This poem celebrates fifty-six brave and courageous men who chose to sign the Declaration of Independence:
They gathered not as perfect men,
But men who knew the gathering storm;
This poem celebrates fifty-six brave and courageous men who chose to sign the Declaration of Independence:
They gathered not as perfect men,
But men who knew the gathering storm;
Ohio has enacted a new law governing the use of drones by law enforcement, reflecting the growing effort by legislatures to adapt Fourth Amendment principles to rapidly evolving surveillance technologies. Signed by Governor Mike DeWine, House Bill 251 establishes that, in most situations, police officers must obtain a search warrant before using a drone to conduct a search when a warrant would also have been required had officers entered the location in person.
The legislation recognizes that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become increasingly valuable investigative tools while also raising significant privacy concerns. Until now, Ohio law addressed some warrant requirements for surveillance conducted from manned aircraft but did not specifically regulate drones. House Bill 251 fills that gap by extending traditional constitutional search principles to unmanned aerial surveillance.
Few issues illustrate the continuing moral and legal debate over capital punishment more clearly than the sharply contrasting positions of Pope Leo XIV and Donald Trump. One approaches the death penalty primarily as a question of the inherent dignity of every human person; the other views it principally as an essential instrument of justice, punishment, and public safety.
This difference is not merely theological or political. It reflects two fundamentally different understandings of criminal justice, the purposes of punishment, and the role of government in responding to the most serious crimes.
David G. Badertscher
“Every generation of legal researchers inherits new tools. Their enduring responsibility is to learn how to use them wisely.”
Introduction
Budget reconciliation is a special congressional procedure created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that allows Congress to consider legislation affecting federal spending, revenues (taxes), and the debt limit under expedited procedures. Most notably, reconciliation bills can pass the Senate with a simple majority vote rather than the 60 votes normally needed to overcome a filibuster. As a result, reconciliation has become one of the most important tools for enacting major fiscal policy changes. The following is an overview of the congressional budget reconciliation process and a discussion of its importance to librarians, researchers, and the general public.
Reconciliation is designed to align existing laws with the fiscal goals established in a congressional budget resolution. It can be used to:
Source: Mohamed Obaidy, Associate Director, Economic Policy Team, Center for New York City Affairs (CNYCA), Income Polarization Redux: NYC’s Wage Gains Are (Again) Flowing to the Top (2026).
In Income Polarization Redux: NYC’s Wage Gains Are (Again) Flowing to the Top, Mohamed Obaidy examines recent wage, employment, and productivity trends in New York City and concludes that economic gains are becoming increasingly concentrated among higher-income workers and higher-paying industries. While New York City’s economy continues to grow and workers are becoming more productive, the benefits of that growth are not being distributed evenly across the workforce.
From: Congressional Budget Office (CBO), June 8, 2026.
By Chapin White, CBO’s Director of Health Analysis.
This week, several of my colleagues in the Congressional Budget Office’s Health Analysis Division are participating in sessions at the 15th Annual Conference of the American Society of Health Economists (ASHEcon) in Minneapolis. The sessions are part of CBO’s ongoing efforts to engage with the broader research community. Such engagement improves the quality of CBO’s analysis and makes the agency’s methods and findings more transparent and available. CBO looks forward to discussion and feedback on the following topics.
Can a government investigate allegations of politically motivated law enforcement without creating new concerns about political influence over the justice system? That question lies at the center of the debate surrounding the Department of Justice’s Weaponization Working Group. This article explores the origins and objectives of the Working Group, summarizes its stated mission, and reviews the differing reactions it has generated within the criminal defense community. In doing so, it seeks to highlight the broader constitutional and institutional questions raised whenever government examines the exercise of its own prosecutorial power.
In February 2025, Pam Bondi, soon after being sworn in as Attorney General of the U.S Department of Justice , signed a memorandum creating the Department of Justice’s Weaponization Working Group, a special initiative charged with examining allegations that federal law enforcement and prosecutorial powers may have been used for political purposes. The establishment of the DOJ Working Group followed President Donald Trump’s more broadly based Executive Order 14147 entitled Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government, which directed federal agencies to review actions allegedly taken against individuals or groups based upon political considerations.
To clarify: