Language Translator

Showing posts with label United States Legal System. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States Legal System. Show all posts

Monday, July 28, 2025

Executive Order: ENDING CRIME AND DISORDER ON AMERICA’S STREETS

July 28, 2025
ENDING CRIME AND DISORDER ON AMERICA’S STREETS


 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose and Policy.  Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe.  The number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration — 274,224 — was the highest ever recorded.  The overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.  Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes.  An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.  The Federal Government and the States have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness but not its root causes, leaving other citizens vulnerable to public safety threats.

Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order.  Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens.  My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety.

Sec2.  Restoring Civil Commitment.  (a)  The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall take appropriate action to:

(i)   seek, in appropriate cases, the reversal of Federal or State judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees that impede the United States’ policy of encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves in appropriate facilities for appropriate periods of time; and

(ii)  provide assistance to State and local governments, through technical guidance, grants, or other legally available means, for the identification, adoption, and implementation of maximally flexible civil commitment, institutional treatment, and “step-down” treatment standards that allow for the appropriate commitment and treatment of individuals with mental illness who pose a danger to others or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.

Sec3.  Fighting Vagrancy on America’s Streets.  (a)  The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of Transportation shall take immediate steps to assess their discretionary grant programs and determine whether priority for those grants may be given to grantees in States and municipalities that actively meet the below criteria, to the maximum extent permitted by law:

(i)    enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use;

(ii)   enforce prohibitions on urban camping and loitering;

(iii)  enforce prohibitions on urban squatting;

(iv)   enforce, and where necessary, adopt, standards that address individuals who are a danger to themselves or others and suffer from serious mental illness or substance use disorder, or who are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves, through assisted outpatient treatment or by moving them into treatment centers or other appropriate facilities via civil commitment or other available means, to the maximum extent permitted by law; or

(v)    substantially implement and comply with, to the extent required, the registration and notification obligations of the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act, particularly in the case of registered sex offenders with no fixed address, including by adequately mapping and checking the location of homeless sex offenders.

(b)  The Attorney General shall:

(i)    ensure that homeless individuals arrested for Federal crimes are evaluated, consistent with 18 U.S.C. 4248, to determine whether they are sexually dangerous persons and certified accordingly for civil commitment;

(ii)   take all necessary steps to ensure the availability of funds under the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance program to support, as consistent with 34 U.S.C. 50101 et seq., encampment removal efforts in areas for which public safety is at risk and State and local resources are inadequate;

(iii)  assess Federal resources to determine whether they may be directed toward ensuring, to the extent permitted by law, that detainees with serious mental illness are not released into the public because of a lack of forensic bed capacity at appropriate local, State, and Federal jails or hospitals; and

(iv)   enhance requirements that prisons and residential reentry centers that are under the authority of the Attorney General or receive funding from the Attorney General require in-custody housing release plans and, to the maximum extent practicable, require individuals to comply.

Sec4.  Redirecting Federal Resources Toward Effective Methods of Addressing Homelessness.  (a)  The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate action to:

(i)    ensure that discretionary grants issued by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery fund evidence-based programs and do not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called “harm reduction” or “safe consumption” efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm;

(ii)   provide technical assistance to assisted outpatient treatment programs for individuals with serious mental illness or addiction during and after the civil commitment process focused on shifting such individuals off of the streets and public programs and into private housing and support networks; and

(iii)  ensure that Federal funds for Federally Qualified Health Centers and Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics reduce rather than promote homelessness by supporting, to the maximum extent permitted by law, comprehensive services for individuals with serious mental illness and substance use disorder, including crisis intervention services.

(b)  The Attorney General shall prioritize available funding to support the expansion of drug courts and mental health courts for individuals for which such diversion serves public safety.

Sec5.  Increasing Accountability and Safety in America’s Homelessness Programs.  (a)  The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate actions to increase accountability in their provision of, and grants awarded for, homelessness assistance and transitional living programs.  These actions shall include, to the extent permitted by law, ending support for “housing first” policies that deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency; increasing competition among grantees through broadening the applicant pool; and holding grantees to higher standards of effectiveness in reducing homelessness and increasing public safety.  

(b)  The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, as appropriate, take steps to require recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance to increase requirements that persons participating in the recipients’ programs who suffer from substance use disorder or serious mental illness use substance abuse treatment or mental health services as a condition of participation.

(c)  With respect to recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance that operate drug injection sites or “safe consumption sites,” knowingly distribute drug paraphernalia, or permit the use or distribution of illicit drugs on property under their control:

(i)   the Attorney General shall review whether such recipients are in violation of Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 856, and bring civil or criminal actions in appropriate cases; and

(ii)  the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall review whether such recipients are in violation of the terms of the programs pursuant to which they receive Federal housing and homelessness assistance and freeze their assistance as appropriate.

(d)  The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate measures and revise regulations as necessary to allow, where permissible under applicable law, federally funded programs to exclusively house women and children and to stop sex offenders who receive homelessness assistance through such programs from being housed with unrelated children. 

(e)  The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law:

(i)   allow or require the recipients of Federal funding for homelessness assistance to collect health-related information that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development identifies as necessary to the effective and efficient operation of the funding program from all persons to whom such assistance is provided; and

(ii)  require those funding recipients to share such data with law enforcement authorities in circumstances permitted by law and to use the collected health data to provide appropriate medical care to individuals with mental health diagnoses or to connect individuals to public health resources.

Sec6.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

                              DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    July 24, 2025.


For more information on this vistit Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets – The White House

Saturday, May 31, 2025

Martial Law? Prepare For The War Against Blacks

May 31, 2025
Seems like we have finally arrived to the point of no return. Martial law existing when not officially declared as such.


 

Monday, May 26, 2025

Unleashing the Police

May 26, 2025

Trump's Plan to 'Unleash' Police Risks More Abuses of Everyone's Rights

President Donald Trump's executive order empowering local cops will create bad incentives that could prove costly for law-abiding citizens.


"unleashing" the police



It wasn't a surprise when President Donald Trump penned his recent executive order that calls "for cities to unleash high-impact local police forces." In 2017, the president told a police audience about handling crime suspects: "When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon. You just see them thrown in—rough. I said, 'Please don't be too nice.'"


The official line was that he was just joking, but even some police officials were uncomfortable with making light of police brutality. In the ensuing years, Trump's rhetoric has only gotten worse. His recent use of the word unleashing wasn't by accident. Unleash means "to let happen or begin something powerful that, once begun, cannot be controlled."


The purpose of the Constitution is to put the leash on the government and its agents. In the Declaration of Independence, colonists complained that the British king "sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." Police officers are the front line between the government and the people—and few others have such power to deprive us of our liberties and lives.


Many conservatives applauded the order, arguing that he's merely empowering police to do their jobs. But police and prosecutors have plenty of tools. Similarly, this administration has mocked the constitutional process of due process, whereby the accused get their day in court. That protects the innocent more than the guilty by simply requiring the government to prove its case.


As someone who has covered police-abuse cases, I can guarantee that officers make mistakes, can be overly aggressive, and on occasion are corrupt. After the 1980s-era War on Drugs, police often have used tactics more appropriate to an occupying military force rather than to civilian police officers. If you think police should be unrestrained, get back to me after a SWAT team gets the wrong address and invades your house instead.


This is not about letting police do their jobs. Let's say a President Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom—or whichever potential Democratic politician keeps you awake at night—issued an executive order calling for the feds to "unleash high-impact" Internal Revenue Service, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, or Environmental Protection Agency officers. Would you say, "That's great, they're just cracking down on tax cheats, illegal guns, and environmental scofflaws"?


Of course not. You'd instead fear they are going to tread on the rights of honest taxpayers, legitimate gun owners, and law-abiding business owners. You'd believe the purpose of the executive order would be political. In 2023, for instance, a Republican-controlled House subcommittee called on the IRS to end "unannounced field visits" because they believed the agency was targeting conservative groups, abusing its power, and harassing ordinary citizens.


I expect this argument to fall on deaf ears, given the inconsistent positions taken by members of each political tribe. As an aside, I saw a pickup truck with a "don't tread on me" flag bumper sticker and one of those blue-striped flags symbolizing support for police. Who, exactly, does the driver think will tread on his rights? We're all supportive of police who honestly and legally use their authority to battle crime, but only the most naïve person would believe that unleashing them from legal constraints will only hobble gang-bangers and felons.


In many ways, police have already been unleashed from reasonable limits. Consider the issue of civil asset forfeiture, whereby police officers, FBI agents, and other law enforcement officials take the homes, cars, and cash of people who have never been accused of a crime. That also started with the War on Drugs. Federal officials argued that the best way to stifle criminal gangs was to take their assets.


That's a fair point, provided it's bound by normal, legal standards—i.e., forcing the government to prove an underlying crime before engaging in a taking. Unfortunately, police take what they want based on their own claims—and then force the owners to prove their innocence to reclaim their life's savings. This is what unleashing looks like in the real world.


As one of the founders of that program has argued, it "has turned into an evil itself, with the corruption it engendered among government and law enforcement coming to clearly outweigh any benefits." And that abuse only involves our property. Imagine the abuses that will result when police are free to use whatever violence they deem necessary—and when those who abuse their powers are given even more protections from accountability.


Sure, most police officers are honorable, which makes it all the more appalling to incentivize bad ones. "Bad cops are the product of bad policy," wrote Radley Balko, author of Rise of the Warrior Cop. "And policy is ultimately made by politicians. A bad system loaded with bad incentives will unfailingly produce bad cops." These Trump actions provide all the wrong incentives—and law-abiding citizens have much more to fear from them than criminals.


Saturday, May 24, 2025

Project 2025 Completion Tracker

May 24, 2025


 


Project 2025 is a conservative policy initiative led by The Heritage Foundation, aiming to provide a blueprint for governance should a Republican administration take office in 2025. The checklist outlines key actions and policy shifts across various government departments, focusing on areas like economic policy, immigration, education, and federal administration.

The plan emphasizes reducing the size of the federal government, rolling back regulations, strengthening border security, and reshaping education policy to align with conservative principles. It also advocates for changes in leadership across federal agencies to ensure alignment with its agenda.

Monday, December 16, 2024

State Law vs Your Federal Rights

December 16, 2024

Trey Knowles

What happens when state law conflicts with federal law? The answer lies in a doctrine known as federal preemption. Generally, the preemption doctrine states that when a federal law conflicts with state law, the federal law prevails. While states may make their own laws, they must meet or exceed the federal standard.

The supremacy clause is in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Article VI says federal law is the "supreme law of the land." This clause means that judges in every state must follow the federal government's Constitution, federal laws, and treaties in matters directly or indirectly within the government's control.

The preemption doctrine comes from the supremacy clause. It states that federal law preempts state law when the laws conflict. Federal law also preempts state or local law if Congress intends to regulate an area and exclude the states. But case law involving federal preemption of state laws has shown that federal law should not preempt state law "unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress" (Wyeth v. Levine).

In the absence of a federal law, that state law controls. Generally speaking, state regulations may provide more protection for people than federal law allows.

But, not all federal agency regulations preempt state regulations. As noted in the Supreme Court case Cipollone v. Liggett Group (1992), a presumption against preemption invokes federalism and state sovereignty principles. This presumption applies in all preemption cases (Altria Group Inc. v. Good).


Federalism and Enumerated Federal Powers 

Under the supremacy clause, the federal government has broad powers to create, regulate, and enforce the laws of the United States. The concept of federalism, or federal power, has a long history dating back to the late 1700s when the U.S. ratified the Constitution. 

In any preemption case, the analysis begins with the Constitution. The first question is whether the Constitution either expressly or implicitly preempts a state law. Another important factor that courts consider is Congress' intent when passing the federal law (Medtronic Inc. v. Lohr). 


Express Preemption 

The federal government has certain express or "enumerated" powers specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 contains these powers. Examples of express powers include: 

  1. The power to regulate commerce (the Commerce Clause).
  2. The power to declare war and raise armies.
  3. The power to make laws, such as immigration or bankruptcy laws, necessary to execute the government's power. 

When a federal statute or federal regulation expressly conflicts with a state law, the federal law or regulation will generally prevail. Some federal laws contain an express preemption clause. A preemption provision indicates the legislative branch had preemptive intent with the federal law or regulation. This congressional intent will preempt conflicting state laws. 


Implied Preemption 

The federal government has express powers and implied powers under the Constitution. Implied powers are not explicitly expressed in the Constitution. But, the government argues these implied powers come from the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution. This was the decision in the landmark Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Examples of implied powers include: 

  • The power to create a national bank 
  • The power to set a federal minimum wage 
  • The power to call for a military draft 

There are two types of implied preemption. Field preemption is when the federal government determines it occupies an entire field of regulation. In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013), the Supreme Court considered an Arizona state law that required voters to provide proof of citizenship to vote in a federal election. 

The Supreme Court held that the National Voter Registration Act trumped the state law. The case stands for the idea that voter registration is an area the federal government controls. 

Field preemption also applies to several instances in which the government has determined it has occupation of the field, including: 

  • Nuclear power
  • Medical devices
  • Immigration

The second type of implied preemption is conflict preemption. In Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association (1992), the Supreme Court determined that federal law preempts a state law that conflicts with federal law. Specifically, the court held that federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations preempted Illinois laws on workers handling hazardous material.

Conflict preemption applies to several areas of law, including:

Drug manufacturers, drug administration, and drug labeling — e.g., the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) federal regulatory schemes may preempt state court decisions on drug labeling

Foreign sanctions:

Automobile safety regulations, such as minimum safety standards

Whether express or implied, federal law will almost always prevail when it interferes or conflicts with state law. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court declares the federal law unconstitutional, or in situations where the supremacy clause does not apply, federal law will likely prevail. So, a federal court may prevent a state from enforcing a preempted state law.

But plenty of examples exist where tension between state and federal law remains unresolved. For instance, several states have legalized medical and recreational use of cannabis. Federal law deems cannabis a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. The federal government, as of May 2024, is taking steps to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule II drug. In this case, it's mostly a matter of political will and resource allocation.

To that end, people in the United States should know about the federal government's broad powers. These issues include:

  • Bankruptcy claims
  • Discrimination claims
  • Immigration challenges
  • Federal Taxation

A constitutional law attorney can help construe and interpret federal law as applied to a particular state law.


Examples of the Supremacy Clause: State vs. Federal Law

Example 1:

Suppose Pennsylvania enacts a law that says: "No citizen may sell blue soda anywhere in the state." But, in this scenario, the federal government has already established the "Anti-Blue Sales Discrimination Act." 

This fictitious federal law bans actions that discriminate against goods sold based on color. A local food and beverage vendor who sells blue soda in vending machines gets charged with violating state law. The owner may challenge the state law because federal law preempts it. So, the vendor argues, the Pennsylvania law violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Example 2:

Fictitious Company hires you as a non-exempt, full-time employee. Your state has set a minimum wage of $5 per hour, and the company declares this is your pay rate. But, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Under federal law, Fictitious Company must pay you at least $7.25 per hour. The federal law will supersede the state's minimum wage.

 

Your First Amendment Rights

December 16, 2024

Trey Knowles

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. 


Freedom of Religion 

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." However, some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. 


Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press 

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech may be exercised in a direct (words) or a symbolic (actions) way. Freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for interference with the right of free speech when it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements. 


A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech, and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place. 


Despite the popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general. 


Right to Assemble / Right to Petition 

The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedom of assembly is recognized as a human right under article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association.

The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating with groups that engage in and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group.

There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with First Amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups. 

The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through litigation or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government.