(WASHINGTON) — Senate Republicans, joined by some Democratic colleagues, may soon send legislation to President Joe Biden’s desk to rescind changes to Washington, D.C.’s criminal code that were opposed by the district’s mayor but overwhelmingly supported by its city council.

The Senate legislation, being led in the chamber by Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., would roll back a newly-passed package that, among other things, expands the requirement for jury trials and reduces penalties for some violent crimes, including robberies and carjackings, while punishments for other crimes would increase.

The so-called crime bill, which has been worked on for more than 16 years by local officials and was unanimously passed by the city council last year, has come under fire from some lawmakers and activists in D.C. — including Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat.

Under the district’s unique status, Congress has ultimate jurisdiction over its laws.

Congressional republicans say the new criminal code will worsen public safety in the nation’s capital while its supporters, including on the city council, have said it is a necessary and nuanced set of revisions to century-old laws. (Experts say the underlying data shows the reality of how criminal sentencing is imposed is more complicated than it may appear when comparing the new and old criminal codes.)

The House’s Republican majority, along with 31 House Democrats, last month approved a bill to block the new criminal code.

On Monday, Senate Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia breathed new life into the legislation’s prospects of passing the chamber, narrowly controlled by Democrats, by announcing his intention to support it.

“You’ve got to send a signal you’re not going to slap them [criminals] on the wrist. They know exactly what they can get by with all over the country,” Manchin said.

The proposal is expected to come to the Senate floor under a special procedural tool that exempts it from some of the usual hurdles. It will only require a simple majority of votes to pass.

With Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., out for an indefinite length of time while he receives treatment for clinical depression at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Manchin’s support coupled with that of all Republicans in the chamber clears a pathway for passage.

Separately, when asked if he would support the GOP effort to quash the new criminal code and oppose his party’s leadership, Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester said, “It’s not looking good.” But he did add that he needed to get briefed by his staff.

Joe Biden’s administration has said it opposes such a move without guaranteeing a veto. That sets up a potentially fraught political predicament for the president, who is expected to soon announce his 2024 campaign, given how Republicans have and continue to emphasize public safety and crime as major concerns.

Both Manchin and Tester are also up for reelection next year in states where the GOP dominates.

“Democrats want to debate anything and everything besides violent crime itself, because the modern Democratic Party and its coalitions have decided it’s more important to have compassion for serial violent felons than for innocent citizens who just want to live their lives,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said during a floor speech on Monday focused on the D.C. law. “That’s the issue here: a binary choice. Should we be softer on crime, like Democrats want, at the local, state and federal levels? Or should we be tougher on crime, like Republicans and the American people want?”

Hagerty said Tuesday he expects a vote on his bill could come up in the Senate as soon as next week. He’s confident it will pass, with the support of perhaps even more than one Democrat, he said on Tuesday.

“I think a number of Democrats are looking at this very hard,” he said. “The attempt by some to conflate D.C. statehood and what should be just public safety concerns I think is very misguided, and I think some of my colleagues are waking up to that.”

Hagerty was referring to a renewed push among some in D.C. to grant the district statehood so that it would not be subject to Congress’ authority over its laws.

The White House previously issued a statement decrying congressional action on D.C.’s criminal code.

“Congress should respect the District of Columbia’s autonomy to govern its own local affairs,” read an administration statement issued last month, which advocated for D.C. statehood.

During a press gaggle on Tuesday, White House spokesperson Olivia Dalton referred reporters back to that statement.

“But broadly speaking, the president has been clear that we have to do more to reduce crime and save lives and he has outlined how he anticipates we should do so in his ‘safer America’ plan,” Dalton said.

Many Senate Democrats share the administration’s view that D.C. ought to be able to govern itself.

“I’m a home rule guy,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said Tuesday. “I tend to believe we shouldn’t be micromanaging what D.C. does. D.C. elects a city council and mayor and they have the complete capacity to judge their actions and decide if they want different people.”

The public safety issue has divided D.C.’s local government as crimes like carjacking have been on the rise. Mayor Bowser vetoed the council’s bill in January. But her veto was overridden.

ABC News’ Beatrice Peterson, Ben Gittleson, Alexandra Hutzler and Trish Turner contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday appeared deeply skeptical of the legality of a White House plan to forgive $400 billion in federal student loans during the pandemic, even as the Biden administration vigorously defended its power and attacked the ability of six states to block it.

Oral arguments in a pair of cases challenging the Biden plan, which remains on hold pending the litigation, stretched well past their scheduled two hours, as the justices wrestled with key questions of legal standing and legal authority under a 2003 education law.

The court’s conservative justices seemed most concerned about the scope and scale of the administration’s action, which was not specifically authorized by Congress.

“We’re talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “I think most casual observers would say, if you’re going to give up that much amount of money, if you’re going to affect the obligations of that many Americans on a subject that’s of great controversy, they would think that’s something for Congress to act on.”

After the relief program was announced in August 2022, more than 26 million Americans signed up; 16 million were approved for relief before federal courts put it on hold pending the litigation, according to the White House. More than 90% of the financial benefit would accrue to individuals making less than $75,000 a year, an administration official said.

“In effect, this is a grant of $400 billion,” posited Justice Clarence Thomas, “and it runs headlong into Congress’ appropriations authority.”

Justice Samuel Alito suggested it’s unlikely Congress could have imagined implicitly authorizing a plan of such a large scale. “A trillion dollars here, a trillion dollars there, it doesn’t seem very sensible,” he said. “Is this the sort of thing Congress is likely to address expressly?”

“Congress did address this expressly here,” replied Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for the Biden administration. She said the HEROES Act, which Congress approved 20 years ago, explicitly grants the Education Secretary authority to “waive or modify” the terms of existing federal student loans during a national emergency.

“It’s perfectly logical for Congress to broadly empower the executive to provide benefits, especially in a crisis situation or an emergency like we’ve seen with COVID-19,” Prelogar said. The administration says financial fallout from the COVID pandemic had “profound” effects on student borrowers.

“This is not a situation where the secretary is acting outside the heartland of his authority,” she said. “This is the student loan program. That falls within the wheelhouse of the secretary of education.”

The three liberal justices relentlessly zeroed in on the legal standing of six GOP-led states suing the administration, suggesting none would suffer direct harm from federal loan cancellation and therefore have little grounds to sue.

The court’s precedents say a plaintiff must suffer an “injury in fact” directly flowing from a policy or program in order to challenge it in court.

“We really do have to be concerned about jumping into the political fray, unless we are prompted to do so by a lawsuit that is brought by someone who has an actual interest,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who suggested the alleged harm to states was “attenuated.”

Jackson added that she “worries” about the government’s ability to operate if states can sue over the “most minor state interests.”

A key focus of the questions on standing was the state of Missouri, home to the nation’s largest loan servicer, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, or MOHELA. It alleges that eliminating loans on the company’s books would in turn harm its ability to contribute student aid to Missouri.

“About half of MOHELA’s operating revenue from direct loans will be cut and overall that amounts to about forty percent of its operating revenue,” said James Campbell, Nebraska’s solicitor general, arguing on behalf of the states. “The state’s interest is directly implicated.”

“MOHELA is not here, General Crawford [sic]; isn’t that correct?” responded Justice Elena Kagan. “Usually we don’t allow one person to step into another’s shoes and say I think that that person suffered a harm, even if the harm is very great.”

Added Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “It’s hard to imagine how the state of Missouri can claim an injury … when it’s not responsible for the debts of MOHELA.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to share some of the concerns about standing related to MOHELA, which is notably not a party to the case.

“If MOHELA is an arm of the state, why didn’t you just strong-arm MOHELA and say you’ve got to pursue this suit?” Barrett asked skeptically.

A second, related challenge to the Biden debt forgiveness plan, brought by two individual borrowers who are ineligible for relief, accuses the administration of acting arbitrarily without sufficiently considering the interests of all Americans as required by law.

While federal law ordinarily requires a public “notice and comment” period for significant regulatory changes, the administration argues emergency circumstances allowed them to bypass that process.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh suggested the administration overlooked questions of fairness.

There may be “deficiency” for not considering costs to “in terms of fairness, for example, people who have paid their loans, people who don’t — plan their lives around not seeking loans, and people who are not eligible for loans in the first place,” Gorsuch said. “I didn’t see anything in the [secretary’s] memorandum that dealt with those kinds of questions.”

“There are going to be winners and losers, and that raises similar questions about individual rights, individual liberty,” said Kavanaugh.

Justice Alito added: “Why is it fair to the people who didn’t get comparable relief?”

“Congress has made the judgment that when an emergency affects borrowers in this way, the secretary can provide relief,” Prelogar said.

A decision in the cases is expected by the end of June.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday defended giving Fox host Tucker Carlson exclusive access to nearly 42,000 hours of previously unreleased surveillance video from the day of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

He said other networks and the American public would get access to the video as “soon as possible” but would not commit to a timeline.

“Well, first of all, we didn’t hand over anything. Tucker was interested. You had videos for more than two years. I didn’t hear anybody concerned about that when CNN was given exclusive,” McCarthy told reporters.

While CNN was given access to similar videos, no outlet ever exclusively was given access to all the surveillance footage until now.

“Have you ever had an exclusive?” McCarthy said. “Because I see it on your networks all the time. So, they have exclusive, then I’ll give it out to the entire country.”

When asked about concerns about handing the video to Carlson, who has downplayed the attack on the Capitol, McCarthy took aim at the news media.

“Well, I get concerned about CNN giving exit routes out when they have the footage. I’m concerned about Nancy Pelosi’s daughter’s showing whether we went to Fort McNair when we weren’t supposed to say we were there, made a documentary — CNN put those out. That was a security problem. I was concerned about showing the exit route of Pence on the January 6, I was concerned in my own office, they showed the exit route — never talked to me either. We won’t play politics like that,” McCarthy said.

Asked when other news outlets and the American public would be able to see the same footage that he is providing exclusively to Fox News, McCarthy said, “As soon as possible.”

“I think sunshine matters so everybody could be able to see it. We’re walking through it. It’s many more hours of tape than we were ever told,” he said.

McCarthy said he did not consult with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on giving Fox access to the footage and pushed back that doing so was a concession to win over GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz’s vote in his quest for speaker.

McConnell, who himself was hustled to a secure location during the attacks, dodged when asked point blank Tuesday if he’s comfortable with McCarthy giving access to Carlson, who has downplayed what happened on Jan. 6.

“Going back to when Speaker Pelosi was speaker, my main concern is the security of the Capitol,” he said.

Earlier Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise also defended the plan to provide Carlson and his producers unfettered access to the video footage but said the release is being coordinated and that the video will go through vetting before it is ultimately released.

It’s still not clear when Carlson plans to air the footage or what specific footage he intends to show, but his team does not have the ability to record it and is required to view the material in a controlled environment and cannot take footage with them.

Without elaborating, Scalise said at a news conference that what gets released “is going to obviously be scrutinized” and accused former Houser Speaker Nancy Pelosi of exposing sensitive information through the footage that was played during the Jan. 6 hearings.

The Jan. 6 investigators didn’t release the video without close consultation with the Capitol Police and their general counsel, however, according to sources familiar with their work. The general counsel would review footage that the committee wanted to show and then come back with specific requests of what video to trim or what video they did not want to be used publicly. Committee investigators also had to view the video in a dedicated terminal set up by the Capitol Police.

“Well, of course, if you watch what the January 6 committee did, under Speaker Pelosi, they actually released a lot of video that was very sensitive,” Scalise said. “I mean, they literally released video of Vice President Pence exiting the Capitol showing the route that he takes. I didn’t hear a lot of concern about that back then. We were concerned how selective they were.”

“So, people should ask the J6 committee if they were concerned about national security aspects when the released a ton of footage,” Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., said.

Behind closed doors during a conference meeting on Tuesday, McCarthy defended the arrangement with Carlson and the importance of “transparency,” according to sources in the room.

McCarthy has previously ignored reporters’ questions regarding the Jan. 6 tapes, including a number of times before he spoke to reporters Tuesday.

A lawyer representing media outlets, including ABC News, has sent a letter to congressional leaders requesting that the footage be made available to additional media outlets and not just the opinion arm of Fox News.

The Justice Department has already made public hundreds of hours of surveillance and body camera footage as part of its more than 900 prosecutions of rioters charged in the attack on the Capitol. But at times, the DOJ has joined with the Capitol Police in expressing concerns over the release of some footage that could disclose sensitive areas in the Capitol, the location of closed-circuit cameras, and other sensitive security movements.

Separately, a coalition of media outlets, including ABC News, has also fought in court for the release of exhibits from those prosecutions, in many cases over the objections of defendants.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.