CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘Congress’

“Sanctuary Cities” Get a Reprieve For Now

Posted on: January 10th, 2019

By: Pamela Everett

As many city, county and state attorneys are aware, in 2017 the US. Department of Justice (DOJ) added three conditions to the application process for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“Byrne JAG”) program in an effort to eliminate so called sanctuary cities. The Byrne JAG program originated from the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,  which created grants to assist the law enforcement efforts of state and local authorities. Under the Byrne JAG program, states and localities may apply for funds to support criminal justice programs in a variety of categories, including law enforcement, prosecution, crime prevention, corrections, drug treatment, technology, victim and witness services, and mental health.

The first condition, called the “Notice Condition” requires grantees, upon request, to give advance notice to the Department of Homeland Security of the scheduled release date and time of aliens housed in state or local correctional facilities. The second condition, called the “Access Condition,” requires grantees to give federal agents access to aliens in state or local correctional facilities in order to question them about their immigration status. The third condition, called the “Compliance Condition” requires grantees to certify their compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits states and localities from restricting their officials from communicating with immigration authorities regarding anyone’s citizenship or immigration status. Grantees are also required to monitor any subgrantees’ compliance with the three conditions, and to notify DOJ if they become aware of credible evidence of a violation of the Compliance Condition. Additionally, all grantees must certify their compliance with the three conditions, which carries the risk of criminal prosecution, civil penalties, and administrative remedies. The DOJ also requires the jurisdictions’’ legal counsel to certify compliance with the conditions.

A number of jurisdictions have sued the DOJ and the U. S. Attorney General regarding these new conditions and sought a nationwide injunction; however, so far, none have  been successful in obtaining a nationwide injunction.  Recently a partial win was handed to the states of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, and Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia and the City of New York. The States and the City challenged the imposition of the three conditions on five bases: (1) the conditions violates the separation of powers, (2) the conditions were ultra vires under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), (3) the conditions were not in accordance with law under the APA, (4) the conditions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and (5) § 1373 violated the Tenth Amendment’s prohibition on commandeering.  This case challenged the authority of the Executive Branch of the federal government to compel states to adopt its preferred immigration policies by imposing conditions on congressionally authorized funding to which the states are otherwise entitled.

While the court held that the plaintiffs did not make a sufficient showing of nationwide impact to demonstrate that a nationwide injunction was necessary to provide relief to them, it did find as follows: (1) The Notice, Access, and Compliance Conditions were ultra vires and not in accordance with law under the APA. (2) 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a)–(b), insofar as it applies to states and localities, is facially unconstitutional under the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. (3)  The Notice, Access, and Compliance Conditions violated the constitutional separation of powers. (4)The Notice, Access, and Compliance Conditions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA.  (5) The DOJ was mandated to reissue the States’ FY 2017 Byrne JAG award documents without the Notice, Access, or Compliance Conditions, and upon acceptance to disburse those awards as they would in the ordinary course without regard to those conditions.  Additionally, the DOJ was prohibited from imposing or enforcing the Notice, Access, or Compliance Conditions for FY 2017 Byrne JAG funding for the States, the City, or any of their agencies or political subdivisions.

The DOJ was prohibited from imposing or enforcing the Notice, Access, or Compliance Conditions for FY 2017 Byrne JAG funding for the States, the City, or any of their agencies or political subdivisions.

There are several other cases pending, including one filed by the City of San Francisco, seeking the issuance of a nationwide injunction to prohibit the enforcement of the new conditions. Stay tuned for more developments in this area.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Pamela Everett at [email protected].

 

Related litigation: City of Chicago v. Sessions, 264 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2017); affd. appeal, City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018), but later stayed the nationwide scope of the injunction pending en banc review. Conference City of Evanston v. Sessions, No. 18 Civ. 4853, slip op. at 11 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2018) City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 579 (E.D. Pa. 2017); City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 309 F. Supp. 3d 289 (E.D. Pa. 2018)(currently on appeal); California ex rel. Becerra v. Sessions, 284 F. Supp. 3d 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2018)

 

Bipartisan TRACED Act Enhances Penalties for Illegal Robocalls

Posted on: December 7th, 2018

By: Matt Foree

U.S. Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the committee and author of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), recently announced the introduction of the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (“TRACED”) Act.  Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the chairman of the committee’s Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet is a cosponsor of the bill.

The TRACED Act is introduced in a climate of increased frustration from consumers about robocalls that are not being sufficiently addressed by the TCPA.  Senator Thune explained that “the TRACED Act targets robocall scams and other intentional violations of telemarketing laws so that when authorities do catch violators, they can be held accountable. Existing civil penalty rules were designed to impose penalties on lawful telemarketers who make mistakes. This enforcement regime is totally inadequate for scam artists, and we need do more to separate enforcement of carelessness and other mistakes from more sinister actors.”

Significantly, the bill broadens the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to levy civil penalties of up to $10,000 per call against those violating telemarketing restrictions. The bill also provides new criminal fines of up to $10,000 per violation, with the opportunity to treble such amount if the activity is intentional.  The bill also extends the window for the FCC to catch and take civil enforcement action against intentional violations to three years after a robocall is placed, instead of only one year. Furthermore, the bill brings together several federal agencies as well as state attorneys general and other non-federal entities to identify and report to Congress on improving deterrence and criminal prosecution of robocall scams. The bill also requires providers of voice services to adopt call authentication technologies to enable telephone carriers to verify that calls are legitimate before they reach consumers phones. Finally, the bill directs the FCC to initiate a rulemaking to help protect subscribers from receiving unwanted calls or texts from callers using unauthenticated numbers.  A copy of the TRACED Act is located HERE.

Senator Thune’s statement regarding the TRACED Act is located HERE  and Senator Markey’s statement is HERE .  We will continue to monitor the status of the TRACED Act and report back with updates.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Matt Foree at [email protected].

Is “Birthright Citizenship” Subject To Revocation By A Presidential Executive Order?

Posted on: October 30th, 2018

By: Ken Levine

citizenship

During an interview by Axios on October 29, 2018, President Trump declared that he was about to sign an executive order to abolish birthright citizenship in the United States. While the President insisted that birthright citizenship, a concept enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, could be revoked via executive order, it is an understatement to say that the constitutionality of such an order would be dubious.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, in part, that all individuals born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of this country, are automatically U.S. citizens. Any amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a 2/3rd majority in both houses of Congress or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

Furthermore, the issue of birthright citizenship has already been comprehensively addressed in the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. The issue at hand in the case was whether a child born in the United States to Chinese citizens, who were temporarily residing in the U.S., was automatically a U.S. citizen by operation of law. In a 6 to 2 decision the Supreme Court determined that the 14th amendment, which was passed after the U.S. Civil War, guaranteed U.S. citizenship to all individuals born in the United States, no matter the citizenry of the child’s parents. The decision reiterated that the 14th amendment does however exclude birthright citizenship for the children of foreign diplomatic officers, which is the sole exception.

Eminent constitutional scholars around the U.S. have already weighed in on this issue and have spiritedly validated that the U.S. Constitution not only guarantees birthright citizenship, but that a unilateral Presidential Executive Order cannot amend the constitution. It is unclear at this time whether President Trump will actually move forward with this executive order.

For additional information related to this topic and for advice regarding how to navigate U.S. immigration laws you may contact Ken Levine of the law firm of Freeman, Mathis & Gary, LLP at (770-551-2700) or [email protected]

Countries Around the World Are Investigating Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica Event

Posted on: April 26th, 2018

By: Allen E. Sattler

On March 18, 2018, news broke of the Cambridge Analytica event where the data of an estimated 87 million Facebook users was disclosed to the UK-based political consulting firm.  The breach of user data resulted in several U.S. investigations, including by Congress and by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).  Facebook entered into a consent decree with the FTC in 2011, where Facebook agreed to never make deceptive claims concerning users’ privacy and to obtain users’ informed consent before changing the way in which it shares their data.  The FTC is investigating whether Facebook violated the terms of this agreement which carries a possible $40,000 per-violation fine.

On April 10 and 11, Mark Zuckerberg appeared before Congress where he testified that Facebook failed to protect its users’ data and that Facebook “didn’t take a broad enough view” of its responsibility in ensuring the privacy of its users following its initial discovery of the Cambridge Analytica event.  He also accepted personal responsibility for the matter as the company’s founder and CEO.

What might have been lost in the flurry of domestic activity is the amount of scrutiny Facebook is receiving by nations around the globe.  This breach involved users from many countries, with over 1 million affected users in each of four different countries.

The European Union launched an investigation into Facebook on March 19, and the United Kingdom and Australia quickly followed.  Under Australian privacy laws, the government has the authority to issue fines against Facebook of up to $1.6 million if it determines that Facebook violated those laws.

Countries of southeast Asia soon followed with investigations of their own.  Indonesia, which is home to over 115 million Facebook users, 1 million of whom were affected by this breach, launched an investigation on April 6.  Under Indonesian law, the government can assess fines against Facebook representatives personally of up to $870,000.  Singapore has opened an investigation as well, where it has already questioned Facebook executives located in their country.

The Philippines announced its investigation into Facebook on April 13.  The county was rated as the biggest user of social media several years running.  Research indicates that Filipinos spend almost four hours per day on various social media platforms.   This breach affected nearly 1.2 million Filipinos, and news reports indicate that Cambridge Analytica might have helped President Rodrigo Duterte in his successful 2016 campaign.  The event therefore has enormous significance to Filipinos.

On Friday, April 20th, Germany became the latest country to open an official investigation into the Facebook.  Germany’s data privacy regulator said fines could be levied against Facebook in the amount of 300,000 euros ($366,000).

Facebook had revenues of more than $40 billion last year, so the fines that each country might assess against the company seem relatively insignificant.  The investigations launched against Facebook can nevertheless have a big impact on the company and on the entire industry.  This event has garnered the attention of countries around the world, and it has already led to a greater awareness of privacy concerns that exist on social media platforms.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Allen Sattler at [email protected].

 

Congress Steps Into Tip-Pooling Fight

Posted on: March 23rd, 2018

By: Timothy J. Holdsworth

We wrote previously about the background on the tip-pooling regulations and the DOL’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”) that would allow tip-pooling arrangements that include employees who do not regularly and customarily receive tips under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The DOL received a considerable number of comments on the NPR, some of which worried that the NPR would allow employers to keep their workers’ tips.

Buried in the spending bill Congress passed (pages 2025-2027 if you are dying to read it) is a rider that will affect the current U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) laws on tips. The bill proposes language that prohibits an employer, including managers and supervisors, from keeping tips received by employees. This prohibition would apply regardless of whether the employer takes the tip credit. The rider also would make employers liable to employees for any tips unlawfully kept by the employer.

If the bill is signed by President Trump, these may substantially affect any tip-pooling arrangements employers planned to enact under the NPR. It is also unclear if the DOL may try to revise the NPR in any way.

The provision would also subject employers to new liability under the FLSA. Just last year, the Eleventh Circuit (Alabama, Florida, and Georgia) in Malivuk v. Ameripark, LLC held that the FLSA does not authorize an employee to sue her employer solely for an employer allegedly withholding her tips when the employee does not allege that she received less than the minimum wage or less than what she was entitled to for overtime work. The rider creates a new cause of action solely for withheld tips.

If you have any questions about what these potential changes may mean for your business or would like more information on navigating wage and hour laws, please contact Tim Holdsworth at [email protected].