(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Wednesday denied reports that his administration was planning to pay migrant family members separated by the Trump administration up to $450,000 per person.
“That’s not going to happen,” Biden said in response to a question about the plans at a press conference Wednesday.
Biden called the reported plans “garbage” and “not true.”
The cash settlements, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, could have totaled up to $1 million per family, the paper said. ABC News confirmed last week that some officials had considered payments but reported that the exact dollar amounts had not yet been determined and could change.
The ACLU responded to Biden’s comments with a statement saying the president would be “abandoning a core campaign promise” if he doesn’t make good on the payments.
“President Biden may not have been fully briefed about the actions of his very own Justice Department as it carefully deliberated and considered the crimes committed against thousands of families separated from their children as an intentional governmental policy,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement. “But if he follows through on what he said, the president is abandoning a core campaign promise to do justice for the thousands of separated families.”
As a candidate, Biden described the separation of migrant families under the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance policy” as “criminal.”
The Biden administration has identified nearly 4,000 children who were separated from their families, according to the latest report from the Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families. The task force has reunified 50 families, with 50 more in the process of being reunified. About 2,100 more were reunified under court orders with the help of nongovernmental organizations.
As of September, the task force was aware of 1,727 children who had still not been reunited with their parents.
(NEW YORK) — Voters in New Jersey headed to the polls on Tuesday to weigh in on Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy’s reelection bid. New Jersey and Virginia were the only two states with a gubernatorial election in an off year, and all eyes were on them as the first official test for President Joe Biden at the ballot box.
But as of 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, the New Jersey governor’s race was still too close to call.
Murphy and former member of the state assembly Jack Ciattarelli, the Republican nominee, were swapping leads in early vote totals, but as heavily-Democratic counties processed mail-in ballots Wednesday afternoon, Murphy widened his lead over Ciattarelli. Still, vote totals remained outstanding.
Leading up to the election, Murphy comfortably led in public polling, but the race was still seen as a referendum on Biden’s agenda.
Democrats nationwide have attempted to equate all Republicans with former President Donald Trump, but Republicans deployed that same tactic as they tied Democrats to Biden, whose poll numbers began to sink over the summer with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the spread of the delta variant and congressional negotiations over his agenda.
National Democrats, while more concerned with Virginia, swung through New Jersey to stump for Murphy, as well. He’s hosted former President Barack Obama, First lady Jill Biden and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
Although New Jersey is reliable for Democrats when it comes to presidential and Senate elections, if he wins, Murphy would be the first Democratic governor reelected by New Jerseyans in more than 40 years.
Counties are colored red or blue when the % expected vote reporting reaches a set threshold. This threshold varies by state and is based on patterns of past vote reporting and expectations about how the vote will report this year.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Wednesday reiterated calls for his own party to move hastily on his legislative agenda following a punishing election night for Democrats.
“People want us to get things done,” Biden said when asked about former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe’s upset loss in the battleground. “They want us to get things done. And that’s why I’m continuing to push very hard for the Democratic Party to move along and pass my infrastructure bill and my Build Back Better bill.”
Democratic lawmakers appear to be feeling the pressure. On Wednesday, some said it was more urgent than ever to pass Biden’s legislative agenda, pointing to a lack of deliverables they say may have soured voters on Tuesday.
Democrats have been paralyzed on a path forward for Biden’s social spending plan and a separate massive bipartisan infrastructure bill for months. Senators say McAuliffe’s loss and the razor-thin margin in New Jersey’s gubernatorial race are voter responses to that inaction.
“Democrats let Terry down,” Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine said Wednesday. “If we had done the infrastructure and reconciliation bills in October that we will almost certainly do by the end of the month, it would have been extremely helpful to him because it would have meant that Democrats are doers, Democrats deliver things that people care about in suburban communities.”
Democrats have struggled for months to find their way out of a complex political maze they set for themselves in the face of unified Republican opposition to Biden’s social spending agenda. Earlier this year, leadership tied a $1 trillion infrastructure package that includes funding for roads, bridges, waterways and broadband, to a separate social spending package that was yet to be drafted. They vowed one would not progress without the other.
The Senate passed the $1 trillion infrastructure package in August, but it is still negotiating over the social spending package. The House has not yet held a vote on either bill as a result. It may finally vote on both packages as early as this week — too late to impact Tuesday’s election results.
Inaction on the infrastructure package has left moderate Democrats who helped negotiate the bill, like Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, wringing their hands. Warner said both packages urgently need to be passed, but he noted that the infrastructure package could have provided McAuliffe a much-needed win.
“Only in Washington could people think that it is a smart strategy to take a once-in-a-generation investment in infrastructure and prevent your president from signing that bill into law and that’s somehow a good strategy,” Warner said. “It’s not just about the substance of the bill, it’s about showing that you can govern in a way that affects people’s lives.”
Moderate Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., has been demanding a House vote on the infrastructure bill for weeks. McAuliffe’s loss is just another sign that it’s time, Manchin said Wednesday.
“The House needs to really truly pass the infrastructure bill,” Manchin said. That’s something that’s proven. That’s what they really want.”
But Manchin is perhaps the most insurmountable obstacle in the Democratic quest to pass “Build Back Better” because of his opposition to several provisions in the president’s framework, including an expansion of Medicare and paid family leave.
Manchin reiterated Wednesday concerns about cost and inflation, the same point Republicans successfully used to campaign against Biden’s agenda. But Democrats Wednesday said their losses were about a lack of deliverables, not a rejection of the overall plan.
Asked whether voters were pushing back on progressive policies, Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said he didn’t believe so.
When it’s finally done, Durbin said he believes “America will receive it, I think, in a positive way.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., diagnosed Tuesday’s losses as “failure to deliver.”
“Congress has to deliver,” Blumenthal said. “The window is closing. We have no more time. We need to get it done.”
Democrats fear that unless they can make significant movement on Biden’s policy, the Virginia race could prove to be a bellwether for the 2022 midterms.
“I’m worried not just in Virginia, I’m worried across the country,” Warner said Wednesday. “We’ve got to show that we can deliver in a pragmatic way that affects people’s lives.”
“There’s no time left,” Durbin said. “This warning to us came early enough for us to do something about it, and now we have to respond.”
(WASHINGTON) — As House Democrats on Wednesday surprisingly moved to add paid family leave back into the $1.75 trillion social spending and climate policy bill — word came that none other than Meghan Markle was lobbying senators on the issue — personally.
In what might show that she’s clued into congressional politics, she didn’t go after West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin — who doesn’t support including family leave in the spending bill — but made calls to Republicans, trying to get their votes instead.
Markle, the mother of two young children, including a daughter born in June, phoned Manchin’s West Virginia colleague, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who said she first thought it was Manchin, because the caller ID was blocked, in a story first reported by Politico.
“I’m in my car. I’m driving. It says ‘caller ID blocked’,” the senator recounted, details confirmed by her spokesman. “I thought it was Senator Manchin. His calls come in blocked. And she goes, ‘Senator Capito?’ I said, ‘Yes?’ She said, ‘This is Meghan, the duchess of Sussex.'”
Markle then called another, more moderate, Republican — Susan Collins of Maine — who was in the gym at the time and also thought it was Manchin on the phone, according to a source familiar with the matter.
The duchess once again pitched paid family leave, Collins said.
“Much to my surprise, she called me on my private line and she introduced herself as the duchess of Sussex, which is kind of ironic,” Collins added.
“I was happy to talk with her, but I’m more interested in what the people of Maine are telling me about it,” she said.
Last month, Markle, who now lives in the California with Prince Harry and their two children — Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor and Archie Mountbatten-Windsor — posted a letter to Congress on the website PaidLeaveforAll.org advocating for paid family leave in the U.S.
“I’m not an elected official, and I’m not a politician. I am, like many, an engaged citizen and a parent. And because you and your congressional colleagues have a role in shaping family outcomes for generations to come, that’s why I’m writing to you at this deeply important time—as a mom—to advocate for paid leave,” Markle wrote.
In the letter, she describes how hard her family worked to provide for her growing up and how the pandemic has pushed millions of women out of the workforce.
“Over the past 20 months, the pandemic has exposed long-existing fault lines in our communities. At an alarming rate, millions of women dropped out of the workforce, staying home with their kids as schools and daycares were closed, and looking after loved ones full-time,” she wrote. “The working mom or parent is facing the conflict of being present or being paid. The sacrifice of either comes at a great cost.”
Markle acknowledged that she and her family in no way face the same challenges other families do when it comes to raising a family.
“Like any parents, we were overjoyed. Like many parents, we were overwhelmed,” Markle wrote, recalling the moment she brought home her newborn daughter. “Like fewer parents, we weren’t confronted with the harsh reality of either spending those first few critical months with our baby or going back to work. We knew we could take her home, and in that vital (and sacred) stage, devote any and everything to our kids and to our family. We knew that by doing so we wouldn’t have to make impossible choices about childcare, work, and medical care that so many have to make every single day.”
Markle noted that, unlike the U.S., most other nations already have paid leave policies for all workers.
“Many other countries have robust programs that give months of time for both parents (birth or adoptive) to be home with their child. The United States, in stark contrast, does not federally guarantee any person a single day of paid leave. And fewer than one in four workers has dedicated paid family leave through their employer. I’m sure you agree that if we are to continue to be exceptional, then we can’t be the exception.”
ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The nation’s highest court on Wednesday spent nearly two hours wrestling with the concealed carry of handguns in public places and discretionary permitting requirements in nearly a dozen states that impose limits in the interest of public safety.
The oral arguments on Second Amendment rights — the court’s most consequential in more than a decade — focused on a century-old New York state law that requires gun owners to show “proper cause” — or a specific special need — to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
Eight other states have similar “may issue” laws that give local authorities discretion to decide who receives a license based on particularized circumstances. Most states have looser requirements giving otherwise law-abiding gun owners easier ability to carry.
Many of the court’s conservative justices appeared skeptical of New York-style regimes that subject a constitutional right to bear arms to the discretion of a government official. At the same time, several raised concerns about public safety if carry restrictions were rolled back too far.
The Second Amendment “is to be interpreted the same way you’d interpret other provisions of the Constitution,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “The idea you need a license to exercise the right is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.”
“Why isn’t it good enough to say, I live in a violent area and I want to be able to defend myself?” asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “That’s the real concern, isn’t it, with any constitutional right, if it’s the discretion of an individual officer, that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right.”
“There is a history and tradition, and it exists to the present day, of permitting regimes,” Kavanaugh added later. “But it’s a narrow legal issue of ‘shall issue’ versus ‘may issue’ [a permit].”
New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood vigorously defended the state’s “may-issue” law as consistent with the history and tradition of U.S. states enacting reasonable limits on the carrying of firearms in public.
“New York is not an outlier,” Underwood argued. “Many ordinary people have licenses.” But, she insisted, the Supreme Court itself has ruled that the right to carry a gun is not unlimited.
Less restrictive concealed carry regimes would “multiply the number of firearms carried in high-density places,” Underwood said. “Proliferation of arms on subways terrifies a lot of people.”
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Stephen Breyer all acknowledged concerns about concealed carry of weapons in public places, each pressing attorney Paul Clement, who represented a group of New York gun owners challenging the law.
“They are dangerous guns,” said Justice Stephen Breyer. “In your opinion … you want no restrictions?”
“We’re asking for the [permitting] regime to work the same way for self-defense as it does for hunting,” Clement replied.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who have long held an expansive view of the Second Amendment, suggested New York needed to better tailor its requirements to accommodate residents living in less-densely-populated rural areas.
“You can’t hunt with a gun in Central Park,” said Justice Thomas, “but I’m certain there are places in Upstate or Western New York where you can … If you can have that difference for the purpose of hunting, specifically, why can’t you have a similar tailored approach for the Second Amendment based upon if it’s density in New York City, if that’s a problem, the subway, then you have a different set of concerns than Upstate New York?”
The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, an NRA-affiliate, which brought the case has been hopeful that the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority would affirm a sweeping right to carry guns outside the home for self-defense across the state.
The text of the Second Amendment offers a guarantee “not just to keep arms, but to bear them,” insisted Clement.
An attorney for the Biden administration argued that history and tradition of gun ownership in the US has featured limits on concealed carry for decades. Such laws “span 150 years in all regions of the country,” argued Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher. “The question before the court is, of all the approaches [states have] taken, is this one the Second Amendment must take off the table?”
The debate over concealed carry rights come has gun sales continue to soar across the country and gun violence deaths have continued to climb. More than 35,000 Americans have been killed by guns so far this year, according to the independent National Gun Violence Archive.
In a nod to those circumstances, the court’s liberal justices seemed ready to vote to uphold New York’s law and affirm discretionary permitting programs.
Outside the court, a group of gun violence victims and survivors — including representatives from mass shootings in Parkland, Fla., Dayton, Ohio, and Louisville, Ky. — held a small rally to make their voices heard. Former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords also addressed the crowd.
“Today’s argument made clear that even the court’s most conservative justices have hesitations about granting the gun lobby its ultimate goal in this case – the unrestricted right to carry guns in all public places at all times,” said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law.
“There are a number of ways the court could ultimately decide this case, and the details of its ruling matter,” he said. “As the justices heard today, this is ultimately about whether elected officials will continue to be able to make decisions about protecting their communities – including by limiting who can carry guns in football stadiums, university campuses and shopping malls.”
ABC News’ “Rethinking Gun Violence,” is examining the level of gun violence in the U.S. — and what can be done about it.
(WASHINGTON) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in a letter to colleagues on Wednesday that Democrats will add paid family and medical leave back into their large social spending bill, but soon after, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin called the move a “challenge.”
Democrats had initially called for 12 weeks of leave but it was cut down to four before being dropped altogether last week after Sen, Manchin, D-W.Va., raised concerns.
Now, Pelosi is saying it’s back in the bill with a source familiar confirming to ABC News it will be four weeks of paid family and medical leave.
However, from the Senate side, a source told ABC News the addition of paid family and medical leave is “far from reality yet” — and Pelosi acknowledges obstacles ahead in the upper chamber in her “Dear Colleague” letter.
“Because I have been informed by a Senator of opposition to a few of the priorities contained in our bill and because we must have legislation agreed to by the House and the Senate in the final version of the Build Back Better Act that we will send to the President’s desk, we must strive to find common ground in the legislation,” she wrote.
Walking into the Capitol Wednesday morning, Pelosi told reporters that she is “very sad” over Democrats’ loss in the Virginia governor’s race but said his loss does not change Democrats’ agenda in the House and is not the reason for the push to bring back the paid leave measure.
Manchin, meanwhile, did not explicitly say he would vote against the package if paid leave is included. But when asked about it shortly after word surfaced on Wednesday, he said he remains strongly opposed to it being included in the reconciliation package — a process Senate Democrats are using to avoid a Republican filibuster, but a tactic that requires all 50 Democratic votes, including Manchin’s. He told reporters he was unaware of the newly announced plans to include it in the package, but that House colleagues were familiar with his position on it.
“I just think it’s the wrong place to put it because it is a social expansion,” Manchin told reporters, repeating his concerns about the cost. He worries about “getting more debt and basically putting more social programs that we can’t pay for that we’re having problems with now.”
Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement that paid family and medical leave will be fully paid for, and it is means-tested.
“We do this responsibly, fully paying for the means-tested program,” he wrote in a statement on Wednesday.
Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, D-N.Y., the lead sponsor of the family paid leave effort in the Senate, told ABC News she’s “very excited it’s back in the bill” and that she plans to speak to Manchin on it.
“Speaker Pelosi, I think, has decided it’s essential for the country and for workers to be able to rebound, and I trust the Speaker. I trust her judgment,” Gillibrand said.
Manchin, however, has for days said he’s concerned about insolvency in Medicare and Medicaid, and on Monday he said social expansion beyond those programs, for things like paid leave, is “aspirational”.
While he ultimately said he supports paid leave, he said he wants to see it shepherded through in a separate bill, not in reconciliation.
“We’re trying to force it through reconciliation which has guardrails and rules and regulations,” Manchin said. Let’s do it and do it right and not do it in this.”
Progressives have said they trust President Joe Biden to deliver 51 Senate votes he promised on the larger social spending and climate bill, and Biden predicted Manchin would support that in a speech on Tuesday, despite Manchin expressing new concerns.
Manchin said on Wednesday that the House will ultimately “do what the House does” and then the Senate will need to work through the bill “deliberately.”
Pelosi said updated bill text for the social spending plan will be released later Wednesday, and she anticipates the House Rules Committee will meet later in the day to debate the legislation and prepare it for votes on the House floor.
In a subtle message to House moderates, who are demanding at least 72 hours to read the bill text, Pelosi also noted that text was initially released six days ago, meaning they’ve had plenty of time to read up.
Based on Pelosi’s letter, it’s clear Democratic leadership intends to vote on both the already Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill and the social spending bill Democrats plan to pass through reconciliation this week.
ABC News’ Trish Turner contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Lobbying firms with ties to President Joe Biden and his administration are thriving, with some doubling and quadrupling their lobbying revenues from last year, disclosure filings show — but overall lobbying revenues haven’t increased much over the last year.
Earlier this year, three firms led by former Biden aides and others with close ties to key members of the Biden White House kicked off 2021 with a slew of new big-name clients and an early jump in their lobbying revenues, lobbying disclosure filings at that time showed.
Fast-forward nine months, and these firms have brought in far more in lobbying revenues in just the first three quarters of 2021 than the amount they brought in during the entire previous year.
The jump showcases how lobbyists with connections to Biden, the Biden administration, and Biden’s key advisers have been prospering under the new — and at the same time, familiar — presidency.
The lobbying firm run by the brother of Biden White House Counselor Steve Ricchetti nearly quadrupled its lobbying revenues in the first three quarters of this year from what it brought in during the same period last year. The firm reported more than $2.4 million in revenues from January through September of 2021, compared to just $635,000 through September of last year, filings show.
Ricchetti Inc, the firm that Jeff Ricchetti previously shared with his brother Steve, had reported a relatively quiet lobbying operation over the last few years, until late 2020 when the firm began picking up several new clients and reported a major spike in lobbying revenues.
Now, with major clients like Amazon and TC Energy Corporation, as well as several pharmaceutical and health care companies, Ricchetti Inc is enjoying its most lucrative year since Steve Ricchetti sold his stake in the firm and left in 2012 to joined the then-Obama White House as Biden’s adviser.
Ricchetti Inc earlier this year reported lobbying the office of president on behalf of health care companies, and the National Security Council on behalf of General Motors — but otherwise has mostly focused its efforts on lobbying Congress.
Jeff Ricchetti, who is now the only registered lobbyist for Ricchetti Inc, did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment. Earlier this year, a source close to Steve Ricchetti told ABC News that Jeff Ricchetti “has never and will never lobby his brother on behalf of any of his clients” and that “Steve and Jeff keep their professional activities distinctly separate.”
Entering the White House earlier this year, Biden committed himself and his administration to a set of ethics rules that some experts have described as more stringent than those of the Trump administration, including extending bans on so-called revolving-door and shadow lobbying.
“President Biden has established the highest ethical standards of any Administration in history, and his team has put in place stringent safeguards to protect against any potential conflicts of interest,” White House spokesperson Michael Gwin told ABC News.
Although many firms with connections to the Biden White House have been thriving, lobbying revenues overall are relatively flat compared to last year. Overall spending on lobbying has only increased by 3% so far this year compared to the same period in 2020, the final year of Donald Trump’s presidency.
“Under the last administration we saw firms with links to President Trump prosper, and now we are seeing a similar windfall for firms that hire lobbyists with connections to President Biden,” Dan Auble, a senior researcher at OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan research organization that tracks campaign finance and lobbying data, told ABC News. “It is clearly evidence that connections matter in Washington.”
Despite the rapid growth of several Biden administration-connected firms, Auble says that none of them top the way Ballard Partners took off during the Trump presidency.
“None of these have come from nowhere to become one of the biggest grossing firms like Ballard Partners did under Trump,” Auble said of the firm headed by Trump confidant and fundraiser Brian Ballard, which quickly became one of the leading K Street shops in Washington after it was launched in 2017. The firm reported nearly $19 million in lobbying revenues during the first three quarters of Trump’s last year in office.
Top-grossing firms so far this year include TheGROUP DC, which reported $5.2 million in lobbying revenues from a Rolodex of big name clients that includes Facebook, Lyft, BP, Pfizer, Lockheed Martin and JPMorgan Chase. Putala Strategies reported bringing in $2.8 million in lobbying revenues through work that includes lobbying on behalf of major clients like TransCanada Pipelines, Comcast, T-Mobile, and several other pharmaceutical and energy companies.
Neither Putala Strategies or TheGROUP DC responded to ABC News’ requests for comment.
In a sign of evolving influence, the American Health Care Association is now one of TheGroup DC’s highest-paying clients since signing on in December of last year — after previously being a top client of Ballard Partners. After several years of billing the AHCA $320,000 a year for its services, Ballard Partners’ filings for April through September of this year list “No Activity” for the AHCA.
The firm, however, isn’t standing pat; since Biden’s victory it’s been transitioning into a more bipartisan enterprise, adding some big Democratic names to its team over the last few months, including Courtney Whitney, a top Democratic fundraiser who was a consultant for the pro-Biden super PAC Priorities USA.
Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — A group of New York gun owners on Wednesday will ask the Supreme Court to establish a fundamental right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home, an expansive view of the Second Amendment that could reshape gun laws nationwide if a majority of justices agree.
The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association and two individual gun owners are challenging a century-old New York statute that requires applicants for concealed carry permits to show “proper cause,” or a specific special need, for possessing a firearm in public places.
Gun rights advocates say the standard is so tough to meet that it violates the Second Amendment. The state argues that gun rights are not unlimited and that reasonable barriers to concealed carry are in the public interest.
The case is the biggest test on gun rights at the high court in more than a decade, and its reach could extend far beyond New York. Roughly a quarter of Americans live in 29 states that require concealed carry permits. Eight of those, including New York, give authorities discretion to deny permits to anyone who can’t show a special need.
“If the law gets struck down in New York, it would have ripple effects across other places that have similar regimes,” said Eric Ruben, a Second Amendment law scholar at Southern Methodist University Law School. “It would mean that you could expect more people to be carrying handguns in places like New York City, Boston and Los Angeles.”
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that Americans have an individual right to possess a handgun inside their homes but said nothing about that right in public places.
“The Second Amendment does not end at your doorstep,” said Tom King, president of NYSRPA, an affiliate of the National Rifle Association. “‘Proper cause’ is a restriction. It’s something the ‘anti-gunners’ put in there to keep guns out of the hands of lawful citizens in New York state.”
Gun control advocates warn that if the court rolls back restrictions on the carrying of handguns, American streets could become even more dangerous at a time when gun violence deaths are already surging.
“Even people who are well trained, who are prepared and carry a gun, oftentimes have to make split-second decisions that they then regret,” said Albany, New York’s Mayor Kathy Sheehan, who had to declare a state of emergency in the city last summer because of an outbreak of gun violence.
“The fewer guns, the fewer gun deaths. That’s what the data shows us. The more guardrails that you have in place with respect to gun ownership, the lower the number of gun deaths,” Sheehan said.
New York State Police, the agency defending the state’s permitting law in court, argues in court documents that, historically, no state has “allowed the right to carry a handgun everywhere… based on speculation that a confrontation warranting the use of deadly force might suddenly arise.”
“This case is going to present a lot of opportunity for the defenders of the law to present evidence on the special risks that guns can present in public and also evidence that limits on concealed carry in public can, on the whole, lead to less crime, less deaths and less injuries,” Ruben said.
Nationwide, gun sales and gun violence deaths have been climbing to near-record levels. More than 35,000 U.S. deaths from guns have been reported so far this year, according to the nonpartisan Gun Violence Archive.
“The uptick in violence has just been astronomical. The gun violence — just violence alone,” said Cheryl Apple, a small business owner and mother of five from Albany, who obtained her first handgun this year. “I just felt that I needed to be able to protect myself.”
Late last year, Apple applied for an unrestricted license to carry her 9-mm pistol almost anywhere she goes, a process that took her 10 months to complete and included a background check, a safety seminar and an interview with a judge.
“I explained to the judge that I am a woman-owned business, and that I traveled to and from my job at night, sometimes late, sometimes early in the morning, and that I just felt that it would make me feel safe,” she said.
The judge approved Apple’s request, but other gun-owners say the standard is overly discretionary and unfair.
“We don’t feel we should have to show a special reason that if you’ve been deemed eligible to own a firearm you should have the ability to have concealed carry,” said Shawn Lamouree, vice president of the Liberty Group, which operates a chain of gun stores and shooting ranges in upstate New York.
Lamouree said fear of rising crime should be sufficient cause for any law-abiding citizen to arm themselves if they so choose.
“The bottom line: If a criminal wants a gun, there’s a very good chance the criminal is going to find a way to get a gun,” said Lamouree, who is a former sheriff.
Gun rights groups are optimistic that the Supreme Court’s six-member conservative majority will be sympathetic to arguments in favor of broad concealed carry rights.
“There are indications the new justices on the court share a broader view of Second Amendment rights than what currently exists as a consensus view within the lower courts,” said Ruben.
King, who helped bring the case on behalf of New York gun owners, said he’s optimistic but not certain about the outcome.
“This could change everything,” he said.
In the meantime, gun safety groups and local leaders like the mayor of Albany are watching the case with a wary eye.
“We will enforce the law as the Supreme Court finds it,” Sheehan said. “But I think that New York State should have the right to put into place common-sense guardrails that it believes help to keep our state and the residents of our state safe.”
The court’s decision is expected by the end of June 2022.
ABC News’ “Rethinking Gun Violence,” is examining the level of gun violence in the U.S. — and what can be done about it.
(WASHINGTON) — It’s likely to become President Joe Biden’s most hotly contested COVID policy yet: a sweeping new nationwide safety standard for the American workplace that demands large businesses require their employees to either get the vaccine or test regularly.
The temporary emergency rule would apply to every U.S. private business that employs 100 workers or more — from grocery clerks to meatpacking plant employees — impacting some 80 million Americans.
It would be the first time Washington has set a federal standard that regards a respiratory virus as an occupational hazard outside of the health care sector, essentially putting COVID in the same category as other workplace safety concerns as asbestos and dangerous machinery.
Details were expected to be released as early as Wednesday or Thursday on the rule, drafted by the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA.
“It’s the biggest thing OSHA has ever done in terms of the number of workers it will cover,” said Jordan Barab, a longtime top official at the agency during the Obama administration.
Union and industry groups say they have yet to see a draft of the new rule. Among the most pressing questions is when employers would have to comply, with Republicans warning that mandates ahead of the holidays might exacerbate the nation’s worker shortage.
It’s also unclear how long the temporary standard would be in place and if it would apply to short-term “gig” workers, like freelancers and Uber drivers, or smaller franchises that are part of nationwide chains, like small restaurants or gyms.
How employers will be expected to enforce the standard is another question mark.
“We don’t know what they’re looking it. It’s a black box,” said one industry official involved in recent discussions with the administration.
Since taking office, the Biden administration had avoided imposing nationwide vaccine mandates, focusing instead on incentives for businesses and individuals. But with the arrival of the delta variant, a surge in pediatric cases and pockets of the country remaining hesitant to get a shot, Biden’s COVID strategy shifted in recent weeks.
“We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us,” Biden said of unvaccinated Americans on Sept. 9 when announcing his plan to draft the rule.
Federal contractors now have until Nov. 22 to become fully vaccinated, while contractors that work with the government have until Dec. 8.
Testing for these workers is not an option.
Biden also has required that health facilities like hospitals and nursing homes that accept federal dollars mandate vaccines for their workers, a total estimated at 17 million workers.
The latest OSHA rule would significantly expand that pool of Americans, putting two-thirds of the nation’s workforce under a kind of mandate.
Once divided on how to address the pandemic, Republican governors have united against the plan, insisting it represents dangerous federal overreach and would cripple business owners already dealing with worker shortages.
“Rest assured, we will fight them to the gates of hell to protect the liberty and livelihood of every South Carolinian,” tweeted the South Carolina GOP Gov. Henry McMaster when Biden on Sept. 9 promised to draft the rule.
Supporters counter that many large businesses have already embraced vaccine mandates to both entice employees who want a safe workplace and end a pandemic that has hobbled the economy. They argue too that whenever employees are
“This is not a vaccine mandate. It’s a safe workplace mandate — getting vaccinated or tested,” said Barab, the former deputy assistant secretary of labor for OSHA.
“You want to do it as soon as you can to protect as many people as you can,” he added.
A Labor Department spokesperson and the White House declined to discuss the specifics of the rule ahead of its release, other than to confirm that the White House’s Office of Management and Budget completed its regulatory review on Monday.
“The Federal Register will publish the emergency temporary standard in the coming days,” a Labor Department spokesperson said.
As an emergency standard, the rule would take effect immediately. But the administration was widely expected to give businesses at least some time to comply, although it’s not clear how long. Several industry groups were pushing for a 60-day implementation period that would push any enforcement into 2022.
The rule was expected to call on employers to give workers time off to get the shot and recover from any side effects.
It’s unlikely that workers would be required to get booster shots — at least as of now. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers a person “fully immunized” as one shot of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine or two shots of Moderna or Pfizer. CDC officials warn, however, that definition could change as new research develops.
Last week, Bloomberg reported that the rule also would allow employers to force workers who refuse to get the COVID shot to pay for any weekly tests and masks.
ABC News producer Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — Republican Glenn Youngkin, a former private equity executive running his first campaign for political office, will be the next governor of Virginia, ABC News has projected.
ABC News has yet to project the winners in the races for lieutenant governor or attorney general.
Around 10 p.m., Democrat Terry McAuliffe spoke at his election night event, but did not concede defeat.
“We still got a lot of votes to count, we got about 18% of the vote out, so we’re gonna continue to count the votes because every single Virginian deserves to have their vote counted,” McAuliffe said.
Youngkin’s projected win over McAuliffe, a longtime fixture in Democratic politics and a former governor of the commonwealth, marks the first time a Republican has won the gubernatorial election since 2009 and the end to Democrats’ trifecta government control in Richmond.
It’s also a warning shot to Democrats one year out from the 2022 midterm elections.
The race, nationalized by the candidates themselves, was viewed by most as a referendum on President Joe Biden and a bellwether for next year’s contests, when Democrats have to defend their slim majorities in the House and Senate with history already against them.
Poll after poll showed Republican voters felt more enthusiastic about participating in this election than Democratic voters, and in the lead up to the election, Youngkin was able to turn the race into a dead heat.
He centered his closing message around parents’ rights to have a say in their child’s education, accusing McAuliffe of wanting to “put government in between parents and our children” after he said during the final debate that he doesn’t “think parents should be telling schools what to teach.”
Youngkin also pledged to raise the standard in schools, keep them open to in-person instruction amid the pandemic and ban critical race theory from being taught in K-12 schools, even though it’s not in the curriculum.
McAuliffe called Youngkin’s closing message around education divisive, saying, “He has pitted parents against parents. He’s got parents against teachers, and he’s bringing his personal culture wars into our classrooms.”
But according to exit polls, Youngkin’s message appears to have resonated with Virginia voters — about half say parents should have “a lot” of say in what their child’s school teaches — and now can serve as a blueprint for Republican candidates competing in bluer areas of the country.
Essentially running as the incumbent in the race, McAuliffe promised to build on Democrats’ accomplishments over the last eight years, beginning first under his administration. He made promises like increasing the minimum wage and teacher pay, making health care more affordable and requiring vaccinations for nurses, doctors and teachers.
But his campaign against Youngkin focused more on a Republican who was not on the ballot — Donald Trump — and painting a dire picture of what Virginia would look like under a Youngkin administration by asserting that Youngkin’s agenda is Trump’s agenda.
At every opportunity, McAuliffe and his allies tied Youngkin to the former president, who Virginia voters rejected by a 10-point margin in 2020. Trump endorsed Youngkin after he won the nomination and never campaigned with him directly, but that didn’t stop McAuliffe from linking them as one in the same.
The former president took partial credit for Youngkin’s projected victory, saying in a statement, “I would like to thank my BASE for coming out in force and voting for Glenn Youngkin. Without you, he would not have been close to winning.”
He mocked McAuliffe’s strategy of connecting Youngkin to Trump.
“It is looking like Terry McAuliffe’s campaign against a certain person named “Trump” has very much helped Glenn Youngkin. All McAuliffe did was talk Trump, Trump, Trump and he lost!” Trump said in a second statement. “I didn’t even have to go rally for Youngkin, because McAuliffe did it for me.”
McAuliffe’s apparent defeat Tuesday is the latest indication that trying to tap into voters’ disapproval of Trump may not be a winning strategy for Democrats — especially when they’re facing headwinds from an unpopular president and stalled agenda in Washington. According to exit polls, 54% of voters disapprove of Biden’s job performance, and nearly twice as many “strongly” disapprove of his work in office than strongly approve.
