Click to go to the website
The United States and its allies are going to face a variety of challenges on the international stage in 2015, many will take forward the situations that arose in 2014, but others are long term strategic issues that if not begun to be resolved will create further more serious consequences in the years to come.
Here is a list of what I believe are the top ten national security challenges the United States will face in 2015
Lesson Purpose
|
From the beginning Americans have looked to the future. This lesson examines some of the challenges that might affect Americans as individuals and in their civic lives in coming years. It also explores issues that might lead to proposals for additional changes to the United States Constitution.
When you have finished this lesson, you should be able to discuss the effects of diversity and technology on the lives of Americans. You also should be able to explain the importance of civil discourse in debating divisive issues. Finally, you should be able to evaluate, take, and defend positions on the changing expectations of America's governments and potential constitutional amendments |
Terms And Concepts To Understand
Eminent domain
The inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property or to expropriate property or rights in property without the owner's consent. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for "just compensation" for private property taken for public use, known as the "takings clause".
Immigration
The movement of people into one place from another.
The inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property or to expropriate property or rights in property without the owner's consent. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for "just compensation" for private property taken for public use, known as the "takings clause".
Immigration
The movement of people into one place from another.
Primary Sources
Oregon Death with Dignity Act 1994
Oregon enacted in 1994 the Death with Dignity Act, which allows terminally-ill citizens of that state to end their lives by requesting a lethal dose of medication from their doctor.
Redesigned Naturalization Test Questions
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Cervices (USCIS) redesigned its naturalization test in 2008, concentrating on wider civic concepts rather than facts. Applicants must correctly answer six of ten questions drawn from a pool of 100.
The Statistical Abstract of the United States
The Statistical Abstract of the United States is an annual publication of the U.S. Census Bureau, describing social and economic aspects of the United States.
Tocqueville--Democracy in America, 1835, 1840
A review of American representational government in the 1830s, focusing on the reasons for success in America versus attempts and failures in other places.
United States Bill of Rights
In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are known. They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of articles, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three quarters of the states.
Oregon enacted in 1994 the Death with Dignity Act, which allows terminally-ill citizens of that state to end their lives by requesting a lethal dose of medication from their doctor.
Redesigned Naturalization Test Questions
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Cervices (USCIS) redesigned its naturalization test in 2008, concentrating on wider civic concepts rather than facts. Applicants must correctly answer six of ten questions drawn from a pool of 100.
The Statistical Abstract of the United States
The Statistical Abstract of the United States is an annual publication of the U.S. Census Bureau, describing social and economic aspects of the United States.
Tocqueville--Democracy in America, 1835, 1840
A review of American representational government in the 1830s, focusing on the reasons for success in America versus attempts and failures in other places.
United States Bill of Rights
In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are known. They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of articles, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three quarters of the states.
Must Know Court Cases
Reno v. ACLU (1997)
Facts of the Case:
Several litigants challenged the constitutionality of two provisions in the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Intended to protect minors from unsuitable internet material, the Act criminalized the intentional transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages as well as the transmission of information which depicts or describes "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in a manner deemed "offensive" by community standards. After being prohibited by a district court from enforcing the above provisions, except for the one concerning obscenity and its inherent protection against child pornography, Attorney General Janet Reno appealed directly to the Supreme Court as provided for by the Act's special review provisions.
Conclusion:
Yes. The Court held that the act violated the First Amendment because its regulations amounted to a content-based blanket restriction of free speech. The act failed to clearly define "indecent" communications, limit its restrictions to particular times or individuals (by showing that it would not impact on adults), provide supportive statements from an authority on the unique nature of internet communications, or conclusively demonstrate that the transmission of "offensive" material is devoid of any social value. The Court added that since the First Amendment distinguishes between "indecent" and "obscene" sexual expressions, protecting only the former, the act could be preserved if it dropped the words "or indecent" from its text. The Court refused to address any Fifth Amendment issues.
Citation
The Oyez Project, Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) available at: http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_511
Vacco v. Quill (1997)
Facts of the Case:
Dr. Timothy E. Quill, along with other physicians and three seriously ill patients who have since died, challenged the constitutionality of the New York state's ban on physician-assisted suicide. New York's ban, while permitting patients to refuse lifesaving treatment on their own, has historically made it a crime for doctors to help patients commit or attempt suicide, even if patients are terminally ill or in great pain. Following a district court ruling favoring the state of New York, the Second Circuit reversed and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Conclusion:
No. Employing a rationality test to examine the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause, the Court held that New York's ban was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, preventing euthanasia, shielding the disabled and terminally ill from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above all, the preservation of human life. Moreover, while acknowledging the difficulty of its task, the Court distinguished between the refusal of lifesaving treatment and assisted suicide, by noting that the latter involves the criminal elements of causation and intent. No matter how noble a physician's motives may be, he may not deliberately cause, hasten, or aid a patient's death.
Citation
Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997), http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1858
Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)
Facts of the Case:
Dr. Harold Glucksberg--along with four other physicians, three terminally ill patients who have since died, and a nonprofit organization that counsels individuals contemplating physician assisted-suicide--brought this suit challenging the state of Washington's ban on physician assisted-suicide. The state of Washington has historically criminalized the promotion of suicide attempts by those who "knowingly cause or aid another person to attempt suicide." Glucksberg alleged that Washington's ban was unconstitutional. Following a district court ruling favoring Glucksberg and his fellow petitioners, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision and the Supreme Court agreed to hear Washington's case.
Conclusion:
No. Analyzing the guarantees of the Due Process Clause, the Court focused on two primary aspects: the protection of our nation's objective fundamental, historically rooted, rights and liberties; and the cautious definition of what constitutes a due process liberty interest. The Court held that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause since its practice has been, and continues to be, offensive to our national traditions and practices. Moreover, employing a rationality test, the Court held that Washington's ban was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, shielding disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above all, the preservation of human life.
Citation
The Oyez Project, Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) available at: http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_110
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
Facts of the Case:
New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property were seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London.
Conclusion:
No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings, the majority argued, should be given deference. The takings here qualified as "public use" despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. The Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, the majority said, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.'"
Citation
The Oyez Project, Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. ___ (2005) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_108)
Kyllo v. United States (2001)
Facts of the Case:
A Department of the Interior agent, suspicious that Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana, used a thermal imaging device to scan his home. The imaging was to be used to determine if the amount of heat emanating from the home was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. Subsequently, the imaging revealed that relatively hot areas existed, compared to the rest of the home. Based on informants, utility bills, and the thermal imaging, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo's home. The search unveiled growing marijuana. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea. Ultimately affirming, the court of appeals held that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home, and even if he had, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the imager "did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life," only "amorphous 'hot spots' on the roof and exterior wall."
Conclusion:
Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the "observations were made with a fairly primitive thermal imager that gathered data exposed on the outside of [Kyllo's] home but did not invade any constitutionally protected interest in privacy," and were, thus, "information in the public domain."
Citation
The Oyez Project, Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508)
Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health (1990)
Facts of the Case:
In 1983, Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in an automobile accident which left her in a "persistent vegetative state." She was sustained for several weeks by artificial feedings through an implanted gastronomy tube. When Cruzan's parents attempted to terminate the life-support system, state hospital officials refused to do so without court approval. The Missouri supreme court ruled in favor of the state's policy over Cruzan's right to refuse treatment.
Conclusion:
No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights. Absent "clear and convincing" evidence that Cruzan desired treatment to be withdrawn, the Court found the State of Missouri's actions designed to preserve human life to be constitutional. Because there was no guarantee family members would always act in the best interests of incompetent patients, and because erroneous decisions to withdraw treatment were irreversible, the Court upheld the state's heightened evidentiary requirements.
Citation
The Oyez Project, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1503)
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
Facts of the Case:
In 1994 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act, the first state law authorizing physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients. Attorney General John Ashcroft declared in 2001 that physician-assisted suicide violated the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). Ashcroft threatened to revoke the medical licenses of physicians who took part in the practice. Oregon sued Ashcroft in federal district court. That court and, later the Ninth Circuit, held Ashcroft''s directive illegal. The courts held that the CSA did not authorize the attorney general to regulate physician-assisted suicide, which was the sort of medical matter historically entrusted to the states.
Question:
Did the Controlled Substances Act authorize the attorney general to ban the use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon?
Conclusion:
No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that Congress intended the CSA to prevent doctors only from engaging in illicit drug dealing, not to define general standards of state medical practice. Moreover, the CSA did not authorize Attorney General John Ashcroft to declare a medical practice authorized under state law to be illegitimate.
Citation
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. ___ (2006), http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_623
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002)
Facts of the Case:
Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to prevent minors from accessing pornography online. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and online publishers sued in federal court to prevent enforcement of the act, arguing that it violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The district court agreed. On appeal, a Third Circuit court of appeals panel affirmed, holding that because the act used "community standards" to decide which material was harmful to minors, it would prohibit material that was felt offensive in the most "puritanical" communities from being displayed in more "tolerant" ones. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the "community standards" provision alone did not make the act unconstitutional and sent the case back to the Third Circuit for further evaluation. The Third Circuit again prohibited implementation of the act, holding that it was likely to fail the "strict scrutiny" test because it was not narrowly tailored--that is, it prevented online publishers from publishing some material that adults had a right to access-and because it did not use the least restrictive means possible to protect children (the court found that blocking software installed on home computers by parents would do as good a job without preventing free speech). For similar reasons, the panel found that the act was unconstitutionally "overbroad"--that is, it applied to too much protected material.
Conclusion:
Yes. In a 5-to-4 vote, with Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Thomas and Ginsburg on one side and Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Breyer and O'Connor on the other, the Court found that Congress had not yet met its burden to show that the COPA requirements were more effective than other methods of preventing minors. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the majority opinion, wrote that the district court's injunction "was not an abuse of discretion, because on this record there are a number of plausible, less restrictive alternatives to the statute." The majority also emphasized that barring the statute's enforcement during the trial would be less harmful than allowing it, because allowing it would be likely to prevent online publishers from publishing certain material.
Citation
The Oyez Project, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) available at: http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_218
Campaign
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Facts of the Case:
In the wake of the Watergate affair, Congress attempted to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount. The Federal Election Commission was created to enforce the statute.
Conclusion:
In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.
Citation
The Oyez Project, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_75_436)
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)
Facts of the Case:
In 1785, the Massachusetts legislature incorporated the Charles River Bridge Company to construct a bridge and collect tolls. In 1828, the legislature established the Warren Bridge Company to build a toll-free bridge nearby. Unsurprisingly, the new bridge deprived the old one of traffic and tolls. The Charles River Bridge Company filed suit, claiming the legislature had defaulted on its initial contract.
Conclusion:
No. In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court held that the state had not entered a contract that prohibited the construction of another bridge on the river at a later date. The Court held that the legislature neither gave exclusive control over the waters of the river nor invaded corporate privilege by interfering with the company's profit-making ability. In balancing the rights of private property against the need for economic development, the Court found that the community interest in creating new channels of travel and trade had priority.
Citation
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837), http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1836/1836_0
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
Facts of the Case:
In early 2002, a many years-long effort by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold to reform the way that money is raised for--and spent during--political campaigns culminated in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (the so-called McCain-Feingold bill). Its key provisions were a) a ban on unrestricted ("soft money") donations made directly to political parties (often by corporations, unions, or well-heeled individuals) and on the solicitation of those donations by elected officials; b) limits on the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations can engage in up to 60 days prior to an election; and c) restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertising on behalf of candidates (in the form of "issue ads" or "coordinated expenditures"). The campaign finance reform bill contained an unusual provision providing for an early federal trial and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, bypassing the typical federal judicial process. In May of that year, a special three-judge panel struck down portions of the act's ban on soft-money donations but upheld some of the its restrictions on the kind of advertising that parties can engage in. The ruling was stayed until the Supreme Court could hear and decide the resulting appeals.
Conclusion:
With a few exceptions, the Court answered "no" to both questions in a 5-to-4 decision written by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens. Because the regulations dealt mostly with soft-money contributions that were used to register voters and increase attendance at the polls, not with campaign expenditures (which are more explicitly a statement of political values and therefore deserve more protection), the Court held that the restriction on free speech was minimal. It then found that the restriction was justified by the government's legitimate interest in preventing "both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and...the appearance of corruption" that might result from those contributions. In response to challenges that the law was too broad and unnecessarily regulated conduct that had not been shown to cause corruption (such as advertisements paid for by corporations or unions), the Court found that such regulation was necessary to prevent the groups from circumventing the law. Justices O'Connor and Stevens wrote that "money, like water, will always find an outlet" and that the government was therefore justified in taking steps to prevent schemes developed to get around the contribution limits. The Court also rejected the argument that Congress had exceeded its authority to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. The Court found that the law only affected state elections in which federal candidates were involved and also that it did not prevent states from creating separate election laws for state and local elections.
Citation
The Oyez Project, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) available at: http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1674
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)
Facts of the Case:
On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution. The "Term Limitation Amendment," in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a U.S. Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a U.S. Senator from Arkansas.
Question:
Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
Conclusion:
No. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. A state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and "has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly." Furthermore, "allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 'more perfect Union.'"
Citation
The Oyez Project, U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) available at: http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1456
Facts of the Case:
Several litigants challenged the constitutionality of two provisions in the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Intended to protect minors from unsuitable internet material, the Act criminalized the intentional transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages as well as the transmission of information which depicts or describes "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in a manner deemed "offensive" by community standards. After being prohibited by a district court from enforcing the above provisions, except for the one concerning obscenity and its inherent protection against child pornography, Attorney General Janet Reno appealed directly to the Supreme Court as provided for by the Act's special review provisions.
Conclusion:
Yes. The Court held that the act violated the First Amendment because its regulations amounted to a content-based blanket restriction of free speech. The act failed to clearly define "indecent" communications, limit its restrictions to particular times or individuals (by showing that it would not impact on adults), provide supportive statements from an authority on the unique nature of internet communications, or conclusively demonstrate that the transmission of "offensive" material is devoid of any social value. The Court added that since the First Amendment distinguishes between "indecent" and "obscene" sexual expressions, protecting only the former, the act could be preserved if it dropped the words "or indecent" from its text. The Court refused to address any Fifth Amendment issues.
Citation
The Oyez Project, Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) available at: http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_511
Vacco v. Quill (1997)
Facts of the Case:
Dr. Timothy E. Quill, along with other physicians and three seriously ill patients who have since died, challenged the constitutionality of the New York state's ban on physician-assisted suicide. New York's ban, while permitting patients to refuse lifesaving treatment on their own, has historically made it a crime for doctors to help patients commit or attempt suicide, even if patients are terminally ill or in great pain. Following a district court ruling favoring the state of New York, the Second Circuit reversed and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Conclusion:
No. Employing a rationality test to examine the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause, the Court held that New York's ban was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, preventing euthanasia, shielding the disabled and terminally ill from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above all, the preservation of human life. Moreover, while acknowledging the difficulty of its task, the Court distinguished between the refusal of lifesaving treatment and assisted suicide, by noting that the latter involves the criminal elements of causation and intent. No matter how noble a physician's motives may be, he may not deliberately cause, hasten, or aid a patient's death.
Citation
Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997), http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1858
Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)
Facts of the Case:
Dr. Harold Glucksberg--along with four other physicians, three terminally ill patients who have since died, and a nonprofit organization that counsels individuals contemplating physician assisted-suicide--brought this suit challenging the state of Washington's ban on physician assisted-suicide. The state of Washington has historically criminalized the promotion of suicide attempts by those who "knowingly cause or aid another person to attempt suicide." Glucksberg alleged that Washington's ban was unconstitutional. Following a district court ruling favoring Glucksberg and his fellow petitioners, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision and the Supreme Court agreed to hear Washington's case.
Conclusion:
No. Analyzing the guarantees of the Due Process Clause, the Court focused on two primary aspects: the protection of our nation's objective fundamental, historically rooted, rights and liberties; and the cautious definition of what constitutes a due process liberty interest. The Court held that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause since its practice has been, and continues to be, offensive to our national traditions and practices. Moreover, employing a rationality test, the Court held that Washington's ban was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, shielding disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above all, the preservation of human life.
Citation
The Oyez Project, Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) available at: http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_110
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
Facts of the Case:
New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property were seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London.
Conclusion:
No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings, the majority argued, should be given deference. The takings here qualified as "public use" despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. The Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, the majority said, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.'"
Citation
The Oyez Project, Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. ___ (2005) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_108)
Kyllo v. United States (2001)
Facts of the Case:
A Department of the Interior agent, suspicious that Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana, used a thermal imaging device to scan his home. The imaging was to be used to determine if the amount of heat emanating from the home was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. Subsequently, the imaging revealed that relatively hot areas existed, compared to the rest of the home. Based on informants, utility bills, and the thermal imaging, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo's home. The search unveiled growing marijuana. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea. Ultimately affirming, the court of appeals held that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home, and even if he had, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the imager "did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life," only "amorphous 'hot spots' on the roof and exterior wall."
Conclusion:
Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the "observations were made with a fairly primitive thermal imager that gathered data exposed on the outside of [Kyllo's] home but did not invade any constitutionally protected interest in privacy," and were, thus, "information in the public domain."
Citation
The Oyez Project, Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508)
Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health (1990)
Facts of the Case:
In 1983, Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in an automobile accident which left her in a "persistent vegetative state." She was sustained for several weeks by artificial feedings through an implanted gastronomy tube. When Cruzan's parents attempted to terminate the life-support system, state hospital officials refused to do so without court approval. The Missouri supreme court ruled in favor of the state's policy over Cruzan's right to refuse treatment.
Conclusion:
No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights. Absent "clear and convincing" evidence that Cruzan desired treatment to be withdrawn, the Court found the State of Missouri's actions designed to preserve human life to be constitutional. Because there was no guarantee family members would always act in the best interests of incompetent patients, and because erroneous decisions to withdraw treatment were irreversible, the Court upheld the state's heightened evidentiary requirements.
Citation
The Oyez Project, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1503)
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
Facts of the Case:
In 1994 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act, the first state law authorizing physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients. Attorney General John Ashcroft declared in 2001 that physician-assisted suicide violated the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). Ashcroft threatened to revoke the medical licenses of physicians who took part in the practice. Oregon sued Ashcroft in federal district court. That court and, later the Ninth Circuit, held Ashcroft''s directive illegal. The courts held that the CSA did not authorize the attorney general to regulate physician-assisted suicide, which was the sort of medical matter historically entrusted to the states.
Question:
Did the Controlled Substances Act authorize the attorney general to ban the use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon?
Conclusion:
No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that Congress intended the CSA to prevent doctors only from engaging in illicit drug dealing, not to define general standards of state medical practice. Moreover, the CSA did not authorize Attorney General John Ashcroft to declare a medical practice authorized under state law to be illegitimate.
Citation
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. ___ (2006), http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_623
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002)
Facts of the Case:
Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to prevent minors from accessing pornography online. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and online publishers sued in federal court to prevent enforcement of the act, arguing that it violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The district court agreed. On appeal, a Third Circuit court of appeals panel affirmed, holding that because the act used "community standards" to decide which material was harmful to minors, it would prohibit material that was felt offensive in the most "puritanical" communities from being displayed in more "tolerant" ones. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the "community standards" provision alone did not make the act unconstitutional and sent the case back to the Third Circuit for further evaluation. The Third Circuit again prohibited implementation of the act, holding that it was likely to fail the "strict scrutiny" test because it was not narrowly tailored--that is, it prevented online publishers from publishing some material that adults had a right to access-and because it did not use the least restrictive means possible to protect children (the court found that blocking software installed on home computers by parents would do as good a job without preventing free speech). For similar reasons, the panel found that the act was unconstitutionally "overbroad"--that is, it applied to too much protected material.
Conclusion:
Yes. In a 5-to-4 vote, with Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Thomas and Ginsburg on one side and Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Breyer and O'Connor on the other, the Court found that Congress had not yet met its burden to show that the COPA requirements were more effective than other methods of preventing minors. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the majority opinion, wrote that the district court's injunction "was not an abuse of discretion, because on this record there are a number of plausible, less restrictive alternatives to the statute." The majority also emphasized that barring the statute's enforcement during the trial would be less harmful than allowing it, because allowing it would be likely to prevent online publishers from publishing certain material.
Citation
The Oyez Project, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) available at: http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_218
Campaign
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Facts of the Case:
In the wake of the Watergate affair, Congress attempted to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount. The Federal Election Commission was created to enforce the statute.
Conclusion:
In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.
Citation
The Oyez Project, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_75_436)
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)
Facts of the Case:
In 1785, the Massachusetts legislature incorporated the Charles River Bridge Company to construct a bridge and collect tolls. In 1828, the legislature established the Warren Bridge Company to build a toll-free bridge nearby. Unsurprisingly, the new bridge deprived the old one of traffic and tolls. The Charles River Bridge Company filed suit, claiming the legislature had defaulted on its initial contract.
Conclusion:
No. In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court held that the state had not entered a contract that prohibited the construction of another bridge on the river at a later date. The Court held that the legislature neither gave exclusive control over the waters of the river nor invaded corporate privilege by interfering with the company's profit-making ability. In balancing the rights of private property against the need for economic development, the Court found that the community interest in creating new channels of travel and trade had priority.
Citation
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837), http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1836/1836_0
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
Facts of the Case:
In early 2002, a many years-long effort by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold to reform the way that money is raised for--and spent during--political campaigns culminated in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (the so-called McCain-Feingold bill). Its key provisions were a) a ban on unrestricted ("soft money") donations made directly to political parties (often by corporations, unions, or well-heeled individuals) and on the solicitation of those donations by elected officials; b) limits on the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations can engage in up to 60 days prior to an election; and c) restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertising on behalf of candidates (in the form of "issue ads" or "coordinated expenditures"). The campaign finance reform bill contained an unusual provision providing for an early federal trial and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, bypassing the typical federal judicial process. In May of that year, a special three-judge panel struck down portions of the act's ban on soft-money donations but upheld some of the its restrictions on the kind of advertising that parties can engage in. The ruling was stayed until the Supreme Court could hear and decide the resulting appeals.
Conclusion:
With a few exceptions, the Court answered "no" to both questions in a 5-to-4 decision written by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens. Because the regulations dealt mostly with soft-money contributions that were used to register voters and increase attendance at the polls, not with campaign expenditures (which are more explicitly a statement of political values and therefore deserve more protection), the Court held that the restriction on free speech was minimal. It then found that the restriction was justified by the government's legitimate interest in preventing "both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and...the appearance of corruption" that might result from those contributions. In response to challenges that the law was too broad and unnecessarily regulated conduct that had not been shown to cause corruption (such as advertisements paid for by corporations or unions), the Court found that such regulation was necessary to prevent the groups from circumventing the law. Justices O'Connor and Stevens wrote that "money, like water, will always find an outlet" and that the government was therefore justified in taking steps to prevent schemes developed to get around the contribution limits. The Court also rejected the argument that Congress had exceeded its authority to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. The Court found that the law only affected state elections in which federal candidates were involved and also that it did not prevent states from creating separate election laws for state and local elections.
Citation
The Oyez Project, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) available at: http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1674
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)
Facts of the Case:
On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution. The "Term Limitation Amendment," in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a U.S. Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a U.S. Senator from Arkansas.
Question:
Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
Conclusion:
No. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. A state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and "has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly." Furthermore, "allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 'more perfect Union.'"
Citation
The Oyez Project, U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) available at: http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1456
WHAT IS The PATRIOT ACT ?
From broad concern felt among Americans from both the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, Congress rushed to pass legislation to strengthen security controls. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month.[4] The next day on October 24, 2001, the Act passed the House 357 to 66,[5] with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The following day, on October 25, 2001, the Act passed the Senate by 98 to 1.[6]
CISA: Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act
The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014 (CISA) is a proposed law to "improve cybersecurity in the United States through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats, and for other purposes. The law would allow the sharing of Internet traffic information between the U.S. government and technology and manufacturing companies. The bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate on July 10, 2014, but has not yet been considered or voted upon by the full Senate.
Current Events
Sun sets on some NSA surveillance powers
The legal authority for several national security programs was set to expire at midnight Sunday and will not be renewed for at least two days, after Senate Republicans leaders were unable to maneuver around Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a presidential candidate, who followed through on a pledge to block an extension of the law.
The legal authority for several national security programs was set to expire at midnight Sunday and will not be renewed for at least two days, after Senate Republicans leaders were unable to maneuver around Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a presidential candidate, who followed through on a pledge to block an extension of the law.
Immigration
In 2013, the U.S. Senate passed a comprehensive bill that linked enhanced border security with a pathway to citizenship for the country’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. So far the proposal has languished in the House. But whether or not a new immigration law is enacted by Congress this year, the issue will remain a top priority in state capitals. Why Pro-Immigration States are fighting back A federal judge recently halted President Obama’s executive action that would make millions of immigrants eligible to live and work legally in the United States, accepting the argument of Texas and other states that reforms will impose a fiscal burden on them. America needs to curb immigration flows The first “great wave” of U.S. immigration took place from roughly 1880 to 1930. During this time, according to the Census Bureau, the foreign-born population doubled from about 6.7 million to 14.2 million people. Changes were then made to immigration law to reduce admissions, decreasing the foreign-born population until it fell to about 9.6 million by 1970. Meanwhile, during this low-immigration period, real median compensation for U.S. workers surged, increasing more than 90 percent from 1948 to 1973, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Appeals court rules against Obama on immigration program A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to allow one of President Obama’s signature immigration proposals to move forward, throwing into doubt whether the program will even begin before the president leaves office. |
Higher Education
When state revenues plummeted in the aftermath of the recession, colleges and universities incurred some of the steepest cuts in state budgets. At the same time, enrollment jumped nationwide as mid-career workers returned to school and students put off entering the job market. Now the picture is slowly changing. A preliminary survey by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) found 37 states increased fiscal 2014 operating support for public four-year universities.
But along with the restoration of funding has come more scrutiny of how it’s spent. “No one really cared to open the black box, look inside and see how things worked,” says Barmak Nassirian, AASCU’s director of federal relations. Now, he says, nearly all stakeholders agree the money needs to be spent more efficiently, though lawmakers disagree about how to do that.
President Obama has proposed tying funding to a ratings system that assesses the value schools provide students. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have enacted performance-based funding for public colleges and universities, allocating funds based on graduation rates or other metrics (though most only tie a portion of funding to those measurements).
Given still-tight budgets, states may further examine ways to increase efficiency and help students graduate sooner, such as pushing universities to accept more transfer credits from community colleges. With rising student debt, financial aid changes should also loom large this year. In particular, talks could focus on finding a balance between merit and need-based student aid. “There’s definitely a shift in thinking in terms of whether merit aid is the best way to invest scarce state resources,” says the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Julie Bell.
Strengthening Transparency in Higher Education Act
The Strengthening Transparency in Higher Education Act (H.R. 4983) is a bill that would reserve $1 million from funding for the United States Department of Education to replace the current College Navigator website with a new website and change the type of information that the website would need to provide. The bill also would amend the requirements for the department’s net-price calculator, which provides details on the costs of post-secondary education. The purpose of the bill is to help students get the facts they need to make a wise decision about where to go to college.
Click Here for More on Education
Abortion
Last year state legislatures passed a slew of bills designed to curtail the provision of abortion services. North Dakota banned abortion, in some cases, as early as the sixth week of pregnancy, while Arkansas enacted a ban on abortions after 12 weeks. Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Wisconsin passed laws requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, largely as a way to shut down many abortion clinics. All of these laws are being challenged in court. This November, Tennessee voters will decide whether to amend the state’s constitution to specifically state that the document doesn’t protect the right to abortion.
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2014
Prohibits the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law (federal funds) for any abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services, except in cases involving rape, incest, or life endangerment.)
Same Sex Marriage Supreme Court Hearing
When state revenues plummeted in the aftermath of the recession, colleges and universities incurred some of the steepest cuts in state budgets. At the same time, enrollment jumped nationwide as mid-career workers returned to school and students put off entering the job market. Now the picture is slowly changing. A preliminary survey by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) found 37 states increased fiscal 2014 operating support for public four-year universities.
But along with the restoration of funding has come more scrutiny of how it’s spent. “No one really cared to open the black box, look inside and see how things worked,” says Barmak Nassirian, AASCU’s director of federal relations. Now, he says, nearly all stakeholders agree the money needs to be spent more efficiently, though lawmakers disagree about how to do that.
President Obama has proposed tying funding to a ratings system that assesses the value schools provide students. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have enacted performance-based funding for public colleges and universities, allocating funds based on graduation rates or other metrics (though most only tie a portion of funding to those measurements).
Given still-tight budgets, states may further examine ways to increase efficiency and help students graduate sooner, such as pushing universities to accept more transfer credits from community colleges. With rising student debt, financial aid changes should also loom large this year. In particular, talks could focus on finding a balance between merit and need-based student aid. “There’s definitely a shift in thinking in terms of whether merit aid is the best way to invest scarce state resources,” says the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Julie Bell.
Strengthening Transparency in Higher Education Act
The Strengthening Transparency in Higher Education Act (H.R. 4983) is a bill that would reserve $1 million from funding for the United States Department of Education to replace the current College Navigator website with a new website and change the type of information that the website would need to provide. The bill also would amend the requirements for the department’s net-price calculator, which provides details on the costs of post-secondary education. The purpose of the bill is to help students get the facts they need to make a wise decision about where to go to college.
Click Here for More on Education
Abortion
Last year state legislatures passed a slew of bills designed to curtail the provision of abortion services. North Dakota banned abortion, in some cases, as early as the sixth week of pregnancy, while Arkansas enacted a ban on abortions after 12 weeks. Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Wisconsin passed laws requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, largely as a way to shut down many abortion clinics. All of these laws are being challenged in court. This November, Tennessee voters will decide whether to amend the state’s constitution to specifically state that the document doesn’t protect the right to abortion.
No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2014
Prohibits the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law (federal funds) for any abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services, except in cases involving rape, incest, or life endangerment.)
Same Sex Marriage Supreme Court Hearing
Issues That Could Be Big
Trans-Pacific Partnership
Fracking
Last November three towns in Colorado and one in Ohio approved bans or moratoriums on fracking, the practice of extracting oil and gas from shale rock. It was the latest salvo by fracking opponents who cite concerns over contaminated drinking water and degraded air quality, even as many governors hail the industry as an economic driver. Already more than 100 municipalities across the country have approved bans or moratoriums on fracking, according to FracTracker, a nonprofit organization that compiles data on the oil and gas industry. The state with the most bans and moratoriums by far is New York, which has a statewide moratorium on the process as it conducts a health review of fracking’s impact.
GMOs
Advocates of requiring labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients have suffered defeats at the ballot box in two states—California and Washington—that were considered fertile ground for their cause. Still, advocates are hopeful. They argue that labeling foods containing genetically modified organisms offers much-needed transparency, and they point to bills sitting in nearly half of the statehouses across the country as evidence that their movement isn’t going away. The opposing side, led by companies such as Monsanto, is pressing Congress for a federal law that would effectively preempt state efforts.
Privacy
Scores of bills were introduced last year addressing privacy. Those included measures that would have required warrants for law enforcement to access old emails or track a person’s location via cellphone; limits on data collection from license-plate readers; and stronger privacy rules regarding social media accounts. Many of those bills were offered prior to revelations about the extent of data collection by the National Security Agency. Those revelations will only underscore the urgency among states that are increasingly fed up with federal inaction on the subject.
Social Impact Bonds
Also called “pay for success” contracts, social impact bonds have become increasingly popular in the public and nonprofit sectors in recent years. They are a public-private partnership targeted toward a specific social outcome. The government pays only when results or money-saving goals are met. The bonds are considered experimental, but they’re gaining steam. In 2012, Goldman Sachs loaned $9.6 million to Rikers Island jail in New York with the goal of reducing recidivism among teens, and the firm launched a second $4.6 million project last year aimed at helping children from low-income families in Utah prepare for kindergarten.
Kalamazoo Michigan Social Impact Bonds
Michigan is among a handful of states that are in the process of developing projects that can be financed by social impact bonds.
In September, Michigan was one of eight states chosen in a national competition to receive technical assistance from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government in designing social impact bond projects.Established with support from The Rockefeller Foundations, Harvard’s Social Impact Bond Technical Assistance Lab conducts research on how governments can foster social innovation and improve results from social spending programs.
Autonomous Vehicles
Automakers have suggested that self-driving vehicles will be available to consumers by the end of the decade. While the feds will regulate many of the technical standards that come with these autonomous vehicles, the states will have to decide how traffic safety laws, as well as license and registration standards, will need to be tweaked to account for the revolutionary technology. California, Florida, Nevada and Washington, D.C., have all passed laws in recent years that allow self-driving vehicles to operate on public roads. But those laws mainly relate to the testing of vehicles. Eventually, states will have to decide who’s held liable for an autonomous vehicle accident—the driver, the manufacturer or someone else.
Campaign Finance: Money in Politics
Today, new forms of big money threaten to undermine American democracy. Citizens Unitedand other court rulings obliterated a century of campaign finance laws. Now a handful of special interests threaten to dominate political funding, often through Super PACs and shadowy nonprofits. Public trust in government has plummeted.
- Have you heard? The TPP is a massive, controversial "free trade" agreement currently being pushed by big corporations and negotiated behind closed doors by officials from the United States and 11 other countries – Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.
The TPP would expand the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) "trade" pact model that has spurred massive U.S. trade deficits and job loss, downward pressure on wages, unprecedented levels of inequality and new floods of agricultural imports. The TPP not only replicates, but expands NAFTA's special protections for firms that offshore U.S. jobs. And U.S. TPP negotiators literally used the 2011 Korea FTA – under which exports have fallen and trade deficits have surged – as the template for the TPP.
Fracking
Last November three towns in Colorado and one in Ohio approved bans or moratoriums on fracking, the practice of extracting oil and gas from shale rock. It was the latest salvo by fracking opponents who cite concerns over contaminated drinking water and degraded air quality, even as many governors hail the industry as an economic driver. Already more than 100 municipalities across the country have approved bans or moratoriums on fracking, according to FracTracker, a nonprofit organization that compiles data on the oil and gas industry. The state with the most bans and moratoriums by far is New York, which has a statewide moratorium on the process as it conducts a health review of fracking’s impact.
GMOs
Advocates of requiring labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients have suffered defeats at the ballot box in two states—California and Washington—that were considered fertile ground for their cause. Still, advocates are hopeful. They argue that labeling foods containing genetically modified organisms offers much-needed transparency, and they point to bills sitting in nearly half of the statehouses across the country as evidence that their movement isn’t going away. The opposing side, led by companies such as Monsanto, is pressing Congress for a federal law that would effectively preempt state efforts.
Privacy
Scores of bills were introduced last year addressing privacy. Those included measures that would have required warrants for law enforcement to access old emails or track a person’s location via cellphone; limits on data collection from license-plate readers; and stronger privacy rules regarding social media accounts. Many of those bills were offered prior to revelations about the extent of data collection by the National Security Agency. Those revelations will only underscore the urgency among states that are increasingly fed up with federal inaction on the subject.
Social Impact Bonds
Also called “pay for success” contracts, social impact bonds have become increasingly popular in the public and nonprofit sectors in recent years. They are a public-private partnership targeted toward a specific social outcome. The government pays only when results or money-saving goals are met. The bonds are considered experimental, but they’re gaining steam. In 2012, Goldman Sachs loaned $9.6 million to Rikers Island jail in New York with the goal of reducing recidivism among teens, and the firm launched a second $4.6 million project last year aimed at helping children from low-income families in Utah prepare for kindergarten.
Kalamazoo Michigan Social Impact Bonds
Michigan is among a handful of states that are in the process of developing projects that can be financed by social impact bonds.
In September, Michigan was one of eight states chosen in a national competition to receive technical assistance from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government in designing social impact bond projects.Established with support from The Rockefeller Foundations, Harvard’s Social Impact Bond Technical Assistance Lab conducts research on how governments can foster social innovation and improve results from social spending programs.
Autonomous Vehicles
Automakers have suggested that self-driving vehicles will be available to consumers by the end of the decade. While the feds will regulate many of the technical standards that come with these autonomous vehicles, the states will have to decide how traffic safety laws, as well as license and registration standards, will need to be tweaked to account for the revolutionary technology. California, Florida, Nevada and Washington, D.C., have all passed laws in recent years that allow self-driving vehicles to operate on public roads. But those laws mainly relate to the testing of vehicles. Eventually, states will have to decide who’s held liable for an autonomous vehicle accident—the driver, the manufacturer or someone else.
Campaign Finance: Money in Politics
Today, new forms of big money threaten to undermine American democracy. Citizens Unitedand other court rulings obliterated a century of campaign finance laws. Now a handful of special interests threaten to dominate political funding, often through Super PACs and shadowy nonprofits. Public trust in government has plummeted.