Sweden News USA ESTA Travel Pass

The Supreme Court has lifted a lower court injunction that had blocked the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order significantly tightening requirements for mail-in voting. As this ruling comes just over two months before the November midterm elections, it is causing repercussions throughout U.S. political circles. On the 24th, the Supreme Court accepted an emergency request filed by the Trump administration and suspended the enforcement of the executive order restricting mail-in voting issued by the Massachusetts U.S. District Court last June.

Consequently, the path has been opened for the Trump administration to push for changes to mail-in voting procedures ahead of the upcoming November midterm elections. In March, President Trump issued an executive order requiring the Department of Homeland Security to compile and provide lists of citizens by state to state governments, and instructed the Department of Justice to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of election officials who issued federal ballots to ineligible individuals. He also directed the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to pursue the enactment of new rules requiring mail-in ballot envelopes to include unique barcodes and official election mail markings.

However, 23 states, including New York and California, along with Washington D.C., filed lawsuits to block the enforcement of the executive order, arguing that the administration of federal elections is a constitutional authority of state governments and legislatures, and that presidential executive orders cannot alter how state governments conduct elections. The lower court partially accepted the states’ arguments, blocking the execution of certain provisions of the executive order, and the appeals court also rejected the administration’s request for a stay of execution. However, the Supreme Court lifted the lower courts’ injunctions, ruling that it was premature for states to file lawsuits before the administration issued actual implementation measures, and that it was difficult to conclude that the executive order alone caused concrete harm to the states.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court drew a line, stating that this decision did not validate the legality of the executive order itself. This implies that specific measures taken by the administration to implement the executive order in the future could be subject to separate legal judgment. Immediately following the ruling, the Trump administration assessed the decision as a victory for strengthening election security. The White House stated that it was a common-sense measure to protect mail-in ballot security and ensure that only American citizens elect American leaders, and announced that the administration would lawfully continue to pursue President Trump’s campaign promises, including election safety and security.

However, the state governments that filed the lawsuits are strongly pushing back. California, which spearheaded the action, stated that it would continue its legal response, while New York and Washington also reaffirmed their stance that the President does not have the authority to determine how state governments conduct elections, asserting that this decision is not a final judgment. It remains uncertain whether actual election procedures will change immediately. Implementation is currently unclear as a separate injunction remains in place to prevent the Postal Service from enforcing the relevant measures.

With only a little over two months remaining until the election and early voting openings in many states even closer, critics point out that it remains unclear whether the executive order can actually be applied to this election. In particular, with mail-in ballots for overseas and military voters scheduled to begin in early September in some states, critics argue that it is too tight a timeframe to change procedures nationwide before the November midterm elections.

A lawsuit has been filed in federal court to halt the implementation of the Trump administration’s new immigration regulations, which strictly limit the stay of international students to a maximum of four years. On the 18th, major U.S. educational and media organizations, including the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Association of International Educators (NAFSA), filed a complaint against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the Massachusetts federal court and requested an injunction to suspend the effect of the executive rule. This lawsuit aims to block the regulations limiting the duration of stay for international students (F visas), exchange visitors (J visas), and foreign journalists (I visas), which are scheduled to take effect on September 15. [Reported on page A1 of this newspaper on July 17] Under previous regulations, as long as the visa holders maintained their academic programs or reporting employment, they could legally remain in the United States without separate extensions under the “Duration of Status (D/S)” system.

However, according to the new regulations, the maximum period of stay for international student and exchange visitor visas is limited to four years. Additionally, the duration of stay for foreign correspondent visas, which previously allowed for several years, is drastically shortened to a maximum of 240 days. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that “the new DHS regulations are arbitrary and rigid measures that completely fail to reflect the reality of higher education in the United States” and that they “violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).”

They specifically pointed out that international students pursuing doctoral programs, double majors, major changes, or Optional Practical Training (OPT)—which typically take more than five years—could face anxiety over the loss of their immigration status and additional economic and administrative burdens as they become tied down by unnecessary extension application procedures. They also added that regulations restricting re-education at the same degree level or changes in programs excessively infringe upon students’ academic rights. An official from NAFSA explained the rationale behind the lawsuit, stating, “This regulation will severely undermine the standing of international students who have contributed to U.S. universities, the economy, and national security,” adding, “Legal action was inevitable to prevent the immense damage that would be inflicted on national interests.”

The implementation of additional taxes on high-value non-residential second homes, which New York City has been pursuing, has resumed following the city’s immediate appeal, despite a court order to suspend the proceedings.

On the morning of the 10th, the Staten Island Court of New York accepted a request for a preliminary injunction filed by homeowners against the city to halt the enforcement of the additional second home taxes and issued a temporary suspension order. The order mandated the nullification of the September 18th deadline for taxpayers to file objections, as well as the suspension of all procedures for the additional tax, including the publication of a website listing candidates for the second home taxes and the mailing of tax notices. [Reported on page A1 of this newspaper on August 11] However, New York City refused to accept the lower court’s ruling and immediately filed an appeal.

According to New York State law, if New York City, a public entity, files an appeal against a lower court ruling, the effect of the court’s suspension order is automatically suspended. Consequently, New York City has gained the legal momentum to proceed with the administrative procedures for the additional taxation on second homes as scheduled, despite the lower court ruling.

New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani stated, “This additional taxation on second homes is a legitimate policy aimed at resolving the housing shortage and bolstering city finances,” and expressed his intention to prove the justification and procedural legitimacy of the taxation through the appeal. Homeowners, however, are pushing back, arguing that “the city government’s bureaucratic mismanagement has not only imposed unnecessary administrative burdens on actual residents but has also led to the exposure of personal information and infringement of property rights due to the indiscriminate public disclosure of names.”

The Overseas Koreans Agency has officially announced plans to introduce postal and electronic voting in overseas elections. During a briefing on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Overseas Koreans Agency held at the Blue House on the 5th (KST), Agency Administrator Kim Kyung-hyup reported to President Lee Jae-myung that the agency aims to introduce postal and electronic voting by 2028, specifically targeting the elections two years from now.

In response, President Lee emphasized the need for active institutional reform, stating that postal voting should be introduced first in countries with established postal infrastructure, while alternatives such as expanding polling stations need to be prepared for the remaining nations. Currently, overseas voting is limited to presidential and parliamentary elections.

Given that the Agency is accelerating efforts to introduce postal and electronic voting—a long-cherished wish of the overseas Korean community—it is highly likely that if the system is implemented, it will be applied for the first time in the 23rd General Election in 2028. The Overseas Koreans Agency has been working to build social consensus for the expansion of polling stations and the introduction of postal and electronic voting. Last March, it hosted a forum at the National Assembly to convey the limitations of the current system and the desire of overseas Koreans to vote to the National Election Commission and the National Assembly; in April, it successfully ensured that the introduction of postal and electronic voting was included as an agenda item for the first time at the National Assembly Special Committee on Political Reform.

The Agency plans to work with the National Election Commission to develop institutional improvement proposals, including postal and electronic voting, by verifying postal systems and internet connectivity in various countries and conducting mock elections. It is also reviewing the requirement for establishing additional polling stations, lowering it from one per 30,000 overseas Koreans to one per 20,000. The number of polling stations per diplomatic mission is also expected to increase from a maximum of three to four. Furthermore, the Agency explained that it is currently constructing a “Digital Integrated Platform for Overseas Koreans” that combines civil complaints, interactive communication, and community functions, with a target completion date of 2027. In addition, the agency

plans to establish a unified World Korean Convention for the first time in history as part of a grand integration effort for the 7 million overseas Koreans. Furthermore, it intends to foster solidarity among local Koreans by providing intensive support for local commemorative events that reflect the specific characteristics of each country of residence, such as “Korean American Day” in the U.S. (January 13), “Korean Immigration Day” in Mexico (May 4), and “Korea Day” in Poland (the second Saturday of October). The Overseas Koreans Agency also decided to strengthen identity education by significantly increasing the government subsidy rate for Korean schools from the current 26% to 50% and expanding the scale of training programs inviting Koreans to the homeland to 4,500 participants by 2028.

Concerns are mounting within the Korean community as the U.S. Congress pushes forward a bill to criminalize so-called “overstaying”—exceeding one’s visa period. Currently, such overstaying is subject to administrative sanctions under immigration law, such as deportation or entry bans; however, if the bill is finally passed, offenders could face not only fines but even imprisonment, which is expected to significantly increase the importance of managing their immigration status.

According to Congress, the “Permanent Trump Border Safety Act” (HR 9773), proposed by the Republican Party, passed the House Judiciary Committee on the 21st. This bill significantly strengthens enforcement against illegal immigration, with the most notable change being the classification of overstaying as a criminal offense. Under current law, overstaying constitutes a violation of immigration laws but is not a criminal offense.

Therefore, while exceeding the permitted period of stay results in administrative sanctions—such as deportation proceedings or restrictions on entering the U.S. for three or ten years—no criminal record is left. However, the situation will change significantly if this bill is enacted into final law. The bill stipulates that individuals caught overstaying their visas may face a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to six months. For repeated violations, penalties have been strengthened to allow for a fine of up to $2,000 and imprisonment for up to two years.

The biggest concern is that a criminal record will be established. If a criminal record is formed—rather than a simple immigration violation—there is a high likelihood of facing significant disadvantages in future re-entry into the U.S., as well as in the screening process for various immigration benefits, such as permanent residency or citizenship. This bill is expected to have a considerable impact on the Korean community as well. It is known that a significant number of undocumented Korean immigrants are not cases of illegal border crossing, but rather instances of overstaying after legally entering the country on tourist visas (B-1/B-2), student visas (F-1), work visas (H-1B, etc.), or the Visa Waiver Program (ESTA). Statistics released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also indicate that cases of overstaying by Korean nationals amount to thousands annually.

Consequently, if this bill is enacted, managing the duration of stay for international students, visitors, and work visa holders is expected to become even more critical. The bill is not yet finalized. It must go through the procedures of a vote in the House of Representatives, a Senate vote, and the President’s signature. There remains a possibility that the bill could be modified or withdrawn during the legislative process. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is also continuously strengthening sanctions against undocumented immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security announced that it is imposing civil fines on undocumented immigrants who fail to leave the country despite receiving deportation orders, stating that fines totalling $84 billion across approximately 103,000 cases have been imposed to date.

Immigration lawyers advise that individuals must exercise extreme caution regarding their immigration status, regardless of whether the bill is finally passed. They emphasized the importance of frequently checking one’s expiration date on the official website (i94.cbp.dhs.gov/home), noting that visa expiration dates are determined based on Customs and Border Protection (CBP) I-94 records rather than passport entry stamps.

Furthermore, they advised that if one has already overstayed their period or faces issues maintaining their status, consulting with a legal expert early to review possible relief procedures or status restoration options, rather than neglecting the situation, can help minimize disadvantages.

For a long time, the “30% rent rule” has been regarded as a fundamental principle of financial management. This principle is based on the concept that keeping housing costs below 30% of gross pre-tax income allows one to cover the remaining living expenses, savings, and other expenditures. However, as the economic situation has changed significantly in recent years, this formula is becoming a principle detached from reality.

This is because adhering to the 30% standard has become increasingly difficult in recent years, as the prices of not only housing costs but also daily necessities such as groceries, gasoline, and utilities have risen much faster than wage growth. Rent prices are also rising sharply. According to a recent rental market report, the median rent in 50 major cities was recorded at $1,686 per month. The Reality: Living Expenses Are Tight Even When Sticking to the 30% Rule The so-called “30% rent rule,” which dictates that no more than 30% of income should be spent on housing, originated from the federal government’s “Housing Affordability” standard.

At the time, the government determined that housing costs were being managed at an appropriate level if they did not exceed 30% of income. Even today, many landlords and the rental market apply this standard through online rent calculators. However, real estate and personal finance experts point out that this standard should not be accepted as an absolute rule, as current household financial situations have become far more complex than in the past.

This is because, due to continuous price increases, many people feel a significant financial burden even when meeting the 30% rent standard. With overall costs—such as groceries, transportation, insurance premiums, and various living expenses—rising in addition to rent, it is difficult to assess one’s financial status based solely on the percentage of income that rent accounts for. Based on Disposable Income, Not Gross Income: One of the problems cited regarding the 30% rent rule is that it is based on pre-tax gross income. In reality, disposable income—the amount available to a household—can differ from the figures because it is the remaining amount after deducting taxes, retirement pensions, and health insurance premiums. According to Federal Reserve data, the median household income is approximately $84,000 per year, or about $7,000 per month (pre-tax).

Applying the 30% rule, this household is calculated to have a maximum of $2,100 per month available for rent. However, reality differs significantly from these calculations. For example, if 10% of income is contributed to a retirement pension, the annual income drops to $75,600. If 25% of the remaining income is paid in taxes, disposable income decreases to around $56,700.

Furthermore, when factoring in the average annual health insurance premium of $9,024 (approximately $752 per month), the actual usable income amounts to only $47,676 per year, or about $3,973 per month. In other words, for a household with an annual income of $84,000, the actual monthly disposable income is approximately $3,973; in this case, the $2,100 rent accounts for about 53% of that income. While the ratio of rent to gross income appears to be 30%, in reality, more than half of one’s income is spent on housing costs.

If other fixed expenses such as car instalments, student loans, credit card bills, and child-rearing costs are also taken into account, the disposable income available for living expenses decreases significantly, causing the proportion of rent to rise even further.

Should be applied differently for each household Many point out that it is unreasonable to apply the 30% rule uniformly to all households, as actual living conditions vary from person to person even with the same income and rent burden. For example, let’s assume two people spend 30% of their pre-tax income on rent. One person has no debt, has paid off their car loan, and enjoys favourable health insurance benefits provided by their employer.

On the other hand, the other person is burdened with student loan repayments, child-rearing expenses, ever-rising insurance premiums, and credit card debt. While it may appear on the surface that both are adhering to the 30% rule, their actual financial situations are bound to be vastly different. The first person may be able to live relatively comfortably, but the second is highly likely to fall into a so-called “house poor” state, relying on credit cards due to insufficient funds for living expenses.

As such, if debt increases because the burden of housing costs prevents one from covering other living expenses, it is easy to fall into a vicious cycle where one’s financial situation further deteriorates. The ’50-30-20 Management Method’ Instead of the 30% Rent Rule Personal finance experts advise that one must first assess whether they can cover living expenses, repay debt, build emergency funds, or continue saving and investing for the future even after paying housing costs.

This is because everyone has different financial goals. For some, the goal might be to contribute as much as possible to their retirement pension, while for others, securing emergency funds, family travel, car maintenance, or covering children’s education expenses may be more important. As such, it is pointed out that considering housing costs as part of the overall financial plan is more realistic than applying a simple ratio. Recently, the ’50-30-20 Budget Management Method’ is also being widely recommended as an alternative to the 30% rent rule. This method manages all essential living expenses as a single category, rather than calculating rent separately.

It is a budget management strategy that aims to use 50% of disposable income for essential expenses, 30% for optional expenses, and 20% for savings and debt repayment. According to this method, housing costs are included as one item within the total essential expenses. Therefore, even if housing costs slightly exceed 30% of income, a sound financial state can be maintained if total essential expenses, including housing, are managed within 50% of disposable income. Lifestyles Changed by Housing Cost Burdens: As adhering to the “30% rent rule” becomes realistically difficult, there is an increasing number of cases where people live with roommates or move into smaller homes.

Additionally, there is a noticeable increase in instances of people choosing areas far from the city centre for lower housing costs or moving back into their parents’ homes. According to a recent survey conducted by Sparefoot, an online platform for comparing and booking moving services, 58% of young adults who had left their parents’ homes reported having lived with them again. Of these respondents, 75% stated that this was a decision made for a wise financial strategy.

This trend is not limited to the younger generation. According to Spareroom, a roommate matching platform, the elderly aged 65 and older has recently emerged as the fastest-growing age group for roommates. Experts analyse that high rent costs, inflation, rising divorce rates, and living on a fixed income after retirement are driving even the elderly to adopt housing cost sharing strategies.

Students from KYAC (Korean Youth for Advancement of Culture), a youth volunteer group under the Korean Language Education Foundation (Chairperson Gu Eun-hee), participated in a global leadership program organized by the International Volunteers Organization (IVO, Chairperson Choi Seong-yeon), a sister organization of the Foundation in Korea, and attended an international event held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. KYAC members Ye Hwi-su and Heo Tae-woong participated in the program together, providing the youth with an opportunity to communicate with the international community and grow into global leaders.

On the 26th, the students attended the ‘2026 World MSMEs Day’ international forum held at the UN Headquarters in New York, where they had a meaningful time experiencing key international agendas and interacting with participants from around the world. This program was organized by the International Interpretation and Translation Volunteer Corps following an official invitation from the International Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (KAYA).

Hosted by the International Council on Small and Medium Enterprises (ICSB), this international forum was designed to commemorate the UN-designated ‘International Small and Medium Enterprise Day’ and to discuss the sustainable growth, innovation, and future roles of SMEs. The theme of this year’s forum was ‘The Future Generation of SMEs,’ focusing on the importance of entrepreneurship and youth leadership in the era of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital transformation. As members of the South Korean youth representative team, the KAYAK students wore Hanbok (traditional Korean clothing) to interact with participants from various countries, experiencing diverse international issues firsthand and sharing opinions with youth from around the world.

Following their participation in the international event at the UN Headquarters, they travelled to Washington D.C. to attend youth workshops at George Washington University. At the ICSB forum held at the U.S. Capitol, they listened to lectures by prominent figures and delivered group presentations on the current status and challenges of global SMEs, proposing solutions. Students Ye Hwi-su and Heo Tae-woong served as the leaders of their respective groups, demonstrating their leadership skills. KAYAK is currently recruiting new members for the fall semester. We look forward to the active participation of students in grades 7 through 12 this fall semester who are interested in promoting Korean culture and developing leadership skills.

Plans are being pursued to transition the civil service operations of New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) regional offices back to an integrated system, similar to pre-COVID-19 times, and to allow on-site visits without prior appointments.

The New Jersey State Legislature recently introduced a bipartisan bill centred on transitioning the operational method so that the MVC’s 48 regional offices provide both driver’s license and vehicle- related services and has begun full-scale legislative discussions. Until 2019, MVC regional offices handled all license and vehicle-related tasks.

However, in 2020, as the need to distribute applicants arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the MVC changed to a dual system by separating regional offices into License Centres and Vehicle Centres. Currently, out of 48 regional offices across the state, 24 are designated as License Centres dedicated to handling license-related inquiries, and 19 as Vehicle Centres handling vehicle registration and ownership matters; only five operate under an integrated system providing both licensing and vehicle services.

However, criticism persists that the dual system of regional offices is causing significant inconvenience to residents. Residents must visit separate offices to handle both licensing and vehicle-related tasks, which has been perceived as a significant burden, particularly for residents in suburban areas who have to drive long distances. In response, lawmakers from both parties have submitted a bipartisan bill calling for a return to the 2019 system, in which licensing and vehicle services are handled at all Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) offices.

Additionally, the bill includes provisions to provide services to visitors without appointments, as was done before the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, BMV regional offices operated on a walk-in basis, providing service on a first-come, first-served basis, but this was switched to a pre-appointment system starting in 2020.

New York City has begun full-scale taxation procedures targeting high-priced “second homes” valued at over $5 million.

The New York City Department of Finance announced on the 30th that it plans to send out the first tax notices to those subject to the Pied-a-Terre Tax by the end of this coming August. This measure marks the first implementation of the “tax increase on the wealthy” policy promoted by New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani and New York State Governor Kathy Hockul. The city estimates that approximately 10,000 households across its five boroughs will be subject to the tax, expecting to secure up to $500 million in additional annual tax revenue through this initiative. The tax applies only to non-residential properties where the owner does not actually reside. Therefore, households currently living in the property may file an objection with the city authorities within 30 days of receiving the tax notice. The taxation of ‘second homes’ will be implemented in two phases over the next five years to minimize disruption.

Phase 1, running from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2028, applies to homes with a market value of $5 million or more and condominiums and co-ops with a market value of $1 million or more, as assessed by New York City. For Class 1 homes (one to three-family homes), tax rates will be applied based on value: 0.8% for values between $5 million and $15 million, 1.05% for values between $15 million and $25 million, and 1.3% for values exceeding $25 million. The tax rates applied to Class 2 condos and co-ops are 4% for properties valued between $1 million and $3 million, 5.25% for properties valued between $3 million and $5 million, and 6.5% for properties valued at over $5 million.

Phase 2, running from July 1, 2028, to June 30, 2031, sees the tax base shift to “actual transaction price.” Consequently, uniform tax rates will apply to all types of second homes—including houses, condos, and co-ops—at 0.8% for properties valued between $5 million and $15 million, 1.05% for properties valued between $15 million and $25 million, and 1.3% for properties valued at over $25 million.

The New York City second home taxation is a temporary measure for five years and will be automatically abolished at the end of June 2031 unless extended by the state legislature.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot uniformly restrict the right to bear arms of individuals who use marijuana occasionally. This decision is considered a ruling that significantly limits the scope of application of federal laws regarding gun control.

On the 18th, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled 9-0 in the case of Texas resident Ali Daniel Hemani that the government’s prosecution violated the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms). The law in question is a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by “people who use illegal drugs or are addicted to drugs.” This is the same provision for which Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, was convicted in 2024.

Violations of this law can result in a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a lifetime ban on owning firearms. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) discovered a handgun during a search of Hemani’s home in 2022, and prosecution charged him with gun possession on the grounds that he had used marijuana. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in the Supreme Court appeal regarding this matter, stated that the ruling was a “limited decision” and did not address broader issues such as whether to ban drug addicts from possessing firearms.

Justice Gorsuch pointed out that the government had put forward the premise that “any marijuana user is dangerous,” but failed to prove it. In the ruling, he stated, “I acknowledge that drugs and firearms can sometimes be a dangerous combination,” but added that “it is inappropriate for the government to base its decision on past instances of disarming ‘habitual drinkers.’”

This case garnered particular attention given that marijuana is legalized in many states. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court, which has broadly recognized gun rights, issued a ruling in 2022 expanding the right to carry firearms, and since then, lawsuits regarding gun control laws have been piling up nationwide.

Cecilia Wang, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing Hemani, welcomed the decision, stating, “The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot treat a large population as criminals based on unfounded assumptions about danger.”

William Sack, an attorney with the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights advocacy group, predicted, “Going forward, prosecutions will need to prove that mere drug use is insufficient and that the individual actually poses a danger to the public.” Conversely, proponents of gun control emphasized that the scope of this ruling is limited. Lee Roma, an attorney at the Giffords Law Centre, stated, “This ruling does not deny the government’s authority to implement reasonable limits on gun ownership.”

Meanwhile, Hemani is a dual U.S.-Pakistan citizen; prosecutions argued that he may have ties to Iranian groups hostile to the U.S., but he was not indicted on related charges. It is reported that marijuana and cocaine were found during the FBI search, in addition to a handgun.

In this case, the Trump administration took a stance in favour of the relevant gun control law, which some gun rights advocates criticized as contradicting the administration’s attitude of emphasizing support for the Second Amendment.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is also currently hearing the legality of a Hawaii state law that prohibits carrying firearms on certain private property without the property owner’s permission.