Tag Archives: federal agencies

U.S. Senate passes funding bill to avert government shutdown this week

U.S. Senate passes funding bill to avert government shutdown this week
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate on Thursday passed legislation that would continue the funding for a wide range of federal agencies through Dec. 20 and avoid partial government shutdowns that otherwise would begin on Friday, when existing money expires.

The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 74-20. The legislation now goes to President Donald Trump for his expected approval, as the House of Representatives also passed this measure on Tuesday.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan; editing by Susan Heavey)

Supreme Court applies limits to federal agency power

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie speaks during ceremonies on Veteran's Day at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., November 11, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday constrained the power of federal agencies, scaling back a legal doctrine that called for judges to give agencies deference to interpret their own rules but declining to eliminate it all together.

The ruling, coming in a case in which a Vietnam War veteran sued the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after being denied retroactive disability benefits, could buoy business groups and others wanting to curb governmental regulatory authority.

The justices imposed new limits on the legal doctrine, which is called “Auer deference,” that was rooted in Supreme Court precedents dating back to 1945. The ruling could constrain administrative agencies in issuing certain informal policies and rules.

The Supreme Court threw out a lower court’s ruling denying retired U.S. Marine James Kisor, 75, benefits dating back to 1982 arising from battle-related post-traumatic stress disorder. The justices sent the case back to the lower court to reconsider Kisor’s claim on the meaning of a regulation that the agency had said was unfavorable to Kisor.

While all nine justices agreed with the outcome for Kisor, the decision, written by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, divided the justices 5-4 on whether to overrule Auer deference altogether.

Kagan, joined by the three other liberal justices and conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, said the court should uphold Auer deference because of its longstanding tradition of adhering to prior decisions, a principle known as stare decisis.

Four of the court’s conservative justices – Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh – said Auer deference should have been formally eliminated since it is already on “life support.” In his opinion in the case, Gorsuch wrote, “So the doctrine emerges maimed and enfeebled – in truth, zombified.”

In recent years, some of the court’s conservative justices had questioned the need for judges to defer to agencies on the meaning of regulations, foreshadowing Wednesday’s ruling.

Paring back the authority of federal agencies – which can control regulation in important areas such as energy, climate change and the workplace – has been a key goal of many business and conservative groups, which complain about what they call the “administrative state.”

These critics have said judicial deference has allowed agencies to accumulate power by enabling them to issue vague or burdensome regulations and then enforce them according to the policy preferences of unelected administrators.

Supporters of judicial deference have said the views of agencies should be accorded greater weight because they often have technical expertise that judges lack. Some liberals view the attack on the “administrative state” as an effort by conservatives to hinder government regulation of a wide range of businesses.

The name of the doctrine arose from a 1997 Supreme Court ruling in the case Auer v. Robbins, which extended a 1945 precedent in the case Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co that had accepted an agency’s take unless it was plainly wrong or inconsistent with the regulation.

Kisor, who served during the Vietnam War installing field telephone networks, fought in a 1965 battle in which several of his fellow troops were killed. The VA granted him disability benefits for PTSD in 2006, but refused to pay Kisor retroactively going back to 1982, when he first made a claim for benefits. At that time, he had not been diagnosed with PTSD.

The case hinged on the VA’s interpretation of a rule requiring “relevant” military service records to reconsider a denied claim.

The Washington-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2017 applied Auer deference to side with the VA over Kisor.

The current VA secretary is Robert Wilkie.

The court also announced that it will issue its final decisions of its current term, which began in October, on Thursday. Cases remaining to be decided include closely watched disputes over the Trump administration’s attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. census and whether limits can be set on partisan gerrymandering, a practice in which state lawmakers manipulate electoral maps purely for partisan gain.

For a Reuters graphic on major Supreme Court cases of the 2018-2019 term, click: https://tmsnrt.rs/2V2T0Uf

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

Wary of shutdown, Trump inches toward support for funding deal

U.S. President Donald Trump listens next to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross during a Cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 12, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

By Richard Cowan and Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday edged toward backing a deal in Congress on government funding that would not meet his demand for $5.7 billion for a wall on the Mexican border but would avert a partial government shutdown.

Trump, widely blamed for a five-week shutdown that ended in January, said he did not want to see federal agencies close again because of fighting over funds for the wall, one of his signature campaign promises in the 2016 election.

The Republican president did not commit himself to backing the government funding agreement struck between Democratic and Republican lawmakers this week. But two sources and a Republican senator close to the White House said he would likely sign off on it.

“I don’t want to see a shutdown. A shutdown would be a terrible thing. I think a point was made with the last shutdown,” Trump told reporters. “People realized how bad the border is, how unsafe the border is, and I think a lot of good points were made.”

Trump said he would hold off on a decision until he sees actual legislation about the issue. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said Trump was “inclined to take the deal and move on.”

Graham told reporters that Trump would then look elsewhere to find more money to build a wall along the U.S. southern border and was “very inclined” to declare a national emergency to secure the funds.

With a Friday night deadline looming before a shutdown, there is little time for the White House and the political parties in Congress to agree on funding.

Funding is due to expire for the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and several other federal agencies.

LESS MONEY

The congressional agreement reached on Monday falls far short of giving Trump all the money he wants to help build the wall. Instead, congressional sources say, it includes $1.37 billion for new barriers – about the same as last year – along 55 miles (90 km) of the border.

Details of the legislation were still being written, but the full bill could be made public as early as Wednesday evening, according to lawmakers and congressional aides.

The accord must be passed by the House of Representatives, dominated by Democrats, and the Republican-controlled Senate, then signed by Trump by midnight on Friday to prevent a shutdown.

The measure’s fate in the House was far from certain given the risk that some conservatives and liberals will oppose the compromise for different reasons.

Like Trump, congressional Republicans have little appetite for a repeat of the 35-day partial shutdown in December and January – the longest in U.S. history – which closed about a quarter of federal agencies and left some 800,000 federal workers without pay.

“It’s time to get this done,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor on Wednesday, in reference to voting on the compromise.

Democrats in the House are aiming to schedule a vote on Thursday evening, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat, told reporters. If passed, it would then go to the Senate.

OTHER OPTIONS

A White House spokeswoman, Mercedes Schlapp, told CNN that lawyers were reviewing the administration’s options should Congress not provide Trump’s demanded money for the wall.

The Washington Post, citing a White House official, said Trump was likely to explore using his executive power to reallocate other federal funds for barrier projects along the southern border. CNN, citing the White House, also said Trump was weighing the use of an executive order, among other options.

Trump previously threatened to declare a “national emergency” if Congress did not provide money specifically for the wall – a move that would almost certainly draw opposition in Congress and in the courts.

“We think the president would be on very weak legal ground to proceed,” said Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House.

Speaking to sheriffs and police chiefs of major cities, Trump said later on Wednesday that he was determined to “fully and completely” secure the U.S. border, including providing more law enforcement, closing legal loopholes and finishing the border wall.

Trump has come in for criticism from the right for wavering on support for the wall, which the administration says will cut illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

“Trump talks a good game on the border wall, but it’s increasingly clear he’s afraid to fight for it,” right-wing commentator Ann Coulter tweeted on Tuesday.

Trump abandoned a planned compromise on funding for the wall in December after similar criticism.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan and Susan Cornwell; Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton, Amanda Becker, Susan Heavey and Lisa Lambert; Writing by Alistair Bell; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Peter Cooney)

White House pledges to step up cyber offense on hackers

FILE PHOTO: A hooded man holds a laptop computer as cyber code is projected on him in this illustration picture taken on May 13, 2017. REUTERS/Kacper Pempel/Illustration/File Photo

By Christopher Bing

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House warned foreign hackers on Thursday it will increase offensive measures as part of a new national cyber security strategy.

The move comes as U.S. intelligence officials expect a flurry of digital attacks ahead of the Nov. 6 congressional elections.

The strategy provides federal agencies with new guidance for how to protect themselves and the private data of Americans, White House National Security Adviser John Bolton told reporters.

Bolton said the policy change was needed “not because we want more offensive operations in cyberspace but precisely to create the structures of deterrence that will demonstrate to adversaries that the cost of their engaging in operations against us is higher than they want to bear.”

The new policy also outlines a series of broad priorities, including the need to develop global internet policies and a competent domestic cybersecurity workforce.

It follows a recent Trump administration decision to reverse an Obama-era directive, known as PPD-20, which established an exhaustive approval process for the military to navigate in order to launch hacking operations. Bolton said the removal provided more leeway to respond to foreign cyber threats.

“In general, I think there is new tone in the policy but not much new policy other than the revocation of PPD-20, which had already been announced,” Ari Schwartz, White House National Security Council cybersecurity director under President Barack Obama, told Reuters.

“In my experience it has not been deterrence policies that held back response, but the inability of agencies to execute,” he said.

“I guess we will see what happens if this strategy really leads to less oversight, but a lack of oversight will likely lead to a lot of confusing finger-pointing in the wake of any failure.”

(Reporting by Christopher Bing; editing by Lisa Shumaker and Dan Grebler)