus will turn to the drug’s potential for abuse, he said.

“What will be critical is looking at cannabis relative to other substances that are currently II or III or not on the schedule, and determining whether cannabis should be on Schedule I when alcohol is not even on the schedules and ketamine is Schedule III.”

As of June 6, nearly 12,000 people had commented on the proposal in the 18 days since its publication.

While opinion polls show that most Americans favor liberalizing cannabis laws — a Pew Research Center survey in March found 57% of U.S. adults favor full legalization while only 11% say it should be entirely illegal — the public comments so far represent a full spectrum of views on the topic.

“This rule is a horrible idea, this should remain in Schedule I,” one comment read. “Marijuana is a gateway drug and ruins lives.”

“There are no negative side effects to its use,” another commenter, who favored “fully” legalizing the substance, wrote. “Its not harmful. The only harm is what the government has done to me and America. Shame on the people that continue to oppose this. Seriously shame on anyone that would stand in the way of this change.”

Congressional action?

Blumenauer authored a memo last month on “the path forward” for reform as the rescheduling process plays out.

He listed four bills for Congress to consider this year.

One, sponsored by House Democrats, would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substance Act schedule entirely and expunge prior offenses.

A bipartisan bill would make changes to the banking laws to allow state-legal businesses greater access to loans and other financial services.

Another, cosponsored with Florida Republican Brian Mast, would allow Veterans Administration health providers to discuss state-legal medicinal marijuana with veteran patients.

Blumenauer has also co-written language for appropriations bills that would prevent the Department of Justice from prosecuting marijuana businesses that are legal under state or tribal law.

“All of these things are overwhelmingly popular, they’re important, we have legislative vehicles and supporters,” he said.

Still, there may be disagreements about what to pursue next.

Recent years have seen disagreements among Democratic supporters of legalization over whether to prioritize banking or criminal justice reforms.

A banking overhaul has much greater bipartisan support, and advocates on all sides of the issue agree it’s the most likely to see congressional action.

But some who support changes to banking laws in principle object to focusing on improving the business environment without first addressing the harms they say prohibition has caused to largely non-white and disadvantaged communities.

As recently as 2021, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer described banking reform legislation as too narrow. Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, called it a “common-sense policy” but said that he favored a more comprehensive approach.

“I’ve gone around with Cory on that,” Blumenauer said. “More than anybody in Congress, I’m in favor of the major reforms, and we’ve been fighting for racial justice and equity … but (racial justice and banking reforms) are not mutually exclusive.”

In September, Booker agreed to co-sponsor the banking reform bill after winning a promise from Schumer that a separate bill to help expunge criminal records would also receive a vote. Neither measure has actually received a floor vote.

In a statement following the administration’s announcement on rescheduling, Booker praised the move, but called for further action from Congress.

That includes passing a bill he’s sponsored that would decriminalize the drug at the federal level, expunge the records of people convicted of federal marijuana crimes and direct federal funding to communities “most harmed by the failed War on Drugs,” according to a summary from Booker’s office.

“We still have a long way to go,” Booker said in the statement on rescheduling. “Thousands of people remain in prisons around the country for marijuana-related crimes. They continue to bear the devastating consequences that come with a criminal history.”

Blumenauer said Congress should act on the proposals that have widespread support from voters.

“This not low-hanging fruit, this is having them pick it up off the ground,” he said. “There is no other controversial issue that has as much bipartisan support that’s awaiting action.”

by Jacob Fischler, Virginia Mercury

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.

WASHINGTON — When a Purple Heart recipient named Pat reached out to U.S. Sen. Patty Murray in November to inform her that he couldn’t transfer his GI bill benefits to his children, he wasn’t expecting congressional action to solve the problem.

He simply just wanted to let the Washington state Democrat know, he told States Newsroom in an exclusive interview.

With a child about to head to college, Pat, who didn’t want his last name used, had recently been told by the Army that he couldn’t transfer his education benefits to them because he received the Purple Heart after he was medically discharged. This rule does not apply to those who receive the medal while still in service.

Murray and Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, introduced a bipartisan bill Thursday aimed at closing that loophole.

The legislation, titled the Purple Heart Veterans Education Act, would permit retroactive award recipients who served on or after Sept. 11, 2001 to transfer their education benefits to one or more dependents. It was unveiled just ahead of Memorial Day, when the nation honors its deceased service members.

“As the daughter of a Purple Heart recipient, I’ve seen firsthand the enormous sacrifices Purple Heart veterans make to defend our freedoms, and I feel strongly that we should be doing absolutely everything we can to help all veterans and their families thrive,” Murray said in a statement Thursday.

“It doesn’t make any sense that service members who are awarded a Purple Heart after their service can’t transfer their GI benefits to their dependents, while those who receive it during their service can—and I am grateful to Pat, my constituent in Washington state who brought this gap in the law to my attention,” continued Murray, a senior member of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs.

“Our legislation will close this loophole and allow more children of Purple Heart veterans to further their education. I want to thank Senator Tillis for joining me on this legislation and I’ll be working hard to get it passed into law.”

Virginia recognizes Purple Heart recipients and their service in a variety of ways and has historic connections to the award. The oldest military honor in the United States, the Purple Heart dates back to 1782 when it was established by then-General George Washington — a native of Westmoreland County, Virginia — to commemorate the bravery of select Continental Army soldiers during the American Revolution.

“Sergeant William Brown was awarded the decoration for his gallantry while assaulting British positions at Yorktown in October 1781,” according to the Army Historical Foundation.

The Military Order of the Purple Heart, “the only veterans service organization comprised strictly of ‘combat’ veterans,” is headquartered in Springfield, Virginia. The organization created the Purple Heart Trails program; the trail’s origin point is in Virginia at Mt. Vernon, where Washington is buried, and extends the length of Interstate 95 through the state.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin decreed August 7, 2023 as Purple Heart Day in Virginia and the state offers special license plates commemorating the prestigious award.

Glitch in education benefits

Pat was medically discharged from the U.S. Army and retroactively received a Purple Heart for his actions during Iran’s retaliatory missile barrage in January 2020 on an Iraq airbase, after a U.S. drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

The Army later approved 39 Purple Hearts for service members who experienced the attack, according to a December 2021 report by the Army Times.

As his teenager looks to enroll at Central Washington University next year, Pat found out that by law his education benefits would only be available for transfer if he had received the award while still in service.

“My thought was, ‘I doubt that legislators would have done that intentionally.’ I just thought, you know, people probably just didn’t think about how that happens — that some people are going to get retroactive Purple Hearts, or for whatever reason in evaluating them, they’re delayed. So it’s not like an unusual thing,” Pat said in a phone interview.

“I wasn’t thinking much was going to happen, but I just wanted to write Senator Murray, who is my local senator, and let her know the issue. They responded by saying, ‘That’s an oversight on our part, and we want to make good on that.’”

Pat said he’s “grateful for Sen. Murray” and hopes his action is able to help other Purple Heart veterans. For now, his family is moving forward with the college enrollment process for his child, he said.

Benefits and dependents

Among the provisions in the legislation, Murray and Tillis’ bill would also allow veterans to split up 36 months worth of benefits to each of their dependents. For example, they could transfer 20 months to one and 16 months to another.

The bill, if enacted, would also prohibit the benefits from being treated as marital property or a marital estate asset.

And, the bill would permit dependents to access unused benefits if their veteran family member has died.

“Purple Heart recipients are heroes who honorably served our country at great costs, and this oversight that prevents servicemembers who received this distinguished award after their service from transferring their GI bill benefits to their dependents needs to be corrected immediately,” Tillis said in a statement Thursday.

“I am proud to co-introduce this commonsense legislation with Senator Murray to close this loophole and ensure every Purple Heart recipient and dependents are able to further their education,” continued Tillis, who also sits on the Senate’s Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

The number of veterans who retroactively received the Purple Heart after their post-9/11 service is unclear. The bill is estimated to cost $500,000 in mandatory spending over 10 years, according to an informal analysis provided to Murray’s office by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The bill has received praise from veterans groups, including the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

“Unfortunately, not every veteran’s service and sacrifice on behalf of the United States of America is fully recognized while they’re still in uniform,” IAVA CEO and Iraq War veteran Allison Jaslow said in a statement Thursday.

“The Purple Heart Veterans Education Act ensures that those veterans who’ve endured bodily harm on behalf of our nation, but weren’t recognized for it until their service concluded, are able to turn that recognition into an investment in the education of their loved ones.”

More Purple Heart recipients

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have “greatly increased” the number of Purple Heart recipients as the Department of Defense has added some traumatic brain injuries as a recognized condition for the award, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

It wasn’t until a 2017 law that Purple Heart recipients were able to receive full post-9/11 GI Bill benefits regardless of their length of service. Previously, the recipients had to have 36 months of active service.

The Department of Defense does not maintain a record of the number of recipients, according to the CRS, but by law they do maintain a publicly accessible list with the permission of the veteran or next of kin.

Military historians and the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor estimate about 1.8 million Purple Hearts have been awarded since 1932. The Army Historical Foundation estimated as of 2016 that 30,000 Purple Hearts had been awarded since 2001. The CRS cited this statistic.

by Ashley Murray, Virginia Mercury

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.

WASHINGTON — The race to harness the tax code is in full swing as economists and advocates across the political spectrum view the expiring Trump-era tax law as an opportunity to advance their economic priorities.

Democratic Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington said Wednesday that reworking the tax code will be “a reflection of what your values are.”

DelBene, who sits on the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy, said her priorities include modernizing the tax code, raising revenue via carbon fees on imported goods, and making permanent an expanded child tax credit akin to the temporary changes in place during the pandemic.

“The top line is starting from what our values and goals are, and then looking at what the policies are that help us get there,” DelBene said at a Politico-sponsored discussion on proposed tax law changes.

The early morning event at Washington’s Union Station brought together tax experts and advocates from Georgetown University Law Center, the Urban Institute, the Heritage Foundation and Groundwork Collaborative.

Tax overhaul

The massive tax overhaul ushered in under the Trump administration permanently cut the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%. The 2017 law, championed by Republicans as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, also put in place several temporary measures for corporations and small businesses. Some are phasing out or already expired, including immediate deductions for certain investments.

Temporary changes for households included marginal tax rate cuts across the board, a doubling of the child tax credit, and a near doubling of the standard deduction — all of which are set to expire Dec. 31, 2025.

A bipartisan bill to temporarily extend the expiring business incentives and expand the child tax credit beyond 2025 sailed through the U.S. House in late January, but has been stalled by U.S. Senate Republicans who oppose some of the child tax credit expansion proposals.

A May 2024 nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report estimated extending the tax cuts would cost roughly $4.6 trillion over 10 years. The bulk of the cost would stem from keeping in place individual tax cuts, according to an analysis of the report by the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Critics of the 2017 law point to a recent March analysis from academics and members of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Federal Reserve that shows that the law’s benefits flowed to the highest earners.

DelBene said revisiting the corporate tax rate, even on the Republican side, is “on the table” and lawmakers will be talking about “where the TCJA wasn’t about investing and making sure that we were being fiscally responsible.”

‘Incredibly bullish’

Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, said Wednesday she’s “incredibly bullish” on elected officials making “fundamental changes” to the tax code next year.

The progressive think tank sent a letter Wednesday to House and Senate leadership and top tax writers urging them “to use the expiration of these provisions as an opportunity to address long-standing problems with our tax code, not just to tinker around the edges.”

The letter was signed by 100 organizations from across the U.S., ranging from the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers to the National Women’s Law Center and United Church of Christ.

Stephen Moore, who helped write the Trump-era tax law and is now the conservative Heritage Foundation’s senior visiting fellow in economics, said the 2017 law was a “huge success” and that “we’re gonna definitely make those tax cuts permanent.”

Moore is an economic adviser for former President Donald Trump’s reelection effort, but said he was not speaking on behalf of the presidential campaign.

He said he does not agree with Trump on everything, including a promise to enact 10% tariffs on imported goods, reaching as high as 60% on Chinese imports.

“A tariff is just a consumption tax,” he said. “And so you know, I think that it is not a great policy, in my opinion. But if you’re gonna have a tariff, I would rather have a tariff that is uniform than trying to have, like, a protectionist tariff to, you know, protect this industry or that industry.”

When pressed on data that shows funding the Internal Revenue Service increases revenue, Moore said that President Joe Biden’s increase in funding for the agency is “diabolical.”

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.

WASHINGTON — The Republican-led House Wednesday passed a bill to add a citizenship question to the decennial census and exclude non-citizens from the population count used to determine federal representation.

No House Democrats voted for the bill, which passed along party lines 206-202. The vote sends the bill to the Democratic-controlled Senate, where it is unlikely to move forward.

Census data determines the number of congressional districts in each state and the amounts of federal funding distributed to each state.

“Common sense dictates that only American citizens should be counted for electoral apportionment,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R–Louisiana, said in a statement after the vote.

Johnson said including non-citizens in congressional reapportionment rewards illegal immigration and cities with relaxed immigration policies with more representation.

However, Democrats argued Wednesday that the bill would unfairly harm people who came to the country both legally and illegally with less federal funding and weaker representation of their communities.

“We don’t need to start finger-painting on the Constitution with this silly election-year proposal,”  Rep. Jamie Raskin, D–Maryland, said on the House floor. “This is a land that is built on immigration.”

The census last included a citizenship question in 1950. During his presidency, Donald Trump attempted to add the question to the 2020 census but was blocked by the Supreme Court.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D–New York, was critical of the citizenship question in 2019 when he accused Trump of “intimidating communities of color.” House Republicans want only the number of U.S. citizens in an area to count for representation. If enacted, this legislation could decrease federal representation for states with large immigrant populations, including California, Florida, and Texas.

“The mere presence of illegal immigrants in the United States is having a profound impact on the outcomes of elections, skewing the representation of Americans,” Rep. Chuck Edwards, R–North Carolina, said on the House floor.

Edwards, the bill’s sponsor, added that non-citizens have no allegiance to the United States and should not count for representation.

Rep. Nanette Barragán, D–California, countered that adding a citizenship question would have a “chilling effect” on census participation by immigrant communities.

Opponents of the bill said that immigrant communities might be afraid to answer the census with a citizenship question over fears of being reported to law enforcement agencies.

“This would deprive immigrants of representation and resources,” Barragán said.

Johnny Zuagar, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Census Council 241, told Capital News Service Tuesday that Trump’s push for adding the question to the 2020 census caused chaos and difficulty for census workers.

Zuagar said U.S. Census Bureau employees had to work hard to regain trust in immigrant communities. “Our staff has done a great job of just trying to build relationships throughout the country with different groups, especially Hispanic groups,” Zuagar said. “We just don’t want to add more challenges.”

Census employees cannot legally provide identifiable information to anyone, including law enforcement.

By KATHARINE WILSON
Capital News Service

WASHINGTON – Maryland federal and state lawmakers and local education groups are speaking out against allowing teachers to carry firearms in classrooms, adding that they are confident that a bill allowing such a practice won’t come to fruition in the state.

“The simple truth is that the vast majority of Americans want commonsense reforms like stronger background checks and an assault weapons ban to keep our schools safe from the epidemic of gun violence,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, said in a statement.

He added: “Despite that, some legislators continue to press for policies like this one in Tennessee to allow for concealed carry for handguns on school grounds. It’s a misguided and dangerous approach that undermines the safety and well-being of both students and educators.”

Maryland is one of 14 states, and the District of Columbia has some law preventing school boards from giving K-12 educators the authority to carry firearms, according to the nonprofit firearm training organization Faster Saves Lives.

Maryland law prevents anyone from carrying or possessing a firearm in public and private K-12 schools, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a nonprofit based in California.

The law was extended to higher education institutions in March 2023.

Tennessee is the most recent state to pass legislation in stark contrast to Maryland’s law.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed a law on April 26 allowing teachers and other school staff members to carry firearms on school grounds. The law was passed after three 9-year-old students and three adults were killed last March in a shooting by a former student at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.

“There are no circumstances where educators should carry weapons on school property,” said Cheryl Bost, president of the Maryland State Education Association. “Our educators are trained professionals in the field of education. And that’s what we want to do in our classrooms and our work sites, whether that’s bus drivers, secretaries or teachers.”

Tennessee teachers still need approval from their school’s director and principal to carry firearms. Educators would also have to obtain a handgun permit and complete at least 40 hours of approved training from the Police Officer Standards and Training Commission in addition to the 40 hours of basic training.

“That is a pretty insignificant amount of time,” said Maryland Del. Jared Solomon, a Democrat. “Considering the amount of time that law enforcement has to train and create scenarios and figure out how to confront these kinds of situations.”

Solomon started his career as a high school teacher in Baltimore City before moving to the policy side of education. He believes that another problematic aspect of Tennessee’s bill is that it won’t allow parents to be notified if their students’ teachers are carrying guns.

“If you didn’t want your child in a classroom with a teacher that was carrying a gun, you wouldn’t have that option, which I think is not really parental choice,” Solomon said. “I know certainly, I would not want my child in a classroom where the teacher is carrying a weapon.”

Mark Pennak, president of the gun owners’ rights organization Maryland Shall Issue, doesn’t see Tennessee’s law as a problem.

Pennak believes that teachers serve as the “first line of defense for students” and that those willing to be trained and who can carry a gun should be allowed to.

“The whole idea of concealed carry is that the mass killer intruder does not know who is armed,” Pennak said in an email. “If the information is shared with parents, that advantage will disappear, and the armed teacher would be in the same position as the uniformed school resource officer – the first target.”

Pennak added that programs, like the nonprofit organization FASTER, help train school faculty to ensure that they are not risking the students’ safety.

“Trained teachers do not put their children at risk,” Pennak said.“That is what the training is for. And any such minimal risk is far outweighed by the protection that an armed teacher can provide right at the outset of a school shooting.”

The number of school shootings in K-12 schools in the United States has increased each year from 2021 to 2023, according to the K-12 School Shooting Database created by data scientist David Riedman.

The database defines a school shooting as an incident where a “gun is fired, brandished (pointed at a person with intent), or a bullet hits school property, regardless of the number of victims, time, day, or reason.”

In 2021, 256 shootings were recorded in the database. That number jumped to 308 school shootings in 2022 and 348 in 2023.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, said he does not believe that allowing educators and other school professionals to carry guns would solve the mass shooting epidemic in schools.

“We do not need more guns in schools, and we do not need educators and other school professionals carrying guns,” Cardin said in a statement. “Teachers are hired to teach, not be security guards. The answer to stemming the epidemic of gun violence in our schools is not to bring more guns into the schools.”

Jaime Lennon, spokeswoman for Maryland Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, said that the possibility of a bill like Tennessee’s being introduced at the federal level is slim. Lennon added that no research suggests that arming teachers would solve the problem.

“Congressman Ruppersberger would strongly oppose it in any event, quite simply, because teachers have stated over and over that they do not want to carry guns into their classrooms,” Lennon said. “There is also zero scientific evidence that this is a realistic solution to an incredibly complex problem. If more guns equaled less violence, we would be the safest country on the globe.”

Maryland Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer said “Marylanders have long known that the answer to stopping mass shootings does not lie in increasing the number of firearms on American streets.”

“I’m disappointed to see this law passed in Tennessee, but I remain confident that under the leadership of Governor (Wes) Moore and our strong Democratic delegation – Maryland will continue to be a state that works towards ending gun violence once and for all,” Hoyer said.

Both Bost and Solomon said they were confident that the Maryland legislature would not allow teachers to carry guns in schools anytime soon.

“We’ve really instituted a lot of strong firearm safety standards and laws in the state that I think are a much better step forward than just saying we’re going to introduce more firearms into a school and leave that task to a teacher,” Solomon said.

Bost added that a deeper investment in school counselors and psychologists to help students deal with trauma, along with reducing class sizes to help teachers better cultivate relationships with students, could help prevent situations where students feel the need to resort to violence.

“Guns have never been, and will never be an answer, whether it’s in our society or our schools,” Bost said. “It’s actually getting into our classes and providing the resources. We are doing a good job with that here in Maryland. We can always do better.”

Maryland Del. Susan McComas, a Republican, agreed that the state would never pass a law similar to Tennessee’s legislation, adding that Maryland should consider using resources officers who can work with students.

“There are just too many what ifs and scenarios where a teacher might be attacked by a distraught student or a group of students to get the gun,”  McComas said, referring to Tennessee’s law.

By TORRENCE BANKS
Capital News Service