Why Doesn’t the U.S. Have Universal Health Insurance?

By: Samantha Powers

Edited by: Madison Bruno and Sarah Wachs

For decades, the United States health insurance system has been a talking point among political candidates. Former President Barack Obama ran in 2008 with the promise of improving health insurance coverage for all Americans, culminating in the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Six years later, former President Donald Trump ran on a promise to “repeal and replace” so-called “Obama-care” with a new system, which he only partially fulfilled. As the politics surrounding health insurance in America continue to fluctuate, the uninsured population is suffering. According to the CDC, 27.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2022 — a figure reflective of higher insurance rates since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. [1] Health insurance has proven to lead to better treatment and health outcomes, meaning those lacking financial resources are at the highest risk. Low socioeconomic communities are subject to increased risk of conditions such as obesity and type II diabetes, according to the National Institute of Health.[2] These poor health outcomes are unacceptable for a nation as advanced as the U.S.. Universal health insurance would improve health outcomes for millions of Americans, but like all systems, it has its shortcomings. To understand this further, we must look at historical efforts to establish universal health insurance in the U.S.

The U.S. has historically used a mixed public and private approach to health insurance. In contrast, other post-industrial Western nations use almost entirely public systems, generating better health outcomes overall.[3] Despite evidence that a public system would improve health outcomes, U.S. politicians have historically struggled to gain traction in their efforts to establish universal healthcare. In 1994, former President Clinton attempted to pass the Health Security Act, which would have required individuals to purchase baseline health insurance and would have required employees to provide it.[4] The bill — which did not pass — bore a lot of similarities to Obamacare, but with a key difference: it put more pressure on users of employer-based insurance to make an immediate switch to the federal insurance marketplace. Clinton struggled to garner public support for the bill, and his efforts ultimately failed.

Former President Obama picked up the torch and crossed the finish line with his passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. The ACA, also known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was passed to provide impoverished consumers with premium subsidies, expand Medicaid, and support lower-cost healthcare delivery methods.[5] Following implementation, the act saw great success. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, estimates of the number of people who have gained health coverage since 2010 range from 7 million to 16.4 million. In addition, young adults, people of color, and those with low incomes — groups that have “historically been at the greatest risk for lacking insurance… have made the greatest coverage gains.”[6] Not only did the ACA improve health insurance coverage nationwide, it also made strides to protect some of the most vulnerable populations. 

Still, this golden age for U.S. health insurance could not last forever: in the years following the ACA’s passage, it has faced legal challenges across the branches of government. The Supreme Court has upheld some aspects of the ACA and struck down others. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court famously upheld the ACA’s mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance or else they must pay a fine, deciding to treat the policy as a tax.[7] In King v. Burwell, the Court weakened the ACA when it decided that federal subsidies should flow to all states, regardless of whether they have established their public insurance exchanges.[8] The Trump administration also weakened the ACA through a series of executive orders intended to “repeal and replace” the law, but the former president’s efforts fell short of his campaign promises — Trump only repealed parts of the ACA, and he offered no replacement model for the healthcare system. Now, the ACA continues to benefit millions of Americans, but not to the extent it once did. After almost a century of progress in expanding access to health insurance, the United States has regressed due to political pushback and partisan infighting. Americans deserve better than this legal instability: access to affordable health insurance should not depend on who is in office.

When using a comparative approach to the health insurance systems in other developed nations, it is clear that the United States could be doing much more. For example, Nordic countries employ a “welfare state” model that allows for comprehensive, institutionalized, and universal health insurance for their citizens, “regardless of social status or geographic location.”[9] The systems are grounded in public consent and political participation, two major democratic values held by the U.S. — so why does our system not function the same way? One possible explanation is that Nordic nations are far less populous and diverse than the U.S., meaning that a one-size-fits-all approach is more difficult to cater to the U.S. population. Another explanation is that universal healthcare is costly, creates inefficiency in the medical system, and works against progress and innovation in the medical field.[10] This is partially true: in nations with universal healthcare, wait times for medical procedures are much longer. While there is no perfect system, a universal healthcare model ensures that the most underprivileged do not get left behind. Furthermore, universal healthcare can actually save money: uninsured individuals with chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease cost the U.S. more than their insured counterparts.[11] Over time, a healthier populace will pay dividends to the well-being of the U.S. at large and reduce socioeconomic inequality. While a universal healthcare system requires lawmakers to sacrifice some things, it is worth it to protect American lives.

Notes:

1. “U.S. Uninsured Rate Dropped 18% during Pandemic,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 16, 2023, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2023/202305.htm.

2. Gabriel Zieff et al., “Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate,” Medicina 56, no. 11 (2020): 580, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580.

3. Gabriel Zieff et al., “Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate,” Medicina 56, no. 11 (2020): 580, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580.

4. Health Security Act, H.R. 3600, 103rd Cong. (1994).

5. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010).

6. David Blumenthal, Melinda Abrams, and Rachel Nuzum, “The Affordable Care Act at 5 Years,” New England Journal of Medicine 372, no. 25 (2015): 2451–58, https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmhpr1503614.

7. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

8. King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015).

9. Jon Magnussen, Nordic Health Care Systems: Recent Reforms and Current Policy Challenges (Maidenhead, UK: Open Univ. Pr., 2010).

10. Gabriel Zieff et al., “Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate,” Medicina 56, no. 11 (2020): 580, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580.

11. Gabriel Zieff et al., “Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate,” Medicina 56, no. 11 (2020): 580, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580.

Bibliography:

Blumenthal, David, Melinda Abrams, and Rachel Nuzum. “The Affordable Care Act at 5 Years.” New England Journal of Medicine 372, no. 25 (2015): 2451–58. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmhpr1503614. 

Magnussen, Jon. Nordic health care systems: Recent reforms and current policy challenges. Maidenhead, UK: Open Univ. Pr., 2010.

“U.S. Uninsured Rate Dropped 18% during Pandemic.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 16, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2023/202305.htm. 

Zieff, Gabriel, Zachary Y. Kerr, Justin B. Moore, and Lee Stoner. “Universal Healthcare in the United States of America: A Healthy Debate.” Medicina 56, no. 11 (2020): 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56110580. 

What is a Gun, Anyway? The Ongoing Legal Battle Surrounding the Recent Epidemic of “Ghost Guns.”

By: Jonah Berman

Edited by: Alanna Liu and Jonah Elkowitz

What is a gun? The question may initially appear rhetorical; however, it assumes a significant degree of ambiguity within the framework of American law. In the wake of the rapid proliferation of "ghost guns"—untraceable weapons, that can be homemade via various parts—federal courts and bureaucracies have grappled with the evolving definitions of what precisely classifies as a firearm, as these “ghost” weapons cleverly circumvent the stringent regulations intended to preserve public safety.

“Ghost guns” are guns that aren’t purchased whole, or through a traditional firearms dealer, but rather assembled vis-a-vis various parts obtained from a “ghost gun kit.” These kits contain “unfinished” receivers and frames, which are the pieces of the firearm that enable the firing mechanism. All one has to do is purchase a kit, open one of many assembly videos on YouTube, and then assemble their gun. In a matter of minutes, the purchaser will possess a completely untraceable, unregistered, fully functioning firearm; they would undergo no background check or any other sort of regulation meant to weed out criminals or individuals not of age. The parts found in ghost gun kits are deliberately forged to evade legal criteria; [1] just because these guns aren’t purchased whole – despite the fact that they’ll soon become a complete, fully-functioning gun–they escape the classification of being a “gun” and thus bypass regulation. It’s a flagrant loophole that can allow guns to fall into dangerous hands.

Unsurprisingly, communities around the United States have shouldered the brunt of the ghost gun epidemic. In 2020, nearly 50% of firearms seized by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) in Los Angeles were ghost guns. [1] Ghost guns are especially prevalent in states with stricter gun laws; states with strong laws prevent criminals or individuals with mental illnesses from obtaining firearms through traditional means. They have thus turned to ghost guns as a solution. Luckily, California and a handful of other states have since taken steps to combat ghost guns, and recently, President Biden and the federal government have followed suit–but not without resistance. 

In response to the pervasive ghost gun epidemic, the ATF broadened its conceptualization of what typifies a gun, enabling them to regulate gun parts–even the “unfinished” ones found in ghost gun kits–not only fully ready guns. On August 24, 2022, the ATF’s "Frame or Receiver" Final Rule went into effect; this updated rule provides a contemporary definition of a firearm–broadening the definitions found in the 1968 Gun Control Act–explicitly stating that parts kits that can be easily transformed into working weapons, as well as functional "frames" or "receivers" for firearms, are now subject to the same regulations as conventional firearms. [2] This new conceptualization allows the federal government to strike back against the proliferation of ghost guns, finally giving them license to regulate the deadly, untraceable loophole.

Unsurprisingly, the gun lobby and the more conservative voices in politics struck back against the ATF’s move. Lawsuits and appeals were filed against the ATF’s Frame or Receiver Final Rule. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of granting a stay, provisionally allowing the new Biden-backed interpretation to stay intact as legal proceedings developed. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal bloc to form the majority. [3] However, not long after the initial provisional ruling, Justice Reed O’Connor, a judge in North Texas, attempted to block the ATF’s new regulations, arguing that even if a gun part might one day become a gun, that doesn’t give the ATF the right to regulate it as if it already was a gun. [4] However, the Supreme Court soon after repudiated the ruling of the lower court, asserting that a lower court cannot countermand the Supreme Court’s stay ruling. This has enabled the ATF’s new policy to remain in effect pending the ongoing legal battle [5]. Even more recently, on November 10, 2023, the entirely Trump-appointed 5th Circuit Federal Appeals Court echoed the sentiment of the Texas judge and undermined the ATF’s new definition. This result could be appealed to the Supreme Court once again, which will likely continue to grant a temporary stay. It remains to be seen how the situation will evolve, but for the time being, ghost gun manufacturers and their customers will not go quietly. 

The burgeoning crisis of "ghost guns" unequivocally necessitates regulatory measures, and the contention that firearm components should remain unregulated—despite their potential to be assembled into functional guns—is a deeply flawed argument that jeopardizes public safety and undermines the rule of law as well as human lives.

The current legal contention surrounding "ghost guns" underscores a critical lapse in public safety measures. These unserialized and untraceable firearms, assembled from parts designed to skirt existing regulations, represent a clear and present danger to society. It is untenable to maintain that the unassembled parts of a firearm, which can rapidly be transformed into a lethal weapon, should be exempt from regulation based on their disassembled state. This perspective fails to acknowledge the evident end-use of these components; ghost guns often find their way into the hands of dangerous individuals who otherwise would have been prohibited from obtaining a firearm via a background check. The resulting accessibility of such weapons to individuals who would otherwise be barred from firearm ownership not only contravenes the spirit of firearm legislation but also facilitates a route for criminal activity, effectively nullifying the preventative intent of gun laws. Hence, to uphold the principles of public safety and responsible gun ownership, it is imperative that we advance and enforce regulations that encompass all facets of firearm assembly, including the so-called "ghost gun" components. This is not merely an issue of semantics or regulatory overreach but a fundamental necessity to close lethal loopholes that currently undermine community safety and the efficacy of gun control efforts. 

The gun lobby asserts that regulating firearm parts proves a hindrance to law-abiding gun owners’ ability to obtain the gun parts that they desire. This is flawed reasoning; if the citizen is law-abiding and proven so by an extensive background check, they will be allowed to purchase their gun parts. Sure, the process of acquiring these weapon parts might be more cumbersome, but this concern is nothing when the result is consolidating the efficacy of gun safety laws and saving lives. Additionally, when it comes to any sort of gun legislation, the gun lobby employs a trite slippery slope argument. In the recent 5th Circuit ruling concurring opinion, a conservative judge claimed that the ATF interpretation “purports to regulate any piece of metal or plastic that has been machined beyond its primordial state for fear that it might one day be turned into a gun, a gun frame, or a gun receiver.” [6] The argument that one piece of legislation must be prohibited because it might someday give way to another piece of legislation is a completely invalid and strawman-esque argument. The gun lobby always claims that life-saving legislation is just a first step in efforts to ultimately overturn or undermine the Second Amendment; such is not nor has ever been the case. The ATF’s definition is strictly meant to prohibit ghost guns, nothing more. 

Although Justices Roberts and Coney-Barrett initially granted a stay, the existence of an overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court will threaten the ATF’s new definition of ghost guns indefinitely. If forced to adjudicate on the matter rather than just deliberating on a timeline, it is possible, if not likely, that SCOTUS will repudiate the ATF’s new conceptualization and allow ghost guns once again. If this is the case, ghost gun regulation will fall to the states. The situation will be one to monitor over time; hopefully, with the safety of everyday Americans in mind, ghost guns will continue to be held in check.

Notes:

1. Brady United. “What Are Ghost Guns?” Brady United. Accessed November 9, 2023. https://www.bradyunited.org/fact-sheets/what-are-ghost-guns.

2. Department of Justice. “Frame and Receiver Rule Goes into Effect.” Office of Public Affairs. Last modified on August 24, 2022. Accessed November 9, 2023. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/frame-and-receiver-rule-goes-effect.

3. Liptak, Adam. “By 5-4 Vote, Supreme Court Revives Biden’s Regulation of ‘Ghost Guns” The New York Times. August 8, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/us/supreme-court-biden-ghost-guns.html.

4. Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Again Lets Biden’s Limits on ‘Ghost Guns’ Stand” The New York Times. October 16, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/us/supreme-court-biden-ghost-guns.

5. Totenberg, Nina. “Supreme Court tells 5th Circuit to stop its defiance in ghost gun case” NPR. October 16, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/16/1206245991/supreme-court-ghost-guns.

6. Robertson, Nick. “Appeals court says ATF exceeded authority with ‘ghost gun’ rule” The Hill. November 11, 2023. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4304682-appeals-court-atf-ghost-gun-rule.

Bibliography:

Brady United. "What Are Ghost Guns?" Brady United. Accessed November 9, 2023. https://www.bradyunited.org/fact-sheets/what-are-ghost-guns.

Cutler, Joyce E. "Ghost Guns’ Rule Exceeds ATF Authority, Appeals Court Holds." Bloomberg Law. Accessed November 11, 2023. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/ghost-guns-rule-exceeds-aft-authority-appeals-court-holds.

Department of Justice. "Frame and Receiver Rule Goes into Effect." Office of Public Affairs. Last modified August 24, 2022. Accessed November 9, 2023. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/frame-and-receiver-rule-goes-effect.

Liptak, Adam. "By 5-4 Vote, Supreme Court Revives Biden's Regulation of 'Ghost Guns'." The New York Times, August 8, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/08/us/supreme-court-biden-ghost-guns.html.

Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Again Lets Biden's Limits on 'Ghost Guns' Stand." The New York Times, October 16, 2023. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/us/supreme-court-biden-ghost-guns.

Totenberg, Nina. "Supreme Court tells 5th Circuit to stop its defiance in ghost gun case." NPR, October 16, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/16/1206245991/supreme-court-ghost-guns.

Robertson, Nick. "Appeals court says ATF exceeded authority with 'ghost gun' rule." The Hill, November 11, 2023. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4304682-appeals-court-atf-ghost-gun-rule.

Raymond, Nate. "US appeals court calls Biden's 'ghost gun' limits unlawful." Yahoo News, November 9, 2023. https://news.yahoo.com/us-appeals-court-calls-bidens-015832550.html.

Aftermath of Bruen Decision - Maryland Law Just One of Many?

By: Dominic Miranda

Edited by: Alex Brunet and Jonah Elkowitz

In the wake of the 2013 Sandy Hook shooting, Maryland passed the Firearm Safety Act, which implemented new regulations on gun purchasing in the state. These regulations included a new requirement to complete a “gun safety course”, a waiting period of up to 30 days for a license, and mandatory background checks. [1] This legislation brings into view the critical issue of the Second Amendment, or the right to bear arms, as it plays a pivotal role in determining the constitutionality of such laws. Opposed to these new requirements, Second Amendment advocates challenged the constitutionality of the Maryland law in 2016, and the initial decision was based on a “two-step interest-balancing framework”, which requires for each law to pass two tests to be enacted. [2] A new test was introduced by the Supreme Court after a 2022 ruling on gun regulations in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. (NYSRPA) v. Bruen, which the plaintiffs in the Maryland case then used to appeal the initial decision on the Maryland law. [3] In the end, the ruling was split 2-1 in the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, with the two-vote majority finding that the licensing requirements of the Firearm Safety Act infringe upon Second Amendment rights since the waiting period and arbitrary awarding of licenses are not constitutionally permissible. [4] Does this ruling give us an initial look into the fate of gun regulations around the country?

For Marylanders, not only does this ruling mean that it will be much easier to purchase guns, but to carry them in public as well, since many of the restrictions that were in place regulated these actions specifically. The Firearm Safety Act dictated that prospective gun purchasers must be twenty-one years of age, be a resident of Maryland, complete a safety course and background check, and then fill out an application with a $50 fee – then possibly they will receive their handgun qualification license within thirty days. [5] Aside from this, if prospective buyers wish to carry their handguns on them, they must apply for a separate permit. [6] The elimination of licensing restrictions like the application and waiting period will likely lead to the proliferation of handguns within the state, within the home, and outside the home. The debate at the center of this law discusses whether the state will be safer in the long run or not, and time will determine the impact this decision will have on gun violence. 

The latest ruling on the Maryland law is based on a Supreme Court ruling from June of 2022, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. (NYSRPA) v. Bruen, where the constitutionality of public carry restrictions had been a part of the heated debate and was settled by a ruling of 6-3 in favor of ending these particular restrictions. [7]  This case directly addressed the constitutionality of carrying in public utilizing the precedents and tests set in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. [8] In New York, they had authorized carry licenses “only for those applicants who can show some special need apart from self-defense.” [9] Second Amendment advocates see this as problematic since states that have these licensing measures have broad discretion over to whom they grant a license, which could result in the denial of normal law-abiding citizens’ right to carry a firearm. In the first step of the test established in the Bruen case, the Court analyzed gun regulation using the explicit text of the Second Amendment, and a “historical test” that makes analyses based on whether the gun regulation was consistent with the Second Amendment’s original view, and if it is, strict scrutiny – the highest standard of review – is applied. [10] The majority believes that a historical process is more efficient for a court’s purposes, over using a sort of “cost-benefit analysis” to make their evaluation since gun laws and public safety are not within the expertise of judges. [11] However, the entire Bruen test was eventually limited to a plain text and historical overview. Given this change, the licensing award system that is part of the Maryland law was ruled unconstitutional, as it wasn’t considered to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition, since no state had enacted a law restricting gun ownership in this manner during the time of the nation’s founding. [12] As of November, Maryland’s governor Wes Moore is currently considering options on how to proceed. [13]

Given the ruling on this case, this begs the question of the constitutionality of similar regulations in other jurisdictions, given the newfound nuance generated by the precedent from 2022. In New York, the state law that required people to apply for an open carry license was said to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, since this amendment is what allows for the Second Amendment to be applied to each state. [14] Simply put, the Second Amendment, as understood by the majority, originally grants the right to a firearm outside of the home. For that reason, states like California, Hawaii, and Massachusetts that keep a “may-issue” system, or discretionary licensing regimes, face difficulties with maintaining restrictions of this nature. [15] On top of that, a federal gun regulation barring individuals who have a felony indictment from purchasing a gun has been ruled unconstitutional based on the Bruen test used in United States v. Quiroz. [16] Based on the new test, the Court found that there was little historical connection between previous regulations and this new federal regulation. Essentially, the Court is declaring that if a gun regulation does not match or align with the nation’s general history of gun regulations, then it shall not be considered constitutional. This test is also more of an overview of the United States’ history, rather than an exhaustive check on all regulations to ever be enacted. 

Can the outcome of this Maryland law predict the effect the Supreme Court decision will have on future gun laws around the country? Although Quiroz represents a case where a long-standing regulation was newly seen as problematic for not passing the new Bruen test, Bruen does not simply spell the end for gun regulations around the country. The majority stated that its decision would not compromise all gun regulations, nor decide who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements to buy one. [17] Consequently, states are allowed to retain or institute suitability requirements like ensuring the “good moral character” of prospective buyers. According to the Giffords Law Center, about 88% of gun regulations that were tried in courts after the Bruen ruling have been upheld. [18] For a ruling that was thought to have massive implications on gun regulations in the country, Maryland’s forced wait and discretionary awarding system seems to fall within the narrow confines of an inadmissible regulation. The second majority judge’s concurrence in Bruen further specifies that the ruling does not change much other than addressing the discretionary licensing regimes, given their subjective nature. The overall idea is that laws that prevent otherwise law-abiding citizens from purchasing guns or those that are based on an arbitrarily defined “special need” are deemed unconstitutional. However, any law that addresses the “assault weapon and large-capacity magazine restrictions, ghost gun restrictions, sensitive place laws, permit and licensing laws, and many others” has been, and will likely continue to be upheld. [19] 

Notes:

1. Campbell, Josh. “Maryland Passed a Strict Gun & Licensing Law after Sandy Hook. an Appeals Court Just Struck It Down.” CNN, November 22, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/22/us/maryland-gun-law-struck-down/index.html#:~:text=An%20appeals%20court%20struck%20down,deadly%20Sandy%20Hook%20mass%20shooting.&text=A%20federal%20appeals%20court%20struck,conservative%2Dmajority%20US%20Supreme%20Court.

2. Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. et al. v. Moore et al. (United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore November 21, 2023).

3. Gresko, Jessica. “Supreme Court Expands Gun Rights, with Nation Divided.” AP News, June 24, 2022. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8.

4. Campbell, “Maryland Passed a Strict Gun…”

5. Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore

6. Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore

7. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (Supreme Court of the United States June 23, 2022).

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore

13. Lou Kettering | U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US. “US Appeals Court Strikes down Part of Maryland Gun Law That Requires a ‘firearms Safety Training Course’ before Purchase.” Jurist, November 23, 2023. https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/11/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-part-of-maryland-gun-law-that-requires-a-firearms-safety-training-course-before-purchase/

14. Ibid. Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore

15. Miller, Darrell A. H., Andrew R. Morral, and Rosanna Smart, State Firearm Laws After Bruen. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2022. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA243-1.html.

16. Court Holds Gun Ban for Felony Defendants Unconstitutional.” Court Holds Gun Ban For Felony Defendants Unconstitutional | Defender Services Office - Training Division, September 20, 2022. https://www.fd.org/news/court-holds-gun-ban-felony-defendants-unconstitutional.

17. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

18. Clark, Billy, and David Pucino. “Second Amendment Challenges Following the Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision.” Giffords, June 21, 2023. https://giffords.org/memo/second-amendment-challenges-following-the-supreme-courts-bruen-decision/.

19.  Ibid.

bibliography

Campbell, Josh. “Maryland Passed a Strict Gun & Licensing Law after Sandy Hook. an Appeals Court Just Struck It Down.” CNN, November 22, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/22/us/maryland-gun-law-struck-down/index.html#:~:text=An%20appeals%20court%20struck%20down,deadly%20Sandy%20Hook%20mass%20shooting.&text=A%20federal%20appeals%20court%20struck,conservative%2Dmajority%20US%20Supreme%20Court.

Clark, Billy, and David Pucino. “Second Amendment Challenges Following the Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision.” Giffords, June 21, 2023. https://giffords.org/memo/second-amendment-challenges-following-the-supreme-courts-bruen-decision/.

Court Holds Gun Ban for Felony Defendants Unconstitutional.” Court Holds Gun Ban For Felony Defendants Unconstitutional | Defender Services Office - Training Division, September 20, 2022. https://www.fd.org/news/court-holds-gun-ban-felony-defendants-unconstitutional. 

Gresko, Jessica. “Supreme Court Expands Gun Rights, with Nation Divided.” AP News, June 24, 2022. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-decision-58d01ef8bd48e816d5f8761ffa84e3e8.

Lou Kettering | U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US. “US Appeals Court Strikes down Part of Maryland Gun Law That Requires a ‘firearms Safety Training Course’ before Purchase.” Jurist, November 23, 2023. https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/11/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-part-of-maryland-gun-law-that-requires-a-firearms-safety-training-course-before-purchase/.

Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. et al. v. Moore et al. (United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore November 21, 2023).

Miller, Darrell A. H., Andrew R. Morral, and Rosanna Smart, State Firearm Laws After Bruen. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2022. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA243-1.html.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (Supreme Court of the United States June 23, 2022).

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Biden’s New Rail Project Funding

By: Jaenney Lee

Edited by: Eleanor Bergstein and Chloe Shah

The Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA), known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), was signed into law by President Biden in November of 2021. The introduction of such legislation stemmed from the President’s plan to rebuild the “crumbling infrastructure” of America and hence has been negotiated between Congressional Representatives from both parties; it is significant due to its  bipartisanism, and that it is an introduction of new development in the United States. This act explains that cities, towns, and villages across the United States will receive the funds necessary  for their infrastructure thanks to this historic legislation. When it was first introduced, the legislation said that it would [1]: 

1. Deliver clean water to all American families and eliminate the nation’s lead service lines.

2. Ensure every American has access to reliable high-speed internet.

3. Repair and rebuild our roads and bridges with a focus on climate change mitigation, resilience, equity, and safety for all users. 

4. Improve transportation options for millions of Americans and reduce greenhouse emissions through the largest investment in public transit in U.S. history.

5. Upgrade our nation’s airports and ports to strengthen our supply chains and prevent disruptions that have caused inflation. This will improve U.S. competitiveness, create more and better jobs at these hubs, and reduce emissions.

6. Make the largest investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak.

7. Build a national network of electric vehicle (EV) chargers. 

8. Upgrade our power infrastructure to deliver clean, reliable energy across the country and deploy cutting-edge energy technology to achieve a zero-emissions future. 

9. Make our infrastructure resilient against the impacts of climate change, cyber-attacks, and extreme weather events. 

10. Deliver the largest investment in tackling legacy pollution in American history by cleaning up Superfund and brownfield sites, reclaiming abandoned mines, and capping orphaned oil and gas wells.

The overall goal of this legislation was to improve the infrastructure of the country, which would have a positive impact on both the economy and the job market. It is also said that the legislation will help ease the inflationary pressures and add “1.5 million jobs per year” for the next ten years. Due to its benefits for a variety of thepublic, most Americans approve of this bill. It is primarily due to its strong bipartisan support to include transportation improvements such as road, bridge and port updates, that the bill is highly supported by the public. Funding environment-friendly legislation is also popular as this aspect was dropped from the legislation previously. Both Republicans and Democrats favor the inclusion of funding for the elderly in the infrastructure bill, making the law itself easier to implement with the large support across the nation.[3]

Now, two years after the bipartisan infrastructure bill was signed into law, the Biden administration announced their advanced vision for ‘World Class Passenger Rail,’ which states: 

$16.4 Billion from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to Repair and Replace Critical Rail Infrastructure Along Northeast Corridor to Provide Faster and More Reliable Passenger Rail Experience, Create More than One Hundred Thousand Construction Jobs. 

This particular announcement narrowed down their focus for the next few months, within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to transportation. This aspect is number six of the ten goals the bill proposed when it was first introduced in November 2021. Biden highlights this progress as part of “Bidenomics,” as the bill is considered the Biden administration’s core strategy to boost the economy. This investment would be the largest investment in passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak, which included a $66 billion total investment in railways. The $16.5 billion funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will be used for 25 passenger rail projects on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor.[4] The official announcement was made by President Biden in Bear, Delaware, on Monday November 6, 2023 where he mentioned that it is not possible for “the leading country in the world to have a second-rate infrastructure.”[5] Specifically, the investments announced are projected to rebuild tunnels and bridges that are over 100 years old. This would improve the tracks, power systems, signals, stations, and other infrastructure in order to enhance the rail system overall. The objectives of future projects are to speed up travel times on railroads and reduce delays. Addressing such aged infrastructures and planning strategies would ensure an improvement in the national rail network. 

Since part of the goal of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill is to create jobs, the particular announcement in enhancing the rail tracks will support over 100,000 well-paying construction jobs and advance Gateway Program Projects.[6] The announcement states an agreement between Amtrak and North America’s Building Trades Unions (NAMBTU) that discusses topics such as payment benefits, working conditions, and enhancement of diversity and veteran hiring in the construction trades. The agreement allows the contractors and subcontractors to pay fair wages and benefit the workers. As the Biden Administration is investing a huge portion of the budget for Amtrak and NABTU to continue their projects through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the funding will incentivize them to engage in effective labor-management relations by promoting a strong workforce pipeline to prevent disruptions. In addition to ensuring safe working conditions, Amtrak is investing more than $50 million in local workforce development and community investments. They plan to include pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs to allow local workers in West Baltimore to access these jobs.[4]   

Moreover, these sentiments tie in with the economic objective of the bill – as the investments will upgrade infrastructures of the rail system, they will simultaneously modernize and strengthen the way of transportation to produce fewer emissions. Changing the methods of transportation and lowering its emissions and hence reducing greenhouse emissions was also one of the main goals of this bill. The recent statement coincides with increased passenger rail demand along the Northeast Corridor (NEC), with Amtrak ridership this summer approaching pre-pandemic levels.[4]

The Bipartisan Infrastructure law, introduced two years ago, is taking new steps in support from the Biden Administration through the new rail project funding. It is projected to not only enhance the quality and quantity of transportation services across the nation, but also enhance the economy and provide job opportunities. The bipartisan nature of the law allows the bill to gain immense support from the majority of the public. 

Notes

1. “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Second Anniversary: Historic Legislation’s Impact for Municipalities.”

2. The White House. 2021. “Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal | the White House.” The White House. The White House. November 6, 2021.  

3. “Views on the Infrastructure Bill - AP-NORC.” 

4. The White House. 2023. “FACT SHEET: President Biden Advances Vision for World Class Passenger Rail by Delivering Billions in New Funding | the White House.” 

5. Lebowitz, Megan, and Monica Alba. 2023. “Biden Touts ‘Bidenomics’ in a Speech Announcing New Rail Project Funding.”

6. President Biden Advances Vision for World Class Passenger Rail with $16 Billion Investment in America’s Busiest Corridor | FRA.”

Bibliography

“Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Second Anniversary: Historic Legislation’s Impact for Municipalities.” 2023. National League of Cities. November 6, 2023. 

Lebowitz, Megan, and Monica Alba. 2023. “Biden Touts ‘Bidenomics’ in a Speech Announcing New Rail Project Funding.” NBC News. NBC News. November 6, 2023. 

President Biden Advances Vision for World Class Passenger Rail with $16 Billion Investment in America’s Busiest Corridor | FRA.” 2023. Dot.gov. 2023. 

‌The White House. 2021. “Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal | the White House.” The White House. The White House. November 6, 2021.  

 The White House. 2023. “FACT SHEET: President Biden Advances Vision for World Class Passenger Rail by Delivering Billions in New Funding | the White House.” The White House. The White House. November 6, 2023. 

“Views on the Infrastructure Bill - AP-NORC.” 2021. AP-NORC -. July 22, 2021.