Criminal Law Library BlogFrom the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), July 18, 2025.
CBO was asked to assess the effects of a permanent 10 percent reduction in NIH funding and a nine-month increase in FDA review times of new drug applications.
SUMMARY STATEMENT:
Articles Tagged with Federal government
H.R. 1 (119th Cong.): Summary of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” *
On July 4, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed into law H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” enacted as Pub. L. No. 119–21, 139 Stat. ___ (2025). Passed through the budget reconciliation process under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this comprehensive legislation represents a central pillar of the Trump administration’s second-term domestic agenda. It enacts sweeping reforms to the federal tax code, restructures discretionary and entitlement spending. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act does not suspend the debt ceiling through FY 2027. Instead, it raises the debt limit by a specific $5 trillion—an amount projected to sustain federal borrowing for roughly one to two years [i.e., until 2026–27, depending on fiscal trends].
Legislative History and Process
H.R. 1 advanced through Congress under budget reconciliation procedures, thereby circumventing the Senate filibuster and requiring only a simple majority for passage. This expedited pathway allowed the bill’s tax and spending provisions to be consolidated into a single legislative package and enacted swiftly along party lines.
H.R. 1605 SOPRA
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Cost Estimate July 9, 2025.
In the context of the US Congress, SOPRA refers to the Separation of Powers Restoration Act. It’s a legislative proposal aimed at amending the Administrative Procedure Act to change how courts review agency actions. Specifically, SOPRA seeks to eliminate the practice of “Chevron deference,” where courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law if it’s deemed reasonable, and instead require courts to review legal questions de novo, meaning without deference to the agency’s interpretation.
COST ESTIMATE LETTER JULY 9 2025
Congress, the Constitution, and Command: Lawmaking and War Powers in a Divided Government
The legislative branch of the United States government (embodied in Congress, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate) is the cornerstone of the federal lawmaking process and a central pillar of the constitutional system of checks and balances. Through its exclusive powers to enact laws, oversee the executive branch, and shape national policy, Congress functions within a broader framework of shared authority known as the separation of powers.
In this posting, we explore key questions surrounding the legislative process, followed by overviews of congressional powers beyond lawmaking, the practical operation of separation of powers, and the exercise of war powers in a divided government. Our goal is to provide material that will be useful to law and legislative librarians, the legal profession at large, and anyone whose work or civic responsibilities require engagement with these fundamental issues.
I. Lawmaking Authority
Why State Constitutions Matter More Than You Think: Reflections on “Your State Has a Constitution. Why Not Use It?”
In a timely and thought-provoking piece published in the Criminal Justice Magazine (Spring 2025), Richard Alan Ginkowski, a judge, and legal educator who has contributed to American Bar Association publications, urges legal professionals and advocates to take a closer look at an often-overlooked resource: their own state constitutions. His article, titled “Your State Has a Constitution. Why Not Use It?,” appears in the Spring 2025 issue of Criminal Justice Magazine, a publication of the ABA’s Criminal Justice Section.
Ginkowski’s analysis highlights how state constitutions, often richer in individual rights and more flexible than their federal counterpart, can serve as powerful tools in advancing criminal justice reform, protecting civil liberties, and shaping legal strategy. By drawing attention to recent judicial decisions and emerging advocacy trends, the article reminds practitioners that when federal remedies fall short, state constitutional claims may offer a compelling alternative.
This article is essential reading for anyone involved in litigation, policymaking, or public interest advocacy, offering a fresh perspective on how to reinvigorate the use of state-level constitutional law in the pursuit of justice.
How H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Would Affect the Distribution of Resources Available to Households
From the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), June 12, 2025:*
OVERVIEW:
“This interactive tool illustrates the distributional effects of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It allows users to explore how H.R. 1, as passed by the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025, would affect the economic resources available to households grouped on the basis of their income. (See CBO’s estimate of the budgetary effects of the bill.)
Debt Service Effects Derived from H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Report, June 5, 2025.
CBO estimates that debt-service costs under H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, would total $551 billion over the 2025–2034 period—increasing the bill’s cumulative effect on the deficit to $3.0 trillion.
Summary:
Defending the Defenders: Lawyers, Democracy, and the Limits of Presidential Power
Opening Statement:
In a democracy founded on the rule of law, the independence of the legal profession is not merely a professional concern, it is a public necessity. Recent events involving unprecedented attempts to target a prominent law firm highlight the critical intersection between the role of lawyers and the constitutional limits on presidential power. Understanding this moment requires not only examining the specific facts but appreciating the broader principles at stake: free speech, access to counsel, and the preservation of democratic governance against executive overreach.
Introduction
Dualist Democracy and the Trump Administration–Judicial Authority in Extraordinary Times
This posting consists of commentary on Roger Citron’s article, Judge Wilkinson’s Dualist Opinion in Abrego Garcio v. Noem: Judicial Review of Executive Action in a Transformative Time, amplified with information from additional sources related to Bruce Ackerman’s theory of the United States as a dualist democracy.
In his article, Roger Citron revisits Bruce Ackerman’s theory of the United States as a dualist democracy, presenting a timely analysis of how this framework sheds light on current constitutional tensions. Through a close reading of Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III’s opinion in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, Citron suggests we may be witnessing an effort at higher lawmaking—a constitutional transformation driven not just by legal arguments, but by political and public realignment.
Ackerman’s concept of dualist democracy, introduced in We the People: Foundations, distinguishes between two modes of governance (Bruce Ackerman, We the People: Foundations 6–8 (1991),
CBO: Projections of Deficits and Debt Under Alternative Scenarios for the Budget and Interest Rates
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)* analyzed the effects of alternative budget scenarios in which provisions of the 2017 tax act were extended and the average interest rate on federal debt increased.
Summary:
This letter responds to a request for an analysis of projected deficits and debt under alternative scenarios for the budget and interest rates. Specifically, Congressman Schweikert asked how CBO’s baseline projections of deficits and debt—which reflect the scheduled expiration of certain provisions of the 2017 tax act (Public Law 115-97) under current law—would change if all provisions of that act were extended permanently. Congressman Schweikert also asked how the projections would change further if interest rates were higher than expected.