Category: Politics

Seeking to expand Florida’s role in federal immigration enforcement, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in May 2025 submitted the state’s Immigration Enforcement Operations Plan to the Trump administration.

The plan, endorsed by President Donald Trump, says all of Florida’s roughly 47,000 law enforcement officers have received, or soon will receive, training to act as immigration officers. It’s part of an effort to, as the plan notes, “maintain state-led border security operations in the absence of federal support.”

The DeSantis plan includes a proposal to deputize Florida’s nine National Guard Judge Advocate General’s Corps officers to serve as immigration judges. JAG officers are attorneys who serve as legal advisers, prosecutors, defense counsel and military judges in a wide range of matters specific to the armed forces. That includes courts-martial and civil matters involving the military.

DeSantis has said the move is necessary to create a fast-track deportation system at Florida’s new immigration detention facility in the Everglades, Alligator Alcatraz.

He has dismissed due process concerns – such as a lack of training and independence – from legal experts, pointing to the backlog in immigration courts. Immigration judges in Florida’s immigration courts have one of the largest backlogs in the country, with over half a million cases.

Congress establishes immigration policy

The Constitution grants Congress, not the president or state governments, the power to establish immigration laws.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, Congress created a clear process for immigration removal cases.

In general, a U.S. noncitizen may face removal from the country based on violations to the immigration laws. Those range from unauthorized entry to committing or being convicted of certain crimes.

Congress designated the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an agency within the Department of Justice that houses the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, as the body exclusively responsible for deciding immigration removal cases. The office also details the authority and standards for how immigration judges conduct deportation hearings.

Immigration judges undergo rigorous vetting and training. And their decisions are subject to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the administrative appellate body for decisions made by immigration judges.

The McCarran-Walter Act also contains several provisions that subject most immigration court decisions such as removal or asylum to judicial review in federal courts. That can happen on direct appeal or as part of habeas corpus petitions that challenge the legality of detention or removal.

The system is far from perfect. But Congress designed it to ensure legal expertise and due process guarantees.

As an immigration scholar, I believe that allowing Florida JAG officers to serve as immigration judges bypasses this framework that is set in law, and violates the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

JAG officers, including those in Florida’s National Guard, are not governed by the McCarran-Walter Act. They are military lawyers in an entirely separate system, overseen by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which defines the role of military judges. The code retains a unique military character that is substantially different from the judicial appellate system that governs immigration administrative rulings.

Simply put, neither Trump nor DeSantis can create an entirely new system of immigration judges outside of the one already established by Congress.

Federal agencies cannot deputize JAGs

A current immigration provision, known as the 287(g) program, authorizes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to collaborate with local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws.

But this provision only authorizes deputizing local law enforcement to assist “in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention” of immigrants – not the arbitration of deportation cases.

In the nearly three decades since 287(g) was enacted, no state or local officials – let alone military officers – have been permitted to act as immigration judges.

DeSantis’ plan seeks to convert Florida’s JAG officers from state to federal officials to function as immigration judges. Trump’s approval of this plan would also exceed the scope of his statutory authority.

Federal statutes allow the president to federalize the National Guard in limited instances: during times of war or national emergency.

But neither DeSantis’ rhetoric nor Trump’s framing of undocumented immigration as an “invasion” meet these legal thresholds.

JAGs cannot engage in domestic law enforcement

Even if Florida’s National Guard were federalized, JAG officers still could not legally serve as immigration judges.

The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, restricts the use of federal military personal in civilian law enforcement. It reflects a longstanding American principle: The military should not police civilians.

Immigration enforcement – including deciding whether someone is deported – is fundamentally a civilian enforcement function.

The only narrow exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act’s restrictions require a clear statutory basis, such as Trump invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, a law that would allow the president to rely on the military for domestic enforcement to quell a rebellion or widespread violence.

Due process concerns

The DeSantis plan also compromises constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair process for immigrants facing removal.

Immigration law is notoriously complex. Even experienced immigration lawyers struggle to keep up with its constant changes.

JAG officers, trained primarily in military law, would face immense challenges interpreting and applying immigration statutes. That’s especially true with only weeks of preparation, as DeSantis proposes.

But due process isn’t only about knowledge of legal technicalities. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process rights to all persons on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status.

For decades, courts have interpreted these protections to include fair hearings before qualified immigration judges – and, in most instances, judicial review.

By circumventing established procedures, DeSantis’ plan risks creating a system where expedited deportations come at the expense of accuracy and constitutional rights.

Raquel Aldana does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Mike returned home to Philadelphia after a 15-year prison sentence and suffered an emotional breakdown.

“I just couldn’t stop crying … I don’t know. It was the anxiety. It was just a lot,” he said. “I was under a lot of pressure and it just came crashing down.”

Mike, who was in his late 40s when we spoke, told me about his childhood filled with abuse, his first arrest at age 14, and the over 20 years of his life that he spent behind bars.

As a registered nurse and nurse scientist who studies how incarceration affects mental health, I know Mike’s experience after release from prison is not uncommon. Studies show that Black men who have experienced incarceration have higher rates of PTSD, depression and psychological distress compared with Black men who have never been incarcerated.

Working in psychiatric hospitals in Philadelphia, I met many patients in crisis who had been incarcerated at some point in their lives. As a part of my doctoral research, funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research, I interviewed 29 formerly incarcerated Black men to understand how incarceration has affected their mental health.

My peer-reviewed findings were published in the journal Social Science & Medicine. All quotes shared here use pseudonyms to protect the men’s privacy.

Trauma of incarceration

Mass incarceration in the U.S. has serious health consequences for individuals, families and communities. In Philadelphia alone, over 20,000 people return home from incarceration each year.

While incarceration rates are declining in Philadelphia, the needs of those coming home remain significant.

Many formerly incarcerated men described experiencing or witnessing violence, including being beaten by correctional officers and witnessing close friends get assaulted or killed.

“You know you are not regular because you come from a traumatic situation, right?” said Thomas, 44, who spent 18 years incarcerated.

The participants expressed that racism was common, especially while incarcerated in facilities located in the rural central and northern regions of Pennsylvania.

“I ain’t gonna sugar coat it – Black people going up into them white people mountains, they call you [n-word] all day long and you basically there to accept it,” Antonio told me.

Incarceration was especially difficult for those who were held for months pretrial without ever being convicted and those incarcerated during COVID restrictions who spent more than 23 hours a day in their cells.

‘Even though I’m free, I ain’t free’

Participants described life on parole or probation, or in transitional housing, as another form of confinement.

Ken, 56, has been out of prison for over a decade but said, “I’m still locked up, even though I’m free, I ain’t free. You just get a whole new set of rules and regulations.”

Men described significant anxiety related to community supervision requirements, including difficulty sleeping the night before a probation appointment.

Participants also described distress caused by “no association” restrictions. These are common parole and probation requirements that prohibit people under supervision from interacting with others who have criminal records, are also under supervision or are currently incarcerated. Violating this requirement can lead to a technical violation and reincarceration.

While these requirements are meant to reduce the risk of reoffending, they often isolate people from supportive relationships and resources, including housing and employment.

“[There are] a lot of smart brothers in there. And it hurts my heart. And that’s where the depression coming in too,” said Reese, who spent six years incarcerated. “I can’t contact them in jail. … That’s just how it is in the system.”

Philadelphia has the highest rate of community supervision – including probation and parole – among the largest U.S. cities, according to a 2019 analysis by The Philadelphia Inquirer.

At that time, the Inquirer reports, 1 in 23 adults in Philadelphia were under community supervision – and 1 in 14 Black adults in Philadelphia.

The men I interviewed said they felt like parts of them never left jail or prison, while others felt that they brought prison or jail home with them.

Tyrese, 34, said he stays home as often as he can.

“I’ve been out of the joint for seven years now and feel like I’m still institutionalized, I guess,” he said. “I know people that don’t even come outside,” referring to other formerly incarcerated men.

Others had dreams that they were back in a cell, or at home still wearing jail clothing. Long after release, many described constant hypervigilance and anxiety.

“I can be walking to the bus station and there be people walking around me, I’m constantly watching them,” said Anthony, who was first incarcerated at age 18 and served 16 years. “I’m watching every movement they’re doing. That’s a habit I had from jail.”

Finding work

People who have been incarcerated often struggle to find employment after release, as many employers are unwilling to hire a person with a criminal record.

This leaves about 35% of formerly incarcerated Black men unemployed.

At the time of our interview, Tay, 31, was working part-time in carpentry. “Because I had felonies on my record a lot of places won’t hire me,” he said. “And a couple of places that I was working with, they ended up firing me once they did the background check.”

These frustrations can easily spill over into family life.

Mark, 30, also works part-time and said he found himself frequently becoming agitated and snapping at his kids, other family members and his girlfriend. “I can’t get the job I want or the job that I need to do what I need to do for my family and I’ll be frustrated,” he shared.

Participants struggled with having to depend on others for basic needs upon release. Kenny, who is now self-employed as a caterer, recalled his experience a few years earlier. “I was crying. I was a grown man, almost 40 years old, and my mother had to buy me underwear, socks,” he said.

The importance of fatherhood

Despite their many hardships, some of the men spoke with joy about reconnecting with their children.

“I think the most positive thing that happened since I’ve been out of prison is I got custody of my sons,” said Ken, a father of two. “Them kids saved me.”

Like many of the other participants with children, however, he was frustrated about being unable to provide for them and worried about repeating harmful cycles.

“You want to do good, but it makes you think bad stuff when you don’t have the right resources,” he continued. “You don’t want [your kids] to do the same things you did.”

Others struggled to bond with their children after years of separation.

John, 29, explained, “The bonding is kind of awkward, because you wasn’t there, especially during the pandemic when there was no visits allowed.”

Returning to disadvantaged neighborhoods

Most people released from incarceration return to neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, violence and other disadvantages.

Shawn, who lives in pubic housing, showed me abandoned buildings and boarded storefronts in his neighborhood and described how the environment made rebuilding his life harder.

For many participants, returning to divested communities brought stress. They experienced frequent exposure to substance use, violence and negative police encounters, and they had limited access to basic resources and job opportunities needed to support recovery and stability.

“This is my real life. It’s not fake. It’s not no, ‘Well, why did he go back and do this or that?’” he said. “I live in an underserved, impoverished, danger zone – period.”

Moving forward

The experiences these men shared with me demonstrate how traumatic incarceration is, even many years after release.

Supporting the mental health of formerly incarcerated Black men requires trauma-informed services, such as culturally responsive counseling, peer support and care that acknowledges the lasting effects of incarceration.

It also means helping them build or rebuild their financial resources, reconnect with their children and loved ones, and supporting the broader communities they return to through investment in housing, employment and accessible health and social services.

Helena Addison received funding from National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number F31NR020434, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration and American Nurses Association Minority Fellowship Program, the University of Pennsylvania’s Presidential PhD Fellowship, and Jonas Philanthropies to support this study and/or her PhD training. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, or any other funding organizations or institutions. The views expressed in written training materials or publications and by speakers and moderators do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department and Human Services; nor does mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

President Donald Trump has said the “big, beautiful bill” he signed into law on July 4, 2025, will stimulate the economy and foster financial security.

But a close look at the legislation reveals a different story, particularly for low-income people and racial and ethnic minorities.

As a legal scholar who studies how taxes increase the gap in wealth and income between Black and white Americans, I believe the law’s provisions make existing wealth inequalities worse through broad tax cuts that disproportionately favor wealthy families while forcing its costs on low- and middle-income Americans.

The widening chasm

The U.S. racial wealth gap is stark. White families’ median wealth between 2019 and 2022 grew to more than $250,000 higher than Black families’ median wealth.

This disparity is the result of decades of discriminatory policies in housing, banking, health care, taxes, education and employment.

The new legislation will widen these chasms through its permanent extension of individual tax cuts in Trump’s 2017 tax reform package. Americans have eight years of experience with those changes and how they hurt low-income families.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for example, predicted that low-income taxpayers would gain US$70 a year from the 2017 tax cuts. But that figure did not include the results of eliminating the individual mandate that encouraged uninsured people to get health insurance through the federal marketplace. That insurance was heavily subsidized by the federal government.

The Republican majority in Congress predicted that the loss of the mandate would decrease federal spending on health care subsidies. That decrease cost low-income taxpayers over $4,000 per person in lost subsidies.

The Congressional Budget Office examined the net effect of the 2025 bill by combining the tax changes with cuts to programs like Medicaid and food assistance. It found that the bill will reduce poor families’ ability to obtain food and health care.

Wealth-building for whom?

Perhaps the most revealing part of the bill is how it turns ideas for helping low-income families on their head. They are touted as helping the poor – but they help the wealthy instead.

A much publicized feature of the bill is the creation of “Trump Accounts,” a pilot program providing a one-time $1,000 government contribution to a tax-advantaged investment account for children born between 2025 and 2028.

While framed as a “baby bonus” to build wealth, the program’s structure is deeply flawed and regressive. Although the first $1,000 into the accounts comes from the federal government, the real tax benefits go to wealthy families who can avoid paying taxes by contributing up to $5,000 per year to their children’s accounts.

As analysts from the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive economic and social policy think tank, have pointed out, this design primarily benefits affluent families who already have the disposable income to save and can take full advantage of the tax benefits.

For low-income families struggling with daily expenses, making additional contributions is not a realistic option. These accounts do not address the fundamental barrier to saving for low-income families – a lack of income – and are more likely to widen the wealth gap than to close it.

This regressive approach – regressive because the wealthy get larger benefits – to wealth-building is mirrored in the bill’s renewal and enhancement of the New Markets Tax Credit program. Although extended by the “big, beautiful bill” to drive investment into low-income communities by offering capital gains tax breaks to investors, the program subsidizes luxury real estate projects that do little to benefit existing low-income residents and accelerate gentrification and displacement. Studies show that there is very little increase in salaries or education in areas with these benefits.

A harsh new rule

The child tax credit is another part of the bill that purports to help the poor and working classes while, in fact, giving the wealthy more money.

A family can earn up to $400,000 and still get the full $2,200 tax credit per child, which reduces their tax liability dollar for dollar. In contrast, a family making $31,500 or less cannot receive a tax credit of more than $1,750 per child. And approximately 17 million children – disproportionately Black and Latino – will not receive anything at all.

More significantly, the law tightens eligibility by requiring not only the child but also the taxpayer claiming the credit to have a Social Security number. This requirement will strip the credit from approximately 4.5 million U.S. citizen children in mixed-status families – families where some people are citizens, legal residents and people living in the country without legal permission – where parents may file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number but lack a Social Security number, according to an April 2025 study.

A burden on the poor

Perhaps most striking is the law’s “pay-fors” – the provisions designed to offset the cost of the tax cuts.

The legislation makes significant changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, lifelines for millions of low-income families.

The law imposes new monthly “community engagement” requirements, a form of work requirement, for able-bodied adults to maintain Medicaid coverage. The majority of such adults enrolled in Medicaid already work. And many people who do not work are caring full time for young children or are too disabled to work. The law also requires states to conduct eligibility redeterminations twice a year.

Redeterminations and work requirements have historically led to eligible people losing coverage. For SNAP, the bill expands work requirements to some Americans who are up to 64 years old and the parents of older children and revises benefit calculations in ways that will reduce benefits.

By funding tax cuts for the wealthy while making cuts to essential services for the poor, the bill codifies a transfer of resources up the economic ladder.

In my view, the “big, beautiful bill” represents a missed opportunity to leverage fiscal policy to address the American wealth and income gap. Instead of investing in programs to lift up low- and middle-income Americans, the bill emphasizes a regressive approach that will further enrich the wealthy and deepen existing inequalities.

Beverly Moran does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

President Donald Trump would like to see a “better option” than Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins to represent the state. He probably can’t get one.

The moderate GOP senator causes frequent headaches for the White House when it comes to securing her crucial vote, which is needed to pass key elements of Trump’s agenda.

That’s led White House officials to discuss a potential Collins replacement in the state if she opts not to run for reelection, though there are no thoughts of actually launching a primary challenge.

But in a state that continues to trend blue, local Republicans warned, Collins is effectively the lone Republican who can fend off high-level Democratic challengers in the state. Republicans point to her seniority in the upper chamber and appropriations role as unique advantages no other candidate would match. And while Collins may frustrate the MAGA wing, a different Republican more in line with Trump’s agenda would also be much more likely to lose the seat.

For Collins to drop out “may be for very conservative people a wish list item,” said Andre Cushing, a Penobscot County commissioner and former Republican state senator.

“But, candidly, I think she’s made her announcement and she is the kind of person that doesn’t do those things lightly,” Cushing said. “She certainly has my support even when I disagree with her.”

Collins’ unique position in Maine shows the limits of Trump’s political power. The president has been fiddling with all levers of the midterms equation — ordering Texas Republicans to redraw a map, pressuring battleground House Republicans to seek reelection rather than run for higher office and now exploring primary challenges against the handful of incumbents who have bucked him. Collins, the Senate Appropriations Chair, has been frustrated by White House attempts to clawback spending that she supports, and has been vocal about her disagreements.

There appears to be little appetite — in either party — for challenging Collins, who won reelection by 9 points in 2020, despite Joe Biden easily winning the state.

That victory, which followed record Democratic spending and a wave of public polls suggesting Collins would lose, has left Democrats facing their own struggles to find a formidable challenger this year, even as they point to her dipping approval rating.

Top Maine Democrats including former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson and Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who ran against Collins in 2014, have opted to run for the state’s open governorship instead. Rep. Jared Golden of the 2nd District is running for reelection.

That has left national Democrats without a top recruit in what should be one of their most competitive offensive targets. Gov. Janet Mills, who is term-limited, would be their top recruit. But Mills, 77, is older than Collins, 72, and the two women have generally had a good working relationship. The Democratic governor doesn’t seem eager for what would likely be a bruising Senate battle.

Even as some Republicans in Washington grow frustrated with Collins, there is no appetite to primary her back home.

“I don’t think any reasonable person that might be interested in that position would think about challenging her,” said Maine GOP strategist Alex Titcomb.

Collins has already publicly indicated plans to run for reelection. Her fundraising surged in the second quarter of the year, according to campaign finance reports filed this week. And a super PAC planning to back her said it raised $5.6 million so far this year. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is already cutting digital ads for Collins.

Democrats’ best hope to flip the seat would be if Collins did not seek reelection. Republicans would have to scramble in their attempts to find a replacement — she is the only GOP candidate to win statewide in Maine since 2014.

“Everybody knows that Susan Collins is a gift to the Republican Party in Maine,” said Garrett Mason, the former Maine Senate majority leader and GOP gubernatorial candidate.

Collins has ruffled some GOP feathers in the first six months of Trump’s term with high-profile votes to oppose his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and the sprawling “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

A similar dynamic played out during Trump’s first term in office, when conservatives slammed her vote against the Affordable Care Act repeal. But Collins largely rallied the Republican base in her favor for her 2020 reelection campaign, even earning an endorsement from former Gov. Paul LePage, who had previously been critical of her.

But Republicans in the state know that when it comes to Maine’s Senate seat, there is no “better option.” A Collins retirement — or primary loss — likely means the GOP loses the seat. And many in the state still pride themselves on her senior status in the Senate, something even another Republican could not immediately replicate.

“If someone were able to run against her and by chance beat her, that would be a really bad thing for Maine,” said Mason, the former majority leader. “But I just don’t see that happening. That’s not what’s on the ground here.”

​Politics

Sen. Eric Schmitt says isolationist label ‘is a slur’

lead image

​Politics

As Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker’s US$2 billion housing plan moves forward, heated debates continue about another set of municipal housing proposals that could transform Philadelphia tenants’ rights.

In June 2025, Philadelphia’s City Council considered three housing bills, collectively known as the Safe Healthy Homes Act. The package was introduced by Nicolas O’Rourke, an at-large council member who belongs to the Working Families Party.

One of the bills authorized the city to create a fund for tenants to relocate if their buildings are condemned by city inspectors. It was signed into law, though it remains unclear how the fund will be financed.

The other two bills stalled. One was an ordinance that would broadly strengthen tenants’ rights, and the other – known as the Right to Repairs – would shift how Philadelphia ensures housing is safe for tenants, empowering the city to proactively inspect rentals for housing code violations.

These bills deal with housing policy, but they’re also matters of public health.

I know this because I am a researcher in Philadelphia who studies how housing affects our health outcomes. And in particular, recent research by myself and others suggests the fate of the Rights to Repairs legislation could have major implications for Philadelphians’ well-being.

Housing protections today

To understand this new evidence, it’s important to first understand the system of housing regulations Philadelphia has now, in the absence of the proposed Right to Repairs legislation.

When a landlord rents an apartment, Pennsylvania law mandates that apartment must be habitable and free of hazards such as mold, cockroaches and dangerous dilapidation.

This legal principle is known as the “implied warranty of habitability.”

All 50 states except Arkansas have some kind of policy like this, though they vary in how much they hold landlords responsible for tenants’ safety.

Under Pennsylvania’s warranty and related municipal law, if conditions deteriorate in a rental property, Philadelphia tenants are first supposed to alert their landlord, who has 30 days to fix the given violation – such as rodents or lead exposure.

If landlords refuse, however, tenants are in a bind. They could file a complaint with the Department of Licenses and Inspections, which might come and issue a citation. Tenants could also file a lawsuit against their landlord, and they are entitled to withhold rent. But all of these options risk provoking your landlord – at potentially high cost.

Invoking your warranty rights as a tenant can therefore be tricky. You have to know your rights, document repair requests in writing, and be willing to take your landlord to task legally.

That’s challenging in a city like Philadelphia, where most renters – outside of a pilot program in some ZIP codes – aren’t guaranteed lawyers in housing court.

Indeed, nationally, 9 in 10 landlords have lawyers in housing cases, while 9 in 10 tenants do not.

The stakes are high for tenants. If they complain, they risk eviction – and that’s amid a shortage of affordable housing in Philadelphia and across the country.

In 2018 alone, according to a local news investigation, Philadelphia landlords filed over 2,000 eviction cases soon after tenants raised habitability issues, despite such retaliatory evictions being illegal. More up-to-date estimates are hard to come by, as these illegal evictions are not systematically tracked.

Tenants have little choice. Philadelphia does not require that an apartment pass an inspection before the city issues rental licenses or certificates of rental suitability. If housing violations arise, it’s on tenants to assert and defend their rights.

Do habitability laws work?

Housing quality protections for tenants, in other words, largely boil down to implied warranties of habitability, plus associated fines the city can issue. But this works only if tenants are able to properly document violations, submit complaints and defend themselves from the blowback.

Despite warranties forming the backbone of Philadelphia’s housing quality governance system – and concerns that these laws saddle tenants with unreasonable enforcement responsibilities – little is known about whether warranties are even effective. Do they keep tenants from getting sick due to poor housing conditions?

To find out, fellow researchers and I examined what happened when nine states enacted implied warranty of habitability laws like the one in place in Pennsylvania today. We wanted to know whether renters’ health improved after warranty policies were enacted, compared with other states where such laws didn’t go into effect over the same period.

We also used homeowners as a control group, comparing whether renters’ health uniquely improved when these laws were enacted. Homeowners are useful here because we wouldn’t expect homeowners’ health to be affected by these laws.

Our findings were stark: We found no improvements for renters at all, across a slew of housing-related health outcomes, even 10 years after enactment.

There were no effects on renters’ asthma, respiratory allergies, bronchitis, mental health, hospitalizations, or even less clinical outcomes such as self-rated health.

To be clear, implied warranties of habitability are important laws and are surely helpful for individual tenants. Broadly speaking, however, our findings suggest that these policies simply don’t work.

That is likely especially true in Pennsylvania, a state whose implied warranty of habitability was given an F- by researchers who evaluated the comprehensiveness of states’ policies for protecting tenants’ well-being.

A 2014 study in neighboring New Jersey helps shed light on why these policies fall short.

Researchers there examined 40,000 eviction cases, looking for whether tenants successfully raised implied warranty of habitability violations as a defense. Given how often landlords retaliate after violation complaints are made, one might expect thousands of tenants party to these lawsuits to have invoked their warranty rights.

The result? Only 80 tenants did so – 80 out of 40,000.

In practice, then, existing data paints a bleak picture: The vast majority of tenants lack the financial resources, legal knowledge, alternative housing options or freedom from fear necessary to protect themselves from unsafe conditions at home.

Proactive rental inspections show more success

What policies might work instead? Cities such as Rochester, New York, may provide an answer.

In 2005, Rochester implemented a more proactive rental inspection program to combat their child lead-poisoning crisis – a problem Philadelphia shares.

This meant that Rochester’s municipal inspectors began proactively inspecting rental units on a regular basis and issuing fines for any violations they found. Tenants did not have to file a complaint and therefore weren’t forced into adversarial disputes with their landlords.

The results were dramatic. By 2012, childhood lead poisoning in Rochester had dropped by 85%. This decline was nearly 2.5 times faster than the rest of New York state.

Further, scientists found that units that were inspected every three years had one-third of the rate of housing code violations as units inspected every six years.

Whether the Right to Repair is good policy for Philadelphia is a question for city legislators. But research is increasingly clear: The city’s current housing policies do not protect tenants from unsafe housing, while proactive rental inspections show real promise for fighting persistent housing-related health problems.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Gabriel L. Schwartz’s research described in this article was funded through a pilot grant from the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative. UCSF had no role in the design, completion, or reporting of that study. The views expressed in this article solely represent the scientific opinion of the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of either UCSF or his employer.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The U.S. Supreme Court has always ruled on politically controversial issues. From elections to civil rights, from abortion to free speech, the justices frequently weigh in on the country’s most debated problems.

And because of the court’s influence over national policy, political parties and interest groups battle fiercely over who gets appointed to the high court.

The public typically finds out about the court – including its significant decisions and the politics surrounding appointments – from the news media. While elected officeholders and candidates make direct appeals to their voters, the justices and Supreme Court nominees are different – they largely rely on the news to disseminate information about the court, giving the public at least a cursory understanding.

Recently, something has changed in newspaper coverage of the Supreme Court. As scholars of judicial politics, political institutions and political behavior, we set out to understand precisely how media coverage of the court has changed over the past 40 years. Specifically, we analyzed the content of every article referencing the Supreme Court in five major newspapers from 1980 to 2023.

Of course, people get their news from a variety of sources, but we have no reason to believe the trends we uncovered in our research of traditional newspapers do not apply broadly. Research indicates that alternative media sources largely follow the lead of traditional beat reporters.

What we found: Politics has a much stronger presence in articles today than in years past, with a notable increase beginning in 2016.

When public goodwill prevailed

Not many cases have been more important in the past quarter-century or, from a partisan perspective, more contentious than Bush v. Gore – the December 2000 ruling that stopped a ballot recount, resulting in then-Texas Governor George W. Bush defeating Democratic candidate Al Gore and winning the presidential election.

Bush v. Gore is particularly interesting to us because nine unelected, life-tenured justices functionally decided an election.

Surprisingly, the court’s public support didn’t suffer, ostensibly because the court had built up a sufficient store of public goodwill.

One reason public support remained steady following Bush v. Gore might be newspaper coverage. Although the court’s decision reflected the justices’ ideologies, with the more conservative members effectively voting to end the recount and its more liberal members voting in favor of the recount, newspapers largely ignored the role of politics in the decision.

For example, the New York Times case coverage indicated the justices’ names and their votes but mentioned neither the party of the president who appointed them nor their ideological leanings. The words “Democrat,” “Republican,” “liberal” and “conservative” – what we call political frames – do not appear in the Dec. 13, 2000, story about the decision.

This epitomizes court-related newspaper articles from the 1980s to the early 2000s, when reporters treated the court as a nonpolitical institution. According to our research, court-related news articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal hardly used political frames during that time.

Instead, newspapers perpetuated a dominant belief among the public that Supreme Court decisions were based almost completely on legal principles rather than political preferences. This belief, in turn, bolstered support for the court.

Recent newspaper coverage reveals a starkly different pattern.

A contemporary political court

It would be nearly impossible to read contemporary articles about the Supreme Court without getting the impression that it is just as political as Congress and the presidency.

Analyzing our data from 1980 to 2023, the average number of political frames per article tripled. To be sure, politics has always played a role in the court’s decisions. Now, newspapers are making that clear. The question is when this change occurred.

Across the five major newspapers, reporting about the court has gradually become more political over time. That isn’t surprising: America has been gradually polarizing since the 1980s as well, and the changes in news media coverage reflect that polarization.

Take February of 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died. Of course, justices have died while serving on the court before. But Scalia was a conservative icon, and his death could have swung the court to the center or the left.

How the politics of naming his successor played out after Scalia’s death was unprecedented.

President Barack Obama’s nomination effort to put Merrick Garland on the court were stonewalled. The Senate majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the Senate would not consider any nomination until after the presidential election, nine months from Scalia’s death.

Republican candidate Donald Trump, seeing an opening, promised to fill the vacancy with a conservative justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade. The court and the 2016 election became inseparable.

Scalia vacancy changed everything

February 2016 brought about an abrupt and lasting change in newspaper coverage. The day before Scalia’s death, a typical article referencing the court used 3.22 political frames.

The day after, 10.48.

We see an uptick in political frames if we consider annual changes as well. In 2015, newspapers averaged 3.50 political frames per article about the Supreme Court. Then, in 2016, 5.30.

Using a variety of statistical methods to identify enduring framing shifts, we consistently find February 2016 as the moment newspapers shifted to higher levels of political framing of the court. We find the number of political frames in newspapers remained elevated through 2023.

How stories frame something shapes how people think about it.

If an article frames a court decision as “originalist” – an analytical approach that says constitutional texts should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they became law – then readers might think of the court as legalistic.

But if the newspaper were to frame the decision as “conservative,” then readers might think of the court as ideological.

We found in our study that when people read an article about a court decision using political frames, court approval declines. That’s because most people desire a legal court rather than a political one. No wonder polls today find the court with precariously low public support.

We do not necessarily hold journalists responsible for the court’s dramatic decline in public support. The bigger issue may be the court rather than reporters. If the court acts politically, and the justices behave ideologically, then reporters are doing their job: writing accurate stories.

That poses yet another problem. Before Trump’s three court appointments, the bench was known for its relative balance. Sometimes decisions were liberal; other times, conservative.

In June 2013, the court provided protections to same-sex marriages. Two days earlier, the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. A liberal win, a conservative win – that’s what we might expect from a legal institution.

Today the court is different. For most salient issues, the court supports conservative policies.

Given, first, the media’s willingness to emphasize the court’s politics, and second, the justices’ ideologically consistent decisions across critical issues, it is unlikely that the news media retreats from political framing anytime soon.

If that’s the case, the court may need to adjust to its low public approval.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The U.S. Senate narrowly approved on July 16, 2025, a bill that would claw back federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes money to NPR, PBS and their affiliate stations. The US$9 billion rescission package will withdraw $1.1 billion Congress had previously approved for the CPB to receive in the 2026 and 2027 fiscal years. In addition, it makes deep foreign aid cuts. All Democrats present voted against the measure, joined by two Republicans: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. As long as the House, which approved a previous version, votes in favor of the Senate’s version of the bill by midnight July 18, Trump will be able to meet a budgetary deadline by signing the measure into law in time for it to take effect.

What will happen to NPR, PBS and local stations?

NPR and PBS provide programming to local public television and radio stations across the country. The impact on them will be direct and indirect.

Both NPR and PBS receive money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, an independent nonprofit corporation Congress created in 1967 to receive and distribute federal money to public broadcasters. More than 70% of the money it distributes flows directly to local stations. Some stations get up to half of their budgets from the CPB.

But NPR and PBS get much of their funding from foundation grants, viewers’ and listeners’ donations, and corporate underwriting. And local public radio and TV stations also get support from an array of sources besides CPB.

Only about 1% of NPR funding, and 15% of PBS funding, comes directly from the government via the CPB. However, once local radio and television stations lose federal funding, they’ll be less able to pay NPR and PBS for the programs they produce.

The nearly 1,500 public media stations in the U.S. rely on a mix of NPR, PBS and third-party producer programming, such as American Public Media and PRX, for the programs they offer. Local stations also produce and air regional news and provide emergency broadcasts for the government.

In rural areas with few broadcast stations and spotty cellphone coverage, public broadcast stations are vital sources of information about important community news and updates during emergencies. Federal support is essential for the programming and day-to-day operations of many local stations and allows for the maintenance of equipment and personnel to operate these vital community resources.

We believe that stations in communities that most need them, especially in rural locations, would be hit especially hard because they rely heavily on CPB funding.

Why are Republicans taking this step?

Public broadcasting has long been a target of conservative Republicans. They say that with a highly diversified media landscape, the public no longer needs media that is subsidized by federal dollars. They also claim that public broadcasting has a liberal bias and taxpayers should not be required to fund media that slants to the left politically.

Why is public media necessary when there’s news on the internet?

As journalism revenue has plummeted, public broadcasting has remained a vital source for news in communities across the nation. This is especially true in rural communities, where economic and political pressures have threatened the survival of local journalism.

In addition, with much online news coverage placed behind paywalls, public radio and television plays an important role in making quality journalism available to the American public.

Why did Congress approve these funds 2 years ahead?

Public broadcasting has gotten roughly $550 million per year from the federal government in recent years. The CPB has always approved and designated those funds two years in advance, due to a provision in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, after Congress has voted to provide that money. The CPB then has distributed that funding primarily through grants to PBS and NPR affiliate stations to support their technical infrastructure, program development and audience research.

What are the consequences for Native communities?

Dozens of Native American stations are at risk of closing once the CPB is defunded. Native Public Media, a network of 57 radio stations and four TV stations, is a key source of news and information for tribal communities across the nation and relies on CPB support.

U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican, publicly stated that he secured an agreement with the White House to move $9.4 million in Interior Department funding to two dozen Native American stations. But there is no provision related to this promise within the legislation.

Allison Perlman is the co-chair of the Scholars Advisory Committee of the American Archive of Public Broadcasting.

Josh Shepperd and Allison Perlman are under contract to co-author an update of the history of public broadcasting for Current, public media’s trade journal, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Josh and Allison are not paid employees or vendors of either institution.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

In the run-up to the vote in the U.S. Senate on President Donald Trump’s spending and tax bill, Republicans scrambled to revise the bill to win support of wavering GOP senators. A provision included in the original bill was a 10-year moratorium on any state law that sought to regulate artificial intelligence. The provision denied access to US$500 million in federal funding for broadband internet and AI infrastructure projects for any state that passed any such law.

The inclusion of the AI regulation moratorium was widely viewed as a win for AI firms that had expressed fears that states passing regulations on AI would hamper the development of the technology. However, many federal and state officials from both parties, including state attorneys general, state legislators and 17 Republican governors, publicly opposed the measure.

In the last hours before the passage of the bill, the Senate struck down the provision by a resounding 99-1 vote. In an era defined by partisan divides on issues such as immigration, health care, social welfare, gender equality, race relations and gun control, why are so many Republican and Democratic political leaders on the same page on the issue of AI regulation?

Whatever motivated lawmakers to permit AI regulation, our recent poll shows that they are aligned with the majority of Americans who view AI with trepidation, skepticism and fear, and who want the emerging technology regulated.

Bipartisan sentiments

We are political scientists who use polls to study partisan polarization in the United States, as well as the areas of agreement that bridge the divide that has come to define U.S. politics. In April 2025, we fielded a nationally representative poll that sought to capture what Americans think about AI, including what they think AI will mean for the economy and society going forward.

The public is generally pessimistic. We found that 65% of Americans said they believe AI will increase the spread of false information. Fifty-six percent of Americans worry AI will threaten the future of humanity. Fewer than 3 in 10 Americans told us AI will make them more productive (29%), make people less lonely (21%) or improve the economy (22%).

While Americans tend to be deeply divided along partisan lines on most issues, the apprehension regarding AI’s impact on the future appears to be relatively consistent across Republicans and Democrats. For example, only 19% of Republicans and 22% of Democrats said they believe that artificial intelligence will make people less lonely. Respondents across the parties are in lockstep when it comes to their views on whether AI will make them personally more productive, with only 29% − both Republicans and Democrats − agreeing. And 60% of Democrats and 53% Republicans said they believe AI will threaten the future of humanity.

On the question of whether artificial intelligence should be strictly regulated by the government, we found that close to 6 in 10 Americans (58%) agree with this sentiment. Given the partisan differences in support for governmental regulation of business, we expected to find evidence of a partisan divide on this question. However, our data finds that Democrats and Republicans are of one mind on AI regulation, with majorities of both Democrats (66%) and Republicans (54%) supporting strict AI regulation.

When we take into account demographic and political characteristics such as race, educational attainment, gender identity, income, ideology and age, we again find that partisan identity has no significant impact on opinion regarding the regulation of AI.

State of anxiety

In the years ahead, the debate over AI and the government’s role in regulating it is likely to intensify, on both the state and federal levels. As each day seems to bring new advances in AI’s capability and reach, the future is shaping up to be one in which human beings coexist – and hopefully flourish – alongside AI. This new reality has made the American public, both Democrats and Republicans, justifiably nervous, and our polling captures this widespread trepidation.

Lawmakers and technology leaders alike could address this anxiety by better communicating the pitfalls and potential of AI, and take seriously the concerns of the public. After all, the public is not alone in its trepidation. Many experts in the field also have substantial worries about the future of AI.

One of the fundamental political questions moving forward, then, will be to what degree regulators put guardrails on this emerging and transformative technology in order to protect Americans from AI’s negative consequences.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation