Judgment reserved in anti-poverty strategy challenge
Judgment has been reserved in a legal challenge brought against Stormont for "failing to adopt" an anti-poverty strategy for Northern Ireland.
The human rights group, the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ), has claimed that ministers have failed to put in place a programme to alleviate poverty.
The challenge is directed against the Department for Communities and the Executive Office, along with the first and deputy first ministers.
A lawyer representing the human rights group, Karen Quinlivan KC, described the case "as an attack on the lack of an anti-poverty strategy".
A spokesperson for the Department for Communities said that a strategy is currently in development.
Ms Quinlivan said it had been a decade since the High Court previously held that the Executive committee was "in breach of its duty" to adopt a programme to deal with poverty.
She added: "It is frankly appalling that that breach had never been rectified."
The court heard the requirement to adopt an anti-poverty strategy was inserted into the Northern Ireland Act, following the St Andrews Agreement in 2006.
The case, brought by the CAJ, is also supported by members of the Equality Coalition including Unison, Barnardo's NI and the Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network.
A lawyer representing the different departments argued the current legal duty to adopt a strategy only commenced when the current Executive was formed in February 2024.
He added that progress is now being made to ensure any legal obligations are met.
The judge, Mr Justice Humphreys, reserved judgment until a later date.
Speaking outside court the director of the CAJ, Daniel Holder, said he was concerned the current Assembly mandate would expire without an anti-poverty strategy in place.
He said: "There are a whole series of measures that were recommended for Stormont to pick up within an anti-poverty strategy on issues like child poverty, child payments, the establishment of a child poverty commission... None of that is in place.
"We are a full year on from the Executive being re-established and we are still without an anti-poverty strategy with those elements in it."
Emma Cassidy, senior engagement lead for Public Interest Litigation Support, which is supporting CAJ, said the group was "challenging nearly two decades of delay".
She said she hoped the court would "compel" politicians to take action.
"We are still in the grips of a cost of living - or cost of survival – crisis and there's no plan of how this is going to be sorted out," she said.
"It sounds bizarre if it wasn't so serious."
John Patrick Clayton from Unison described a strategy as "absolutely vital".
He said he hoped today was an "important step" towards it being taken forward by the Executive.
He added that tackling poverty needs "to be collectively taken forward by the executive as a whole" and a "strategy is the right way to do that".
A spokesperson for the Department for Communities said that the Northern Ireland Executive Anti-Poverty Strategy, which is currently in development, "will aim to mitigate impacts, reduce the risk of falling into poverty and support people in exiting poverty".
The spokesperson continued: "It will set out a cross-departmental commitment to a joined-up, long term approach to addressing poverty and the department is currently engaging with colleagues across all other departments to refine the draft strategy and the action plan that will underpin it with a view to a paper being presented to the Executive in the coming weeks."
The spokesperson said the department "continues to provide support and a wide range of services to those in need".
Benefits entitlement can be checked through the Make the Call service.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
4 days ago
- CNN
Curtis Yarvin is inspiring a new generation of MAGA
Curtis Yarvin is inspiring a new generation of MAGA CNN's Hadas Gold interviews anti-democracy author Curtis Yarvin about his argument for an all-powerful executive in the White House. 02:24 - Source: CNN Vertical Politics of the Day 15 videos Curtis Yarvin is inspiring a new generation of MAGA CNN's Hadas Gold interviews anti-democracy author Curtis Yarvin about his argument for an all-powerful executive in the White House. 02:24 - Source: CNN DNC Trolls Trump with Taco Truck The Democratic National Committee parked a taco truck outside the RNC headquarters in Washington DC Tuesday, as a way to troll the president over an acronym created by a Financial Times commentator about the president's frequent walk backs and pauses to his tariff's. 00:52 - Source: CNN Musk calls Trump's bill 'disgusting abomination' Elon Musk lashed out at President Donald Trump's agenda bill — which the president is pressuring GOP senators to support — calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' CNN's Kaitlan Collins reports. 00:59 - Source: CNN ICE chief defends agents wearing masks during immigration raids Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons is defending federal immigration agents for wearing masks during raids across the US, citing safety concerns. The tactic has sparked backlash and raised questions about transparency and accountability. 00:58 - Source: CNN Dana Bash presses Trump's budget chief about cancer cuts CNN's Dana Bash presses Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on the Trump administration's proposal to cut non-defense spending by more than 22% — including deep reductions to education, food assistance, and billions in cancer research funding. As Vought defends the cuts and criticizes the NIH, Bash challenges him on the real-world impact to life-saving medical research. 01:35 - Source: CNN Trump reacts to video of Macron's apparent shove from wife President Trump was asked by reporters about the viral video appearing to show French President Emmanuel Macron being pushed by his wife Brigitte as they disembarked from a plane in Vietnam. Macron, at the time, quickly dismissed the video. 00:34 - Source: CNN Trans high school athlete wins events amid controversy A transgender athlete, whose participation sparked a national controversy and a temporary rule change, took first place in two of her three events in the California High School Track and Field Championship. 01:09 - Source: CNN South Carolina voter says 'no' to moving center South Carolina has often bucked the electoral trend – voting for candidates who lost in Iowa or New Hampshire and thus helping pick which candidate will move on to the general election. CNN's Jeff Simon spoke to multiple voters at a Democrat dinner in Columbia, South Carolina about the party's leadership and future. 01:25 - Source: CNN Hegseth warns 'threat China poses is real' US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking to Asia's premier defense forum in Singapore, delivered a dire warning to the world: China's designs on Taiwan pose a threat to global peace and stability that requires 'our allies and partners do their part on defense.' While Hegseth made clear that Washington does not seek conflict with China, he stressed the Trump administration would not let aggression from Beijing stand. 00:50 - Source: CNN GOP senator pressed on Medicaid in heated town hall GOP Sen. Joni Ernst faced concerns from town hall attendees over potential cuts to Medicaid and SNAP programs as a result of President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill, saying at one point, 'Well, we all are going to die,' and insisting that those who are eligible for Medicaid will continue to receive payments. 01:12 - Source: CNN Fareed Zakaria breaks down Trump's tariff battle CNN's Fareed Zakaria breaks down what's going on with President Donald Trump's battle with the Supreme Court over tariffs. 00:58 - Source: CNN President Trump's timeline for things seems to almost always be 'in two weeks' President Donald Trump told reporters it will take about 'two weeks' to determine whether Russian President Vladimir Putin is serious about ending the war in Ukraine. That two week timeline, CNN's Abby Phillip says, is a familiar one. 01:48 - Source: CNN President Trump is on a pardoning spree President Donald Trump used his pardon power to grant clemency to a wave of individuals who had been convicted of crimes that range from public corruption, guns and even maritime-related offenses, according to multiple officials. CNN's Kaitlan Collins reports. 00:53 - Source: CNN Trump responds to Wall Street term 'TACO': Trump Always Chickens Out President Donald Trump was asked about "TACO," an acronym that means "Trump Always Chickens Out," which is used by Wall Street workers for his on-and-off approach to tariffs. Calling it "the nastiest question," Trump defended his tariff policy by calling it "negotiation." 01:13 - Source: CNN Harvard students and faculty speak out against Trump Harvard students and faculty spoke to CNN ahead of commencement as Donald Trump said the university should cap foreign enrollment. The Trump administration has recently sought to cancel $100 million in contracts with the school. 02:03 - Source: CNN
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress should grow a backbone and reclaim tariff authority
For decades Congress has been gradually ceding its constitutional authority to the executive branch of government. And the executive branch has stretched that authority far beyond anything Congress or the Constitution intended. As the branch of government charged with levying taxes, including tariffs, it's time for Congress to reclaim that constitutional authority. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution says,'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …' It's Congress's job to impose and collect taxes and duties, which include tariffs. It's not about whether tariffs are good or bad economic policy. It's about who has the constitutional authority to impose them. Because of the challenges created by two world wars and the occasional need for a quick U.S. response to international developments, 'Congress enacted statutes authorizing the President to declare a state of emergency and make use of extraordinary delegated powers.' Over time, Congress became concerned that presidents were taking advantage of those 'extraordinary powers.' A bipartisan Senate report released in 1974, 'A Brief History of National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers,' found 'at least 470 significant emergency statutes without time limitations delegating to the Executive extensive discretionary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Legislature, …' As a result, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (1976), ending most 'emergencies' that gave the president the justification for imposing tariffs, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (1977) or IEEPA to limit presidential overreach. According to an analysis on Congress's website, IEEPA affirmed that 'emergency authorities [are] employed only with respect to a specific set of circumstances which constitute a real emergency, and for no other purpose,' asserting that 'a state of emergency should not be a normal state of affairs.' In short, IEEPA was passed to keep a president from declaring an emergency to use tariffs as a basic tool for implementing economic and foreign policy. But that's exactly how President Trump is using them. A three-judge panel on the Court of International Trade recently called out Trump's abuse of IEEPA and ruled, 'The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,' thus striking down many of his tariffs. An Appeals Court has partially stayed the ruling to give the appellate judges time to consider the arguments. The case will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Trump's tariffs may have an uphill battle given the court's position on the 'major questions doctrine,' which says policies with significant economic impacts need clear congressional authority. No doubt that's what Republicans who are uneasy with Trump's tariff tantrums hope will happen — getting the country past the worst of the tariff turmoil without Republicans having to stand up to the president. But they may be disappointed. Trump has implied that if the court strikes down his tariff overreach, there are other ways to justify his tariffs. As the Wall Street Journal reports, 'U.S. officials are weighing their options should they need to find a new legal authority to impose the president's steep tariffs.' Remember how critical Republicans were of President Biden for searching for new legal authority when the Supremes ruled against his student loan forgiveness schemes? Would Republicans be just as critical if Trump does the same? Congress needs to reclaim its control over U.S. taxing authority, including tariffs. And the only way it can do that is either to amend IEEPA to strengthen presidential restrictions, pass a different law, or take stronger measures to challenge the president. Of course, the president would likely veto any bill. So, Congress would need the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override the veto. That won't be easy. Every Democrat will vote for the bill, not to reclaim Congress's constitutional rights, but to embarrass the president. Democrats didn't speak out when President Barack Obama exceeded his authority in granting legal status to some 830,000 undocumented children brought to the U.S. by their parents. And even though Congress has the 'power of the purse,' Democrats largely remained silent when Biden tried to spend more than $400 billion on student loans. But it will take a lot of Republicans voting with Democrats to pass legislation over a presidential veto that limits Trump's tariff powers. There was a time when House and Senate leadership zealously protected the legislative branch's constitutional authority. House Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-Texas) and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd ( closely guarded Congress's constitutional prerogatives. Do Republicans have the courage to do the same? Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of 'On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.' Follow him on X@MerrillMatthews. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
5 days ago
- The Hill
Congress should grow a backbone and reclaim tariff authority
For decades Congress has been gradually ceding its constitutional authority to the executive branch of government. And the executive branch has stretched that authority far beyond anything Congress or the Constitution intended. As the branch of government charged with levying taxes, including tariffs, it's time for Congress to reclaim that constitutional authority. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution says,'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …' It's Congress's job to impose and collect taxes and duties, which include tariffs. It's not about whether tariffs are good or bad economic policy. It's about who has the constitutional authority to impose them. Because of the challenges created by two world wars and the occasional need for a quick U.S. response to international developments, 'Congress enacted statutes authorizing the President to declare a state of emergency and make use of extraordinary delegated powers.' Over time, Congress became concerned that presidents were taking advantage of those 'extraordinary powers.' A bipartisan Senate report released in 1974, 'A Brief History of National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers,' found 'at least 470 significant emergency statutes without time limitations delegating to the Executive extensive discretionary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Legislature, …' As a result, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (1976), ending most 'emergencies' that gave the president the justification for imposing tariffs, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (1977) or IEEPA to limit presidential overreach. According to an analysis on Congress's website, IEEPA affirmed that 'emergency authorities [are] employed only with respect to a specific set of circumstances which constitute a real emergency, and for no other purpose,' asserting that 'a state of emergency should not be a normal state of affairs.' In short, IEEPA was passed to keep a president from declaring an emergency to use tariffs as a basic tool for implementing economic and foreign policy. But that's exactly how President Trump is using them. A three-judge panel on the Court of International Trade recently called out Trump's abuse of IEEPA and ruled, 'The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,' thus striking down many of his tariffs. An Appeals Court has partially stayed the ruling to give the appellate judges time to consider the arguments. The case will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Trump's tariffs may have an uphill battle given the court's position on the 'major questions doctrine,' which says policies with significant economic impacts need clear congressional authority. No doubt that's what Republicans who are uneasy with Trump's tariff tantrums hope will happen — getting the country past the worst of the tariff turmoil without Republicans having to stand up to the president. But they may be disappointed. Trump has implied that if the court strikes down his tariff overreach, there are other ways to justify his tariffs. As the Wall Street Journal reports, 'U.S. officials are weighing their options should they need to find a new legal authority to impose the president's steep tariffs.' Remember how critical Republicans were of President Biden for searching for new legal authority when the Supremes ruled against his student loan forgiveness schemes? Would Republicans be just as critical if Trump does the same? Congress needs to reclaim its control over U.S. taxing authority, including tariffs. And the only way it can do that is either to amend IEEPA to strengthen presidential restrictions, pass a different law, or take stronger measures to challenge the president. Of course, the president would likely veto any bill. So, Congress would need the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override the veto. That won't be easy. Every Democrat will vote for the bill, not to reclaim Congress's constitutional rights, but to embarrass the president. Democrats didn't speak out when President Barack Obama exceeded his authority in granting legal status to some 830,000 undocumented children brought to the U.S. by their parents. And even though Congress has the 'power of the purse,' Democrats largely remained silent when Biden tried to spend more than $400 billion on student loans. But it will take a lot of Republicans voting with Democrats to pass legislation over a presidential veto that limits Trump's tariff powers. There was a time when House and Senate leadership zealously protected the legislative branch's constitutional authority. House Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-Texas) and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd ( closely guarded Congress's constitutional prerogatives. Do Republicans have the courage to do the same? Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of 'On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.' Follow him on X@MerrillMatthews.
