vox--2020-07-28--A wave of evictions is coming. Democrats are proposing a lifeline.

The federal eviction moratorium expired last week , ending protections for approximately 12 million renters .
A patchwork of state and local eviction moratoriums are elapsing , or will in the coming weeks .
And expanded unemployment insurance guaranteed by the CARES Act will also run out by the end of the month , eliminating $ 600 a week to millions of unemployed workers who don ’ t have jobs to go back to right now .
As these benefits dry up , the United States “ is facing an eviction crisis of biblical proportions , ” as Aaron Carr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Housing Rights Initiative , a nonprofit housing watchdog group , put it to Vox earlier this month .
All this is happening in a country with more than 4.3 million confirmed Covid-19 cases , where one of the best strategies mitigate the coronavirus outbreak is to keep people home .
To try to ease this crisis , Democrats in Congress have proposed new legislation to help Americans facing evictions .
On Tuesday , Reps. Ayanna Pressley ( D-MA ) and Rosa DeLauro ( D-CT ) and Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HELP ) Act , which will provide funding so those at risk of eviction can access legal representation and any evictions will do limited damage to renters ’ credit .
“ Housing is a human right , and in the face of an impending eviction tsunami , we must take bold , urgent action to affirm that right and protect the millions of families facing housing instability , ” Pressley said in a statement .
“ Housing justice is racial and economic justice , ” she added , “ and as workers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial cliff , Congress must act with the urgency needed to prevent mass evictions.
” What the HELP Act would do The HELP Act would allocate $ 10 billion in Emergency Solutions Grants ( ESGs ) , which provide funding to states and localities for programs related to things like homelessness prevention and outreach , to go toward funding legal representation for those on the verge of being evicted .
Research has shown that providing tenants access to counsel can dramatically improve their chances in housing court , and the odds of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more likely to come to housing court without attorneys , compared to landlords .
For example , in New York City , before the local government instituted a right-to-counsel law in 2017 for low-income tenants facing evictions , 95 percent of landlords had an attorney compared to less than 1 percent of tenants , according to New York University ’ s Furman Center .
After NYC ’ s right-to-counsel law was passed , tenant representation increased across the city .
According to the Community Service Society , 84 percent of 22,000 eligible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their homes in fiscal year 2018 .
Experts say that expanding tenants rights programs , including providing more robust legal aid and representation , would benefit low-income renters , with or without the Covid-19 outbreak .
But the threat of mass evictions during a pandemic makes this even more urgent .
“ Evictions are a really fast process ; they ’ re much faster than most civil cases , ” Navneet Grewal , litigation counsel for Disability Rights California , told Vox in July , in a conversation unrelated to this legislation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for people who are being evicted , and having a lawyer actually makes an enormous difference.
” The legislation would also require landlords to inform tenants about their rights and responsibilities , and try to reduce the harm to tenants ’ credit .
According to the legislation , credit reporting would only happen in cases where the landlord won a final judgment against the tenant — which usually means the court awards a landlord back rent and the apartment .
Even in these cases , the bill limits the time that information can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Finally , the bill would direct the secretary of housing and urban development , currently Ben Carson , to build a database of eviction data from states and localities that receive federal housing assistance .
Altogether , this bill would give tenants additional tools to fight evictions , which will provide relief to renter households and housing courts that may be overburdened with the coming wave of evictions .
“ Far too many Americans are facing eviction , leaving them without a roof over their heads in the midst of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in a statement .
about the bill .
“ Congress must take action to give tenants resources to help them stay in their homes.
” America ’ s housing crisis is here .
The pandemic is making it worse .
America was staring down a housing crisis even before the coronavirus arrived in the United States .
Of America ’ s nearly 43 million renters , about 20.8 million — almost half — were “ cost-burdened , ” meaning more than 30 percent of their income went to housing costs , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Harvard University .
Of those , about 10.9 million renter households were “ severely burdened , ” spending more than 50 percent of their income on rent .
In pre-pandemic times , evictions exacerbated inequalities in housing .
The coronavirus will deepen those divides .
Renters , in general , tend to be lower-income than homeowners .
Black and Hispanic households are twice as likely to rent compared to white households , according to a Pew Research study .
According to the American Civil Liberties Union , on average , Black renters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice the rate of white renters .
All of this set up the United States for an eviction disaster .
The Covid-19 Eviction Defense Project , a Colorado-based legal project , estimates that between 19 million and 23 million renters are at risk of eviction by the end of September .
A patchwork of eviction moratoriums across the country and benefits from the CARES Act , including a one-time stimulus check and expanded unemployment benefits of $ 600 per week ( which were also made available to self-employed and gig workers ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress acts immediately , many of these protections are gone , or will be by the end of the month , just a few days away .
In May , Democrats in the House passed a $ 3 trillion stimulus package .
The HEROES Act , as it ’ s called , comes with additional cash stimulus , expanded unemployment insurance , and almost $ 200 billion in financial support for housing and homelessness programs , including $ 100 billion for emergency rental assistance .
That money would help keep tenants in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ones who may rely on rental income to pay for building maintenance , utilities , mortgages , taxes , and other expenses .
The HEROES Act would also expand a nationwide eviction moratorium for nonpayment to include most renters for 12 months , streamlining the current mishmash of state and local policies .
The bill would also provide money to state and local budgets depleted because of the pandemic response .
But the HEROES Act has stalled in the Republican-led Senate .
Now the GOP is presenting its own stimulus plan , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 200 per week through September ) , another round of stimulus checks , and an expansion of the Paycheck Protection Program , to help small businesses , among other items .
It ’ s at the very least an opening bid for negotiations , but it falls way short of what is likely needed and may come too late to avoid a gap in benefits , as it takes time to get money out the door and set up any additional programs .
Lawmakers have also proposed other legislation to specifically lessen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed a standalone rental bill in June .
The Emergency Housing Protections and Relief Act of 2020 sets aside $ 100 billion for emergency rental assistance programs and a $ 75 billion relief fund for homeowners .
It also extends the eviction and foreclosure moratorium for a year .
In the Senate , Elizabeth Warren introduced a bill last month to extend a nationwide eviction moratorium through March 2021 and expand it to include almost all renters .
Harris has also introduced the Rent Emergencies Leave Impacts on Evicted Families ( RELIEF ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on evictions and foreclosures for a year , prevent utility companies from cutting off services , and stop landlords from raising the rent .
But so far , these bills are largely on hold in the Republican-led Senate .
Eviction moratoriums are not a permanent solution to the crisis , but they ’ re an important stopgap to keep people in their homes during a public health catastrophe — especially for people who can ’ t qualify for assistance or who work in the informal economy .
And if Congress doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon , and eviction bans aren ’ t extended , the HELP Act would create an additional cushion , giving tenants assistance to fight evictions in court and a small lifeline to limit the effects on their credit history .
During an unparalleled public health and economic emergency , every bit counts .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work 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 .

America’s looming housing crisis is here.
The federal eviction moratorium expired last week, ending protections for approximately 12 million renters. A patchwork of state and local eviction moratoriums are elapsing, or will in the coming weeks. And expanded unemployment insurance guaranteed by the CARES Act will also run out by the end of the month, eliminating $600 a week to millions of unemployed workers who don’t have jobs to go back to right now.
As these benefits dry up, the United States “is facing an eviction crisis of biblical proportions,” as Aaron Carr, founder and executive director of the Housing Rights Initiative, a nonprofit housing watchdog group, put it to Vox earlier this month. All this is happening in a country with more than 4.3 million confirmed Covid-19 cases, where one of the best strategies mitigate the coronavirus outbreak is to keep people home.
To try to ease this crisis, Democrats in Congress have proposed new legislation to help Americans facing evictions. On Tuesday, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) are introducing the Housing Emergencies Lifeline Program (HELP) Act, which will provide funding so those at risk of eviction can access legal representation and any evictions will do limited damage to renters’ credit.
“Housing is a human right, and in the face of an impending eviction tsunami, we must take bold, urgent action to affirm that right and protect the millions of families facing housing instability,” Pressley said in a statement.
“Housing justice is racial and economic justice,” she added, “and as workers and families across our country confront an unprecedented financial cliff, Congress must act with the urgency needed to prevent mass evictions.”
What the HELP Act would do
The HELP Act would allocate $10 billion in Emergency Solutions Grants (ESGs), which provide funding to states and localities for programs related to things like homelessness prevention and outreach, to go toward funding legal representation for those on the verge of being evicted.
Research has shown that providing tenants access to counsel can dramatically improve their chances in housing court, and the odds of a favorable outcome increase sharply.
Tenants are far more likely to come to housing court without attorneys, compared to landlords. For example, in New York City, before the local government instituted a right-to-counsel law in 2017 for low-income tenants facing evictions, 95 percent of landlords had an attorney compared to less than 1 percent of tenants, according to New York University’s Furman Center. After NYC’s right-to-counsel law was passed, tenant representation increased across the city. According to the Community Service Society, 84 percent of 22,000 eligible New Yorkers who had attorneys stayed in their homes in fiscal year 2018.
Experts say that expanding tenants rights programs, including providing more robust legal aid and representation, would benefit low-income renters, with or without the Covid-19 outbreak. But the threat of mass evictions during a pandemic makes this even more urgent.
“Evictions are a really fast process; they’re much faster than most civil cases,” Navneet Grewal, litigation counsel for Disability Rights California, told Vox in July, in a conversation unrelated to this legislation. “There aren’t enough lawyers for people who are being evicted, and having a lawyer actually makes an enormous difference.”
The legislation would also require landlords to inform tenants about their rights and responsibilities, and try to reduce the harm to tenants’ credit. According to the legislation, credit reporting would only happen in cases where the landlord won a final judgment against the tenant — which usually means the court awards a landlord back rent and the apartment. Even in these cases, the bill limits the time that information can stay on a credit report to one year.
Finally, the bill would direct the secretary of housing and urban development, currently Ben Carson, to build a database of eviction data from states and localities that receive federal housing assistance.
Altogether, this bill would give tenants additional tools to fight evictions, which will provide relief to renter households and housing courts that may be overburdened with the coming wave of evictions. “Far too many Americans are facing eviction, leaving them without a roof over their heads in the midst of a public health emergency,” Sen. Harris said in a statement. about the bill. “Congress must take action to give tenants resources to help them stay in their homes.”
America’s housing crisis is here. The pandemic is making it worse.
America was staring down a housing crisis even before the coronavirus arrived in the United States. Of America’s nearly 43 million renters, about 20.8 million — almost half — were “cost-burdened,” meaning more than 30 percent of their income went to housing costs, according to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. Of those, about 10.9 million renter households were “severely burdened,” spending more than 50 percent of their income on rent.
In pre-pandemic times, evictions exacerbated inequalities in housing. The coronavirus will deepen those divides. Renters, in general, tend to be lower-income than homeowners. Black and Hispanic households are twice as likely to rent compared to white households, according to a Pew Research study. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, on average, Black renters had evictions filed against them at nearly twice the rate of white renters.
All of this set up the United States for an eviction disaster. The Covid-19 Eviction Defense Project, a Colorado-based legal project, estimates that between 19 million and 23 million renters are at risk of eviction by the end of September. A patchwork of eviction moratoriums across the country and benefits from the CARES Act, including a one-time stimulus check and expanded unemployment benefits of $600 per week (which were also made available to self-employed and gig workers), helped forestall the catastrophe. But unless Congress acts immediately, many of these protections are gone, or will be by the end of the month, just a few days away.
In May, Democrats in the House passed a $3 trillion stimulus package. The HEROES Act, as it’s called, comes with additional cash stimulus, expanded unemployment insurance, and almost $200 billion in financial support for housing and homelessness programs, including $100 billion for emergency rental assistance. That money would help keep tenants in their homes and benefit landlords, especially smaller ones who may rely on rental income to pay for building maintenance, utilities, mortgages, taxes, and other expenses.
The HEROES Act would also expand a nationwide eviction moratorium for nonpayment to include most renters for 12 months, streamlining the current mishmash of state and local policies. The bill would also provide money to state and local budgets depleted because of the pandemic response.
But the HEROES Act has stalled in the Republican-led Senate. Now the GOP is presenting its own stimulus plan, which offers significantly reduced unemployment insurance (just $200 per week through September), another round of stimulus checks, and an expansion of the Paycheck Protection Program, to help small businesses, among other items. It’s at the very least an opening bid for negotiations, but it falls way short of what is likely needed and may come too late to avoid a gap in benefits, as it takes time to get money out the door and set up any additional programs.
Lawmakers have also proposed other legislation to specifically lessen the burden on renters. The House passed a standalone rental bill in June. The Emergency Housing Protections and Relief Act of 2020 sets aside $100 billion for emergency rental assistance programs and a $75 billion relief fund for homeowners. It also extends the eviction and foreclosure moratorium for a year.
In the Senate, Elizabeth Warren introduced a bill last month to extend a nationwide eviction moratorium through March 2021 and expand it to include almost all renters. Harris has also introduced the Rent Emergencies Leave Impacts on Evicted Families (RELIEF) Act, which would put a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures for a year, prevent utility companies from cutting off services, and stop landlords from raising the rent. But so far, these bills are largely on hold in the Republican-led Senate.
Eviction moratoriums are not a permanent solution to the crisis, but they’re an important stopgap to keep people in their homes during a public health catastrophe — especially for people who can’t qualify for assistance or who work in the informal economy.
And if Congress doesn’t pass a version of the HEROES Act soon, and eviction bans aren’t extended, the HELP Act would create an additional cushion, giving tenants assistance to fight evictions in court and a small lifeline to limit the effects on their credit history. During an unparalleled public health and economic emergency, every bit counts.


vox--2020-07-29--The GOP’s radical plan to shield business from Covid-19 lawsuits, explained

On Monday , Senate Republicans unveiled their opening offer in negotiations over new legislation to mitigate the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic .
The Senate GOP ’ s $ 1 trillion package of proposals arrived just days before enhanced unemployment benefits are set to expire at the end of July , meaning that many jobless Americans ’ incomes will drop precipitously if a new bill isn ’ t signed into law this week .
House Democrats passed their proposal 10 weeks ago — a $ 3 trillion package that extends the enhanced benefits and provides various forms of relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments .
One of the centerpieces of the Senate Republican package is a bill that would give businesses sweeping immunity from lawsuits alleging that they helped spread the coronavirus to their workers or customers .
It ’ s such a high priority that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) told CNBC on Tuesday that Republicans are “ not negotiating over liability protection ” — a position that , if true , could blow up any possibility of additional pandemic relief becoming law .
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , warned that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the proposed liability shield is a sign that McConnell “ does want to get to an agreement ” on additional pandemic relief .
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) echoed Pelosi , saying that “ we asked [ Treasury Secretary Steven ] Mnuchin and [ White House Chief of Staff Mark ] Meadows to go back and see if Mr. McConnell really meant that .
Because that would mean he ’ s probably not interested in any bill at all.
” It ’ s easy to see why Democrats feel this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critics describe the Republican proposal , they frequently use a strong word : “ impossible.
” As Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) said in a Senate floor speech denouncing the bill on Tuesday , the legislation “ makes it nearly impossible to prevail ” in court against a company accused of taking inadequate measures to slow the spread of the pandemic .
The bill , entitled the SAFE TO WORK Act , places a wide array of obstacles before workers and consumers who allege that they were infected due to a business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plaintiffs who allege they were infected because of truly reckless behavior by a business .
Many of these obstacles are significant barriers to liability in and of themselves .
But the combination of these many new hurdles could give businesses all but total immunity from lawsuits alleging that they allowed the virus to spread unchecked .
As Remington Gregg , a lawyer with Public Citizen , told me , “ it is near impossible for a suit ” to even get to court under the Republican proposal .
And once a suit commences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ almost impossible.
” Among other things , the bill requires plaintiffs to identify “ all places and persons ” they visited and “ all persons who visited [ their ] residence ” two weeks prior to the onset of symptoms .
It shields businesses from liability unless they acted in “ reckless disregard ” of their legal obligations — while simultaneously reducing the scope of those obligations in many jurisdictions .
It imposes a heightened burden of proof on plaintiffs .
It shields many businesses so long as they have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mitigation of transmission ” that aligns with “ applicable government standards.
” And it drastically limits the remedies available to most plaintiffs who somehow overcome all of these hurdles .
Oh , and one more thing .
It allows businesses to sue — and collect damages and attorney ’ s fees from — anyone who so much as writes a letter to a business demanding compensation for certain Covid-19-related legal violations , if the allegations in that letter are later deemed “ meritless.
” And it allows the United States attorney general to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other entities that are “ engaged in a pattern or practice ” of seeking compensation for similar violations .
The bill , in other words , does not simply make it nearly impossible for Covid plaintiffs to prevail in court .
It also discourages lawyers from even taking on clients with the coronavirus who want to hold a business accountable for their infection , because those lawyers could potentially face crippling costs for representing such clients .
What the bill does The Republican proposal imposes a wide array of barriers on plaintiffs alleging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the negligent ( or worse ) actions of their employer or a business that they patronized .
Think of a meat-packing plant that forbids its workers from wearing masks , and that forces them to work in close quarters even though the bosses are aware that workers are becoming sick .
As noted above , these barriers require plaintiffs to give a detailed account of where they ’ ve been and who they ’ ve been in contact with prior to becoming infected ; they limit the amount of money damages available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discourage lawyers from taking clients with Covid-19-related concerns .
Perhaps most significantly , the bill drastically alters the legal and evidentiary standards governing suits against a business accused of spreading the coronavirus .
Though tort law varies by state .
plaintiffs who claim they were injured by a business will typically prevail if they can show that the business was negligent in allowing an injury to happen .
As Gregg explains , that means that the business failed “ to take reasonable care under the circumstances.
” There is already a great deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care ” standard .
Courts , for example , might excuse an error by an emergency room physician who is so inundated with Covid-19 cases that they can barely focus on each individual patient , even though they might hold another doctor liable for the same error if that doctor were acting in ordinary circumstances .
Similarly , a business that did not require its employees to wear masks at the beginning of the pandemic , when little was known about the disease and how it spreads , would likely not be liable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that did not require masks after the benefits of mask-wearing became widely known is more likely to be deemed negligent .
Negligence suits are normally weighed under a “ preponderance of the evidence ” standard , meaning the plaintiff must show that the entirety of the evidence supporting their position is more persuasive than the evidence supporting the defendant ’ s position .
The SAFE TO WORK Act makes several significant changes to this ordinary framework .
First , it requires plaintiffs to prove far more than negligence to prevail .
Rather , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committed a “ conscious , voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard ” of its legal obligations to that plaintiff .
It ’ s not enough , in other words , for a plaintiff to show that a business failed to “ take reasonable care ” to prevent the spread of Covid-19 .
Rather , plaintiffs will generally have to show that the business made a conscious choice to ignore the danger that its actions would spread the disease .
Second , a plaintiff has to do more than show that a preponderance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rather , they must prove their claims by “ clear and convincing evidence , ” a heightened burden of proof that courts typically reserve for unusually sensitive cases .
For instance , if the government wants to confine a person with mental illness against their will because they believe that person to be a threat to themselves or others , the government typically must prove that such confinement is justified by clear and convincing evidence .
Third , the bill specifically requires a plaintiff to prove — again , by clear and convincing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reckless behavior exposed them to the coronavirus , and that this “ actual exposure to coronavirus caused the personal injury of the plaintiff.
” The implications of this requirement are profound .
Imagine a worker in a meat-packing plant who is infected on the job due to unsafe working conditions .
Now imagine that , on the same day that the worker becomes infected , they make a weekly grocery shopping trip .
Under the Republican proposal , this worker has a heightened burden to prove that they became infected at work and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a difficult task under a preponderance of the evidence standard .
It could very well be impossible under the more demanding clear and convincing evidence standard .
It should be noted , moreover , that these are only some of the additional burdens imposed on coronavirus plaintiffs by the SAFE TO WORK Act .
Taken together , the many burdens imposed by this law will make it extraordinarily difficult for such plaintiffs to even find a lawyer willing to take their case .
They will make it unusually hard for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , even if the case proceeds to trial , the plaintiff will face a nearly insurmountable burden of proof .
On top of all that , if the plaintiff does prevail , the bill places strict limits on the amount of money damages they are able to collect unless they can show that the business engaged in “ willful misconduct.
” The case for the Republican proposal The SAFE TO WORK Act opens with nearly a dozen pages of findings laying out Senate Republicans ’ case for immunizing businesses from Covid-19-related liability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease , ” the bill notes , “ state and local governments took drastic measures .
They shut down small and large businesses , schools , colleges and universities , religious , philanthropic and other nonprofit institutions , and local government agencies.
” But now , the United States faces an “ economic storm , ” and additional government spending “ alone can not protect the United States from further devastation.
” Rather , “ only reopening the economy so that workers can get back to work and students can get back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bill , in other words , fairly candidly places the goal of “ reopening the economy ” before the goal of continuing to halt the spread of Covid-19 .
The bill also claims that “ one of the chief impediments to the continued flow of interstate commerce as this public health crisis has unfolded is the risk of litigation.
” Such lawsuits “ threaten to keep ” many businesses and other institutions “ from reopening for fear of expensive litigation that might prove to be meritless.
” There is little evidence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major impediment to economic growth — or even that it is particularly common .
Hunton Andrews Kurth , a multi-national law firm that primarily represents corporate clients , tracks coronavirus-related litigation within the United States .
As of this writing , its database identifies 3,832 legal complaints filed since January 30 — the date the first legal complaint in the database was filed — relating to the disease .
( Disclosure : My father was a partner at Hunton & Williams , one of two firms that merged to form Hunton Andrews Kurth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a lot — but about 16 million civil lawsuits were filed in state trial courts in 2018 , according to the Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Center for State Courts .
So the 3,832 coronavirus-related cases identified by the Hunton database are a tiny fraction of the American justice system ’ s civil docket .
Most of the cases flagged by the Hunton database , moreover , are not the sort of personal injury or employment-related suits targeted by the SAFE TO WORK Act .
Some , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be performed due to the pandemic .
Others are suits brought by students seeking refunds from colleges or universities .
Many are suits challenging state public health orders requiring businesses to close .
Fewer than 100 of the cases listed in the Hunton database involve personal injury or wrongful death suits brought on behalf of people who claim they were exposed to the coronavirus in a workplace or other business setting .
So what happens now ?
Many opponents of the Republican proposal doubt that Senate leaders actually believe this bill will become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that this is not a serious attempt at policymaking , ” Gregg , the lawyer from Public Citizen , told me .
McConnell ’ s threats to not negotiate notwithstanding , the SAFE TO WORK Act reads more like an intentionally provocative entry into negotiations with congressional Democrats than a proposal that has any serious chance of passing muster with those Democrats .
“ I ’ ll bet you dollars to donuts that [ Republicans ] will come out and say ‘ we ’ re willing to compromise , ’ ” Gregg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , by taking such an extreme position in their initial proposal , Senate Republicans could tilt the negotiations and the final compromise in their direction .
It ’ s unlikely that Republicans will agree to a compromise that does not include some kind of liability protections for businesses in the broader package of pandemic relief legislation .
McConnell has repeatedly claimed that some kind of liability shield is a “ red line ” and that “ we can ’ t pass another bill unless we have liability protection.
” So what would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Chicago law professor Daniel Hemel and Northwestern University law professor Daniel Rodriguez lay out one possibility in an op-ed that ran Tuesday in the Washington Post .
Instead of just giving a blanket liability shield to businesses , they propose Congress should reward businesses that promote public health with a limited degree of lawsuit immunity .
Suppose that a hairdresser tests positive for Covid-19 .
The best way to prevent more infections would be for this individual ’ s employer to immediately identify who that hairdresser ’ s clients were in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them and warn them that they may have been exposed to the virus .
But there ’ s a problem , Hemel and Rodriguez explain .
“ The salon owner worries that by doing so , she could be opening the door to lawsuits from customers who become ill. ” To avoid this problem , Hemel and Rodriguez propose a targeted fix : “ A safe harbor from tort liability for businesses that inform customers about potential exposures within 24 hours of the business receiving notice that one of its employees or another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Such a proposal would not be without costs .
As the two professors acknowledge , it could prevent some customers from being compensated by genuinely negligent businesses .
And a safe harbor for businesses that immediately warn customers “ might weaken incentives for businesses to take safety precautions in the first place.
” But these costs would , at the very least , have offsetting benefits — Hemel and Rodriguez ’ s proposal would give businesses a powerful incentive to warn customers of possible infection .
When I asked Hemel about this proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of similar legal rules that protect negligent companies or individuals that try to correct their error .
The Federal Rules of Evidence , for example , provide “ that subsequent remedial measures can not be used to prove negligence , culpable conduct , product defect , or failure to warn.
” For example , if Toyota recalls cars with a defective airbag , the fact that a recall happened can not be used to prove that the airbag was defective — because otherwise Toyota would be reluctant to conduct a recall in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many states have “ I ’ m sorry ” laws that provide that “ if a doctor apologizes to you for a medical error , you can ’ t use the apology as evidence in your malpractice suit.
” As Hemel admits , neither of these examples are a “ perfect analogy ” for his and Rodriguez ’ s proposal .
Though lawyers can not cite a product recall as evidence that a product was defective , they still might be able to prove that product defective by other means .
Hemel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving much broader immunity to businesses that swiftly warn their customers about possible infection .
But their proposal is also fairly narrowly targeted and , unlike the euphemistically named SAFE TO WORK Act , Hemel and Rodriguez accept that protecting the public health is a valuable goal that shouldn ’ t be undermined by over-broad legal immunity .
Republicans waited until the last moment to even offer a proposal for the next round of pandemic relief legislation .
If that legislation does not pass in just a few days , millions of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and the nation could plunge deeper into economic ruin .
And yet , McConnell insists that no bill will pass unless it includes a liability shield .
If he sticks to that position , that ’ s not just terrible news for the country — it ’ s likely to be a disaster for the Republican Party in an election year .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work 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 .

On Monday, Senate Republicans unveiled their opening offer in negotiations over new legislation to mitigate the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Senate GOP’s $1 trillion package of proposals arrived just days before enhanced unemployment benefits are set to expire at the end of July, meaning that many jobless Americans’ incomes will drop precipitously if a new bill isn’t signed into law this week.
House Democrats passed their proposal 10 weeks ago — a $3 trillion package that extends the enhanced benefits and provides various forms of relief to individuals, businesses, and state governments.
One of the centerpieces of the Senate Republican package is a bill that would give businesses sweeping immunity from lawsuits alleging that they helped spread the coronavirus to their workers or customers.
It’s such a high priority that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told CNBC on Tuesday that Republicans are “not negotiating over liability protection” — a position that, if true, could blow up any possibility of additional pandemic relief becoming law.
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, warned that McConnell’s refusal to negotiate over the proposed liability shield is a sign that McConnell “does want to get to an agreement” on additional pandemic relief.
Pelosi reacts to McConnell’s statement earlier today that he’s not willing to negotiate on liability protections: “It seems to me that Senator McConnell really doesn't want to get an agreement.” — Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) July 28, 2020
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) echoed Pelosi, saying that “we asked [Treasury Secretary Steven] Mnuchin and [White House Chief of Staff Mark] Meadows to go back and see if Mr. McConnell really meant that. Because that would mean he’s probably not interested in any bill at all.”
It’s easy to see why Democrats feel this way. When this bill’s critics describe the Republican proposal, they frequently use a strong word: “impossible.” As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said in a Senate floor speech denouncing the bill on Tuesday, the legislation “makes it nearly impossible to prevail” in court against a company accused of taking inadequate measures to slow the spread of the pandemic.
The bill, entitled the SAFE TO WORK Act, places a wide array of obstacles before workers and consumers who allege that they were infected due to a business’s negligence — or even against plaintiffs who allege they were infected because of truly reckless behavior by a business. Many of these obstacles are significant barriers to liability in and of themselves. But the combination of these many new hurdles could give businesses all but total immunity from lawsuits alleging that they allowed the virus to spread unchecked.
As Remington Gregg, a lawyer with Public Citizen, told me, “it is near impossible for a suit” to even get to court under the Republican proposal. And once a suit commences, proving a plaintiff’s case is “almost impossible.”
Among other things, the bill requires plaintiffs to identify “all places and persons” they visited and “all persons who visited [their] residence” two weeks prior to the onset of symptoms. It shields businesses from liability unless they acted in “reckless disregard” of their legal obligations — while simultaneously reducing the scope of those obligations in many jurisdictions. It imposes a heightened burden of proof on plaintiffs. It shields many businesses so long as they have a “written or published policy on the mitigation of transmission” that aligns with “applicable government standards.” And it drastically limits the remedies available to most plaintiffs who somehow overcome all of these hurdles.
Oh, and one more thing. It allows businesses to sue — and collect damages and attorney’s fees from — anyone who so much as writes a letter to a business demanding compensation for certain Covid-19-related legal violations, if the allegations in that letter are later deemed “meritless.” And it allows the United States attorney general to sue law firms, unions, and other entities that are “engaged in a pattern or practice” of seeking compensation for similar violations.
The bill, in other words, does not simply make it nearly impossible for Covid plaintiffs to prevail in court. It also discourages lawyers from even taking on clients with the coronavirus who want to hold a business accountable for their infection, because those lawyers could potentially face crippling costs for representing such clients.
What the bill does
The Republican proposal imposes a wide array of barriers on plaintiffs alleging that they became infected with Covid-19 due to the negligent (or worse) actions of their employer or a business that they patronized. Think of a meat-packing plant that forbids its workers from wearing masks, and that forces them to work in close quarters even though the bosses are aware that workers are becoming sick.
As noted above, these barriers require plaintiffs to give a detailed account of where they’ve been and who they’ve been in contact with prior to becoming infected; they limit the amount of money damages available to most plaintiffs; and they actively discourage lawyers from taking clients with Covid-19-related concerns.
Perhaps most significantly, the bill drastically alters the legal and evidentiary standards governing suits against a business accused of spreading the coronavirus.
Though tort law varies by state. plaintiffs who claim they were injured by a business will typically prevail if they can show that the business was negligent in allowing an injury to happen. As Gregg explains, that means that the business failed “to take reasonable care under the circumstances.”
There is already a great deal of flexibility built into this “reasonable care” standard. Courts, for example, might excuse an error by an emergency room physician who is so inundated with Covid-19 cases that they can barely focus on each individual patient, even though they might hold another doctor liable for the same error if that doctor were acting in ordinary circumstances.
Similarly, a business that did not require its employees to wear masks at the beginning of the pandemic, when little was known about the disease and how it spreads, would likely not be liable for this mistake. But a business that did not require masks after the benefits of mask-wearing became widely known is more likely to be deemed negligent.
Negligence suits are normally weighed under a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, meaning the plaintiff must show that the entirety of the evidence supporting their position is more persuasive than the evidence supporting the defendant’s position.
The SAFE TO WORK Act makes several significant changes to this ordinary framework.
First, it requires plaintiffs to prove far more than negligence to prevail. Rather, the plaintiff must show that a business committed a “conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard” of its legal obligations to that plaintiff. It’s not enough, in other words, for a plaintiff to show that a business failed to “take reasonable care” to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Rather, plaintiffs will generally have to show that the business made a conscious choice to ignore the danger that its actions would spread the disease.
Second, a plaintiff has to do more than show that a preponderance of the evidence supports their claims. Rather, they must prove their claims by “clear and convincing evidence,” a heightened burden of proof that courts typically reserve for unusually sensitive cases. For instance, if the government wants to confine a person with mental illness against their will because they believe that person to be a threat to themselves or others, the government typically must prove that such confinement is justified by clear and convincing evidence.
Third, the bill specifically requires a plaintiff to prove — again, by clear and convincing evidence — that the business’s reckless behavior exposed them to the coronavirus, and that this “actual exposure to coronavirus caused the personal injury of the plaintiff.”
The implications of this requirement are profound. Imagine a worker in a meat-packing plant who is infected on the job due to unsafe working conditions. Now imagine that, on the same day that the worker becomes infected, they make a weekly grocery shopping trip. Under the Republican proposal, this worker has a heightened burden to prove that they became infected at work and not at the grocery store. That’s a difficult task under a preponderance of the evidence standard. It could very well be impossible under the more demanding clear and convincing evidence standard.
It should be noted, moreover, that these are only some of the additional burdens imposed on coronavirus plaintiffs by the SAFE TO WORK Act. Taken together, the many burdens imposed by this law will make it extraordinarily difficult for such plaintiffs to even find a lawyer willing to take their case. They will make it unusually hard for that lawyer to even file a complaint. And, even if the case proceeds to trial, the plaintiff will face a nearly insurmountable burden of proof.
On top of all that, if the plaintiff does prevail, the bill places strict limits on the amount of money damages they are able to collect unless they can show that the business engaged in “willful misconduct.”
The case for the Republican proposal
The SAFE TO WORK Act opens with nearly a dozen pages of findings laying out Senate Republicans’ case for immunizing businesses from Covid-19-related liability. “To halt the spread of the disease,” the bill notes, “state and local governments took drastic measures. They shut down small and large businesses, schools, colleges and universities, religious, philanthropic and other nonprofit institutions, and local government agencies.”
But now, the United States faces an “economic storm,” and additional government spending “alone cannot protect the United States from further devastation.” Rather, “only reopening the economy so that workers can get back to work and students can get back to school can accomplish that goal.”
The bill, in other words, fairly candidly places the goal of “reopening the economy” before the goal of continuing to halt the spread of Covid-19. The bill also claims that “one of the chief impediments to the continued flow of interstate commerce as this public health crisis has unfolded is the risk of litigation.” Such lawsuits “threaten to keep” many businesses and other institutions “from reopening for fear of expensive litigation that might prove to be meritless.”
There is little evidence, however, that Covid-19-related litigation is a major impediment to economic growth — or even that it is particularly common. Hunton Andrews Kurth, a multi-national law firm that primarily represents corporate clients, tracks coronavirus-related litigation within the United States. As of this writing, its database identifies 3,832 legal complaints filed since January 30 — the date the first legal complaint in the database was filed — relating to the disease. (Disclosure: My father was a partner at Hunton & Williams, one of two firms that merged to form Hunton Andrews Kurth.)
Nearly 4.000 cases may seem like a lot — but about 16 million civil lawsuits were filed in state trial courts in 2018, according to the Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Center for State Courts. So the 3,832 coronavirus-related cases identified by the Hunton database are a tiny fraction of the American justice system’s civil docket.
Most of the cases flagged by the Hunton database, moreover, are not the sort of personal injury or employment-related suits targeted by the SAFE TO WORK Act. Some, for example, involve contractual obligations that could not be performed due to the pandemic. Others are suits brought by students seeking refunds from colleges or universities. Many are suits challenging state public health orders requiring businesses to close.
Fewer than 100 of the cases listed in the Hunton database involve personal injury or wrongful death suits brought on behalf of people who claim they were exposed to the coronavirus in a workplace or other business setting.
So what happens now?
Many opponents of the Republican proposal doubt that Senate leaders actually believe this bill will become law. “It’s very clear that this is not a serious attempt at policymaking,” Gregg, the lawyer from Public Citizen, told me. McConnell’s threats to not negotiate notwithstanding, the SAFE TO WORK Act reads more like an intentionally provocative entry into negotiations with congressional Democrats than a proposal that has any serious chance of passing muster with those Democrats.
“I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that [Republicans] will come out and say ‘we’re willing to compromise,’” Gregg told me, though he was concerned that, by taking such an extreme position in their initial proposal, Senate Republicans could tilt the negotiations and the final compromise in their direction.
It’s unlikely that Republicans will agree to a compromise that does not include some kind of liability protections for businesses in the broader package of pandemic relief legislation. McConnell has repeatedly claimed that some kind of liability shield is a “red line” and that “we can’t pass another bill unless we have liability protection.”
So what would a reasonable compromise look like? University of Chicago law professor Daniel Hemel and Northwestern University law professor Daniel Rodriguez lay out one possibility in an op-ed that ran Tuesday in the Washington Post. Instead of just giving a blanket liability shield to businesses, they propose Congress should reward businesses that promote public health with a limited degree of lawsuit immunity.
Suppose that a hairdresser tests positive for Covid-19. The best way to prevent more infections would be for this individual’s employer to immediately identify who that hairdresser’s clients were in the last several days, and to call them and warn them that they may have been exposed to the virus.
But there’s a problem, Hemel and Rodriguez explain. “The salon owner worries that by doing so, she could be opening the door to lawsuits from customers who become ill.”
To avoid this problem, Hemel and Rodriguez propose a targeted fix: “A safe harbor from tort liability for businesses that inform customers about potential exposures within 24 hours of the business receiving notice that one of its employees or another customer on its premises had covid-19.”
Such a proposal would not be without costs. As the two professors acknowledge, it could prevent some customers from being compensated by genuinely negligent businesses. And a safe harbor for businesses that immediately warn customers “might weaken incentives for businesses to take safety precautions in the first place.” But these costs would, at the very least, have offsetting benefits — Hemel and Rodriguez’s proposal would give businesses a powerful incentive to warn customers of possible infection.
When I asked Hemel about this proposal, he pointed to a couple examples of similar legal rules that protect negligent companies or individuals that try to correct their error. The Federal Rules of Evidence, for example, provide “that subsequent remedial measures cannot be used to prove negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, or failure to warn.”
For example, if Toyota recalls cars with a defective airbag, the fact that a recall happened cannot be used to prove that the airbag was defective — because otherwise Toyota would be reluctant to conduct a recall in the first place.
Similarly, Hemel noted, many states have “I’m sorry” laws that provide that “if a doctor apologizes to you for a medical error, you can’t use the apology as evidence in your malpractice suit.”
As Hemel admits, neither of these examples are a “perfect analogy” for his and Rodriguez’s proposal. Though lawyers cannot cite a product recall as evidence that a product was defective, they still might be able to prove that product defective by other means. Hemel and Rodriguez, by contrast, propose giving much broader immunity to businesses that swiftly warn their customers about possible infection.
But their proposal is also fairly narrowly targeted and, unlike the euphemistically named SAFE TO WORK Act, Hemel and Rodriguez accept that protecting the public health is a valuable goal that shouldn’t be undermined by over-broad legal immunity.
Republicans waited until the last moment to even offer a proposal for the next round of pandemic relief legislation. If that legislation does not pass in just a few days, millions of Americans’ incomes will fall off a cliff — and the nation could plunge deeper into economic ruin.
And yet, McConnell insists that no bill will pass unless it includes a liability shield. If he sticks to that position, that’s not just terrible news for the country — it’s likely to be a disaster for the Republican Party in an election year.


vox--2020-07-29--The Trump administration’s choice for immigrant families in detention: Separate or risk Covid-19

President Donald Trump made a pledge in June 2018 to stop separating families in immigration detention , seemingly bringing an end to a policy that was designed to deter migrants from attempting to cross the southern border , and that ignited protests nationwide .
“ We ’ re going to keep families together but we still have to maintain toughness or our country will be overrun by people , by crime , by all of the things that we don ’ t stand for and that we don ’ t want , ” Trump said , signing an executive order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this administration to maintain family unity ” in immigration detention except in cases where parents pose a danger to their children .
But two years later , it ’ s clear that the Trump administration never fully renounced family separations .
Immigrant advocates found that hundreds of children were separated from their parents and other family members in the months following Trump ’ s executive order .
In at least some cases , immigration officials were using minor immigration violations , such as reentering the US without authorization , and unsubstantiated allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents posed a danger to their children and to justify separating them .
These kinds of separations have largely come to a halt , particularly as the Trump administration has shut down the asylum system at the southern border in recent months .
Now , amid the pandemic , the administration is setting itself up to carry out what immigrant advocates call a new kind of family separation .
This time , it ’ s pressuring parents already detained within the United States to voluntarily separate from their children by presenting them with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice.
” Either allow their children to be placed with relatives or a foster family in the US while the parents remain detained , or stay together as a family in indefinite detention and risk contracting Covid-19 .
This risk for these families isn ’ t theoretical : Covid-19 has already spread through ICE facilities and in the prison system more broadly , infecting thousands of those in confinement .
The policy affects about 300 parents and children who remain detained across three family detention centers , two in Texas and one in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But in presenting this choice , the administration is ignoring a third option : releasing the families together , which it has the discretion to do at any time .
Under previous administrations , many families were simply released into the interior of the US on parole if the parents had no criminal history .
“ We know that there is an alternative , ” Krish Vignarajah , president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services , said .
“ We hope that this moment should force us to ask ourselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first place .
Unless the families are released together , we are looking at family separation by another name.
” ICE has been ordered to release children , but that could lead to family separations The coronavirus has already ripped through immigration detention centers : Across the more than 130 private and state-run facilities nationwide , there have been more than 3,800 confirmed Covid-19 cases and three deaths among detainees as of Tuesday .
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has released some medically vulnerable people from immigration detention during the pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of coronavirus in its facilities ; for instance , it recently instituted voluntary Covid-19 testing for new arrivals at one of the family detention centers in Karnes , Texas , and started isolating people who test positive so they don ’ t infect other detainees .
But ICE ’ s compliance with Covid-19 preventative protocols has remained spotty .
Across the three family detention centers , about 90 staff and detainees have consequently contracted the virus so far .
Last month , a federal judge in California found that the conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling that keeping children in detention likely violates a decades-old agreement that lays out basic standards for their care .
That agreement — known as the “ Flores settlement ” — mandates that the government release migrant children “ without unnecessary delay , ” and keep them in “ safe and sanitary conditions ” in the meantime .
Children themselves don ’ t generally appear to be vulnerable to the virus unless they have a preexisting health condition that puts them at risk .
But the effects of social isolation in detention can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ psychological trauma and mental health issues during a critical developmental period .
They may also be able to carry the virus without exhibiting symptoms , potentially spreading it to those with whom they come in contact .
The judge consequently ordered the government to release more than 100 children .
“ The family residential centers are on fire and there is no more time for half measures , ” US District Judge Dolly Gee wrote in her decision .
ICE was supposed to comply with that order by July 27 .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consent in order to release their children to relatives or foster families in the US , and none have agreed so far .
What ’ s more , the agency remains steadfast in refusing to release the families together or pursue comparatively low-cost alternatives to keeping immigrants in detention , including the now-defunct Obama-era Family Case Management Program .
Under that program , which Trump ended in June 2017 , families were released and assigned to social workers who aided them in finding attorneys and accommodation and ensured that they showed up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saturday that her earlier order to release the children is essentially “ unenforceable ” until the status quo changes .
She can ’ t compel ICE to release the parents along with the children as part of the lawsuit she ’ s overseeing .
And another federal judge in Washington , DC , who has jurisdiction over the parents ’ cases , recently refused to release them despite finding that ICE “ continues to fall short of full compliance ” with its Covid-19 guidelines .
Lawyers for the immigrants are still trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanent procedure by which ICE could present parents with the option of allowing their children to be released or else waive their children ’ s right to be expediently released under the Flores settlement .
They ’ re asking the government to at least offer an explanation of immigrants ’ rights .
But some immigrant advocates say those negotiations shouldn ’ t be happening in the first place and that the lawyers should instead be seeking the release of all families .
RAICES , an organization that offers legal aid to immigrants and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the case before Judge Gee .
“ Both permanent separation and indefinite detention are adverse to their interests , ” the organization said in a statement .
“ The very act of presenting families in prison together with this question is cruel.
” In the meantime , families have to weigh the trade-offs : potentially exposing their children to the coronavirus in these detention facilities versus a traumatic separation that could also put their well-being at risk .
ICE has been pursuing this binary choice policy since the early days of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persuade any families in detention to voluntarily separate .
A report by Amnesty International found that officials at all three family detention centers had instructed immigrant parents as early as mid-May to sign forms that would allow their children to be released from detention .
The forms were written in English , which many of the Spanish-speaking and Indigenous immigrants could not understand .
NBC News ’ s Julia Ainsley , who obtained a copy of the forms , reported that the form stated that it complied with the Flores settlement agreement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be sent to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement , which could place them with other family members in the US or foster families , according to Refugees International .
Some children were under the age of 3 , including 12-month-old babies who could not yet talk or walk .
The parents knew that , if they remained in detention without their children , they would face almost certain deportation .
But they also feared for their children as the coronavirus continued to spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t force us , but they did tell us we could send our daughter away because of the pandemic , ” one parent said in the Amnesty International report .
Family separations were previously used to deter unauthorized immigrants The Trump administration previously separated parents from their children as the consequence of a “ zero-tolerance ” policy meant to deter immigrants from attempting to cross the border without authorization .
Beginning in mid-2017 , the federal government ran a pilot program in El Paso , Texas , under which it began filing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border without authorization , including parents with minor children — even though many of them intended to seek asylum in the US .
Parents were sent to immigration detention to await deportation proceedings .
Their children , meanwhile , were sent to separate facilities operated by ORR and , in some cases , released to other family members in the US or foster homes .
The Trump administration formalized the policy in May 2018 .
At least 5,000 families were separated before Judge Gee ordered the federal government in June 2018 to reunify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The federal government , however , neglected to link the children to their parents in its databases , making the reunification process difficult , especially in the hundreds of cases of children who were under the age of 5 .
Advocates say that the Trump administration is now trying to use family separations as a way to make it easier to deport parents .
The Los Angeles Times ’ s Molly O ’ Toole detailed one such case in which officials threatened to deport a couple ’ s children back to El @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her claims to protection in the US and goes back with them , promising never to return to the US .
The US government has long known the psychological harms associated with separating families .
These harms would only add to the anxiety created by the pandemic as immigrants and their children fight for their release from detention .
Commander Jonathan White , who previously oversaw the government ’ s program providing care to unaccompanied immigrant children , told Congress that , beginning in February 2017 , he had repeatedly warned the officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely cause “ significant potential for traumatic psychological injury to the child.
” A September 2019 government watchdog report confirmed those effects , finding that immigrant children who entered government custody in 2018 frequently experienced “ intense trauma ” and those who were “ unexpectedly separated from a parent ” even more so .
Each child reacts to family separation differently .
But psychologists have observed three main kinds of effects : disruptions to their social attachments , increases in their emotional vulnerability , and , in some cases , post-traumatic stress disorder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American Psychological Association ’ s children , youth , and families office , said .
Those symptoms could be only short-term or persist in the long run — or not even manifest until a child enters their teen years or adulthood .
Any of them could significantly hinder a child ’ s later success in academics and in the workplace .
Parents who were separated from their children have experienced their own trauma — which may manifest in symptoms similar to those that researchers observe in children — and may not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to provide what their children need .
“ This crisis is certainly a crisis of the government ’ s own making , ” Shalyn Fluharty , director of the Dilley Pro Bono Project , a legal aid group for women and children seeking asylum , said in a press call in May .
“ No parent should be presented with a choice of being separated from their child.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump made a pledge in June 2018 to stop separating families in immigration detention, seemingly bringing an end to a policy that was designed to deter migrants from attempting to cross the southern border, and that ignited protests nationwide.
“We’re going to keep families together but we still have to maintain toughness or our country will be overrun by people, by crime, by all of the things that we don’t stand for and that we don’t want,” Trump said, signing an executive order stating that it is the “policy of this administration to maintain family unity” in immigration detention except in cases where parents pose a danger to their children.
But two years later, it’s clear that the Trump administration never fully renounced family separations.
Immigrant advocates found that hundreds of children were separated from their parents and other family members in the months following Trump’s executive order. In at least some cases, immigration officials were using minor immigration violations, such as reentering the US without authorization, and unsubstantiated allegations of gang affiliation, to claim that parents posed a danger to their children and to justify separating them.
These kinds of separations have largely come to a halt, particularly as the Trump administration has shut down the asylum system at the southern border in recent months.
Now, amid the Covid-19 pandemic, the administration is setting itself up to carry out what immigrant advocates call a new kind of family separation. This time, it’s pressuring parents already detained within the United States to voluntarily separate from their children by presenting them with what the administration has called a “binary choice.” Either allow their children to be placed with relatives or a foster family in the US while the parents remain detained, or stay together as a family in indefinite detention and risk contracting Covid-19.
This risk for these families isn’t theoretical: Covid-19 has already spread through ICE facilities and in the prison system more broadly, infecting thousands who are in confinement.
The policy affects about 300 parents and children who remain detained across three family detention centers, two in Texas and one in Pennsylvania, where they are housed together.
But in presenting this choice, the administration is ignoring a third option: releasing the families together, which it has the discretion to do at any time. Under previous administrations, many families were simply released into the interior of the US on parole if the parents had no criminal history.
“We know that there is an alternative,” Krish Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, said. “We hope that this moment should force us to ask ourselves why we lock up asylum-seeking families in the first place. Unless the families are released together, we are looking at family separation by another name.”
ICE has been ordered to release children, but that could lead to family separations
The coronavirus has already ripped through immigration detention centers: Across the more than 130 private and state-run facilities nationwide, there have been more than 3,800 confirmed Covid-19 cases and three deaths among detainees as of Tuesday.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has released some medically vulnerable people from immigration detention during the pandemic. It has also made efforts to mitigate the spread of coronavirus in its facilities; for instance, it recently instituted voluntary Covid-19 testing for new arrivals at one of the family detention centers in Karnes, Texas, and started isolating people who test positive so they don’t infect other detainees.
But ICE’s compliance with Covid-19 preventative protocols has remained spotty. Across the three family detention centers, about 90 staff and detainees have consequently contracted the virus so far.
Last month, a federal judge in California found that the conditions inside these detention centers remain hazardous, ruling that keeping children in detention likely violates a decades-old agreement that lays out basic standards for their care. That agreement — known as the “Flores settlement” — mandates that the government release migrant children “without unnecessary delay” and keep them in “safe and sanitary conditions” in the meantime.
Children themselves don’t generally appear to be vulnerable to the virus unless they have a preexisting health condition that puts them at risk. But the effects of social isolation in detention can be particularly harmful to them, exacerbating psychological trauma and mental health issues during a critical developmental period. They may also be able to carry the virus without exhibiting symptoms, potentially spreading it to those with whom they come into contact.
The judge consequently ordered the government to release more than 100 children.
“The family residential centers are on fire and there is no more time for half measures,” US District Judge Dolly Gee wrote in her decision.
ICE was supposed to comply with that order by July 27. But the agency is required to obtain parents’ consent in order to release their children to relatives or foster families in the US, and none have agreed so far.
What’s more, the agency remains steadfast in refusing to release the families together or pursue comparatively low-cost alternatives to keeping immigrants in detention, including the now-defunct Obama-era Family Case Management Program. Under that program, which Trump ended in June 2017, families were released and assigned to social workers who aided them in finding attorneys and accommodation and ensured that they showed up for their court hearings.
Judge Gee acknowledged Saturday that her earlier order to release the children is essentially “unenforceable” until the status quo changes. She can’t compel ICE to release the parents along with their children as part of the lawsuit she’s overseeing. And another federal judge in Washington, DC, who has jurisdiction over the parents’ cases, recently refused to release them despite finding that ICE “continues to fall short of full compliance” with its Covid-19 guidelines.
Lawyers for the immigrants are still trying to negotiate with the Trump administration over a permanent procedure by which ICE could present parents with the option of allowing their children to be released or else waive their children’s right to be expediently released under the Flores settlement. They’re asking the government to at least offer an explanation of immigrants’ rights.
But some immigrant advocates say those negotiations shouldn’t be happening in the first place and that the lawyers should instead be seeking the release of all families. RAICES, an organization that offers legal aid to immigrants and refugees, is trying to intervene in the case before Judge Gee.
“Both permanent separation and indefinite detention are adverse to their interests,” the organization said in a statement. “The very act of presenting families in prison together with this question is cruel.”
In the meantime, families have to weigh the trade-offs: potentially exposing their children to the coronavirus in these detention facilities versus a traumatic separation that could also put their well-being at risk.
ICE has been pursuing this binary choice policy since the early days of the pandemic, though it has yet to persuade any families in detention to voluntarily separate. A report by Amnesty International found that officials at all three family detention centers had instructed immigrant parents as early as mid-May to sign forms that would allow their children to be released from detention.
The forms were written in English, which many of the Spanish-speaking and Indigenous immigrants could not understand. NBC News’s Julia Ainsley, who obtained a copy of the forms, reported that the form stated that it complied with the Flores settlement agreement.
The parents were told that their children would be sent to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement, which could place them with other family members in the US or foster families, according to Amnesty International. Some children were under the age of 3, including 12-month-old babies who could not yet talk or walk.
The parents knew that, if they remained in detention without their children, they would face almost certain deportation. But they also feared for their children as the coronavirus continued to spread in immigration detention.
“They didn’t force us, but they did tell us we could send our daughter away because of the pandemic,” one parent said in the Amnesty International report.
Family separations were previously used to deter unauthorized immigrants
The Trump administration previously separated parents from their children as the consequence of a “zero-tolerance” policy meant to deter immigrants from attempting to cross the border without authorization. Beginning in mid-2017, the federal government ran a pilot program in El Paso, Texas, under which it began filing criminal charges against anyone who crossed the border without authorization, including parents with minor children — even though many of them intended to seek asylum in the US.
Parents were sent to immigration detention to await deportation proceedings. Their children, meanwhile, were sent to separate facilities operated by ORR and, in some cases, released to other family members in the US or foster homes.
The Trump administration formalized the policy in May 2018. At least 5,000 families were separated before Judge Gee ordered the federal government in June 2018 to reunify the families affected and end the policy.
The federal government, however, neglected to link the children to their parents in its databases, making the reunification process difficult, especially in the hundreds of cases of children who were under the age of 5.
Advocates say that the Trump administration is now trying to use family separations as a way to make it easier to deport parents. The Los Angeles Times’ Molly O’Toole detailed one such case in which officials threatened to deport a couple’s children back to El Salvador alone unless their mother gives up her claims to protection in the US and goes back with them, promising never to return to the US.
Family separations carry a long-term cost
The US government has long known the psychological harms associated with separating families. These harms would only add to the anxiety created by the pandemic as immigrants and their children fight for their release from detention.
Commander Jonathan White, who previously oversaw the government’s program providing care to unaccompanied immigrant children, told Congress that, beginning in February 2017, he had repeatedly warned the officials who concocted the policy that it would likely cause “significant potential for traumatic psychological injury to the child.”
A September 2019 government watchdog report confirmed those effects, finding that immigrant children who entered government custody in 2018 frequently experienced “intense trauma” and those who were “unexpectedly separated from a parent” even more so.
Each child reacts to family separation differently. But psychologists have observed three main kinds of effects: disruptions to their social attachments, increases in their emotional vulnerability, and, in some cases, post-traumatic stress disorder, Lauren Fasig Caldwell, director of the American Psychological Association’s children, youth, and families office, said.
Those symptoms could be only short-term or persist in the long run — or not even manifest until a child enters their teen years or adulthood. Any of them could significantly hinder a child’s later success in academics and in the workplace.
Parents who were separated from their children have experienced their own trauma — which may manifest in symptoms similar to those that researchers observe in children — and may not have the mental and emotional capacity to be able to provide what their children need.
“This crisis is certainly a crisis of the government’s own making,” Shalyn Fluharty, director of the Dilley Pro Bono Project, a legal aid group for women and children seeking asylum, said in a press call in May. “No parent should be presented with a choice of being separated from their child.”