By KYLE EDWARDS, WENDY PARMET and SCOTT BURRIS JAN. 23, 2017 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued new regulations this month that give it broad authority to quarantine Americans. The rules outline for the first time how the federal government can restrict interstate travel during a health crisis, and they establish in­house oversight of whether someone should be detained, without providing a clear and direct path to challenge a quarantine order in federal court. State and local authorities had previously been the ones to usually deal with issues like this during epidemics. Now the administration of Donald J. Trump has even more authority to detain people than the Obama administration had during the Ebola crisis. It’s imperative that whenever the next outbreak hits, emergency health measures are grounded in scientific evidence and guided by clear, fair rules to protect people from wrongful deprivation of their liberties. Consider what happened to Kaci Hickox three years ago, when she landed at Newark Liberty International Airport after volunteering as a nurse for Ebola patients in Sierra …

Many voters leaning toward Donald Trump, including me, have been alienated by his vile comments recorded in 2005 about sexually assaulting women. Others have been discouraged by polls and the mainstream media echo chamber proclaiming that Trump can’t possibly win now and that Hillary Clinton has already won. But here’s why those voters should consider voting for Trump anyway. Even if Trump has turned out to be a flawed bearer for his populist message, he has presented a set of original positions embraced by many voters, including at least a majority of Republican voters, much to the surprise of the American elite that dominates both political parties. Trump was the only candidate of either party to defy the conventional wisdom that said winning candidates had to define themselves as favoring more immigration, less rigorous enforcement of immigration law, and a “comprehensive” approach to reform that included legalization for illegal immigrants, which, of course, would encourage even more illegal immigration. From the beginning of his campaign, Trump stated that immigration needed to be restricted to protect …

Two recent audits and a guilty plea show strong evidence of the need for reform of Pennsylvania’s charter law to provide for more effective oversight of the substantial public money going to the charter sector.  The Inspector General of the US Department of Education and the Pennsylvania Auditor General have both recently concluded that Pennsylvania’s charter law does not provide sufficient oversight or control over charter management organizations. CMOs are organizations that manage charter schools. Although charter schools in Pennsylvania must be organized as non-profits, CMOs can be and often are for-profit organizations. The Pennsylvania charter law doesn’t mention them because the legislature apparently did not envision such entities in the late 1990s when it wrote the law. But they have become an increasingly important part of the charter sector. The two audits highlight challenges that the growth and operation of CMOs present to effective oversight of public funds going to charter schools. The Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education found that “charter school relationships with CMOS posed a significant risk to Department …