Search

In August 2022, the U.S Department of Education (ED) announced it would invoke the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to cancel up to $20,000 of federal student loan debts for borrowers who fell below certain income thresholds. The HEROES Act authorizes the Secretary to "waive or modify" statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to federal student financial assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 to ensure that borrowers are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to their student loans as a result of a war, other military operation, or national emergency. Plaintiffs filed multiple lawsuits challenging the cancellation policy before any borrowers could obtain relief under it. Certain suits resulted in two federal court orders blocking implementation of the program. The Supreme Court agreed to review these two cases, "Biden v. Nebraska" and "Department of Education v. Brown," and heard oral argument in February 2023. The questions for which the Court granted certiorari generally can be divided into jurisdictional questions, that is, whether federal courts may hear the challenges to the cancellation policy, and merits questions, that is, assuming jurisdiction exists, whether the cancellation policy is lawful. This report begins by placing those important questions in their context, surveying affected federal student loan programs, past uses of HEROES Act authority, and congressional debates concerning student loan cancellation. The report then describes the cancellation policy itself and traces the history of Nebraska and Brown in the lower courts. This report next assesses the parties' key legal arguments about standing, statutory authority for the policy, and whether the Secretary adopted the policy in a procedurally valid manner. Finally, this report concludes with a discussion of potential implications of decisions in Nebraska and Brown for the cancellation policy, for the Secretary's HEROES Act authority, and for legal doctrines that are not confined to the federal student loan context.

The article offers information on the challenges faced by the coronavirus outbreak in the U.S. It discusses the U.S. government preventive guidelines for travel restrictions and quarantine measures to control the spread of the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S. It mentions the government policy to restrict the foreign travelers as a precautionary measure.

The article offers information on the several U.S. supreme court case, Texas v. United States and the Maryland v. United States Topics discussed include information on the litigation and defend the validity of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA); discussions on the statutory directive to maintain health insurance injured the individuals; and the information on the role of the federal government from further implementing or enforcing the ACA.

The article discusses the l Texas v. United States in which Congress lacks the authority to impose an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. It reports that U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 insurance provisions should be struck along with the individual mandate, but that the remainder of the ACA should remain same.

The article highlights major policy proposals of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act passed by the U.S. Senate on March 14, 2018. Topics covered include the regulatory relief to segments of the financial system that the bill aims to provide, the claim by proponents that it can foster economic growth and provide increased consumer protections, and five categories that proposals in the bill can be grouped into.

The article discusses the transitional reinsurance program established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), for providing payment to individual market health plans enrolling high-risk enrollees for 2014 through It mentions collection of reinsurance contributions from third-party administrators and insurers by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It also mentions establishment of three risk-mitigation programs for mitigating uncertainty.

The article offers information on the line-item veto power of the president in the U.S. to cancel direct spending items. Topics discussed include the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Clinton v. City of New York case which deals with the constitutionality of Line Item Veto Act of 1996, and delegation of the legislative authority of Congress tor the president.

The article presents an overview of the constitutional challenges to the collection activities of the National Security Agency (NSA). Topics covered include how several federal courts have dealt with the Fourth Amendment issues raised by the NSA telephony metadata program and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

The article reports on safeguards used by the U.S. Congress to protect against abuse of the new authority established by the USA PATRIOT Act including congressional oversight, judicial oversight, and minimization process. Topics include the additional reporting requirements implemented when the Congress reauthorized many USA PATRIOT Act provisions, and the individuals' direct access to judicial review that was addressed by the U.S. Congress.

The article reports on the changes implemented by the USA PATRIOT Act and subsequent measures that expand the U.S. government's authority to collect private information. These changes include lowering the gap between criminal investigations and foreign intelligence gathering, expansion of persons subject to investigation, and expansion of electronic surveillance authorities. Also mentioned is expanded access to records and other tangible things.

The article discusses the liability of the U.S. government in the event of termination for convenience. Topics covered include how a termination settlement is arrived at, what a termination settlement could include, how much can a termination settlement cost, and whether the government could face liability for breach by terminating for convenience.

The article discusses the types of terminations and other reductions. Topics covered include the difference between a total termination from a partial one, what is a constructive termination, how a termination for default differs from a termination for convenience, and the difference between cancellation and termination for convenience.

The article presents background information on termination for convenience including the legal basis for the government's right to terminate contracts for convenience and the circumstances in which the government may terminate. Topics covered include when can the government terminate a contract for convenience and the types of terminations and other reductions.

The article presents the U.S. Congressional Research Service's report on terminating contracts for the convenience of the U.S. government. Topics covered include how termination for convenience refers to the exercise of the government's right to halt the performance of all or part of the work provided for under a contract before the expiration of the contract based on the government's interest.

The article offers information on the Medicaid program established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (SSA) of the U.S., which provides medical assistance to low income people, and mentions the federal Medicaid funds received by the state.

The article reports on the PRISM mass surveillance program of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) which entails gathering Internet-based communication from overseas targets. Topics discussed include laws that authorize the program, average amount of Internet communications gathered by the NSA annually and differences between PRISM and the telephony metadata program of the NSA. Also discussed are the limitations of the program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).

The article reports on the U.S. National Security Agency's (NSA) domestic telephony metadata collection program under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 which aims to detect and identify independent terrorists and terrorism networks. Topics discussed include features of the program, concerns over the constitutionality of the program and requirement for telephone service providers to provide the NSA with telephony metadata under the program. Also discussed are the basis for a metadata request.

The article presents the April 2014 U.S. Congressional Research Service study "Overview of Constitutional Challenges to NSA Collection Activities and Recent Developments" by Edward C. Liu, Andrew Nolan and Richard M. Thompson II. Topics discussed include provisions of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, features of the Telephony Metadata Program of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and constitutional challenges to the NSA's method of gathering Internet communications.

The article focuses on legal issues arising from sharing of cybersecurity threat information between the U.S. federal government and owners and operators of the country's critical infrastructures as of April 17, 2013. Background is presented on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). ECPA provisions that may present legal obstacle to sharing cyber threat information among communications service providers or between them and the government are highlighted.

The article discusses various legal issues related to government efforts to protect federal networks from cyber threats in the U.S. as of April 17, 2013. Background is presented on EINSTEN, an intrusion detection system that monitors all federal agency networks for potential attacks. Fourth Amendment concerns related to EINSTEIN are highlighted. The article discusses monitoring communications from federal government employees as well as communications from private persons to federal employees.

The article discusses various legal issues related to government efforts to protect critical infrastructure from cyber threats in the U.S. as of April 17, 2013. The author says that proposed regulations for cybersecurity of critical infrastructure may provide the agency or agencies in charge of administering the program with significant discretion. The need to determine availability of judicial review of a particular agency action is highlighted.

The article discusses various legal issues related to actions by the U.S. Congress to address vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to cyber threats and protect government networks from these threats as of April 17, 2013. The extent to which federal laws may preempt state law is also discussed. The article discusses deference to agency decisions, availability of judicial review and questions of fact. Liability concerns and freedom of information are also discussed.

The article examines the threats and consequences of cyber attacks in the U.S. According to the author, repeated cyber intrusions into critical infrastructure demonstrate the need for improved cybersecurity. The author adds that cyberterrorists are state-sponsored and non-state actors who are involved in cyberattacks as a form of warfare.

The article discusses issues being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The court's examination of whether it is barred from examining the ACA's individual mandate due to the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) is addressed. The court's review of the issue of whether the individual mandate can be severed from the ACA is considered. Aspects of the court case Florida v. HHS are also discussed.

The article discusses legal challenges regarding the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision in the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). It describes lawsuits filed which contend that the U.S. government does not have the authority to impose the requirement for individuals to buy health insurance. The court case Florida v. HHS is described as one of the most publicized lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of the minimum health coverage provision of ACA.

The article discusses religious exemptions to the minimum coverage provision of the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). It addresses the religion clauses of the First Amendment about how individuals will not be required to act under a prescribed religious belief or be barred from acting under their chosen religious beliefs. Ways in which requiring individuals to acquire health insurance may conflict with their religious beliefs are also considered.

The article discusses the pertinence of U.S. Congress' taxing power or its power to regulate interstate commerce in relation to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA) mandate that requires an individual to have health insurance. Parts of the U.S. Constitution that deal with Congress' taxing power and interstate commerce regulation powers are described. The U.S. government's argument before the U.S. Supreme Court to justify the minimum coverage provision of ACA is also mentioned.

The article discusses constitutional issues associated with requiring individuals to buy health insurance under the taxing power authority or interstate commerce regulation authority of the U.S. Congress. Concerns about whether exceptions to the minimum coverage provision to buy health insurance comply with freedom of religion protections in the First Amendment are addressed. Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) are also discussed.

The article reveals that as the body of U.S. federal cybersecurity law increases, the possibility that it will preempt conflicting state law will increase with it. The authors note that it is well established that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution can invalidate any state law that interferes with or is contrary to federal law, which is the concept of preemption.

The article discusses the legal issues related to the sharing of cybersecurity threat information in the U.S. According to the authors, many policymakers have argued that there is a need for the federal government, owners, and operators of the nation's important infrastructures to share information on vulnerabilities and threats. The authors add that the government may also see value in access to information from the private sector about cybersecurity threats.

The article examines legal issues related to the protection of federal networks in the U.S. from cybersecurity threats. According to the authors, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has intensified its monitoring of federal government networks to identify and prevent cyber attacks. The authors adds that a focal point of these efforts is EINSTEIN, a network intrusion system that monitors all federal networks for potential attacks.

The article examines the legal issues related to protecting critical infrastructure from cyber vulnerabilities. According to the authors, the U.S. Congress has chosen to impose regulatory standards on the security, including cybersecurity, of specific sectors of private entities. The authors note that proposals on the increased cybersecurity of certain sectors of the economy are frequently justified on the grounds that those private entities comprise the critical infrastructure of the U.S.

The article examines selected legal issues of cybersecurity. According to the authors, the federal government's role in protecting U.S. citizens and critical infrastructure from cyber attracts has attracted congressional interest. The authors examine specific legal issues that frequently arise in the context of legislation to address vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to cyber threats and proposal to facilitate and encourage e-sharing of cyber threat information.

The article discusses the rights of the detainees at the Guantanamo Detention Center in Cuba who could possibly face criminal charges. It cites the legal issues that could arise in the prosecution of the detainees inside the U.S., including the degree of constitutional protections for the detainees. It presents the Military Commissions Act of 2009 that provides procedural protections to detainees who face criminal charges.

The article discusses the rules and standards concerning the detention and treatment of individuals who are transferred to detention facilities in the U.S. from the Guantanamo Detention Center in Cuba. It cites the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hamdi versus Rumsfeld case in 2004 that authorized the U.S. President to approve the detention of persons captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The treatment of detained persons in the U.S. is also examined.

The article discusses the issue of detainee transfer or release at the Guantanamo Detention Center at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba due to the planned closure of the facility. It cites the issuance by U.S. President Barack Obama of the Executive Order 13567 on March 7, 2011 to establish a process on the periodic review of detainees at the center by a Periodic Review Board (PRB). The effect on the immigration law of the transfer of detainees to the U.S. is also examined.

The article presents a background on the move to close the Guantanamo Detention Center at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It cites the terrorist attacks in the U.S. in September 2001 as the reason why the U.S. government declared a war on terror. The U.S. Congress approved the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) to authorize the president to use needed and appropriate force against those who have participation in the attacks.

The article discusses the different aspects of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) in the U.S. This law presupposes that governmental agencies and entities have the privilege to disclose classified information in criminal issues. According to the author, some courts in the country agree that the legislation only establishes uniform procedures to identify the materiality of such information to the defense in a criminal proceeding.

The article presents research which focused on the protection of classified information and criminal defendants rights. The authors explore the different aspects of the Classified Information Procedures Act in the U.S. relating to criminal prosecution. According to them, the law was approved and enacted by the 96th U.S. Congress to offer uniform procedures for prosecutions involving classified data.

Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept e-mail and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. In some cases, evidentiary standards required to obtain court approval for the collection of information were lowered. Other approaches included expanding the scope of information subject to search, adding flexibility to the methods by which information could be collected, and broadening the purposes for which information may be sought. Some perceived the changes as necessary to unearth terrorist cells and update investigative authorities to respond to the new technologies and characteristics of ever-shifting threats. Others argued that authorities granted by the USA PATRIOT Act and subsequent measures could unnecessarily undermine constitutional rights over time. In response to such concerns, sunset provisions were established for many of the changes. Subsequent measures made most of the USA PATRIOT Act changes permanent. However, three authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are set to expire on February 28, 2011: the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA. The 111th Congress replaced an earlier expiration date with the 2011 date. Before that change was made, the impending expiration prompted legislative proposals which revisit changes made by the USA PATRIOT Act and related measures. Two such bills-the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009 (S. 1692) and the USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009 (H.R. 3845)-were reported from their respective judiciary committees. In addition to the expiring provisions, these and other bills introduced during the 111th Congress (e.g., S. 1686, S. 1725, S. 1726, S. 2336, H.R. 1800, H.R. 3846, H.R. 3969, and H.R. 4005) address a range of issues, including national security letters, minimization requirements, nondisclosure requirements (gag orders), interception of international communications, and retroactive repeal of communication provider immunity for Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) assistance. This report surveys the legal environment in which the legislative proposals arise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the report "Government Collection of Private Information: Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization" by the U.S. Congressional Research Service as of March 2, 2010. Topics discussed include the approval of the USA PATRIOT Act by the U.S. Congress for prevention of terrorism, the role of the Terrorist Surveillance Program to address issues of national security and the history of constitutional process for criminal investigation.

Three amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are set to expire (sunset) on February 28, 2010. S. 1692, a bill reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, would extend the sunset date by four years and make various modifications to existing authorities. H.R. 3845 would likewise establish a new sunset of December 31, 2013, but it would reauthorize only two of the three expiring provisions. The three sunsetting amendments expanded the scope of federal intelligence-gathering authority following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Two were enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to permit multipoint, or "roving," wiretaps by adding flexibility to the degree of specificity with which the location or facility subject to electronic surveillance under FISA must be identified. Section 215 enlarged the scope of materials that could be sought under FISA to include "any tangible thing." It also lowered the standard required before a court order may be issued to compel their production. The third amendment was enacted in 2004, as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act (IRTPA). Section 6001(a) of the IRTPA changed the rules regarding the types of individuals who may be targets of FISA-authorized searches. Also known as the "lone wolf" provision, it permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization. Although these provisions are set to sunset, grandfather clauses permit them to remain effective with respect to investigations that began, or potential offenses that took place, before the sunset date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congress enacted the USA PATRIOT Act soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The most controversial sections of the Act facilitate the federal government's collection of more information, from a greater number of sources, than had previously been authorized in criminal or foreign intelligence investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and the national security letter (NSL) statutes were all bolstered. With the changes came greater access to records showing an individual's spending and communication patterns as well as increased authority to intercept e-mail and telephone conversations and to search homes and businesses. In some cases, evidentiary standards required to obtain court approval for the collection of information were lowered. Other approaches included expanding the scope of information subject to search, adding flexibility to the methods by which information could be collected, and broadening the purposes for which information may be sought. Some perceived the changes as necessary to unearth terrorist cells and update investigative authorities to respond to the new technologies and characteristics of ever-shifting threats. Others argued that authorities granted by the USA PATRIOT Act and subsequent measures could unnecessarily undermine constitutional rights over time. In response to such concerns, sunset provisions were established for many of the changes. Subsequent measures made most of the USA PATRIOT Act changes permanent. However, three authorities affecting the collection of foreign intelligence information are set to expire on February 28, 2010: the lone wolf, roving wiretap, and business record sections of FISA. The impending expiration has prompted legislative proposals which revisit changes made by the USA PATRIOT Act and related measures. Examples of relevant bills include the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2009 (S. 1692) and the USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009 (H.R. 3845), which were reported or ordered to be reported from their respective judiciary committees, as well as a number of additional bills, including S. 1686, S. 1725, S. 1726, S. 2336, H.R. 1800, H.R. 3846, H.R. 3969, and H.R. 4005. In addition to the expiring provisions, pending bills address a range of issues, including national security letters, minimization requirements, nondisclosure requirements (gag orders), interception of international communications, and retroactive repeal of communication provider immunity for Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) assistance. This report surveys the legal environment in which the legislative proposals arise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report provides a legal analysis of the eligibility of an influenza pandemic (flu pandemic) to be declared by the President as a major disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Given the current influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, awareness has been raised regarding the potential effects of a severe flu pandemic occurring in the United States. In such an event, the Stafford Act could provide authority for federal assistance. Although it is widely agreed that emergency assistance under the Stafford Act could be provided by the President in the event of a flu pandemic, questions remain as to whether broader major disaster assistance would be available. An analysis of the text and history of the Stafford Act suggests that this question was not addressed by Congress when it drafted the current definition of a major disaster, and that neither inclusion nor exclusion of flu pandemics from major disaster assistance is explicitly required by the current statutory language. In the 111th Congress, S. 2863 would amend the Stafford Act to explicitly make major disaster assistance available to respond to pandemics and terrorist attacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a report related to three amendments to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which will expire on February 28, 2010, released by the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) as of December 23, 2009. Topics discussed include Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, difference between FISA court orders and national security letters, and access to business records under FISA.

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which granted the President the authority “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those ... [who] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” against the United States. Many persons subsequently captured during military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere were transferred to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for detention and possible prosecution before military tribunals. Although nearly 800 persons have been transferred to Guantanamo since early 2002, the substantial majority of Guantanamo detainees have ultimately been transferred to another country for continued detention or release. The 215 detainees who remain fall into three categories: (1) persons placed in non-penal, preventive detention to stop them from rejoining hostilities; (2) persons who have faced or are expected to face criminal charges; and (3) persons who have been cleared for transfer or release, whom the United States continues to detain pending transfer. Although the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees may seek habeas corpus review of the legality of their detention, several legal issues remain unsettled, including the extent to which other constitutional provisions apply to noncitizens held at Guantanamo. On January 22, 2009, President Obama issued an Executive Order requiring the Guantanamo detention facility to be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than a year from the date of the Order. Several legislative proposals have been introduced in the 111th Congress concerning the potential closure of the Guantanamo facility. The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-32), Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-83), National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84), and Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-88), all contain provisions barring funds from being used to release Guantanamo detainees into the United States, and also restrict funds from being used to transfer detainees into the country for prosecution prior to the submission of certain reports to Congress. The National Defense Authorization Act also contains provisions modifying the rules for military commissions, which may have implications for Guantanamo detainees. For more information, see CRS Report R40754, Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress, by Anna C. Henning, and CRS Report R40932, Comparison of Rights in Military Commission Trials and Trials in Federal Criminal Court, by Jennifer K. Elsea. The closure of the Guantanamo detention facility may raise a number of legal issues with respect to the individuals formerly interned there, particularly if those detainees are transferred to the United States for continued detention, prosecution, or release. The nature and scope of constitutional protections owed to detainees within the United States may be different from the protections owed to persons held outside the United States. This may have implications for the continued detention or prosecution of persons who are transferred to the United States. The transfer of detainees to the United States may also have immigration consequences. This report provides an overview of major legal issues likely to arise as a result of executive and legislative action to close the Guantanamo detention facility. It discusses legal issues related to the transfer of Guantanamo detainees (either to a foreign country or into the United States), the continued detention of such persons in the United States, and the possible removal of persons brought into the country. It also discusses selected constitutional issues that may arise in the criminal prosecution of detainees, emphasizing the procedural and substantive protections that are utilized in different adjudicatory forums (i.e., federal civilian courts, court-martial proceedings, and military commissions). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the major health care bills, America’s Healthy Future Act (S. 1796, § 6007), includes a provision that would impose requirements on hospitals with § 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. Under the act, hospitals would be required to regularly conduct “community health needs assessments” and adopt implementation strategies to meet those needs. They would also be required to have written financial assistance and emergency medical care policies that were consistent with standards imposed by the act. Furthermore, hospitals would not be able to charge eligible uninsured individuals more than the lowest amounts charged to insured individuals for emergency and other medically necessary care, and they would be required to make reasonable efforts to determine an individual’s eligibility for financial assistance before beginning extraordinary collection actions. The act’s requirements appear to reflect concerns that have arisen in recent years about whether non-profit hospitals are providing adequate public benefits to justify their tax-exempt status. Nonprofit hospitals are eligible for federal tax-exempt status as charitable organizations described in § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Under the “community benefit” standard developed by the IRS, charitable hospitals are judged on whether they provide sufficient health benefits to the community. The IRS has recently developed a new annual reporting requirement (Schedule H of the Form 990) for hospitals to report information regarding their activities. This report examines the standard under which hospitals qualify for tax-exempt charitable status under federal law, recent inquiries made by Congress and the IRS into whether hospitals are conducting sufficient activities to justify their exemption, and section 6007 of S. 1796. The Appendix to the report discusses the new Schedule H in detail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On June 11, in response to the global spread of a new strain of influenza, the World Health Organization (WHO) raised the level of influenza pandemic alert to phase 6, which indicates the start of an actual pandemic. This change reflected the spread of the new influenza A(H1N1) virus, not its severity. Although currently the pandemic is of moderate severity with the majority of patients experiencing mild symptoms and making a rapid and full recovery, this experience could change. This report provides a brief overview of selected legal issues including emergency measures, civil rights, liability issues, and employment issues. There are a number of emergency measures which may help to contain or ameliorate an infectious disease outbreak. The Public Health Service Act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the National Emergencies Act, and the Stafford Act contain authorities that allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the President to take certain actions during emergencies or disasters. While the primary authority for quarantine and isolation in the United States resides at the state level, the federal government has jurisdiction over interstate and border quarantine. The federal government also issues recommendations regarding such activities as school closures and vaccination programs. States and local governments have the authority to initiate emergency measures such as mandatory vaccination orders and certain nonpharmaceutical interventions such as school closures, which may lessen the spread of an infectious disease. The International Health Regulations adopted by the WHO in 2005 provide a framework for international cooperation against infectious disease threats. The use of these emergency measures to contain the 2009 influenza pandemic may raise a classic civil rights issue: to what extent can an individual’s liberty be curtailed to advance the common good? The U.S. Constitution and federal civil rights laws provide for individual due process and equal protection rights as well as a right to privacy, but these rights are balanced against the needs of the community. Liability issues may become particularly important during the 2009 influenza pandemic. The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act limits liability with respect to the use of countermeasures for pandemic flu or other public health threats. A patchwork of federal and state laws generally protect volunteers, which may include volunteer health professionals (VHPs), under certain circumstances. Laws also provide liability protections specifically for VHPs. Questions relating to employment are among the most significant issues presented by an influenza pandemic, since, if individuals fear losing their employment or their wages, compliance with public health measures such as social distancing and isolation or quarantine may suffer. It would seem possible for a court to conclude that the isolation or quarantine of individuals during a pandemic serves the public good and that the termination of individuals who are isolated or quarantined violates public policy. Employees may also have some job protection under the Family and Medical Leave Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]