The COVID-19 Bill Proposal by President Biden

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Fighting COVID-19 has become one of Joe Biden’s top priorities since taking office as president. The memorandum, signed in the winter of 2021, was initiated by the presidential administration to determine 100% responsibility of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the costs aimed at combating the pandemic (The White House, 2021). FEMA is not part of the executive branch, and orders from the president reflecting work priorities are binding on that body (FEMA, 2021). Therefore, the signed memorandum obliged FEMA to follow the terms of this document.

At the same time, since FEMA is not a non-profit organization and is included in the list of national agencies, its revenues are completely dependent on the federal budget. In this regard, the conditions of the previous presidential administration, which assumed the imposition of a quarter of the total costs on administrative units (states), were objective and reasonable. A relevant bill could be ratified so that the costs of fighting the pandemic could be shared between the states and the federal government. This will reduce the financial burden on FEMA and help keep a portion of the treasury while maintaining a course to counter the consequences of COVID-19.

The decision to ratify such a bill will be considered at the Congress level. As the standing committees to introduce the bill to, the budget committees of the House and the Senate will be involved (Congress.gov., n.d.). This bill is likely to go through each chamber as its passage requires the approval of various authorities and includes an assessment of budgetary funds at several levels, including both state and federal governments. In such conditions, this is impossible to coordinate activities within one chamber, and the bill has to be considered in Congress to propose a corresponding initiative to the presidential administration.

The likelihood of the bill being vetoed would exist if it were passed. Failure to pass the law by any of the standing committees would mean the need to create a special commission and prepare the bill to report directly to the president. However, decisions of this level require coordination with national agencies since, in addition to FEMA, other parts of the Department of Homeland Security might be opposed to such an initiative. Moreover, an appeal to the Supreme Court is mandatory, which also does not guarantee a positive outcome.

As the factors determining whether the Supreme Court is acting with restraint or not, one can examine the legal background of a particular decision, as well as cite precedents from judicial practice. According to Millhiser (2021), the Supreme Court can challenge any president’s decision since federal judges are not accountable to the electorate and are guided solely by legislative factors when making a decision.

In other words, if the memorandum contradicts constitutional norms and the Supreme Court takes this into account, this is an indicator of restraint. However, the precedents in judicial practice show that the highest judicial board is unlikely to challenge the president’s decision, which, as Millhiser (2021), met in practice and was based on a conservative decision-making principle. Severe restrictions on the activities of federal agencies took place in national legislative practice. In addition, Biden’s memorandum is based on the principle of reducing the burden on state governments to strengthen preventive security measures locally. Therefore, there are factors that would lead the Supreme Court to be unlikely to take a challenge to the presidential decision.