Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was seriously wounded in a shooting on January 8, 20011 at a constituent event in Tuscon, announced yesterday that she was resigning her seat in Congress to focus more fully on her recovery.

Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who became a symbol of Americans’ hope and resilience as she tenaciously recovered from a gunshot wound to the head over the past year, announced Sunday that she is resigning from Congress this week.

. . . .

“I have more work to do on my recovery,” the Democratic congresswoman says in the video. “I’m getting better. Every day my spirit is high,” she says, speaking directly, deliberately and somewhat haltingly. “I will return, and we will work together for Arizona.”

2012 WLNR 1486923

As Rep. Giffords departs Congress, you can check out her legislative legacy on Westlaw using the following resources:

Floor speeches she made are available in the Congressional Record (Database ID: CR)

Search:  SP(Giffords) (189 docs)

The bill tracking for legislation she authored or sponsored during her time in Congress can be found in the Historical Bill Tracking database (billtrk-old).

Search:  au(giffords) & ci(federal) (60 docs)

Examples of her testimony before various committees in Congress can be found in the USTESTIMONY database.

Search: sp(giffords) (24 docs)

As you are no doubt aware, the National Transporation Safety Board announced recently that it is recommending a nation-wide ban on the non-emergency use of Personal Electronic Devices (PEDs) while operating a motor vehicle.

• The annoucement can be found on Westlaw at 2011 WL 6165016. 
•  The announcement notes that he NTSB’s full report will be available on the website in several weeks. You can also access accident investigation reports here  though the Gray Summit accident referenced in the announcement does not appear to be hyperlinked.
• The Virginia Tech report cited in the document appears here.
• Other Westlaw content includes National Transportation Safety Board Documents (NTSBDOCS).  The NTSB decisions database (FTRAN-NTSB) inlcudes aviation and marine cases only.

December 7 this year marked the 70th Anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor which signaled the entry of the United States into World War II.  As a remembrance of that fateful day, the federal government in 1998 enacted 36 USCA 129, establishing National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day.  In that same act, Congress established the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association.  See 36 USCA 170301 – 170313.

As this is the 70th Anniversary of the attack, the ranks those who were there and experienced the events that day firsthand have begun to dwindle precipitously.

A fraction of the 84,000 U.S. service members who were at Pearl Harbor are alive today to bear witness. The Pearl Harbor Survivors Association counts 2,700 members, a number that grows smaller by the week. The November issue of the association’s quarterly newsletter, the Pearl Harbor-Gram, pays tribute to 44 members who’ve died. And the national president delivers the painful and “inevitable” news: The Pearl Harbor Survivors Association will be dissolved Dec. 31. 

2011 WLNR 25312907

Westlaw actually offers an interesting collection of materials related to the Pearl Harbor attack, including legislation passed in response, secondary sources, and even cases.  To see a good sampling, I ran the following search on WestlawNext in the All Federal jurisdiction:

adv:”pearl harbor” /s attack

You can view a PDF version of the actual Declaration of War at 55 Stat. 795.

H.R. 822 is currently wending its way through the halls of Congress.  The bill would essentially grant the same type of state-by-state reciprocity to holders of concealed weapons permits as is granted to holders of state driver’s licenses.

In its current form, it reads:

Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that-

             ‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

             ‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’

2011 CONG US HR 822

Currently, every state in the country, save Illinois and the District of Columbia provide some means by which its residents may lawfully carry a concealed firearm.  Some are considered “Shall Issue” states (See Minn. Stat. 624.714).  Others are “May Issue” (NY Penal 400.00).  Still others practice what has been termed “Constitutional Carry” where no permit is required.  Even among the states that fall into the Shall Issue and May Issue categories, the actual practices and requirements for the permit vary greatly.

This new legislation would provide some standards across the country for those who have permits to carry a firearm to lawfully carry subject to the laws of the state they are currently in, much the same way drivers are required to follow the laws of the states they visit. 

But the carrying of firearms is undoubtedly a more hot button issue than driving across state lines.

In fact, a similar bill was introduced in the last session of Congress, but 2009 CONG US HR 197 died in committee.  The current bill has already cleared its first hurdle, but there are undoubtedly many more issues to come.

Tracking

To keep up with the track of this bill, I set up a WestClip in CONG-BILLTX and BILLTRK using:

“HR 822” (right-to-carry /10 reciprocity)). 

That same query has generates over 230 hits in ALLNEWS:

(“hr 822″ (right-to-carry /10 reciprocity))

For a full breakdown of the states’ laws regarding lawful carrying of a firearm, this search may be a good start: 

TE,PR,CA(lawful! legal! permit /s carry! /s firearm pistol)

 I ran this in All States in WestlawNext and got 381 results.  You can also use ST-ANN-ALL on Westlaw.com. Alternatively, on WestlawNext, simply try

conceal and cary firearm

Then, choose statutes and filter by state.

The Firearms Law Deskbook (FALDB ) may also be a helpful source on either  Westlaw.com or WestlawNext for a wide variety of issues related to firearms, including issues related to state and federal regulation.

[Editor's Note: The Firearms Law Deskbook by Stephen P. Halbrook includes a great 50-state survey of gun laws in the appendix.  See FALDB APP A. The publication is current throught the 2011 updates.]

The benefits of breastfeeding have been made well known in recent years, with government campaigns, medical organizations, and the media extolling the advantages for babies and mothers. When I became a mother a few years ago, I was committed to breastfeeding my new baby. I found fantastic support here at Thomson Reuters, where I was provided time and a comfortable, well-equipped, private, “Mother’s Room” to express breast milk during the workday. But not all working mothers enjoy such benefits; and breastfeeding can pose some logistical challenges to employers when they are asked to provide accommodations for employees who need to express their breast milk at the workplace. 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act PL 111-148, 2010 HR 3590 made it a requirement for employers with over 50 employees to provide reasonable, unpaid, break time as needed for employees to express breast milk for nursing children up to one year of age. It also required that the employer provide a private place (that is not a bathroom), for employees to express their breast milk. The move was heralded as a positive step in providing protection to nursing mothers who work outside the home, and in support of breastfeeding. But as they exist currently, the protections provided by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are limited to non-exempt employees. 

The Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2011 proposes to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly protect breastfeeding mothers from discrimination, and expand the current break time requirements to salaried, exempt, employees. I wanted to find this proposed legislation and track its progress. I knew the popular name, so I ran the following search in the search box at the top of the Congressional Bills category page under Federal Proposed & Enacted  Legislation on WestlawNext: 

“BREASTFEEDING PROMOTION ACT OF 2011” 

We get two results as of 9.29.2011. One is the Senate Bill (2011 CONG US S 1463), and the other is the House bill (2011 CONG US HR 2758). 

To check the status of these bills,  go to Bill Tracking under Tools and Resources under Federal Proposed & Enacted  Legislation. I wanted to search for both of these bills, so I used the Terms and Connectors search box instead of the template. This was my search: 

CI(1463) CI(2758) & TI(BREASTFEEDING) 

Or, track the bill using CapitolWatch.  The CapitolWatch link on the tools tab in WestlawNext. Find the bills and click, track. 

Click to Enlarge

I have a feeling that the debate over whether Justices Thomas and Kagan should recuse themselves from consideration of the Affordable Care Act is just getting started.  So far, Republicans have demanded that Kagan step aside because of her previous work as President Obama’s Solicitor General.  Then, seventy-four Democratic members of the Congress signed a letter to Justice Clarence Thomas asking that he recuse himself from the case because his wife’s work as a lobbyist for a group opposing the Health Care law creates the appearance of a conflict of interest.  Just yesterday, there was news that members of the Congress are working to see that Justice Thomas is disbarred.  A Complaint seeking his disbarment was filed in Missouri late last month.   

Leaving aside the merits of the debate, what I find so interesting about the calls for recusal is that the only authority that can impose recusal is the individual justice.  There is no procedure that would require a justice to step down, nor is there an appeal process in place following a decision not to recuse, as contrasted to the lower courts. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court is the only governmental entity that is not subject to any mandatory ethics requirements.  

This has led some commentators to urge the adoption of legislation that would require ethical accountability for Supreme Court justices.  In this Washinton Post Op-ed, Nan Aron suggests legistation that would make Supreme Court justices accountable to an ethics code.  To enforce compliance she suggests “adjudication by other sitting justices, retired justices, lower court judges, the judicial conference or some combination of these.”  

Recently, the Congress has taken up Ms. Aron’s charge.  One bill introduced March 1 would establish recusal procedures including public disclosure of the reasons for recusal and a process that would allow parties to request the Court to decide whether a particular justice has a conflict of interest. It would also apply the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to the Supreme Court.  It currently applies only to other Federal judges.   

Another bill (2010 WL 3911894) introduced by Senator Leahy would authorize the designation and assignment of retired justices of the Supreme Court to a particular case in which an active justice is recused.  Introducing the bill, Leahy noted: “Allowing retired justices to sit on the Supreme Court would encourage sitting justices to recuse themselves when there is even an appearance of a conflict of interest.”  156 Cong. Rc. S7791-01   2010 WL 3911894

Passage of any law that would limit Supreme Court power seems, well, unlikely.  For now, the volume of the debate will likely get very loud as the case nears the High Court.

In my reading about recusal, I found these additional references interesting:

Clarence Thomas’ dangerous conceit in the Los Angeles Times

The Court’s Recusal Problem in the New York Times

You’ve no doubt heard about the legislative controversy currently brewing in Wisconsin.  Democratic members of the Wisconsin State Senate have left the state, escaping to neighboring Illinois to prevent a quorum in the Republican-controlled Senate.  They did so to preclude a vote on a bill that would, among other things, significantly curtail collective bargaining rights for public employees.

Legislators from Indiana have now tried the same tactic.  As this story explains, several Democratic members of the Indiana House of Representatives have also fled to Illinois to make a quorum impossible.  A statement released by the legislators mentions eleven individual “bills of concern” and states, in part:

[W]e have relocated to Urbana, Illinois, for the immediate future. By staying here, we will be giving the people of Indiana a chance to find out more about this radical agenda and speak out against it.  We will remain here until we get assurances from the governor and House Speaker Brian Bosma that these bills will not be called down in the House at any time this session.

The bills at the heart of the controversies are available on Westlaw.  See below for search suggestions.

Wisconsin: A search for collective! /3 bargain! & da(2011) in the Wisconsin Bill Tracking – Full Text (WI-BILLTXT) database will return both the Senate and Assembly versions of the bill (both are Bill No. 11).

Indiana: As mentioned above, there are eleven bills at issue.  As an example, the first one mentioned in the statement (House Bill 1002) can be found with the following search in IN-BILLTXT: CI(1002) & da(2011).

The 112th Congress began its first session Wednesday, January 5.  Among the business taken care of in the House of Representatives was the election of a new Speaker of the House, Ohio representative John Boehner. 

To read the blow-by-blow account of the election of Mr. Boehner, including who else was nominated, who voted for whom, and “passing the gavel” remarks by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, try a search of the Congressional Record (CR) for: boehner & da(2011).  Among the results will be a document entitled “Election of Speaker.”

The article linked above also mentions another action taken by the House on its first day of the session: the modification of House rules.  A document retrieved by the aforementioned search, entitled “Rules of the House,” sets out the rule changes and includes statements by several representatives for and against the changes.

In the early hours of Friday December 17, 2010, the United States Congress passed the tax cut legislation called the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, to extend the expiring tax cuts. President Obama signed the legislation into law later that same day. The newly enacted legislation is available on Westlaw and can be found at PL 111-312.

The Reference Attorneys are still receiving a number of calls about the ECO-Gift Card Act, Public Law 111-209, the Amendment to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (“CCARD”).  This new Public Law strikes out Section 403 in Title IV of CCARD, found in Public Law 111-24, and replaces it with new language.  Procedurally, this Act works differently than what most attorneys who do legislative research are accustomed.

Unlike a number of laws that passed by Congress amending existing statutes, this Act amends the Public Law itself – not the codified statute.  The only statutory reference you will see about the ECO-Gift Card Act will be in the KeyCite History for 15 U.S.C.A. 1693L-1.  

// var sc_project=5841089; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_security="013ba72d"; // ]]>