The Cost of Congress Kicking the Can on DACA

(Source)   In 2012, the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security established Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) in an attempt to address the issue of deporting immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children, never received legal status, and have lived continuously in the U.S. since 2007. Since its implementation, around 800,000 individuals have benefitted from the program’s provision of employment authorization and temporary relief from deportation. Despite the benefits the program has provided, it does not provide qualified recipients with permanent legal status or a path to citizenship. Furthermore, the program’s administrative implementation and lack of legislative endorsement leave the future of DACA vulnerable to a piecemeal reduction of the program’s benefits through litigation or a complete rescission of the program by the executive branch. This current state of Congressional ambivalence harms DACA recipients and DACA-eligible young people, while also financially harming American communities, businesses, and academic institutions.   DACA Litigation On September 5, 2017, the Trump administration announced that it would rescind DACA, triggering a wave of lawsuits challenging the program’s validity. Parties opposing Trump’s decision to rescind DACA filed ten lawsuits, between January 2018 and June 2020, requesting preliminary injunctions that would require United States Citizenship [read more]

A Rushed Effort to Initiate Tax Legislation

On Wednesday, September 27, 2017, the White House and Congressional Republicans revealed a new tax plan. Obtained and reported by the Washington Post, Congress released a nine-page document titled, “Unified Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code,” which summarizes the proposed tax code reformations. With this tax plan, President Trump expects to bring “revolutionary change” to the United States, especially to the middle class and American businesses. One of the single greatest revisions that Congress’ plan proposes is the transition of the U.S. from a worldwide to a territorial based tax system. That is, the United States would depart from its position to tax U.S. citizens and corporations on worldwide income. To better explain how the current worldwide tax system works, here is an example. Currently, a U.S. Corporation that receives a dividend from a foreign corporation will be taxed both in that foreign country and by the U.S. Under this worldwide system, a U.S. corporation is allowed to credit a portion of the foreign corporate income tax, or, “deemed to have paid” a portion of the foreign income tax, if the U.S. corporation owns at least 10% voting stock in the foreign corporation (S 902(A) of the Internal Revenue [read more]

Vaccine Torts and Bruesewitz v. Wyeth

Professors Jeff Van Detta and Joanna Apolinsky comment on Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, which ruled that federal law immunized vaccine-manufacturers from design-defect tort claims under state law. The Supreme Court cited Detta and Apolinsky's article "Rethinking Liability for Vaccine Injuries", published in the JLPP, in their holding. [read more]