Free subscription to the Capitol Journal keeps you current on legislative and regulatory news.
‘Unauthorized Alien’ Limits Among Trio of Auto Insurance Proposals Under Consideration in LA House Three auto insurance bills cleared the Louisiana House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure...
Social Media Bill Dodges Veto Override in CO Colorado Gov. Jared Polis’ (D) veto of a social media bill ( SB 86 ) survived an override attempt. The state’s Democrat-controlled Senate voted...
WA Enacts Law Keeping Medical Debt Off Credit Reports Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed a bill ( SB 5480 ) prohibiting collection agencies from reporting unpaid medical debt to credit agencies...
In 2022, there were about 22 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in the United States. That’s the highest rate of maternal deaths among high-income nations worldwide. That sobering statistic...
DOGE-Like Effort in FL Could Impact Insurance Industry The wave of housecleaning that’s swept through the federal government courtesy of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency appears...
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