Author: Scot Wilson

Should Members of Congress Be Banned from Trading Stocks?

Posted on by Scot Wilson

Last month, Senators Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., introduced the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act, a reform bill that would require members of Congress to divest their stock market investments or face fines totaling the entire amount of their congressional salary.1 So, should members of Congress be allowed to trade stocks?

According to an August 2021 Gallup poll, approximately 56 percent of U.S. adults own stock.2 Stocks, also called equities, are bought in units called “shares” and represent partial ownership of a company.3 Investors who own shares hope for a return on their investment; if the company they invest in succeeds, their stock price rises and increases in worth. Investors may receive dividend payments, which are earnings that the company issues to its stockholders.4 At least 220 members of Congress—more than 40 percent of senators and representatives—own stock. This has raised concerns about corruption and conflicts of interest, prompting the question: should members of Congress be allowed to trade stocks?

The Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act would “require all members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children to place their stock portfolios into a blind trust.”5 A blind trust is a method of divesting assets in which stockholders pass their investments on to an independent third party which then makes financial decisions on their behalf, insulating the stockholders from day-to-day decision-making and trading.

A decade ago, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed into law the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which aimed to prevent insider trading in Congress. Due to the nature of their job, members of Congress often have access to sensitive information from closed-door meetings and briefings about markets, upcoming regulations, and a multitude of government issues. They’re also the ones in charge of creating federal policy. The STOCK Act prohibits members of Congress from buying or selling stock on the basis of any privileged information they receive. It also requires Congress members trading stocks to be publicly disclosed on searchable, online databases within 45 days.6

Although the STOCK Act was an example of Congress taking the initiative to reform itself, the results have not been as effective as hoped. The average fine for failing to report trades on time is a mere $200, and according to an investigative series by Business Insider, 55 members of Congress—Democrats and Republicans alike—were late in disclosing their stock trades.7 Some were late by only a few days; others were late by months.8

READ MORE: “These Are the 50 Top Stocks that Members of Congress Own”

In January 2020, before the general public was aware of the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, Senator Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., sold millions of dollars of stock in companies that were poised to be hit hard by the pandemic, right before they dropped in value.9 She then purchased stock “in a company that makes COVID-19 protective garments.”10 Around the same time, financial decisions by Senators David Perdue, R-Ga., Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also received scrutiny for what looked like insider trading. They have all denied any wrongdoing, and investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice have since concluded without any recommended charges.11

While there has been talk on Capitol Hill about doing more to rein in the buying and selling of stocks, and subsequent insider trading, by senators and representatives, leadership in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives and Senate initially pushed back against the idea. “We are a free-market economy,” said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who owns and trades stock along with members of her immediate family, adding that members of Congress “should be able to participate in this.”12 Just last week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., signaled his support for discussing details of the proposal, warming up to it after facing bipartisan pressure from his fellow lawmakers.13

But it’s not just bipartisan support among those in Congress. According to the conservative-leaning Convention of States Action, 76 percent of Americans agree that members of Congress have an “unfair advantage” in the stock market and should not be allowed to trade stocks while in office.14 Those who support the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act believe that elected officials need to rebuild trust with the American people, increase transparency, and show that they will put the best interests of their constituents before any personal profit.

Those who oppose the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act believe that members of Congress should be free to participate in the stock market like anyone else, regardless of their position or title. They note that the STOCK Act is already on the books and should be better enforced to prevent even the appearance of corruption.

Discussion Questions

  1. Do you believe elected officials should be held to higher standards and face more scrutiny than those who don’t hold public office? If so, in what ways?
  2. Should members of Congress be expected to give up some of their freedoms in order to serve in their positions?
  3. Do you have trust in your elected officials to put the interests of the people before their own? Why or why not?
  4. Are there any other ethics reforms that you think could build trust and increase transparency in Congress?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: POLITICO illustration/Getty and iStock
[1] Website of Senator Jon Ossoff: https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/press-releases/sens-ossoff-kelly-introduce-bill-banning-stock-trading-by-members-of-congress/
[2] Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx
[3] U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/investment-products/stocks
[4] Ibid.
[5] Website of Senator Jon Ossoff: https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/press-releases/sens-ossoff-kelly-introduce-bill-banning-stock-trading-by-members-of-congress/
[6] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/briefing/congress-stock-investments-profits.html
[7] Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9#sen-rand-paul-a-republican-from-kentucky-4
[8] Ibid.
[9]  Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/4/1/21202900/kelly-loeffler-stock-sales-coronavirus-pandemic
[10] Atlanta Journal-Constitution: https://www.ajc.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/loeffler-reports-more-stock-sales-amid-insider-trading-allegations/YFPDT3pChO873nuzNKa44K/
[11] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/justice-dept-ends-coronavirus-insider-trading-investigations-into-us-sens-loeffler-inhofe-and-feinstein/2020/05/26/5e59b9a4-9f8b-11ea-b5c9-570a91917d8d_story.html
[12] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/briefing/congress-stock-investments-profits.html
[13] Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-schumer-vote-banning-lawmakers-trading-stocks-ossoff-2022-2
[14] The Hill: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/588630-76-percent-of-voters-support-banning-lawmakers-from-trading-stocks-poll?rl=1

 

Censure Divides the Republican Party

Posted on by Scot Wilson

On February 4, the Republican National Committee (RNC) officially censured two members of the party, Representatives Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., for their role in the ongoing House of Representatives investigation into the Capitol riot that occurred on January 6, 2021.

The RNC resolution claims that Cheney and Kinzinger “support Democrat efforts to destroy President Trump” and denounces “those who deliberately jeopardize [Republican] victory in November.” Perhaps the most controversial text of the RNC resolution states, “Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”1 Some interpreted this statement as downplaying the riot and showing support for those responsible.2 Later that day, RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted that the language was referring to “ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol,” although the RNC resolution does not make that distinction and does not specify which actions the RNC members view as legitimate.3

READ MORE: Insurrection at the Capitol on the Current Issues Blog

On January 6, 2021, supporters of former President Donald Trump rioted in an attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election.4 The Department of Justice estimates that between 2,000 and 2,500 people entered the Capitol. More than 725 people have been arrested, with charges ranging from parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building to assault with a deadly weapon. As a result of the violence, 138 law enforcement officers were injured and two people died.5 In addition to the investigations by law enforcement agencies, the House launched its own investigation with a select committee that currently includes seven Democrats and Cheney and Kinzinger as the sole Republicans, all of whom were chosen by Democrats and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.6

READ MORE: Who Is Accountable for the Riot? on the Current Issues Blog

On the day of the censure vote, McDaniel made it clear that the RNC members are strongly prioritizing party unity, something Cheney and Kinzinger are purportedly threatening with their presence on the House committee and continued criticism of President Trump. “When Republicans come together, we win,” McDaniel said at the RNC general session.7 After facing criticism directed at the language in the resolution, McDaniel defended the RNC’s decision. “Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger crossed a line,” she said.8 Richard Porter, an RNC member from Illinois, agreed with the political censure of Cheney and Kinzinger, saying, “The nominal Republicans on the committee provide a pastiche of bipartisanship, but no genuine protection or due process for the ordinary people who did not riot being targeted and terrorized by the committee. The investigation is a de facto Democrat-only investigation increasingly unmoored from congressional norms.”9

READ MORE: Free Speech and Censorship Fallout from the Capitol Riot on the Current Issues Blog

Shortly before the political censure vote, Representative Cheney stated that her party had become “willing hostages to a man who admits he tried to overturn a presidential election.”10 Several members of the Republican Party, including Senators Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, criticized the censure. “Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol,” tweeted Romney. “Honor attaches to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for seeking truth even when doing so comes at great personal cost.”11

The fight over President Trump continues to divide Republicans, as some support him and others believe opposing him will keep Republican congressional majorities out of reach in the upcoming midterms. Other Republicans believe they should be allowed to criticize the former president or disagree with the RNC. “It can be uncomfortable when you say I’m not going to align myself neatly with what the party is saying just because the party is saying [it],” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.12

Discussion Questions

  1. Is a desire for party unity an acceptable reason for censuring members? Why or why not?
  2. Last year, the RNC soundly denounced the January 6 rioters right after the events. Why might party leadership have chosen to use language in the February 4 resolution that critics see as supporting the rioters?
  3. Cheney now has a higher risk of losing her spot in Congress. What issues are important enough to you to risk losing your power to make change?
  4. How important is party loyalty to you? If you were voting for a member of Congress, would you take party loyalty into account?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Samuel Corum/Getty Images
[1] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/rnc-resolution-to-censure-cheney-kinzinger/cf48ebbc-aeb2-42c2-9a6b-3802186203e3/?itid=lk_inline_manual_8&itid=lk_inline_manual_4
[2] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/it-s-disappointing-avenging-trump-overshadows-midterm-message-rnc-n1288715
[3] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/03/rnc-cheney-trump/
[4] NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/06/1070736018/jan-6-anniversary-investigation-cases-defendants-justice
[5] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/us/politics/capitol-riot-police-officer-injuries.html
[6] House of Representatives: https://january6th.house.gov/about/membership
[7] NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/it-s-disappointing-avenging-trump-overshadows-midterm-message-rnc-n1288715
[8] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/us/politics/republicans-jan-6-cheney-censure.html
[9] Ibid.
[10] Twitter: https://twitter.com/Liz_Cheney/status/1489410422172262404?s=20&t=HzA066fMTwFAuRqhuY5BoA
[11] Twitter: https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/1489611374930141184?s=20&t=QLeXMdTUgkd89Dr4eV6-zQ
[12] The Hill: https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/593013-murkowski-it-can-be-uncomfortable-not-to-align-with-what-the-party-is-saying?rl=1

 

What Is Happening in Ukraine?

Posted on by Scot Wilson

President Joe Biden has ordered the Pentagon to put 8,500 U.S. troops on heightened alert for a possible deployment to Europe.1 And the State Department has told the families of U.S. diplomats in Ukraine to leave the country as the possibility of a Russian invasion increases.2 So, what is the situation in Ukraine?

Background on Ukraine

Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe, after Russia, and gained its independence in late 1991 after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It maintains deep ties to Russia, and many Russian leaders regret the separation. Ukraine’s leadership used to be aligned with Russia, but its top trading partner is now China and more than half of Ukraine’s population supports joining the European Union.3

Controlling Ukrainian territory has many advantages. It has some of the world’s most fertile soil and it’s located along the route of Russian oil and gas pipelines to Europe. Russia supplies Europe with 40 percent of its natural gas and 25 percent of its oil.4

In 2014, after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of Russia, was forced out of office and a pro-Western candidate was elected in his place, separatists in eastern Ukraine began to rebel with Russian military aid. That war has killed over 15,000 people in the Donbas region. Russia also invaded the Crimean Peninsula that year and now controls it.5

The Role of Russia

Russia recently moved 100,000 troops and arms toward Belarus, a Russian ally and a neighbor of Ukraine, for military exercises. Russian President Vladimir Putin insists that he is not planning an invasion of Ukraine. Instead, he claims that the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are trying to destabilize the region by sending in weapons and military advisors.6 Putin has spoken out against NATO before; in 2008, he warned that steps to bring Ukraine into the alliance “would be a hostile act toward Russia.”7

The Role of the United States

President Biden was vice president when the Russian military took control of Crimea, and he has said that Putin may try to “test the West” with another invasion. President Biden sent $650 million in defensive military aid and helped Ukraine procure missiles and aircraft. So far, no one has said the troops on alert would go directly to Ukraine; rather, they would be posted to support NATO members such as Poland or those in the Baltics.8

The United States has imposed economic sanctions on Russia since 2014. However, experts have debated their efficacy, since Russian oil and gas are essential to U.S. allies in Europe. The Biden administration is also considering using the “foreign direct product rule,” which would prohibit U.S. tech companies from exporting goods to Russia.9

READ MORE: This isn’t President Biden’s first foreign policy dilemma; read on the blog about the U.S. exit from Afghanistan

The Role of NATO

NATO was founded in 1949 in response to the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union. By signing the treaty, member states agree to defend each other if any are invaded. After the Soviet Union dissolved, several former Soviet republics began the process of joining NATO, which Russia opposed. Ukraine has applied to be a member, but it is not one yet.10

Putin has demanded assurances that Ukraine will not join NATO and an end to military exercises near its border. For his part, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that Russia has no say over who is allowed to join NATO.11

The Situation in Ukraine

Recent elections indicate that Ukrainians prefer closer cooperation with the West than with Russia.12 Ukraine has criticized as premature the United States and other countries pulling diplomats’ families from embassies. A spokesperson for Ukraine’s foreign ministry said, “The threat of a new wave of Russian aggression has been permanent since 2014, and the build-up of Russian forces on the state border began in April of last year.” Despite this confidence, there is concern that the Russian military build-up is meant to threaten the internal stability of Ukraine.13

Attempts at Diplomacy

Last week, Blinken met with Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov in an attempt to defuse the situation in Ukraine. Blinken and Lavrov left the meeting affirming plans to continue speaking, and they said that a talk between the presidents of the two countries is possible. This statement came before the announcement that U.S. troops could be headed to the region or that more severe sanctions could be coming.

Discussion Questions

  1. Why might Russia be taking aggressive steps against Ukraine?
  2. Does the United States have a responsibility to protect other sovereign nations from invasion? Why or why not?
  3. What do you think the United States’ foreign policy priorities should be in the region?
  4. How would you advise President Biden to achieve those priorities?
  5. What factors are complicating the U.S. response to the situation?

Other Resources

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Hannah Dormido
[1] Burns, Robert, and Lorne Cook. “U.S. Puts 8,500 Troops on Heightened Alert Amid Russia Tension.” Associated Press. 24 Jan. 2022. Web. 24 Jan. 2022.
[2] Bowman, Emma. “State Department Orders Families of Embassy Staff to Leave Ukraine.” NPR. 23 Jan. 2022. Web. 24 Jan. 2022.
[3] Masters, Jonathan. “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia.” Council on Foreign Relations. 2 Dec. 2021. Web. 19 Jan. 2022.
[4] Ibid.
[5] U.S. Department of State, Office of the Spokesperson. “Fact vs. Fiction: Russian Disinformation on Ukraine.” 20 Jan. 2022. Web. 21 Jan. 2022.
[6] Cooper, Helene. “U.S. Considers Backing an Insurgency if Russia Invades Ukraine.” New York Times. 14 Jan. 2022. Web. 19 Jan. 2022.
[7] Masters, Jonathan. “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia.” Council on Foreign Relations. 2 Dec. 2021. Web. 19 Jan. 2022.
[8] Burns, Robert, and Lorne Cook. “U.S. Puts 8,500 Troops on Heightened Alert Amid Russia Tension.” Associated Press. 24 Jan. 2022. Web. 24 Jan. 2022.
[9] Nakashima, Ellen, and Jeanne Whalen. “U.S. Threatens Use of Novel Export Control to Damage Russia’s Strategic Industries if Moscow Invades Ukraine.” Washington Post. 23 Jan. 2022. Web. 24 Jan. 2022.
[10] NATO. “What is NATO?” Web. 24 Jan. 2022.
[11] Lee, Matthew, and Lorne Cook. “US, NATO Rule Out Halt to Expansion, Reject Russian Demands.” Associated Press. 7 Jan. 2022. Web. 19 Jan. 2022.
[12] Masters, Jonathan. “Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia.” Council on Foreign Relations. 2 Dec. 2021. Web. 19 Jan. 2022.
[13] Schwitz, Michael, and Steven Erianger. “NATO Steps Up Readiness in Eastern Europe to Reassure Allies.” New York Times. 24 Jan. 2022. Web. 24 Jan. 2022.

 

Another Hot One: 2021

Posted on by Scot Wilson

It’s official: 2021 was either the fifth or sixth hottest year on record, depending on who you ask.

On January 13, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued reports saying that 2021 was the sixth hottest year ever recorded, going back to when record-keeping began in 1880.1 Earlierin the week, the Copernicus Climate Change Service, whose researchers are based in the European Union, released its own analysis, calculating 2021 temperature records to be the fifth hottest history.2 Although there are variations in the rankings based on how the averages were calculated, the overall data still align and reach the same conclusion: 2021 was yet another hot one.

This distinction comes as no surprise to climate scientists, whose analyses have shown that global temperatures have continued to break records in recent years. The year 2020 tied with 2016 as the hottest years, according to NASA.3 NASA’s data shows that “Earth’s average temperature has risen more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century” and that human activity—namely greenhouse gas emissions—is the root cause of this change.4

Global average temperature compared with mid-20th century.This is part of a broad trend of record-breaking temperatures. The previous seven years have been the seven hottest on record.5 And according to the NOAA, July 2021 was the single hottest month ever recorded.6 NOAA administrator Rick Spinrad characterized this data as a continuation of “the disturbing and disruptive path that climate change has set for the globe.”7

The effects of climate change can be seen around the world in extreme heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and other severe weather events such as storms, hurricanes, and tornados, which increase in strength and frequency due to warmer temperatures. “We do not live in a stable climate now,” said Robert Rohde of Berkeley Earth, an organization focused on climate science. “We will expect to see more extremes and more all-time records being set.”8

U.S. 2021 Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disaster

U.S. 2021 Climate Crisis and Billion-Dollar Weather

This fall, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP26, met in Glasgow in what its organizers dubbed the “last, best hope to save the planet.”9 It ended with an agreement between more than 200 countries to come back in a year with stronger, concrete plans on how to mitigate the effects of climate change and the recognition that wealthier nations need to increase their funding for these efforts.10 There was also consensus about the urgency of the issue and ongoing conversations about what should be done, such as curtailing methane emissions and ending deforestation.11 However, nations disagreed about how quickly they need to reduce emissions and by how much—information that is vital to address climate change on a global scale.12 Nineteen-year-old environmental activist Greta Thunberg criticized the apparent lack of action in a tweet: “The #COP26 is over. Here’s a brief summary: Blah, blah, blah.”13

Discussion Questions

  1. Have you seen or experienced any effects of climate change in 2021?
  2. On a scale of 1-5 (with 1 being “not important” and 5 being “extremely important”), how important is the issue of climate change to you and your community?
  3. How seriously do you think elected leaders in the federal government take the issue of climate change? In your state or local government?
  4. Considering the enormous scale of the issue, how do you think the U.S. government should respond to climate change?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Sky News
[1] Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-01-13/2021-was-earths-6th-hottest-year-nasa-and-noaa-say
[2] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/climate/2021-hottest-year.html
[3] NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows
[4] Ibid.
[5] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/climate/cop26-climate-summit-takeaways.html
[6] NOAA: https://www.noaa.gov/news/its-official-july-2021-was-earths-hottest-month-on-record
[7] Ibid.
[8] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/climate/nyt-climate-newsletter-temperature-records.html
[9] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/climate/cop26-climate-summit-takeaways.html
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Twitter: https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/status/1459612735294029834?lang=en

 

The Great Resignation

Posted on by Scot Wilson

Across the United States, towns and cities are flooded with “Help Wanted” signs on business doors. The U.S. job market has seen its share of ups and downs over the last two years, but 2021 was a year of record-breaking highs in many categories. The two most important: record-breaking quits and record-breaking new job openings.

According to the most recent Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) released by the Department of Labor, a record high of 4.5 million Americans quit their jobs in November 2021 alone.1 This number contributes to the 20 million people who resigned during the second half of 2021. 2

Economists and the media have dubbed this phenomenon “The Great Resignation” or “The Big Quit.” These numbers starkly contrast with the early months of the pandemic, when nearly 22 million people lost their jobs in only two months.3

Source: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/december-2021-jobs-report/ Source: https://theconversation.com/the-great-resignation-historical-data-and-a-deeper-analysis-show-its-not-as-great-as-screaming-headlines-suggest-174454 \

Along with record-high job turnover, we are simultaneously experiencing record-high job openings across the nation. The job market reached historical pinnacles in 2021, with a record 6.4 million job openings (the highest number in history for one year) and an unemployment rate of 3.9 percent.4 For some perspective, this is 51 percent higher than the booming 4.3 million jobs added in 1946 following World War II.5 Furthermore, it took three times as long (three years total) to add the same number of jobs during the recovery from the Great Recession.6 It is possible to assume that we are just getting back jobs lost during the hot months of the pandemic, but as the chart below shows, the U.S. economy has 50.6 percent more positions open now than before the pandemic began.7  Meanwhile, in November 2021, the number of hires held steady at 6.7 million across all U.S. industries and regions.8 It seems we have the jobs, but not the workers.

Source: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/december-2021-jobs-report/

With more jobs available than workers, people ask: “How do we bring even more people to work?” Economists and experts from employment-focused companies such as Linkedin and ZipRecruiter have conducted surveys and analyzed employment data to try and discover what is driving the wave of resignations and what employees are looking for in opportunities.

The most straightforward answer would be that the unemployment benefits from the COVID-19 pandemic are driving people toward the Great Resignation. However, both data and expert opinion suggest that this is an oversimplification of the current situation. Many people are not returning to the same or any workplace once benefits have ended. For example, a restaurant owner from Greenville, South Carolina, told 60 Minutes in an interview that his employees who never returned found other jobs that better aligned with their wishes and goals.9

WATCH: Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa.,  and Greg Murphy, R-N.C., debate the causes and remedies for the Great Resignation in a video from our partners, A Starting Point.

Many experts believe it is about more than money; it is about quality of life. Anthony Klotz, the man credited with coining the term “The Great Resignation,” told NBC in an interview that it’s not that people have stopped working. Instead, he said, they are making a change. “This great resignation and the turnover that goes along with it is individuals taking their futures, their careers into their own hands and trying to craft a life that is more meaningful for them and their families,” he said.10 In addition, people working in lower-wage jobs may find that quitting allows them to find higher wages with less potential exposure to COVID-19. Since the pandemic, many employees are looking for more flexibility in hours, remote work options, safety measures, reduced exposure to COVID-19, and good pay/benefits for work they find meaningful.11

On the other end of the spectrum, some people argue that there is no Great Resignation happening at all; this is simply how the job market flows. These people say that the quit rate isn’t that big of a deal because many people have been quitting their jobs for years. While comparatively high for a standard year (about five percent higher than an average number of quits per year), the rates are likely similar to workforce quits seen during other significant moments in history, such as pre-and post-World War II, but quits data was not being collected then.12 These people argue that the hype makes it seem like more people are leaving jobs across industries than is actually happening. While all job sectors have seen increases in resignations, a handful make up a large portion of those numbers (e.g., accommodation and food service, which makes sense given the parameters of COVID-19).13 (For information on specific quit rates, see the chart above.)

Whatever the reason for the open jobs and resignations, most people believe the tables have turned in favor of employees—for now. As such, if employers want to fill open positions, it may require an adjustment to what work looks like moving forward.

Discussion Questions

  1. From what you already know and what you have read, does it seem like a Great Resignation is going on in the United States? Why or why not?
  2. What impact, if any, do you think having too many jobs available and not enough employees could have on the economy?
  3. Why do you think so many people are quitting their jobs during the pandemic? Have you heard of anyone leaving their job or starting a new career? What were the reasons they gave?
  4. How, if at all, do you think this change in the workforce and power shifting to the employee might impact the nature of work moving forward?
  5. Do you view the Great Resignation as a problem? Why or why not?
  6. If you think it is a problem, do you think there is a role for government in addressing it? If so, what role?

For More Information

  1. A list of the highs in the labor market for 2021 from ZipRecruiter
  2. More from ZipRecruiter on how companies are responding
  3. The JOLTS site on the Bureau of Labor Statistics for more ongoing data

Additional Charts and Tables

Source: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/remote-work-demand-outstrips-supply/ Source: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/remote-work-demand-outstrips-supply/ Source: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/the-big-quit-and-the-tightest-labor-market-ever/

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: The 1E Solutions Blog
[1] Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm
[2] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-resignation-60-minutes-2022-01-10/
[3] Ibid.
[4] Today: https://www.today.com/video/american-workers-are-becoming-their-own-bosses-through-the-great-resignation-130454597857
[5] The ZipRecruiter Blog: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/december-2021-jobs-report/
[6] Ibid.
[7]  The ZipRecruiter Blog: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/december-2021-jobs-report/
[8] Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm
[9] CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/great-resignation-60-minutes-2022-01-10/
[10] Today: https://www.today.com/video/american-workers-are-becoming-their-own-bosses-through-the-great-resignation-130454597857
[11] The ZipRecruiter Blog: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/blog/remote-work-demand-outstrips-supply/; Vox:  https://www.vox.com/recode/22841490/work-remote-wages-labor-force-participation-great-resignation-unions-quits; USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/01/04/great-resignation-number-people-quitting-jobs-hit-record/9083256002/
[12] The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/the-great-resignation-historical-data-and-a-deeper-analysis-show-its-not-as-great-as-screaming-headlines-suggest-174454
[13] Ibid.

 

Build Back Better Stalls, Maybe for Good

Posted on by Scot Wilson

Already facing the enormous challenge of addressing spiking cases of COVID-19 due to the Omicron variant, President Joe Biden’s administration was presented with a new challenge when Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., announced that he would not support the $2 trillion spending plan known as Build Back Better Bill. Citing concerns over the level of spending on social safety net programs and climate policies, Manchin said he could not find a way to support the bill that would be consistent with what he believes his constituents in West Virginia want.1

If passed by Congress, the Build Back Better program plan would allocate significant funding to a wide range of programs, including:

  • $555 billion to combat climate change, by providing incentives to businesses to switch to renewable energy and creating a Civilian Climate Corps that would employ people to revitalize natural resources (such as forests and wetlands) to help reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
  • $200 billion in child tax credits for parents and another $200 billion for a national paid family/medical leave system.
  • $165 billion to reduce the cost of health insurance.
  • $150 billion for affordable at-home medical care.
  • $150 billion for affordable housing projects.

The bulk of the funding for these programs would come from a corresponding increase in taxes paid by corporations and by wealthy individuals (people earning $10 million or more per year).2

The Build Back Better plan was conceived as a second phase of new federal government spending following the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that passed into law in mid-November. Promising to get the Build Back Better plan and its climate and social initiatives passed had been a source of contention between progressive Democrats and the rest of their party in Congress. Many of these progressives refused to support the infrastructure bill but enough of them, and enough Republicans, were willing to vote to secure its passage.3

The reason why Manchin’s refusal to support the Build Back Better Bill means it is likely dead because of the precarious hold that Democrats have on the Senate. Using a process called “budget reconciliation,” Build Back Better could have passed the Senate with only 50 votes (the Senate usually requires 60 votes). Democrats currently have only 50 members in the Senate. In the event of a tie, Vice President Kamala Harris casts the tie-breaking vote, effectively giving Democrats a 51-50 majority. However, Manchin and his fellow Senator Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., are considered more conservative than most of their Democratic peers, having expressed many concerns over the level of government spending in the Build Back Better program and the effects such spending would have on rising inflation. This led to weeks of negotiation between Manchin and Sinema and their fellow Senate Democrats, as well as with President Biden. While it seemed that Sinema was warming to the idea of voting for the Build Back Better Bill, the bill would likely be defeated 49-50 in the Senate without Manchin’s support.4

This represents a major setback for the Biden administration and is likely to result in significant backlash from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, who are growing increasingly frustrated with the party leadership’s unwillingness or inability to address the concerns they have surrounding climate, housing, social services, and health care. And with Democrats holding slim majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives ahead of the November 2022 elections, a major legislative defeat could result in huge losses and a return to Republican control in one or both chambers.5

Discussion Questions

  1. Do you agree with any of the provisions of Build Back Better? Do you oppose any?
  2. Why do you think it is so difficult for Democrats and Republicans to support the same legislation?
  3. Do you think the government is prioritizing the kinds of changes you would like to see in the United States or in your community?
  4. Recent studies have shown that 52 percent of young people (aged 18-29) feel as the though the United States is a failing or already failed democracy. Do you agree with this assessment? What impact do you think the failure of efforts to reform, such as Build Back Better, has on these impressions?

Related Posts

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/19/sen-joe-manchin-says-he-wont-vote-for-bidens-build-back-better-act.html
[2] https://time.com/6121415/build-back-better-spending-bill-summary/
[3] https://www.vox.com/2021/12/19/22845190/progressives-build-back-better-act-squad-joe-manchin
[4] https://www.kawc.org/politics/2021-11-05/arizona-edition-sen-sinema-on-build-back-better-and-critics
[5] https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/586572-democrats-descend-into-finger-pointing-after-build-back-better

 

The COVID-19 Omicron Variant

Posted on by Scot Wilson

OmnicronOn November 26, 2021, the World Health Organization announced the discovery of a new COVID-19 variant in South Africa. The same day, President Joe Biden closed the borders to travelers from South Africa and seven nearby nations (Namibia, Botswana, Lesotho, Eswatini, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi) in the hope of slowing the spread of the variant to the United States. In a speech to the American public on November 29, President Biden addressed the closing of the border, saying, “Closing the borders cannot prevent the spread, but … it gives us time to take more actions, to move quicker, for people to get the vaccine.”

In that same speech, President Biden stated that there were three messages he wanted to make clear to the American people:

(1) “This variant is a cause for concern, not a cause for panic. … We have more tools today to fight the variant than we’ve ever had before. … We are learning more about this new variant every day and as we learn more we will share that information with the American people candidly and promptly.”

(2) “The best protection against this new variant or any variant out there is getting fully vaccinated and getting your booster shot. … Go get the booster today. … A fully vaccinated booster person is the most protected against COVID. Don’t wait. … If you are not vaccinated, please go and also take your children to be vaccinated now. … Please wear your mask indoors, it protects you and protects those around you.”

(3) “In the event, hopefully unlikely, that updated vaccines or boosters are needed to respond to this new variant, we will accelerate their development and deployment with every available tool. … We do not yet believe that additional measures will be needed, but so that we are well prepared, if needed, my teams are already working with Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson to develop contingency plans for vaccines or boosters, if needed. I will also direct these vaccines to be approved quickly without cutting corners.”

The president also said that he would be putting out a detailed plan for how the United States will fight COVID-19 this winter. He said it would not involve shutdowns but, instead, more widespread vaccination.

President Biden said that to beat the pandemic, however, we need to vaccinate not just our nation but the rest of the world. He spoke about how it protects Americans to vaccinate the world, noting that both the COVID-19 delta and omicron variants originated in other countries. He said that the United States has shipped, for free, more doses of the vaccine to other nations than all other contributing countries combined—over 270 million doses to more than 110 countries.

s of December 8, 2021, the COVID-19 omicron variant had been detected in 19 U.S. states and 50 countries around the world.1 Scientists and public health officials state that it is too early to say how severe the variant is, but early data suggests that it is more contagious than other variants while causing milder symptoms.2 Still, officials are urging caution, patience, and vaccination.

Discussion Questions

  1. Do you agree with President Biden’s decision to close borders to travelers from the countries where the omicron variant originated? Why or why not?
  2. How, if at all, do you think the introduction of travel bans might impact the reporting of variants by nations in the future?
  3. Do you believe the federal government is doing the right things to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic? What about the right things to address this new variant? If not, how should things be handled differently? What else do you think should be done?
  4. Do you believe vaccination should be mandatory for all U.S. citizens? Why or why not?
  5. Do you believe that private companies should be able to require their employees to get vaccinated? Why or why not?

Other Resources

WATCH President Biden’s full speech.

LISTEN to Dr. Anthony Fauci discuss the omicron variant.

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: The Washington Post
[1] NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/12/07/1062158951/omicron-updates-states-symptoms-south-africa-texas
[2] USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/12/07/omicron-coronavirus-variant-more-contagious-less-dangerous/8886726002/

 

The Infrastructure Bill: What It Includes and What Remains To Be Done

Posted on by Scot Wilson

CNN/KKTV 1On November 15th, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The bill represents the culmination of months of negotiations between House Democrats and Republicans as well as within the two parties. The goal of this US infrastructure bill is to significantly revitalize and modernize American infrastructure – the various systems, equipment, and structures that make modern life possible. Although significantly less than the original bill, the $1.2 trillion package represents one of the most significant investments by the federal government in infrastructure since the Great Depression.1

What the 2021 Infrastructure Bill Includes

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act invests billions of dollars into a wide range of areas: roads, bridges, ports, railways, water systems, power grids, and internet access. This includes money for the construction of electric vehicle charging stations and $5 billion for electric and hybrid school buses, $15 billion for replacing toxic lead water pipes, and investments to help reach the 19% of American homes that still lack internet access.2 These elements represent only a small part of the overall scope of the bill which the White House has compared to the Transcontinental Railroad or Interstate Highway system in its importance for the future.3

A Long Fight, Far From Over

Originally the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 had been part of the broader Build Back Better plan – a three part series of new legislation which aimed to help the US recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This effort began with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan passed earlier in the year but continued efforts stalled as additional legislation faced staunch Republican opposition as well as opposition from senators and representatives within the Democratic Party. In an effort to build support, the IIJA was separated from the additional $1.75 trillion investments in families, climate, health and other areas which now make up the pending Build Back Better Act which has still not been passed.4

Ultimately, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed the Senate in a 69-30 vote, receiving the support of 19 Republicans while it passed the House 278-206, with support from 13 Republicans and opposition from 6 Democrats.5 The Republicans who voted for the bill argued that it was beneficial to the interests of the people they represent and helpful to the country in many ways. These 13 Republicans in the House and many of the Republican Senators who supported the 2021 infrastructure bill have subsequently been ridiculed by many of their fellow Republican members and have received numerous death threats.6

Meanwhile, the US infrastructure bill was opposed by 6 Democrats on the grounds that they were not guaranteed the additional investments represented by the Build Back Better Act would be passed into law. Critics also noted that while the bill has a $1.2 trillion price tag only $550 billion of that is new spending.7 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has publicly committed to passing both bills though exactly what will be included in the Build Back Better Act after more negotiations remains unknown.8

Discussion Questions

  1. What needs do you see in your own community that you think should be priority for government investment/funding?
  2. What is the most pressing issue that you feel the government should be addressing? Are there any areas covered in the IIJA that you feel the government shouldn’t be investing in or hasn’t invested enough in?
  3. Should the federal government be responsible for making the kinds of investments detailed in the IIJA? Should some or all of these investments be left to states or even to private businesses instead?
  4. Consider the length of time it has taken to get the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 passed, the closeness of the votes, and the threats received by those who supported it. What does this process indicate about the state of American government and democracy?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: CNN/KKTV 11
[1] https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-technology-business-broadband-internet-congress-d89d6bb1b39cd9c67ae9fc91f5eb4c0d
[2] https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/eighth-broadband-progress-report
[3] https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-technology-business-broadband-internet-congress-d89d6bb1b39cd9c67ae9fc91f5eb4c0d
[4] https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/whats-bidens-175-trillion-build-back-better-package-2021-11-05/
[5] https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/infrastructure-bill-house-democrats-voted-no-republicans-voted-yes/index.html
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/politics/republicans-backlash-infrastructure-bill.html
[7] https://www.vox.com/22770447/infrastructure-bill-democrats-biden-water-broadband-roads-buses
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/us/politics/pelosi-infrastructure-house-vote.html

 

Indian Boarding Schools: The Truth and Healing Commission

Posted on by Scot Wilson

Carlisle Indian School Digital Resource Center via MDPIIn September 2021, a bipartisan group of senators and representatives reintroduced the Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies in the United States Act, which would establish a commission to “investigate, document, and acknowledge past injustices of the federal government’s Indian Boarding School Policies.”1 The Truth and Healing Commission would use its findings to recommend actions to best redress the historical trauma and long-term impacts of those policies.

In the late 1800s, more than 350 US Indian boarding schools (also known as residential schools) were established.2 Native children—some as young as three years old—were forcibly taken from their families and compelled to attend. Families who refused to give up their children were denied food, supplies, and other critical support by the Bureau of Indian Affairs—all things that should have been guaranteed by treaties.3

Once in the schools, Native children were required to assimilate to the ideals and norms of mainstream white society.4 Instead of being focused on education, they were Indian reeducation schools. The children were denied traditional meals and clothing, required to cut their hair, and punished for speaking their native languages, thus effectively stripping them of their culture.5

The white Americans who operated the schools viewed Native culture as inferior—something to be “corrected” by being erased. Quite simply, their mission was to “kill the Indian, save the man,” a phrase which is attributed to Lieutenant Colonel Richard Henry Pratt, the founder of the first US Indian boarding school.6 These actions, coupled with instances of neglect and abuse, have been condemned as human rights violations and acts of “cultural genocide” that have never been fully acknowledged or healed.7

Substandard medical care left Native children exposed to disease and death; those who died were often buried anonymously in shallow graves, their families denied closure and accountability. Numerous survivors have shared their own stories of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse they faced while at the boarding schools.8 Recently, non-Native Americans have become more aware of the scope of trauma and tragedy with the discovery of hundreds of graves on the grounds of former boarding schools, including more than 170 graves recently discovered in Carson City, Nevada.9 Thousands of graves of Native children were identified at former boarding schools in Canada as well.10 Preston McBride, a researcher at the University of Southern California, estimates that there could be up to 40,000 such graves across the United States.11

The Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies in the United States Act would build upon investigations announced this summer by Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland to search for children’s remains at former boarding schools.12 Haaland has her own connection to this issue, as her grandparents were forced to attend boarding schools. As a former U.S. representative herself, Haaland first introduced a version of the Truth and Healing Commission bill in the previous Congress.13

Although these boarding schools have not been in operation for decades, their effects linger in Native communities and in the conscious of our country. “The U.S. Indian Boarding School Policies stripped children from their families and their cultures—actions that continue to impact Native American, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities today,” said Representative Sharice Davids, D-Kan., one of the bill’s cosponsors. “Our country must do better to acknowledge its legacy and understand the full truth of these policies. This commission is a critical step to allow Native families and communities to begin to heal from the intergenerational trauma.”14

Discussion Questions

  1. For some non-Native Americans, the first time they heard about Indian boarding schools was though news coverage of mass graves found across Canada and the United States. Did you see these reports over the past year? Had you learned about Indian boarding schools prior to those discoveries?
  2. What might be some benefits of having a commission established by Congress in addition to the investigations that have already been launched by the Department of the Interior?
  3. What actions do you think a potential Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies in the United States might recommend, based on the issues it seeks to address?
  4. The last Indian boarding school closed in 1996.15 Although their practices were sanctioned by the U.S. government and documented for decades, why do you think it took so long to raise awareness about and take steps to address these wrongs?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Carlisle Indian School Digital Resource Center via MDPI
[1] Senator Elizabeth Warren: https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-davids-cole-reintroduce-bipartisan-bill-to-seek-healing-for-stolen-native-children-and-their-communities
[2] Reno News & Review: https://reno.newsreview.com/2021/08/15/stewart-indian-schools-200-unmarked-graves/
[3] Teen Vogue: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/indian-residential-schools-graves
[4] Reno News & Review: https://reno.newsreview.com/2021/08/15/stewart-indian-schools-200-unmarked-graves/
[5] NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2021/08/28/1031398120/native-boarding-schools-repatriation-remains-carlisle
[6] Ibid.
[7] Reno News & Review: https://reno.newsreview.com/2021/08/15/stewart-indian-schools-200-unmarked-graves/
[8] The Week: https://theweek.com/us/1002172/deb-haaland-indigenous-boarding-schools
[9] Reno News & Review: https://reno.newsreview.com/2021/08/15/stewart-indian-schools-200-unmarked-graves/
[10] Teen Vogue: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/indian-residential-schools-graves
[11] NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2021/08/28/1031398120/native-boarding-schools-repatriation-remains-carlisle
[12] The Week: https://theweek.com/us/1002172/deb-haaland-indigenous-boarding-schools
[13] Ibid.
[14] Senator Elizabeth Warren: https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-davids-cole-reintroduce-bipartisan-bill-to-seek-healing-for-stolen-native-children-and-their-communities
[15] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/indigenous-children-indian-civilization-act-1819.html

 

Brackeen v. Haaland, Part 2: Challenging the Indian Child Welfare Act

Posted on by Scot Wilson

Part 2: The Current Debate Facing the U.S. Supreme Court

For more information about the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 and the history of its enactment, please read part one of this series.

Brackeen v. Haaland is a complex case that challenges the constitutionality of the ICWA. In the opinion of some, the case also questions the validity and legality of the sovereignty of Native nations (their ability to govern themselves independently of the U.S. government).

The Indian Child Welfare Act establishes guidelines for how states should handle issues regarding Native children in the child welfare system. The guidelines include addressing child abuse and neglect cases, foster and adoption cases, removal, and out-of-home placement.1 The law gives Native communities a seat at the decision-making table when placing Native children in homes. And not unlike the traditional child welfare system, it prioritizes keeping Native children with members of their tribe whenever possible. The goal of the law is to keep families together, protect the rights of Native people to govern themselves, and support their cultural independence following decades of forced separation and assimilation attempts by the U.S. government.

What Is the Case About and What Questions Are Being Asked of the Court?

The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit in Brackeen v. Haaland in January 2020. The plaintiffs include several couples who hope to adopt or foster children from Indian nations, a woman who wishes for her child of Native descent to be adopted by non-Native people, and the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Indiana which believe the ICWA to be unconstitutional.2  The defendants in the case are the United States, federal agencies (including Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland), officials responsible for administering the ICWA, and several Indian tribes which stepped in to support the ICWA.3

The case began with a married couple from Texas. The couple fostered multiple non-infant children from the Cherokee Nation over several years. Behavioral issues among those children led the couple to seek to foster and adopt a baby boy, whom they eventually renamed Antonio. Antonio is a baby boy from the Cherokee Nation whose mother had issues with drug addiction—an issue in Native communities that often goes hand-in-hand with generational poverty and systemic oppression. After fostering for a year, the Brackeens decided to adopt with the blessing of the baby’s mother. However, the ICWA gives Native nations the ability to locate a family within the tribe before allowing for adoption by non-Native families. This rule prevented the Brackeens’ adoption from happening because the Cherokee Nation found a family willing to adopt the baby. Dissatisfied with this rule, the Brackeens decided to go to court to fight the ICWA adoption decision. With the support of the attorney general of Texas and others, the couple fought the law.

The primary issue in the case is whether the ICWA is unconstitutional. The two major questions are: (1) Is the ICWA unconstitutional on the basis of racial discrimination, because it favors Native families in the adoption of Native children? (2) Is this favoring granted by the ICWA an overreach of Congress’ powers in Article I because it impedes the right of states to set standards for placement of children in the child welfare system?4

What Has Already Happened in the Case and Where Is the Case Now?

The first decision in the case came in August 2018, when a judge’s ICWA ruling stated that it’s unconstitutional because it treats Native children as a different “race.” The defendants appealed the decision.

On April 6, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released an en banc decision following a hearing by 16 federal judges in Brackeen v. Haaland. En banc is a term used when all judges from a particular court hear a case (in this instance, all judges from the Fifth Circuit).5 The decision document that was released is more than 325 pages long, further demonstrating the complexity of this issue. The decision determined that some portions of the ICWA are constitutional and, as such, should be upheld. However, other parts (like the regulations put into effect by the federal government’s Bureau of Indian Affairs) were found to violate the “anticommandeering” policy of the Constitution “because it forces states, their child welfare agencies, and their courts to act in a certain way.”6

Following this most recent decision, the parties have appealed to the Supreme Court in the hope that the Court will review the ICWA ruling and decide its overall constitutionality. The Court will look over the details, decide if it wants to review the case, and, if so, which parts of the issue it wishes to review. The Court is expected to announce whether it will take the case sometime in December 2021 or January 2022.7 Up to this point, the Court has received three amicus (friend of the court) briefs from 180 tribal nations, 35 Native organizations, 25 states and the District of Columbia, Casey Family Programs, and ten child welfare and adoption organizations urging the Court to review and uphold the ICWA.8 These briefs are essentially supportive statements by parties not involved in the case to demonstrate that a decision one way or the other will impact parties outside of the present case.9

What Are Some Arguments For and Against Upholding the ICWA?

Those opposed to the ICWA believe that discrimination against non-Native families in the placement of children goes against the Constitution. They argue that the law harms the very children it is meant to protect, as it prevents them from being placed in permanent homes and keeps them trapped in the foster care system. Opponents of the ICWA maintain that the best interests of each individual child should be the only thing considered when it comes to their placement. Their status as Native Americans should have nothing to do with this process.

Those who support the ICWA believe the law protects Native children after years of intentional removal, separation, and displacement. They believe that Native status is a political distinction rather than a racial one.10 Supporters also argue that this is an issue much bigger than the ICWA itself. For example, the Cherokee Nation, the largest tribal nation in the country, tweeted about the issue in March 2019, stating, “If #ICWA opponents in Brackeen v. Bernhardt are successful, it will potentially impact the sovereignty of every tribe, because the plaintiffs view tribes as racial entities, not sovereign governments. #ProudtoProtectICWA #ICWAFact.”11

Discussion Questions

  1. What might be some arguments in support of the ICWA? What might be some arguments in opposition?
  2. What do you think about this case? Do you believe that the ICWA should be upheld? Why or why not?
  3. What do you think could be some potential consequences if the ICWA is found to be unconstitutional and overturned? What about possible results if it is upheld?
  4. How does this controversy connect to other issues you have heard about in the news? In history?
  5. If the Supreme Court reviews this case, how do you think it will rule? Why do you think so?

Other Resources

READ the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

READ more about the case, including amicus briefs.

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Native American Rights Fund
[1] ChildWelfare.gov: https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/diverse-populations/americanindian/icwa/
[2] Native American Rights Fund: https://www.narf.org/cases/brackeen-v-bernhardt/; Fifth Circuit Decision in Brackeen v. Haaland: https://narf.org/nill/documents/20210406brackeen-opinion5th.pdf
[3] Native American Rights Fund: https://www.narf.org/cases/brackeen-v-bernhardt/
[4] SCOTUSBlog: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/brackeen-v-haaland/
[5] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/en_banc
[6] Indianz: https://www.indianz.com/News/2021/04/07/fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-brackeen-v-haaland/; Indianz: https://www.indianz.com/News/2018/10/05/judge-strikes-down-indian-child-welfare.asp
[7] National Indian Child Welfare Fund: https://www.nicwa.org/policy-update/
[8] Native American Rights Fund: https://www.narf.org/icwa-brackeen/
[9] Smith Gambrell Russell Law: https://sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/why-and-when-to-file-an-amicus-brief/
[10] Native American Rights Fund: https://www.narf.org/cases/brackeen-v-bernhardt/
[11] Cherokee Nation Twitter Feed: https://twitter.com/CherokeeNation/status/1105867500749754370[13] Native Times: https://www.Nativetimes.com/archives/46-life/commentary/14059-truth-and-reconciliationkill-the-indian-and-save-the-man