ACE

Tag: legislation

  • Understanding the Connected MOM Act: Federal Intervention in State Maternal Health Medicaid Coverage

    Understanding the Connected MOM Act: Federal Intervention in State Maternal Health Medicaid Coverage

    Introduction to Medicaid and Maternal Health Coverage

    Medicaid is a healthcare program designed to cover specific medical costs for individuals with lower incomes and limited resources. While the federal government sets baseline regulations and retains oversight authority over Medicaid programs, states maintain primary responsibility for program administration, which leads to variation in Medicaid coverage across the nation. Many state Medicaid programs offer insurance coverage for pregnant individuals through mechanisms such as presumptive eligibility. Presumptive eligibility allows certain vulnerable populations to receive coverage before their application for Medicaid is fully processed. For example, Iowa’s presumptive Medicaid coverage extends Medicaid benefits to all pregnant applicants while their eligibility is being determined, regardless of the final outcome.

    Maternal health remains a critical concern in the United States, where indicators such as preterm births and maternal mortality have continued to rise despite targeted policy interventions. A key factor in improving maternal health outcomes is access to high-quality prenatal care, yet adequate access to prenatal care is declining. A significant reason that many people cannot access adequate prenatal care is a lack of insurance coverage or sporadic insurance coverage during their pregnancy. Research emphasizes that increasing insurance coverage for pregnant people can improve access to prenatal care, which can improve maternal health outcomes.


    While federal regulations mandate certain Medicaid services, including maternal healthcare, the specifics of maternal health coverage are left largely to the discretion of individual states. For instance, Iowa’s presumptive eligibility for pregnant people continues until the applicant receives a determination of full Medicaid eligibility. In contrast, Minnesota’s hospital-based presumptive coverage for pregnant people only lasts for a month. 

    S.141 and the Scope of Federal Intervention

    Introduced on January 16, 2025, S.141—or the Connected MOM Act—aims to identify and address barriers to Medicaid coverage of health monitoring devices in an effort to improve maternal health outcomes. Given that health monitoring devices can expand access to prenatal care by allowing physicians to remotely monitor health metrics, the bill aims to explore how pregnant people might face challenges in obtaining these devices. The bill proposes investigating state-level obstacles to coverage of remote physiologic devices, which include: 

    • Blood pressure cuffs (used to monitor blood pressure)
    • Glucometers (used to assess blood glucose levels)
    • Pulse oximeters (used to measure blood oxygen saturation)
    • Thermometers (used to track body temperature)

    These devices enable at-home monitoring of key health metrics, facilitating earlier intervention for dangerous pregnancy-related conditions. According to legal experts, such investigative efforts generate data that can inform and support future policy development. S.B. 141, which has received bipartisan support, is currently under review by the Senate Finance Committee.

    Perspectives on S.B. 141 and Federal Medicaid Interventions

    Investigative legislation like the Connected MOM Act allocates funding for evidence-gathering to guide future policy decisions. In this case, the bill aims to collect information on how states manage Medicaid coverage for remote physiologic devices that are critical during pregnancy, with the long-term goal of shaping federal Medicaid policies. While supporters of the Connected MOM Act argue that it will provide necessary insights to catalyze Medicaid expansion for pregnant people, others point to the rules and regulations of Medicaid which make it difficult for the federal government to intervene broadly in state Medicaid programs. Given the structural limits on federal influence over state-run Medicaid programs, broad national reforms are often considered too costly or unlikely to yield systemic change. This dynamic was evident in the fate of H.R. 3055—the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act—which failed to advance beyond the committee stage. Supporters of the Connected MOM Act argue that its incremental, investigative approach will help justify future reforms without being perceived as broad federal overreach. 

    Conclusion

    Each state administers its own Medicaid program, resulting in variations in coverage for certain medical devices, including remote health monitoring devices. Given the importance of these devices in expanding access to prenatal care, S.B. 141 seeks to investigate the best course of action for improving coverage of them across the nation. As it moves through committee, S.B. 141 may give insights on how policymakers can strategically navigate limits on federal power over state health programs.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • Pros and Cons of the FLY Act: The Debate on Airport Security and Accessibility

    Pros and Cons of the FLY Act: The Debate on Airport Security and Accessibility

    Introduction

    Security systems in U.S. airports changed significantly after the terror attacks on 9/11. Before the attacks, airport security officers were mostly hired from the private sector, and airport security systems used outdated alarm systems and low-quality video monitors. Additionally, non-flyers – or airport visitors who were not ticketed passengers  – could go through security and wait at the gates without a boarding pass. In the wake of 9/11, former President Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and implemented new security protocols for airports. These included more thorough screenings for all passengers and baggage, stricter policies on carry-on liquid, and more accurate X-ray visualizations in security lines. Post-9/11 security measures also limited who can pass certain checkpoints at the airport; under the new security systems, only ticketed passengers can go through security and wait at the boarding gates area. This policy remains in place today, with very few exceptions. 

    After a few decades of these strict security enforcements, some advocates – specifically flyers with disabilities – have started to call for more lenient treatment of non-ticketed guests in the case that a passenger requires a caregiver to help navigate the air travel system. 

    What is H.R. 6565?

    Legislative efforts to make the air travel process more accessible have increased over the years. The Fast Lane for Youths Act (H.R. 6565), or the FLY Act, was introduced by Representative Gregory W. Steube [R-FL-17] during the 118th Congress. The bill states that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) should work with the TSA to allow up to two expedited gate passes for ​​caregivers, parents, and guardians who already qualify for TSA PreCheck to help minors or passengers who require assistance to their flights. The FLY Act allows caregivers to join their passenger in a pre-check security line as opposed to the regular security line, and requires they be given a gate pass to accompany their passenger to the boarding gate. 

    Arguments in Favor

    Public opinion seems to signal support for the FLY Act’s provisions. Today, 88% of Americans believe that airlines should improve accommodations for travelers with disabilities. Additionally, poor airport experiences are not limited to vulnerable passengers; 32% of all passengers say “airports’ busy and chaotic nature adds to their stress.” Proponents argue that the FLY Act will reduce stress for all travelers by ensuring high-need passengers, including children flying alone, are supported with proper accompaniment as they prepare to board their flights. They also argue that the Act is one step toward equity for disabled flyers, a population that regularly faces unnecessary barriers to air travel. 

    Supporters also see the Act as a necessary intervention to standardize gate pass policies nationwide. While the standard policy is to prohibit non-flyers from accessing airport gates, cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, Tulsa, Seattle, and New Orleans have introduced their own gate pass policies. These programs have varying application timelines, hours of entry, and maximum daily slots depending on the airport, which proponents say risks confusing passengers. Supporters of the FLY Act argue that the bill will promote nationwide consistency in gate pass eligibility requirements, making it easier for flyers to understand the system and plan accordingly. 

    Arguments Against

    Critics of the FLY Act cite increased costs as a reason for their skepticism. With more people waiting in the pre-check lane under the FLY Act, opponents argue that airports will face increased demand for staffing coverage to meet the rise in security line foot traffic. Airports with gate pass programs have already had to meet the staffing demand for increased volumes of non-ticketed guests who are able to shop and dine airside. Critics point out that this would be especially challenging given the TSA’s high staff turnover rates and struggles to hire new employees. They also argue that hiring more staff leads to higher operational costs for airports, which may trickle down to costs for passengers.   

    Since the FLY Act will expand access to boarding gates for non-flyer caregivers nationwide, opponents also emphasize the potential for security breaches. They point to an increase in stowaway incidents – situations in which people without tickets sneak onto planes during boarding –  that has already raised concerns over airport integrity and access across checkpoints. Overall, they argue that increasing the number of unticketed passengers in gate areas increases the risk of stowaways and thus presents a threat to national security. 

    Conclusion

    As airport passenger volume returns to pre-pandemic levels, legislators hope to balance the potential rewards of accessibility and standardization with potential risks in security and cost. Since the bill remained stuck in committee at the close of the 118th Congress, the bill will need to be reintroduced before it can be considered for a vote in today’s legislature. 

  • Understanding the Alien Enemies Act: History, Perspectives, and Current Implications

    Understanding the Alien Enemies Act: History, Perspectives, and Current Implications

    Introduction and History 

    The Alien Enemies Act (AEA), enacted in 1798 as a part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, grants the President the authority to detain, apprehend, and deport noncitizens from nations deemed hostile during times of declared war or invasion. While war can only be declared by Congress, some believe a rhetorical reading of “invasion” leaves a legal gray area for the executive branch to invoke the AEA in the absence of a physical invasion or declaration of war. The law gives the executive branch power to manage national security concerns via the detention and deportation of foreign nationals without judicial oversight. 

    The AEA passed during a period of heightened tensions between the United States and France, with the United States facing threats of foreign influence, espionage, and internal dissent. It has been invoked three times throughout U.S. history: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. The AEA is most notorious for its role in creating Japanese internment camps after the Pearl Harbor bombing of 1941. 

    The broader Alien and Sedition Acts received criticism for suppressing political opposition, particularly against immigrants from nations deemed hostile. While most of the Alien and Sedition Acts were either repealed or left to expire under President Thomas Roosevelt, the AEA remained in place and was expanded in 1918 to include women. While the AEA itself has been invoked sparingly by U.S. presidents, its broad language has left room for interpretation and debate today. 

    Recent Developments

    During his 2024 presidential campaign, President Donald Trump pledged to invoke the AEA as part of Operation Aurora, an initiative aimed at addressing immigration issues and criminal networks. In line with this plan, President Trump released executive orders that categorized immigration as an “invasion” and designated certain drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. Some legal scholars believe that by classifying these cartels as state actors, the Trump administration is seeking to create legal justification for future use of the AEA to deport individuals from Mexico and other regions deemed hostile to national security.

    In response to concerns over potential executive abuse of the AEA, Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) introduced the Neighbors Not Enemies Act, a legislative effort to repeal the Act entirely. 

    Arguments in Favor of the Alien Enemies Act

    Supporters argue that the AEA is a vital tool for safeguarding national security, particularly during times of war or crisis. By allowing for the swift removal of individuals from hostile nations, the Act is seen as a preventive measure against espionage, sabotage, or other threats. Some proponents also contend that mass migration could provide cover for criminals, terrorists, or spies seeking to infiltrate the United States, making strict enforcement of the AEA a necessity. 

    Proponents also highlight the potential use of the AEA in dismantling transnational criminal organizations operating within American borders. Targeting noncitizens involved in illicit activities, including drug trafficking and organized crime, is seen as a means of enhancing public safety. Some argue that strict enforcement of the Act can serve as a deterrent against illegal immigration and unauthorized criminal activity. 

    From a policy standpoint, strong border control measures are often considered essential to maintaining national sovereignty. Advocates for the AEA argue that it falls within the President’s constitutional duty to protect the United States from foreign threats, and contend that the political question doctrine prohibits courts from intervening if the President decides to invoke it. They also assert that transnational criminal organizations meet criteria for the constitutional definition of “invasion”, justifying an invocation of the AEA in modern times. The AEA’s potential to bypass local sanctuary city policies, which may limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, is another reason some advocate for the Act’s use today. 

    Arguments Against the Alien Enemies Act

    Critics argue that AEA violates several fundamental rights, particularly the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the right to be free from indefinite civil detention. They point to the AEA’s ability to bypass standard immigration court proceedings and deport individuals without hearings, arguing that the absence of judicial review leaves affected individuals with limited legal recourse. Experts note that this lack of judicial oversight could allow for large-scale detentions and deportations, opening the door to wrongful detentions nationwide. They argue that the lack of due process puts noncitizens and lawful immigrants at risk of being wrongfully detained or deported without the opportunity to defend themselves in court. 

    Another primary concern surrounding the AEA is the potential for discriminatory enforcement based on nationality. The Act applies not only to citizens of a hostile nation but to “natives” of a hostile nation, which includes those who were born in a hostile nation but have since renounced their citizenship from that state. In this way, the AEA explicitly allows discrimination based on ancestry. Given that past uses of the AEA led to the surveillance, kidnapping, and indefinite detention of residents based on their nationality, critics fear that invoking the AEA today would replicate the human rights abuses of the Japanese internment era and lead to widespread racial profiling. 

    Some legal scholars also criticize the Act’s broad allowance for executive action and vague definitions of security threats such as “invasion” and “predatory incursion”. They warn that these broad terms leave room for an administration to target civilians in times of peace. They highlight the Supreme Court’s 1948 Ludecke v. Watkins decision – which upheld President Truman’s use of the AEA for six years after the end of World War II – as a dangerous precedent that might allow future administrations to use wartime powers to attack civilians during peacetime if the AEA is not repealed. 

    Beyond legal and ethical concerns, critics emphasize that mass deportations under the AEA could have significant economic implications. Many industries, particularly those reliant on immigration labor, could face workforce shortages and disruptions. The potential loss of workers in agriculture, construction, and service industries could negatively affect local and national economies. Some economists warn that a mass deportation strategy could lead to increased costs for consumers, reduced productivity, and job losses for American citizens who labor alongside immigrant workers. 

    The Alien Enemies Act’s Future Prospects

    Applying the AEA in modern contexts is likely to face legal challenges. Courts may be called upon to determine whether broad applications of the act align with constitutional protections and international human rights obligations. Given the potential for legal disputes, any large-scale innovation of the AEA would likely be subject to judicial review. Legal scholars suggest that any attempt to broadly apply the AEA, such as categorizing all foreign-based cartels as state actors, may struggle to hold up in court.

    If the Trump administration or future administrations seek to implement the AEA extensively, congressional efforts to alter the Act’s provisions may also gain traction. The Neighbors Not Enemies Act represents one such effort to repeal the AEA outright. Alternatively, some lawmakers may push for reforms that introduce judicial oversight or limit the scope of the Act under modern legal standards. 

    Numerous civil rights and immigrant advocacy organizations have signaled their intent to challenge any broad use of the AEA. These groups may use litigation, public awareness campaigns, and lobbying efforts to limit the Act’s application or push for its repeal in the future. Public perception and media coverage will likely shape the discourse around the Act’s future. 

    Conclusion

    The Alien Enemies Act, rooted in the national security concerns of 1798, continues to be a subject of debate in contemporary American politics. While some view it as a necessary tool for maintaining national security, others argue that it risks civil rights violations, racial profiling, and economic harm. As political, legal, and legislative battles unfold, the future of the Act remains unknown. The resolution of this debate will shape the future trajectory of immigration law, civil liberties, and national security policy in the United States for years to come.

  • The “Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act” of 2024: Key Insights and Implications

    The “Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act” of 2024: Key Insights and Implications

    What are Crisis Pregnancy Centers?

    Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are nonprofit, community-based organizations that aim to ensure pregnant people carry their pregnancy to term. CPCs provide services, including pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, baby formula, and diapers to achieve their mission. While they have operated in the U.S. for decades, CPCs have become more prominent in the public eye in light of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision that overturned the national right to abortion. Contention has emerged concerning whether CPCs should continue to receive federal funding and qualify as eligible healthcare centers for patients using federal healthcare assistance programs. 

    Introduction to the Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act of 2024

    The Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act of 2024 was introduced to the Senate Committee on Finance by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith [R-MS] on January 18, 2024, and is currently in the introduction stage. The Act contains two central provisions:

    1. Maintaining TANF Eligibility: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, is a government program that provides financial assistance to pregnant people and families for the purpose of accessing food, housing, healthcare, and other necessities. States have autonomy in implementing TANF, including determining the type and amount of assistance payments, and the services that can be obtained with TANF funds. The Act would ensure that people who receive TANF can use their benefits to pay for CPC services, and that CPCs can continue to receive TANF-delegated funding from the federal government.
    2. Renewing federal funding: The Act would prevent the federal government from denying CPCs funding via grants, on the basis that doing so merits federal discrimination against grantees. 

    Arguments in Support of the Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act of 2024

    Enhanced Access to Pregnancy Services

    Proponents of the Act argue that PCPs should be praised for the broad range of goods and services they provide at little to no cost, such as baby clothes and formula. Early pregnancy confirmation is cheaper and more accessible at a CPC than at an abortion clinic, which supporters argue increases accessibility. They cite a study that showed that patients without health insurance were significantly more likely to visit a CPC than not to visit a CPC during their pregnancy. Additionally, proponents believe that the educational programs provided by some centers, such as parenting classes and prenatal care, help equip new and expecting parents with necessary knowledge and skills. In addition, some CPCs offer different types of emotional and psychological support. Advocates of the Act believe that the counseling services provided by some centers can help individuals and families navigate the pregnancy experience and its complexities. 

    Protection from Federal Discrimination

    One of the primary objectives of the Act is to ensure that CPCs continue to receive TANF funding. The bill aims to prevent the Biden administration’s proposed rule that would reduce or cut TANF funding to CPCs. Proponents argue that these centers play a crucial role in providing support to pregnant women, and that losing TANF funding eligibility could significantly impact their ability to offer essential services. Advocates of the bill argue that protection against federal discrimination is crucial for maintaining the viability of CPCs and ensuring they can continue to provide their service without undue interference. Advocates emphasize that CPCs have been allowed to receive federal funding since 1996, and that reversing this practice signals federal discrimination on a national scale. Proponents also argue that states should have the flexibility and power to direct funds to organizations that align with their values and priorities, and that the federal government would infringe upon state’s rights by prohibiting funding to CPCs nationally. 

    Arguments Against the Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act of 2024

    Misleading Patients 

    Opponents of the Act argue that CPCs provide misleading or incomplete information about reproduction with the goal of preventing patients from seeking abortion, which can impact patients’ ability to make informed decisions about their health. Most crisis pregnancy centers have a religious affiliation and are not medically licensed, and thus fall outside the scope of consumer protection regulations that are designed to protect patients. Opponents argue that CPCs purposefully and unethically market themselves as health clinics, which has led to the development of websites like ExposeFakeClinics.com and The Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Center Database to warn patients about CPCs in their area. 

    Critics also claim that many ethical concerns that arise when the government provides TANF funding to organizations that are unqualified to provide medical advice. In particular, critics argue that CPCs’ main goal is to discourage or delay women from seeking abortion services, and that providing them with TANF funding could lead patients to perceive them as legitimate and objective healthcare providers. Delays in medical care, whether it be prenatal checkups or appointments about different options, can lead to more complex and costly procedures later on, and potentially put pregnant people’s lives at risk. Critics believe that by prioritizing funding for un-licensed pregnancy centers, the government risks misleading pregnant people into seeking services at centers with no medical credentials and thus neglecting their healthcare needs.

    Misuse of Federal Funds

    Additionally, opponents of the Act are concerned that CPCs lack the oversight and accountability required of other TANF-eligible medical facilities, which could increase the risk of mismanaged or ineffectively-used federal funds. While states must spend TANF funding on programs that achieve one of four TANF purposes, some argue that CPCs are deceptive and lack patient-centered care. Critics of the Act believe that TANF dollars could be used in more efficient ways than funding CPCs, such as promoting job preparation and work. They believe that funding CPCs risks diminishing government funds that could be used to fund prenatal care, contraceptive counseling, and more comprehensive maternal health services. Many believe that allowing TANF funds to support CPCs could weaken the overall monetary support network for reproductive health in the nation. 

    Conclusion

    The Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act of 2024 aims to protect crisis pregnancy centers by allowing states to allocate TANF and other federal grant funds to these centers without federal interference. Supporters argue that CPCs offer vital services that deserve protection and uphold states’ rights to manage their grant distributions. Conversely, opponents express ethical concerns about funding centers that lack medical qualifications, licensure, and oversight. Critics warn that the Act could misallocate federal funds, diverting resources from licensed maternal and contraceptive care programs to less regulated centers. The legislation’s outcome will significantly impact pregnant individuals nationwide.