ACE

Blog

  • Pros and Cons of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023

    Pros and Cons of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023

    Background Information

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the patent landscape, creating an influx of patent applications that mirrors a rise in modern-day innovation. However, the discussion of patentable inventions under U.S. law lags behind. The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 (PERA) aims to address this by reversing court rulings that have narrowed the scope of patent eligibility in emerging fields like AI. Ultimately, PERA stands at the intersection of technology, law, and political ideology, shaping the role of government in maintaining intellectual property (IP).

    Supreme Court decisions in Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice v. CLS are widely recognized as turning points in patent law. The cases, which restricted patent eligibility for abstract ideas and natural laws, marked the first narrowing of patent eligibility since the 1950s. PERA would “eliminate all judicial exceptions” to patent law in an attempt to remedy the confusion caused by the Mayo and Alice rulings. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) in 2023. Its House companion was introduced by Representatives Scott Peters (D-CA) Kevin Kiley (R-CA) in 2024. While it received bipartisan support and a hearing in the Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee, PERA ultimately died in committee at the end of the 118th Congress. 

    PERA presents three key advantages: 

    1. Economic and Innovation Benefits: Boosts innovation and economic growth.
    2. International Competitiveness:  Secures U.S. innovation against global competitors.
    3. Expansion of AI and other emerging technologies:  Clarifies AI patent eligibility to strengthen U.S. leadership on the global stage.

    In terms of economic and innovative benefits, the United States Patent and Trademark Office advocates for PERA as a catalyst for innovation. It specifically states that small to medium-sized firms “need clear intellectual property laws that incentivize innovation…[as it’s] critical for job creation, economic prosperity,” in addition to several extended impacts. Furthermore, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), argues that PERA enacts clearer policies that will generate efficient product development and innovation, improving both industry standards and marginal utility for the consumer. Wilson Sonsini, a nonpartisan outlet that conducts the legal analysis, finds that the bill would in fact reverse the stagnation of innovation. In a written testimony submitted to the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, law professor Adam Mossoff argued that PERA is essential for restoring American dominance in global innovation and patent sectors.

    PERA not only aims to improve U.S. innovation and investment, but also clarifies AI patentability to bolster America’s edge on the global stage. According to Republican Representative Kevin Kiley, the U.S. must expand patentability to compete with China, emphasizing PERA as a key to gaining a competitive edge through clearer patent laws. In an interview with Representative Kiley, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found that China’s approach to intellectual property poses a significant threat to American innovation and prosperity, strengthening the case for PERA. Senator Coons, a PERA co-sponsor, believes that the bill is necessary to help the U.S. catch up to Europe and China in the realm of AI patent law. 

    Other supporters argue that PERA’s expansion of patentability will open the door to advancement in domestic AI technology. A multinational law firm argues that expanding patent eligibility to AI models and business methods is crucial for the development of the U.S. technology industry. By broadening patentability, PERA can reduce the backlog of unsuccessful patents, sparing inventors from having to revalidate their claims. To reinforce this, the global law firm McDermott Will & Emery contends that PERA reduces ambiguity in patent eligibility by defining AI-related patents and human involvement in AI inventions.

    However, while PERA offers significant benefits for innovation, global competitiveness, and emerging technologies, it also raises concerns about potential drawbacks, including the risk of overly broad patents and unintended legal complexities. 

    PERA presents three key disadvantages:

    1. Overbroad Patentability: Risks limiting access to life-saving technologies.
    2. Hurting Small Inventors: Creates an ambiguous legal landscape that only large corporations can afford to navigate.
    3. Ethical and Global Concerns: Conflicts with global patent norms, risking international relations. 

    The NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law highlights concerns that broadening patent eligibility could negatively impact the life sciences sector by creating barriers between consumers and newly-patented technologies. It argues that PERA undermines the balance between rewards gained from innovation and public accessibility to products they depend on. Another critique from the Center for Innovation Promotion finds that PERA disrupts established legal standards, creating uncertainty in the patent system. Its broad eligibility could stifle innovation by exacerbating patent disruptions instead of encouraging progress and innovation. 

    Other critics worry that PERA could negatively impact small businesses. U.S. Inventor, an inventor’s rights advocacy group, critiques the bill for creating a complex legal landscape that only large corporations can afford to navigate. It argues that PERA lacks definitions for most of its crucial terms will only create more confusion, stating, “Investment into anything that risks falling into PERA’s undefined ineligibility exclusions will be hobbled.”

    PERA also raises ethical concerns, particularly in its treatment of genetic material, which may conflict with international patent standards. According to the NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, these discrepancies could lead to tensions between U.S. patent law and global practices, disrupting international collaborations and agreements. The BIOSECURE Report emphasizes PERA’s potential for significant harm to global patent standardization, as countries may struggle to reconcile U.S. policies with their own systems. These challenges could strain international relations, as nations may view PERA’s approach as a threat to their sovereignty and global patent harmony.

    The Status Quo and Future of PERA

    PERA was proposed in a time of heightened awareness and discussion of IP policy. With regard to national security concerns, the Foreign Affairs House Report finds Chinese IP theft against U.S. companies, emphasizing China’s competitive threat in innovation. Similarly, Reuters reports on Tesla’s IP theft case, showcasing ongoing challenges in protecting American technology. These challenges in protecting American innovation set the stage for potential policy shifts under a Trump presidency. According to IP Watchdog, changes in IP law could influence public trust and perceptions of America’s stance on innovation and patent protection. However, as Wolf Greenfield Think Tank notes, broader geopolitical implications, especially regarding competition with China in biotech and AI patents, may not fully align with Trump’s campaign vision. Additionally, Senate Judiciary reports highlight how bipartisan concerns over innovation could shape the future prospects of bills like PERA, with legislative gridlock potentially influencing amendments throughout the current presidential term and beyond. This gridlock could ultimately lead to a slower passing of patent-related legislation.

    Conclusion

    While PERA aims to expand patent eligibility and boost economic growth, critics are wary of overbroad patents, harm to small inventors and businesses, and geopolitical conflicts. Striking a balance between innovation, equity, and competition remains essential to ensuring a patent system that fosters progress without preventing accessibility.

  • Maternal Mortality Review Committees and the PMDR Reauthorization of 2023: Key Perspectives

    Maternal Mortality Review Committees and the PMDR Reauthorization of 2023: Key Perspectives

    Introduction

    The United States faces a maternal mortality crisis, with maternal death rates significantly higher than other high-income nations. According to the CDC, maternal mortality disproportionately affects Black, Indigenous, and rural communities, with Black women experiencing maternal deaths at 2.6 times the rate of White women. The factors contributing to these disparities are complex and include unequal access to quality healthcare, socioeconomic barriers, and more. Despite advancements in healthcare, 80% of maternal deaths are preventable through timely medical intervention and comprehensive data collection. 

    What are MMRCs?

    State-based Maternal Mortality Review Committees (MMRCs) have been shown to play a pivotal role in analyzing maternal deaths to recommend evidence-based interventions. MMRCs are multidisciplinary teams that examine maternal deaths occurring during pregnancy or within one year postpartum. They utilize comprehensive data sources, including medical records, autopsy reports, and social service information. MMRCs assess preventability and contributing factors, allowing them to identify patterns and propose targeted policy solutions. Their review process centers on critical questions related to medical factors, social determinants, delays in care, and provider bias. By systematically addressing these factors, MMRCs generate insights that inform strategies to reduce preventable maternal deaths, which comprise 20% to 50% of all maternal deaths in the U.S.

    However, MMRCs face inconsistent funding and regulatory barriers, limiting their ability to track and analyze maternal deaths across states. Disparities in data collection methods and access to comprehensive patient records further hinder efforts to address maternal health inequities. Some states lack the authority to access certain medical records, while others experience delays in data sharing, reducing the timeliness and effectiveness of recommendations. Without consistent federal funding, many MMRCs struggle to maintain operations, particularly in rural and underserved areas, where maternal health disparities are often most pronounced. 

    Introduction to the Preventing Maternal Deaths Reauthorization Act

    The Preventing Maternal Deaths Reauthorization Act of 2023 (PMDR) was introduced to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by Congresswoman Robin Kelly (D-IL) on May 18, 2023. The bill passed out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee in Fall 2023 and passed the House with bipartisan support in March 2024. However, the bill failed to pass the Senate before the end of the legislative calendar, rendering the bill “dead”. The reauthorization built upon the original Preventing Maternal Deaths Act of 2018, which helped establish and fund state-based Maternal Mortality Review Committees (MMRCs) to investigate maternal deaths and identify preventable causes. It sought to extend funding for MMRCs, enhance data collection, and address racial disparities in maternal health outcomes through the following provisions:

    1. Extending funding for state-level MMRCs to continue investigating maternal deaths
    2. Authorizing $58 million annually for the CDC to support state-level efforts
    3. Enhancing data collection on factors related to maternal health outcomes, particularly for minority populations
    4. Strengthening community-based interventions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities 
    5. Enhancing coordination among agencies to implement evidence-based solutions
    6. Expanding research on social determinants of maternal health 

    Arguments in Support

    Proponents of the PMDR Act of 2023 argue that the bill provides critical support for tried and true interventions to prevent maternal deaths. They emphasize that scientific literature identifies state-based MMRCs as the “gold standard” for preventing maternal deaths due to their multidisciplinary analysis. However, inconsistent funding threatens the effectiveness of MMRCs, particularly in states with high maternal mortality rates. In a letter to Congress, 125 public health and social services associations urged legislators to treat the PMDR as a top-priority bill, stressing the nation’s consistently high maternal mortality rate. Several national associations, including the American Medical Association, argue that continued federal funding is crucial to preventing maternal deaths. They highlight that past funding gaps resulted in reduced MMRC operations, hospital closures, and increased barriers to care. Supporters contend that the only way to ensure MMRCs can continue their vital work without funding disruptions is to pass the PMDR.

    Proponents of the PMDR Act also highlight its potential to promote health equity. Beyond identifying risk factors, MMRCs are critical in addressing racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in maternal health by filling critical knowledge gaps on the drivers of maternal mortality in underserved populations. The PMDR Act directly supports these efforts by requiring MMRCs to report on disparities in maternal care and propose solutions. Federal support through this bill enables MMRCs to strengthen provider training, expand access to prenatal care, and address structural barriers contributing to maternal deaths. Without reauthorization, proponents argue, efforts to close maternal health gaps would be fragmented, leaving vulnerable populations without necessary protections.

    Arguments in Opposition

    The most prominent critique of the PMDR Act is that it focuses too heavily on MMRCs. Critics voiced concerns about MMRCs’ inconsistency, lack of accountability, and failure to acknowledge all social determinants of health. 

    Opponents highlight that legal and logistical challenges, such as data collection issues and lack of legal protections for participants, can create disparities in MMRC operations. Rural populations, who face higher maternal mortality rates and limited access to care, are often overlooked in MMRCs, further exacerbating disparities. Additionally, bureaucratic barriers and state laws limiting community involvement in MMRCs reduce their effectiveness in addressing maternal health challenges. 

    Others argue that MMRCs lack accountability, particularly regarding inclusivity and equitable decision-making. Advocates contend that MMRCs often exclude community representatives or organizations that challenge the status quo, prioritizing clinical expertise over individuals with lived experience. This exclusion can foster distrust, as community members may feel their knowledge and perspective are undervalued. The lack of compensation for community members to attend all-day MMRC meetings – unlike salaried clinicians – adds another barrier, further entrenching inequalities. Laws that impose burdensome requirements on MMRCs further complicate the process and reduce diversity in ideas. Opponents of the PMDR contend that these factors contribute to a lack of accountability from MMRCs, preventing them from fully creating lasting and inclusive solutions. 

    Finally, critics assert that MMRCs often fail to adequately address the underlying social determinants of health that contribute to maternal mortality. While MMRCs focus on clinical factors, such as healthcare quality and implicit bias, they can lack the frameworks to assess other social determinants like housing instability, food insecurity, or socioeconomic status. Often, these factors are deeply rooted in the broader healthcare system and community environments. Critics argue that the absence of these social factors in MMRC reviews limits the committees’ ability to develop holistic prevention solutions. Reports suggest MMRCs could benefit from incorporating a health equity framework and utilizing socio-spatial measures to address the full spectrum of challenges mothers face. Without this consideration, critics argue that MMRCs fall short of offering effective solutions to reduce maternal deaths and disparities. 

    Due to these critiques of MMRCs, critics of the PMDR argue that the bill should allocate more funding toward alternate interventions 

    Conclusion 

    The Preventing Maternal Deaths Reauthorization Act of 2023 represented an effort to extend investment in evidence-based maternal health interventions. While it received strong bipartisan support in the House, it died before a vote in the Senate, leaving MMRC funding uncertain in the years to come. While the bill was applauded for its potential to expand access to maternal care and fill critical knowledge gaps on maternal mortality factors, critics argued it placed too much emphasis on an intervention that lacked consistency and accountability to marginalized communities. 

    Future Outlook

    The Trump administration has implemented significant changes to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including halting medical research funding and restructuring the agency, which has led to delays and uncertainties in grant approvals. These actions have raised concerns about the future of critical medical research, including studies on maternal health. Given these developments, the future of the PMDR may depend on an evolving public health funding environment. Advocacy groups and policymakers will need to collaborate to ensure that maternal health research and interventions receive the necessary support, despite the current challenges in the federal funding landscape.

  • President Trump Invokes the Alien Enemies Act: Updates and What Comes Next

    President Trump Invokes the Alien Enemies Act: Updates and What Comes Next

    On March 15th, Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in order to speed up the deportations of Venezuelan immigrants, specifically targeting the Tren de Aragua prison gang. Under this Act, the president has the authority to “detain, apprehend, and deport noncitizens from nations deemed hostile” during wartime without needing to appear before an immigration or federal court judge.

    What is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798?

    The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 is the last remaining law of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. It gives the president broad power over noncitizens and can be invoked only during periods of declared war or invasion. The Acts were originally used by President John Adams, who, in preparation for a war with France, aimed to limit public criticism of the U.S. government out of fear that “aliens” in the United States would sympathize with France. The Acts faced criticism for being an overreach of federal power that violated the First Amendment, and all except for the Alien Enemies Act were subsequently repealed or allowed to expire. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 has only been invoked sparingly in times of major conflict: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. 

    Read more about the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 here

    Who are the Tren de Aragua?

    The Tren de Aragua (otherwise known as TdA) originated as a Venezuelan prison gang that later branched into what the Biden administration labeled a “transnational crime organization”, operating in the United States where the gang is suspected of committing a spree of robberies and the high profile shootings of a New York police officer and former Venezuelan police officer in Florida. Alleged gang members have been arrested and charged with crimes ranging from murder to kidnapping in Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois. 

    How Has Trump Used the Act?

    Trump is invoking the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan citizens considered to be part of the Tren de Aragua gang who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents. In his proclamation, President Trump states that Venezuela has ceded control of territory to gangs, including the Tren de Aragua, and that the Tren de Aragua is a “criminal state perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States.” The proclamation argues that the migration of Venezuelan citizens associated with the gang “demonstrates that the Tren de Aragua has invaded the United States.” Using the language of “invasion,” the administration asserts that the gang’s actions constitute “irregular warfare,” arguing that this gives the President grounds to invoke the Alien Enemies Act outside of a wartime context. 

    The Current State of the Act

    A few hours after President Trump initiated the deportations of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg temporarily barred the Trump administration from carrying out the deportations. The block came after the American Civil Liberties Union brought a lawsuit claiming that the Alien Enemies Act only applied to “warlike actions” and “cannot be used here against nationals of a country” outside of declared war. Judge Boasberg agreed with this argument, stating that “invasion” relates to “hostile acts perpetrated by enemy nations” rather than individuals or gang activity. He also stated that delaying migrants’ removal “does not cause the government any harm,” as they will remain in government custody upon their continued stay in the United States. 

    Those in favor of Trump’s actions such as Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign argue that the use of the Alien Enemies Act is within the scope of the President’s power. Ensign points to a Supreme Court decision that allowed former President Truman to detain a German citizen three years after the end of World War II.

    What Comes Next?

    The Justice Department appealed Judge Boasberg’s temporary block against Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act and a federal appeals hearing was held on March 24th to determine the status of the block. The appeals court has not yet ruled on the temporary block, but it is expected that regardless of the outcome, the decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

  • Understanding NYC’s “The City of Yes” Housing Opportunity

    Understanding NYC’s “The City of Yes” Housing Opportunity

    Introduction: The Affordable Housing Crisis

    New York City is the most populous city in the United States by a significant margin. With such a substantial population and continuous growth, the expansion of affordable housing in the city has been a critical policy area for the past few decades. In 2013, NYC’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development declared an affordable housing crisis. The root of this crisis has been attributed to median rent prices increasing at a faster rate than average renter’s income, as well as a growing discrepancy between housing supply and demand. In fact, the city’s planning department has found that over the past 40 years, job growth has exceeded that of housing growth (Fig. 1). This shortage has led to a significant increase in NYC’s rent burdened households, or households that must contribute over one third of their gross income to rent. 

    Fig 1: NYC Planning COY Story Maps

    The City of Yes 

    In an effort to address the housing crisis in tandem with other key issues, New York’s municipal government introduced a 3-part plan titled “The City of Yes” in June 2022 to update NYC’s zoning code. The three main components of the plan are carbon neutrality, economic opportunity, and housing opportunity. Each component of “The City of Yes” has operated on its own timeline and faced several rounds of revision to gain approval from the city council. The first initiative, “The City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality,” promotes decarbonization efforts through a streamlined clean energy transition and building modernization. The initiative supports NYC’s effort to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and was adopted on December 6, 2023. Following this, the city focused on “The City of Yes for Economic Opportunity” which was passed by the council on June 6, 2024. The general goal of this initiative is to lift zoning barriers that prevent businesses from finding physical spaces and to support growing industries. Last, “The City of Yes for Housing Opportunity” (COYHO), was most recently passed on December 5, 2024. COYHO amends NYC’s zoning code to increase housing availability by a small amount in each neighborhood. With these focus areas combined into a holistic zoning plan, “The City of Yes” attempts to modernize NYC’s zoning code to sustainably address the housing crisis while bolstering the economy.

    Key Provisions of the COYHO

    Focused specifically on housing access, the final COYHO zoning amendments have authorized the creation of 82,000 new housing units within the next 2 decades accompanied by a $5 billion investment in infrastructure. The city largely sorts residence districts into two categories: low or moderate and high-density. Low-density districts (zoned R1-R5) are characterized by lower building heights, yards, and far distances from central business districts. Moderate and high density districts (zoned R6-R10) typically have bulky, dense buildings and residences are located in close proximity to central business districts. The COYHO contains separate provisions for low-density housing, medium- and high-density housing, and parking areas, along with other actions to support housing conversions. 

    • Low-density districts:
      • Transit-oriented development: In an effort to increase the amount of housing close to public transit stations, low-density residential sites located within a half mile of transit can develop three- to five-story apartment buildings.
      • Town center zoning: Reauthorizes the development of housing above businesses in all low-density areas. Under this provision, two to four stories of apartments can be built above a commercial ground floor.
      • Accessory dwellings: Accessory dwelling units, such as garage conversions or basement apartments, are now permitted in one and two-family homes with some case-by-case restrictions. 
      • Affordability incentive: Housing projects with 50 units or more can take advantage of the transit-oriented development provision if at least 20% of the units are permanently affordable at 80% of the area’s median income.
    • Medium- and high-density districts:
      • Universal affordability preference: Permits buildings to add 20% more units if the added units are permanently affordable to households that earn 60% of the area’s average median income. Replaces a previous policy known as voluntary inclusionary housing that only applied to a small portion of medium and high-density districts. 
    • Parking areas:
      • Parking zone system: Establishes a three-zone system to reduce previous rules that required new housing developments to include parking areas. In zone 1 areas, largely Manhattan and Long Island City, parking mandates are nearly eliminated. In outer transit zones, or zone 2 areas, parking mandates are reduced in areas near public transit stations. Zone 3 areas, or areas beyond outer transit zones that have a greater dependence on cars, have largely retained their parking mandates with a few exceptions. (Fig. 2)

    Fig 2: NYC Planning COYHO

    • Other:
      • Housing conversions: Other provisions allow certain non-residential buildings like offices to be converted into housing, reduce restrictions on converting underused university campus structures to housing, and permit more buildings to contain small and shared apartment units. 

    As such a large plan, COYHO will also alter living conditions for many residents. As a result, the policy has been met with considerable debate 

    Arguments in Favor of the COYHO

    The most prominent argument in support of the COYHO is that it will expand affordable housing in NYC, countering the ongoing housing crisis. Proponents of the COYHO point to the fact that NYC’s vacancy rate of 1.4% is significantly lower than the recommended percentage and historically low for NYC itself, representing a lack of housing supply and growing demand. They point to provisions of the COYHO that directly incentivize affordable housing supply such as the universal affordability preference in middle and high-density areas. In a written testimony, New York University’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy argues that the COYHO’s provisions to incentivize mixed-income housing developments will not only meet the growing demand, but also reduce rent growth in surrounding areas. Other supporters echo this idea, citing similar rezoning policies in Portland and Minneapolis that increased supply and in turn led to lower rent costs for existing housing units. 

    Supporters of the COYHO also applaud the policy’s expansion of housing across the city rather than in concentrated areas. They argue that in order to significantly increase housing stock, housing reform must be holistic and cannot be focused on only a few communities. With its broad scope from low to high-density housing units, proponents believe the COYHO meets these demands. Supporters contend the policy’s wide scope will increase geographic mobility and “relief for New Yorkers across the income spectrum”.  

    Beyond housing, many supporters cite the COYHO’s potential for economic growth. They highlight that by incentivizing different types of housing developments – from mixed commercial-residential buildings to small houses – the policy will generate jobs for a variety of contractors. A study conducted by the Regional Planning Association estimated that when fully implemented, the policy could create 15,000 to 30,000 new jobs with $1.1 to 2.1 billion in annual earnings. Others add that the COYHO will help retain low- and middle-class households in NYC and revitalize small businesses. 

    Enhanced environmental sustainability is another commonly-cited perk of the COYHO. Transit-oriented development is a major component of the plan that seeks to reduce car usage and promote public transportation. The transportation sector is the second highest emitter of greenhouse gases in NYC, with the majority of the emissions coming from passenger vehicles. Opting for public transportation over passenger vehicles can reduce emissions by up to 2/3rds per passenger. With more housing near public transportation and reduced parking mandates under the COYHO, supporters argue the plan can incentivize public transportation use and thus promote sustainability. 

    Opponents to the COYHO

    Critics assert that the COYHO does not adequately address the affordability component of NYC’s housing crisis. While many agree that the plan incentives the production of housing, they contend that increased housing alone does not fully address affordability. The universal affordability preference, the COYHO’s central affordability incentive, is criticized for being unlikely to increase affordable units in areas with increased demand for luxury housing. COYHO has also been criticized for its definition of affordable housing. When asked about COYHO, Bertha Lewis, president of the Black Institute, responded, “Any time you call affordable a $3,000 studio then what are we really doing?” 

    Opponents also dispute the claim that NYC lacks housing capacity for its residents. They cite census figures demonstrating since 2010, the number of housing units in Manhattan has increased past the number of households by over 10%. This contributes to their argument that an overstated emphasis on increased housing supply as prescribed by the COYHO is not the best course of action for addressing the housing crisis. They argue that the crisis must be framed as a shortage of affordable housing, not housing in general, and that stronger affordability incentives are necessary to achieve the policy’s intended effect. 

    Outer-borough residents living in more residential areas such as Queens and the Bronx also have concerns that the plan may impact their lifestyle. Many outer-borough residents live in low-density areas, where the COYHO intends to lift restrictions that keep housing density low. Paul Graziano, a prominent opponent of the COYHO and urban planner from Queens, is concerned that the policy will drastically change the makeup of neighborhoods and overwhelm outer-borough communities. Many residents who choose to live in low-density areas have done so because they enjoy the reduced crowding and space that come with single-family neighborhoods. With the potential introduction of apartments in areas such as Queens, the Bronx, and Staten Island, residents are concerned that family homes and quiet neighborhoods will be disrupted. In fact, following the adoption of the revised COYHO plan, city planner Graziano and community members raised over $70,000 to sue the city in an attempt to block or delay the plan. 

    Conclusion

    With housing shortages across five boroughs and over eight million constituents at play, finding solutions to the housing crisis has proven challenging for NYC policymakers. The COYHO, a policy years in the making, aims to address the affordable housing crisis by shifting zoning laws, incentivizing affordability, and reducing parking mandates. While proponents highlight the policy’s potential to create economic relief and housing mobility, many outer-borough, lower-density district residents find it difficult to support a plan that may lead to increased housing congestion in their neighborhoods. As the COYHO goes into effect, many are waiting to see whether the provisions achieve their goal of increasing housing affordability in the nation’s largest city.

  • Understanding Chronic Disease Management Programs: Comparing New York and Georgia

    Understanding Chronic Disease Management Programs: Comparing New York and Georgia

    Background Information 

    In 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), expanded Medicaid coverage for people from low-income backgrounds who were previously uninsured due to Medicaid’s previous eligibility requirements. The Medicaid expansion addressed a phenomenon known as the coverage gap, which occurs when an individual’s income is too high to qualify for their state’s Medicaid program but too low to qualify for marketplace plan subsidies. All states except the following ten accepted the Medicaid expansion plan: Texas, Wyoming, Kansas, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida. Still, in 2022, one in five uninsured adults did not have access to medical care due to the costs. Additionally, uninsured people compared to people with insurance are less likely to receive access to preventative care and services for chronic diseases. 

    Since the ten non-expansion states have a high population of rural residents who are more likely to die prematurely from chronic illnesses, state governments have developed chronic disease management programs that are distinct from those in Medicaid-expanded states. Chronic disease management programs are structured health treatment plans for people who have chronic diseases such as asthma, breast cancer, or coronary artery disease. These programs provide coverage for regular check-ups and treatments and offer guidance on how to navigate certain diseases. Programs for chronic illness in New York and Georgia provide important insights into how states with differing Medicaid policies tackle chronic disease management. 

    New York Medicaid Health Homes: Comprehensive Care Management

    Under the ACA Section 2703, states have the authority to develop and receive federal reimbursement if they have a set of health home services for their state’s Medicaid populations with chronic illness. In 2012, New York State (NYS) launched its Medicaid Health Homes program. The program was created to reduce inpatient utilization costs, remove social and economic barriers to care, and provide general behavioral and medical care. 

    When the program initially launched, almost 1 million people met the eligibility criteria. To be eligible for the Home Health Program, an individual must: 1) be enrolled in Medicaid, 2) have two or more chronic conditions, or 3) have one single qualifying chronic condition such as HIV/AIDS, Serious Mental Illness, Sickle Cell Disease, or Serious Emotional Disturbance. However, at the start of the program, NYS prioritized enrolling 500,000 adults who had mental health and substance use conditions over those with other conditions. In early 2020, over 180,000 people were enrolled in the Health Homes program. When a member enrolls in the program, the health homes receive per-member-per-month payments from NYS. These payments are dependent on the member’s health and social needs which include comprehensive care management, care coordination, individual and family support, referral to community and social support services, and the use of health information technology to link services.

    The program fell short of the initial three-year target of 240,000 enrollments due to problems with the top-down enrollment process. For instance, the care management agency outreach team relied on Department of Health information to reach people with the most pressing needs, but the information was often outdated and inaccurate. Additionally, it was often difficult for outreach workers to explain the Health Homes’ benefits because the term ‘home’ suggested that patients would have to go to a particular place. Moreover, many of the eligible participants were unstably housed and were difficult to locate and inform. Overall, the New York Medicaid Health Homes program provides a robust system to assist people with chronic illnesses. Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that the program is not a one-step solution in addressing chronic illnesses among NYS populations, as chronic condition disparities continue to persist. 

    Georgia Pathways: A State Care Program 

    Georgia is among the ten non-Medicaid-expansion states and ties with Oklahoma for the second-highest proportion of residents without health insurance in the nation. The state’s health care system ranks 45th based on measures of health care access, cost, avoidable hospital use, reproductive care, and women’s health. Georgia has an approximate rural population of 1.5 million people. Due to the state’s denial of Medicare expansion, people with chronic illnesses in Georgia cannot access Medicaid expansion-supported chronic illness programs. Instead, Georgia launched a state program called Georgia Pathways in July 2023 that aims to provide health coverage to certain low-income people. The program covers the cost of many of the same medical services as traditional Medicaid such as doctor visits, hospital stays, and prescriptions. Georgia Pathways requires enrollees to sign a program contract and submit documentation to prove they have completed 80 hours of work or other qualifying activities in a recent month. Since the program’s approval, an average of $13,000 was spent per enrollee in combined state and federal funds. 

    When the program initially launched, it expected 100,000 enrollments. As of January 2, 2025, the program is underperforming with only 6,503 active enrollments. Between July and October of 2024, 29% of the applicants were denied because they could not meet the eligibility requirements for the documentation, specifically the need to prove they were working, in school, or volunteering for at least 80 hours per month. One reason for this gap could be that people with chronic illnesses and disabilities cannot find enough hours to work because employers often fail to provide adequate work accommodations for people with disabilities. Additionally, many people face long bureaucratic processes that prevent them from reporting their work hours monthly. Moreover, people with low-income jobs often have employers who can reduce their work hours without notice. Therefore, the hurdles associated with Georgia Pathways’ 80-hour work requirement have been a barrier for some Georgians in need of care. 

    In January 2025, state Senators introduced a bill to fully adopt Medicaid Expansion, as the state program has not been efficient enough to address people’s healthcare needs. The bill has garnered bipartisan support, with a handful of Republicans from rural districts joining Democrats as co-sponsors on the bill. However, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp stated that he would push back against attempts to adopt Medicaid expansion in the state. Instead, he signaled support for a bill to establish a Comprehensive Health Care Commission to explore health coverage options. Since the Pathways program could expire in 2025, Georgia House Speaker Jon Burns emphasized the need to gather information, hear from policy experts and stakeholders, and create an effective policy solution to support the low-income and uninsured people of Georgia. 

    Conclusion

    Even in the aftermath of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid Expansion, significant coverage gaps exist across the country. These gaps include identifying people with the most pressing clinical and social needs, expanding access to care for people with chronic disabilities, and financing state-based healthcare expenditures for chronic disease management programs. New York’s robust system of chronic disease management, Healthy Homes, offers a centralized system of clinical care, social care, and essential services such as food. Despite the program’s benefits, it faces challenges including reliance on old data to identify high-need individuals, difficulty locating unhoused people with chronic illnesses, and trouble communicating the program’s requirements. On the other hand, Georgia’s Pathways program provides health coverage to low-income individuals if they sign a program contract and submit documentation to prove they have completed 80 hours of work or other qualifying activities in a recent month. The program fell significantly short of its projected enrollment numbers, spurring debate on other potential policy interventions for chronically ill Georgians. 

    In February 2025, the 119th Congress proposed H.R.919 to codify Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance relating to the treatment of certain services and items for chronic conditions. The recent bill could impact two different kinds of health insurance coverage: High Deductible Health Plans (HDHP) and Health Savings Accounts (HSA). The proposed bill would expand coverage for health insurance plans; these health insurances would treat chronic care as preventable and cover chronic illness care that might not have been originally covered. If passed, federal bills like H.R. 919 are likely to impact state-level care programs.

  • Pros and Cons of S.B. 3732: The Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act

    Pros and Cons of S.B. 3732: The Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act

    Introduction

    The rise in the prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) has had significant impacts on the environment. This includes the electricity required to power the technology, the release of hundreds of tons of carbon emissions, and the depletion of freshwater resources for data center cooling. For example, AI data centers in the U.S. use about 7,100 liters of water per megawatt-hour of energy they consume. 

    Demand for energy to power AI is rising. One study predicts that AI data centers will increase from about 3% of the US’s energy usage in 2023 to about 8% in 2030. However, there is also a potential for AI to have positive impacts on the environment. AI is a powerful tool in promoting energy transitions, with a 1% increase in AI development corresponding to a 0.0025% increase in energy transition, a 0.0018% decrease in ecological footprint, and a 0.0013% decrease in carbon emissions. Still, the scientific community and general public lack knowledge about the true environmental implications of AI. Senate Bill 3732, or the Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act of 2024, aims to fill this knowledge gap. 

    The Bill

    The Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act was introduced in February 2024 by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA). A House companion bill, H.R. 7197, was introduced simultaneously by Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA). The bill has four main clauses that instruct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Secretary of Energy, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to:

    1. Initiate a study on the environmental impacts of AI
    2. Convene a consortium of intellectuals and stakeholders to create recommendations on how to address the environmental impacts of AI
    3. Create a system for the voluntary reporting of the environmental impacts of AI
    4. Report to Congress the findings of the consortium, describe the system of voluntary reporting and make recommendations for legislative and administrative action

    This bill seeks to fill the gaps in existing research by commissioning comprehensive studies of both the negative and potential positive environmental impacts of artificial intelligence. It will also employ experts to guide lawmakers in creating effective future regulation of the AI industry. 

    Arguments in Favor

    Filling Gaps in Knowledge

    A key reason Data & Society, an NYC-based independent research institute, endorsed the bill was to fill existing gaps in research. They highlight the limited understanding of both the depth and scale of the impacts of AI on the environment as key areas that require more research. They also highlight the role of this proposed research initiative in determining how to limit the environmental impacts of AI. Tamara Kneese, a researcher for the organization, highlights that there is a lack of research that seeks to understand “the full spectrum of AI’s impacts,” which this bill would directly address. 

    Increasing Transparency in the Industry

    One of the arguments made by a co-sponsor of the legislation in the House of Representatives, Representative Beyer (D-VA), highlights how this bill would put the United States ahead in AI transparency work. Currently, the industry is not forthright about its environmental impact. For example, OpenAI has released no information about the process to create and train ChatGPT’s newest model, which makes it impossible to estimate its environmental impact. The voluntary reporting system created encourages that information to be reported, allowing for tracking of emissions and increased transparency in the industry. 

    Reducing Environmental Harm

    Another supporter of the bill, Greenpeace, views the bill as a way to protect against the environmental harm of new technology and address issues of environmental injustice. Erik Kojola, Greenpeace USA’s senior research specialist, says that this bill is “a first step in holding companies accountable and shedding light on a new technology and opaque industry”. Others, such as the Piedmont Environmental Council, view it as a step towards the implementation of well-informed regulation of AI. The bill’s fourth provision outlines that recommendations be made to Congress for the implementation of regulations of the industry, based on expert opinion and the research that the bill commissions. 

    Arguments Against

    Lacks Enforcement Mechanisms, Delayed Approach

    Critics argue that the bill relies too heavily on industry compliance by primarily using voluntary emissions reporting. In essence, there is no way of forcing companies to actually report their emissions from the working of the bill. There is also the argument that calling for more research only serves to delay taking concrete action to address climate change. The bill itself does little to stop pollution and usage of freshwater resources, and instead delays any action or regulation until detailed research can be conducted and further recommendations can be made. 

    Ignores AI’s Potential to Help the Environment

    Other critics argue that AI is constantly becoming more efficient and government intervention may hinder that. According to the World Economic Forum, AI is able to both optimize its own energy consumption as well as contribute to facilitating energy transitions. Opponents of S.B. 3732 hold that research should focus on improving efficiency within the industry as opposed to tracking its output to inform regulations. 

    Top-down Approach Sidelines Industry Leaders and Efforts

    Some opponents also critique the bill’s research- and information gathering-heavy approach. Critics argue that S.B. 3732 does little to create accountability within the industry and does not integrate existing measures to increase efficiency. They point to examples that show AI itself is being used to create informed climate change policy through analyzing climate impacts on poor communities and generating solutions. Critics argue that the bill largely ignores these efforts and input from industry leaders who say federal funds should be spent optimizing AI rather than regulating it. 

    Updates and Future Outlook

    While S.B. 3732 and its House companion bill were referred to several subcommittees for review, neither made it to the floor for a vote before the end of the 118th Congress and thus will need to be re-introduced in order to be passed in the future. Should the bill be passed into law, the feasibility of its implementation is uncertain given major funding cuts to key stakeholders such as the EPA under the current administration. Without proper government funding to conduct the research that the bill outlines, the efficacy of this research is likely to be weakened. 

    In addition, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Removing Barriers to American AI Innovation” in January 2025, which calls for departments and agencies to revise or rescind all policies and other actions taken under the Biden administration that are inconsistent with “enhancing America’s leadership in AI.”  In addition to taking an anti-regulation stance on AI, this executive order is the first step in a rapid proliferation of AI data centers that are to be fueled with energy from natural gas and coal. Given this climate, S.B. 3732 and similar bills face an uncertain future in the current Congress.

    Conclusion

    S.B. 3732 responds to the knowledge gap on AI’s environmental impacts by commissioning studies and encouraging reporting of AI-related energy benefits and drawbacks. Supporters of the bill view it as a crucial intervention to fill said information gaps, increase transparency, and address environmental harms through policy recommendations. Some opponents of the bill critique it as a stalling tactic for addressing climate change, while others contend the bill simply looks in the wrong place, focusing on AI industry compliance and existing impacts instead of encouraging innovation in the sector.

  • Understanding Data Privacy Protections: ADPPA and APRA

    Understanding Data Privacy Protections: ADPPA and APRA

    Data privacy is an ongoing concern for Americans. A national study from 2014 found that over 90% of respondents believed they had lost control of how their personal data is used by companies, and that 80% were concerned about government surveillance of online communications. Nearly a decade later, the vast majority of Americans remained concerned and confused about how companies and the government use their personal data. Tech companies like Google, Meta, and Microsoft often collect data about users’ activities, preferences, and interactions on social media platforms and websites. This data can include users’ demographic information, browsing history, location, device information, and social interactions. While a majority of data tracking happens within apps, companies can also employ hard-to-detect tracking techniques to follow individuals across a variety of apps, websites, and devices.  This can make it difficult for users to evade data tracking even when they decline data collection permissions. 

    Background: ADPPA and APRA

    To address longstanding concerns about data privacy, lawmakers proposed The American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) in 2022. ADPPA aimed to “limit the collection, processing, and transfer of personal data” of consumers while also “generally prohibit[ing] companies from transferring individuals’ personal data without their affirmative express consent.” Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) sponsored the bill. ADPPA passed out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce with almost unanimous support, but was not brought up for a vote before the close of the 117th Congress. Two years later, lawmakers introduced the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA), a similar data privacy bill with more robust mechanisms for data control and privacy. To understand the APRA, it’s crucial to examine the various arguments for and against its predecessor, the ADPPA. 

    Arguments in Favor of the ADPPA

    The push for ADPPA reflected a need to create uniform privacy standards on a federal level. Many businesses and industry groups supported the ADPPA because it would have standardized data privacy policies across the United States through a preemption clause that overrides similar state laws. Supporters argued that this would eliminate the challenge and high cost of enforcing a patchwork of data privacy laws across 20 states. 

    Other proponents applauded the ADPPA’s efforts to maintain civil rights for marginalized users. In a letter to House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA), 48 civil rights, privacy, and consumer organizations highlighted the bill’s provisions to require technology companies to test their algorithms for bias and increase online protections for users under 17 years old. They argued that these provisions, along with limitations on data collection without user consent, would “provide long overdue and much needed protections for individuals and communities.”

    Criticisms of the ADPPA

    Although the ADPPA garnered strong bipartisan support in committee, it ultimately failed to pass. Some experts argued that the bill contained loopholes that could be exploited by companies to avoid compliance, including inadequate provisions addressing data brokers, a limited private right of action, and the potential for gaps in enforcement. The ADPPA’s private right of action clause, which allows individuals and groups to take civil action against tech companies in Federal court for violating the ADPPA’s provisions, drew much debate. While the original bill was rewritten to permit a private right of action beginning two years after the passage of the bill rather than four years, some lawmakers still feared that this two-year delay left a gap in enforcement. As for the data broker question, the ADPPA would have implemented more robust hurdles to the sale of user data, but did not ban the brokerage of sensitive data outright. Given the growing influence of the data brokerage industry, some argued that the ADPPA overlooked a critical component of the data privacy ecosystem by omitting strong regulations on data brokerage. 

    The greatest criticism of the ADPPA concerned its preemption clause. While ADPPA would have supplemented existing data privacy legislation in states like Virginia and Colorado, other states were worried that the implementation of ADPPA would overrule stronger privacy laws at the state level. California lawmakers feared that the ADPPA’s preemption clause would nullify the stricter provisions in the California Consumer Privacy Act, weakening their state’s pre-existing privacy protections. While the ADPPA contains carve-outs for some parts of strict state-level laws and was rewritten to allow the California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce ADPPA compliance, these provisions did not satisfy lawmakers who worried that privacy protections for their constituents would still be rolled back. Ultimately, many cite opposition from Californian legislators as a major reason why the ADPPA failed to pass. 

    The APRA: A New Framework

    In 2024, Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (D-WA) introduced the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) as a new federal framework for data privacy protection. Senator Cantwell had been an outspoken critic of ADPPA’s right to private action. Both ADPPA and APRA contain similar provisions to establish a centralized procedure for users to opt-out of data sharing and to require corporations to collect no more data than is necessary to meet specific needs. Additionally, both bills include a state law preemption clause, with differing exceptions to the state laws they override. APRA’s preemption clause has received similar criticisms to ADPPA’s clause, as California legislators fight for a “floor” for privacy rights rather than a “ceiling.”

    In contrast to the ADPPA, the APRA includes a much broader private right of action, allowing individuals to sue companies for violations immediately. This differs from the ADPPA’s two-year delay on private suits that intended to give businesses time to comply. The APRA also expands the ADPPA’s definition of covered organizations to include agencies that process the sensitive data of over 700,000 connected devices. Additionally, the APRA includes more specific provisions to protect data for users under the age of 17. The APRA is currently undergoing a similar process to its predecessor, and was most recently referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. It will likely take months for decisions to be made regarding the bill’s passage out of committee, but the bill has garnered significant bipartisan support and shows promise in the current Congress. 

    Conclusion

    In today’s digital age, more Americans than ever are concerned about the data they share and how it’s used. With evolving social media algorithms and corporate data collection strategies, bills like the ADPPA and the APRA provide potential routes to stronger protections for user privacy. The debate surrounding both bills centers on balancing the need for a uniform federal standard with the preservation of stronger state laws, and reconciling strict consumer protection with the likelihood of corporate compliance. As lawmakers consider these factors, data privacy bills like the APRA are likely to make progress in coming months.

  • English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump

    English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump

    English as the Official Language of the U.S.

    On March 1st, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order declaring English as the official language of the United States. This marks the first time the country has ever designated an official language in its nearly 250-year history. Currently, thirty states have already established English as their official language, with Alaska and Hawaii recognizing several native languages as official state languages in addition to English.

    Generally, an official language is the language used by the government to conduct its day-to-day operations. President Trump’s order rescinds a policy established during the Clinton administration that required federal departments and organizations with federal funding to provide “extensive language assistance to non-English speakers.” However, it allows such agencies to keep their current language policies if they choose. In line with the order’s principles, Trump removed the Spanish-language version of the White House website within his first few days in office. 

    Public Response

    The order drew criticism from human rights organizations, who argue that it harms immigrant communities and those seeking to learn English by reducing access to language assistance. Others stress that the order will make it more difficult for non-English speakers to access governmental services such as voting, healthcare, or English as a Second Language (ESL) education programs. Since the executive order could cause a considerable population of U.S. residents to lose access to these government programs, some have labeled it “a thinly veiled attempt to discriminate against immigrants.” 

    Immigration advocacy organizations have also emphasized the order’s potential impacts on the citizenship application process. Currently, applicants can complete the citizenship test and interview in their native language if they meet certain age and residency criteria. If the Trump administration expands the English-only standard to the citizenship application process, advocates fear several residents who completed a years-long application process would be disqualified from citizenship on the basis of their native language. 

    On the other hand, some argue the order has more benefits than drawbacks. In the text of his executive order, Trump argues that an official language will “create a more cohesive and efficient society,” suggesting that eliminating ESL requirements will push non-English speakers to improve their English language skills. ProEnglish, an advocacy organization that aims to codify English as the official language of all U.S. states and territories, argues that conducting government business in languages other than English creates “cultural-linguistic segregation” that disrupts “the ideal of the melting pot”. 

    Other supporters argue that the executive order was the common-sense culmination of a decades-long effort. Vice President J.D. Vance introduced a bill to codify English as the official language of the U.S. in 2023, stating, “This commonsense legislation recognizes an inherent truth: English is the language of this country.”

    While the order does not require federal agencies and their beneficiaries to halt ESL programs and accommodations, the impacts of the order on non-English-speaking communities are likely to become clear in the coming months.

  • Pros and Cons of California SB-1047: The AI Regulation Debate

    Pros and Cons of California SB-1047: The AI Regulation Debate

    Background

    With the recent emergence of ChatGPT, artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed from an obscure mechanism to a widely-used tool in day-to-day life. Around 77% of devices integrate some form of AI in voice assistants, smart speakers, chatbots, or customized recommendations. Still, while at least half of Americans are aware of AI’s presence in their daily lives, many are unable to pinpoint how exactly it is used. For some, the rapid growth of AI has created skepticism and concern. Between 2021 and 2023, the proportion of Americans who expressed concern about AI increased from 37% to 52%. By 2023, only 10% of Americans were more excited than concerned about AI applications in their day-to-day lives. Today, legislators at the federal and state level are grappling with the benefits and drawbacks of regulating AI use and development. 

    California’s SB-1047: An Introduction

    One of the key players in AI development is the state of California, which houses 35 of the 50 most prominent AI companies in the world. Two cities in California, San Francisco and San Jose, account for 25% of all AI patents, conference papers, and companies worldwide. California has responded to the growing debate on AI use through legislative and governmental channels. In 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order establishing initiatives to study the benefits and drawbacks of the AI industry, train government employees on AI skills, and work with legislators to adapt policies for responsible AI development. 

    One such policy that gained attention is SB-1047, or the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act. The bill passed both chambers of the state legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Newsom in September 2024. Introduced by state senator Scott Weiner of San Francisco, SB-1047 aimed to establish safeguards in the development of large-scale AI models. Specifically, the bill applied to cutting-edge AI models that use a high level of computing power or cost more than $100 million to train. Its key provisions included:

    • Cybersecurity protections: Requires developers to take reasonable cybersecurity precautions to prevent unauthorized access to or unintended use of the AI model
    • Pre-release assessment: Requires developers to thoroughly test their AI model for potential critical harm before publicly releasing it. Establishes an annual third-party audit for all developers
    • “Kill switch”: Requires developers to create a capacity to “promptly enact a full shutdown” of the AI program in the case it risks damage to critical infrastructure
    • Safety protocol: Requires developers to create a written safety and security protocol, assign a senior professional to implement it, publish a redacted version, and send an unredacted version to the U.S. Attorney General upon request
    • Whistleblower protections: Prohibits developers from retaliating against employees who report violations of safety protocol internally or to government officials
    • CalCompute: Establishes a publicly-owned and -operated cloud computing infrastructure to “expand access to computational resources” for researchers and startups

    Pros of SB-1047

    One of the main arguments in favor of SB-1047 was that the bill encouraged responsible innovation. Proponents of the bill emphasized that it aligned with federal policy in targeting large-scale systems with considerable computing power, which pose the highest risk of harm due to their cutting-edge nature. They argued that the bill’s holistic approach to regulation, including preventative standards like independent audits and response protocol like the “kill switch” provision, make it difficult for developers to simply check a box stating they do not condone illegal use of their AI model. 

    Proponents also applauded the bill’s protections for whistleblowers at companies that develop advanced AI models. Given the lack of laws on AI development, general whistleblower protections that safeguard the reporting of illegal acts leave a gap of vulnerability for AI workers whose products are largely unregulated. Supporters say SB-1047 would have filled this gap by allowing employees to report potentially dangerous AI models directly to government officials without retaliation. In September 2024, over 100 current and former employees of major AI companies – many of which publicly advocated against the bill – sent a letter to Governor Newsom in support of the legislation’s protections. 

    Other supporters were enthusiastic about the bill’s establishment of CalCompute, a cloud computing infrastructure completely owned and operated by the public sector. Advocacy group Economic Security California praised CalCompute as a necessary intervention to disrupt the dominance of a “handful of corporate actors” in the AI sector. Other advocates emphasized that CalCompute would complement, rather than replace, corporations in providing supercomputing infrastructure. They argued that the initiative would expand access to AI innovation and encourage AI development for public good. 

    Another key argument in favor of SB-1047 is that the bill would have created a necessary blueprint for AI regulation, inspiring other states and even the federal government to implement similar protections. By signing the bill into law, proponents argue, California would have become the “first jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for governing advanced AI systems”. Countries around the world, including Brazil, Chile, and Canada, are looking at bills like SB-1047 to find ways to regulate AI innovation as its applications continue to expand. 

    Cons of SB-1047

    SB-1047 received criticism from multiple angles. While some labeled the bill an unnecessary roadblock to innovation, others argued for even stronger regulations.

    On one hand, the bill’s large scope was criticized for focusing too heavily on theoretical dangers of AI, hindering innovation that might lead to beneficial advancements. Opponents contended that some of the language in the bill introduced hypothetical scenarios, such as the creation and use of weapons of mass destruction by AI, with no regard to their low plausibility. Major companies like Google, Meta, and OpenAI voiced opposition to the bill, warning that the heavy regulations would stifle productivity and push engineers to leave the state. 

    Others criticized the bill for its potential impacts on academia and smaller startups. Fei-Fei Li, co-director of Stanford University’s Human-Centered AI Institute, argued that the regulations would put a damper on academic and public-sector AI research. Li also stated that the bill would “shackle open source development” by reducing the amount of publicly available code for new entrepreneurs to build off of – a fear that was echoed by national lawmaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

    On the other hand, some believe the bill did not go far enough in regulating cutting-edge AI. These critics pointed to provisions that exempt developers from liability if certain protocols are followed, which raised questions for them about the bill’s ability to hold developers accountable. They also criticized amendments that reduced or completely eliminated certain enforcement mechanisms such as criminal liability for perjury, stating such changes catered to the interests of large tech corporations. Critics argued that the bill’s vague definitions of “unreasonable risk” and “critical harm” leave ample room for developers to evade accountability. 

    Given the bill’s sweeping language in key areas, critics worried that it could either overregulate, or fail to regulate, AI effectively.

    Recent Developments

    On February 27th, 2025, SB-1047 sponsor Scott Weiner introduced a new piece of legislation on AI safety. The new bill, SB-53, was created with a similar intention of safeguarding AI development, but focuses specifically on the whistleblower protection and CalCompute provisions of the original bill.  

    While California continues to grapple with state-level regulations, the federal government has also taken steps to address AI. The Federal Communications Commission is using the 1980s Telephone Consumer Protection Act to restrict AI-generated human voices. The Federal Trade Commission has warned against AI misuse, including discrimination, false claims, and using AI without understanding its risks. In 2024, the Office of Management and Budget issued AI guidelines for all federal agencies. Later that year, the White House formed an AI Council and the AI and Technology Talent Task Force. Although no federal legislation has been passed, these actions show a growing focus on AI regulation.

    Conclusion 

    California’s Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act aimed to regulate AI development through novel safeguards. While it was applauded by some as a necessary response to an ever-evolving technology, others believed its wide regulations would have stifled innovation and entrepreneurship. As AI’s use and applications continue to evolve, new policy solutions are likely to emerge at both a state and federal level in the future. 

  • Expedited Removal: History, Debate, and Modern Implications

    Expedited Removal: History, Debate, and Modern Implications

    Introduction

    Immediately after his inauguration, President Trump began introducing sweeping changes to U.S. immigration policy. One major change took place on January 21st, 2025, when the Trump administration broadened expedited removal for noncitizens. Expedited removal is a process that allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to rapidly deport noncitizens who are undocumented or who have committed misrepresentation or fraud. Under expedited removal processes, noncitizens are deported in a single day without an immigration court hearing or other appearance before a judge.

    Prior to Donald Trump’s second term, immigration officers were permitted to utilize the expedited removal process on undocumented immigrants that were captured by officers within 100 miles of U.S borders, as well as those who had resided in the U.S for less than two weeks. However, under the new expanded policy, any undocumented immigrant in the United States who cannot provide proof of their legal presence in the U.S for more than two years will be subject to expedited removal. 

    There are exceptions to expedited removal, including for individuals who express an intention to apply for asylum, fear returning to their country of origin, or fear of torture or prosecution. In such cases, immigration officers will not remove the individual until they are interviewed by an asylum officer. 

    History of Expedited Removal in the U.S.

    Expedited removal has had a long history in the United States. It was first introduced in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This legislation was enacted with the goal of strengthening U.S immigration control policies, and imposed criminal penalties on individuals who utilize false documentation, engage in racketeering, or participate in smuggling. In addition to introducing expedited removal, the Act also mandated a new intervention for those seeking asylum: credible fear interviews. Credible fear interviews are a process whereby a trained asylum officer within the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determines if an individual has a credible fear of persecution or torture if they return to their home country. 

    Originally, the policy of expedited removal was only enforced for noncitizens who arrived in the U.S. via a port of entry. However, in 2002, the policy was expanded to apply to noncitizens who entered by sea without inspection by government officers. It was expanded again two years later to include noncitizens who crossed any land border without inspection, and noncitizens who are found within 100 miles of a U.S. border during the first two weeks of their stay in the U.S. 

    This application of expedited removal remained consistent for over a decade, until President Trump issued an executive order in 2017 that expanded application to all noncitizens in the U.S. and directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement new regulations to speed up the removal process. This included conducting credible fear interviews via telephone, which hastened deportations if an asylum seeker’s fears were found incredible. While the Biden administration rescinded this order in 2022, President Trump’s memo to DHS on January 21st reinstated the policies of his first term. 

    Arguments in Favor

    A key argument in favor of expedited removal is that it helps reduce court backlogs. By utilizing expedited removal, fewer immigration cases reach the courts, thereby easing the burden on an overwhelmed immigration court system. At the beginning of 2017, the number of cases pending in U.S. immigration courts was around 534,000, and that number has since increased, reaching 3.6 million cases by the end of 2024. Supporters argue that expedited removal alleviates pressure on immigration courts by streamlining the deportation process. 

    Proponents also argue that expedited removal deters illegal immigration. In 2016, about 267,746 illegal immigrants were apprehended by DHS while trying to cross into the United States, compared to 140,024 in 2017. Supporters attribute this drop to the idea that the quick deportations under Trump’s first-term expedited removal policies discouraged other migrants from attempting to cross the border. 

    Third, advocates highlight the reduction in court costs associated with expedited removal. Because expedited removal bypasses lengthy court proceedings, fewer cases reach immigration courts, resulting in lower expenditures on DHS lawyers, court staff, and detention bed space. As a result, the funds that would be used on these immigration cases can be redirected to other resources and services.

    Arguments against

    One key argument against expedited removal is the matter of family separation. Historically, family unity has been a guiding principle in U.S. immigration policy. Many families in the U.S have mixed legal statuses, meaning some family members may be subject to expedited removal, while others may not. With the current administration’s expansion of expedited removal, family separation is likely to increase, impacting mixed-status families. Opponents argue that this is not only unjust, but also contrary to the principles of the U.S. immigration law. 

    In addition to family separation, critics point to instances where entire families – including vulnerable members such as elderly grandparents and young children – are detained through expedited removal policies. In 2019, 69 mothers detained with their children in South Texas wrote an open letter to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) highlighting the severe physical and psychological effects of detention on their children as they waited for their credible fear interviews. In previous administrations, even infants were subjected to expedited removal along with their mothers who were attempting to seek asylum. 

    Critics of expedited removal also argue that it violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Under other immigration policies, individuals facing deportation are entitled to a full immigration court hearing. In these hearings, the individual can present evidence, call witnesses, and have legal representation. Afterward, an immigration judge will evaluate the case and may provide an opportunity for appeal. Because expedited removal bypasses formal court proceedings, immigrants facing deportation are not given the opportunity to speak to an attorney or have their case reviewed by a judge. Opponents argue that this increases the risk of mistakenly detaining or deporting individuals who may have legal status.

    Finally, critics argue that the expansion of expedited removal fosters fear and mistrust within immigrant communities. As a result, individuals may be less inclined to seek out assistance or report crimes to authorities due to fear of being detained and deported. 

    Future Prospects

    The debate surrounding expedited removal reflects a broader conversation about immigration reform in the United States. Supporters emphasize the efficiency, cost savings, and deterrent effects of expedited removal, while critics stress the risks of family separation, lack of due process, and increased fear and mistrust within immigrant communities. Given the Trump administration’s recent renewal of its first-term expedited removal policies, it is likely that the number of immigrants deported via expedited removal will increase over the next four years. Immigration policy remains divisive, so it is likely for the Trump administration’s expedited removal policies to face continued debate.