Policy Corner: June 9, 2023

House Republicans Disrupt Business Following Debt Ceiling Bill Passage

While the debt ceiling bill deliberations are finalized and agreed to, the fall out is still felt within certain members of Congress. Following passage of the debt ceiling bill last week, a minority of Republicans took out their frustration with the debt ceiling agreement process by derailing bills supported by Republican leadership. President Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 last Saturday that lifted the debt ceiling and included provisions relating to future spending as agreed to by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The bill established budget caps for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 and 2025 for both defense and non-defense discretionary (NDD) spending. For FY 2024, the bill would cap top-line discretionary spending at $1.58 trillion or approximately 6.7 percent less than FY 2023. For FY 2025, the bill would allow for 1 percent growth over FY 2024, capping top-line discretionary spending at $1.606 trillion and limiting defense spending to $895.2 billion and non-defense spending to $710.7 billion. If Congress does not act on all appropriations bills before January 1, 2014, FY23 spending levels are to be cut by an additional 1 percent until all bills are passed for both defense and non-defense spending.

The appropriations process is soon to resume with the Senate Appropriations Committee to agree to top-line spending for each of the twelve funding bills to fit under the debt limit bill’s agreement. The House Appropriations Committee has indicated that it will allocate spending levels that are lower than in the debt ceiling bill. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership is trying to resolve internal disagreements.

SCOTUS Rules Favorably for Nursing Home Residents Rights

This week, the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) ruled in favor of public nursing home residents to exert their rights in the case, Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County V. Talevski. The family of Gorgi Talevski sued his nursing home for chemically restraining him with six psychotropic drugs and involuntarily transferring him to a facility far from his family. The facility argued that the family did not have a right to sue. The case was followed by social and disability advocates as the ruling has implications for the rights of lower-income individuals who rely on programs such as Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), and housing assistance to seek remedies from the courts when state officials violate their rights.

The Court held that residents of public nursing homes can go to court to vindicate their rights under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act (FNHRA). The opinion recognizes the purpose of FNHRA to protect the “health, safety, and dignity” of nursing home residents. The decision also provides important historical context for the post-Civil War federal statute that allows any person deprived of rights secured by “the laws” to seek redress in court.