#govdoc

[gov-info]

National Archives: Native American Heritage Month

Treaty between the Ottawa, Chippewa, Wyandot, and Potawatomi Indians. 

[gov-info]

Congess Gov Doc: Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for High Crimes and Misdemeanors (11 January 2021)

Resolved, the Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE 1: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment, for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States from "hold[ing] and office ... under the United States.' In his conduct while President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, provide, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that:

On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a Joint Session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. There, he reiterated false claims that "we won this election, and we won it by a landslide." He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged — and foreseeably resulted in — lawless action at the Capitol, such as: "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session's solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive and seditious acts.

President Trump's conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to "find" enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

[gov-info]

CRS Gov Doc: The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

Under the U.S. Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to formally charge a federal officer with wrongdoing, a process known as impeachment. The House impeaches an individual when a majority agrees to a House resolution containing explanations of the charges. The explanations in the resolution are referred to as “articles of impeachment.” After the House agrees to impeach an officer, the role of the Senate is to conduct a trial to determine whether the charged individual should be removed from office. Removal requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment. MORE...

[gov-info]

This report provides a brief description of the SBA’s programs and examines congressional action to assist small businesses during and immediately following the Great Recession (2007-2009) and during the COVID-19 pandemic

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) administers several types of programs to support small businesses, including direct disaster loan programsfor businesses, homeowners, and renters; loan guaranty and venture capital programs; management and technical assistance training programs; and contracting programs.Congressional interest in these programs has always been high, primarily because small businesses are viewed as a means to stimulate economic activity and create jobs, but it has become especially acute in the wake of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic’s widespread adverse economic impact on the national economy.

[gov-info]

Executive Order on Enabling All Qualified Americans to Serve Their Country in Uniform | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. All Americans who are qualified to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States (“Armed Forces”) should be able to serve. The All-Volunteer Force thrives when it is composed of…

25 January 2021 | President Biden signed an Executive Order reversing the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:     Section 1.  Policy.  All Americans who are qualified to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States (“Armed Forces”) should be able to serve.  The All-Volunteer Force thrives when it is composed of diverse Americans who can meet the rigorous standards for military service, and an inclusive military strengthens our national security.     It is my conviction as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces that gender identity should not be a bar to military service.  Moreover, there is substantial evidence that allowing transgender individuals to serve in the military does not have any meaningful negative impact on the Armed Forces.  To that end, in 2016, a meticulous, comprehensive study requested by the Department of Defense found that enabling transgender individuals to serve openly in the United States military would have only a minimal impact on military readiness and healthcare costs.  The study also concluded that open transgender service has had no significant impact on operational effectiveness or unit cohesion in foreign militaries.     On the basis of this information, the Secretary of Defense concluded in 2016 that permitting transgender individuals to serve openly in the military was consistent with military readiness and with strength through diversity, such that transgender service  members who could meet the required standards and procedures should be permitted to serve openly.  The Secretary of Defense also concluded that it was appropriate to create a process that would enable service members to take steps to transition gender while serving.     The previous administration chose to alter that policy to bar transgender persons, in almost all circumstances, from joining the Armed Forces and from being able to take steps to transition gender while serving.  Rather than relying on the comprehensive study by a nonpartisan federally funded research center, the previous administration relied on a review that resulted in a policy that set unnecessary barriers to military service.  It is my judgment that the Secretary of Defense’s 2016 conclusions remain valid, as further demonstrated by the fact that, in 2018, the then-serving Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Chief of Staff of the Air Force all testified publicly to the Congress that they were not aware of any issues of unit cohesion, disciplinary problems, or issues of morale resulting from open transgender service.  A group of former United States Surgeons General, who collectively served under Democratic and Republican Presidents, echoed this point, stating in 2018 that “transgender troops are as medically fit as their non‑transgender peers and that there is no medically valid reason — including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria — to exclude them from military service or to limit their access to medically necessary care.”     Therefore, it shall be the policy of the United States to ensure that all transgender individuals who wish to serve in the United States military and can meet the appropriate standards shall be able to do so openly and free from discrimination.     Sec. 2.  Revocation.  The Presidential Memorandum of March 23, 2018 (Military Service by Transgender Individuals), is hereby revoked, and the Presidential Memorandum of August 25, 2017 (Military Service by Transgender Individuals), remains revoked.     Sec. 3.  Agency Roles and Responsibilities.  In furtherance of the policy described in section 1 of this order, I hereby direct the following:     (a)  The Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, shall, after consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff about how best to implement this policy and consistent with applicable law, take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, regulations, and policies of their respective departments are consistent with this order.  These steps shall include establishing a process by which transgender service members may transition gender while serving, along with any further steps that the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security deem appropriate to advance the policy described in section 1 of this order.     (b)  The Secretary of Defense shall: (i)    immediately prohibit involuntary separations, discharges, and denials of reenlistment or continuation of service on the basis of gender identity or under circumstances relating to their gender identity; (ii)   identify and examine the records of service members who have been involuntarily separated, discharged, or denied reenlistment or continuation of service on the basis of gender identity or under circumstances relating to their gender identity; (iii)  issue guidance to the Secretaries of each military department regarding the correction of the military records of individuals described in subsection (b)(ii) of this section as necessary to remove an injustice, pursuant to section 1552(a) of title 10, United States Code, to the extent permitted by law; and (iv)   direct the Secretaries of each military department to provide supplemental guidance, subject to the approval of the Secretary, to the boards for the correction of military records, instructing such boards on how to review applications for the correction of records of individuals described in subsection (b)(ii) of this section.  Where appropriate, the department concerned shall offer such individuals an opportunity to rejoin the military should they wish to do so and meet the current entry standards.     (c)  The Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard shall: (i)    immediately prohibit involuntary separations, discharges, and denials of reenlistment or continuation of service, on the basis of gender identity or under circumstances relating to their gender identity; (ii)   identify and examine the records of service members who have been involuntarily separated, discharged, or denied reenlistment or continuation of service, on the basis of gender identity or under circumstances relating to their gender identity; (iii)  issue guidance regarding the correction of the military records of individuals described in subsection (c)(ii) of this section as necessary to remove an injustice, pursuant to section 1552(a) of title 10, United States Code, to the extent permitted by law; and (iv)   provide supplemental guidance to the Board for Correction of Military Records of the Coast Guard, instructing the Board on how to review applications for the correction of records of individuals described in subsection (c)(ii) of this section.  Where appropriate, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall offer such individuals an opportunity to rejoin the Coast Guard should they wish to do so and meet the current entry standards.     (d)  The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall report to me within 60 days of the date of this order on their progress in implementing the directives in this order and the policy described in section 1 of this order.     Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.     (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.     (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                            JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.                              THE WHITE HOUSE,                                 January 25, 2021.

[gov-info]

DHS Gov Doc/Resource: 11 January is Human Trafficking Awareness Day

To report suspected human trafficking to Federal law enforcement: 1-866-347-2423

To get help from the National Human Trafficking Hotline: [phone] or text HELP or INFO to BeFree (233733) 

Blue Campaign is a national public awareness campaign, designed to educate the public, law enforcement and other industry partners to recognize the indicators of human trafficking, and how to appropriately respond to possible cases. Blue Campaign works closely with DHS Components to create general awareness training and materials for law enforcement and others to increase detection of human trafficking, and to identify victims.

Access a collection of campaign materials, trainings, and videos from the Blue Campaign:

Document Library                                        

Awareness Training                                                    

Awareness Videos       

[gov-info]

EPA Gov Doc/Data: Interactive Map of Radon Zones Including State Radon Information and Contacts

January is National Radon Action Month

[gov-info]

A federal judge halted the last two federal executions set to take place during the Trump administration after both death-row inmates tested positive for COVID-19.

With over 376,000 Americans dead and more than twenty-one million infected, the COVID-19 pandemic “need[s] no elaboration.” Merrill v. People First of Ala., 141 S. Ct. 25, 26 (2020) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). And with each day bringing a new record number of infections, “the COVID-19 pandemic remains extraordinarily serious and deadly.” Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 73 (2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). 

Among the most susceptible to the spread of COVID-19 is the prison inmate population. As several outbreaks have shown, “COVID-19 can overtake a prison in a matter of weeks.” Valentine v. Collier, 141 S. Ct. 57, 62 (2020) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (discussing one facility which recorded over 200 cases, 5 deaths, and 12 hospitalizations in less than three weeks). This is unsurprising given that most inmates are unable to socially distance, have limited access to adequate testing, and are often housed in buildings with poor circulation. 

Despite the pandemic, and the current record high rates of infections and fatalities, Defendants intend to go forward with the scheduled executions of Plaintiffs Cory Johnson and Dustin Higgs on January 14 and 15, 2021, although both men have been diagnosed with COVID- 2 19. Higgs and Johnson are housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana, a facility experiencing its own “massive COVID-19 outbreak.” Michael Balsamo & Michael R. Sisak, Execution staff have COVID-19 after inmate put to death, AP News (Dec. 8, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/prisons-coronavirus-pandemic-executions-terre-haute-indianae80af6a566bbff50ed5e9a097c305dbb. 

Defendants intend to carry out the executions according to the procedures set forth in the Federal Bureau of Prisons 2019 Execution Protocol (the 2019 Protocol), which includes a lethal injection of five grams of pentobarbital. Plaintiffs received notice of their diagnoses less than a month before their executions—after Defendants assured the court that “allegations regarding the prevalence of COVID-19 at [] Terre Haute . . . are dated” and that adequate procedures were in place to protect the inmate population. (ECF No. 306-1 at 10 n.3.) Plaintiffs have asked the court to enjoin their executions, arguing that injection of a lethal dose of pentobarbital given their COVID-19 infections will cause them to suffer an excruciating death. Specifically, they argue that damage to their lungs and other organs will cause them to experience the sensation of drowning caused by flash pulmonary edema almost immediately after injection but before they are rendered unconscious. 

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims here are the same as those previously rejected by the Supreme Court. (See ECF No. 380, Defs. Opp’n at 17.)1 The court disagrees. Plaintiffs have pleaded as-applied Eighth Amendment challenges based on their specific health conditions. Moreover, they allege that their health has been worsened by their infection with COVID-19, an illness which has resulted in a global pandemic for the better part of a year. Given these unique circumstances, the court held an evidentiary hearing to assess the credibility of the parties’ expert opinions. 

Having heard and reviewed the expert testimony, the court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their as-applied Eighth Amendment challenge. Specifically, they have demonstrated that as a result of their COVID-19 infection, they have suffered significant lung damage such that they will experience the effects of flash pulmonary edema one to two seconds after injection and before the pentobarbital has the opportunity to reach the brain. This will subject Plaintiffs to a sensation of drowning akin to waterboarding, a side effect that could be avoided were Defendants to implement certain precautions, such as administering a pre-dose analgesic or carrying out the execution by firing squad. 

For the reasons set forth below, and in light of these unprecedented circumstances, the court will grant a limited injunction to allow Plaintiffs the opportunity to adequately recover from COVID-19, at which point it will evaluate whether to extend the injunction in light of any new medical evidence submitted by the parties.