vox--2020-05-06--Kamala Harris and Ayanna Pressley have a $125 billion plan to help the smallest businesses

Despite Congress ’ s approval of more than $ 720 billion to help small businesses during the pandemic , many businesses and nonprofits have been completely shut out of receiving this support .
A new bill from Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley ( D-MA ) aims to help fix this disparity : The Saving Our Street Act , which was shared exclusively with Vox , would allocate grants of up to $ 250,000 to businesses that have fewer than 10 employees .
The specific targeting of these “ micro-businesses ” is intended to ensure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much-needed stimulus : Recent Small Business Administration data shows that companies with assets of $ 10 billion or more still make up the majority of those receiving loans through the Paycheck Protection Program .
And while the latest round of PPP funding has featured fewer large loans ( categorized as $ 2 million or more ) than the previous wave , obstacles remain .
With millions of companies competing for bites of a too-small pie , the design of the program — which is open to businesses with 500 employees or fewer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chains — still means smaller businesses have missed out .
Because larger companies had more resources to apply for these loans quickly — and many banks prioritized their applications — smaller firms have been less likely to get approval before funds are depleted .
As a result , chains including Shake Shack were able to obtain loans in the first round of funding , which they ’ ve since returned , while smaller mom-and-pop businesses were left in limbo .
The SOS Act seeks to prevent this dynamic from playing out again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ grants — 75 percent — to business and nonprofit owners from underrepresented groups , which were less likely to benefit from existing loan options as well .
As defined by the legislation , these underrepresented groups include people of color , women , and veterans , among others .
“ For the millions of micro ... and minority-owned businesses left out of the Paycheck Protection Program or shuffled to the back of the line , the Saving Our Street Act provides a critical lifeline , ” says Amanda Ballantyne , the executive director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group for small businesses that supports the bill .
As is the case with many Democratic stimulus proposals , a major outstanding question is whether this legislation can pick up enough bipartisan support to advance in a divided Congress .
How the bill would work The legislation allocates $ 124.5 billion to a new grant program focused solely on microbusinesses .
That means businesses with fewer than 10 employees , but entities located in lower-income neighborhoods that have as many as 20 employees could also be eligible .
To qualify , businesses must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gross revenue per year , and nonprofits must bring in less than $ 500,000 in gross annual receipts .
Publicly traded companies and hedge-fund-owned businesses are explicitly excluded .
These thresholds are intended to target the aid explicitly at a swath of neighborhood businesses that may need it , a Harris staffer tells Vox .
According to Awesta Sarkash , the government affairs manager at advocacy group Small Business Majority , more than 80 percent of small businesses have fewer than 20 employees , and the average annual revenue of those with less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million or less .
The application for these grants would also differ from the existing Economic Injury Disaster Loan ( EIDL ) program and the PPP .
Instead of applying through the SBA or banks , businesses would apply directly with the Treasury Department , which would work with the IRS to get the money out to them .
( The IRS ’ s existing infrastructure — already used to dole out tax refunds and other federal benefits — could make it a more efficient body than SBA for distributing grants at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nonprofits that qualify for the grants could obtain up to $ 250,000 each to cover costs including payroll , rent , and utilities .
As part of the application , businesses also need to demonstrate that they ’ ve experienced a 20 percent month-over-month gross revenue decline since February 15 , 2020 , and commit to maintaining health care benefits for their employees .
Businesses aren ’ t able to use these grants to pay for salaries over $ 100,000 , and they ’ d still be eligible for the grants if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EIDL loan — as long as the money is used for a different purpose .
Importantly , too , the bill specifically designates 75 percent of the grant funds to underrepresented businesses .
As CBS News reported , experts estimated that up to 90 percent of women and minority business owners were unable to secure PPP funding in the first round because of the way the program was set up .
Many large banks like Bank of America , for example , would only take applications from existing clients , and people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established relationships .
The SOS Act also intends to offer more transparency than the programs that have already been established when it comes to collecting data on factors including gender and race of the small business and nonprofit owners who are participating in it .
More money could well be needed for small business programs So far , Congress has approved hundreds of billions of dollars to fund both PPP and EIDL , but it ’ s likely it won ’ t be enough .
Given the immense demand for both loan programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are thousands of small businesses that could still need the financial support once the funding for these efforts runs out again .
As Congress weighs another stimulus package , a third boost to small business funding could well be needed to address this shortage — something both parties have been able to get on board with in the past .
The appetite for more funding , however , may be waning .
Although supporting small businesses has been a bipartisan priority up until this point , Republicans have begun to signal concerns about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to worries about adding to the national debt .
Whether lawmakers can sort out their differences on this front will have a major effect on if the SOS Act — and other small business support — is able to move forward .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Despite Congress’s approval of more than $720 billion to help small businesses during the pandemic, many businesses and nonprofits have been completely shut out of receiving this support.
A new bill from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) aims to help fix this disparity: The Saving Our Street Act, which was shared exclusively with Vox, would allocate grants of up to $250,000 to businesses that have fewer than 10 employees.
The specific targeting of these “micro-businesses” is intended to ensure that smaller entities aren’t excluded from much-needed stimulus: As NPR reports, recent Small Business Administration data shows that the average loan size has been smaller in the second wave of funding, but larger loans still took up 16 percent of funds, while going to just 0.35 percent of recipients.
Despite the progress in the second round of funding, inequities remain. With millions of companies competing for bites of a too-small pie, the design of the program — which is open to businesses with 500 employees or fewer, as well as large hotel and restaurant chains — still means smaller businesses have missed out.
Because larger companies had more resources to apply for these loans quickly — and many banks prioritized their applications — smaller firms have been less likely to get approval before funds are depleted. As a result, chains including Shake Shack were able to obtain loans in the first round of funding, which they’ve since returned, while smaller mom-and-pop businesses were left in limbo.
The SOS Act seeks to prevent this dynamic from playing out again. It also designates the majority of its grants — 75 percent — to business and nonprofit owners from underrepresented groups, which were less likely to benefit from existing loan options as well. As defined by the legislation, these underrepresented groups include people of color, women, and veterans, among others.
“For the millions of micro ... and minority-owned businesses left out of the Paycheck Protection Program or shuffled to the back of the line, the Saving Our Street Act provides a critical lifeline,” says Amanda Ballantyne, the executive director of Main Street Alliance, an advocacy group for small businesses that supports the bill.
As is the case with many Democratic stimulus proposals, a major outstanding question is whether this legislation can pick up enough bipartisan support to advance in a divided Congress.
How the bill would work
The legislation allocates $124.5 billion to a new grant program focused solely on microbusinesses. That means businesses with fewer than 10 employees, but entities located in lower-income neighborhoods that have as many as 20 employees could also be eligible.
To qualify, businesses must make less than $1 million in gross revenue per year, and nonprofits must bring in less than $500,000 in gross annual receipts. Publicly traded companies and hedge-fund-owned businesses are explicitly excluded.
These thresholds are intended to target the aid explicitly at a swath of neighborhood businesses that may need it, a Harris staffer tells Vox. According to Awesta Sarkash, the government affairs manager at advocacy group Small Business Majority, more than 80 percent of small businesses have fewer than 20 employees, and the average annual revenue of those with less than 10 employees is about $1 million or less.
The application for these grants would also differ from the existing Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program and the PPP. Instead of applying through the SBA or banks, businesses would apply directly with the Treasury Department, which would work with the IRS to get the money out to them. (The IRS’s existing infrastructure — already used to dole out tax refunds and other federal benefits — could make it a more efficient body than SBA for distributing grants at this scale, Sarkash notes.)
Businesses and nonprofits that qualify for the grants could obtain up to $250,000 each to cover costs including payroll, rent, and utilities.
As part of the application, businesses also need to demonstrate that they’ve experienced a 20 percent month-over-month gross revenue decline since February 15, 2020, and commit to maintaining health care benefits for their employees. Businesses aren’t able to use these grants to pay for salaries over $100,000, and they’d still be eligible for the grants if they’ve received a PPP or EIDL loan — as long as the money is used for a different purpose.
Importantly, too, the bill specifically designates 75 percent of the grant funds to underrepresented businesses. As CBS News reported, experts estimated that up to 90 percent of women and minority business owners were unable to secure PPP funding in the first round because of the way the program was set up. Many large banks like Bank of America, for example, would only take applications from existing clients, and people of color were less likely to have these established relationships.
The SOS Act also intends to offer more transparency than the programs that have already been established when it comes to collecting data on factors including gender and race of the small business and nonprofit owners who are participating in it.
More money could well be needed for small business programs
So far, Congress has approved hundreds of billions of dollars to fund both PPP and EIDL, but it’s likely it won’t be enough.
Given the immense demand for both loan programs during the current economic downturn, there are thousands of small businesses that could still need the financial support once the funding for these efforts runs out again.
As Congress weighs another stimulus package, a third boost to small business funding could well be needed to address this shortage — something both parties have been able to get on board with in the past.
The appetite for more funding, however, may be waning. Although supporting small businesses has been a bipartisan priority up until this point, Republicans have begun to signal concerns about committing to another ambitious funding package due to worries about adding to the national debt.
Whether lawmakers can sort out their differences on this front will have a major effect on if the SOS Act — and other small business support — is able to move forward.
Correction, May 7: A previous version of this article misidentified the share of loans in the Paycheck Protection Program coming from large banks as the share going to large companies.


vox--2020-05-06--Trump administration releases new campus sexual assault rules in the midst of the pandemic

Two years ago , the Trump administration ’ s Department of Education proposed new rules governing the way schools around the country handle sexual harassment and assault .
The proposal led to an outcry among survivors and their advocates : Because it would allow direct cross-examination of people who report sexual assault , many feared the changes would stop survivors from ever coming forward .
Since then , the Trump administration has been reviewing comments on the rules and developing a final version .
And on Wednesday , with much of the country ’ s attention focused on the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many schools closed — the Education Department released them .
The rules include many of the provisions that survivors ’ groups have been worried about : the requirement that schools allow direct cross-examination , as well as a narrower definition of sexual harassment and permission for schools to use a standard of evidence seen as more favorable to those who are accused of harassment or assault .
The department says the changes are necessary to safeguard all students , including those who are falsely accused .
“ Too many students have lost access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded when a student filed a complaint of sexual harassment or sexual assault , ” Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said in a statement announcing the rule changes .
“ This new regulation requires schools to act in meaningful ways to support survivors of sexual misconduct , without sacrificing important safeguards to ensure a fair and transparent process.
” But advocates for survivors of sexual assault have strongly criticized the new rules .
“ Today , Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration have shown , once again , that they have no interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sage Carson , manager of Know Your IX , a project combating sexual violence at schools and on college campuses , said in a statement .
Advocates have long been concerned about how the Education Department ’ s proposed changes would affect survivors .
“ We view these rules as requiring schools to use procedures that treat victims unfairly , ” Shiwali Patel , director of Justice for Student Survivors and senior counsel at the National Women ’ s Law Center ( NWLC ) , told Vox in April , when many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ultimately , she said , the changes will “ make it harder for students who have experienced sexual harassment to come forward and to get the help that many need.
” Advocacy groups have also taken issue with the timing of the rules , which were finalized during a pandemic in which schools are struggling with the transition to online learning , the need to support homeless and food-insecure students , and other challenges .
“ In light of everything that ’ s happening , it ’ s quite shocking ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules now , Patel said .
The rules make big changes to the way schools are supposed to handle sexual harassment and assault The rules proposed in 2018 govern the implementation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 , which bans discrimination on the basis of sex in educational settings .
Over the years , courts have ruled that sexual harassment and assault are forms of gender discrimination prohibited by Title IX .
In 2011 , the Obama administration released what is now known as the “ Dear Colleague ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Title IX .
The letter was not a new law — rather , it was guidance explaining how schools should comply with existing legislation .
Among its core tenets was that in order to comply with Title IX , schools had to use a “ preponderance of the evidence ” standard when deciding sexual harassment and assault cases , meaning the accused would be found responsible if the evidence showed it was more likely than not that the violation occurred .
Prior to the letter ’ s release , some schools had used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence standard , which put a greater burden on accusers to show that the accused had committed misconduct .
Many survivor advocates say that , while not perfect , the 2011 letter signaled a new seriousness about sexual assault at the federal level .
In the years that followed , the issue got massive public attention , with many students holding their schools legally accountable for failing to keep them safe .
But accused students and the groups advocating on their behalf have long argued that the Obama-era guidance is unfair to them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sympathetic to this criticism , meeting in July 2017 with groups that support the rights of the accused , including the National Coalition for Men ( NCFM ) , a men ’ s rights group .
Then in September 2017 , DeVos rescinded the 2011 Obama guidance .
The move was part of a larger push by the Trump administration — and the Education Department in particular — to roll back Obama-era anti-discrimination protections , as Jeannie Suk Gersen noted at the New Yorker .
Under DeVos , the department also got rid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity , as well as guidance supporting affirmative action and detailing disabled students ’ rights .
In the case of sexual assault , the Education Department in November 2018 released proposed rules to replace the 2011 directive .
The proposal inspired immediate pushback from survivors ’ groups , who argued it would unfairly tilt the process of investigating sexual harassment and assault in favor of the accused .
Thousands of survivors and advocates submitted comments to the proposed rules , contending that the changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others to report harassment and receive justice .
“ I was a victim of sexual assault at a time when there were no protections at all , ” one commenter wrote , noting that the rules “ clearly favor saving an organization from possible liability .
These rules have nothing to do with what the right thing is to do.
” Since then , the Education Department has been reviewing those comments and working on the final rules .
Those rules , expected for months , were released on Wednesday .
Some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They require schools to allow direct cross-examination of both parties at Title IX hearings .
The 2011 guidance discouraged direct cross-examination , as “ allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim directly may be traumatic or intimidating , thereby possibly escalating or perpetuating a hostile environment.
” Instead , some schools , like the College of New Jersey , allow accused students to pose questions to a neutral hearing administrator , who can relay them to the reporting student .
Under the new rules , however , a lawyer or other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to directly cross-examine the reporting student .
The rules do allow both students to sit in separate rooms and answer questions remotely , if either requests it .
They change the evidentiary standard for sexual harassment and assault proceedings .
Under the new rules , schools may use either the preponderance standard or the “ clear and convincing ” standard in sexual harassment and assault cases .
They make it harder to find schools legally responsible for failing to address harassment and assault .
Under the 2011 rules , schools could be held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew about — or “ reasonably should ” have known about — an episode of harassment or assault .
Under the new guidelines , the school must have “ actual knowledge ” of the episode in order to be held responsible .
Also , schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events , not at most private , off-campus residences ( the final rule does amend the proposed rule to say that schools can be held responsible for incidents at school-sanctioned fraternity or sorority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for what counts as sexual harassment under Title IX .
The 2011 guidelines defined sexual harassment as “ unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.
” But the new rules set a stricter standard for what constitutes harassment , defining it as “ unwelcome conduct that a reasonable person would determine is so severe , pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school ’ s education program or activity.
” According to the NWLC , this change violates the very purpose of Title IX .
“ Title IX was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including sexual harassment , would never be the end of anyone ’ s education , ” Patel told Vox .
But the change to the definition of harassment could mean that students would not have grounds for a complaint until they were essentially being driven out of a class or school because of it .
“ It shouldn ’ t rise to that level before a school would have to take any action , ” Patel said .
Advocates are concerned about the impact on survivors Overall , the rules will lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and assault , Patel said .
“ The standard for the school to have to take action is so high , so they would be ignoring a lot of reports that come to them , ” she explained .
“ But even if the report does meet this high standard , the survivors would have to go through a process that ’ s just unfair to them.
” The NWLC and other groups also worry that the rules are being released now , in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic .
The group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sent a letter to the White House in March urging it to suspend rulemaking around Title IX during the crisis .
“ As schools scramble to create online resources and systems and otherwise reinvent themselves to meet this moment , they are also simultaneously channeling their resources to help meet these student needs in an unprecedented time of crisis , ” the letter stated .
The signatories also wrote that the Education Department “ should be utilizing its limited time and resources to provide much-needed relief for students and schools — not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it extremely difficult , confusing , and in some cases impossible for institutions to ensure that students feel safe in school.
” However , the administration is going forward with the rules anyway .
They are scheduled to go into effect on August 14 , when many schools across America are preparing for the fall term , while ( likely ) still figuring out what the pandemic means for them and their students .
The new rules will make it harder for survivors to report just “ as students struggle to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and pay rent as the unemployment rate soars , ” Carson , the Know Your IX manager , said in her statement .
“ What these students need is support , not another attack from DeVos and Trump.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Two years ago, the Trump administration’s Department of Education proposed new rules governing the way schools around the country handle sexual harassment and assault.
The proposal led to an outcry among survivors and their advocates: Because it would allow direct cross-examination of people who report sexual assault, many feared the changes would stop survivors from ever coming forward.
Since then, the Trump administration has been reviewing comments on the rules and developing a final version. And on Wednesday, with much of the country’s attention focused on the coronavirus pandemic and economic crisis — and with many schools closed — the Education Department released them.
The rules include many of the provisions that survivors’ groups have been worried about: the requirement that schools allow direct cross-examination, as well as a narrower definition of sexual harassment and permission for schools to use a standard of evidence seen as more favorable to those who are accused of harassment or assault.
The department says the changes are necessary to safeguard all students, including those who are falsely accused.
“Too many students have lost access to their education because their school inadequately responded when a student filed a complaint of sexual harassment or sexual assault,” Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said in a statement announcing the rule changes. “This new regulation requires schools to act in meaningful ways to support survivors of sexual misconduct, without sacrificing important safeguards to ensure a fair and transparent process.”
But advocates for survivors of sexual assault have strongly criticized the new rules. “Today, Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration have shown, once again, that they have no interest in supporting student survivors and their rights,” Sage Carson, manager of Know Your IX, a project combating sexual violence at schools and on college campuses, said in a statement.
Advocates have long been concerned about how the Education Department’s proposed changes would affect survivors. “We view these rules as requiring schools to use procedures that treat victims unfairly,” Shiwali Patel, director of Justice for Student Survivors and senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), told Vox in April, when many anticipated that the final rules were imminent. Ultimately, she said, the changes will “make it harder for students who have experienced sexual harassment to come forward and to get the help that many need.”
Advocacy groups have also taken issue with the timing of the rules, which were finalized during a pandemic in which schools are struggling with the transition to online learning, the need to support homeless and food-insecure students, and other challenges. “In light of everything that’s happening, it’s quite shocking” that the Education Department would move forward with the rules now, Patel said.
The rules make big changes to the way schools are supposed to handle sexual harassment and assault
The rules proposed in 2018 govern the implementation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex in educational settings. Over the years, courts have ruled that sexual harassment and assault are forms of gender discrimination prohibited by Title IX. In 2011, the Obama administration released what is now known as the “Dear Colleague” letter, explaining how it would enforce Title IX.
The letter was not a new law — rather, it was guidance explaining how schools should comply with existing legislation. Among its core tenets was that in order to comply with Title IX, schools had to use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard when deciding sexual harassment and assault cases, meaning the accused would be found responsible if the evidence showed it was more likely than not that the violation occurred. Prior to the letter’s release, some schools had used a higher “clear and convincing” evidence standard, which put a greater burden on accusers to show that the accused had committed misconduct.
Many survivor advocates say that, while not perfect, the 2011 letter signaled a new seriousness about sexual assault at the federal level. In the years that followed, the issue got massive public attention, with many students holding their schools legally accountable for failing to keep them safe.
But accused students and the groups advocating on their behalf have long argued that the Obama-era guidance is unfair to them. DeVos has, apparently, been sympathetic to this criticism, meeting in July 2017 with groups that support the rights of the accused, including the National Coalition for Men (NCFM), a men’s rights group.
Then in September 2017, DeVos rescinded the 2011 Obama guidance. The move was part of a larger push by the Trump administration — and the Education Department in particular — to roll back Obama-era anti-discrimination protections, as Jeannie Suk Gersen noted at the New Yorker. Under DeVos, the department also got rid of guidelines recommending that schools allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, as well as guidance supporting affirmative action and detailing disabled students’ rights.
In the case of sexual assault, the Education Department in November 2018 released proposed rules to replace the 2011 directive. The proposal inspired immediate pushback from survivors’ groups, who argued it would unfairly tilt the process of investigating sexual harassment and assault in favor of the accused. Thousands of survivors and advocates submitted comments to the proposed rules, contending that the changes would jeopardize the ability of students and others to report harassment and receive justice.
“I was a victim of sexual assault at a time when there were no protections at all,” one commenter wrote, noting that the rules “clearly favor saving an organization from possible liability. These rules have nothing to do with what the right thing is to do.”
Since then, the Education Department has been reviewing those comments and working on the final rules. Those rules, expected for months, were released on Wednesday. Some of the biggest changes are the following:
They require schools to allow direct cross-examination of both parties at Title IX hearings. The 2011 guidance discouraged direct cross-examination, as “allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim directly may be traumatic or intimidating, thereby possibly escalating or perpetuating a hostile environment.” Instead, some schools, like the College of New Jersey, allow accused students to pose questions to a neutral hearing administrator, who can relay them to the reporting student. Under the new rules, however, a lawyer or other representative of the accused will be allowed to directly cross-examine the reporting student. The rules do allow both students to sit in separate rooms and answer questions remotely, if either requests it.
They change the evidentiary standard for sexual harassment and assault proceedings. Under the new rules, schools may use either the preponderance standard or the “clear and convincing” standard in sexual harassment and assault cases.
They make it harder to find schools legally responsible for failing to address harassment and assault. Under the 2011 rules, schools could be held responsible for failing to act if they knew about — or “reasonably should” have known about — an episode of harassment or assault. Under the new guidelines, the school must have “actual knowledge” of the episode in order to be held responsible. Also, schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at most private, off-campus residences (the final rule does amend the proposed rule to say that schools can be held responsible for incidents at school-sanctioned fraternity or sorority houses).
They raise the bar for what counts as sexual harassment under Title IX. The 2011 guidelines defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” But the new rules set a stricter standard for what constitutes harassment, defining it as “unwelcome conduct that a reasonable person would determine is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school’s education program or activity.” According to the NWLC, this change violates the very purpose of Title IX.
“Title IX was enacted to ensure that sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, would never be the end of anyone’s education,” Patel told Vox. But the change to the definition of harassment could mean that students would not have grounds for a complaint until they were essentially being driven out of a class or school because of it. “It shouldn’t rise to that level before a school would have to take any action,” Patel said.
Advocates are concerned about the impact on survivors
Overall, the rules will lead to fewer students coming forward to report harassment and assault, Patel said.
“The standard for the school to have to take action is so high, so they would be ignoring a lot of reports that come to them,” she explained. “But even if the report does meet this high standard, the survivors would have to go through a process that’s just unfair to them.”
The NWLC and other groups also worry that the rules are being released now, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. The group, along with more than 200 others, sent a letter to the White House in March urging it to suspend rulemaking around Title IX during the crisis.
“As schools scramble to create online resources and systems and otherwise reinvent themselves to meet this moment, they are also simultaneously channeling their resources to help meet these student needs in an unprecedented time of crisis,” the letter stated. The signatories also wrote that the Education Department “should be utilizing its limited time and resources to provide much-needed relief for students and schools — not to codify a proposed rule that would make it extremely difficult, confusing, and in some cases impossible for institutions to ensure that students feel safe in school.”
However, the administration is going forward with the rules anyway. They are scheduled to go into effect on August 14, when many schools across America are preparing for the fall term, while (likely) still figuring out what the pandemic means for them and their students.
The new rules will make it harder for survivors to report just “as students struggle to find housing, keep up with online classes, and pay rent as the unemployment rate soars,” Carson, the Know Your IX manager, said in her statement. “What these students need is support, not another attack from DeVos and Trump.”


vox--2020-05-06--1 million Americans live in RVs. Here’s how we’re coping with the pandemic.

My husband and I are living in a 1972 Airstream Ambassador parked on a farm about 40 minutes outside of Austin , Texas .
There are chickens , bees , and if you walk down the deer path , a creek .
We are shaded by a mesquite tree and protected by Sampson , our campsite host ’ s Great Pyrenees , trolling the yard and barking into the night at coyotes .
It may sound quaint , but I never planned to be living here .
Up until 7 and a half weeks ago , before the Covid-19 pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the road with my husband , Marc , and three cats .
We ’ d been staying in campsites and slowly making our way across the United States .
Now , as overnight RV spots dry up and we adjust to a world where traveling is a life-threatening activity , our nomadic lives have shuddered to a halt .
We aren ’ t alone either .
According to the RV Industry Association , there are about a million Americans living full time in recreational vehicles .
They are traveling nurses , retirees , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other career you can think of .
They ’ re living on the road either by choice or because , as many have found , it ’ s cheaper to downsize and live out of a van or camper than be stationary .
And as Covid-19 sweeps the nation , many of us are struggling to find a stable place to shelter , find a doctor , and stay employed .
Most nomads , contrary to what some people think , are not better suited for this pandemic than others .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend joked .
“ You can go off in the middle of nowhere.
” That is not exactly true — we do not live in post-apocalyptic rigs worthy of a feature in a Mad Max film .
Water tanks and propane tanks need to be filled , food runs out faster since we stock a mini-fridge and cabinet , and trash needs to be dumped .
Most of this setup is far from pandemic proof .
We bought a home on wheels for a reason .
We weren ’ t convinced we were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down — feeling both the allure of travel and yet a deep desire to own a home .
Then on a drive one day , we saw an Airstream on the side of the road .
We bought it for $ 600 .
We spent two and a half years on a full gut renovation and then moved in .
In fall of last year , I finally had enough freelance leads and research to finish a book proposal .
I quit my social work job , Marc transitioned his job online , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lived in families ’ driveways as we ’ ve helped them renovate a dilapidated shed .
We stayed at a campground next to where they filmed the movie Big Fish .
When we ’ ve traveled more than six hours , we ’ ll pull into Walmart parking lots to sleep .
Once , we stayed at a lakefront property in Georgia we found online .
Some places we ’ ve stayed for a night and others for more than a month .
Some people are nomadic by circumstance , and others by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campers , people following the next seasonal employment opportunity .
They work for Amazon , on farms , or on campgrounds that hire contract staff among other seasonal work you can find on the road .
The reality is money stretches farther when you own your home that ’ s also your car , and don ’ t have to pay for rent .
When we hit the road , Marc and I drove away from Wilmington , North Carolina — a city where the average rent for an apartment is about $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid $ 350 a month to park our Airstream in Wilmington , and our Airstream cost $ 20,000 after all renovations were completed .
That ’ s far less than your typical house .
To some , nomads conjure thoughts of millennials drinking coffee in front of a canyon and hashtagging .
That ’ s true for us to an extent .
Our nomadic life was always a choice with an expiration date — we are at that odd edge of our 20s , when friends are buying houses and having babies or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided that we ’ d hit the road for a year and maybe along the way , figure out where we actually wanted to live .
We ’ re on the road with others that were pulled into # vanlife by the dream of sloughing off the 9-to-5 that wasn ’ t really amounting to much anyway .
But others are on the road simply because they can ’ t afford another way to live .
In Nomadland , which traces America ’ s RV living population , Jessica Bruder writes , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a parking spot.
” She writes about the retirees who saw their living savings evaporate in the 2008 financial crisis and can ’ t afford to retire , or those who worked their whole adulthood but never made enough to squirrel away retirement savings .
Instead , they follow work across the country in mobile homes .
But in exchange for cheap shelter and the ability to move around for work comes lack of stability .
And during a pandemic , that can be extra challenging .
The pandemic seemed far away to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early March .
We were parked on a farm where we had reserved a campsite for the week when we learned that SXSW had been canceled and that shelter-in-place orders were likely coming soon .
Suddenly , our lives of moving from place to place and relying on frequent trips to the store for supplies was not only dangerous but unfeasible .
Like other travelers , we desperately wanted to get off the road .
The stresses of the lifestyle are magnified : Your shelter in place is dependent on someone else — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family .
If you get sick , all the more likely during this pandemic , it might be hard to find care in a new location .
All your routines and errands , from where to buy food to where to pick up prescriptions or mail your packages , are up in the air .
Then there ’ s the reality of sheltering in place in a 188-square-foot home on wheels where there isn ’ t much personal space to begin with .
While our mini fridge and slender cabinet hold a week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not great for stockpiling when you ’ re being told to limit trips to the grocery store .
Our hot water and stove runs off propane tanks that eventually need to be refilled .
We ’ re lucky in that regard — some people have even more systems pulling from their propane tanks .
As we tried to plan out the next few weeks from our Austin campsite , I wanted nothing more than to turn around and head back to North Carolina .
Suddenly , I craved the roots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up back .
There was also a lingering fear of getting sick , far away from where we ’ re from or just not being able to get to family .
I desperately wanted home .
But traveling back seemed not only logistically challenging but irresponsible , and the idea of being asymptomatic and bringing something to our families or others on the road terrified us .
So we decided to stay put .
Meanwhile , the RV Facebook groups we ’ re part of are packed with posts from other full-time travelers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long term .
Nomads everywhere are being turned away from closing state and private campgrounds .
In Moab , Utah , officials asked travelers to stay away because their rural hospitals only had access to four ventilators .
For some people , it ’ s been relatively easy .
They went back to their stationary homes and began posting photos of past trips to look forward to other trips .
For other travelers without permanent addresses , like us , this transition felt frantic .
We had to have safe space for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlikely we would be asked to leave .
We booked our spot on the Austin farm through Hipcamp , a website where you can book farmland , driveways , even backyards from private owners .
Our futures depended on our hosts .
We nomads are all living in this strange limbo , and things aren ’ t getting any less certain .
Even when states ease restrictions and businesses begin to open back up , it may be a long time before it feels right for us or any other nomads to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week of staying on the farm , we walked down to our hosts .
“ We think we ’ ll be here longer than we thought , ” we said .
We had paid a monthly rate through the middle of April .
“ Don ’ t worry , ” they assured , “ You can stay as long as you need.
” In the middle of April , we paid for another month .
Outside the Airstream , there ’ s more green on the mesquite tree than there was weeks ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Over text , I talk to my nomadic friend Kate , who never thought she ’ d wind up settling in Kansas for the time being , about what ’ s next .
We swap videos of our campsites and talk about how our homes seem so much smaller than they ever did .
I think we all are parked indefinitely , I tell her .
But even when it ’ s safe to get on the road , I don ’ t know if Marc and I will even want this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same , but it ’ s beginning to fit us differently .
Laura Guidry is a writer who previously worked in social services and now travels the US in her Airstream .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

My husband and I are living in a 1972 Airstream Ambassador parked on a farm about 40 minutes outside of Austin, Texas. There are chickens, bees, and if you walk down the deer path, a creek. We are shaded by a mesquite tree and protected by Sampson, our campsite host’s Great Pyrenees, trolling the yard and barking into the night at coyotes.
It may sound quaint, but I never planned to be living here. Up until 7 and a half weeks ago, before the Covid-19 pandemic upended our world, I lived on the road with my husband, Marc, and three cats. We’d been staying in campsites and slowly making our way across the United States. Now, as overnight RV spots dry up and we adjust to a world where traveling is a life-threatening activity, our nomadic lives have shuddered to a halt.
We aren’t alone either. According to the RV Industry Association, there are about a million Americans living full time in recreational vehicles. They are traveling nurses, retirees, digital nomads, or just about any other career you can think of. They’re living on the road either by choice or because, as many have found, it’s cheaper to downsize and live out of a van or camper than be stationary. And as Covid-19 sweeps the nation, many of us are struggling to find a stable place to shelter, find a doctor, and stay employed.
Most nomads, contrary to what some people think, are not better suited for this pandemic than others. “This is ideal for you,” a friend joked. “You can go off in the middle of nowhere.” That is not exactly true — we do not live in post-apocalyptic rigs worthy of a feature in a Mad Max film. Water tanks and propane tanks need to be filled, food runs out faster since we stock a mini-fridge and cabinet, and trash needs to be dumped. Most of this setup is far from pandemic proof.
We bought a home on wheels for a reason. We weren’t convinced we were in a place we wanted to settle down — feeling both the allure of travel and yet a deep desire to own a home. Then on a drive one day, we saw an Airstream on the side of the road. We bought it for $600. We spent two and a half years on a full gut renovation and then moved in. In fall of last year, I finally had enough freelance leads and research to finish a book proposal. I quit my social work job, Marc transitioned his job online, and we left.
We’ve lived in families’ driveways as we’ve helped them renovate a dilapidated shed. We stayed at a campground next to where they filmed the movie Big Fish. When we’ve traveled more than six hours, we’ll pull into Walmart parking lots to sleep. Once, we stayed at a lakefront property in Georgia we found online. Some places we’ve stayed for a night and others for more than a month.
Some people are nomadic by circumstance, and others by choice. Many are retirees or work campers, people following the next seasonal employment opportunity. They work for Amazon, on farms, or on campgrounds that hire contract staff among other seasonal work you can find on the road. The reality is money stretches farther when you own your home that’s also your car, and don’t have to pay for rent. When we hit the road, Marc and I drove away from Wilmington, North Carolina — a city where the average rent for an apartment is about $1,050. By contrast, we had paid $350 a month to park our Airstream in Wilmington, and our Airstream cost $20,000 after all renovations were completed. That’s far less than your typical house.
To some, nomads conjure thoughts of millennials drinking coffee in front of a canyon and hashtagging. That’s true for us to an extent. Our nomadic life was always a choice with an expiration date — we are at that odd edge of our 20s, when friends are buying houses and having babies or finishing up graduate school, and we decided that we’d hit the road for a year and maybe along the way, figure out where we actually wanted to live. We’re on the road with others that were pulled into #vanlife by the dream of sloughing off the 9-to-5 that wasn’t really amounting to much anyway.
But others are on the road simply because they can’t afford another way to live. In Nomadland, which traces America’s RV living population, Jessica Bruder writes, “The last free place in America is a parking spot.” She writes about the retirees who saw their living savings evaporate in the 2008 financial crisis and can’t afford to retire, or those who worked their whole adulthood but never made enough to squirrel away retirement savings. Instead, they follow work across the country in mobile homes.
But in exchange for cheap shelter and the ability to move around for work comes lack of stability. And during a pandemic, that can be extra challenging.
The pandemic seemed far away to us until we arrived in Austin in early March. We were parked on a farm where we had reserved a campsite for the week when we learned that SXSW had been canceled and that shelter-in-place orders were likely coming soon. Suddenly, our lives of moving from place to place and relying on frequent trips to the store for supplies was not only dangerous but unfeasible.
Like other travelers, we desperately wanted to get off the road. The stresses of the lifestyle are magnified: Your shelter in place is dependent on someone else — a campground owner, a friend or family. If you get sick, all the more likely during this pandemic, it might be hard to find care in a new location. All your routines and errands, from where to buy food to where to pick up prescriptions or mail your packages, are up in the air.
Then there’s the reality of sheltering in place in a 188-square-foot home on wheels where there isn’t much personal space to begin with. While our mini fridge and slender cabinet hold a week’s worth of groceries well, it’s not great for stockpiling when you’re being told to limit trips to the grocery store. Our hot water and stove runs off propane tanks that eventually need to be refilled. We’re lucky in that regard — some people have even more systems pulling from their propane tanks.
As we tried to plan out the next few weeks from our Austin campsite, I wanted nothing more than to turn around and head back to North Carolina. Suddenly, I craved the roots we had worked so hard to pull up back. There was also a lingering fear of getting sick, far away from where we’re from or just not being able to get to family. I desperately wanted home. But traveling back seemed not only logistically challenging but irresponsible, and the idea of being asymptomatic and bringing something to our families or others on the road terrified us. So we decided to stay put.
Meanwhile, the RV Facebook groups we’re part of are packed with posts from other full-time travelers desperately looking for a place to stay long term. Nomads everywhere are being turned away from closing state and private campgrounds. In Moab, Utah, officials asked travelers to stay away because their rural hospitals only had access to four ventilators.
For some people, it’s been relatively easy. They went back to their stationary homes and began posting photos of past trips to look forward to other trips. For other travelers without permanent addresses, like us, this transition felt frantic. We had to have safe space for an unknown amount of time where it was unlikely we would be asked to leave. We booked our spot on the Austin farm through Hipcamp, a website where you can book farmland, driveways, even backyards from private owners. Our futures depended on our hosts.
We nomads are all living in this strange limbo, and things aren’t getting any less certain. Even when states ease restrictions and businesses begin to open back up, it may be a long time before it feels right for us or any other nomads to be on the road again.
The second week of staying on the farm, we walked down to our hosts. “We think we’ll be here longer than we thought,” we said. We had paid a monthly rate through the middle of April. “Don’t worry,” they assured, “You can stay as long as you need.” In the middle of April, we paid for another month.
Outside the Airstream, there’s more green on the mesquite tree than there was weeks ago. I hung a hammock on it. Over text, I talk to my nomadic friend Kate, who never thought she’d wind up settling in Kansas for the time being, about what’s next. We swap videos of our campsites and talk about how our homes seem so much smaller than they ever did.
I think we all are parked indefinitely, I tell her. But even when it’s safe to get on the road, I don’t know if Marc and I will even want this lifestyle anymore. Our home might be the same, but it’s beginning to fit us differently.
Laura Guidry is a writer who previously worked in social services and now travels the US in her Airstream.


vox--2020-05-06--A Supreme Court showdown over birth control got much messier Wednesday

Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania are messy cases .
Both cases heard by the Supreme Court on Wednesday involve a longstanding battle over employers with religious objections to birth control .
Federal rules require employer-provided health plans to cover contraceptive care , but the Trump administration created a sweeping exemption allowing any nonprofit employer , and any for-profit employer that is not publicly traded , to ignore the requirement to provide birth control coverage if it expresses a religious or moral objection .
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted during Wednesday ’ s argument , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , between 75,000 and 125,000 women could either gain or lose contraceptive coverage .
The oral argument , which was conducted by phone due to the coronavirus pandemic , provided little clarity as to how the two Pennsylvania cases are likely to be decided .
Every member of the Supreme Court ’ s Republican majority has , in the past , expressed sympathy for religious objectors seeking exemptions from a generally applicable law .
But each has also expressed a desire to limit federal agencies ’ discretion to make policy .
And on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared to realize that these two goals are in tension — at least in the two Pennsylvania cases .
The Pennsylvania cases are unlike previous Supreme Court cases involving religious objections to birth control .
The two prior cases , Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ( 2014 ) and Zubik v. Burwell ( 2016 ) , both involved religious employers who claimed they should be exempted from federal rules intended to ensure that working individuals have birth control coverage .
The Pennsylvania cases , by contrast , involve a somewhat different question .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power to give religious objectors a sweeping exemption , regardless of whether such an exemption is required by law .
At least three of the Court ’ s Republicans , Justices Clarence Thomas , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh , expressed concerns that the Trump administration may not have this power — although Kavanaugh seemed to back off those concerns near the end of the argument .
( While Thomas historically has been reluctant to speak during in-person oral arguments , he ’ s proved much more loquacious since the Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the eve of Wednesday ’ s argument , it appeared likely that the Court ’ s Republican majority would bless a broad religious exemption to the birth control requirement , and this outcome remains fairly likely .
But Thomas and Gorsuch , at least , sometimes appeared torn between two conflicting conservative values .
This suggests the possibility of a cross-partisan coalition to strike down the broad exemption for religious employers , with some of the Court ’ s Republicans resting on the ground that the administration exceeded its lawful authority by creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not prevent the Court from holding , at a later date , that all religious employers are entitled to broad exemptions from the contraceptive coverage requirement .
But it could delay that decision for at least another year .
The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to provide certain “ preventive care and screenings ” for women with no copays or cost-sharing .
The Health Resources and Services Administration , a federal agency with the task of defining “ preventive care , ” determined that included birth control .
This determination sparked years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some or all forms of birth control on religious grounds , and who claimed that they should be allowed to offer health plans that do not cover contraception .
Yet while these employers won an incremental victory in the Hobby Lobby case , the question of whether federal religious liberty law permits employers to effectively cut off their employees ’ access to birth control coverage remains unresolved .
One reason this legal question remains unresolved is that , shortly after President Trump took office , HRSA handed down a broad rule giving religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win in court .
So , rather than arguing for a freestanding right to defy the birth control coverage mandate , religious employers now hope to defend the Trump administration ’ s rule .
Meanwhile , two states , Pennsylvania and New Jersey , sued the Trump administration claiming that HRSA does not have the legal authority to give employers such a broad exemption .
That suit is now before the Supreme Court .
The Trump administration , for its part , points to two federal laws that , it claims , permits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One is the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act , the primary federal statute governing religious liberty claims .
They argue that the act “ required ” the administration to implement a broad exemption .
Much of Wednesday ’ s argument , however , focused on the Trump administration ’ s claim that HRSA ’ s power to implement “ comprehensive guidelines ” governing certain forms of women ’ s preventive care also includes the power to exempt certain employers from those guidelines .
The Court ’ s Republicans want to weaken federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades , Congress has enjoyed a broad power to delegate policymaking to federal agencies .
This is why , for example , the Affordable Care Act permits HRSA to decide which types of women ’ s preventive care must be covered by insurers .
Beginning in the Obama years , however , legal conservatives grew increasingly frustrated with the Obama administration ’ s ability to make new policy through existing laws delegating power to the executive branch .
And this belief that the executive branch ’ s power to set domestic policy should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s election .
Accordingly , all five of the Supreme Court ’ s Republicans have expressed a desire to shrink Congress ’ s power to delegate authority to executive agencies .
In a 2019 opinion , for example , Gorsuch proposed revising the largely defunct “ nondelegation doctrine , ” a constitutional doctrine briefly used in the 1930s to restrict Congress ’ s power to delegate authority to the Roosevelt administration .
While Gorsuch ’ s opinion in that 2019 case , Gundy v. United States , is vague , it suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it wants to delegate power to a federal agency .
Under Gorsuch ’ s approach , a federal law permitting agencies to regulate must be “ ‘ sufficiently definite and precise to enable Congress , the courts , and the public to ascertain ’ whether Congress ’ s guidance has been followed.
” Several conservative justices appeared concerned that neither RFRA nor the Affordable Care Act provide enough guidance to the federal agency to permit it to create religious exemptions .
Thomas asked what , if any , standards guide the agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solicitor General Noel Francisco “ at what point do you run into a nondelegation problem ?
” Similarly , Gorsuch worried that the Affordable Care Act ’ s language seemed to authorize “ as expansive a delegation ” of regulatory authority “ as one might imagine.
” Kavanaugh also asked Paul Clement , one of two lawyers defending the Trump administration ’ s rule , whether he could identify any limits on the government ’ s discretion , though he later appeared to back away from this concern .
The statutory language delegating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad language , ” Kavanaugh said toward the end of the oral argument .
And broad language suggests that a new administration will have broad discretion to set new rules .
All of which is a long way of saying that the outcome in the Pennsylvania cases is unclear .
There is no reason to believe that the Court ’ s Republican majority will not , eventually , determine that religious objectors should enjoy broad exemptions .
But Thomas and Gorsuch , at the very least , appeared conflicted between their sympathy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nondelegation doctrine .
And their votes , when combined with some or all of the Court ’ s liberals , may be enough to hand religious objectors a narrow defeat in these cases .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania are messy cases.
Both cases heard by the Supreme Court on Wednesday involve a longstanding battle over employers with religious objections to birth control. Federal rules require employer-provided health plans to cover contraceptive care, but the Trump administration created a sweeping exemption allowing any nonprofit employer, and any for-profit employer that is not publicly traded, to ignore the requirement to provide birth control coverage if it expresses a religious or moral objection.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted during Wednesday’s argument, depending on how the Supreme Court rules, between 75,000 and 125,000 women could either gain or lose contraceptive coverage.
The oral argument, which was conducted by phone due to the coronavirus pandemic, provided little clarity as to how the two Pennsylvania cases are likely to be decided. Every member of the Supreme Court’s Republican majority has, in the past, expressed sympathy for religious objectors seeking exemptions from a generally applicable law. But each has also expressed a desire to limit federal agencies’ discretion to make policy. And on Wednesday, several of those conservative justices appeared to realize that these two goals are in tension — at least in the two Pennsylvania cases.
The Pennsylvania cases are unlike previous Supreme Court cases involving religious objections to birth control. The two prior cases, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) and Zubik v. Burwell (2016), both involved religious employers who claimed they should be exempted from federal rules intended to ensure that working individuals have birth control coverage. The Pennsylvania cases, by contrast, involve a somewhat different question. They primarily ask whether the Trump administration has the power to give religious objectors a sweeping exemption, regardless of whether such an exemption is required by law.
At least three of the Court’s Republicans, Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, expressed concerns that the Trump administration may not have this power — although Kavanaugh seemed to back off those concerns near the end of the argument. (While Thomas historically has been reluctant to speak during in-person oral arguments, he’s proved much more loquacious since the Court switched to telephone arguments.)
On the eve of Wednesday’s argument, it appeared likely that the Court’s Republican majority would bless a broad religious exemption to the birth control requirement, and this outcome remains fairly likely. But Thomas and Gorsuch, at least, sometimes appeared torn between two conflicting conservative values.
This suggests the possibility of a cross-partisan coalition to strike down the broad exemption for religious employers, with some of the Court’s Republicans resting on the ground that the administration exceeded its lawful authority by creating it — although such a decision would not prevent the Court from holding, at a later date, that all religious employers are entitled to broad exemptions from the contraceptive coverage requirement. But it could delay that decision for at least another year.
The birth control mandate, briefly explained
The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to provide certain “preventive care and screenings” for women with no copays or cost-sharing. The Health Resources and Services Administration, a federal agency with the task of defining “preventive care,” determined that included birth control.
This determination sparked years of litigation from employers who object to some or all forms of birth control on religious grounds, and who claimed that they should be allowed to offer health plans that do not cover contraception. Yet while these employers won an incremental victory in the Hobby Lobby case, the question of whether federal religious liberty law permits employers to effectively cut off their employees’ access to birth control coverage remains unresolved.
One reason this legal question remains unresolved is that, shortly after President Trump took office, HRSA handed down a broad rule giving religious employers the sweeping exemption it hoped to win in court. So, rather than arguing for a freestanding right to defy the birth control coverage mandate, religious employers now hope to defend the Trump administration’s rule.
Meanwhile, two states, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, sued the Trump administration claiming that HRSA does not have the legal authority to give employers such a broad exemption. That suit is now before the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration, for its part, points to two federal laws that, it claims, permits HRSA to issue such a broad exemption. One is the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the primary federal statute governing religious liberty claims. They argue that the act “required” the administration to implement a broad exemption.
Much of Wednesday’s argument, however, focused on the Trump administration’s claim that HRSA’s power to implement “comprehensive guidelines” governing certain forms of women’s preventive care also includes the power to exempt certain employers from those guidelines.
The Court’s Republicans want to weaken federal agencies
For at least the past eight decades, Congress has enjoyed a broad power to delegate policymaking to federal agencies. This is why, for example, the Affordable Care Act permits HRSA to decide which types of women’s preventive care must be covered by insurers.
Beginning in the Obama years, however, legal conservatives grew increasingly frustrated with the Obama administration’s ability to make new policy through existing laws delegating power to the executive branch. And this belief that the executive branch’s power to set domestic policy should be shrunk appears to have survived Trump’s election. Accordingly, all five of the Supreme Court’s Republicans have expressed a desire to shrink Congress’s power to delegate authority to executive agencies.
In a 2019 opinion, for example, Gorsuch proposed revising the largely defunct “nondelegation doctrine,” a constitutional doctrine briefly used in the 1930s to restrict Congress’s power to delegate authority to the Roosevelt administration. While Gorsuch’s opinion in that 2019 case, Gundy v. United States, is vague, it suggests that Congress must draft laws very precisely if it wants to delegate power to a federal agency.
Under Gorsuch’s approach, a federal law permitting agencies to regulate must be “‘sufficiently definite and precise to enable Congress, the courts, and the public to ascertain’ whether Congress’s guidance has been followed.”
Several conservative justices appeared concerned that neither RFRA nor the Affordable Care Act provide enough guidance to the federal agency to permit it to create religious exemptions. Thomas asked what, if any, standards guide the agency’s discretion. He also asked Solicitor General Noel Francisco “at what point do you run into a nondelegation problem?”
Similarly, Gorsuch worried that the Affordable Care Act’s language seemed to authorize “as expansive a delegation” of regulatory authority “as one might imagine.”
Kavanaugh also asked Paul Clement, one of two lawyers defending the Trump administration’s rule, whether he could identify any limits on the government’s discretion, though he later appeared to back away from this concern.
The statutory language delegating power to HRSA “seems to be broad language,” Kavanaugh said toward the end of the oral argument. And broad language suggests that a new administration will have broad discretion to set new rules.
All of which is a long way of saying that the outcome in the Pennsylvania cases is unclear. There is no reason to believe that the Court’s Republican majority will not, eventually, determine that religious objectors should enjoy broad exemptions. But Thomas and Gorsuch, at the very least, appeared conflicted between their sympathy for religious conservatives and their desire to revive the nondelegation doctrine.
And their votes, when combined with some or all of the Court’s liberals, may be enough to hand religious objectors a narrow defeat in these cases.


vox--2020-05-06--Missing your high school graduation? Strangers on Facebook might want to give you gifts.

When Mary Storey decided to create a Facebook group to help celebrate the high school seniors in her town of Ruidoso , New Mexico , she never expected it to grow to 50,000 members .
Across the country , groups like Storey ’ s “ Adopt a High School Senior ” page have popped up with similar motives — as she says , “ to start something positive ” while graduation ceremonies are on hold .
All of the groups are functioning in the same way : Parents and students post photos and blurbs about graduating seniors , and members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them in the comments , sending along baskets , gift cards , and presents in congratulations .
For all their good intentions , these groups are also becoming a locus for discussions about charity , materialism , and how and why we give in the time of Covid-19 .
“ We have a very tight-knit community here in Ruidoso , and many people were posting on Facebook about what their seniors were going to miss out on , ” Storey told me .
That night , she formed the first “ Adopt a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several people from her friends list to join .
Within a couple of days , the group ballooned to several thousand members .
By late April , it had surpassed 50,000 — much to Storey ’ s surprise .
She hadn ’ t intended for the group to expand beyond her county .
Every day , people across the country were requesting to join , from family members to the graduating seniors themselves .
And Storey , who had to add on more group moderators , was quickly inundated with posts to approve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Storey ’ s page and others like it to exchange care packages and interact with those who have similar interests .
For the most part , these insular groups operate as a sort of one-way gift exchange , where parents and students would advertise a child ’ s accomplishments , usually alongside an Amazon wish list .
Occasionally , a local business owner or craft hobbyist would post a call for seniors who wanted something personally sent to them .
Storey and her husband have taken on six seniors since she started the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in other states — and sent out care packages with cards , graduation keychains , and T-shirts , as well as ordering pizza delivery for their adoptees .
These adoption groups and , more generally , community support networks have proliferated over the past two months , as millions of Americans were placed under stay-at-home orders .
Many families of graduates , faced with the prospect of canceled graduation parties and proms , are eager for an event to celebrate their achievements .
Students have also used Instagram to create virtual yearbooks for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these adoption networks have been primarily driven by older community members — not the students themselves .
Rachel R. , a senior from Pennsylvania who declined to share her last name for privacy reasons , said she was shocked to find so many well-off , middle-class families sharing their children ’ s Amazon wish lists on her local adopt-a-senior group .
“ I ’ ve seen someone ask for a MacBook and AirPods , and a lot of the lists on there add up to hundreds , if not thousands , of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Being a senior shouldn ’ t get us special treatment , although not having a graduation or a prom is really upsetting .
But money directed anywhere else — to the poor , the elderly , small businesses , or local charities — would be much more beneficial.
” Perhaps a better use of this money , Rachel suggested , would be to make donations in honor of a senior ’ s graduation or ask them to pick their own charity to support .
“ I understand that people in our community feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ larger scale , most of us are not the ones who are really struggling , ” she said .
Many students have disappointingly missed out on once-in-a-lifetime milestones , but Rachel pointed out that due to the pandemic , families have also postponed weddings and canceled funerals .
“ I ’ m sad that I won ’ t get to walk at graduation , but that ’ s not the biggest problem right now , ” she said .
“ There are people who are unemployed , people who are sick that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that if people want to help others , that ’ s beautiful .
We shouldn ’ t solely be promoting the purchasing of things for people who can probably buy it themselves.
” Online , users have also brought attention to how people should be supporting at-risk groups , like senior citizens or essential workers , instead of high school seniors .
The coronavirus has exacerbated the racial and economic inequalities present in many US cities , and Rachel ’ s argument highlights the responsibility that consumers , particularly those with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their purchasing power .
In the context of a global pandemic , whom should we be supporting , and where should we direct our time and money ?
The high school senior adoption groups — established out of the generosity of many well-meaning community members — demonstrate the resurgence of community giving and aid during such a precarious time .
Adopters aren ’ t required to buy a student anything ; instead , both homemade and purchased gifts can be offered as a token of support .
“ We recognize that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and not everyone can afford to give , ” said Heather Stewart-Rigsbee , the moderator of an adoption group in the Dayton , Ohio , area .
“ We just want the seniors to be grateful that others are coming into their lives to support them during this time , in whatever way that they can.
” While these groups aren ’ t exactly akin to the mutual aid networks that have sprung up in many cities , they do allow participants to tangibly show kindness and support to others in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t likely to be the most vulnerable people in this crisis .
Now more than ever , people are drawn to events and volunteer activities that help them feel closer to their communities .
That collective energy could be harnessed to improve many people ’ s lives .
Some towns have put together “ Adopt a Teacher ” events to show appreciation for educators , and there are Facebook groups honoring health care workers , essential workers , and college seniors .
Stewart-Rigsbee told me that there are only about 160 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds more community members have expressed interest in adopting .
As a result , many seniors — not just those in Stewart-Rigsbee ’ s group — have been adopted multiple times .
“ We ’ re a community of 2,000 , and most of these kids are known by almost everyone in the community because it ’ s so small , ” Stewart-Rigsbee said .
“ Local businesses have sent out tons of gift cards , and parents are getting really crafty with their gifts and have made wonderful baskets full of snacks.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ within her group , students and parents want to build meaningful connections with other residents through the adoption , beyond just a materialistic exchange .
Makenna Young , a senior in Stewart-Rigsbee ’ s adoption network , was quickly adopted by several people she personally knew from her town .
While some of her peers have created their own wish lists on Amazon , Young told me she ’ ll be grateful for anything she gets , likening her adoption to that of a graduation party gift .
“ I just like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seniors something small to look forward to at the end of the school year , ” Young told me .
“ I am just really thankful for the people who ’ ve put this together.
” Young added that she didn ’ t want to give her adopters the impression they had to get her specific gifts or items that might be expensive .
“ I do think people could take advantage of this opportunity and say , ‘ I want these big things I don ’ t want to buy for myself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m aware this is supposed to be community outreach , kind of like an ‘ I ’ m thinking of you ’ gift — not a Christmas present.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

When Mary Storey decided to create a Facebook group to help celebrate the high school seniors in her town of Ruidoso, New Mexico, she never expected it to grow to 50,000 members.
Across the country, groups like Storey’s “Adopt a High School Senior” page have popped up with similar motives — as she says, “to start something positive” while graduation ceremonies are on hold. All of the groups are functioning in the same way: Parents and students post photos and blurbs about graduating seniors, and members of the community can “adopt” them in the comments, sending along baskets, gift cards, and presents in congratulations. For all their good intentions, these groups are also becoming a locus for discussions about charity, materialism, and how and why we give in the time of Covid-19.
“We have a very tight-knit community here in Ruidoso, and many people were posting on Facebook about what their seniors were going to miss out on,” Storey told me. That night, she formed the first “Adopt a High School Senior” group, inviting several people from her friends list to join.
Within a couple of days, the group ballooned to several thousand members. By late April, it had surpassed 50,000 — much to Storey’s surprise. She hadn’t intended for the group to expand beyond her county. Every day, people across the country were requesting to join, from family members to the graduating seniors themselves. And Storey, who had to add on more group moderators, was quickly inundated with posts to approve.
Students and adults alike have used Storey’s page and others like it to exchange care packages and interact with those who have similar interests. For the most part, these insular groups operate as a sort of one-way gift exchange, where parents and students would advertise a child’s accomplishments, usually alongside an Amazon wish list. Occasionally, a local business owner or craft hobbyist would post a call for seniors who wanted something personally sent to them. Storey and her husband have taken on six seniors since she started the group — three local students and three in other states — and sent out care packages with cards, graduation keychains, and T-shirts, as well as ordering pizza delivery for their adoptees.
These adoption groups and, more generally, community support networks have proliferated over the past two months, as millions of Americans were placed under stay-at-home orders. Many families of graduates, faced with the prospect of canceled graduation parties and proms, are eager for an event to celebrate their achievements. Students have also used Instagram to create virtual yearbooks for their classmates, but it appears that these adoption networks have been primarily driven by older community members — not the students themselves.
Rachel R., a senior from Pennsylvania who declined to share her last name for privacy reasons, said she was shocked to find so many well-off, middle-class families sharing their children’s Amazon wish lists on her local adopt-a-senior group.
“I’ve seen someone ask for a MacBook and AirPods, and a lot of the lists on there add up to hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars,” Rachel told me. “Being a senior shouldn’t get us special treatment, although not having a graduation or a prom is really upsetting. But money directed anywhere else — to the poor, the elderly, small businesses, or local charities — would be much more beneficial.”
Perhaps a better use of this money, Rachel suggested, would be to make donations in honor of a senior’s graduation or ask them to pick their own charity to support. “I understand that people in our community feel for the seniors, but on a larger scale, most of us are not the ones who are really struggling,” she said.
Many students have disappointingly missed out on once-in-a-lifetime milestones, but Rachel pointed out that due to the pandemic, families have also postponed weddings and canceled funerals. “I’m sad that I won’t get to walk at graduation, but that’s not the biggest problem right now,” she said. “There are people who are unemployed, people who are sick that can’t pay their medical bills. I think that if people want to help others, that’s beautiful. We shouldn’t solely be promoting the purchasing of things for people who can probably buy it themselves.”
Online, users have also brought attention to how people should be supporting at-risk groups, like senior citizens or essential workers, instead of high school seniors.
I’m just saying instead of “adopting a senior” who gets to sleep in and not to go to school they’ve been saying they hate all year; we instead adopt a senior citizen in a nursing home quarantined and denied visitations from family members. — Aaron Jones (@aaronj1010) April 27, 2020
The coronavirus has exacerbated the racial and economic inequalities present in many US cities, and Rachel’s argument highlights the responsibility that consumers, particularly those with disposable income, have when it comes to their purchasing power. In the context of a global pandemic, whom should we be supporting, and where should we direct our time and money?
The high school senior adoption groups — established out of the generosity of many well-meaning community members — demonstrate the resurgence of community giving and aid during such a precarious time. Adopters aren’t required to buy a student anything; instead, both homemade and purchased gifts can be offered as a token of support.
“We recognize that this is a financially trying time for everyone, and not everyone can afford to give,” said Heather Stewart-Rigsbee, the moderator of an adoption group in the Dayton, Ohio, area. “We just want the seniors to be grateful that others are coming into their lives to support them during this time, in whatever way that they can.”
While these groups aren’t exactly akin to the mutual aid networks that have sprung up in many cities, they do allow participants to tangibly show kindness and support to others in their community — even if high school seniors aren’t likely to be the most vulnerable people in this crisis. Now more than ever, people are drawn to events and volunteer activities that help them feel closer to their communities. That collective energy could be harnessed to improve many people’s lives.
Some towns have put together “Adopt a Teacher” events to show appreciation for educators, and there are Facebook groups honoring health care workers, essential workers, and college seniors. Stewart-Rigsbee told me that there are only about 160 graduating seniors in her town, but hundreds more community members have expressed interest in adopting. As a result, many seniors — not just those in Stewart-Rigsbee’s group — have been adopted multiple times.
“We’re a community of 2,000, and most of these kids are known by almost everyone in the community because it’s so small,” Stewart-Rigsbee said. “Local businesses have sent out tons of gift cards, and parents are getting really crafty with their gifts and have made wonderful baskets full of snacks.” She emphasized that, at least within her group, students and parents want to build meaningful connections with other residents through the adoption, beyond just a materialistic exchange.
Makenna Young, a senior in Stewart-Rigsbee’s adoption network, was quickly adopted by several people she personally knew from her town. While some of her peers have created their own wish lists on Amazon, Young told me she’ll be grateful for anything she gets, likening her adoption to that of a graduation party gift. “I just like to be surprised, and this gives the seniors something small to look forward to at the end of the school year,” Young told me. “I am just really thankful for the people who’ve put this together.”
Young added that she didn’t want to give her adopters the impression they had to get her specific gifts or items that might be expensive. “I do think people could take advantage of this opportunity and say, ‘I want these big things I don’t want to buy for myself,’” she said. “I’m aware this is supposed to be community outreach, kind of like an ‘I’m thinking of you’ gift — not a Christmas present.”