Where Is the U.S. Economy Headed: Soft Landing, Hard Landing, or Stagflation?

"The Economic Recovery So Far

The recovery from the 2020 recession was rapid through the first half of 2021, but the transition to moderate, sustainable economic growth has been choppy, with negative growth in the first quarter of 2022. Moreover, high inflation has complicated the path forward. Since March 2022, the annual change in the Consumer Price Index has been above 8%.

To reduce inflation, the Federal Reserve (Fed) is raising the federal funds rate (a short-term interest rate) to reduce aggregate demand (total spending). Since March, the Fed has raised rates from a range of 0- 0.25% to a range of 1.5-1.75%. This raises the question of how much demand needs to slow to restore low inflation. This Insight discusses three scenarios for what might come next—a soft landing, a hard landing, and stagflation.

Soft Landing?

Fed leadership aspires to restore price stability through a “soft landing,” where growth is moderate but positive, and unemployment rises modestly, if at all. This is reflected in Fed leadership’s medianprojection that inflation will fall to 2.6% in 2023, while unemployment will remain below 4%. Fed Governor Christopher Waller envisions a soft landing where firms reduce job openings instead of laying off workers. Skeptics refer to this scenario as the “immaculate disinflation” because, under standard theory, a sizeable and rapid reduction in inflationary pressures requires an increase in unemployment.

Soft landings are infrequent. Fed Chair Jerome Powell recently argued that soft landings occurred after monetary tightening in 1965, 1984, and 1994, as shown in Figure 1, and that some other recessions, such as in 2020, should not be attributed to tightening. However, inflation was low in 1965 and 1994, and below 5% in 1984.."
U.S. Economy 

ReproductiveRights.Gov

"Your Reproductive Rights

Below you will find information on your right to access care and have it covered by your insurance or other health care coverage if you have it, where to go if you don’t have coverage, and how to get information if you don’t know.

Most health insurance plans – whether you have public (e.g., Medicaid) or private health coverage (e.g., coverage through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace or through your employer) – cover family planning counseling, birth control, and other preventive services at no cost to you..."
Reproductive rights 

Federal Workforce Statistics Sources: OPM and OMB

"According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the federal workforce is composed of an estimated 2.1 million civilian workers. 1 Several federal agencies collect, compile, and publish statistics about this workforce. Sources may vary in their totals due to differences in the methods used to compile these statistics.

For example, some sources rely on “head counts” of employees (OPM), some on total hours worked (such as the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]), some on surveys of employing agencies, and others on self-identification by workers surveyed in their homes..

In addition, federal civilian employee databases may exclude particular departments, agencies, or branches of government. Some may also account for temporary or seasonal employees (such as those employed by the U.S. Census) depending on the time of year the statistics are generated.

This report describes OMB and OPM sources and identifies key differences in methodologies, including data collection. Understanding these sources and their differences will facilitate selecting appropriate data for specific purposes..."
Federal workforce 

Oysters and Vibriosis

"What You Need to Know

• Eating raw oysters and other undercooked seafood can put you at risk for infections, such as vibriosis.

• Vibriosis is caused by some kinds of Vibrio bacteria.

• Most Vibrio infections happen during warmer months, but they can happen anytime.

• An oyster that contains Vibrio doesn’t look, smell, or taste different from any other oyster.

• A way to kill Vibrio in oysters is to cook them properly.

Many people enjoy eating raw oysters, and raw oyster bars are growing in popularity. But eating raw or undercooked oysters and other shellfish can put you at risk for foodborne illness.

Learn about vibriosis, an illness caused by infection with certain kinds of Vibrio bacteria, and steps you can take to protect your health when it comes to oysters and other shellfish.

Vibrio bacteria naturally inhabit coastal waters where oysters live. Because oysters feed by filtering water, Vibrio and other harmful bacteria and viruses can concentrate in their tissues. When someone eats raw or undercooked oysters, germs that might be in the oyster can cause illness.

CDC estimates that about 80,000 people get vibriosis—and 100 people die from it—in the United States every year. Most of these illnesses happen from May through October when water temperatures are warmer. However, you can get sick from eating raw or undercooked oysters during any month of the year, and raw oysters from typically colder waters also can cause vibriosis.

An oyster that contains harmful bacteria doesn’t look, smell, or even taste different from any other oyster. You can kill Vibrio in oysters and certain other shellfish, such as mussels and clams, by cooking them properly..."
Oysters 

Working in Heat

"Heat stress can affect many outdoor and indoor workers. To prevent heat-related illnesses (HRI) and injuries, employers should develop and use a comprehensive heat-related illness prevention program at the workplace.

In occupational settings, heat stress is the combination of the heat your body produces (metabolic heat), environmental factors (for example, temperature and humidity), and clothing and personal protective equipment (PPE). While many workers need to wear PPE for protection from workplace chemical, physical, and biological hazards, PPE can increase the risk for HRIs. PPE can often alter the rate and amount of heat exchange between the skin and air. For example, impermeable materials used for protection against chemical hazards can be very hot to wear, as they trap heat close to the skin and prevent sweat evaporation.

Below are some elements for addressing heat stress that need to be included in workplace HRI prevention programs.

Control of Heat Stress

Employers should reduce workplace heat stress by implementing engineering and work practice controls.

Engineering controls might include those that:

• Increase air velocity (if air temperature is below 95°F).
• Use reflective or heat-absorbing shielding or barriers.
• Reduce steam leaks, wet floors, or humidity.

Work practice controls include the following:

• Implement a buddy system and routinely check workers to ensure they make use of available water and shade, and they do not have symptoms of an HRI.
• Monitor the weather.
• Limit time in heat and/or increase rest time in a cool environment.
• Increase the number of workers per task.
• Require workers to conduct self-monitoring.
• Implement a heat alert program when a heat wave is likely..."
  Heat stress 

Tools and Strategies for Pollinator Protection

"There are many ways to minimize the exposure of bees and other pollinators to pesticides. This page describes some pollinator protection strategies used at the local, state, and federal level to preserve pollinators and their habitats. These strategies include Best Management Practices (BMPs), Managed Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3s), and mitigation measures to reduce pesticide exposure. Utilizing these practices can help protect pollinators and the plants who depend on them. 

EPA evaluates pesticides (e.g., insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, disinfectants, and biological products) for their risk to human health and the environment, including pollinator species. To assess risk to bees, EPA generally requires a suite of tests which follow methods outlined in EPA’s Pollinator Risk Assessment Guidance documents Pollinator Risk Assessment Guidance documents. EPA’s risk assessments for pollinators inform regulatory decisions on the proper use, storage, and disposal instructions on pesticide labels. These labels dictate how and when specific pesticides can be used and how risks can be mitigated.

Learn more about how EPA assesses risks to pollinators..."
Pollinators 

50 Years of Title IX

"As a college athlete playing soccer, I learned some important lessons from working towards a common goal with my teammates and navigating our wins and losses together. We were afforded those meaningful experiences on the field because of the impact of Title IX, which dramatically increased participation in – and available funding for – women's athletics in publicly funded schools.

June 23 marks the 50th anniversary of the day that Title IX of the Education Amendments was signed into law. What began as a series of hearings to explore the discrimination women faced at educational institutions grew into a movement for equal opportunity in classrooms, playing fields and boardrooms. Until that day not so long ago, it was perfectly legal for federally funded schools and education programs and activities to discriminate against women and girls on the basis of sex. Title IX made this illegal, and in doing so, opened up a new world of opportunity for the generations of women since – including me.

Many of us see Title IX’s impact in women’s sports as a significant accomplishment, and it is. But there are still areas for improvement and progress – namely, ensuring real equal funding for women’s sports and protecting the rights of transgender women and girl athletes. Title IX’s reach has gone much further than sports, impacting gender inclusivity in education and society at large.

When Title IX passed, women were still the minority at college graduations. In 1972 only 44% of bachelor’s, 40% of master’s, and 11% of doctorate degrees were awarded to women. Just 10 years later in 1982, women reached parity with men in obtaining undergraduate degrees. By the 2019-2020 school year, women far outpaced men at every level of educational attainment. Women earned 58% of bachelor’s, 61% of master’s, and 55% of doctorate degrees awarded that year..."
Title 1X 

Short- and Long-Term Solutions to Extreme Drought in the Western United States”

"Statement of, Charles V. Stern,  Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,  Before Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate Hearing on
“Short- and Long-Term Solutions to Extreme Drought in the Western United States”

Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and Members of the committee, thank you for inviting the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to provide testimony on short and long-term solutions to extreme drought in the western United States. My name is Charles Stern. I am a Specialist in Natural Resources Policy at CRS.

In serving Congress on a nonpartisan and objective basis, CRS takes no position on legislation and makes no recommendations. CRS remains available to assist the committee in its development and consideration of water resource and other legislation.

My comments today will largely focus on drought not in any one specific location, but as a broader policy issue. I will start by providing background and context on drought in general, including abbreviated information on the status of the current drought in the western United States and prospects for future droughts. I will then provide a broad survey of federal drought policy and authorities, along with a summary of some current proposals for new and modified approaches to address drought.

Background

Drought is a natural hazard with significant economic, social, and ecological consequences. Drought broadly refers to periods of substantially below-average moisture conditions. Generally, there four drought classifications:

 Meteorological drought is typically the degree of dryness, in comparison to a “normal” or average amount of dryness and the duration of a dry period. Meteorological drought is region-specific, because precipitation deficiency varies regionally.
 Hydrological drought reflects reduced surface and subsurface water supplies, such as streamflows, reservoir and lake levels, snowpack, and groundwater. The frequency and severity of this type of drought are measured on a watershed or river basin scale.
 Agricultural and ecological drought links characteristics of meteorological or hydrological drought to agricultural and ecological effects (such as plant-water-stress contributions to tree mortality), often using precipitation shortfalls, evapotranspiration differences, 2 soil moisture deficits, reduced groundwater or reservoir levels, and other variables.  Socioeconomic drought associates the “supply and demand of some economic goods with elements of meteorological, hydrological, and agricultural drought.”

The U.S. Drought Monitor—a partnership between federal and nonfederal entities—uses multiple indicators and indexes, together with expert opinion and stakeholder information, to estimate the intensity and effects of ongoing drought conditions. This information is illustrated weekly in maps. The U.S. Drought Monitor defines “drought” as “a moisture deficit bad enough to have social, environmental or economic effects.”3 It depicts drought intensity in five categories with increasing intensity of drought— D0 (abnormally dry), D1 (moderate), D2 (severe), D3 (extreme), and D4 (exceptional). The U.S. Drought
Monitor shows broad-scale regional drought conditions, but not necessarily drought circumstances at the local scale. The estimated drought intensity reported by the U.S. Drought Monitor can serve as a trigger for local, state, and federal responses to drought..."
Extreme Drought 

Food Safety for Buffets and Parties

"What You Need to Know

• Separate raw meat, chicken and other poultry, seafood, and eggs from ready-to-eat foods.
• Use a food thermometer to make sure foods are cooked to a temperature hot enough to kill germs.
• Germs that can make you sick grow quickly when food is in the “Danger Zone,” between 40°F and 140°F.
• Refrigerate leftovers within 2 hours of cooking. Divide leftovers into smaller portions to cool faster.

Gathering friends and family is fun, but beware of uninvited party guests. Foodborne germs can crash your buffet and make people sick with food poisoning. When cooking, preparing, or serving food for large groups, it’s important to keep food safe. Follow these steps to keep foodborne germs from spoiling your party.

Keep It Clean

• Wash your hands with soap and running water for at least 20 seconds before preparing, eating, or handling food. Wash your hands after using the bathroom and touching pets.
• Wash your cutting boards, dishes, utensils, and countertops with hot, soapy water or in the dishwasher after preparing each food item.

Separate Raw Meat From Other Foods

• Separateexternal icon raw meat, chicken and other poultry, seafood, and eggs from foods that won’t be cooked before eating, such as fruit, salad greens, deli salads, and bread.
  • Keep raw meat, chicken and other poultry, seafood, and eggs separate from other foods when shopping for groceries and in the refrigerator.
  • Use separate cutting boards, plates, and knives for fresh fruits and vegetables and for raw meat, chicken and other poultry, seafood, and eggs.

Cook to a Safe Temperature

• Use a food thermometer to make sure foods are cooked to an internal temperature hot enough to kill germs. Check this chart for recommended temperaturesexternal icon.
• Follow recommended microwave cooking and standing times.external icon
  • Cold spots—areas that are not completely cooked when microwaved—can provide a hiding place for germs.
  • Always follow cooking instructions and directions for standing time, which is the extra time food should rest to finish cooking.

Serve Foods Safely

• If preparing food in advance, divide cooked food into shallow containersexternal icon and store in a refrigerator or freezer. This encourages rapid, even cooling.
• Keep hot foods hot at 140°F or warmer. Use slow cookers, chafing dishes, and warming trays to keep food hot on the buffet table.
• Keep cold foods cold at 40°F or below. Use small serving trays and replace often with fresh platters from the refrigerator, or place serving dishes in bowls of ice so they stay chilled.
• For picnics and other outdoor meals, keep cold food in a cooler filled with ice or frozen gel packs until just before serving.
• Catering or getting food delivered? Make sure food that is catered or delivered stays at a safe temperature..."
  Buffets and parties 

Avoid Harmful Algae and Cyanobacteria

"Harmful algae and cyanobacteria, sometimes called blue-green algae, can produce toxins (poisons) that can make people and animals sick and affect the environment. Learn more about them to keep you, your family, and your pets safe.

Algae and cyanobacteria are simple, plant-like organisms that live in water. Algae and cyanobacteria can quickly grow out of control, or “bloom.”

Blooms can occur in fresh water, salt water, and brackish (a mixture of fresh and salt) water around the world. Blooms sometimes look like foam, scum, mats, or paint on the surface of the water. They can even make the water appear different colors, including green, blue, red, or brown.

Blooms are more likely when water is warm, slow-moving, and full of nutrients such as nitrogen or phosphorous. Nutrients get into water when fertilizer, sewage, or runoff from cities and industrial buildings washes into lakes, rivers, or oceans—for example, during rainstorms.

Blooms of algae or cyanobacteria can harm people, animals, or the environment if the blooms

• Make toxins
• Become too dense
• Use up the oxygen in the water
• Release harmful gases

Effects of climate change, such as warmer water, might be making blooms worse.

How People and Animals Get Sick

People and animals (including pets, livestock, and wildlife) can get sick when they have contact with water or food that contains certain types of algae, cyanobacteria, or their toxins.

People and animals can get sick if they

• Swim, wade, or play in or near contaminated water
• Eat contaminated fish, shellfish, or supplements
• Drink contaminated water

Illnesses and symptoms can vary depending on how a person or animal was exposed (came into contact with algae, cyanobacteria, or their toxins), how long they were exposed, which type of toxin was present, and how much toxin was present..."
Algae and Cyanobaceria 

The Political Question Doctrine: Political Process, Elections, and Gerrymandering (Part 6)

"This Legal Sidebar is the sixth in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the UnitedStates, Analysis and Interpretation.

The Court in the modern era has applied the political question doctrine to some aspects of legislative regulation of elections, particularly in the area of partisan gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering is “the practice of dividing a geographic area into electoral districts, often of highly irregular shape, to give one political party an unfair advantage by diluting the opposition’s voting strength.” Government officials seeking to draw legislative districts to affect election results may adopt several different tactics. For instance, they may create districts containing different numbers of voters, effectively diluting the votes of individuals in more populous districts. In the alternative, legislators may create districts that contain equal numbers of voters but where boundaries are drawn to manipulate the concentration of voters in each district based on characteristics such as voters’ race or their political affiliation. The Supreme Court has held that equal protection challenges to race-based gerrymandering and one-person-one-vote claims based on unequal districts are justiciable. However, for decades the Court was unable to agree on an approach to challenges to partisan gerrymandering.

Unlike one-person-one-vote cases, a partisan gerrymandering case typically involves a voter in a district that is not malapportioned based on population but rather has been drawn to disadvantage one political party. In the words of the Supreme Court, in a political gerrymander, voters affiliated with a disfavored party are either (1) “packed” into a few districts—in effect conceding those districts by large margins and “wasting” votes that could help the disfavored party compete in other areas—or (2) “cracked” into small groups and spread across multiple districts so that they cannot achieve a majority in any one district. In these circumstances, plaintiffs cannot argue that their votes are inherently worth less than that of any other voter—rather, they must argue that the creation of a district that disfavors a particular political party violates the Constitution for other reasons.."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine (Pt. 6) 

The Political Question Doctrine: Congressional Governance and Impeachment as Political Questions (Part 5)

"This Legal Sidebar is the fifth in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the UnitedStates, Analysis and Interpretation.

The Supreme Court has applied the political question doctrine to cases involving the internal governance of Congress, though recent decisions have construed the doctrine narrowly in this context. In the preBaker case Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, plaintiffs challenging a tariff law contended that the law was invalid because a section of the bill passed by Congress was omitted from the final version of the law signed by the President. The Court concluded that it could not adjudicate this issue. Because of the “respect due to a co-ordinate branch of the government,” the Court had to take as “conclusive” the fact that the act was attested by the signatures of the presiding officers of the houses of Congress and approved by the President. Baker explained that Clark signified the need for “respect” to coequal branches and for “finality and certainty” about statutes. A few cases since Baker have added color to the concept of “respect” in this context.

For example, in Powell v. McCormack, an individual elected to the House of Representatives challenged a House resolution excluding him from his seat in Congress. Although the Member-elect met the age and citizenship requirements in Article I, Section 2, the House found that he had misrepresented travel expenses and made illegal salary payments to his wife. The defendants—Members and officers of the House—argued that the text of the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 5, gave Congress exclusive authority to judge the qualifications of its own Members, so Congress could determine that the Member was unqualified. The Supreme Court held that the case could go forward and that the Member-elect was entitled to relief. On the question of justiciability, the Court explained that, despite the text the defendants cited from Article I, Section 5, there was no “textually demonstrable” commitment of this constitutional question to another branch. At most, the Constitution gave Congress the power to judge the “qualifications expressly set forth in the Constitution,” not the power to set new qualifications. Nor did the Court conclude that “the respect due co-ordinate branches” barred hearing the case, even though it was interpreting the Constitution “in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch.” In the view of the Powell Court, constitutional conflicts with other branches were inevitable under the constitutional system and were no excuse for avoiding a case where there existed “judicially manageable standards” sufficient to judge the question..."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine (part 5) 

The Political Question Doctrine: Foreign Affairs as a Political Question (Part 4)

"This Legal Sidebar is the fourth in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the UnitedStates, Analysis and Interpretation.

One area where the political question doctrine has particular importance is in foreign affairs. In 1918, the Court wrote, “The conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the executive and legislative—‘the political’—departments of the government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision.” However, despite that sweeping statement, as the Court recognized in Baker, not “every case or controversy which touches foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance;” rather, the Court analyzes each question on a case-by-case basis. For example, many pre-Baker cases concluded that the judiciary was bound to defer to the political branches on certain questions involving the validity of treaties or the recognition of foreign governments. The Baker court characterized those cases as ones in which “resolution of such issues frequently turn on standards that defy judicial application, . . . involve the exercise of a discretion demonstrably committed to the executive or legislature . . . [or] uniquely demand single-voiced statement of the Government’s views.”

The first major post-Baker case to consider these principles was the 1973 case Gilligan v. Morgan. In Gilligan, the Supreme Court declined to consider a claim that defective training of the Ohio National Guard had led to the violence that occurred at Kent State University three years earlier. The plaintiffs sought a “judicial evaluation of the appropriateness of the ‘training, weaponry and orders’ of the Ohio National Guard” and “continuing judicial surveillance” over the Guard to ensure compliance with any court-approved requirements. Although the case did not involve foreign policy, it raised related considerations. Recognizing that the case involved “[t]he complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping and control of a military force,” the Court gave two reasons why the political question doctrine applied. First, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives the authority for “organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia” to Congress. Second, in concert with the explicit textual commitment of military supervision to a branch outside the judiciary, the Court recognized that the judicial branch was uniquely poorly suited to supervise this activity: “[I]t is difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Following what Baker called the “impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion,” the Court concluded that the case involved a political question.."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine (Part 4) 

The Political Question Doctrine: The Doctrine in the Modern Era (Part 3)

"This Legal Sidebar is the third in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the UnitedStates, Analysis and Interpretation.

The Supreme Court began to develop its modern application of the political question doctrine in the 1939 case Coleman v. Miller. In Coleman, the Court addressed the Kansas legislature’s recent approval of the proposed Child Labor Amendment to the Constitution, which had been submitted to the states for ratification 13 years prior. Members of the Kansas legislature who had voted against the amendment petitioned for a writ of mandamus, seeking to revoke the approval. They raised certain procedural challenges to the ratification and argued that the passage of time had rendered Kansas’s approval of the amendment invalid. The opinion of the Court, authored by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, affirmed an opinion from the Supreme Court of Kansas denying the plaintiffs' petition. Chief Justice Hughes’s opinion explained that the “efficacy of ratifications by state legislature . . . should be regarded as a political question pertaining to the political departments.” The Court further clarified, citing Luther, that it was a question solely for Congress, and not for the courts, whether an amendment had been adopted within a “reasonable time.”

It was against this background that the Court decided Colegrove v. Green in 1946. By that time, movement of populations from rural to urban areas had led to severe “malapportionment” in state legislatures. Throughout the country, state legislative districts were drawn such that voters in rural areas had disproportionate power compared to their urban counterparts. State governments, made up of the representatives of those rural voters, were unwilling to fix this problem. As a result, voters in underrepresented districts turned to the courts and the Constitution for a remedy. In Colegrove, a sevenmember Court was presented with a constitutional challenge to an Illinois districting arrangement where plaintiffs were members of districts with much larger populations than other districts. The challenge was based in part on the Guarantee Clause, as well as on the Fourteenth Amendment. A plurality of three Justices joined an opinion by Justice Frankfurter, concluding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in light of the “peculiarly political nature” of the case. The plurality noted that under Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for . . . Representative, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” Citing that provision, the plurality concluded that the authority to regulate state districting rested “exclusively” with Congress and that courts had no authority to enter this political thicket. The Colegrove plurality’s view of the political question doctrine, as the Supreme Court later recognized, “left pervasive malapportionment unchecked.”.."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine 

The Political Question Doctrine: Historical Background (Part 2)

"This Legal Sidebar is the second in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the UnitedStates, Analysis and Interpretation.

The political question doctrine has its origins in the foundational case for judicial review, Marbury v.Madison. Marbury involved a suit seeking to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver a signed commission to a newly appointed official, William Marbury. The commission had been signed by the previous Administration but not delivered. Following the change in presidential Administrations, Madison refused to deliver it. Among the issues presented in that case was whether the Court even had the authority to adjudicate the legality of Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission. That question, according to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion for the Court, turned on “the nature” of the government action in question. As the Court explained, “Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.” Thus, if the act of an official is one in which the “executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear that their acts are only politically examinable.” However, if a “specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend on the performance of that duty,” then injured individuals have a right to resort to the courts. According to the Chief Justice, “[t]he power of nominating to the senate, and the power of appointing the person nominated” were political questions, and fundamentally unreviewable. By contrast, “if, for example, Mr. Marbury had taken the oaths of a magistrate, and proceeded to act as one; in consequence of which a suit had been instituted against him, in which his defense had depended on his being a magistrate, the validity of his appointment must have been determined by judicial authority.” Ultimately, the Court concluded that the question of whether to deliver Marbury’s commission was not a political one, as Marbury had a legal right in the appointment..."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine(Pt. 2) 

The Political Question Doctrine: An Introduction (Part 1)

"This Legal Sidebar is the first in a six-part series that discusses the Supreme Court’s political question doctrine, which instructs that federal courts should forbear from resolving questions when doing so would require the judiciary to make policy decisions, exercise discretion beyond its competency, or encroach on powers the Constitution vests in the legislative or executive branches. By limiting the range of cases federal courts can consider, the political question doctrine is intended to maintain the separation of powers and recognize the roles of the legislative and executive branches in interpreting the Constitution. Understanding the political question doctrine may assist Members of Congress in recognizing when actions of Congress or the executive branch would not be subject to judicial review. For additional background on this topic and citations to relevant sources, please see the Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation.

The political question doctrine limits the ability of the federal courts to hear constitutional questions even where other justiciability requirements—such as standing, ripeness, and mootness—are met. The Supreme Court has stated that, for purposes of Article III of the Constitution, “no justiciable ‘controversy’ exists when parties seek adjudication of a political question.” The term political question is a legal term of art that on its face gives little indication of what sorts of cases the doctrine bars federal courts from deciding. The phrase, which has its origins in Chief Justice Marshall’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison, is potentially misleading, as federal courts deal with political issues, in the sense of controversial and government-related issues, all the time. Rather than referring generally to any such political issue, the term political question expresses the principle that some issues are either entrusted solely to another branch of government or beyond the competence of the judiciary to review. A finding that a matter qualifies as a political question divests federal courts of jurisdiction, meaning they lack the power to rule on the matter.."
Supreme Court Political Doctrine 

How Treasury Issues Debt

"The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury), among other roles, manages the country’s debt. The primary objective of Treasury’s debt management strategy is to finance the government’s borrowing needs at the lowest cost over time. To accomplish this Treasury adheres to three principles: (1) to issue debt in a regular and predictable pattern, (2) to provide transparency in the decisionmaking process, and (3) to seek continuous improvements in the auction process.

Within the Treasury, the Office of Debt Management (ODM) makes all decisions related to debt issuance and the management of the United States debt portfolio. When federal spending exceeds revenues, the ODM directs the Bureau of the Fiscal Service to borrow the funds needed to finance government operations by selling securities to the public and government agencies through an auction process. The Bureau of the Fiscal Service manages the operational aspects of the issuance of Treasury securities, including the systems related to and the monitoring of security auctions.

During the mid-1970s, Treasury faced a period of rising nominal federal budget deficits and debt requiring unanticipated increases in issuances of securities. Up to that point, debt management was characterized by an ad-hoc, offering-by-offering survey of market participants. At that time, Treasury implemented a new debt management strategy that provided greater transparency and reduced the potential for market volatility. The resulting debt management process modernized the market for Treasury securities, realizing the benefits of predictability in an environment of large deficits. A reliance on auctions became a central part of the strategy’s increased focus on regular and predictable debt management. Most of the debt sold by the federal government is marketable, meaning that it can be resold on the secondary market. Currently, Treasury offers five types of marketable securities: Treasury bills, notes, bonds, inflation protected securities (TIPS), and floating rate notes (FRNs), sold in about 300 auctions per year. A small portion of debt held by the public and nearly all intragovernmental debt (debt held by government trust funds) is nonmarketable.

Investors examine several key factors when deciding whether they should purchase Treasury securities, including price, expected return, and risk. Treasury securities provide a known stream of income and offer greater liquidity than other types of fixed-income securities. Because they are also backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, they are often seen as one of the safest investments available, though investors are not totally immune from losses. Security prices are determined by investors according to the value of such characteristics in the context of the financial marketplace.."
Treasury Department Debt 

Stablecoins: Legal Issues and Regulatory Options (Part 1)

"In 2008, the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto released a white paper describing a peer-to-peer system of electronic cash. The product of that paper—Bitcoin—now boasts a market capitalization of roughly $600 billion. Other cryptocurrencies amount to more than $700 billion, bringing the overall crypto ecosystem in line with the GDPs of many large countries.

Despite this meteoric rise, cryptocurrencies have yet to exhibit a defining feature of cash: widespread useas a medium of exchange. One reason for that failure is volatility. Most cryptocurrencies have exhibited wild fluctuations that may make them unattractive instruments for day-to-day purchases of goods and services.

Enter stablecoins—cryptocurrencies whose value is pegged to a reference asset like the U.S. dollar. While stablecoin issuers attempt to maintain these pegs in different ways, most of the regulatory attention has focused on coins that are putatively backed with reserves of assets denominated in fiat currency. Often, those assets underwrite an issuer’s commitment to redeem its stablecoins for a fixed value upon demand.

That structure raises familiar risks. Like banks and money market mutual funds (MMFs)—the principal sources of private money—stablecoin issuers are vulnerable to runs if their customers lose faith in the adequacy of the assets backing their demandable liabilities. Unlike banks and MMFs, however, most stablecoin issuers are not subject to federal regulations and protections designed to instill faith in those liabilities, such as deposit insurance and portfolio restrictions.

Policymakers have taken notice. In November 2021, the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets recommended that Congress enact legislation limiting stablecoin issuance to insured depository institutions. Other commentators have advocated different regulatory strategies, ranging from a bespoke federal licensing regime to an outright ban on stablecoin issuance.

This Legal Sidebar—the first part of a two-part series—provides an overview of the existing regulatory framework governing stablecoins. The second part discusses proposals for legislative reform of that framework. Both parts focus on stablecoins that are ostensibly backed one-to-one with reserves of fiat-denominated assets. For a discussion of algorithmic stablecoins, which instead aim to maintain their pegs using algorithmically determined supply adjustments or arbitrage mechanisms involving other cryptocurrencies, see CRS Insight IN11928, Algorithmic Stablecoins and the TerraUSD Crash, by Paul Tierno, Andrew P. Scott, and Eva Su.
Stablecoins

Suicide Mortality in the United States, 2000–2020

"In 2020, suicide was the 12th leading cause of death for all ages in the United States, changing from the 10th leading cause in 2019 due to the emergence of COVID-19 deaths and increases in deaths from chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (1). As the second leading cause of death in people aged 10–34 and the fifth leading cause in people aged 35–54, suicide is a major contributor to premature mortality (1). Suicide rates increased from 2000 to 2018 (2–5), but recent data have shown declines between 2018 and 2020 (6,7). This report presents final suicide rates from 2000 through 2020, in total and by sex, age group, and means of suicide, using mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). This report updates a provisional 2020 report and a previous report with final data through 2019 (6,7)..."
Suicides 

Diabetes and Your Brain

"Here’s something that may blow your mind. Did you know that diabetes can affect your brain? Your brain is sensitive to the amount of glucose (sugar) it receives. Both high and low blood sugar can damage blood vessels in the brain. Learn how managing your blood sugar can help keep your body and brain healthy.

You probably know that keeping your blood sugar in your target range is key for managing diabetes and preventing complications like heart disease and vision loss. But did you know that episodes of high and low blood sugar can affect brain function? This is because your brain is sensitive to the amount of sugar it receives.

You can help prevent or delay problems by keeping your blood sugar as close to your target levels as possible. Learn about the connection between diabetes and the brain and how managing your blood sugar can help keep your brain and the rest of your body healthy.

The Connection Between Diabetes and the Brain

Your brain is your body’s command center. It’s made up of nerve cells that keep your body functioning—even while you sleep. It also controls how you feel, learn, and remember. And in order to do all this work, your brain uses sugar in your blood for energy. The brain is the most energy-demanding organ—needing half of all the sugar energy in the body to function properly.

If your blood sugar levels fall outside of your normal range, it can throw your command center off balance. In the same way that diabetes can cause nerve damage to your eyes, feet, and hands, it can also affect your brain by damaging nerves and blood vessels. This can lead to problems with memory and learning, mood shifts, weight gain, hormonal changes, and over time, other serious problems like Alzheimer’s disease. Since both high and low blood sugar levels can cause these harms, it’s especially important for people with diabetes to keep their blood sugar at target levels.

Hyperglycemia and the Brain

Because your brain relies on sugar for its energy source, you may think, “The more sugar I give it, the better off my brain will be.” But that couldn’t be further from the truth. Having frequent episodes of hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) can stress the brain. And because the effects of high blood sugar happen over time and aren’t obvious right away, many people don’t know that their brain is being affected.

High blood sugar over time damages blood vessels in the brain that carry oxygen-rich blood. When your brain receives too little blood, brain cells can die. This is called brain atrophy and can cause problems with memory and thinking and eventually can lead to vascular dementia..."
Diabetes and the brain 

Shingles Vaccination

"What Everyone Should Know about the Shingles Vaccine (Shingrix)

alert icon

Shingles vaccination is the only way to protect against shingles and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), the most common complication from shingles.

CDC recommends that adults 50 years and older get two doses of the shingles vaccine called Shingrix (recombinant zoster vaccine) to prevent shingles and the complications from the disease. Adults 19 years and older who have weakened immune systems because of disease or therapy should also get two doses of Shingrix, as they have a higher risk of getting shingles and related complications.

Your doctor or pharmacist can give you Shingrix as a shot in your upper arm.

Shingrix provides strong protection against shingles and PHN. In adults 50 years and older who have healthy immune systems, Shingrix is more than 90% effective at preventing shingles and PHN. Immunity stays strong for at least the first 7 years after vaccination. In adults with weakened immune systems, studies show that Shingrix is 68%-91% effective in preventing shingles, depending on the condition that affects the immune system.

Who Should Get Shingrix?

Adults 50 years and older should get two doses of Shingrix, separated by 2 to 6 months. Adults 19 years and older who have or will have weakened immune systems because of disease or therapy should also get two doses of Shingrix. If needed, people with weakened immune systems can get the second dose 1 to 2 months after the first.

You should get Shingrix even if in the past you:

• Had shingles
• Received Zostavax*
• Received varicella (chickenpox) vaccine

There is no maximum age for getting Shingrix.

If you had shingles in the past, Shingrix can help prevent future occurrences of the disease. There is no specific length of time that you need to wait after having shingles before you can receive Shingrix, but generally you should make sure the shingles rash has gone away before getting vaccinated.

Chickenpox and shingles are related because they are caused by the same virus (varicella-zoster virus). After a person recovers from chickenpox, the virus stays dormant (inactive) in the body. It can reactivate years later and cause shingles.

• You can get Shingrix whether or not you remember having had chickenpox in the past.
• More than 99% of Americans born on or before 1980 have had chickenpox, even if they don’t remember having the disease.
• Adults with weakened immune systems and no documented history of chickenpox disease, chickenpox vaccination, or shingles should talk to their healthcare provider, who can refer to the CDC Clinical Considerations for Use of Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) in Immunocompromised Adults Aged ≥19 Years | CDC and Chickenpox (Varicella) Vaccination | CDC for further guidance.

Shingrix is available in doctor’s offices and pharmacies..."
Shingles