Free subscription to the Capitol Journal keeps you current on legislative and regulatory news.
NY Gov Signs AI Safety Bill New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed legislation ( AB 6453 / SB 6953 ) establishing safety and reporting requirements for major developers of so-called frontier artificial...
For two years running , we’ve opened our annual story predicting the top issues for state legislators in the coming year by noting just how tense and uncertain things are, what with the war in Ukraine...
States Sue to Block H-1B Visa Fee The attorneys general of 20 states, led by California and Massachusetts, filed a federal lawsuit aimed at blocking the Trump administration’s new $100,000 fee...
Florida House Speaker Daniel Perez (R) unveiled a two-bill healthcare package aimed at aligning the state with President Trump’s new federal framework. HB 693 would tighten eligibility for Medicaid...
President Donald Trump has waded into one of the most pressing and prevalent issues in state capitols these days: regulating artificial intelligence. In early December, the president said on his Truth...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that federal law preempts a California law that allows private lawsuits on behalf of groups of workers, even if they had agreed to resolve their disputes through individual arbitration. In an 8-1 vote, the justices said the Federal Arbitration Act supersedes the California statute, the only one of its kind in the country. By doing so, the court said, employees were illegally allowed to escape binding arbitration agreements they signed at hiring.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) called the ruling “disappointing,” but said employees could still bring suits on behalf of others if they did not sign such an agreement. (LOS ANGELES TIMES, COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICES)
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said a tech industry-backed ballot question to change how gig workers are classified in the Bay State is unconstitutional because it contains “vaguely worded provisions” buried deep in a proposal that, in effect, melded two unrelated subjects under a single question.
Under the proposal, companies like Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash, and others would have provided workers with some new benefits while continuing to classify their drivers and deliverers as independent contractors rather than employees. But the court ruled the proposal contained at least two “substantively distinct” issues, one of which was masked by “obscure language” that went far beyond just establishing a worker’s employee vs. contractor status. (BOSTON GLOBE)
--Compiled by RICH EHISEN