Latest news with #MajorQuestionsDoctrine
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Worsening Pandemic of Gambling Highlighted in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
TUCSON, Ariz., June 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Gambling addiction is worse than substance abuse in many ways, including suicide rates, writes Andrew Schlafly, Esq. in the summer issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. A Swedish study estimated that the rate of suicide is 15 times higher among gamblers than in the general population. Physical health problems result from gambling, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, sleep difficulties, and peptic ulcer disease, Schlafly states. Pathological gambling has also been linked to frontotemporal dementia, Parkinson's disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Psychiatric harm includes the onset or worsening of major depressive episodes, anxiety or substance use disorders, and intense feelings of shame, rash decision-making, and deceptive conduct, he adds. Roughly half of Americans are engaged in gambling now, he estimates. In 2023, $49 billion was spent on table games and slot machines. Extreme addiction to gambling afflicts about 5 percent of the population, and the rate is higher for young adults. Relatively few—typically less than 10 percent—of addicted gamblers ever seek help to overcome their habit, he reports. 'It is no longer necessary to travel to a casino to lose one's life savings,' he writes. Gambling as tailored by artificial intelligence (AI) to individual weaknesses is invading the cell phones of everyone, including teenagers particularly vulnerable to this addiction, he warns. Since the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA, 39 states have legalized sports gambling. By 2021, $57.2 billion was wagered annually on sporting events alone. Today, hundreds of suspicious sports performances annually have been correlated with unusual betting activity, Schlafly states. Gambling may become even more prevalent as a clever new way around state regulation of gambling percolates through the courts: a way to bet on event contracts, which is federally regulated in a very permissive way by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). This includes betting on elections outcomes, which could rope in many more people, and make more corruption inevitable. The Major Questions Doctrine is a legal mechanism that conceivably could help limit the spread of this madness, Schlafly suggests. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943. Contact: Andrew Schlafly, (908) 719-8608, Aschlafly@ or Jane M. Orient, M.D., (520) 323-3110, janeorientmd@
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's tariff house of cards collapses — one court ruling just ended the trade wars
In a sweeping unanimous decision that landed like a constitutional earthquake, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade just delivered what may ultimately prove to be the most devastating blow to Donald Trump's presidency yet, by ruling that his sweeping tariffs exceed his statutory authority under federal law. The court didn't just strike down specific tariffs, either; they demolished the entire legal foundation upon which Trump's trade war was built. The president's house of cards didn't just wobble with this loss — it has collapsed entirely. Trump's entire negotiating philosophy was built on the premise that he could threaten economic chaos if other countries didn't bend to his will. The credibility behind those threats just evaporated entirely, because credible threats require actual authority to carry them out. The timing couldn't be more politically devastating. If Trump appeals to the Supreme Court, as he almost certainly will do, the most optimistic timeline has a ruling coming down in late 2025 or early 2026. More realistically, we're looking at a final result being delayed until the summer of 2026. This means that Trump faces a choice between accepting defeat or spending the next year and a half as a raging lame duck on trade policy, totally unable to continue making credible threats while his international counterparts watch him flail helplessly through the courts. Even worse for Trump, the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence on executive power suggests he faces an uphill battle. The court's development of the Major Questions Doctrine shows an increasing skepticism toward sweeping executive claims of authority, requiring Congress to speak very clearly when delegating powers of vast economic significance — like, for example, tariffs on almost all imported goods. Trump's appeal is a long shot at best. Moreover, the political timeline puts Trump in an impossible position in that, even if he somehow wins at the Supreme Court, he can't credibly restart his tariff offensive in 2026 without looking economically reckless right before the midterm elections. The markets uniformly tanked when he kicked off his trade war the first time. Threatening to restart that chaos just months before Americans head to the polls would be political suicide for his party, which already maintains bare majorities in both houses. America's international trading partners are undoubtedly celebrating this decision, because they now hold all the cards. Every economic negotiation Trump enters will now be conducted from a position of obvious weakness. His counterparts know he can't escalate, can't credibly threaten retaliation, and is legally constrained from the heavy-handed tactics that defined his primary negotiating approach. The psychological impact of this loss cannot be overstated. For years, foreign leaders have had to calculate whether Trump's tariff threats were bluster or genuine policy. That uncertainty gave him leverage even when his legal authority was questionable. Now, every world leader knows he's been legally neutered on his signature issue. They can simply wait him out, knowing that any aggressive moves will likely be struck down by courts that have already declared his approach unlawful. This constitutional straightjacket comes as Trump's broader economic strategy is already teetering on the edge of disaster. As I've previously documented, his fiscal policies are driving America toward a cliff at breakneck speed, with Treasury rates and dollar values diverging in ways that signal dangerous erosion of international confidence in American economic stewardship. The markets have been flashing red warning lights about unsustainable debt loads just as Republicans push forward with multitrillion-dollar tax cuts for the wealthy. With tariffs now off the table, Trump is left holding only the most fiscally destructive tools in his arsenal — the very deficit-exploding policies that are already spooking bond markets and driving up borrowing costs. In order to have a second-term accomplishment to hang his hat on, he's essentially been forced to double down on the economic suicide mission I've been warning about, at exactly the moment when fiscal prudence has become most critical. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law and ethics at Georgia College and State University. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the university or any other institution. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
29-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump's tariff house of cards collapses — how one court ruling just ended the trade wars
In a sweeping unanimous decision that landed like a constitutional earthquake, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade just delivered what may ultimately prove to be the most devastating blow to Donald Trump's presidency yet, by ruling that his sweeping tariffs exceed his statutory authority under federal law. The court didn't just strike down specific tariffs, either; they demolished the entire legal foundation upon which Trump's trade war was built. The president's house of cards didn't just wobble with this loss — it has collapsed entirely. Trump's entire negotiating philosophy was built on the premise that he could threaten economic chaos if other countries didn't bend to his will. The credibility behind those threats just evaporated entirely, because credible threats require actual authority to carry them out. The timing couldn't be more politically devastating. If Trump appeals to the Supreme Court, as he almost certainly will do, the most optimistic timeline has a ruling coming down in late 2025 or early 2026. More realistically, we're looking at a final result being delayed until the summer of 2026. This means that Trump faces a choice between accepting defeat or spending the next year and a half as a raging lame duck on trade policy, totally unable to continue making credible threats while his international counterparts watch him flail helplessly through the courts. Even worse for Trump, the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence on executive power suggests he faces an uphill battle. The court's development of the Major Questions Doctrine shows an increasing skepticism toward sweeping executive claims of authority, requiring Congress to speak very clearly when delegating powers of vast economic significance — like, for example, tariffs on almost all imported goods. Trump's appeal is a long shot at best. Moreover, the political timeline puts Trump in an impossible position in that, even if he somehow wins at the Supreme Court, he can't credibly restart his tariff offensive in 2026 without looking economically reckless right before the midterm elections. The markets uniformly tanked when he kicked off his trade war the first time. Threatening to restart that chaos just months before Americans head to the polls would be political suicide for his party, which already maintains bare majorities in both houses. America's international trading partners are undoubtedly celebrating this decision, because they now hold all the cards. Every economic negotiation Trump enters will now be conducted from a position of obvious weakness. His counterparts know he can't escalate, can't credibly threaten retaliation, and is legally constrained from the heavy-handed tactics that defined his primary negotiating approach. The psychological impact of this loss cannot be overstated. For years, foreign leaders have had to calculate whether Trump's tariff threats were bluster or genuine policy. That uncertainty gave him leverage even when his legal authority was questionable. Now, every world leader knows he's been legally neutered on his signature issue. They can simply wait him out, knowing that any aggressive moves will likely be struck down by courts that have already declared his approach unlawful. This constitutional straightjacket comes as Trump's broader economic strategy is already teetering on the edge of disaster. As I've previously documented, his fiscal policies are driving America toward a cliff at breakneck speed, with Treasury rates and dollar values diverging in ways that signal dangerous erosion of international confidence in American economic stewardship. The markets have been flashing red warning lights about unsustainable debt loads just as Republicans push forward with multitrillion-dollar tax cuts for the wealthy. With tariffs now off the table, Trump is left holding only the most fiscally destructive tools in his arsenal — the very deficit-exploding policies that are already spooking bond markets and driving up borrowing costs. In order to have a second-term accomplishment to hang his hat on, he's essentially been forced to double down on the economic suicide mission I've been warning about, at exactly the moment when fiscal prudence has become most critical. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law and ethics at Georgia College & State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Nursing home minimum staffing rule stopped by federal judge in Texas
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A federal judge in Texas blocked a policy aimed at increasing staffing requirements within long-term care facilities and nursing homes. Health officials, under former President Joe Biden, finalized a rule to require any skilled nursing facility that receives federal funding through Medicare and Medicaid to offer more standardized nursing care. For example, these facilities would have to provide 0.55 hours of care from a registered nurse to each resident every day, as well as 2.45 hours of care from a nurse aide. It also required facilities to have a registered nurse onsite 24 hours a day, seven days a week. PREVIOUS: US lawmakers fight over how to handle nursing home staffing At the time, federal officials said the rule would increase the quality of care and safety for residents in these facilities. Advocates for the long-term care industry and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, however, argued the rule would put pressure on facilities already facing staffing shortages and could force some rural facilities to close — affecting people's access to care. On Tuesday, Paxton called the judge's decision to toss out the rule a 'massive victory for Texans who rely on nursing homes for care.' Last year, he sued the Biden administration over the rule, claiming it violated what is known as the Major Questions Doctrine, which forbids government agencies from passing regulations on significant topics that should be handled by Congress. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said the rule was not consistent with existing legislation governing nursing homes. In his April decision, he wrote that Congress instituted a baseline of eight hours of a day for a registered nurse to be on staff for most facilities and that a facility's individual needs be considered when it comes to staffing. BACKGROUND: White House announces new national nursing home staffing minimums 'Though rooted in laudable goals, the Final Rule still must be consistent with Congress's statutes. To allow otherwise permits agencies to amend statutes though they lack legislative power,' the court document reads. It's a similar argument made by the American Health Care Association (AHCA), which represents nearly 15,000 long-term care facilities and nursing homes across the country. It joined the Texas Health Care Association and other industry advocates in suing the federal government over the rule, too, arguing the regulatory bodies 'decided to take matters into its own hands' in creating the rule. AHCA's president praised the judge's decision, again calling the rule 'unreasonable.' These associations have been ringing alarm bells about staffing shortages — exacerbated by the pandemic — for years. KXAN investigators have been following the back-and-forth over how to handle the issue since before these increased standards were proposed in 2023. INVESTIGATES: First-of-its-kind nursing home staffing minimum proposed. Will it protect Texas residents? A group of federal lawmakers stepped in and filed legislation to try and prevent such a rule about minimum staffing standards before it was finalized. Other lawmakers pushed back, supporting stronger requirements for these facilities. In a House Ways and Means committee hearing on the legislation last year, U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, argued companies running these long-term care facilities actually had the funds to address worker shortages. He called on the industry itself to raise pay and better conditions for employees. 'While qualified workers are available, they are not willing to accept minimum wage, no benefits and insufficient support for emptying bed pans, lifting people out of their beds and other demanding tasks,' Doggett said. MORE: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sues Biden Administration over nursing home staffing rule Organizations such as AARP and AFL-CIO joined the fight. In a letter opposing that legislation, AARP wrote it had heard from thousands of its members 'whose loved ones suffered because of poor staffing in nursing homes.' The letter also pointed to research about the benefits of increased staffing on both patients and the workforce. The AARP letter read, in part, 'taxpayers spend over $80 billion annually through Medicare and Medicaid to provide the hands-on care our most vulnerable seniors need. American families expect that nursing homes are using these federal dollars to provide quality care. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.' MORE: Caregivers push for national staffing requirements In his recent decision, Judge Kacsmaryk acknowledged failures in the care of the nation's elderly, adding, 'these deficiencies deserve an effectual response.' However, he emphasized that any regulatory response must be consistent with legislation from Congress. In its statement, AHCA's president said, 'Our nation's aging population demands that we find a better way. We look forward to working with Congress and the [Trump] Administration to pursue more common-sense workforce solutions.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Already Hit With Lawsuit Over Tariffs—From Unexpected Group
A right-wing group with financial ties to Leonard Leo and the Koch network is aiming to halt Donald Trump's tariff plan. The New Civil Liberties Alliance sued the president Thursday, claiming that Trump's decision to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give him the power to 'usurp' Congress's right to control tariffs or 'upset the Constitution's separation of powers.' In a press release, the group argued that the emergency statute 'authorizes specific emergency actions like imposing sanctions or freezing assets to protect the United States from foreign threats.' 'It does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,' the NCLA wrote. 'Congress has sole authority to control tariffs, which it has done by passing detailed tariff statutes. The President cannot bypass those statutes by invoking 'emergency' authority in another statute that does not mention tariffs,' the group continued. 'His attempt to use the IEEPA this way not only violates the law as written, but it also invites application of the Supreme Court's Major Questions Doctrine, which tells courts not to discern policies of 'vast economic and political significance' in a law without explicit congressional authorization.' The NCLA further argued that Trump had massively overstepped his presidential powers by leaning on the wartime statute. 'In its nearly 50-year history, no other president—including President Trump in his first term—has ever tried to use the IEEPA to impose tariffs,' they wrote. 'NCLA's lawsuit does not quibble with President Trump's declaration of an opioid-related emergency, but it does take issue with his decision to impose tariffs in response, without legal authority to do so.' The group sued Trump on behalf of Simplified, a Florida-based homegoods company whose business relies on imported materials from China, arguing that Trump's move to impose even more tariffs on China would crush the company's profits. In a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, the NCLA asked the court to declare the tariff unlawful, vacate the increase reflected in the U.S. tariff schedule, and effectively block the tariff in its entirety. 'By invoking emergency power to impose an across-the-board tariff on imports from China that the statute does not authorize, President Trump has misused that power, usurped Congress's right to control tariffs, and upset the Constitution's separation of powers,' stated NCLA senior litigation counsel Andrew Morris.
