|
Forwarded this email? Sign up for free to have it sent directly to your inbox. |
|
|
|
Good morning,
Today, we’re looking at fraud in California’s in-home care program, why New York has a repeat offender problem, and Pope Leo’s recent statements on war.
Write to us at editors@city-journal.org with questions or comments. |
|
|
|
Photo credit: Anadolu / Contributor / Anadolu via Getty Images |
California’s In-Home Supportive Services Program is rife with fraud. The program pays individuals to care for their elderly family members at home, but it loses about $12 billion to scam artists every year.
Kenneth Schrupp sat down with a former California law-enforcement official who has worked on some of these fraud cases. “The justice system ends up reducing fraud charges down to a misdemeanor and giving offenders community service,” he told Schrupp. “They never go to jail—that’s just the way California operates.”
The most common type of fraud: billing for services not provided, or for people no longer being cared for. In more extreme cases, scammers buy houses, put up fake walls, cram ten people inside, remove their phones so that their families can’t contact them, and take over their bank accounts. “In one case,” the official told Schrupp, “fraudsters took advantage of a victim and sold the victim’s house, stole the victim’s money, and moved the victim into [another home], where they basically kept the victim in poor condition.”
Read more from their conversation. |
|
|
Why does New York City keep releasing repeat offenders? “The answer might have something to do with what the justice system can legally divulge about criminal histories,” Rafael A. Mangual explains. Under court order, the NYPD cannot use or disclose sealed arrest histories. That means prosecutors and judges are forced to make decisions without all the facts.
“Since criminal history predicts future offending, we should want prosecutors and judges to have a complete picture of it. Sealing prior arrests makes this harder,” he writes. The policy is bad for voters, too, who lack access to information that could help them hold the system accountable for repeatedly releasing dangerous criminals.
Read more. |
|
|
Pope Leo XIV has harshly condemned the U.S.–Israeli effort in Iran. But he has said little about the Iranian government’s horrific treatment of its own people, or of the regime’s desire to destroy the West.
These selective admonitions are misguided, Daniel J. Mahoney argues. The pope “has an obligation to speak more forcefully on behalf of fellow Christians who face persecution in countries such as Nigeria and across parts of Africa and the Middle East,” Mahoney writes. “Respect for diplomatic restraint is important, but one should also expect theological and moral clarity, not reliance on humanitarian clichés.”
Read his take. |
|
|
|
Ilya Shapiro and Rafael Mangual discuss the Supreme Court’s most consequential recent decisions and anticipate the legal battles that could define the future of American law. From landmark rulings to looming cases, they offer sharp analysis of issues like birthright citizenship, the scope of executive power, and the role of independent agencies—while examining how judicial philosophy continues to influence the Court’s approach. They also look ahead to what’s next: potential retirements, shifting dynamics on the bench, and high-stakes cases such as Childs v. Salazar.
|
|
|
|
“American leftists looked at the way Germany destroyed its industrial base and said to themselves: ‘We can do it, too!’”
|
|
|
|
A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson. |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2026 Manhattan Institute, All rights reserved. |
|
| |
|
