Category: Politics

Beltway Buzz, January 20, 2023

Union Membership Decreases. The percentage of workers who are union members dropped to 10.1 percent in 2022 from 10.3 percent in 2021, according to data released this week by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). In the private sector, the unionization rate fell to 6 percent last year from 6.1 percent in 2021. According to BLS:

The 2022 unionization rate (10.1 percent) is the lowest on record. In 1983, the first year where comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent and there were 17.7 million union workers.

Thus, despite some splashy headlines and a few high-profile examples, the great majority of employees continue to reject unionization. Expect labor unions and their allies in Washington, D.C., to spin these numbers as a reason to double down on efforts to tilt the labor policy field in favor of labor unions.

D.C. Circuit Issues Ruling on NLRB 2019 Election Regs. This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision relating to five specific provisions of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) 2019 changes to its regulations governing union elections. In a May 2020 decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (in an opinion by then-judge Ketanji Brown Jackson) invalidated the five provisions as contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act because the NLRB did not seek public comment on the changes. (The Board argued that the changes were procedural, not substantive, in nature and that public comment was not necessary.) In this week’s decision, the D.C. Circuit agreed that the district court was correct in invalidating three provisions: “the rules regarding the eligible employee-voters list, the timeline for certification of election results, and election-observer eligibility.” However, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the two remaining provisions—regarding pre-election litigation of voter eligibility and the timing of the date of an election—are “‘internal house-keeping’ rules” that are exempt from notice and comment requirements.

House Republicans Seek Information From Federal Agencies. Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) is wasting no time exercising her authority as chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Late last week, Foxx resent to federal labor agencies a series of previous information requests that were answered while Republicans were in the House minority in 2021 and 2022. The requests include the following:

  • Letters to Secretary of Labor Martin Walsh regarding, among other issues, his involvement in various high-profile labor disputes; documents and communications relating to the development and implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) 2021 vaccine-or-test emergency temporary standard; and information surrounding the February 2022 report offered by the Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment, such as attendance lists, meeting minutes, rejected policy proposals, involvement of outside organizations.
  • A letter to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo regarding her April 2022 memorandum relating to employer speech. Specifically, the letter asks for information about the possible involvement of outside organizations, other agencies, and the White House, in the drafting of the memo.
  • A letter to NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran inquiring about potential conflicts of interest that Member Gwynne Wilcox and Member David Prouty may have regarding the Board’s joint employer policy.

The Buzz suspects that these letters are just the first examples of what will be at least two years of aggressive agency oversight by the committee.

DHS Announces Deferred Action for Workers Involved in Labor Investigations. Late last week, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a new streamlined and expedited process for undocumented workers seeking deferred action as a result of their cooperation in investigations into potential violations of labor laws. The new policy further implements provisions of DHS’s October 2021 memorandum, “Worksite Enforcement: The Strategy to Protect the American Labor Market, the Conditions of the American Worksite, and the Dignity of the Individual.” According to the announcement, DHS will “provid[e] new guidance to labor agencies regarding processes to seek deferred action for certain workers” and will create a “single intake point for deferred action requests from noncitizen workers.” As such, “[t]he centralized intake process will allow DHS to efficiently review these time-sensitive requests, provide additional security to eligible workers on a case-by-case basis, and more robustly support the mission of labor agencies.”

OFCCP Proposes Changes to Complaint Intake Process. This week, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) proposed changes to its complaint intake process. OFCCP is proposing to add a preliminary step to evaluate the timeliness of allegations, whether it has jurisdiction over a matter, and how the matter should proceed. If OFCCP determines that an investigation is warranted, it will direct the complainant to fill out a more detailed form. According to the proposal, this two-step procedure “will improve the efficiency of [OFCCP’s] complaint intake process.” Comments are due by March 20, 2023.

Days of Hayes. President Rutherford Birchard Hayes passed away this week (January 17) in 1893. Hayes, the nineteenth president, was a former congressman and three-time governor of Ohio before he ran for president in 1876. His election against Democrat Samuel Tilden, the governor of New York, was mired in controversy and allegations of voter intimidation, resulting in disputed Electoral College votes. This led to the creation of an electoral commission, which eventually swung the Electoral College votes to Hayes by a margin of 185–184. The process earned Hayes the nickname “Rutherfraud” from Democrats. While Hayes hasn’t been the subject of popular movies or Broadway shows, he was a very interesting president:

  • Although twelve presidents who served before him were lawyers, Hayes was the first president to graduate from law school.
  • At almost forty years old, with no previous military experience, Hayes volunteered to fight for the Union during the Civil War. He was wounded several times, and served in the same infantry unit as fellow future president, William McKinley.
  • In 1879, Hayes signed the “Lockwood Bill,” which permitted women to practice law in federal court.
  • Hayes was the first president to make a trip to the West Coast and the first president to have both a telephone and a typewriter in the White House.

Hayes is responsible for the first Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn, a tradition that will celebrate its 145th anniversary in just a few weeks.

Article By James J. Plunkett of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

War and Peace at Rospatent: Protecting Trademarks in Russia

Yes, we shall live, Uncle Vanya. Could Anton Chekhov ever have imagined that his literary work would be used to sell hamburgers? In March, a controversial application for an “Uncle Vanya” mark in connection with “snack bars, cafes, cafeterias, restaurants, bar services, canteens, cooking and home delivery services,” incorporated the red-and-yellow golden arches logo of McDonald’s. It was just one in a series of recent applications in Russia that have caused serious pearl-clutching among intellectual property lawyers.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, the country has faced numerous financial, trade and travel sanctions. It’s also been snubbed by major intellectual property partners. In a February 28 letter, a group of whistleblowers and staff representatives at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) called for the entity’s public condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the rapid closure of its Russia Office. The European Patent Office severed ties with Russia on March 1, and shortly thereafter the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) confirmed that it had “terminated engagement” with officials from Russia’s agency in charge of intellectual property, the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent), and with the Eurasian Patent Organization.

In response, Russia has adopted an aggressive posture in the intellectual property realm where it once sought to peacefully engage with the world, an effort that began well before the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. When the USSR joined the Paris Convention in 1965, it eagerly sought to develop Soviet intellectual property. Yet in March, Russia issued Decree No. 299, which effectively nullifies the enforcement value of Russian patents owned by entities and individuals in “unfriendly” countries including the United States, European Union member states, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin also greenlighted the importation of branded products without the brands’ permission, creating gray market headaches. As Boris Edidin, deputy chairman of the Commission for Legal Support of the Digital Economy of the Moscow Branch of the Russian Bar Association, clarified in a recent legal commentary published by Moscow-based RBC Group: “entrepreneurs have the opportunity to import goods of well-known brands, regardless of the presence or absence of an official representative on the Russian market.”

Russia, like the EU, had traditionally adopted a tougher stance than the United States on parallel imports. Now, however, “both by ‘anti-crisis’ measures and by cloak-and-dagger methods” Russia is sure to do all it can to keep its planes flying and its factories running, said Peter B. Maggs, research professor of law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and noted expert on Russian and Soviet law and intellectual property.’

The increase in parallel imports makes trademark prosecution and maintenance more important than ever in Russia, but it’s not the only cause for concern. In March, as political tensions reached a crescendo, a Russian court declined to enforce the trademark rights for Peppa Pig, the famous British cartoon character, due to “unfriendly actions of the United States of America and affiliated foreign countries.” (See case No. A28- 11930/2021 in the Arbitration Court of the Kirov Region; an appeals court later overturned this holding, in a win for the porcine star.) RBC Group reported in March that it had tracked more than 50 trademark applications by Russian entrepreneurs and businesses for the marks of famous foreign brands, many in the fashion and tech sector. While most trademark applications were explicit copies of existing brands, in other cases applicants were content to imitate well-known trademarks and trade dress.

For example, a Russian entrepreneur from a design studio called Luxorta applied to register an IDEA brand that mimics the style and yellow-and-blue color schemes of famous Swedish brand IKEA. He told RBC that his business had suffered after IKEA suspended its Russian operations, and that he aspired to develop his own line of furniture and work with IKEA’s former suppliers. Other applicants RBC interviewed indicated they hoped to sell the marks back to foreign companies once those companies return.

On April 1, Rospatent published a press statement clarifying that “in case an identical or similar trademark has already been registered in the Russian Federation, it would be the ground for refusal in such registration.” More recently, the head of Rospatent, Yury Zubov, has responded with frustration to news coverage of trademark woes in Russia, noting that intellectual property legislation is unchanged and the “Uncle Vanya” hamburger mark had been withdrawn.

Prof. Maggs agreed that those trying to register or use close copies of foreign marks in Russia will likely fail. He cited a June 2 decision by the Court of Intellectual Property Rights to uphold lower court findings that the mark “FANT” for a carbonated orange soft drink violated unfair competition laws, because it was confusingly similar to the “FANTA” brand owned and licensed to third parties by Coca-Cola HBC Limited Liability Company. Russia’s consumer protection agency had originally brought the case.

The Court reasoned that “confusion in relation to two products can lead not only to a reduction in sales of the FANTA drink and a redistribution of consumer demand, but can also harm the business reputation of a third party, since the consumer, having been misled by the confusion between the two products, in the end receives a different product with different quality, taste and other characteristics.”

In addition, Prof. Maggs said, “the Putin Regime is and will be promoting Russian products as ‘just as good’ as foreign products. An example, obviously approved at high levels is the adoption of a totally different trademark for the sold McDonald’s chain,” he said, referring to the June 12 reopening of former McDonald’s restaurants in Moscow under the name “Vkusno & tochka” (“Tasty and that’s it”).

Brands should be wary of inadvertently jeopardizing their Russian marks by suspending local operations; a trademark may be cancelled in Russia after three years of uninterrupted non-use. While Article 1486 of the Russian Civil Code states that “evidence presented by the rightholder of the fact that the trademark was not used due to circumstances beyond his control [emphasis added] may be taken into account,” brands claiming infringement still risk being ineligible for damages or injunctive relief, because technically they are not losing sales while pausing business in Russia.

Moreover, if a company has suspended sales in Russia to show solidarity with Ukraine but seeks to stop sales in Russia by others, it may be accused of violating the good faith requirement of Article 10 of the Russian Civil Code, which states that exercising “rights for the purpose of limiting competition and also abuse of a dominant position in a market are not allowed.”

Russia remains a party to numerous intellectual property treaties, including the Paris Convention, the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the Hague Agreement. But as the Peppa Pig case illustrates, court decisions on intellectual property are not immune to political heat.

The question looming on the horizon is whether, if the current crisis escalates, the Russian government would outright cancel trademarks from hostile countries. It would not be the first time a state denied intellectual property rights during political conflicts. In the aftermath of the First World War, for example, the US government advocated for the “expropriation” of property, including intellectual property, of German nationals, perceived as responsible for the militarism of their government1. And in the 1930s, the German patent office removed Jewish patent-holders from its roster as part of its notorious “Aryanization” process. However, because Russia is not officially at war with the countries it has deemed “unfriendly,” these precedents are not directly on point.

Brands that have suspended business operations in Russia should monitor their trademark portfolios closely for infringement and consider how they can prove use of each mark during a prolonged absence from the Russian market. In other words: keep your eyes on Uncle Vanya.

FOOTNOTES

1 Caglioti DL. Property Rights in Time of War: Sequestration and Liquidation of Enemy Aliens’ Assets in Western Europe during the First World War. Journal of Modern European History. 2014;12(4):523-545. doi:10.17104/1611-8944_2014_4_523.

Article By Cynthia Martens of Katten

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Public High School Coach in Free Speech/Freedom of Religion Case

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling which will have wide-ranging effects on the ability of governmental entities to react to religious and other speech of public employees. In Kennedy v. Bremerton Schools, the Court ruled that a public high school could not discipline or disfavor a football coach for his practice of kneeling on the 50-yard line and praying at the conclusion of each game, eventually growing to include most of the football team and opposing players as well. The school district had attempted to accommodate the coach’s desire for prayer, but concerns mounted when one parent complained that her son felt compelled to participate despite being an atheist. The coach was eventually placed on administrative leave and not extended an offer to return to coaching the next school year. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the coach’s First Amendment challenges.

With a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court reversed. In doing so, the Court first found a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.  The Court discounted the school district’s stated concerns that the coach’s practice could violate the Establishment Clause or interfere with students’ right of free exercise. The Court held that absent evidence of “direct” coercion the Establishment Clause was not implicated and then concluded that the coach’s position of authority over the players was insufficient to constitute direct coercion.  The Court distinguished earlier cases involving prayers at football games and civic meetings, by emphasizing that the speech for which the coach was disciplined was not publicly broadcast or recited to a captive audience. Additionally, students were not required or formally expected to participate.

With respect to the Free Speech issue, the Court concluded that the coach’s prayers were not unprotected “government speech,” and in doing so applied a restrictive view of what could be considered “government speech.”  The Court held that because the coach’s job duties did not include leading prayers, the fact that the speech occurred on the field immediately after the game was insufficient to transform it from private speech to government speech.  “To hold differently,” the Court stated, “would be to treat religious expression as second-class speech and eviscerate this Court’s repeated promise that teachers do not ‘shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.’”

The decision, together with Shurtleff v. Boston decided earlier this Term, suggests a sharp break with past Court jurisprudence on the balance between the dictates of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.  Government entities should review their policies on religious activity on government property or by employees in connection with their positions in light of these two decisions.

Article By Ahmad Chehab, Scott R. Eldridge, and Robert T. Zielinski of Miller Canfield

For more civil rights legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

House Bill To Give FDA More Funding to Address Formula Shortage

  • On May 17, House Appropriations Committee Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced H.R. 7790, a supplemental appropriations bill to provide $28 million in emergency funding to address the shortage of infant formula in the US for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022. The bill is intended to provide the FDA with needed resources to address the shortage, prevent fraudulent products from being sold, acquire better data on the infant formula marketplace, and to help prevent a future recurrence.

  • Representative DeLauro stated that FDA does not currently have an adequate inspection force to inspect more plants if it approves additional applications to sell formula in the US. Thus, the supplemental appropriations are intended for “salaries and expenses.”

  • Relatedly, the House Appropriations Committee will hold two hearings this week to examine the recent recall of infant formula, the FDA’s handling of the recall, and the nationwide infant formula shortage.

Article By Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more food and drug law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Legal News Reach – Season 2, Episode 1: Immigration & Its Impacts on the U.S. Labor Market with Raymond Lahoud [PODCAST]

Welcome to our first episode of Season 2! Rachel and Jessica speak with Raymond Lahoud, a Member of Norris McLaughlin, P.A., focusing on immigration law. Immigration issues are complicated enough, but how does that factor into boosting the U.S. economy?  Listen to our last episode to find out more.

Be sure to also check out the latest episode of Mr. Lahoud’s podcast, “Immigration Matters.”

We’ve included a transcript of our conversation below, transcribed by artificial intelligence. The transcript has been lightly edited for style, clarity, and readability.

Full Transcript

INTRO  00:02

Hello and welcome to Legal News Reach, the official podcast for The National Law Review. Stay tuned for our discussion on the latest trends, legal marketing, SEO, law firm best practices, and more.

Rachel  00:15

Today’s episode is the first of the second season, where we’re broadening our focus to trending topics in the legal industry. Today we’re speaking with Ray Lahoud, Member of North McLaughlin about the impact of COVID-19 on immigration and labor shortages. Ray, would you like to tell our listeners a little bit about yourself?

Raymond Lahoud  00:30

Well, thanks for having me, Rachel. It’s really awesome to be here on this podcast and to talk about such an interesting area of law right now, in the world, particularly immigration law. I’m a partner at Norris McLaughlin, where I serve as the Chair of the Immigration Law Group here. I handle employment-based immigration matters, removal defense, employment, verification, I noncompliance all types of immigration matters, a broad spectrum with my great team of attorneys, paralegals, and assistants here at North McLaughlin. So thank you again for having me. It’s great to be here.

Rachel  01:05

One of the first topics we wanted to focus on here is immigration’s impact on labor shortages. You’ve written a lot about the impacts on the U.S. economy due to labor shortages. Can you explain how immigration can help remedy the situation?

Raymond Lahoud 01:18

I think we can all agree that without labor without employees, without people to go and work in whatever company, whatever organization, whatever place that exists out there that that needs to provide services or goods to the American public needs, needs employees. Without labor, there’s no economy, immigration right now is really a huge part of the employment demand, or the employment shortage share. There’s a lot of Americans who are able to legally work who just don’t want to work or have you know, taken different decisions or different approaches on life or what they want to do with their life. But we still need people to perform some of these essential functions from farming, to nursing care to handling, you know, mushroom picking to manufacturing, immigration is the way that has long proven to be a way to solve that through temporary visa programs through you know, green card programs that existed out there. And under the Trump administration. And when COVID hit, things really got hit pretty hard and really slowed down the ability for people to bring in international employees to the United States that fill that gap.

Rachel  02:29

This has been an ongoing issue. So are there any policy changes on your radar that will help solve this issue, either through immigration or otherwise?

Raymond Lahoud 02:38

The only way to solve this issue is through comprehensive immigration reform. For over a decade now, we’ve been using the number of 11 million people that are in the country without documentation, I think we can all agree that that number is significantly higher, probably 20, or 30 million people, step one is going to be trying to figure out how we handle those 20 to 30 million people or even Federalists 11 million people that 11 to 20 million people that we have the United States without documentation. And that means that some people are going to have to be deported, who you know, may have certain crimes may have certain issues in terms of their background, but a significant number of these individuals have been in the country for a long time, working without authorization, pleading taxes. So there has to be a process of legalization for those individuals, which is the big issue. We don’t what is legalization for them. And then there also has to be a secure border where people can’t just cross the border without any documentation. I mean, every country has borders, borders are important. We can all see how important borders are right now with what’s happening in Ukraine. You know, comprehensive immigration reform includes having an ability for individuals to come into the United States to work to claim asylum if they have to, to help our employers here in the United States who need employees because people are just not taking part or not applying to Americans are just not applying to take on these jobs. The great resignation has, for some reason taken over the United States and it continues. So what do we need? We need comprehensive immigration reform? How do we get there? It’s getting members of Congress to agree daily, I’m talking to clients who will arrive in Pennsylvania and they’ll say how do I start working here I just crossed the border assuming that because they heard on Facebook before they came up here are on TikTok are though like that it would be very easy for them to claim asylum. So I’m dealing with a lot of clients and potentials and individuals who have just recently crossed the border now feel that they’re stuck in the United States because they can’t leave because they have to go through proceedings and they can’t work. I mean, there’s also in this representation, let’s say that we keep hearing the numbers, millions are coming to the United States. There are millions of encounters. So you may have one person try to come to the United States four or five times and each one is considered an encounter. And this is a problem that we see from President to President, by the way, and this is why I say we need comprehensive immigration reform. Because let’s go back to 1986. Ronald Reagan was going to deal with the immigration problem we had, you know, millions of people here in the United States back then. And he did put three amnesty 1213 14 million people were granted permanent resident status, they say that cost the turn of California to a blue state once they became citizens top political. In the end, they’re like going back to that every President has made immigration, much tougher, actually very tough. Actually, it was the administration that puts some of the toughest policies when it comes to what’s called the public charge rule. The way our system is written right now is that the executive branch just has so much ability and authority discretionary ability and authority over what to do or what not to do, what they can do what they can’t do in terms of immigration. And then every time a new president comes in, something changes drastically. So you had Obama come in, then he puts in place DACA, you know, gives eight 900,000 people, you know, a temporary quote-unquote, status, and you have President Trump come in, and he takes it away. And then you have President Biden come in. Again, it goes back to comprehensive immigration reform. It’s all just been patchwork since after ’86. Now we have 11, 12, 13, 14, 20 million people here. So it’s-I think the distaste is, is that we’re going to grant people status, and it’s just going to happen, again, has to be a two-fold fix as to be true, comprehensive immigration reform where we’re not, you know, 10 years down the road, we don’t have another 15 million people that don’t have documentation here.

Rachel  06:34

What can companies do to help deal with this shortage of immigrant labor or just labor in general?

Raymond Lahoud 06:39

Every day, I probably field 20 to 30 calls from employers who cannot find employees. It’s the biggest problem. I think that’s facing our country right now. And I’m not sure where it comes from, I really don’t understand what this great resignation is, I don’t know how people can live. Right now, there are several legal immigration processes that are available. One is the H Tubi. system, which is a great way of bringing in seasonal employees for farms for landscaping, contractors, painters, manufacturing work, which we bring workers over here year after year. The H1-B lottery is another visa process. So there’s visa processes that are out there, it’s good to avail as an employer to not be afraid of these processes to you know, when you’re recruiting globally recruit, and when you find a candidate, seek out an immigration attorney and say, Hey, is there a way that I can bring this person over legally sponsor them? Is there a pathway and there are. You have companies like the bigger tech companies that are getting all the big H1-B visas, you have the bigger farming companies that are getting all the H2-B visas, because the smaller ones are not really availing themselves, the legalized programs that exist there, we have a lot of people who are coming into the country across the border, these individuals, they’re turning themselves into the Customs and Border Protection. So there’s an expectation at some time that, you know, some of them have fears of returning, I mean, that they’re going to start going through processes. These are individuals that will likely have employment authorization documents, within a year or so don’t forget about the American worker offer good wages, offer good benefits offer time off the world’s change right now in terms of how things work. So if there’s, you know, remote operations that you can offer, do that offer child care services, if you could, but you have to be creative.

Jessica  08:25

So I would love to get your perspective since you’ve been involved in immigration law for so long, and you definitely have a great grasp on the history of a lot of immigration policy changes. I know with COVID, you know, the legal industry got backed up in general; just court cases being rescheduled, I would really like to know what the last two years for immigration law has looked for you how has it changed because of the pandemic updates on border restrictions? I’d love to get your take on that.

Raymond Lahoud 08:52

When the pandemic hit immigration really became incredibly, incredibly busy from the travel restrictions to a title 42 at the border expulsions to people that were detained in immigration custody that were getting COVID It was a disaster for a long time for a lot of people. A lot of people out there who are stuck in other countries, you know, travel bans were coming up and moving and changing by the minute. And companies. You know, the companies that we represent, the employers that we represent that keep operating there were essential. They were central companies and they were healthcare companies. They were companies that do industrial manufacturing or handle electricity and the like, so they needed their employees here. So during COVID, we spent a lot of time trying to figure out the ways to bring a lot of these employees into the United States through the waivers that existed. They’re reaching out to the State Department to seek special exemptions. And then at the same time, you know, the immigration to the deportation defense part of it really came to a halt. court hearings were halted for all like non detained cases, which took an already incredibly backlogged immigration court system and took it about I have four more years behind now. So you’re probably looking at a good 10 years before an immigration judge for a trial. And after continuances and the, like 10 cases COVID really spread pretty heavily, we have to file lots of petitions and requests to try to get clients that were detained by immigration out of custody within the United States. So a lot happened during COVID. And when it came to immigration, in those days, there were nights where I was awake at, you know, two, three in the morning, making sure a client was able to get back in.

Jessica  10:34

We’re in such an interesting environment at this point, especially more recently with the Ukraine crisis, but we also had a changing of the hands in the White House, all the different elections. So there’s been a lot of transition period. And you know, we touched on it a little bit already. But the changes moving forward, I mean, now that the pandemic is having some type of release, besides needing that comprehensive immigration law changes, do you see any other changes now that we’re getting out of the pandemic, whether that’s Ukraine specifically, or just in general? What do you think is gonna happen here?

Raymond Lahoud 11:07

I think that we’ve, we’ve moved on to our next disaster with our next emergency, we’ll say, which is Ukraine right now. This is all that we hear about on the news, there aren’t COVID numbers at, you know, at the bottom, how do people are dying, how many people died and the like, I just feel that, you know, Ukraine has as taken over COVID. Now COVID brought on a time of remote hearings, which are still continuing now. The immigration courts, making fun of them with, you know, video, WebEx hearings in Zoom hearings, are able to move them quicker through the system and the like, and I have some serious issues. When it comes to remote hearings. You know, there’s huge due process concerns and having my client be able to testify in person where the judge can see his or her face. You know, there’s some very serious concerns in that. So they’re changes that, you know, came about from COVID, in terms of remote operations and the like, but I don’t know if they’re necessary to our benefit, even for, you know, immigrants work were coming in. And also, you would think that we really learned how to process things a lot faster. You know, what, we’re kind of hit with the crisis, and we just aren’t, you know, our embassies are still in a huge backlog when it comes to processing visas and, you know, fiance petitions and merit-based petitions and the like, but we are seeing movement here stateside within that, honestly, in terms of change. I mean, you just, it’s all patchwork.

Jessica  12:27

If memory serves me correctly, I know the Biden administration has put more emphasis on visas for STEM. I think people coming either for schooling or for employment, if I’m remembering correctly, do you think that’s a step in the right direction, I know it’s another “patch,” but…

Raymond Lahoud 12:43

 The United States has a huge number of international students in the United States, even locally here in what’s called the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania, Lehigh, Lafayette, Cedar Crest Moravian, their F huge international student populations and international student populations are critical to cultural diversity to you know, just to the growth of the school and it’s bringing the world together. So as part of it, so students will come here from abroad, Saudi Arabia, countries, China, Japan, Australia, they’ll come to the F1 visa complete their courses here to get a bachelor’s degree. And if they typically, if you come in under the f1 visa, regardless of your degree, you’ll get 12 months of what’s called occupational practical training. And that’s because you 12 months of just training in your, your area of of studies, when you were in school, if you earned a STEM degree science, tech, engineering or math degree, you can get an additional 24 months of occupational practical training. To me, that’s great to me for bringing people here, and we’re educating them, we should keep them here and you know, give them jobs here. I mean, we there’s no reason that you know, we should be training talent and, you know, bringing in talent from across the world, and then just sending them, you know, back to, you know, their home country, particularly if they’re willing to stay and work here and become members of society in good standing that contribute pay taxes. Why not? Even if you were you came in, you knew you were coming in across the border, see, you’re still a kid, and then you turn over all of your information to the government when you’re 17 or 18 years old. And then, you know, four, eight years later, the Trump ministration says that they are going to get rid of it and it goes through courts who put it back in and take it out and put it back in and then there’s an injunction lifted, and these are hundreds of thousands of lives in people’s hands. People really have to recognize that there are faces to these individuals that have deferred action that have temporary protected status that there are faces to them. And it’s more than just politics. But could you imagine if you were in that position with deferred action, not knowing should I finish going to college should I spend the money should I take a job, what do I do next?

Jessica  15:01

COVID already caused a very large limbo feeling if you’re coming from another country, or you’ve been here, and then you might be told, “oh, you gotta go back to where you came from.” And I can’t imagine being young when you come here and then going back to a country you don’t even really know.

Rachel  15:17

So we wanted to get your viewpoints on Ukrainian refugees and immigration, how does this compare to other refugee crises that we’ve had in the past

Raymond Lahoud 15:27

Ukraine refugee crisis has brought the US government to its peak when it comes to refugees, and the like, they’ve acted very quickly, to bring in them what’s called Temporary Protected Status. You compare it to you know, what happened in Afghanistan and the lake, there are a lot of differences, I would say just that how quickly they are granted temporary protected status. You know, if you’re from Ukraine, there’s countries that are setting up policies like Canada to try to bring in people from Ukrainian. And I hope that these policies that these countries are putting together to help refugees in times of crisis will stay for other countries to beyond Ukraine’s. Hopefully this won’t be the last time that you’ll see other countries open their doors to help people. My mom and dad are both born in Lebanon and immigrated here during the civil war in the late 70s. And it was devastating. And the US opened its doors to the Christians from the north, they came in and became an integral part of the society life here in Pennsylvania, it’s good to see that in Ukraine, but we’re going to have other countries that are going to have similar issues. And who knows where, you know, President Putin may stop, we just really have to think long term about it. Because we also have to be realistic. And we can only handle so many people in our country. I hate to say that.

Rachel  16:49

How does that factor into maybe some of the more, like, long-term policy changes that the country could implement? Is there a need to sort of rethink how we bring in refugees, and how many people we can take and how that process really goes?

Raymond Lahoud 17:02

There is, there is, but how do you rethink that? You know, how do you it’s even just saying, you know, how many people can we take in I know you just feel I feel internally bad because you don’t want to turn anybody away, that’s really hurting, you know, and but we have to, thankfully, I’m not in Congress to make up those decisions. But I think there has to be, you know, some sense of reason, and balance. And I’m not really sure what that is.

Rachel  17:29

Like the US has to work together with other countries to make sure that we help them out of people that need to be helped. I don’t think it’s realistic for one country to sort of shoulder most of the burden.

Raymond Lahoud 17:38

It’s very hard to get refugee status. I mean, you don’t just kind of come into the United States and walk-in and may take years to go through I mean, if you’re going to the Iraqi refugee have to go in through the United Nations refugee program, there’s a huge process you have to go through, it’s not easy. The things that happened in Afghanistan kind of made known the issues with our you know, the refugee program and the lake. But it’s not, it’s not an easy process to go through. You can’t just walk into an embassy, US Embassy and say, Hey, I’m I’m afraid of where I’m living, I want to go to United States,

Rachel  18:09

Right, yeah. And I imagine on top of even having to be in a situation where you have to flee your home.

Raymond Lahoud 18:15

Anybody that goes through pain, like a harm or fear, you know, I mean, whether it’s domestic violence, and those are the worst of cases where I have clients who are coming in suffered extreme domestic violence, like at the hands of their spouses and the like, and, and with those, you know, you know, what you do, you can send them back, you know, when that when the spouse is going to kill them on, you know, they’re dead on arrival. And so those are cases that we’re dealing with inside the United States right now. It’s like we have refugees coming in. But we also have asylees, here in the United States that were people who are in here applying affirmatively for asylum, we have a lot of people in the United States that are here on like a protective status we do. We do so much. And other countries are recognizing that if you take a look at Australia, so people are coming into the to Australia, they don’t go into the country, they sit off-island for a long period of time for they claim asylum or anything like that. The other countries that are out there, I think that they all have some pretty unique set of circumstances that are there, and in ours has a lot of issues that we have to really work through.

Rachel  19:16

So you’ve written about policy changes in Pennsylvania aimed at helping undocumented immigrants, you know, entrepreneurs, people who are getting driver’s licenses, things like that. I was curious to get your insight on how you see these changes impacting both immigrants in the state as a whole, like what sort of have been the changes there?

Raymond Lahoud 19:33

Driver’s licenses in Pennsylvania, we’re seeing a movement. New Jersey, just fair aware, they pass legislation in the implement to the driver’s licenses, people who may not have a social security number or the like, right now in Pennsylvania. I believe it’s in the House Committee. It’s being discussed. I don’t see it moving out of there given the current makeup of the legislature. I don’t foresee it happening in Pennsylvania anytime soon. It does keep coming up a lot by members of the State House, I think it’s a good idea because people are driving. Let’s get real. There are people without papers in the United States. I mean, if we don’t realize that, I think that we’re just fooling ourselves. So, you know, it’s if it’s a way for them, they’re voluntarily providing their information, you know, why not register it, they can get their insurance. It’s not a federal issue. It’s a state issue as the as right to get driver’s licenses, it’s state-by-state. Pennsylvania considers that they look at it, they bring it up, but it always fills in committee doesn’t go anywhere. Pennsylvania, has the political planet as a swing state, as we all know, and immigration is a hot topic issue here.

Rachel  20:37

I’m glad to hear that at least it’s even if it’s not, you know, moving forward, I think it being on people’s minds is a good thing. So in terms of changes like that, and maybe large scale changes, like we spoken about how we just need really large scale immigration reform, I was wondering, we could talk about the changes that you think need be made to both attract and retain immigrants in the United States, I think there’s a lot of talk about specifically, after the Trump administration, a lot of international students to stop coming here, you know, the United States is losing talent to countries like Canada and other places like that. So I was curious to get your thoughts on that.

Raymond Lahoud 21:14

COVID-19 opened up a different way of kind of operating, we had spoken earlier, where, you know, these companies are now recognizing that they could get that global talent opened up a facility in India or, you know, have somebody remote in from Canada, or actually just physically move their locations to Canada, or their offices or their manufacturing sites to another country, because it’s easier to bring labor in. I think that other countries are starting to embrace certain kinds of immigration, like I know that Canada is, you know, they’ve implemented that another investment-based immigration system, they’ve made it easier for Indian workers a certain kind of ticket during COVID in the light. So there are countries that are taking no more proactive approach to bringing in people but during the Trump administration, people from abroad really felt they weren’t welcomed in the United States. And I saw that a lot with students, and there was a significant number. It’s coming back, and I’m seeing the numbers come back, and just from the schools locally, that that we’re working with. So in terms of the International Student Program, you know, I do feel that it’s picking back up after COVID. And after the Trump administration, I just think we have to kind of keep going with it to make sure that, you know, we know that the people that we’re inviting into our country, we know that we have to welcome them here and treat them kindly, and work with them. Because we’re just we are one world one people. I’m really just, I think it’s a realist here, and that, you know, you have immigration lawyers who, you know, will just, you know, push things to like an end and say, No, open borders, and you have no people on another end that would say, you know, close everything to anybody. And but I think we have to have recent ability. I mean, you just can’t close the United States to everything. I mean, you can’t close the United States to the globe’s cultures, we just have to find a middle ground. And I hope that, you know, I was able to kind of present some of that reason that no middle ground, that’s there being immigration where it’s hard to take, you know, some things that Trump did weren’t necessarily I’m going to do but if somebody heard me say that, and I will now, you know, they would be shocked at it. But I think that’s what the issue is, is that there’s no meeting of minds. People just become enemies, because somebody has a different political opinion. You know, I think there really has to come a realization that we just can’t shut the borders down completely. And you can’t open the borders up completely. There just has to be a middle ground that we all have to reach in. Our members of Congress really have to grow up and hopefully, they will. And hopefully, they’ll work with the Biden ministration. We’ll get somewhere.

Jessica  23:52

I actually have an interesting question. Since you’re located in Pennsylvania; Lancaster’s, a certified welcoming status for refugees. Do you think that’s helpful in situations like Ukraine? And like if more cities did that, do you see that as a positive direction?

Raymond Lahoud 24:06

I do, I do. I mean, like…Philadelphia has, like a welcome center for Lancaster was one of the counties like that. It’s really what they do with it is, yeah, it certainly hops. The more the better. Governor Wolf has actually taken very proactive actions towards the Ukrainian community here, even locally. But again, there’s more than just the Ukrainian community that are suffering from prosecution. So hopefully, it’ll open our minds to how we deal with other areas and in the future when this happens and how other countries can work together with it. But yeah, it does. It does help because it shows that we care you know, things like that only they can start shows that we care. You know, even if you know, New Jersey, they couldn’t give them give people a real ID driver’s license, but they gave them a license to drive and pencil and they can leave the state drive and add to it, it’s still a driver’s license so they can give What they want to know as much as they can give them and if that’s what Lancaster was able to give them, that’s what it was. They can’t give driver’s licenses but um, you know, that opens up a door for immigrants and to have stuff like that it’s good for them to have programs like that is good.

Rachel  25:14

Well, excellent. Thanks again, Ray for joining us today. We had a great conversation.

Raymond Lahoud 25:20

 It’s really been good being here talking about immigration. It’s an interesting topic. And hopefully, we’ll see things changing in the years to come and I’m here to talk to you whenever. Yeah, thank you for having me.

OUTRO  25:40

Thank you for listening to The National Law Review’s Legal News Reach podcast. Be sure to follow us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for more episodes for the latest legal news. Interested in publishing and advertising with us? Visit www.natlawreview.com. We’ll be back soon with our next episode.

Article By Rachel Popa and Jessica Scheck of The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

For more Legal News Reach podcasts, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

President Biden’s FY 2023 Budget Request Would Strengthen TSCA and Tackle PFAS Pollution

On March 28, 2022, the Biden Administration submitted to Congress President Biden’s budget for fiscal year (FY) 2023. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) March 28, 2022, press release, the budget makes critical investments, including:

  • Strengthening EPA’s Commitment and Ability to Implement Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Successfully: The budget provides $124 million and 449 full time equivalents (FTE) for TSCA efforts “to deliver on the promises made to the American people by the bipartisan Lautenberg Act.” According to the budget, “[t]hese resources will support EPA-initiated chemical risk evaluations and protective regulations in accordance with statutory timelines.”
  • Tackling Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Pollution: PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals that threaten the health and safety of communities across the United States. As part of the President’s commitment to tackling PFAS pollution, the budget provides approximately $126 million in FY 2023 for EPA to increase its understanding of human health and ecological effects of PFAS, restrict uses to prevent PFAS from entering the air, land, and water, and remediate PFAS that have been released into the environment. EPA states that it will continue to act on its PFAS Strategic Roadmap to safeguard communities from PFAS contamination.

Article By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

For more environmental legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Law Firms Respond to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: How the Legal Industry & the Public Can Help

On February 21, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered ground troops into the eastern Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. Invading under the guise of establishing independence for the region on February 24, Russia started bombing key points of interest around the country, including the capital city of Kyiv. At the time of writing, the skirmishes remain ongoing, with Russia expanding its invasion force as the days go on.

The ramifications of Russia’s war are widespread. In Ukraine, infrastructural damage is considerable, an estimated 2 million civilians are evacuating or have been driven from their homes. The death toll remains uncertain at this time, but the Ukrainian health ministry estimates that hundreds of citizens have been killed as a result of the violence. Globally, financial markets are in a state of rapid flux, seeing huge rises in inflation, a strained supply chain and plummeting stock prices.

Law firms in the United States and abroad have responded to the conflict by offering pro bono services in anticipation of resultant legal complications and organized means by which money can be donated to Ukrainian humanitarian efforts.

How Have Law Firms Responded to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine?

In some instances, firms have also closed offices in Ukraine to protect workers, and severed ties with Russian businesses. Law firms that have closed offices in Ukraine include Dentons, CMS and Baker McKenzie, which have closed offices in Kyiv.

“Dentons has established a taskforce to monitor and manage the crisis situation, with a primary focus on protecting our people,”  Tomasz Dąbrowski, CEO of Dentons Europe, told the National Law Review. “We are in regular contact with our team in Kyiv and are providing our colleagues and their families with any possible assistance, including transport, relocation and accommodation assistance in the neighboring countries. Furthermore, we have seen a wave of kindness and generosity from our people across Europe, who have volunteered to provide accommodation in their homes for Ukrainian colleagues.  Furthermore, in addition to the financial support our Firm is providing to our Ukrainian colleagues, we have also received financial donations from around the world to help them resettle.”

Many law firms have announced they are closing offices in Russia, including Squire Patton Boggs, Latham & Watkins Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and Morgan Lewis & Bockius, among others. Norton Rose Fulbright announced March 7 that they are winding down their operations in Russia and will be closing their Moscow office as soon as they can, calling Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “increasingly brutal.”

“The wellbeing of our staff in the region is a priority. We thank our 50 colleagues in Moscow for their loyal service and will support them through this transition.”

Norton Rose Fulbright said they “stand unequivocally with the people of Ukraine,” and are taking steps to respond to the invasion.

“Some immediate actions are possible and we are taking them. We are not accepting any further instructions from businesses, entities or individuals connected with the current Russian regime, irrespective of whether they are sanctioned or not. In addition, we continue to review exiting from existing work for them where our professional obligations as lawyers allow. Where we cannot exit from current matters, we will donate the profits from that work to appropriate humanitarian and charitable causes,” the statement read. “We are working with our charitable partners in every region to raise funds to help the people of Ukraine, as well as providing pro bono support to those Ukrainians and others who are being forced to relocate.”

Law firms have also stepped forward to offer pro bono assistance to those affected by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Law Firms Offering Pro Bono Assistance to Ukraine

Akin Gump Partner and Pro Bono Practice leader Steven Schulman explained how the legal industry is collaborating and working to provide assistance:

“So what we often do in these crises, we will self organize, [and] say who’s a point person who knows what’s going on, and then we will share information so that again, we’re lightening the load on the legal aid organizations.”

Another law firm offering assistance to Ukraine is  Covington & Burling, which the country hired to help pursue its claim against  Russia at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Specifically, Ukraine asked the court to order Russia to halt its invasion. Covington filed a claim on behalf of Ukraine to the ICJ.

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are providing emergency aid in Ukraine, as well as in neighboring countries, such as Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania to help people displaced by the war as they come across the border, Mr.Dąbrowski said. These organizations are providing food, water, hygiene supplies and other necessities, and urgent psychological counseling. Specific NGOs on the ground in Ukraine include Mercy Corps, Fight for Right, Project HOPE, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and  Fundacja Ocalenie, among others.

However, NGOs need cash donations in order to keep providing aid. Mr.Dąbrowski detailed what pro bono work Dentons is doing, and how the firm is supporting NGOs:

“Our Positive Impact team is in touch with numerous NGOs and lawyers from our firm to identify opportunities for pro bono legal advice, mainly in the countries which share a border with Ukraine.  We are already working with NGOs in Poland and Hungary which are helping Ukrainian refugees displaced by the war. We are assisting with issues related to employment law, contracts, establishment of charitable foundations, etc… We are also in discussions with an international relief agency which is looking to set up operations within Ukraine.

While men between the ages of 18 and 60 are currently prohibited from leaving Ukraine, as of March 10, 2022, the conflict has created one of the largest refugee crises within the last few decades.

“We have activated our registered charitable foundation to collect donations from our people around the world to support Ukrainian families – and particularly children –  displaced by the war, including some of our own people from Kyiv.  So far, our colleagues from around the world have donated or pledged close to €300,000,” Mr.Dąbrowski said. “We have already distributed €60,000 of that to eight NGOs in Poland, Hungary and Romania, which are providing emergency aid, food and water, hygiene supplies, transportation, medical and psychological care, shelter and schooling to Ukrainian civilians fleeing from the war”

Concerns with immigration and refugee asylum is the next expected complication. In the short-term, the Department of Homeland Security is prioritizing Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for those already in the U.S.

For the public, there are a number of actions to take to support Ukrainians. However, those wishing to help should make sure to do their research before making any donations in order to ensure the funds end up in the right hands.

How Can Members of the Public Help Ukraine?

Possible scam organizations and outreach programs are common during international crises, so it’s important to know the signs of fraudulent charities. Some best practices for providing support include:

  • Giving directly to an organization rather than through shared donation links on social media

  • Being wary of crowdfunding efforts

  • Doing a background check on an organization and its donation claims using Charity Watch, Give.org, and Charity Navigator.

Some examples of charitable organizations focused on Ukraine relief include:

Informational resources for those affected are provided below:

Conclusion

Law firms and the public alike have stepped up to offer assistance and financial help to those most affected by the Russian invasion. Law firms cutting ties with Russian businesses and closing offices in Russia shows that the legal industry is standing behind Ukraine as the conflict continues to escalate.

In upcoming coverage, the National Law Review will be writing about how law firms are helping clients handle Russian sanctions, as well as the immigration implications of refugees displaced by the war in Ukraine.

*The quotes and input of interviewees reflect the latest information on the Russian invasion of Ukraine as of March 7, 2022. Readers can find the latest legal news from around the world on The National Law Review’s Global Law page.*

Article By Chandler Ford, Jessica Scheck, and Rachel Popa of the The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC

Copyright ©2022 National Law Forum, LLC

FBI and DHS Warn of Russian Cyberattacks Against Critical Infrastructure

U.S. officials this week warned government agencies, cybersecurity personnel, and operators of critical infrastructure that Russia might launch cyber-attacks against Ukrainian and U.S. networks at the same time it launches its military offensive against Ukraine.

The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) warned law enforcement, military personnel, and operators of critical infrastructure to be vigilant in searching for Russian activity on their networks and to report any suspicious activity, as they are seeing an increase in Russian scanning of U.S. networks. U.S. officials are also seeing increased disinformation and misinformation generated by Russia about Ukraine.

The FBI and DHS urged timely patching of systems and reporting of any Russian activity on networks, so U.S. officials can assess the threat, assist with a response, and prevent further activity.

For more information on cyber incident reporting, click here.

Even though a war may be starting halfway across the world, Russia’s cyber capabilities are global. Russia has the capability to bring us all into its war by attacking U.S. government agencies and companies. We are all an important part of preventing attacks and assisting others from becoming a victim of Russia’s attacks. Closely watch your network for any suspicious activity and report it, no matter how small you think it is.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review. 

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

Ongoing Canadian Protests Shine Spotlight on Ripple Effect of Supply Chain Disruptions

Although the last two years have seen a nearly never-ending line of supply chain impacts for manufacturers, the latest disruption is also serving to shine a spotlight on the broader impact that relatively small disruptions in the supply chain can have on the global economy.  We all know that trucking is a critical component of the economy.  The U.S. estimates seventy two percent of goods in the U.S. travel by truck.  Trucking has become even more important in this era of increased deliveries and backlogs at ports and other logistics hubs.

In Canada, what began as protests by truckers regarding certain pandemic-related restrictions and mandates have snowballed into broader protests and blockages of roads, bridges, and border crossings.

Protesters have been blocking various bridges and roads in Canada in protest of certain pandemic-related restrictions and mandates.  On Tuesday, the bridge connecting Windsor, Ontario to Detroit (a critical linkage for cross-border travel) was largely blocked, with traffic stopped going into Canada and slowed to a trickle going into the United States. The blockades are now leading U.S. automakers to begin trimming shifts and pausing certain operations in their Michigan and Canadian plants. The bridge protests and automakers’ reduction in capacity continued on Thursday without an end in sight.

The ongoing protests in Canada have also served as a reminder of how seemingly local trucking disruptions in one country can cascade through the supply chain.  This is not the first time that trucking strikes and blockages have rippled through the supply chain and economy.  In 1996, a truckers’ strike in France lasted 12 days, barricading major highways and ultimately leading to concessions from the French government over certain worker benefits and hours.  The resulting agreement led to heightened tensions with Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain due to the impact felt across borders.  In 2008, truckers went on strike in Spain and blocked roads and border crossings, protesting fuel prices.  In 2018, truckers in Brazil staged a large strike and protest that lasted for 10 days, blocking roads, disrupting food and fuel distribution, canceling flights, and causing certain part shortages for automakers.

The ongoing protests in Canada have similarly expanded from Ottawa to the current blockage of border crossings, further raising their profile internationally as they begin to impact global trade.  It remains to be seen how the blockades and protests will resolve, as leaders call for de-escalation and re-opening of roads and crossings.  However, the ripple effects of what started as a localized protest will continue to be felt far beyond Canada’s borders.

Article By Lauren M. Loew of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more COVID-19 and supply chain legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

Reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Rulings in Trump v. Vance & Trump v. Mazars

In Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars the Supreme Court issued opinions in two cases concerning the release of President Trump’s financial records.  Reactions to the July 9th rulings have varied, with opinions differing on whether or not Trump’s reputation and presidency will be significantly impacted by what his financial records may reveal.

Below, we outline the details of each case and the reactions to the Supreme Court’s decisions.

Background Trump v. Vance

In Trump v. Vance, the court stated that Trump had no absolute right to block the Manhattan District attorney’s access to Trump’s financial records for the purposes of a grand jury investigation. The court held in a 7-2 decision that “Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President.” The court’s opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority including Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan with Justice Kavanaugh filing a concurring opinion joined by Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Thomas and Justice Alito writing separate dissenting opinions.

Trump v. Vance involves a state criminal grand jury subpoena not served on President Trump, but on two banks and an accounting firm that were custodians of the records. The subpoenaed records are for eight years of Trump’s personal and business tax returns and other banking documents in the years leading up to the 2016 election served on behalf of New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance., Jr. Vance’s investigation centered around payments made to two women — Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels — who alleged they had affairs with Trump before he entered office.

The Supreme Court considered state criminal subpoenas could threaten “the independence and effectiveness” of the president as well as undermining the president’s leadership and reputation, weighing Trump’s circumstances against those in Clinton v. Jones, the 1997 case where President Bill Clinton sought to have a civil suit filed against him by Paula Corbin Jones dismissed on the grounds of presidential immunity, and that the case would be a distraction to his presidency.

Trump argued that the burden state criminal subpoenas would put on his presidency would be even greater than in Clinton because “criminal litigation poses unique burdens on the President’s time and will generate a considerable if not overwhelming degree of mental preoccupation” and would make him a target for harassment.

The Court addressed Trump’s argument, stating that they “rejected a nearly identical argument in Clinton, concluding that the risk posed by harassing civil litigation was not ‘serious’ because federal courts have the tools to deter and dismiss vexatious lawsuits. Harassing state criminal subpoenas could, under certain circumstances, threaten the independence or effectiveness of the Executive. But here again the law already seeks to protect against such abuse … Grand juries are prohibited from engaging in ‘arbitrary fishing expeditions’ or initiating investigations ‘out of malice or an intent to harass.’”

The Court also considered that Vance is a case addressing state law issues where Clinton was a case addressing federal law issues. Trump argued that the Supremacy Clause gives a sitting president absolute immunity from state criminal proceedings because compliance with subpoenas would impair his performance of his Article II functions. Arguing on behalf of the United States, the Solicitor General claimed state grand jury subpoenas should fulfill a higher need standard.  In response, the Court ruled, “A state grand jury subpoena seeking a President’s private papers need not satisfy a heightened need standard … there has been no showing here that heightened protection against state subpoenas is necessary for the Executive to fulfill his Article II functions.”

Notably, the Supreme Court decision does not allow for public access to Trump’s tax returns; they will be part of a Grand Jury investigation, which is confidential.  However, many took away the message that the majority’s decision–bolstered by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Trump appointees, who concurred–that the law applies to everyone.

Reactions to SCOTUS Decision from Jay Sekulow and Cyrus Vance, Jr.

Both Vance and Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow expressed they were content with the Court’s ruling, albeit for different reasons.

“We are pleased that in the decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress and New York prosecutors from obtaining the President’s financial records. We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts,” Sekulow tweeted.

“This is a tremendous victory for our nation’s system of justice and its founding principle that no one – not even a president – is above the law. Our investigation, which was delayed for almost a year by this lawsuit, will resume, guided as always by the grand jury’s solemn obligation to follow the law and the facts, wherever they may lead,” Vance said in a statement.

Other Reactions to the Supreme Court’s Trump v. Vance Ruling

Following the Supreme Court’s arguments in Vance, lawyers and legal scholars commented about what the decision could mean for the presidency.

In a C-SPAN interview with National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen, Columbia Law School Professor Gillian Metzger spoke about the issue of burden on the president in Vance, “A lot of what is being shown in these cases is who bears the burden when. Clinton v. Jones said that first, you have to show the burden on the presidency…already the Solicitor General is trying to move us beyond where we had been in Clinton vs. Jones. Among the justices on the court, my sense is that they are really trying to figure out what the standards should be…I didn’t get the sense of a stark ideological divide on this.”

In agreement with seeing the ruling as a victory for the rule of law, David Cole, the ACLU National Legal Director said: “The Supreme Court today confirmed that the president is not above the law. The court ruled that President Trump must follow the law, like the rest of us. And that includes responding to subpoenas for his tax records.”

Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, a frequent Trump critic, highlighted the victory on Twitter, saying: “No absolute immunity from state and local grand jury subpoenas for Trump’s financial records to investigate his crimes as a private citizen. Being president doesn’t confer the kind of categorical shield Trump claimed.”

Of a practical matter, though, Mark Zaid, the Washington attorney who represented the whistleblower who set the stage for Trump’s impeachment proceedings, tweeted:

 

“Even if Trump’s tax returns reveal fraud, I find it doubtful that this fact would finally be straw that broke his supporters’ back on election day.  But importance of ruling is that criminal investigation continues & will exist past expiration of Trump’s presidential immunity.” (Should we embed the tweet?)

Background for the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Trump v. Mazars

The Supreme Court remanded back to the lower courts the second case, Trump v. Mazars in a 7-2 decision. The Mazars case involved three committees of the U. S. House of Representatives attempting to secure Trump’s financial documents, and the financial documents of his children and affiliated businesses for investigative purposes. Each of the committees sought overlapping sets of financial documents, supplying different justifications for the requests, explaining that the information would help guide legislative reform in areas ranging from money laundering and terrorism to foreign involvement in U. S. elections.

Additionally, the President in his personal capacity, along with his children and affiliated businesses—contested subpoenas issued by the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees in the Southern District of New York.  Trump and the other petitioners argued in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the subpoenas violated separation of powers. The President did not, however, argue that any of the requested records were protected by executive privilege.  Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, with Thomas and Alito filing dissenting opinions.

In Mazars, the District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the Congressional subpoenas, indicating the investigations served a “legislative purpose” as they could provide insight on reforming presidential candidate’s financial disclosure requirements.  However, Roberts writes: “the courts below did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information.”

In the opinion, Roberts sets out a list of items the lower courts need to consider involving Congress’s powers of investigation and subpoena, noting that previously these disagreements had been settled via arbitration, and not litigation.  Additionally, Roberts summarizes the argument before the court, drawing on the Watergate era Senate Select Committee D. C. Circuit  made by the President and the Solicitor General, saying the House must demonstrate the information sought is “demonstrably critical” to its legislative purpose did not apply here.  Roberts, stated that this standard applies to Executive privilege, which, while crucial, does not extend to “nonprivileged, private information.”  He writes: “We decline to transplant that protection root and branch to cases involving nonprivileged, private information, which by definition does not implicate sensitive Executive Branch deliberations.”

However, Roberts detailed that earlier legal analysis ignored the “significant separation of powers issues raised by congressional subpoenas” and that congressional subpoenas “for the President’s information unavoidably pit the political branches against one another.” With these constraints in mind, Roberts charged the lower court to consider the following in regards to congressional investigations and subpoenas:

  1. Does the legislative purpose warrant the involvement of the President and his papers?
  2. Is the subpoena appropriately narrow to accomplish the congressional objective?
  3. Does the evidence requested by Congress in the subpoena further a valid legislative aim?
  4. Is the burden on the president justified?

Reactions to Trump v. Mazars

Nikolas Bowie, an assistant Harvard Law Professor, turning to Robert’s analysis in the opinion on Congressional investigations opinion discussing Congressional investigations indicated the decision “introduces new limits on Congress’s power to obtain the information that it needs to legislate effectively on behalf of the American people . . . the Supreme Court authorized federal courts to block future subpoenas using a balancing test that weighs ‘the asserted legislative purpose’ of the subpoenas against amorphous burdens they might impose on the President.”

Additionally, Bowie points out, “it seems unlikely that the American people will see the information Congress requested until after the November election.”

Writing for the nonprofit public policy organization, The Brookings Institution, Richard Lempert, Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology Emeritus at the University of Michigan, concurs with Bowie’s point, writing that the Mazars decision may set a new standard for Congressional subpoenas moving forward:

“The genius of Robert’s opinion in Mazars is that while endorsing the longstanding precedent that congressional subpoenas must have a legislative purpose and without repudiating the notion that courts should not render judgments based on motives they impute to Congress, the opinion lays down principles which form a more or less objective test for determining whether material Congress seeks from a president is essential to a legislative task Congress is engaged in … Congress should be able to spell out in a subpoena why it needs the documents it seeks.”

Looking Ahead to What’s Next

There is a lot of information in these decisions to unpack, especially in relation to Congressional investigations and subpoenas.  Additionally, questions remain on how the lower courts may interpret Roberts’ directive to examine “congressional legislative purpose and whether it rises to the step of involving the President’s documents” and how Congress will “assess the burdens imposed on the President by a subpoena.”

 

Copyright ©2020 National Law Forum, LLC

 

ARTICLE BY Rachel Popa, Eilene Spear and Jennifer Schaller at The National Law Review / The National Law Forum LLC.