The Red Folder

Archived from July 1, 2024.

Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

Publishing since January 2024.

Domestic Stories

4 key domestic stories for the week:

1) Chevron Is Gone Robert Zhang

On the same day they released a string of verdicts last week over cases ranging from a law used to prosecute January 6 insurrectionists to the criminalization of homelessness, the Supreme Court struck down the Chevron deference doctrine, a forty-year-old legal principle that gave federal government agencies substantial power. In short, Chevron allowed these agencies to reasonably interpret ambiguous wording in laws passed by Congress. It was used to decide over 19,000 cases in federal court, and was the basis on which Congress has passed broadly written laws for decades. However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision strips agencies of this power, and gives federal courts the authority to interpret ambiguous laws instead. As such, many have reasonably panicked about its overturning, as vast swaths of statutes affecting all branches of government will be impacted.

But how did Chevron originate? What did it really do? And how will its overturning impact the operations of the U.S. government? It’s kind of confusing… but enter Ronald Reagan.

“I’m from the government, and I’m here to exacerbate climate change.” - Ronald Reagan, probably.

That was basically his administration’s philosophy. And it manifested in his administration’s shiesty interpretation of the Clean Air Act - to not make this super convoluted, the EPA under Reagan essentially reinterpreted a statute to allow certain approval processes to be bypassed by power plants and factories. The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a non-profit environmental conservation organization, sued, challenging the legality of the EPA’s new interpretation. Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Court, who in June 1984, unanimously ruled in favor of the EPA. They wrote that when Congress were to pass a law containing ambiguous wording, it could be considered an implicit delegation of authority from Congress to the executive agency responsible for the law’s implementation. Keep in mind: this came at a time when legal dogfights over ambiguous laws and statutes were extremely common, as lower courts had long attempted to interpret ambiguities independently. Thus, Chevron radically reshaped how laws were made and interpreted. (It’s worth noting: while the ruling in favor of the Reagan-era EPA was a major blow to the NRDC, they later became one of Chevron deference’s biggest cheerleaders, because it’s been used to further environmental protections more recently.)

Since the 80s, it has been used in a myriad of different ways by nearly every federal government agency. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has used it to interpret laws on payment and certain medical devices, many of which were instrumental in reducing healthcare costs during the pandemic. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has used it to establish regulations based on the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has used it to mandate the presence of monitors on fishing boats to deter and report overfishing. These are just a few examples of Chevron’s widespread use across all agencies of government.

But it recently came to an end. In a recent lawsuit brought against the National Marine Fisheries Service over the aforementioned monitor requirement that reached the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that Chevron was inconsistent with the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, as "under the APA, it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says."

Chevron’s overturning has many implications (ooh, is this an info now?). First, court clog will worsen. The newfound potential of overturning regulations in court will likely incentivize litigants to challenge basically every existing interpretation under the sun. This will fill already backlogged federal courts with thousands of superfluous cases, further limiting the speed and access of the judicial system.

Next, lobbyists will undoubtedly have more influence. Congress will have to be more specific in future legislation to direct government agencies on their implementation. This could give outside stakeholders and interest groups tied to members of Congress sway over legislation.

Finally, judge shopping is now extremely overpowered. If you’re not familiar, judge shopping is the practice of filing a lawsuit in a district where a judge is more likely to rule in your favor (because the political affiliations of district judges are usually well known). This was infamously used in a challenge to the FDA’s approval of the widely used, safe abortion drug mifepristone. Now that the authority to interpret ambiguous laws and statutes has been given back to the courts, those seeking to rewrite legal interpretations of ambiguities could do so in a way that furthers their own interests. Obviously, such cases can and will be appealed to higher courts, but it still creates yet another legal problem arising from Chevron’s demise.

Basically, yikes. Forty years of Chevron suddenly being undone will only lead to immediate chaos and corruption. As predicted by a certain extemper in the NSDA USX final round, this could very well be the most impactful Supreme Court decision of 2024 - if not the decade.

Read more here:

2) Homelessness Can Legally Be Illegal Robert Zhang

Content warning: This article contains references, but not graphic depictions, to substance abuse.

On any particular day, 650,000 Americans will experience homelessness. Roughly forty percent of them live in their cars, on the streets, in parks, and other areas not designated for residence. And as of June 28, 2024, they could be criminals.

Just last week, the Supreme Court ruled in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, a case that challenged the legality of laws imposing civil and criminal penalties on unhoused people for living in public spaces (which overwhelmingly affected unhoused individuals). Unsurprisingly, given the court’s current ideological split, they issued a 6-3 ruling in favor of Grants Pass and their anti-homelessness laws. While this decision was a victory for Grants Pass and cities with similar policies, it has sparked public outcry from advocates for unhoused people, who fear that it will worsen conditions for already vulnerable populations experiencing homelessness.

To understand the significance of the Grants Pass ruling, it’s important to understand other cases relevant to the issue. In the 1962 case Robinson v. California, the Supreme Court held that criminalizing a “status” was cruel and unusual and thus illegal. Additionally, in 2018, they held in Martin v. Boise that cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if homeless shelters run out of space for the same reason.

However, the city of Grants Pass paid no heed to these laws. They had long levied civil fines against unhoused people for sleeping and camping in public areas, and even charged “repeat offenders” with criminal trespassing. These laws were imposed with City Council President Lily Morgan explicitly stating their intention was to "make it uncomfortable enough for [unhoused people] in our city so they will want to move on down the road".

Thus, the Oregon Law Center, which represents low-income Oregon residents, filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Debra Blake, an unhoused individual in Grants Pass who had been subject to civil penalties. This lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of Grants Pass’s anti-homelessness laws, claiming they violated precedent set in both Robinson v. California and Martin v. Boise. Upon Blake’s death in 2021, Gloria Johnson, another unhoused Grants Pass resident, became the class representative.

When the case reached the Ninth Circuit Court, they actually ruled in favor of Johnson. But Grants Pass appealed and filed a writ of certiorari, asking for the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which they agreed to.

Ultimately, in a 6-3 decision (along the same ideological split so many cases have been decided on), the Supreme Court ruled that Grants Pass’s laws were constitutional, because they violated neither Robinson v. California nor Martin v. Boise. Essentially, they stated that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment” only applied to the penalties that applied after a criminal conviction, not the nature of a ban itself. Moreover, despite testimony from a city council member explicitly stating the ban’s purpose to be preventing unhoused presence in public spaces, they ruled that Grants Pass’s laws still applied to all residents, not just unhoused individuals, and could not be considered the criminalization of a status.

This could have widespread implications. First, it gives the green light to cities across the country to copy Grants Pass’s model. San Francisco and San Diego have already stated their intention to utilize the ruling to enforce laws against unhoused people. Many other cities are likely to follow, given how prevalent homelessness is.

Second, it further marginalizes already vulnerable populations. In March of this year, Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed into law a bill that would forbid cities and counties from allowing people to live in public places. Instead, it would require them to be moved into shelters, and if not possible, government encampments. This would be entirely legal under the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Grants Pass case. However, this particular bill is disturbing in that it prohibits the one-third of homeless individuals with alcohol or substance use disorders from entering shelters and government encampments. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s recent decision, they would literally have nowhere to go - other than, potentially, prison.

One thing is clear: homelessness will not disappear if it is made a crime. However, through questionable legal interpretations and undeniable political motivation, the Supreme Court has chosen to criminalize it regardless.

Read more here:

4) The AIPAC’s Campaign to Unseat Progressives AmandaLesly Miranda

Jamaal Bowman is an American politician and educator serving as the U.S. Representative for New York's 16th congressional district since 2021. A member of the Democratic Party and a progressive, Bowman was a middle school principal in the Bronx before entering politics. He is known for his advocacy on issues such as education reform, climate action, and social justice. Bowman is part of "The Squad," a group of progressive Democratic lawmakers. His political platform emphasizes addressing systemic inequalities, supporting Medicare for All, and championing Green New Deal initiatives. Unfortunately, even with all of the good he has done, it just doesn’t seem to be enough.

In a surprising turn of events, Congressman Jamaal Bowman has lost the Democratic primary for New York's 16th congressional district to a pro-Israel challenger heavily supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This defeat marks a significant shift in the district's political landscape and highlights the influential role of AIPAC in American politics. He has represented the district valiantly, creating vital change to help improve the lives of citizens. However, his positions on U.S.-Israel relations, which included criticism of Israeli policies and support for Palestinian rights, have made him a target for pro-Israel groups.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a prominent advocacy group in the United States that seeks to strengthen the relationship between the U.S. and Israel. Founded in 1951, AIPAC is a bipartisan organization dedicated to ensuring that American support for Israel remains strong through lobbying efforts, policy advocacy, and fostering a broad network of pro-Israel activists. The committee works closely with members of Congress and the executive branch to influence U.S. foreign policy in ways that support Israel's security and political interests. AIPAC is known for its annual policy conference, which attracts high-profile political leaders and is a key event in shaping U.S.-Israel relations. Despite its influence, AIPAC has faced criticism and controversy over its stance on various issues and its significant impact on American politics. Their influence and controversy have just secured them a large seat in Congress and allowed them the opportunity to have a larger say than most people realize.

George Latimer, whose campaign received substantial financial backing from AIPAC, ran on a platform emphasizing strong U.S.-Israel relations and criticized Bowman's perceived lack of support for Israel. AIPAC's involvement included significant contributions to the challenger's campaign and a robust mobilization of pro-Israel voters in the district. This support proved pivotal in swaying the election results. Bowman's defeat underscores the powerful influence of AIPAC and similar organizations in shaping electoral outcomes, particularly in races where U.S.-Israel relations are a key issue. The election also reflects a broader debate within the Democratic Party between progressive members who advocate for a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and those who maintain staunch support for Israel.

The primary result has generated considerable discussion among political analysts and constituents alike. Supporters of Bowman express concern over the impact of external money in local elections and the potential stifling of progressive voices. On the other hand, advocates for the challenger and AIPAC argue that the outcome reaffirms the district's commitment to strong U.S.-Israel ties. As Bowman concedes the race, he has called for unity and continued advocacy for progressive causes, vowing to remain active in political and social movements. The newly elected candidate is set to bring a different perspective to Congress, potentially altering the dynamics of U.S. foreign policy debates related to the Middle East. This primary election serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between local politics and international advocacy, and the ever-evolving landscape of American political alliances.

People worldwide are wondering if the AIPAC is gaining too much power and if their lust for control is going to overwhelm Congress. They have already shown a significant amount of sway without having a heavy hand placed inside many of these politics, but with Latimer being their voice on the inside, Americans grow worried that he will use this platform to sway people towards international affairs and stray away from local politics here in the United States.