Week in Review

IN THE NEWS

• President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order enforcing a federal law requiring those operating commercial vehicles to be able to read and speak English. The law requires English proficiency sufficient “to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals…, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.” President Trump claims the order will ensure “a safe, secure, and efficient motor carrier industry,” and protect the safety of American truckers, drivers, and passengers. He cites the law’s previous lack of enforcement as a reason why America’s roadways have become less safe. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt commented on the order in a briefing, calling it a “common sense policy.”
• President Trump issued a proclamation adjusting the United States’ existing 25 percent tariff on imports of automobiles and certain automobile parts to encourage manufacturers to assemble automobiles in the United States. Under the new framework, a percentage of the tariff will be offset for imported automobile parts used in U.S.-assembled vehicles. The proclamation is intended to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign automobiles and “to protect national security by incentivizing domestic automobile production.”
• A federal judge ordered a hearing to investigate the “strong suspicion” that the Trump Administration “deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials removed the two-year-old citizen to Honduras while deporting her undocumented mother. ICE officials reportedly removed two more citizens—aged four and seven—to Honduras along with their undocumented mother during this same time. In response, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a statement asserting that it is “not deporting American children” and that, instead, the undocumented mothers independently chose to bring their children with them while being deported.
• A federal judge barred the Trump Administration from deporting any Venezuelans from South Texas using the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime act. Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. ruled that the deportation of alleged gang members exceeds the scope of the act. Judge Rodriguez held that Congress did not intend for the act to be used this way, as it had only been previously deployed during the two World Wars and the War of 1812. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the Alien Enemies Act recently, holding that “migrants alleged to be gang members must be given ‘reasonable time’ to contest their removal from the country.” The Trump Administration is yet to appeal the decision.
• A federal judge temporarily blocked President Trump’s executive order withholding the right to join a labor union from approximately two-thirds of federal employees. The judge’s order also temporarily blocked the Office of Personnel Management’s guidance on implementing the executive order. In the opinion, the judge determined that this order and guidance likely overstepped the President’s authority and likely violated statutory collective bargaining protections for federal workers.
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) withdrew a 2024 proposed rule intended to reduce instances of salmonella contamination from raw poultry products. USDA claimed that the proposed rule would have imposed “significant financial and operational burdens on American businesses and consumers,” citing concerns raised in public comments from both the poultry industry and consumer advocacy organizations. The National Chicken Council, an industry trade group, praised the withdrawal, arguing that USDA misinterpreted science and that the rule would have increased costs without meaningfully impacting public health. Advocates for food safety, however, reportedly criticized USDA’s decision, noting the prevalence of preventable foodborne salmonella infections linked to poultry.
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule outlining a three-step framework for regulating agricultural insecticides and protecting endangered and threatened species and critical habitats. EPA promised to develop a new insecticide plan as part of its 2023 settlement of a lawsuit filed by environmental groups claiming that EPA was violating the Endangered Species Act. Under the new framework, EPA will consider geographic variability and differences in species and habitats to minimize unnecessary insecticides restrictions. The rule is intended to protect wildlife without “burdening growers with unrealistic requirements.”
• EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced upcoming agency action to address Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)—man-made chemicals known for their oil and water-resistant properties that make them longlasting in the body. The announcement included the designation of an agency lead, the creation of guidelines to stop PFAS from entering drinking water, and initiatives to establish a framework to protect consumers and hold polluters accountable. Zeldin said that EPA is guided by three principles: “strengthening the science” with additional research; “fulfilling statutory obligations and enhancing communication;” and “building partnerships” with the public and states.

WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK

• In an article in the Georgetown Law Journal, Robyn M. Powell, an assistant professor at Stetson University College of Law, examined how the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization threatens the reproductive autonomy of people with disabilities. Powell argued that disabled people—who already face systemic barriers to contraception, abortion, and reproductive health care—may now be forced into pregnancies that could be physically dangerous or unwanted. She also detailed how people with disabilities are at risk of losing custody of their children due to laws and family surveillance systems that presume them unfit to parent. Powell proposed a “disability reproductive justice” framework that centers bodily autonomy, family integrity, and anti-ableist reforms as essential to securing reproductive freedom for disabled people in a post-Dobbs
• In a recent article, Benjamin Barsky, an associate professor of law at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, argued that The Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act—which prohibits the prescription of controlled substances over tele-health platforms—limits the ability of these medications to treat opioid addiction. The act requires an in-person evaluation of patients before they can be prescribed controlled substances. Barsky explained that this requirement especially harms people in rural or medically sparse communities, going against telehealth’s goal of making medical care more accessible. Barksy proposed that the S. Drug Enforcement Administration establish a “special registration pathway,” allowing physicians to prescribe medication to treat opioid addiction without the in-person evaluation.
• In a recent Brookings Institution article, Sarah Graham, a research operations manager, Lama Mohammed, a tech policy fellow, and Joshua A. Tucker, a professor of politics and co-director, all at New York University’s Center for Social Media and Politics, emphasized the challenges that researchers and regulators face when studying social platforms and attempting to regulate them. The Graham team noted that researchers can retrieve data from social platforms directly, from individuals users of social platforms, or from “web scraping,” a kind of automated data collection that captures information from websites and apps. Each method of data collection poses significant challenges, they argued, leading to a lack of adequate research on social platforms and “under-informed” regulatory policy debates. Graham and her coauthors contended that democratizing access to social media data would “help policymakers make effective, evidence-based decisions on future technology regulation.”

EDITOR’S CHOICE

• In an essay in The Regulatory Review, Harvey L. Reiter, senior counsel at Stinson LLP, explored how the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine” could be used to challenge President Trump’s executive orders imposing reciprocal tariffs on imports. Reiter argued that these tariffs, justified under emergency powers such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), lack clear congressional authorization—a requirement under the major questions doctrine for policies with significant economic or political impact. He discussed a lawsuit brought by a Florida importer, Simplified, that contends that the Trump Administration’s justification of trade deficits as an “emergency” is insufficient under the IEEPA. Reiter concluded that this same legal reasoning previously used to limit liberal regulatory actions could now be used to constrain executive overreach on trade policy.