Search

The article focuses on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), outlining their structures, mandates, and jurisdictional authorities, with a particular emphasis on their relationships with the U.S. and the role of Congress in shaping that relationship. Topics include the origins and mandates of both courts, the mechanisms for their jurisdiction, and the influence of Congress through legislative actions.

The article explores the role and significance of the United States Courts of Appeals in the federal judicial system, focusing on their function as arbiters of federal law within their respective jurisdictions and addressing the concept of circuit splits. It discusses how these appellate courts issue thousands of precedential decisions annually, often shaping federal law due to their expansive jurisdiction and authority.

Fiscal equalisation and regional development policies have often been perceived as separate policy fields. As a result, little is known about their potential interactions and implications for economic growth and welfare. This working paper reviews the two policies, explores the potential for enhanced synergies between the two, and proposes a theoretical framework linking them. The latter, which has not been empirically tested yet, posits that if regional development policies are correctly designed and implemented, their success should result in a drop of income disparities. Coupled with good governance practices and a framework that clearly allocates responsibilities among levels of government, more equal jurisdictions would find it easier to provide similar levels of services with comparable tax rates across the country. Therefore, whilst correctly designed and implemented fiscal equalisation policies remain a tool to patch gaps that may occur due to the shifting variety of revenue potential and spending needs of subnational entities, the need and the size of fiscal equalisation transfers could be significantly reduced if regional development policies in place are effective. This working paper concludes with a discussion on the benefits and challenges of enhancing synergies between the two policies, opening the door for future in-depth research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article centers on a report from the U.S. Congressional Research Service's, which discusses the plenary legislative authority of Congress over the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. allowing limited home rule authority granted to the District through the District of Columbia Self-Government Reorganization Act of 1973. It reports that this act permits the district government to enact local laws, ensuring consistency with the U.S. Constitution and relevant provisions of the Home Rule Act.

The article focuses on the constitutional relationship between Congress and the Supreme Court, examining the Framers' intent for separation of powers while acknowledging Congress's substantial power to influence the federal courts. Topics include discussions on Supreme Court regulation and reform, proposals for changes such as altering the Court's size, imposing term limits, and modifying its jurisdiction or procedures, with a focus on recent public attention to these matters.

This study provides an analysis of how occupational safety and health (OSH) regulation responded to the circumstances of key workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. It explains the objectives of OSH regulation, including its main elements and how it has evolved over time. It draws from national country studies to explain how different jurisdictions address safety and health in their regulatory frameworks and how these frameworks operate in practice, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies how design features inuence the success of Housing Mobility Programs (HMPs) in reducing racial segregation. Targeting neighborhoods based on previous residents' outcomes does not allow for targeting race-specific outcomes, generates uncertainty when targeting income-specific outcomes, and generates bias in ranking neighborhoods' effects. Moreover, targeting opportunity bargains based on previous residents' outcomes selects tracts with large disagreements in current and previous residents' outcomes, with such disagreements predicted by sorting since 1990. HMP success is aided by the ability to port vouchers across jurisdictions, access to cars, and relaxing supply constraints, perhaps by targeting lower-ranked neighborhoods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the legal charges faced by former President Donald Trump, including the mishandling of national security documents. It reports on the investigation into Trump's actions, the execution of a search warrant at his residence in MaraLago, and the alleged violations of the Espionage Act and other criminal codes. It highlights the retrieval of classified materials during the search, which were categorized as secret, top secret, and confidential by federal agents.

The article presents a report from the U.S. Congressional Research Service on Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA). Topics discussed include referring the juvenile to state authorities, initiating federal delinquency proceedings, or petitioning the federal court for trial as an adult in serious cases. The JDA generally favors state proceedings, but federal involvement may occur in cases where state jurisdiction is unavailable or inadequate.

The article focuses on evolution of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees' subcommittee structure from the 1920s to the present. It mentions stretching roughly from the initial reorganization in the 1920s until the end of the Second World War, was marked by stability. It also mentions subcommittees to consider appropriations for the newly created Department of Homeland Security and changes did not represent major shifts in jurisdiction.

The party ratio in the Senate standing committees is the proportional number of members of each party caucus assigned to each committee. Determining committee sizes, ratios, and assignments are among the first actions taken after a general election and at the beginning of a Congress. The standing rules of the Senate are silent on the subject of committee party ratios. Senate Rule XXV provides for committee sizes, as well as restrictions on the number of certain types of committees on which Senators may serve. The apportionment of committee seats results from discussions between majority and minority party leadership. In general, it has been the practice of the Senate to apportion committee seats to the majority and minority parties in a manner that corresponds closely to the party strength in the full chamber. Findings from this study indicate that the majority party ratios on committees roughly approximate the majority party strength in the Senate chamber, regardless of which party has been in control. This report shows Senate committee party ratios for 21 Congresses, covering the period of the 98th Congress (1983-1985) through April 2023, the first part of the 118th Congress (2023-2025). Table 1 shows a comparison of majority party strength in the Senate chamber with total majority committee seats for the 98th Congress through the beginning of the 118th Congress. Unfilled seats on committees (if so noted in the Secretary of the Senate's lists or the Congressional Directory) are counted in individual and overall committee totals for consistency. Tables 2-22 show the following for each of the 21 Congresses examined, by majority, minority, and Independents (where present): • Senate party breakdown and majority margin; • total committee seats, majority and minority committee seats, and majority margin; • the standing and select committees (with legislative jurisdiction) as established and named in each Congress; • committee seats allocated to the majority and minority parties, including Independents (where present), for each committee; and • majority-minority seat margin for each committee. The committee ratios data for the 99th through 116th Congresses are taken from the official committee lists for each Congress issued by the Secretary of the Senate; the Congressional Directory is the source for the 98th Congress. Data for the 117th and 118th Congresses were taken from the Senate website. The earliest editions of these primary documents are generally the sources for the data, although anomalies in some Congresses, such as a delay in seating a Senator due to a contested election, sometimes necessitated using later versions of the publications. Party strength in each Congress reflects numbers found in the Secretary's lists and the Congressional Directory. Different versions of the Secretary's list and the Congressional Directory, or the use of alternate sources or methodologies, could yield different results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on Senate Select Committee on Ethics was first established in 1964 and Senate expanded the committee's jurisdiction and altered its jurisdiction to implement revisions to the Senate Code of Official Conduct. It mentions Senate Code of Conduct and on the Select Committee's current jurisdiction and procedures.

The article outlines the background of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, including the creation of both the Select Committee on Ethics and the Committee on Ethics. It focuses on various jurisdictional and procedural changes that the committee has experienced since 1967 and discusses the committee's current jurisdiction and procedures. It also mentions committee does not deal with changes to federal or state criminal law or with criminal prosecutions of Members of Congress.

The article focuses on number of American criminal laws apply extraterritorially outside of the U.S. It mentions courts will also presume that Congress intends its statutes to be applied in a manner that does not offend international law. It also mentions reluctance to recognize extraterritorial jurisdiction; and exemptions on the basis of nationality or political offenses.

The article discusses the attributes and qualities required for geologists to be productive and successful in their careers, emphasizing the importance of optimism, broad knowledge, and the ability to integrate diverse data into working models. Topics include the role of exploration geologists, the significance of "helicopter vision," and the need for a balanced approach to work programs and expenditure in the mining industry.

The article reports that United States privileged nominations are presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed positions that have a special process for consideration under Senate procedures established by S.Res. 116. It mentions that The nomination process for privileged nominations aims to reduce the workload of committees of jurisdiction in processing these appointments for consideration by the Senate.

The article focuses on the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that stipulates a system for enforcing the spending levels established in the budget resolution that focuses on the individual committees and subcommittees that make budgetary decisions. Topics include considered the Budget Act requires that the total spending levels set forth in the budget resolution be allocated among all committees with jurisdiction over spending legislation.

Torrent Pharma Chile is incorporated with the object of providing business support to the company in the relevant jurisdiction [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Torrent Pharma Chile is incorporated with the object of providing business support to the company in the relevant jurisdiction [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on U.S. House agrees to a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules that sets the terms for considering that legislation. It mentions process begins when the committee with jurisdiction over a bill informs the Committee on Rules which acts in coordination with majority party leadership. It also mentions vote against moving the previous question is often characterized as a policy vote by Member.

The United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 5, clause 1) provides each House of Congress with the sole authority to establish rules, judge membership requirements, and punish and expel Members. From 1789 to 1967, the House of Representatives dealt with disciplinary action agains t Members on a case-by-case basis, often forming ad-hoc committees to investigate and make recommendations when acts of wrongdoing were brought to the chamber 's attention. Events of the 1960s, including the investigation of Representative Adam Clayton Powell for alleged misuse of Education and Labor Committee funds, prompted the creation of a permanent ethics committee and the writing of a Code of Conduct for Members, officers, and staff of the House. Begun as a select committee in the 89th Congress (1965-1966), the House created a 12-member panel to "recommend to the House ... such ... rules or regulations ... necessary or desirable to insure proper standards of conduct by Members of the House and by officers and employees of the House, in the performance of their duties and the discharge of their responsibilities." Acting on the select committee's recommendations, the House created a permanent Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 90th Congress (1967-1968). In the 112th Congress (2011-2012), the committee was renamed the Committee on Ethics. This report briefly outlines the background of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, including the creation of both the Select Committee on Ethics and the Committee on Ethics. The report also focuses on various jurisdictional and procedural changes that the committee has experienced since 1967 and discusses the committee's current jurisdiction and procedures. For additional information on ethics in the House of Representatives, please refer to CRS Report R40760, House Of f ice of Congressional Ethics: History, Authority, and Procedures, by Jacob R. Straus; CRS Report RL30764, Enf orcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: A Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus; and CRS Report R44213, Altering House Ethics Committee Sanction Recommendations on the Floor: Past Precedent and Options f or Action, by Jacob R. Straus and James V. Saturno. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report examines the actions taken by the administrations of U.S. Presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joseph Biden to define waters of the U.S. (WOTUS), along with related legislation and case law. Topics discussed include history of WOTUS regulations, jurisdictional categories and implementation challenges, and potential impacts of revised WOTUS definitions.

The article discusses the authority of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to preempt state laws under the Communications Act. Among the factors that limit its authority are the scope of regulatory jurisdiction and express statutory provisions in state laws. It cites the role of preemption in the FCC efforts to remove net neutrality requirements and facilitate municipal broadband. Also noted is the move by the FCC to clarify its interpretations of the Cable Act in 2019.

The article presents a report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service which describes committee jurisdiction and referral in the Senate. It mentions that when legislation is introduced in the Senate or received from the House, referral to a standing committee is governed primarily by the jurisdictional statements contained in paragraph 1 of Senate Rule XXV.

The party ratio in the Senate standing committees is the proportional number of members of each party caucus assigned to each committee. Determining committee sizes, ratios, and assignments are among the first actions taken after a general election and at the beginning of a Congress. The standing rules of the Senate are silent on the subject of committee party ratios. Senate Rule XXV provides for committee sizes, as well as restrictions on the number of certain types of committees on which Senators may serve. The apportionment of committee seats results from discussions between majority and minority party leadership. In general, it has been the practice of the Senate to apportion committee seats to the majority and minority parties in a manner that corresponds closely to the party strength in the full chamber. Findings from this study indicate that the majority party ratios on committees roughly approximate the majority party strength in the Senate chamber, regardless of which party has been in control. This report shows Senate committee party ratios for 20 Congresses, covering the period of the 98th Congress (1983-1985) through March 2021, the first part of the 117th Congress (2021-2023). Table 1 shows a comparison of majority party strength in the Senate chamber with total majority committee seats for the 98th Congress through the beginning of the 117th Congress. Unfilled seats on committees (if so noted in the Secretary of the Senate's lists or the Congressional Directory) are counted in individual and overall committee totals for consistency. Tables 2-21 show the following for each of the 20 Congresses examined, by majority, minority, and Independents (where present): ï,· Senate party breakdown and majority margin; ï,· total committee seats, majority and minority committee seats, and majority margin; ï,· the standing and select committees (with legislative jurisdiction) as established and named in each Congress; ï,· committee seats allocated to the majority and minority parties, including Independents (where present), for each committee; and ï,· majority-minority seat margin for each committee. The committee ratios data for the 99th through 116th Congresses are taken from the official committee lists for each Congress issued by the Secretary of the Senate; the Congressional Directory is the source for the 98th Congress. Data for the 117th Congress were taken from the Senate website. The earliest editions of these primary documents are generally the sources for the data, although anomalies in some Congresses, such as a delay in seating a Senator due to a contested election, sometimes necessitated using later versions of the publications. Party strength in each Congress reflects numbers found in the Secretary's lists and the Congressional Directory. Different versions of the Secretary's list and the Congressional Directory, or the use of alternate sources or methodologies, could yield different results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a brief history of the evolution and jurisdiction of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics as of March 2021. Other topics include the provision of the Constitution on the authority of the Houses of Congress, how the probe on alleged corruption and influence peddling of Secretary to the Majority Robert G. "Bobby" Baker in the 1960s led to the creation of a permanent ethics committee, and the Senate Code of Conduct.

The article presents a brief history of the evolution, authority and jurisdiction of the U.S. House Committee on Ethics. Topics include the events that led to the committee's creation in the 1960s like the probe against Congressman Adam Clayton Powell for alleged misuse of Education and Labor Committee funds, and the procedure of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives.

The article provides a brief introduction to the District of Columbia (DC) Courts, covering topics such as their creation, jurisdiction, structure, procedures, and workload. It outlines the unique aspects of the DC Courts, including their relationship with federal courts, structure, court rules, and recent caseload statistics. It highlights key differences from state courts, including the appointment of judges, the criminal prosecution process, and the treatment of federal judicial precedent.

The article discusses the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), emphasizing its key provisions, classes of gaming, and exceptions for gaming on newly acquired tribal trust lands. Topics include IGRA's impact on tribal gaming jurisdiction, off-reservation gaming debates, and emerging issues such as internet/mobile gaming and sports betting regulation within the tribal context.

The article focuses on the compilation of Weekly UK Statutory Instruments related to education across the United Kingdom for the period of September 4 to 11, 2023. Topics covered in these statutory instruments encompass the legislative classification and procedural aspects of these instruments, their effect on existing laws, and the enabling powers drawn from specific Acts of legislation.

The OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project has focused on income attributed to intangibles with an objective of curtailing perceived artificial profit shifting by multinational firms. A key part of this effort is a renewed emphasis on the concept of 'economic substance.' Economic substance standards require companies to have people functions (i.e., employees) in jurisdictions for companies to be able to report profits related to intangibles in such jurisdictions. Our analysis suggests that an emphasis on economic substance tied to people functions can have a significant impact on the scale as well as the location of economic activity (i.e., employees dedicated to the creation and use of intangibles). Furthermore, the likely implications on economic activity can be highly unfavorable for high-tax jurisdictions. Viewed from a U.S. perspective, this new international environment provides an explanation for the international provisions adopted as part of the U.S. tax reform of 2017. Keywords: BEPS, economic substance, intangibles, international tax, transfer pricing, U.S. tax reform, I. Introduction In an attempt to reduce perceived tax avoidance through profit shifting, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reinforced the concept of 'economic substance' in its Base [...]

The article provides an overview of the international food assistance program of the U.S. It discusses the goal of U.S. international food assistance programs, congressional jurisdiction over international food assistance programs, history of its funding, proposals on food assistance from former U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, and issues of concern for the U.S. Congress.

The House Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) was established on March 11, 2008, with the passage of H.Res. 895. It was most recently reauthorized by the House as part of the rules package (H.Res. 6) adopted by the 116th Congress on January 3, 2019. The office's establishment followed years of efforts by groups within and outside Congress to create an independent entity to investigate allegations of misconduct by Members, officers, and employees of Congress. During the 110th Congress (2007-2008), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner created the bipartisan Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, chaired by Representative Michael Capuano, to consider whether the House should create an "outside" ethics-enforcement entity. The task force worked for nearly a year before issuing its recommendations for the creation of the OCE. The mandate of the OCE, which has jurisdiction only in the House, is to review information, and when appropriate, refer findings of fact to the House Committee on Ethics. Only this committee, pursuant to House rules, has the authority to recommend House discipline of Members and staff. Information of alleged wrongdoing by Members, officers, and employees of the House may be accepted by the OCE from the general public, but only the OCE board can initiate a review. The OCE is composed of six board members, and at least two alternates, each of whom serves a four-year term. The Speaker and the minority leader are each responsible for the appointment of three board members and one alternate. The chair is selected by the Speaker and a co-chair is selected by the minority leader. Current Members of the House, federal employees, and lobbyists are not eligible to serve on the board. OCE rules for the conduct of investigations and code of conduct can be found at their website, https://oce.house.gov. This report describes the history and rationale behind the creation of the OCE, its operations, its relationship with the House Committee on Ethics, and options potentially available for Congress if further amendments to the House ethics process are desired. For additional information, please refer to CRS Report RL30764, Enforcement of Congressional Rules of Conduct: A Historical Overview, by Jacob R. Straus; CRS Report RL30650, Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction, by Jacob R. Straus; and CRS Report 98-15, House Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its Evolution and Jurisdiction, by Jacob R. Straus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on House established the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress by adopting Title II and resolution was considered under suspension of the rules and agreed to on March 10, 2020. It mentions purpose of strengthening the role of Congress and its committees in the lawmaking process and legislative jurisdiction was delegated to the committee. It also mentions Committee on House Administration adopted a committee resolution for allocating fund from reserve fund.

When legislation is introduced in the House or received from the Senate, it is referred to one or more committees primarily on the basis of the jurisdictional statements contained in clause 1 of House Rule X. These statements define the policy subjects on which each standing committee may exercise jurisdiction on behalf of the chamber. The statements themselves tend to address broad policy areas rather than specific departments, agencies, or programs of the federal government. Because committee jurisdiction often is expressed in general policy terms, it is possible for more than one committee to claim jurisdiction over different aspects of a broad subject that may encompass a myriad of specific programs and activities. When referring a measure to more than one committee (a "multiple referral"), the Speaker is directed by clause 2 of House Rule XII to identify a "primary" committee of referral, which is the panel understood to exercise jurisdiction over the main subject of the measure. Rule XII further provides the Speaker with the authority to refer legislation to more than one committee either at the point of introduction (an "initial additional referral"), or after another committee has reported (a "sequential referral"). The Speaker may also divide a measure into its component parts and refer individual pieces to different House panels (a "split referral"), but split referrals are rare in current practice. The Speaker is empowered to place time limits on any referral and always does so in the case of a sequential referral. The Speaker also "may make such other [referral] provision as may be considered appropriate." House rules vest these powers of referral in the Speaker; in practice, the House Parliamentarian makes day-to-day referral decisions acting as the Speaker's nonpartisan and disinterested agent. Although clause 1 of Rule X is the main determinant of House committee jurisdiction, other factors may also influence how legislation is referred, including precedents established by past referrals; agreements between committees outlining their jurisdictional boundaries on new, evolving, or contested policy subjects; and statutes that identify how particular kinds of matters will be referred. The jurisdictions of subcommittees are not explicitly stated in House rules. The jurisdiction of a subcommittee is generally determined by the full committee that created it. If a subcommittee's jurisdiction is not explicitly defined by its parent committee, measures are generally referred to subcommittee or retained by the full committee at the discretion of its chair. A distinction can be made between legislative and oversight jurisdiction. Legislative jurisdiction describes the authority of a committee to receive and report measures to the House. Oversight jurisdiction refers to a committee's ability to review matters within its purview, for instance by conducting hearings and investigations. Legislative jurisdiction is defined in clause 1 of Rule X, while clause 2 of the same rule directs all standing committees to "review and study on a continuing basis the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of laws and programs addressing subjects within its [legislative] jurisdiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on BEAD Program being the single largest federal broadband investment to date. Topis include resolve all challenges to its determination of funding eligibility of locations within its jurisdiction before it can allocate grant funds for broadband deployment projects; and using broadband availability data reported by internet service providers (ISPs).

It is well-known that competition for factors of production, including competition for residents, affects the public services provided in the communities. This paper considers the determination of local investment in urban transport systems. Many specialists question the effectiveness of the current U.S. top-to-bottom transportation institutional arrangement in which the federal government plays a dominant role and recommend a shift toward a decentralized organization. We examine how such a shift would affect the levels of transport investment. Specifically, we consider a model of two cities, and assume, as in Brueckner and Selod (2006), that transport systems are characterized by different time and money costs. We compare the outcomes reached when the transport system is decided by a central authority (a state or federal government) to the one decided by each jurisdiction in a decentralized way. In the latter case, city or local transportation authorities choose the system that maximizes residents' welfare, taking as given the decisions made elsewhere, essentially competing for residents (or workers). Our analysis shows that even though a shift toward a decentralized arrangement of the transportation system would generally lead to overinvestment (relative to the centralized case), the extent of this bias depends on the specific factors that drive transport authorities in deciding the transportation system, on the landownership structure, and on the financing arrangements in place. The paper also shows that, in a more general setup, when the two cities differ in their productivity levels, the more productive city will tend to overinvest in transportation systems that connect the two cities, and the less productive city will tend to underinvest in those systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusess the U.S. Supreme Court case Home Depot v. Jackson on debate over the balance of power between the state and federal courts and Congress's role in delineating the boundaries between the two. In this case the Congress has attempted to address the balance of power between the state and federal courts by enacting statutes delimiting which cases the federal courts possess jurisdiction to hear.

The article discusess the U.S. Supreme Court judicial review case Carpenter v. Murphy, on jurisdiction to charge and convict Patrick Murphy, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation who killed a fellow tribe member. In this case jurisdiction to charge and convict Patrick Murphy, a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation who killed a fellow tribe member.

A bill or joint resolution that has been vetoed by the President can become law if two-thirds of the Members voting in the House and the Senate each agree to pass it over the President's objection. The chambers act sequentially on vetoed measures: The House acts first on House-originated measures (H.R. and H.J. Res.), and the Senate acts first on Senate-originated measures (S. and S.J. Res.). If the first-acting chamber fails to override the veto, the other chamber cannot consider it. The House typically considers the question of overriding a presidential veto under the hour rule, with time customarily controlled and allocated by the chair and ranking member of the committee with jurisdiction over the bill. The Senate usually considers the question of overriding a veto under the terms of a unanimous consent agreement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a quasi-judicial independent agency in the executive branch charged with protecting federal employees against improper employment-related actions. It reveals that Board also maintains original jurisdiction over certain types of cases in which it hears and decides the case initially rather than reviews an agency decision.

For more than forty-five years, all three branches of government have struggled with how to interpret the meaning of "waters of the United States" in the Clean Water Act. In a shift from early water pollution legislation, the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which came to be known as the Clean Water Act, eliminated the requirement that federally regulated waters must be capable of being used by vessels in interstate commerce. Rather than use traditional navigability tests, the 1972 amendments redefined "navigable waters" for purposes of the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction to include "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas." Disputes over the proper meaning of that phrase have been ongoing since that change. Federal authority to regulate waters within the United States primarily derives from the Commerce Clause, and accordingly, federal laws and regulations concerning waters of the United States cannot cover matters which exceed that constitutional source of authority. During the first two decades after the passage of the Clean Water Act, courts generally interpreted the act as having a wide jurisdictional reach. In recent decades, however, the Supreme Court has emphasized that "the grant of authority to Congress under the Commerce Clause, though broad, is not unlimited." This modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence has informed federal courts' approach to interpreting which "waters" are subject to the Clean Water Act. At the same time, the Supreme Court has not always provided clear rules for determining whether a particular waterbody is a water of the United States. In its most recent case on the issue, Rapanos v. United States, the High Court issued a fractured 4-1-4 decision with no majority opinion providing a rationale for how to evaluate jurisdictional disputes. Some courts and commentators disagree on how the scope of federal jurisdictional waters changed over time as a result of interpretative approaches taken by the agencies responsible for administering the Clean Water Act--the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). This debate resurfaced during the Obama Administration when the Corps and EPA issued a rule, known as the Clean Water Rule, which substantially redefined "waters of the United States" in the agencies' regulations for the first time in more than two decades. While some argued that the Clean Water Rule constituted a large-scale expansion of federal jurisdiction, others asserted that the agencies construed the term in a narrower fashion than in prior regulations. A vocal critic of the Clean Water Rule, President Trump shifted the executive branch's policy toward the meaning of "waters of the United States." In February 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing EPA and the Corps to review and revise or rescind the Clean Water Rule. The agencies currently are in the process of carrying out the executive order, and they unveiled proposed regulations redefining "waters of the United States" in December 2018. As in nearly all prior attempts to define this phrase, observers disagree on whether the latest proposed definition correctly calibrates the scope of federal jurisdiction to regulate water pollution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs that the U.S. Congress has adapted a standing rule for legislation suspending the statutory debt limit. Topics discussed include debt limit legislation of the U.S. House without resorting to the new debt limit, statutory limit on the public debt, issues related to debt limit legislation, exclusive jurisdiction over debt limit legislation by the House Ways and Means Committee.

The article outlines the background of ethics enforcement of the U.S. Senate Code of Conduct and issues related to the Select Committee's current jurisdiction and procedures. Topics discussed include history and evolution of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, jurisdiction and investigative procedure associated with the committee and changes to criminal law with criminal prosecutions of Members of Congress.

Aksh Optifibre has informed that the company has received work for Conversion of existing HPSV and normal LED Lighting system into smart LED lighting system which are installed by Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) at various locations beyond the Jaipur Nagar Nigam jurisdiction amounting to INR 13.43 Crores inclusive of GST. The details as required under Regulation 30 of the SEBI Listing Regulations, 2015 read with SEBI/HO/CFD/CFD-PoD-1/P/CIR/2023/123 dated July 13, 2023 are as per the attached letter. [Extracted from the article]

The article presents a report of the Congressional Research Service which reviews the most common procedures that govern civil suits against the federal government, tracing the path from federal district court to the Supreme Court in the U.S. It mentions that the complaint must contain three main elements namely show that the court has jurisdiction, set forth plausible allegations that the defendant has violated the law in some way, and request relief that would remedy the plaintiff's harm.

The article offers information on the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) is a projection of the forces, resources, and programs to support Department of Defense (DOD) operations, It mentions the FYDP captures resource management decisions for projected DOD activities associated with normal, peacetime operations; and also mentions the FYDP is generally submitted to the congressional committees with jurisdiction over defense matters.