One of the powers retained by the President of the United States is the “presidential pardon.” You may also see news coverage of a president “commuting” the sentence of a given offender. Presidential pardons and commutations are an authority granted to the president by the Constitution, and it’s a power that presidents often exercise, especially at the ends of their terms. Read on to learn about presidential pardons and commutations and what exactly the two terms mean.

What are Presidential Pardons? What are Presidential Commutations?

Presidential pardons and commutations are both types of “executive clemency.”

A commutation is when the president cuts short the sentence of an individual who is currently incarcerated in some form. Essentially, a commutation says: “You’ve served enough time for the crime that you’ve committed, I’m going to take away the rest of your sentence.” This does not mean that the person whose sentence is commuted is innocent. The person’s conviction stays on their record, and they’re still subject to certain restrictions known as “civil disabilities”–for example, a felon whose sentence is commuted is still unable to vote in some places, own a gun, or sit on certain kinds of juries.

In contrast, a pardon is given after a person has already served their time, or passed away. According to the Department of Justice, it is given in “recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence.” A pardon does restore the civil disabilities that apply to convicted criminals. Like a commutation, a pardon doesn’t automatically take the person’s crime off their record. A released offender cannot apply for a pardon until at least five years have passed since their release. Pardons can also be granted somewhat preemptively, as President Gerald Ford did when he pardoned President Richard Nixon, which prevents charges from being filed or leads to the dismissal of charges already levied.

Pardons and commutations are by far the most well-known and frequently used forms of executive clemency. There are, however, other types that the president can exercise. One is called a “remission” and relieves the individual of the financial penalties associated with their conviction. Sometimes a remission is given as part of a commutation. Additionally, there’s a “respite,” which is sort of a pause in a sentence, usually given to inmates who are sick.

What Kinds of Crimes can the President Pardon or Commute?

The president can only grant executive clemency for federal crimes, or “offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court.” The president has no ability to pardon or commute crimes that were prosecuted at the state level. The ability to pardon or commute state crimes varies from state to state. In many states, the authority to pardon or commute an offender lies completely with the top executive of the state, namely, that state’s governor. In 20 states, the governor gets to make the decision but each clemency needs the approval of an independent commission. Other states have different processes, including independent boards or commissions.

What Gives the President the Ability to Grant Executive Clemency?

The presidential power to pardon and commute sentences comes from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. It states that “he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” It has been referred to as the president’s only “absolute power.” The Supreme Court has been asked to review this power in the past, and determined on two separate occasions that it has no ability to limit the president’s power to pardon or commute sentences.

How Often do Presidents Pardon or Commute Sentences?

There are only two presidents in the history of the United States that never issued a pardon or commuted a sentence, likely as a result of the fact that they both died relatively quickly after assuming office. President William Henry Harrison died just 32 days into his term and President James Garfield was assassinated just 200 days into his term.

Here’s a breakdown of presidential pardons in the 20th and 21st centuries:

• William McKinley (1897-1901) granted 446 acts of executive clemency
• Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) granted 1099 acts of executive clemency
• William H. Taft (1909-1913 granted 831 acts of executive clemency
• Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) granted 2,827 acts of executive clemency
• Warren G. Harding (1921-1923) granted 773 acts of executive clemency
• Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) granted 1,691 acts of executive clemency
• Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) granted 1,198 acts of executive clemency
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) granted 3,796 acts of executive clemency
• Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) granted 2,044 acts of executive clemency
• Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) granted 1,157 acts of executive clemency
• John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) granted 575 acts of executive clemency
• Richard Nixon (1969-1974) granted 926 acts of executive clemency
• Gerald Ford (1974-1977) granted 409 acts of executive clemency
• Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) granted 566 acts of executive clemency
• Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) granted 406 acts of executive clemency
• George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) granted 77 acts of executive clemency
• Bill Clinton (1993-2001) granted 459 acts of executive clemency
• George W. Bush (2001-2009) granted 200 acts of executive clemency
• Barack Obama (2009-2017) granted 1,927 acts of executive clemency

It’s important to note that those numbers, when taken at face value, don’t tell you everything you need to know about acts of executive clemency granted by presidents over the last century. While Obama is widely viewed as having given the most acts of executive clemency since Truman, The Pew Research Center notes that he also received significantly more requests than his recent predecessors, and still only granted a small percentage of those requests. These numbers also don’t include mass acts of clemency–both Ford and Carter issued executive orders that forgave men who dodged the draft in the Vietnam War.

While presidents can pardon people or commute sentences at really any time, there’s a tradition of presidents issuing more controversial acts of executive clemency right at the end of their terms. Pardons and other acts of executive clemency tend to be somewhat politically controversial, but they cannot be undone by a president’s predecessor. Waiting until the end of a president’s term to issue pardons instead of, for example, issuing them during an election when the political blowback could affect their party’s nominee, makes logical sense.

Notable Cases of Executive Clemency 

Gerald Ford Pardons Richard Nixon 

Perhaps one of the most famous instances of executive clemency occurred on September 8, 1974, when President Gerald Ford pardoned disgraced former President Richard Nixon. Nixon had resigned after the controversy surrounding the Watergate scandal, and Vice President Gerald Ford–who became VP after Nixon’s first Vice President resigned–succeeded him in August 1974.

Ford’s pardon of Nixon was somewhat unusual in that Nixon wasn’t at that point charged with or convicted of any crimes. While the House of Representatives had dropped its impeachment charges against him when he resigned, he could still be prosecuted in a criminal court for his involvement in the Watergate scandal and the aftermath of the scandal. Ford’s pardon was for any crimes that Nixon had committed, and essentially ensured he could never be prosecuted.

Ford’s move to pardon Nixon was highly controversial. He was accused of having made some sort of deal with Nixon, and the pardon caused his poll numbers to quickly plummet. Ford’s choice to pardon Nixon is widely viewed as one of the major reasons why he lost the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter.

Other Notable and Controversial Pardons

Another controversial pardon was when Bill Clinton pardoned his younger half-brother, Roger Clinton Jr. Roger Clinton was one of 140 people pardoned by Bill Clinton on his last day in office. He had served a year in prison in the 1980s after being convicted of possessing cocaine.

Jimmy Hoffa, the leader of the Teamsters Union, was serving a 15-year prison sentence for jury tampering and fraud when his sentence was commuted by President Richard Nixon in 1971. Nixon’s pardon came with strings attached, however. Hoffa was not allowed to “engage in direct or indirect management of any labor organization” until 1980.

On December 24, 1992, roughly a month before he left office, President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and other government officials involved in the Iran-Contra affair.

Right before the end of his presidency, in December 2016, President Barack Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning. Manning was serving a 35-year sentence after leaking a number of classified documents.

Conclusion

The ability to grant executive clemency is one of the most exceptional powers that the President of the United States holds. In some ways, it flies contrary to the important system of checks and balances that defines the three branches of our federal government. Because of this, and because of the way that some of our past presidents have elected to exercise it, it’s a controversial power. But as long as it consistently makes its way into the news at the end of presidential terms, it’s important to remember how it works.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Presidential Pardons: How Does Executive Clemency Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Many of us have received it at one point or another—the dreaded jury summons. You arrive home, collect your mail, and get the letter mandating that you show up at a particular courthouse at a given date and time. Many of us see jury duty as a necessary inconvenience—serving on a jury is part of our civic duties, but it absolutely can be an annoying interruption to our daily lives. And most people think being on a jury is incredibly simple—if you’re selected, it’s your job to determine guilt or innocence based on the facts, evidence, and testimony you’re shown. But what many people don’t realize is that guilt and innocence, as they are currently defined, are far from the only options. There’s one particularly controversial option open to juries that you may have never heard of: jury nullification. Read on to learn about jury nullification, what it is, and why it’s important to the American justice system.

Jury Nullification: A Primer

Jury nullification is essentially when a jury decides to acquit a defendant not because the evidence indicates that they were innocent, but because they disagree with the law or the harshness of the punishment the law mandates. Sometimes this is done to make some sort of political point; sometimes it happens on an individual basis. For example, imagine you have a woman, in a state where medical marijuana is illegal, who has purchased marijuana to give to her sister who has cancer and is suffering from nausea. If the buyer is caught, she could be charged for her crime—in this case, purchasing marijuana. There may be all the evidence in the world to indicate that she did buy the marijuana. In fact, the jury may believe beyond a reasonable doubt—the burden in a criminal case—that she is guilty of purchasing marijuana. But, if the jury believes that purchasing marijuana for medical reasons shouldn’t be against the law, or that the punishment that the woman would receive for purchasing marijuana is unduly harsh, they can still recommend an acquittal. At the most basic level, jury nullification means that a jury has chosen to acquit a defendant, despite believing that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jury nullification is possible in the United States based on a few different principles. For one, if someone is acquitted of a crime, per the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, they cannot be tried again. Jury nullification is also possible because juries cannot be punished for the decisions that they make (although someone who becomes part of a jury with the intent to push jury nullification or in some other way not uphold their duties can technically be prosecuted, however rarely.) But generally speaking, for ethical reasons, juries cannot be punished for the decisions they come to, or the important American principle of being judged by a jury of your peers would simply be moot. Additionally, judges cannot direct a verdict of guilt, the way that they can a verdict of innocence if the evidence doesn’t match the conviction.

It’s difficult to actually quantify the number of acquittals that stem from jury nullification. Juries are never under any sort of obligation to explain why they have come to the decisions that they did—although individual jurors may speak about their opinions, if they so wish. Some researchers have attempted to study the subject, and indicate that jury nullification most likely plays a role in fewer than 10 percent of cases, but there’s no real way to pinpoint exactly which cases were affected by jury nullification.

Shh…

One thing that could contribute to jury nullification’s relative obscurity is that it’s in many ways a well-kept American secret. In fact, most people seemingly don’t know that it’s a possibility, and they almost certainly aren’t told about it while serving on a jury. An 1895 Supreme Court decision, Sparf v. United States, found that jurors aren’t guaranteed any sort of Constitutional right to be told about jury nullification. In many cases, attorneys will actively try to avoid seating jurors who may know about jury nullification by asking roundabout questions along the lines of: “do you have any beliefs that might keep you from making a decision purely on the basis of the law?”

While a juror cannot be punished for an acquittal, people can get in trouble as a consequence of jury nullification. One high-profile instance involved a man named Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor who was an advocate for jury nullification. He was charged with jury tampering in 2011. He used to stand outside of a federal courthouse in Manhattan and hand out pamphlets about jury nullification, brandishing a sign that said “Jury Info.” He didn’t target any particular jurors, rather attempted to hand the pamphlets to anyone who walked by his station. The charges against Heicklen were dismissed in 2012, but the idea that informing people about jury nullification could be tantamount to jury tampering isn’t too far-fetched to imagine.

Specific Cases of Jury Nullification in the United States

Jury nullification has a long history in the United States. In fact, an early and well-known example actually predates the nation. In 1735, a man named John Peter Zenger printed articles that criticized the colonial British government. Zenger lived in the colony of New York, and it was against the law for him to publish anything without governmental approval. As a result of his controversial publications, he was charged with libel. Despite the fact that there was no question about whether or not Zenger had written the articles—he actually presented an affirmative defense in which he admitted that they were his work—the jury acquitted him.

Throughout American history, there have been other notable instances in which jury nullification is believed to have been used. Some were seemingly noble; others were almost certainly not. The Fugitive Slave Act was updated in 1850 to prescribe up to six months in prison for anyone who was found guilty of helping fugitive slaves escape. It’s widely believed that some of the acquittals that came out of that era came from abolitionist jurors essentially practicing jury nullification. On the other hand, there’s also evidence to suggest that jury nullification popped up in the Jim Crow-era south with some amount of frequency, when all-white juries chose not to convict white defendants who were accused of violence against black citizens.

There have also been recent cases of suspected jury nullification involving public figures. Washington D.C. Mayor Marion Barry was acquitted of 13 out of 14 drug charges, despite overwhelming evidence, including a videotape of Barry smoking crack cocaine. Barry’s lawyers argued that he was entrapped by the federal government. Barry, a longtime civil rights leader, was very beloved in D.C. and it was a popular belief in the nation’s capital at the time that he was targeted for his political stances and his role as one of the nation’s most prominent black elected officials.

Perhaps one of the most well-known suspected cases of jury nullification is O.J. Simpson. Although many of the jurors involved in that decision have come forward to say that they were compelled by the evidence presented by Simpson’s defense attorneys, Simpson’s attorney, Johnnie L. Cochran, was accused of hinting at the concept of jury nullification in his closing argument by the prosecutor in the case, Marcia Clark.

Other suspected jury nullification situations include the cases of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the controversial physician-assisted suicide advocate who killed patients he deemed to be terminally ill; Lorena Bobbitt, the woman who cut her husband’s penis off after she claimed he raped her; and Oliver North, the NSA staff member who claimed responsibility for the sale of some weapons to Iran during the Iran-Contra affair.

While it’s obviously next to impossible to know exactly why juries chose to acquit Barry, Simpson, Kevorkian, Bobbitt, North, and many others, jury nullification was suspected based on the amount of evidence damning the defendants, and the decision on the jury’s part to acquit despite that evidence.

Conclusion

While serving on jury duty may not be the most glamorous of activities, it is often viewed as one of the most noble civic duties each American is beholden to. But, guilt and innocence aren’t always as black and white as they seem on “Law & Order.” In many cases, jurors take moral issue with the convictions they’re asked to participate in. That’s where jury nullification sometimes comes in. While advocates argue that it’s a way for jurors to protest unfair laws, detractors argue that it makes an unfair playing field for those accused of the same crimes, and can sometimes be used for nefarious or heavily biased purposes. But while jury nullification is somewhat of a well-kept secret, it sometimes makes its way in to the spotlight—often in cases that are beholden to the court of public opinion.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is Jury Nullification? appeared first on Law Street.

Which legal tweets made the cut this week? Check out the best here:

A Deep Hole

Me falling down a hearsay rabbit hole. I don’t know what I’m doing with life. How did I ever pass a bar exam? pic.twitter.com/n9Rz1bhqVC

— KC. (@legallyKjo) May 30, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Remember the outrage over the supposed “pink slime” in our meat a few years ago? While the outrage seemingly died down quickly, a South Dakota-based meat producer is suing ABC, senior national correspondent Jim Avila, and news anchor Diane Sawyer for those reports, claiming that they were defamatory.

The company, Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), was the focus of a series of reports Avila did in 2012. In the reports, Avila described a practice BPI uses, where it supplements its ground beef with meat from trimmings of the cow, including muscle and connective tissue. According to BPI, this is a common procedure, and it’s totally fine to eat. Additionally it lessens the fat content of ground beef. BPI called this addition “finely textured beef product” but ABC and Avila called it “pink slime.” The name “pink slime” was first dubbed by a former USDA microbiologist in an email around the agency. Here’s an example of Avila talking about the “pink slime.”

BPI is now suing for defamation, claiming that the news reports seriously damaged its business. It claims that ABC either knew it was providing false information, or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. In terms of proving harm, the company says that its business seriously suffered because of these highly-publicized reports. It argues that it had to lay off approximately 700 workers and close three plants as a result. BPI says that its weekly sales were cut in more than half–from five million pounds a week to less than two million pounds a week.

ABC is arguing that it disseminated the information responsibly. After all, it never claimed that “pink slime” was unsafe to eat, just that consumers had the right to know what was in the food they were purchasing.

The trial is currently underway–jury selection just finished up today. Given the sheer amount that BPI is asking for–the company is claiming damages as high as $1.9 billion, but Eriq Gardner of the Hollywood Reporter explains that the potential verdict could get as high as $5.7 billion–the case is one to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beef Company Sues ABC for Calling its Meat “Pink Slime” appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome back to another round of our RantCrush news quiz! Each Friday we put out this post quizzing our lovely readers on the big stories of the week. Every story can be found in our RantCrush Daily Newsletter. If you’re not getting our newsletter click here to sign up, and enjoy the quiz below!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Newsy Are You?: June 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

FBI’s Russia Probe Makes it Across the Pond

The investigations into the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia continue, and now there’s a new name popping up as a reported “person of interest.” Nigel Farage, the leader of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) that drove the “Leave” movement pre-Brexit, is apparently of interest to the FBI. Specifically, the FBI appears to be probing Farage’s ties to Julian Assange, the controversial founder of WikiLeaks, as well as some other individuals connected to Trump, including Roger Stone. This doesn’t mean that Farage is believed to have done anything wrong, rather that the FBI thinks that he may have information that is relevant to its probe into Trump and Russia.

Farage denies the claims that he’s a person of interest in the investigation. A spokesman told the Guardian, which first published the claims, that the questions were “verging on the hysterical.”

“If you triangulate Russia, WikiLeaks, Assange and Trump associates the person who comes up with the most hits is Nigel Farage.” https://t.co/oar5if5d1u

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 1, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Just after midnight, President Donald Trump took to his favorite social media platform–Twitter–and sent out a puzzling tweet.

Damn, they deleted the tweet! Good that I have a screenshot. #covfefe pic.twitter.com/pjIhkXqw7I

— Katya Bohdan (@katyabohdan) May 31, 2017

It’s pretty clear that Trump meant “coverage” as opposed to “covfefe” which…isn’t a word, despite his team’s bizarre claims that he was referring to some sort of inside joke. But it doesn’t really matter why Trump tweeted out the non-word, because the rest of Twitter had a ton of fun with it. Check out the best of the new, beloved #covfefe meme below:

covfefe
covfef
covfe
covf
cov
co
c
co
com
comi
comin
coming
coming o
coming ou
coming out of my cage and i’ve been doing just fine

— mar (@happiestweekes) May 31, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best Twitter Responses to “Covfefe” appeared first on Law Street.

Feel like you missed out on some of the top news this Memorial Day Weekend? Here’s what trended last week:

Mississippi Sued, Accused of Not Providing Equal Education to Black Students

A federal lawsuit has been filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the state of Mississippi, arguing that the state is violating a 150-year-old law that requires it to provide a “uniform system of free public schools” for all students. The SPLC lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the parents of four minor children, claims that Mississippi has deprived black students of the “school rights and privileges” guaranteed in its 1868 constitution.

PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement

PayPal is suing music streaming service Pandora, accusing it of copying its signature “P” logo, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The digital payment company alleges that Pandora’s new logo intentionally confuses customers into mistakenly opening the wrong app on their phones.

Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best legal tweets of the week!

Fun Party Guest!

My party trick is pointing out everything the hosts could be liable for. #lawyerlife

— Bad Legal LLP (@BadLegalLLP) May 24, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome back to our RantCrush weekly news quiz! We launched this new feature last week and you can check it out here if you missed it last go around. Can you spot the correct answers to these questions? Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are You on Top of the News?: May 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On today’s list of super strange legal battles, a California woman named Jessica Gomez has filed a class action lawsuit against popular jelly bean manufacturer Jelly Belly. She purchased one of their products, Jelly Belly’s Sport Beans, which the company advertises as an “exercise supplement.” The company marketed the beans as containing “carbohydrates, electrolytes, and vitamins.” One of the listed ingredients was “evaporated cane juice,” which is just another term for sugar. But Gomez claims that the fact that the beans contain sugar was not made clear, and has filed a class action suit alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and product liability.

I have a lot of questions. Why would anyone want to eat jelly beans as an exercise supplement? Why would Jelly Belly try to break into the supplement market, of all things? How did Gomez not assume that there was sugar in a product that displayed its sugar content on the nutrition label? Did these weird jelly beans even taste good?

TIL Jelly Belly makes jelly beans… for sports. pic.twitter.com/FJgjiB6jrt

— danielle kefford (@quephird) September 10, 2016

Gomez claimed that by listing the sugar as “evaporated cane juice” instead of sugar, as well as the other advertising that went into marketing the beans, Jelly Belly misled consumers into thinking they were healthy. To be fair to Gomez, the FDA actually recommends that companies not list evaporated cane juice on ingredients lists for this exact reason, something that her lawyers are likely to cite if this case moves forward.

In a motion to dismiss the case, Jelly Belly argued that Gomez couldn’t have thought the beans were sugar-free because the amount of sugar per serving was clearly stated on the product’s nutrition label. The company called the lawsuit “nonsense.” The lawyers representing Jelly Belly also pointed out that the “Plaintiff also does not explain why an athlete–or anyone–would be surprised to find sugar in a product described as ‘Jelly Beans.'”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Sues Jelly Belly After Finding Out Jelly Beans Contain Sugar appeared first on Law Street.

Jared Kushner Under FBI Scrutiny

Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and one of his closest advisers, is under FBI scrutiny regarding the Russia probe. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Kushner has done anything wrong, rather that investigators believe he has information related to the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. According to people with knowledge of the investigation who spoke to the Chicago Tribune, Kushner “is being investigated because of the extent and nature of his interactions with the Russians.” The FBI has yet to comment.

Last week, sources told the Washington Post that one of Trump’s senior advisers was under scrutiny; many hypothesized that it was Kushner. There has also been speculation that the investigators are looking into possible financial crimes on Kushner’s part, including a possible failure to disclose certain loans and assets.

The FBI turns its attention to Jared Kushner, @ariabendix reports https://t.co/WuGpKn8Mqk pic.twitter.com/NbMiYWEFNG

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) May 26, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Rebel Wilson, the Australian comedienne known for her roles in movies like “Pitch Perfect” and “Bachelorette” has spent the last few days in an Australian courtroom. Wilson has sued the parent company of Australian Magazine Woman’s Day, Bauer Media, for defamation. She claims that the magazine published false claims that she had lied about a variety of facts of her life–including her age and upbringing–and that as a result, she has lost work opportunities.

In 2015, Woman’s Day released a series of eight articles in three days about Wilson. The first, which was headlined “Just who is the REAL Rebel?” claimed that she had fabricated some of the details of her life, and according to Wilson’s lawsuit, essentially painted her as a serial or pathological liar. The articles specifically suggested she lied about her age, her real name, and her upbringing. But there doesn’t appear to be evidence that Wilson ever misrepresented her age, and she has been open that “Rebel” is not her birth name, but a nickname that she later changed her name to. The articles also claimed that she had attended an elite boarding school when she was younger, while Wilson has maintained that she was raised in a more rural area.

According to the lawsuit, the information used for the articles came from an anonymous source who claimed to have gone to school with Wilson. The writer of the articles, Shari Nementzik, saw an online comment made by the anonymous source on another Woman’s Day article, and reached out to her. Emails between Nementzik and the source revealed that the source was looking for money to talk about what she “knew.” Originally, it appears as though lawyers told Woman’s Day the story was too risky, legally speaking, to publish. But the information was still published in 2015.

Wilson claims that after the articles were released, her career took a hit. She testified in court earlier this week that she lost roles in the animated films “Trolls” and “Kung Fu Panda 3” after the articles came out, and she has struggled to find work ever since. The trial is ongoing, and Wilson is seeking unspecified damages.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rebel Wilson Sues Australian Magazine for Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

You may have noticed “WikiLeaks” coming up in the news a few times lately. Recently, its founder, Julian Assange, saw the Swedish investigation into rape allegations levied against him suspended–although he does still face arrest if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in London. And Chelsea Manning, who leaked a massive number of documents to WikiLeaks, was just released from prison after her sentence was commuted by former President Barack Obama.

Wikileaks, which was launched in 2006 with the purpose of providing government and other relevant documents to citizens, has been all over the news since its inception. But what exactly is it, who is its founder, and why do you need to about it? Read on to learn more.

The Origins of WikiLeaks

Wikileaks officially launched in 2006 and the first document was posted in December of that year, but the domain name “WikiLeaks” was registered that October.

WikiLeaks calls itself a “not-for-profit media organization” that seeks to increase transparency worldwide. Despite the similarity in names, there’s no connection between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia. Instead, WikiLeaks is associated with an organization called “Sunshine Press,” which handles some of the private aspects of WikiLeaks’ business.

WikiLeaks states its mission as:

Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure, and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth.

Australian Julian Assange is usually attributed as its main founder–although there are many other people, some anonymous, who worked on the project. Also associated with the project was investigative journalist Gavin MacFadyen, Assange’s mentor. He was the director of WikiLeaks. Before his death in 2016, MacFadyen founded the Julian Assange Legal Defense Committee. Sarah Harrison, a British journalist and researcher, has also been publicly identified as one of the organization’s associates. She’s best known for aiding Edward Snowden’s trip out of the U.S. after he leaked a trove of classified documents. Many of the other people associated with WikiLeaks are anonymous, but the organization claims that they include “accredited journalists, software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians, and others.”

How Does WikiLeaks Operate?

The organization is somewhat secretive in how it operates. But it is currently funded by donors and has no one permanent location or office. It has servers in multiple countries and claims it does so to protect the organization in case one country decides to crack down on its operations. In 2016, Assange told Der Spiegel that the organization had posted over 10 million documents in 10 years. According to WikiLeaks, it is sent documents anonymously through email or other anonymous electronic means, and then those documents are vetted and uploaded–although it is important to note that there has been significant criticism about the veracity of some of those documents. WikiLeaks has occasionally worked with media organizations, including Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and The New York Times, although its relationships with some of those organizations have fluctuated over the years.

WikiLeaks and Well Known Whistleblowers

Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning is one of the most widely-known names associated with WikiLeaks. Manning, a U.S. soldier then known as Pte First Class Bradley Manning, sent more than 720,000 secret documents to WikiLeaks in 2010. At the time, she was working as an intelligence analyst. One of the most notable things included in this leak was video footage of a U.S. helicopter firing on and killing Iraqi citizens and journalists in 2007. She also leaked State Department cables, information related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and data about the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

Manning was convicted of 20 charges associated with this leak, and sentenced to 35 years in prison. President Barack Obama commuted most of Manning’s sentence before he left office. When she was released in May 2017, she had spent seven years in prison. Manning’s sentence was controversial; many claimed it was too harsh, including advocates for whistleblower protections, transparency, and some human rights groups like Amnesty International. Others claimed that the punishment fit the crime. President Donald Trump, for instance, has called Manning an “ungrateful TRAITOR.”

Manning’s punishment was complicated by the fact that she is a transwoman who was confined in a men’s prison. Manning’s difficulty transitioning while incarcerated was made public, and her struggles to obtain that care worried human rights advocates.

The video below discusses Chelsea Manning’s case in more detail:

Edward Snowden 

Perhaps the most recognizable whistleblower in the world is Edward Snowden. Snowden worked for the CIA and then for well-known government consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton. In 2013, he leaked hundreds of thousands of documents that, among other things, revealed the NSA’s surveillance of American citizens as well as information about British surveillance programs.

Snowden did not release this information to WikiLeaks, instead, he gave the documents to media sources. According to Snowden, the only two who were given the full array of documents were Glenn Greenwald, who worked for The Guardian and Laura Poitras, who later made “Citizenfour,” the award-winning documentary about Snowden. However, in the aftermath of the leaks, Snowden was aided by WikiLeaks-associated individuals. After Snowden fled the United States, Sarah Harrison helped him get set up in Russia and avoid American detection. WikiLeaks also submitted asylum requests to multiple countries on Snowden’s behalf.

Since 2013, Snowden has been loosely associated with WikiLeaks at other times. At various points, Snowden has weighed in on the accuracy of documents leaked by the organization. For example, in March 2017, Snowden publicly said that he believed the documents related to CIA hacking techniques released by WikiLeaks were true.

But, Snowden has also been critical of WikiLeaks. In July 2016, Snowden criticized WikiLeaks for not curating the information it released, instead just indiscriminately posting documents related to the U.S. election. In response, WikiLeaks accused Snowden of trying to curry favor with the then-front-runner in the election, Hillary Clinton.

WikiLeaks Controversy and Criticisms

There are lots of criticisms consistently levied against WikiLeaks and the people associated with it. Here are some of the most prevalent:

Julian Assange’s Legal Troubles

Julian Assange has spent the last five years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Assange was accused of sexual assault by two women in Stockholm, Sweden in 2010. Assange claims that the sexual encounters with the two women were both consensual and that they were only accusing him of assault because of political reasons. In 2012, Assange sought asylum from Ecuador and was granted the ability to stay in the country’s embassy in London. While Sweden recently announced that it was no longer seeking his arrest, he still isn’t likely to leave the embassy any time soon. U.K. officials have said they can arrest him on other charges, like jumping bail. And if he’s extradited to the United States, he could be subject to a variety of charges related to WikiLeaks. If he is ever extradited to the U.S. for charges related to release of documents stolen by Chelsea Manning, he could be in serious trouble.

Redactions Wanted

WikiLeaks’ “leak all for transparency’s sake” approach to releasing information has garnered it some criticism. In July 2016, WikiLeaks claimed to publish a number of documents related to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The so-called “Erdogan emails” didn’t really appear to contain any political bombshells, but did include links to databases containing the information of Turkish citizens. One database had the personal information of almost every woman in the country. The info included things like addresses, cell phone numbers, and political information. Essentially, WikiLeaks doxxed almost half the country. While the files were eventually taken down, WikiLeaks was criticized for going beyond transparency to potentially harming private individuals.

2016 Election Hacks

WikiLeaks has recently been criticized for its role leaking documents pertaining to the 2016 election. WikiLeaks leaked DNC emails that reflected negatively on Hillary Clinton’s presidency campaign. Charlie Savage of the New York Times argued that Assange specifically timed the release of the DNC emails to come out at the most politically damaging time for Clinton, a claim bolstered by Assange’s own admission that he saw Clinton as a “personal foe.” In addition to releasing emails from the DNC, Wikileaks also published a trove of emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s personal email account. Those were also released in batches in a way that kept much of the information in the news as the campaign progressed. WikiLeaks has even been accused of colluding with Russia’s attempts to propel now-President Donald Trump to the presidency. The U.S. intelligence community issued a report that attributed the DNC hack to Russian intelligence services, which caused many to question the extent to which WikiLeaks is associated with the Russian government. WikiLeaks has refused to divulge the source of the documents and has so far denied any connection with Russia.

Conclusion

As a political topic, WikiLeaks is no doubt controversial. In the era of fake news, and distrust in the media and government institutions, WikiLeaks has often garnered credit for being willing to provide ordinary citizens with primary sources. On the other hand, WikiLeaks’ mystique, founder’s legal issues, and accusations of bias and irresponsible dissemination of information has led to plenty of criticism. In fact, in the last year, plenty of think pieces have been written, accusing WikiLeaks of “losing its friends” and “losing the moral high ground.” But given the space it has carved out as a repository for leaked information, and the relative fame of some of the people associated with it, including Julian Assange, it’s unlikely to disappear from our radars anytime soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is WikiLeaks and Who is Julian Assange? appeared first on Law Street.

A federal lawsuit has been filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the state of Mississippi, arguing that the state is violating a 150-year-old law that requires it to provide a “uniform system of free public schools” for all students. The SPLC lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the parents of four minor children, claims that Mississippi has deprived black students of the “school rights and privileges” guaranteed in its 1868 constitution.

According to the lawsuit, evidence of the unfair treatment of African-American students in the state can be seen in the ratings that the schools receive. The SPLC points out that of the state’s 19 worst-performing school districts, thirteen have more than 95 percent black students. The other six have somewhere between 81-91 percent black students. In contrast, the state’s top five highest-performing school districts mostly have white students.

The plaintiffs’ children go to two schools that are among the worst in the state–Webster Elementary and Raines Elementary. The plaintiffs described horrible conditions at those schools, including a lack of basic necessities like toilet paper. Raines Elementary serves lunches with spoiled fruit and rotten milk.

To understand what’s going in Mississippi, a little history is necessary. In order to be brought back into the United States following the Civil War, terms were set by Congress that included that the state ratify a constitution that provided equal education to its citizens. Specifically it required the “uniform system of free public schools” regardless of pupils’ races. But in the years that followed and the onset of the Jim Crow era, those requirements were watered down. At one point, Mississippi fought against the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

And the state’s education woes don’t stop with this recent lawsuit–another lawsuit is currently underway, brought by two state legislators. It claims that the governor should not be able to make mid-year budget cuts, because it infringes on the legislative branch’s power. Some of the cuts that are being contested include serious blows to education funding in the state. And currently, Mississippi’s schools are struggling as a whole–the state ranks 50th in national rankings of the 50 states and Washington D.C.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mississippi Sued, Accused of Not Providing Equal Education to Black Students appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best of this week!

Everyone Probably Needs That

Dear #barexam preppers, #twitter has decided to go offline so you can study. You’re welcome. –Twitter Tech Support pic.twitter.com/WkCrWz3o3k

— lawprofblawg (@lawprofblawg) May 19, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Four of the Duggar sisters, who appeared on the former TLC show “19 Kids and Counting” have filed a lawsuit after the police reports that implied their brother Josh Duggar had sexually abused them were disseminated to the media. Jill Dillard, Jessa Seewald, Joy Duggar, and Jinger Duggar (the two older sisters are married and have changed their names) have filed a federal breach-of-privacy lawsuit against the city of Springdale and Washington County, Arkansas, as well as some officials involved in the investigation, and In Touch.

Stories about Josh’s abuse surfaced in 2015, but the abuse claims stem from 2006. The police reports were released as the result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made in 2015 by In Touch. In Touch approached the city officials for the documents after an anonymous tipster came to its writers with claims about Josh Duggar. The sisters argue that when they talked to the investigators in 2006 they were told that the information would be kept confidential, and under Arkansas’ FOIA rules, interviews with minors cannot be disclosed.

Essentially the sisters argue that the FOIA request shouldn’t have been complied with on the officials’ part, or at the very least the documents should have been heavily redacted. The documents provided to In Touch were somewhat redacted–in that the names of the girls and Josh were blacked out, but they still contained the names of their parents. According to the lawsuit it was easy to determine who the victims were based on that information. The sisters are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. They have also released a statement, claiming that the filed the lawsuit to protect abuse victims in the future from breaches to their privacy

“19 Kids and Counting” was cancelled after the allegations about Josh Duggar, and his parents’ horrific choice to cover up the abuse. Duggar allegedly sexually abused five girls when he was a teenager–four were his sisters–by fondling them while they slept. After those revelations, sponsors began pulling out of the show, and it was cancelled by TLC. Additionally Josh Duggar, who was working at the time at the incredibly conservative Family Research Council, resigned from his job.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Duggar Sisters Sue Tabloid and Police After Stories About their Brother’s Abuse appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday everyone, and welcome to a new feature on Law Street! Every day we bring you the top five controversial stories in law and policy, with our RantCrush Daily newsletter. But in today’s age of fake news and alternative facts we feel like news literacy is more important than ever. So check out our RantCrush quiz to see how much attention you paid to the news this week, and sign up for RantCrush to make sure that you get the breaking stories in your inbox every single day.

Check out the quiz below!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can You Keep Up With This Week’s News?: May 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Around the World with Donald Trump

Today, President Donald Trump sets off for a foreign trip. Given recent hits to the credibility of his leadership–most notably his firing of James Comey and allegations that he leaked sensitive information to Russian diplomats–this trip is considered “do or die” by many.

Getting ready for my big foreign trip. Will be strongly protecting American interests – that’s what I like to do!

— President Trump (@POTUS) May 19, 2017

Trump will visit Saudi Arabia and Israel as well as attend global summits in Italy and Belgium. The whole world is watching to see if he manages to slip up or offend any other world leaders on his tour. But according to some reports, Trump doesn’t actually want to go on the trip. Information has also been leaked indicating that preparing Trump for high-pressure situations is harder than it should be. According to the New York Times: “In an attempt to capture his interest, aides threaded Mr. Trump’s own name through the paragraphs of one of the two-page memos they wrote for him.” All eyes will be on Trump during his trip–we’ll have to see how this goes.

via GIPHY

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

For many families in the United States, hunger can be a daily struggle. According to Feeding America, in 2015, about 13 percent of households were food insecure. In total, 42.2 million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 13.1 million children. There are also concerns that many lower-income Americans are overweight or obese–there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that low-income children are more likely to be overweight or obese than children in higher-income households. One concept that gets talked about a lot when it comes to hunger and health in the United States is the idea of a “food desert.” But what is a food desert, where are they, and what impact do they have on food insecurity?

What Exactly is a Food Desert?

While there are a number of different definitions that can be applied to the concept of a food desert, it’s generally defined as an area in which it is difficult to find fresh fruit, vegetables, and other “whole” foods that when combined, contribute to a well-balanced diet. In many cases, nearby supermarkets aren’t easily accessible by public transportation, and oftentimes, the residents don’t have access to cars. Essentially, a food desert just means an area in which it is difficult to come by wholesome and nutritious food.

Food deserts are usually located in lower-income areas, often neighborhoods in which most residents are people of color. According to the Food Empowerment Project, a non-profit that works to provide food to low income areas, wealthy areas have almost three times as many supermarkets as lower-income areas. And neighborhoods that are predominately white have four times as many supermarkets as majority black neighborhoods.

What’s a Food Swamp?

In addition to the concept of a food desert, you may hear the term “food swamp” thrown around occasionally. A food swamp is usually defined as an area where there is access to healthy food, but there is easier access to unhealthy foods, like junk food and fast food.

The concepts of food desert and swamp are closely related. In fact, there are arguments that “food swamp” is a more accurate term than food desert altogether, because many lower-income neighborhoods have plenty of fast food restaurants and convenience stores that carry unhealthy foods.

Where Are Food Deserts Located? 

There are multiple measures that can be used to determine whether or not a place is a “food desert.”

Redfin, for example, determined food deserts by calculating the percentage of people in a given city who can walk to a grocery store within five minutes. Using those metrics applied to 2014 data, the five American cities with the lowest percentage of people who can walk to a grocery store in five minutes are, in this order: Indianapolis at 5 percent; Oklahoma City at 5 percent, Charlotte at 6 percent, Tuscon at 6 percent, and Albuquerque at 7 percent. In contrast, the five American cities with the highest percentage of food access within five minutes were New York City at 72 percent, San Francisco at 59 percent, Philadelphia at 57 percent, Boston at 45 percent, and Washington D.C. at 41 percent.

That’s not to say that all food deserts exist in cities. In fact, rural areas are hard hit as well, although they need to be classified slightly differently. The metric usually applied to rural food deserts is if there’s no grocery store within 10 miles of a high-population area. In some rural areas, this is exacerbated by population shifts, as more people are moving to urban and suburban areas. When people move out of an area, grocery stores close, sometimes creating food deserts.

And certain areas are harder hit than others–for example, many Native American reservations fall under the definition of food deserts. Navajo Nation is almost 30,000 square miles, but only has 10 grocery stores. A study conducted by the Diné Policy Institute concluded that “a majority of participants from the communities represented in this study travel at least 155 miles round trip, while others regularly drive up to 240 miles to access foods.”

In 2011, the United States Department of Agriculture created an online, interactive map tool that measures food deserts across the country. The tool uses the following definition to measure what a food desert is:

A food desert is a low-income census tract where either a substantial number or share of residents has low access to a supermarket or large grocery store. ‘Low income’ tracts are defined as those where at least 20 percent of the people have income at or below the federal poverty levels for family size, or where median family income for the tract is at or below 80 percent of the surrounding area’s median family income. Tracts qualify as ‘low access’ tracts if at least 500 persons or 33 percent of their population live more than a mile from a supermarket or large grocery store (for rural census tracts, the distance is more than 10 miles).

According to then-Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the tool is intended to:

Help policy makers, community planners, researchers, and other professionals identify communities where public-private intervention can help make fresh, healthy, and affordable food more readily available to residents. With this and other Web tools, USDA is continuing to support federal government efforts to present complex sets of data in creative, accessible online format.

You can check out the tool for yourself here.

How Can the Problem of Food Deserts Be Solved?

There have been a lot of proposed solutions for food deserts. One prominent figure working to eliminate food deserts is former First Lady Michelle Obama, who made it one of the primary focuses of her activism. The Obama Administration put forth the solution of funding and equipping grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods, as well as providing financing for other options for healthy food, like farmers markets and co-ops.

There have been other, more unique solutions proposed as well. In some places, volunteers work to transport healthy food that would otherwise be disposed of from grocery stores in other areas. Some areas have taken to promoting urban farming and community gardens to combat food deserts. There are also efforts to put healthier, whole foods into already-existing institutions, like introducing more produce options into convenience stores and neighborhood corner shops.

Do Food Deserts Actually Need to be “Solved?”

There are also questions of whether food deserts are actually the issue, or at the very least the whole issue. There’s an argument to be made that obesity and poor nutrition aren’t necessarily caused by a lack of access to whole food, but rather issues with people’s shopping and eating habits.

Some research indicates that the increased presence of supermarkets in food deserts doesn’t do much to improve the shopping choices that locals make. In addition to a lack of education about nutrition, other factors go into play, like convenience, habit, the fact that unhealthy food is sometimes the cheapest, and strong advertising pushes from junk food producers.

As a result, some efforts to counter food deserts have focused on improving nutrition education. For example, there is a preschool in Memphis, Tennessee, that works with its students, many of whom live in food desert areas, to teach them the importance of a healthy diet from a young age.

Conclusion

Food deserts are such a fluid concept that it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what they are, where they are, and what exactly they mean for the American population. Some argue that food deserts are a myth, and that our concentration should be focused on providing more nutrition education, not more choices of shopping venues. But one thing that is certain is that the rates of hunger and obesity in the United States–one of the richest countries in the world–are downright unacceptable, and food deserts are one concept that will continue to be brought up to combat those concerning trends.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is a Food Desert? appeared first on Law Street.

Trump’s new education budget draft appears to have an upsetting provision for many holders of student loans who work for the government and non-profit sector–it gets rid of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. The program is supposed to forgive balances of student loans for those who work in certain positions, like teachers, government lawyers, law enforcement officers, and social workers, as long as they make on-time payments for 10 years and fit certain other guidelines.

The logic behind the program is that those who qualify for it give up more lucrative future careers to work in civil service, and should be given some sort of benefit for making that choice. For example, a public defender earns an average of about $60,000 a year. First year associate jobs at Big Law firms, in contrast, are paid an annual salary of up to $180,000 at this point. Under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program that public defender, as long as she pays her loans on time and in full, could qualify for loan forgiveness in 10 years.

The program is relatively new. The first “wave” of people who would qualify for loan forgiveness will hit their 10-year mark in October. At this point it’s unclear if the Trump Administration could affect the program for those who are already enrolled or if it would only shut down the program moving forward. Currently, there over half a million borrowers signed up.

Overall the Department of Education budget would be slashed by $10.6 billion, according to the Washington Post, which obtained a copy. Those cuts are seemingly welcomed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who has consistently said that the federal government needs to step back from its involvement in education.

In addition to the cessation of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, the proposed budget also slashes or completely eliminates funding for college work-study programs, mental health services in schools, after-school programs, arts education programs, programs for gifted students, international language programs, organizations that provide childcare to parents in school, career and technical education, and Special Olympics education programs, among many others.

Of course, the Trump Administration isn’t cutting everything. In fact, Devos’ pet causes of school vouchers and charter schools will receive more funding.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will the Trump Administration End Public Service Loan Forgiveness? appeared first on Law Street.

A lesbian couple from Knoxville, Tennessee, has officially gotten divorced–but it wasn’t without a hard-fought legal battle that ended up involving the state legislature. In a first for the conservative southern state, a woman has been designated as the “husband” in a custody case. Knox County 4th Circuit Court Judge Greg McMillan’s ruling, which was anticipated, came as the Tennessee legislature was attempting to file a bill that would preclude gay and lesbian couples from being covered under gender-specific words in custody cases.

Sabrina and Erica Witt were married in 2014 in Washington D.C., where gay marriage was legal. At that point, gay marriage wasn’t legal in Tennessee, so when they had a child via artificial insemination, carried by Sabrina, Erica wasn’t included on the birth certificate. McMillan initially ruled that because the language in the Tennessee custody law was specific, and referred to “husband” and “wife,” only Sabrina could have custody. However, more recently, he ruled that the law could be applied to their case.

McMillan’s decision granted both Sabrina and Erica custody. Erica is viewed as the “father” in this situation, and has the right to see her child. Moreover, she is on the hook for child support payments.

But, while the Witts’ case was making it way through the courts, local legislators took notice. A few days after the ruling, the state legislature passed a bill that requires judges in McMillan’s situation to give “natural meaning” to words that are gendered. Governor Bill Haslam signed the bill. However, the legislature was prevented from intervening in this particular case, by McMillan’s decision. The lawmakers are appealing that decision.

LGBTQ rights groups in the state and nationally reacted with outrage that the state legislature was inserting itself into an individual family’s custody battle.

However, that new law is already wrapped up in a lawsuit. Four married lesbian couples, each of whom are pregnant, are suing the state over the law, claiming that it clearly was enacted with the intention to discriminate against gay couples. There are also concerns that this law could conflict with the decision that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why does the Tennessee Legislature Care About a Lesbian Couple’s Divorce? appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best!

We Have to Go Back

Looking at law school like: pic.twitter.com/MTPtQTTha5

— Michael Tofte (@TofteMichael) May 13, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Macron Crushes Le Pen in the French Presidential Election

Emmanuel Macron, a former investment banker who is for all intents and purposes a political newcomer in France, decisively defeated Marine Le Pen this weekend. Macron, whose ideology is best described as center-left won approximately 66 percent of the vote. Le Pen, who boasts a far-right ideology, garnered only 34 percent. There are some hurdles ahead–Macron’s new party, “En Marche!” is very young, and currently holds no seats in Parliament. Those elections will be held next month.

But Macron’s victory is seen as relatively good news for the EU. Le Pen had campaigned in part on a “Frexit”–France’s proposed version of “Brexit.” Macron, on the other hand, championed globalization, France’s position in the EU, and tolerance.

Macron vows to heal France’s divisions after victory over Le Pen https://t.co/dZeN02Uooh pic.twitter.com/gAz2pkV4dh

— Bloomberg (@business) May 8, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Social media has the ability to bring together people from all walks of life to interact. But the ensuing interactions aren’t always positive–the ubiquity of social media has opened up plenty of people to harassment. While online harassment can include a variety of forms–including cyberbullying, cyberstalking and revenge porn–there are other forms of online harassment that you may start to hear more about moving forward: doxxing and swatting. Read on to learn more about these forms of online harassment, some of the more prominent victims of them, and the potential legal ramifications in the United States.

What are Doxxing and Swatting?

Doxxing 

Doxxing, which comes from the word “document,” is the release of an online user’s private information, including but not limited to photo, address, birthdate, and Social Security number. This release is usually done for a particular purpose–for example, to reveal the anonymity of a person online. Someone who operates under their own name–say, a journalist–could also be doxxed, if their personal information is disseminated to the internet. And it’s not just individuals who can be doxxed, as the term can be applied to group membership. But no matter who is doxxed, it’s safe to say that someone who doxxes someone else intends to cause some sort of harm.

Swatting 

Swatting is another form of online harassment, which can be sometimes (but not always) connected to doxxing. Swatting involves falsely reporting an emergency, in the hopes that a “swat” team or other law enforcement officers show up to the location that is being targeted. According to the National 911 program:

The calling party will often report they are involved or nearby as a witness to a home invasion, active shooter, or hostage situation, attempting to muster the largest response possible. Often, the law enforcement response is substantial, with police confronting the unsuspecting victims at gunpoint, only to learn that there is no real emergency.

Those who attempt to cause a swatting incident use several techniques, including: caller ID spoofing, TTY relay technologies, and social engineering.

Swatting is usually done with the intent of causing fear in the subject, or occasionally as a cruel prank.

What are some real-life examples of doxxing and swatting?

There have been many high-profile examples of both doxxing and swatting. From politicians to celebrities to journalists, it’s become an increasingly common practice. It’s also important to note that doxxing and swatting aren’t practices limited to one particular ideology, political party, or group. During the 2016 election, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton supporters accused each other of the practices, whether those claims were substantiated or not.

Here are a couple of examples of each:

Doxxing: Anonymous 

Anonymous, the well-known group of “hacktivists,” has frequently doxxed various individuals it has decided to attack. Perhaps most notably, Anonymous made headlines in 2015 when it released a long list of Ku Klux Klan members. The list included alleged members and sympathizers’ real names, as well as their social media accounts.

Doxxing: GamerGate

In 2014 the GamerGate controversy broke, leading to online harassment for some women in the video game industry. One relatively common practice was doxxing–for example Brianna Wu, a female game developer who is now running for Congress and was targeted during the controversy, was doxxed. Other women involved in the gaming industry were doxxed as well, including Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Some tangentially related figures, like actress Felicia Day, were also doxxed. Day’s personal information was released after she wrote an essay about her opinion on GamerGate.

Swatting: Ted Lieu 

Congressman Ted Lieu, who currently represents the 33rd District of California, was swatted when he was a state senator. When he was swatted, Lieu had recently introduced a bill that would actually increase penalties for anyone who engaged in swatting behavior. In April 2013, the police received a call from someone pretending to be Lieu, who claimed he had shot his wife. Lieu was actually out but his wife, Betty, was in the house. Police went to the house and made Betty and their nanny exit the house with their hands up.

Swatting: Celebrities

A number of celebrities have been swatted, perhaps most famously Lil Wayne. In March 2015, an anonymous caller called the police and claimed that four people had been shot at his house in Miami Beach. Miley Cyrus was swatted in 2012, after reports of an armed kidnapper and shooting at her California home. Ashton Kutcher and Justin Bieber were both swatted by a 12-year-old Southern California boy in 2012. Dozens of other celebrities have been victim to swatting, including Simon Cowell, multiple members of the Jenner/Kardashian clan, Rihanna, Tom Cruise, Chris Brown, Clint Eastwood, and Taylor Swift.

Laws Against Doxxing and Swatting

Whether or not doxxing is technically illegal is somewhat up for debate. Most countries don’t have laws that specifically prohibit doxxing, although there are some that have codified it. In the UK in 2016, doxxing was explicitly added to a list of behaviors that can be prosecuted. But in most places, doxxing can be prosecuted only if it’s deemed to fall under another kind of criminal behavior, such as harassment. In cases where a person’s private information, like a Social Security number, is doxxed, it could constitute identity theft. That being said, it’s very difficult to prosecute people for doxxing because it is so often done under the cloud of anonymity. Sometimes it happens across state or country lines. At the end of the day, it’s a tough issue to prosecute.

The legal lines when it comes to swatting are slightly more clearly defined. For one, making false reports to police officers are illegal in many places. And plenty of people have been prosecuted for their role. Individual states, including California, have specifically implemented anti-swatting laws–it was while working on those laws that Lieu was actually swatted himself.

In 2015, Representative Katherine Clark (D-MA) introduced legislation that would have made swatting expressly illegal in Congress–the Interstate Swatting Hoax Act. In this bipartisan effort, Democrat Clark was joined by Republican Representative Pat Meehan of Pennsylvania. Clark’s office published a release that explained the dangers of swatting and pointed out that it’s actually quite costly:

The FBI estimates 400 swatting attacks occur every year. Some attacks, however, have been reported to cost local law enforcement agencies as much as $100,000.  The most serious cost of these attacks is the danger they pose to emergency responders, innocent victims, and their families. Swatting attacks have resulted in injury to law enforcement officers, heart attacks, and serious injury to victims.

The bill didn’t end up making it to a vote but perhaps unsurprisingly, Clark herself was swatted in 2016. An anonymous call made to the local police claimed that there was an active shooter at her home.

However, like with doxxing, it’s very difficult to determine who the perpetrator of a swatting crime is. In general, doxxing and swatting are versions of harassment that require some sort of technological sophistication to be able to pull off. That makes it difficult to identify, arrest, and prosecute suspects.

Conclusion

Doxxing and swatting are just two examples of the kind of harassment made possible by the internet. But while both wouldn’t be possible without the internet, they can lead to real world consequences. For example, an emotional video went viral in 2015 where video game live-streamer named Joshua Peters described how when he was the victim of a swatting, police aimed a gun at his 10-year-old brother who happened to open the door. Given that SWAT raids can lead to officers mistakenly shooting someone, or shooting someone for a relatively minor infraction, it’s not impossible to imagine that swatting could turn deadly for a victim. While it’s hard to prosecute doxxing and swatting, they are clear markers that online harassment doesn’t just affect us online.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Doxxing and Swatting: New Frontiers in Online Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Albany Unified School District in California was just hit with a lawsuit over its officials’ choice to suspend students who interacted with racist images on social media. More than a dozen students at Albany High School, near San Francisco, allegedly liked and posted racist images on Instagram. In response, some were suspended. Now, four of the students have filed a lawsuit against the school district, claiming that their suspensions are a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The images in question included photoshopped pictures of some of the black female students at the school, posted on Instagram. The photos were photoshopped to include nooses and other racist symbols. At least a dozen students liked or commented positively on the posts. The four students who are suing fell into that category–the kid who originally created the posts is not party to the lawsuit.

The lawyers of the four students who filed the federal lawsuit claim that in addition to violating the students’ freedom of speech, what the students did outside of school was none of the school’s business. The lawsuit reads:

This action arises out of a private online discussion between friends that the Albany School system has pried into without authority. All conduct at issue in this matter occurred off school property, were conducted off school hours, and were otherwise completely unrelated to school activity.

The plaintiffs also claim that the school officials made a spectacle out of them by bringing them through the hallways and allowing them to be berated by other students.

The parents of the students who were the victims of the photoshopping disagree with the First Amendment claims, pointing out that the images constitute hate crimes. One of the fathers of the girls told a local outlet: “This is a hate crime. You don’t have a First Amendment right to promote a hate crime against a group of people based on their skin color.”

The students are suing for damages, but they haven’t specified how much they’re asking for. They’re also asking to have the incident removed from their records. The school has said that it will be reviewing the lawsuit, but it’s unclear what move it will make from here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California School Sued for Suspensions of Students who “Liked” Racist Images appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best legal tweets this week:

Cool Law School Prof Entry

If my 1Ls are reading this , they are FINISHED WITH THEIR FIRST YEAR OF LAW SCHOOL EXAMS! Congratulations–it’s party time!/1 pic.twitter.com/KRCSPiD2xO

— Rachel Gurvich (@RachelGurvich) May 5, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Chobani, best known for producing the popular Greek yogurt, has filed a lawsuit against Alex Jones. Jones, the conspiracy theorist who runs the website InfoWars.com, has claimed that Chobani’s choice to hire refugees at its Idaho factory led to a sexual assault case in a local apartment building. Jones, and InfoWars, also claimed that the refugee workers at the factory led to increased crime in the area and an uptick in TB cases. Chobani is now suing Jones and InfoWars; the lawsuit includes two counts of defamation.

The owner of Chobani, Hamdi Ulukaya, has employed about 300 refugees, mostly from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey, at its Idaho and New York factories. In November, news broke that Ulukaya was getting death threats for those hiring decisions, particularly after some right-wing news outlets started reporting the same type of misinformation as InfoWars.

One particular InfoWars segment claimed that Chobani is tied to a case in the city–Twin Falls–where the factory is located. According to reports, three refugee boys sexually assaulted a five-year-old girl in the area. The assault did happen–the boys pled guilty–but there’s no evidence to suggest that the Chobani factory had anything to do with the children. Here’s one clip:

That clip draws a connection between the factory’s presence in the town and the sexual assault case–the title of the segment was “Idaho Yogurt Maker Caught Importing Migrant Rapists.” Another Jones video that implied that Chobani had something to do with the sexual assault case included “MSM Covers For Globalist’s Refugee Import Program After Child Rape Case.” The lawsuit also points out that these claims were repeated on social media platforms, and remain online to this date.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Idaho District Court, accuses InfoWars of knowingly publishing misinformation about the company and about Ulukaya. Chobani is now seeking at least $10,000 in damages.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chobani Sues Alex Jones, Claims He Spread Misinformation appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a classic concern in Washington, a seemingly annual potential: a government shutdown. Now, talk of a government shutdown looms over the Trump Administration and the 115th U.S. Congress. This week, Congressional leaders are scheduled to send President Donald Trump a spending bill, but one that notably lacks many of his most inflammatory campaign promises. It doesn’t contain any money for Trump’s border wall and it doesn’t defund Planned Parenthood, among other unfulfilled promises. So, if Trump vetoes the bill, the federal government won’t have the money to function and it will trigger a government shutdown. But what actually is a government shutdown? What does it mean? How often does it happen? Read on to find out.

What is a “Government Shutdown?”

Essentially a “government shutdown” happens when, for whatever reason, a spending bill is not passed. There are multiple ways this could happen. For example, the Republicans and Democrats in Congress may not be able to agree on what measures should be included. Or, the president could veto the bill. But either way, it means that federal agencies don’t have the ability to spend money–meaning they can’t pay their employees or carry out a large chunk of their tasks. That’s deemed a “shutdown.”

Is there anything Congress can do to avoid a shutdown? 

Well, obviously passing a spending bill (which is really a collection of appropriations bills in an omnibus) is the optimal course of action. But that’s not the only option, because of course, various factions in the government disagree far more often than the government actually shuts down. That’s because Congress has the ability to pass something called a “continuing resolution”–a quick stopgap measure that gives them more time to figure out the spending bill. A continuing resolution is intended to fund the government at current levels until a permanent solution is figured out.

There’s also a combined continuing resolution/omnibus solution, which would fund certain, mostly uncontroversial agencies, while also temporarily funding the controversial issues. This measure, which is called a “CRomnibus,” would allow Congress to further debate on the controversial issues, but not wrap up the rest of the agencies’ and government’s funding as well.

When has the government shut down in the past?

It actually happens relatively frequently. Since 1976, which was the first year that the budgeting system as it now stands was implemented, the government has shut down–partially or fully–18 times. Many of those shutdowns were incredibly quick and didn’t really affect anything, others were longer and more complicated. Note that many of these cases include multiple moving parts, but here are the basic gists of what stopped at least some of the cogs in the federal government from working:

• There was a shutdown for 10 days in 1976 during President Gerald Ford’s presidency. He vetoed a spending bill passed by a Democratic Congress, claiming that the spending for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare wasn’t reigned in enough.
• The government shut down three times during President Jimmy Carter’s presidency over the abortion debate alone. The shutdowns, which all occurred in 1977, were 12 days, eight days, and eight days respectively. The House wanted to continue to prohibit Medicaid funding from going to abortions; the Senate wanted to loosen the restrictions to include more exceptions.
• In 1978, also during Carter’s presidency, there was an 18-day shutdown when Carter vetoed part of a defense bill, claiming that funding for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was wasteful, among other issues.
• There was another shutdown during the Carter presidency in 1979, for 11 days, again related to abortion. The Senate refused to let the House give itself a pay increase without making federal abortion funding restrictions looser.
• In 1981, during President Ronald Reagan’s time in office, Reagan vetoed the spending bill after it fell $2 billion short of the cuts he wanted to make, sparking a two-day shutdown.
• The next year, still during Reagan’s presidency, there was a one-day shutdown, largely just because the House and Senate didn’t pass a spending bill in time.
• Again in 1982, Reagan threatened to veto a spending bill that set aside money for job creation, while neglecting to fund a defense program his administration saw as a priority. This led to a three-day shutdown.
• In 1983, the House passed a bill that gave more money to education, but cut foreign affairs spending and defense spending. Reagan didn’t like any of that. The resulting debate led to another three-day shutdown.
• In 1984, there was another short shutdown of two days, again because Congress wanted to fund (and to not fund) certain provisions against Reagan’s wishes, including a water projects package and civil rights measure. That led to another one-day shutdown when Congress and the White House failed to get everything together after a three-day extension.
• In 1986, there was a one-day shutdown when, once again, the Democrat-controlled House and Republican President Reagan disagreed over provisions in a funding bill.
• The last shutdown of Reagan’s presidency occurred for a day in 1987 when the president and the Democrats in Congress couldn’t agree on whether or not to fund the Nicaraguan “Contra” militants.
• There was a three-day shutdown in 1990 under President George H.W. Bush. Bush vetoed a measure that didn’t contain a deficit reduction plan.
• In 1995 there was a five-day shutdown, when President Bill Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution by the Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time. It had plenty of things he didn’t want in it, including raising Medicare premiums.
• From December 1995 to January 1996, there was a 21-day shutdown that again pitted Clinton against the then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Much of this shutdown involved semantics–Clinton was using Office of Management and Budget numbers to balance his budget, while Congress insisted he use the Congressional Budget Office’s numbers.
• The most recent government shutdown, in 2013, under President Barack Obama, lasted 16 days. Obamacare was the crux of the issue–the Republican-controlled House didn’t want to fund the bill, the Democrat-controlled Senate did.

What Actually Happens During a Shutdown?

Much of what happens during a government shutdown is dictated by the Antideficiency Act, a law originally enacted in 1884 and amended in 1950. According to Andrew Cohen of the Atlantic it is:

a collection of statutory and administrative provisions, really–that forbid federal officials from entering into financial obligations for which they do not have funding, like paying the salaries of their employees or buying the things they need to run the government. It’s also the law that wisely permits certain ‘essential’ government functions–like the military and the courts, for example–to keep operating even in the absence of authorized legislative funding.

So, one of the most notable effects of a government shutdown is on federal government employees. Essentially, government workers are split into a few different groups–those who are “essential” to keep daily life in the United States functioning, and those who aren’t. Those who aren’t include people who operate our national parks and large chunks of lower and mid-level staff at agencies and offices. They are furloughed, without pay, until whenever the government shutdown ends. Workers who stay on probably don’t get their pay on time. And a common point of contention is that members of Congress are still paid, even if there is a shutdown. It was estimated by Standard & Poor’s that the 2013 shutdown cost the economy approximately $24 billion.

Other effects of a shutdown can include delayed Social Security payments, no processing of travel documents like new passports, no processing of applications for things like Medicare, research for certain agencies like the CDC, and certain types of federal loans end up frozen. However, the TSA, Post Office, and active military are all certain to continue functioning.

Of course, some areas are more affected than others. Washington D.C., as a city that is in many ways controlled by the federal government, is pretty hard hit. Check out this video from the New York Times to learn more:

Conclusion

A “government shutdown” sounds quite a bit scarier than it actually is. It doesn’t signal anarchy, or the apocalypse, but rather a temporary (but certainly annoying) halt to some of our government’s day-to-day functions. That being said, it’s not great for those who are particularly affected–like the hundreds of thousands of workers who suddenly have to go for an indeterminate period without pay. It costs the economy quite a bit of money. And it disrupts an already tumultuous funding process for the federal government. It’s unclear when the next shutdown will be, but at this point it seems like it’s become a regular factor in Washington.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does a “Government Shutdown” Entail? appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday was the March for Science in many cities around the U.S. (and the world). According to the organizers, over 600 cities participated yesterday. The organizers explain the purpose:

People who value science have remained silent for far too long in the face of policies that ignore scientific evidence and endanger both human life and the future of our world. New policies threaten to further restrict scientists’ ability to research and communicate their findings.  We face a possible future where people not only ignore scientific evidence, but seek to eliminate it entirely.  Staying silent is a luxury that we can no longer afford.  We must stand together and support science.

The application of science to policy is not a partisan issue. Anti-science agendas and policies have been advanced by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and they harm everyone — without exception. Science should neither serve special interests nor be rejected based on personal convictions. At its core, science is a tool for seeking answers.  It can and should influence policy and guide our long-term decision-making.

But, as with many of this year’s protests, one of the highlights was the awesome signs many protesters came up with. Check out some of the best in the slideshow below:

These Awesome Science March Signs Prove Scientists have a Sense of Humour | https://t.co/11IBFaC8Gi pic.twitter.com/E2wItAgQgs

— Academia Obscura (@AcademiaObscura) April 23, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Killer Signs at the March for Science appeared first on Law Street.

The Cherokee Nation has filed a lawsuit in the Cherokee Nation District Court against six distribution and pharmacy companies, claiming that they have unjustly profited through over-prescribing and selling opioids.

The companies included in the lawsuit include three pharmaceutical companies: McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, and Amerisource Bergen. It also includes three pharmacies: CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart. The lawsuit claims that it was the companies’ responsibility to monitor opioid prescriptions and orders in Cherokee Nation, identify the red flags present, and report those issues to the federal government. Essentially, the companies should have noticed warning signs like individual patients trying to fill prescriptions from multiple doctors, or driving long distances to fill prescriptions for no apparent reason.

The lawsuit details the horrific effects that prescription opioids have had on the community, noting that American Indians are more likely to die from drug overdoses than other ethnic groups. Annual deaths from opioid overdose have doubled in Cherokee nation between 2003-2014, and now outnumber deaths from car accidents. It also points out that young people have been hit particularly hard. It reads:

A 2014 study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found a much higher prevalence of drug and alcohol use in the American Indian 8th and 10th graders compared with national averages. American Indian students’ annual heroin and OxyCotin use was about two to three times higher than the national averages in those years.

The lawsuit also details the issues with women who are addicted to opioids and become pregnant, as well as the harm to the community as a whole when drug addiction and crime rise. The Cherokee Nation is seeking restitution for health care costs for those who have been affected by opioid addiction.

Cherokee Nation isn’t the first area to file a lawsuit against companies for the metoiric rise in opioid issues around the U.S.–earlier this year, Everett, Washington became the first city to sue a painkiller manufacturer. A tiny town in West Virginia, called Kermit, sued McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal health, Miami-Luken, AD Smith Corporation and a former Kermit pharmacy, Sav-Rite Pharmacy. Those are just a couple examples–there have been others, and until the opioid crisis in the U.S. is under control, there are sure to be more.

In the Cherokee Nation lawsuit, the companies named in the suit have either elected not to comment or have pointed out that they have stringent policies in place to deal with opioid abuse, or that addiction is the real issue.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cherokee Nation Sues Opioid Providers and Pharmacies appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best.

That is the Question

If Shakespeare was a law student during final exams:
To sleep or not to sleep? @YourLawyerSays

— Bong Pagara (@BongofZamboanga) April 20, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Aaron Hernandez Found Dead in his Cell

Former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez was found dead in his cell in a Massachusetts prison early this morning. Hernandez, 27, reportedly hanged himself. He had been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the 2013 murder of Odin Lloyd, but had just recently been acquitted of the 2012 fatal shootings of Daniel de Abreu and Safiro Furtad.

Prison officials said that they had no reason to believe that Hernandez was suicidal. If they had, they would have transferred him to the mental health unit, instead of allowing him to remain in his single-occupancy cell. A spokesperson for the Patriots said that the team, which is visiting the White House today to celebrate its Super Bowl win, will not be commenting.

Sports world reacts to former New England Patriots player Aaron Hernandez’s “tragic” death. https://t.co/1f6BFuDF1e pic.twitter.com/dYZz3jFxRK

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) April 19, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The debate over government funding of Planned Parenthood is seemingly never-ending. During last month’s controversy over repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, talk of defunding Planned Parenthood–essentially ensuring that Medicaid funds cannot go to the health provider service–was a common refrain. Defunding Planned Parenthood, advocates say, would ensure that taxpayer money is not used for abortions.

People who disagree with defunding Planned Parenthood have a consistent response to that proposal–that federal money cannot be used for abortion services because of something called “the Hyde Amendment.” Read on to learn what the Hyde Amendment is, its history, and what exactly it requires.

The History of the Hyde Amendment

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade. With a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that a woman’s right to an abortion is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. That decision legalized abortion in the United States, although states still have control over certain aspects–like at what point in a woman’s pregnancy abortion can be restricted.

The 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States set up the debate between pro-choice and pro-life advocates that is still being waged today. Between 1973 and 1976 various attempts to prevent Medicaid funding from being used for abortions were introduced and failed. But in 1976, the Hyde Amendment was introduced by Congressman Henry Hyde. It was not any sort of standalone law, but rather a rider attached to the 1977 fiscal year’s Labor, Health and Humans Services Appropriations Bill.

There was a lot of back-and-forth and disagreements between the House and the Senate, and the measure went through a number of revisions before it was successful. Language that made exceptions for abortions in the case that the mother could die without the procedure was inserted, removed, and inserted again.

But eventually the provision known as the “Hyde Amendment” was passed in 1977. In essence, it prohibited any use of Medicaid funds for abortion, unless the life of the mother was endangered. The passage of the Hyde Amendment was seen as a big win for the growing pro-life movement, but because it’s a rider attached to an appropriations bill, it needs to be re-passed every year.

Legal Challenges

After the Hyde Amendment was passed, its legality was almost immediately challenged. The Reproductive Freedom Project, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Planned Parenthood, representing health care providers and a pregnant Medicaid patient, obtained an injunction 40 minutes after the provision went into effect. Federal Judge John F. Dooling Jr. granted the injunction, setting off a legal battle that made its way to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS sent the case back to Dooling, who kept the injunction in place for that year.

While the Hyde Amendment worked its way through the legal system, it also underwent revisions in Congress. Because it needs to be passed again through an appropriations bill each year, there’s plenty of room to edit and refine the language. Eventually, language that allowed for exceptions in the case of rape or incest were added.

Harris v. McRae 

In 1980, the Supreme Court officially weighed in on the legality of the Hyde Amendment in the case of Harris v. McRae. Cora McRae was a pregnant Medicaid patient who challenged the legality of the provision. The court was asked to weigh whether the Hyde Amendment violated the right to privacy, the right to Due Process under the Fifth Amendment, or Freedom of Religion under the First Amendment. In a ruling neatly split by ideology, the court decided that the Hyde Amendment violated none of the above. According to Oyez:

The Court held that states participating in the Medicaid program were not obligated to fund medically necessary abortions under Title XIX. The Court found that a woman’s freedom of choice did not carry with it ‘a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices.’ The Court ruled that because the Equal Protection Clause was not a source of substantive rights and because poverty did not qualify as a ‘suspect classification,’ the Hyde Amendment did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Finally, the Court held that the coincidence of the funding restrictions of the statute with tenets of the Roman Catholic Church did not constitute an establishment of religion.

Although the text has evolved slightly over time, it’s similar to the original concept–federal funds through Medicaid should not be used for abortion services. The current text allows exceptions for if a mother’s life is at risk, or if a woman has become pregnant through rape or incest. Despite political majorities changing over time, and other legal cases brought against the provision, some version of the Hyde Amendment has passed every year since 1977.

Modern Day: H.R. 7

Recently, the Hyde Amendment has made it back into the news again, in the sense that there are moves being made to render it permanent. H.R. 7, also known as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act” would codify the already-existing provisions in the Hyde Amendment and make the restrictions on federal funding permanent. It would also prevent women who are on military insurance or work for the federal government from using their insurance for abortion services.

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 7 on January 24, 2017 with a 238-183 vote. It’s unlikely to pass the Senate (similar bills passed the House in recent years and were not passed by the Senate) but if it does, it seems likely that President Donald Trump would choose to sign it.

Arguments for and Against the Hyde Amendment

There are plenty of arguments for and against the Hyde Amendment, many of which are tied to the general debate over abortion. The following lists are by no means conclusive. But like abortion, the Hyde Amendment remains incredibly controversial.

Arguments for the Hyde Amendment 

Advocates of the Hyde Amendment argue that it saves lives. The 40th anniversary of the original passage of the Hyde Amendment was in September 2016, and it was celebrated as having “saved two million lives” since its passage. Advocates argue that cutting funding for abortion prevents women from having abortions. Although it’s obviously difficult to quantify how many women would have sought abortions had they been able to, pro-life advocates estimate that if the Hyde Amendment was repealed, abortion rates would increase by roughly 25 percent.

Another argument in favor of the Hyde Amendment is that it is supported by the American public. Polling on the issue has varied widely–in fact, both supporters and detractors of the Hyde Amendment regularly make this argument–but it’s true that certain polls have indicated Americans are not in favor of using Medicaid funds for abortions. A Politico poll conducted in October 2016 found that 58 percent of voters are not in support of using Medicaid funding for abortion.

Even some pro-choice individuals are in favor of the Hyde Amendment, arguing that regardless of their personal or political beliefs on abortion, taxpayer money should not be involved. For example during the 2016 election, Senator Tim Kaine, in contrast to his running mate Hillary Clinton, was supportive of the Hyde Amendment. Kaine “stood with” Clinton’s efforts to repeal it, but said he was personally in support of the measure.

Arguments Against the Hyde Amendment

Critics of the Hyde Amendment point out that it is specifically intended to target poor women and women of color who rely on Medicaid. Hyde’s own statements when he introduced the measure provide some fodder for that point of view. He stated: “I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the (Medicaid) bill.” Advocates of repealing the Hyde Amendment point out that an abortion is expensive to pay for out-of-pocket, so many women who rely on Medicaid don’t have that option.

Those who support repealing the Hyde Amendment also point out that restricting access to abortion doesn’t necessarily lead to less abortions, but it leads to more unsafe abortions. They also point out that women who want an abortion but aren’t able to obtain one are more likely to fall into poverty than a woman who is able to. And given that many women who seek abortions already have at least one other child, that can be dire for entire families. Of course, traditional pro-choice arguments come into play when discussing the Hyde Amendment–including that women’s healthcare shouldn’t be a political decision.

Conclusion

Given that the Hyde Amendment comes up almost every time there’s discussion about “defunding” Planned Parenthood, it’s important to understand exactly what it does. The Hyde Amendment, like the abortion debate as a whole, is complicated, convoluted, and confusing. First introduced shortly after the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the language has evolved over time, but one thing has been consistent–it prohibits federal funding from being used for abortions. Given public opinion, as well as the Hyde Amendment’s longevity thus far, it seems likely that it will remain in place for the next few years.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the Hyde Amendment? appeared first on Law Street.

Today, President Donald Trump’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., appeared to enjoy a nice, relaxing day by the pool. The weather was beautiful outside, so Trump Jr.’s choice of venue makes sense. But his attire grabbed Twitter’s attention. Trump Jr. tweeted out a picture of himself wearing a t-shirt that poked a bit of fun at the “mainstream media”:

I’m going to have to buy 5-10,000 of these to pass around to our buddies in the #MSM. In the meantime I’ll model it for them. #yourewelcome pic.twitter.com/Hnn3Z5Pspm

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) April 15, 2017

And Twitter had quite a laugh editing and responding to the shirt. Check out some of the best responses in the slideshow below:

@rolandscahill @DonaldJTrumpJr Donald Jr describing himself as a model is very fake news.

— Mike P Williams (@Mike_P_Williams) April 15, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Jr. Gets Mocked on Twitter for “Fake News” Shirt appeared first on Law Street.

A new season of the hit TV show “Veep,” starring Julia-Louis Dreyfus, will premiere this weekend. And given that politics in real life, with President Donald Trump in the White House, have become increasingly gaffe-worthy, many fans were nervous to see how the show would (or wouldn’t) change. It actually turns out that one joke, about a “golden shower,” had to be edited out, because it was just a little too on the nose given a story about Trump that broke just a few months ago.

A Hollywood Reporter guest column by David Mandel, the current “Veep” showrunner, described how it’s difficult to tell if people are still willing to laugh at politics after Trump’s election. After all, so many facets of the Trump Administration feel like they’re straight out of a “Veep” storyline. Look no further for example, than the New York Times story about how Trump staffers: “confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room.”

And after Press Secretary Sean Spicer recently made astonishingly stupid comments about the Holocaust, someone made a Spicer-“Veep” mashup that Dreyfus herself ended up tweeting out.

This feels like an Emmy winning episode to me.https://t.co/DU4o08Ot2P

— Julia Louis-Dreyfus (@OfficialJLD) April 12, 2017

But the new season of “Veep” will pick up with Selina Meyer, the main character, about a year after she lost her own election for president. And the writers and others involved in the show made it clear that they’re glad to have a “former president” storyline instead of spoofing a real-life Trump.

However, Mandel did write about one specific storyline that had to be edited out:

So much of Veep is often just sitting around thinking: “What’s the dumbest thing that could happen?” They’re doing stuff that we couldn’t invent if we tried. The only thing we did have to change –it sounds like a bad joke, but it’s true–was a ‘golden shower’ joke in one of the episodes where someone is yelling at Jonah [Timothy Simons] about a golden shower. We hadn’t filmed it yet, and we realized, ‘Oh, we need to change that’ [because of the Trump-Russia dossier]. Who knew we would literally have to change a Veep golden showers joke because of the real president of the United States of America? It doesn’t get any weirder than that.

So, while “Veep” will come back this weekend, the show may feel a little different (although likely just as funny!) And there’s only Trump’s real life comedy to blame for that.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A “Veep” Presidential Problem: Comedy in the Age of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s picks!

Whoops

*drives to library to take a practice LSAT*
*forgets LSAT book*

Goodbye pic.twitter.com/mR5JlDwMso

— Ashley Courtney (@ashcourtalways) April 12, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Sexual Abuse by Boarding School Teachers Went on For Decades

A report released yesterday revealed that some teachers at the elite boarding school Choate Rosemary Hall in Connecticut sexually abused their students for decades. The report names 12 teachers who abused students, including through “forced or coerced intercourse,” starting in the 1960s and continuing until the 2010s. The school failed to report the crimes to the police or take appropriate action in almost all of the cases–for example, one Spanish teacher raped a 17-year-girl in a swimming pool during a school trip to Costa Rica in 1999. He then went on to become principal at another school, where he worked until last week.

Report names 12 at Choate Rosemary Hall who allegedly abused students https://t.co/3Y1bLAQuGu pic.twitter.com/USTfSz0UGX

— Boston.com (@BostonDotCom) April 14, 2017

The prestigious school boasts alums like President John F. Kennedy and his brother Joseph. Lawyer Paul Mones, who represents sexual abuse survivors, said that the logistics of a private boarding school makes it significantly easier for abuse to happen. “They are closed systems, especially residential private schools where kids are separated from their parents,” he said.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Since almost the moment that President Donald Trump took office, there have been calls to impeach him. Cities have passed resolutions calling for Trump’s impeachment, some Democratic politicians have indicated that they believe he should be impeached, and a late-March survey by Public Policy Polling reports that 44 percent of Americans support impeaching the president. Regardless of many unprecedented actions on Trump’s part, this isn’t really anything new–comments about impeachment consistently dogged President Barack Obama’s presidency as well.

But an impeachment is much easier said than done. Over the course of American history, only two presidents have ever been impeached–President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton, but neither president was removed from office as a result. Impeachment proceedings against a third president, Richard Nixon, began, but he resigned before much progress was made. Read on to learn about the impeachment process and the history of impeachments in the United States.

How Does Impeachment Work?

The U.S. Constitution lays out a procedure for impeaching the president (and vice president, and other officials).

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 makes it clear that the House of Representatives has the ability to “impeach” a president, essentially meaning that the House is in charge of bringing impeachment charges. Although there are a few different things that can lead to a House impeachment, usually it begins with some sort of allegations being made against an official. The House Judiciary Committee is then tasked with investigating those allegations. If so, the entire House then votes on whether or not to impeach the official–majority rules–by adopting articles of impeachment. Although not a perfect metaphor, it might be helpful to think of an impeachment like an indictment.

As Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 state, the Senate actually tries an official. Members of the House of Representatives are appointed to act as sort-of prosecutors of the official who is being tried. While usually the senators themselves serve as both judge and jury, in the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Two-thirds of Senators are required to convict, and as a penalty for being convicted, the official must be removed from office. There is no way to appeal.

Impeachments Throughout History

The two most notorious impeachments are obviously President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton. But impeachment isn’t just reserved for presidents. The House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings for over 60 individuals since America’s independence. The House issued articles of impeachment for 15 other individuals. Of those 15, eight were found guilty by the Senate. The majority were judges. Here are the American officials who have been impeached:

• In 1797, Senator William Blount was impeached on charges that he tried to help England seize Spanish-controlled territory in North America. He was expelled from the Senate before he was actually tried.
• In 1803, Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was impeached for being drunk on the bench and acting inappropriately. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1804, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for “arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials.” He was acquitted.
• In 1830, James H. Peck, a judge from Tennessee, was accused of abuse of power. He was acquitted.
• In 1862, West H. Humphreys, also a Tennessee judge, was impeached on charges that he “refused to hold court” and was acting against the U.S. government. He was found guilty, removed from office, and prevented from holding office in the future.
• In 1873 a Kansas judge, Mark H. Delahay, was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. He resigned before a trial began.
• In 1876, William W. Belknap, the Secretary of War, was impeached on various corruption charges. He was acquitted by the Senate.
• In 1904, Charles Swayne, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he misused his office. He was acquitted.
• In 1912, Robert W. Archbald, an Associate Judge of the U.S. Commerce Court, was impeached based on allegations that he had inappropriate business relationships with some litigants. He was found guilty, lost his job, and prevented from holding office moving forward.
• In 1926, George W. English, a judge from Illinois, was accused of abusing his power. He resigned and the charges were dismissed.
• In 1933, Harold Louderback, a California judge, was accused of “favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers.” He was acquitted.
• In 1936, Halsted L. Ritter, a judge from Florida, was impeached on a few charges, including that he was practicing law as a sitting judge. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1986, Harry E. Claiborne, a Nevada judge, was accused of tax evasion, and staying on the bench despite having been convicted of a crime. He was found guilty, and lost his position.
• In 1988 Alcee L. Hastings, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he perjured himself and conspired to solicit a bribe. He was found guilty and removed from office. (If the name sounds familiar, it’s because Hastings is now a congressman.)
• In 1989, Walter L. Nixon, a Mississippi judge, was impeached on various charges, including that he lied under oath. He was found guilty and removed from his post.
• In 2009, Samuel B. Kent, a Texas judge, was impeached on a number of charges, including sexual assault. He resigned before the proceedings were completed.
• In 2010, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a Louisiana judge, was impeached on charges that included perjury and accepting bribes. He was found guilty, lost his position, and cannot hold office in the future.

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

President Andrew Johnson assumed office after his predecessor, President Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated in April 1865. However, the Lincoln-Johnson ticket was unusual. While Lincoln was a Republican, Johnson was a Democrat from the South. He had remained in the Senate even after his home state of Tennessee seceded, which endeared him to the Republicans. In 1964, Lincoln chose Johnson for his ticket, which was under the “National Unity Party,” in an attempt to appeal to the entire country in the context of the Civil War.

But when Lincoln was assassinated, and Johnson was left in charge, he disagreed with the Republicans who held the majority in Congress. He famously declared: “This is a country for white men, and as long as I am president, it shall be a government for white men.” He stood against the enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, passed by Congress. In 1867, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, despite Johnson’s veto. This stopped the president from dismissing any government officials without the Senate’s approval.

Regardless of the bill, Johnson dismissed Edwin M. Stanton, his Secretary of War, who supported the Republicans in Congress. In response, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Johnson, 126-47. The charges were that he violated the Tenure of Office Act and brought “disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach” into Congress. As Johnson was being tried by the Senate, he took actions that were seen as concessions to the Republicans in Congress. He ended up being acquitted, by just one vote.

Richard Nixon’s Narrow Miss 

President Richard Nixon resigned after the fallout from the Watergate Scandal and his administration’s subsequent coverup. But had he not resigned, he certainly risked impeachment. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee passed one article of impeachment–had Nixon not resigned, that vote would have made it to the full House of Representatives.

President Bill Clinton’s Impeachment 

While in office, President Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern. Ken Starr, an independent investigator who had been originally tasked with looking into the Whitewater scandal but ended up investigating a wider range of controversies, submitted a report to the House Judiciary Committee. The report alleged that Clinton lied about his affair with Lewinsky during various testimony, including some regarding a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a woman named Paula Jones. The Starr Report contained 11 possible grounds for Clinton’s impeachment.

While the report was controversial, and Starr was accused of attacking Clinton for political motives, on December 19, 1998, the House approved two articles of impeachment against the president–one for obstruction of justice with a vote of 221-212, and one for lying under oath to a grand jury by a vote of 228-206.

On February 12, 1998, the Senate acquitted Clinton on both charges. In order to convict Clinton, the Senate would have needed a two-thirds majority. The obstruction of justice charge only garnered 50 votes, and the perjury charge only had 45 votes.

However, the impeachment, and affair, marred Clinton’s legacy.

Conclusion

Despite calls to impeach President Donald Trump (and previously President Barack Obama), impeachment isn’t as simple as it sounds. It’s a long, controversial, and political process–one that has only ever been even partially started against three presidents. While other figures throughout history have been impeached, those three presidents–President Andrew Johnson, President Richard Nixon, and President Bill Clinton–offer the closest thing we have to a blueprint for how an impeachment of a president would look. Given today’s contentious political landscape, who knows when we’ll see that again.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Impeach a President appeared first on Law Street.

Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas just ruled that Texas’ voter ID law intentionally discriminates against minority voters and violates the federal Voting Rights Act. The 2011 law has been thrown out as unconstitutional, and there’s the chance that Texas’ voting laws could once again be put under the purview of the federal government.

The law was passed by the Texas legislature in 2011 but didn’t go into effect until 2013. It required that all voters show some sort of government-issued photo ID before casting a vote, such as a driver’s license or passport. Since its inception, it has been controversial, sparking a drawn out legal battle. Critics point out that black and Hispanic voters are less likely to have those forms of identification. Judge Ramos ruled that the law was enacted with the intent to discriminate against minority voters.

The suit was brought by a number of plaintiffs, including the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives, La Union del Pueblo Entero and League of United Latin American Citizens, several individual voters, and Dallas County.

If you’re feeling a bit of Texas voter ID law deja vu, you’re not wrong. This is actually the second time that Ramos has ruled on this law. She ruled on it in 2014 as well, and then the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, located in New Orleans, sent it back to her. That court “found that Judge Ramos had relied too heavily on Texas’ history of discriminatory voting measures and other evidence it labeled ‘infirm’ and asked her to reweigh the question of discriminatory intent.” She once again found that the law is discriminatory.

The state of Texas is expected to appeal her decision again, but this could set Texas up for federal monitoring of its voting laws. The Voting Rights Act used to require that certain states–Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia–that had a history of passing discriminatory voting laws had to get federal approval before changing their voting laws. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the provision that required such “preclearance” but if a state is found to have passed a law that is intentionally discriminatory, it could be subject to that oversight once again.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Judge Rules that Texas’ Voter ID Law is Discriminatory appeared first on Law Street.

Last week our best stories included high school journalists kicking some butt, the relationship between President Donald Trump and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and fake butter on Dunkin’s bagels. ICYMI, check out our top stories!

Looking to Avoid Fake News? Check Out These High School Journalists

High school journalists across the country are proof that you’re never too young to start holding people accountable.

Students at Pittsburg High School in Pittsburg, Kansas learned this lesson after their investigation into a newly-hired administrator led to her resignation. Although their incoming principal, Amy Robertson, claimed to have earned degrees from Corllins University, some background research by the reporters for the school’s paper found that this was not an accredited institution.

Will Trump Mention India’s Human Rights Abuses in His Meeting with Narendra Modi?

On March 3, the State Department released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016, and its pointed critique of India’s human rights record has raised some eyebrows. The report is particularly critical of India’s history of state violence and the country’s criminal justice system in general. While one might expect the State Department’s findings to influence talks during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s impending visit to Washington, the matter will likely be ignored.

Good News for Bagel Lovers: Dunkin’ Donuts Settles Fake Butter Lawsuit

Jan Polanik ordered bagels with butter at a Dunkin’ Donuts in Massachusetts and couldn’t believe it wasn’t actually butter. So in 2013, he sued two Dunkin’ franchise groups, which run more than 20 restaurants in Eastern and Central Massachusetts, claiming to represent all customers who “ordered a baked product, such as a bagel, with butter, but instead received margarine or butter substitute between June 24, 2012, and June 24, 2016.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best tweets!

Rough

Finals coming at me like….. #lawschoolproblems #1L #2L #3L #lawstudent #finals pic.twitter.com/imhRVTfjdM

— I’m Dead Inside (@LawlzSchool) April 3, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, House Republican leaders introduced their new health care plan, the American Health Care Act. The effort was ultimately unsuccessful, and on March 24 the bill was withdrawn, largely because of Republican infighting. Republican moderates worried that the bill was too extreme, and would be harmful for their constituents. But Republicans further to the right disagreed, arguing that the bill actually didn’t go far enough. Those right-wing Republicans were led by the House Freedom Caucus, a caucus that has only been in existence for two years, but in the Trump era, has made quite a name for itself. Read on to learn more about the inception of the House Freedom Caucus, its ideology, and its members.

History of the House Freedom Caucus

The formation of the House Freedom Caucus was announced in January 2015. Its founding members were all hardline Republican representatives: Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Jim Jordan of Ohio, John Fleming of Louisiana, Matt Salmon of Arizona, Justin Amash of Michigan, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Ron DeSantis of Florida, and Mark Meadows of North Carolina. The nine founders reportedly planned their new caucus at a retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, a few weeks before they announced its formation.

According to a statement that offices of the members released:

The House Freedom Caucus gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable, and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety, and prosperity of all Americans.

The House Freedom Caucus is notably more conservative than the rest of the House, and Americans in general. According to Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone:

The Freedom Caucus acts like a third party in Washington because the political fates of its members are not yoked to the national GOP. Their districts rate R+13, according to Cook Political Report data crunched by Rolling Stone. This means their districts vote 13 percent more Republican than the nation as a whole — and are nearly a third more partisan than the median GOP seat (R+10).

The Split from the Republican Study Committee 

The House Freedom Caucus was an offshoot of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a much larger, but traditionally very conservative, caucus. However, in 2015, the year the House Freedom Caucus was founded, some conservative Republicans thought the RSC had become too centrist. The RSC had also become quite clunky and large–it currently has over 170 members.

Reports on whether the House Freedom Caucus’s split from the RSC was amicable have differed. The founding members tactfully told the press that they believed a smaller, more mobile organization was needed to pull the party to the right. Some members of the House Freedom Caucus remained as RSC members, while others left the larger group.

The House Freedom Caucus and House Speaker John Boehner

Congressman John Boehner announced that he would step down from the position of Speaker of the House in September of 2015. He had held the post since 2011, when Republicans gained majority control of the House.

It was reported that Boehner stepped down, at least in part, due to pressure from the House Freedom Caucus. If all of the 30-odd members of the caucus had refused to support him, he would not have had enough votes to remain the House leader. The House Freedom Caucus members wanted Boehner to push harder on some far-right issues, like defunding Planned Parenthood.

Who are the Current Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

No one is completely sure. The invite-only group isn’t public with its roster. However, a number of media outlets have identified the members who have been open about their relationship to the caucus. Here are the congressmen who are believed to currently be part of the House Freedom Caucus:

• House Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows, North Carolina
• Alex Mooney, West Virginia
• Andy Harris, Maryland
• Bill Posey, Florida
• Brian Babin, Texas
• Dave Brat, Iowa
• David Schweikert, Arizona
• Gary Palmer, Alabama
• Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
• Jim Bridenstine, Oklahoma
• Jim Jordan, Ohio
• Jody Hice, Georgia
• Joe Barton, Texas
• Justin Amash, Michigan
• Ken Buck, Colorado
• Mark Sanford, South Carolina
• Mo Brooks, Alabama
• Morgan Griffith, Virginia
• Paul Gosar, Arizona
• Rand Weber, Texas
• Raul Labrador, Idaho
• Rod Blum, Texas
• Ron DeSantis, Florida
• Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee
• Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
• Steve Pearce, New Mexico
• Ted Yoho, Florida
• Tom Garrett Jr., Virginia
• Trent Franks, Arizona
• Warren Davidson, Ohio

Who are the Former Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

There are also some former members associated with the caucus. These include congressmen who lost re-election bids in 2016, including founding member Scott Garrett of Florida and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. Former Congressmen John Fleming of Louisiana and Marlin Stutzman of Indiana ran for other positions and were defeated.

Retired Congressmen Curt Clawson of Florida, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, and Matt Salmon of Arizona also used to be counted among the members. Lummis seems to be the only female member ever associated with the caucus, so as it currently stands, the caucus appears to be entirely male. One founding member, Mick Mulvaney, was appointed by President Donald Trump as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and therefore is no longer in the House of Representatives.

There were some members who decided to remove themselves from House Freedom Caucus membership. Congressmen Tom McClintock of California and Reid Ribble of Wisconsin quit after the group’s role in forcing Boehner out of the Speaker of the House position. After he quit, McClintock said: “I feel that the HFC’s many missteps have made it counterproductive to its stated goals and I no longer wish to be associated with it.” And Ribble took his complaints a step farther, saying:

I was a member of the Freedom Caucus in the very beginning because we were focused on making the process reforms to get every Member’s voice heard and advance conservative policy. When the Speaker resigned and they pivoted to focusing on the leadership race, I withdrew.

Representative Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania resigned from the caucus last winter, saying that although his ideology still matched the group’s, he wanted to focus on “substantive policy work rather than procedural mechanisms the group uses to exert influence.” Representative Barry Loudermilk, of Georgia, also quit quietly, saying that he just didn’t have the “bandwith” to be in the group.

Most recently, Representative Ted Poe, from Texas, quit the House Freedom Caucus after the group’s role in the health care bill failure at the end of March. Poe said in an interview on “Fox & Friends” that he felt as though the caucus was saying “no” too much:

The president, Speaker Ryan, came to the Freedom Caucus and made some changes that we wanted several times. But no matter what changes were made, the goal post kept getting moved and at the end of the day, ‘no’ was the answer. And sometimes you’re going to have to say yes.

Poe chose to resign, saying that, “at some time we’re going to have to say ‘yes.’ We are in power. We need to lead.”

The Freedom Caucus in the News

Since its inception, the two most news-worthy events involving the House Freedom Caucus were its founding, and its role in John Boehner’s resignation. But the Freedom Caucus was recently vaulted into the spotlight with the AHCA controversy.

The American Health Care Act

Regardless of whether the assessment is fair or not, the House Freedom Caucus has been largely blamed by the media, President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and others, for the bill’s failure.

The big sticking point with the AHCA for many of the members was that it wasn’t conservative enough, and didn’t provide for a full repeal. At one point, it was reported that the Trump Administration was negotiating with the House Freedom Caucus to secure the needed votes to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. The Trump Administration offered to get rid of “essential health benefits” that were guaranteed under Obamacare. These essential health benefits included maternity care, emergency room visits, and mental health services. But, the Freedom Caucus still claimed that the bill didn’t go far enough, and on March 24, the bill was pulled.

Trump’s Attack 

In the wake of the AHCA withdrawal, President Donald Trump started criticizing the House Freedom Caucus. On March 27, Trump tweeted: “The Republican House Freedom Caucus was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” He followed that up on March 30, by tweeting: “The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” The verified Twitter account for the House Freedom Caucus responded to Trump’s criticism on March 31, saying that the group wants to hold true to its promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and arguing that only 17 percent of Americans supported the AHCA.

Conclusion

The House Freedom Caucus is relatively new, having just been founded in 2015, and best known for being involved in Speaker of the House John Boehner’s resignation. But in the Trump era, with both the Executive and Legislative branches controlled by the Republican Party, the House Freedom Caucus has become an increasingly influential part of GOP House dynamics. What the group will do with that newfound power remains to be seen.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the House Freedom Caucus? appeared first on Law Street.

Remember hoverboards? They were briefly popular a couple years ago, until it was discovered that they sometimes caught on fire and were also really hard to ride without falling all over yourself. But hoverboards aren’t totally out of the mainstream yet (although I suppose that depends on how you define mainstream.) One hoverboard manufacturer, Sidekick Group, is suing Jennifer Lopez, claiming that she didn’t follow through on her obligation to promote the company on her social media platforms.

According to the company, Sidekick Group, Lopez signed a contract in 2015. The company provided JLo with 42 custom hoverboards to be used in her Las Vegas Show at Planet Hollywood. In return, Lopez was supposed to promote the company on her social media platforms–specifically Instagram and Twitter–at least once every three months. That would be a big boost for the company, given that Lopez has over 100 million followers between the two social media platforms. But the company claims that Lopez didn’t follow through on her obligation. The company is now suing Lopez for roughly $55,000, which it claims is what the customized hoverboards are worth.

That relatively low ask has raised some eyebrows. Forbes has Lopez’s net wealth for 2016 listed at almost $40 million. It seems as though Lopez, or the producers of her show, could have purchased the hoverboards without needing to come to any sort of agreement for promotion.

Media outlets have pointed out that Lopez did follow through on the promise at least once, when she tweeted footage from her show, complete with background dancers on the hoverboards.

The #AllIHave dancers killing it on their @SideKickWheels. Check them out at https://t.co/fkGTynZmrz #JLoVegas pic.twitter.com/1hHOAtuTmn

— Jennifer Lopez (@JLo) May 26, 2016

J-Lo’s team doesn’t appear to have responded to any requests for comment about the lawsuit, and it’s unclear why she may not have posted about the hoverboards. But, we’ll see if she has to pay up, or if this lawsuit just rolls off of her (pun intended.)

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Hoverboard Manufacturer is Suing Jennifer Lopez appeared first on Law Street.

Terminal illnesses are a heartbreaking reality of life–in many cases, doctors can only provide care to help patients feel less pain in their remaining days. But, some activists believe that it doesn’t have to be that way, and that patients with terminal illnesses should be able to have control over their deaths. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in six states in the United States, and multiple states have weighed whether or not to allow it in the last few years. Read on to learn what physician-assisted suicide is, where it’s legal, and the arguments for and against the controversial practice.

What is Physician-Assisted Suicide?

Physician-assisted suicide is the prescribing of some sort of life-ending drug to a patient by a doctor. The patient then takes the steps to end their own life. Physician-assisted suicide should not be confused with euthanasia–in euthanasia, the physician physically performs the death-causing act. There are other names for physician-assisted suicide, including “physician-assisted death,” “aid-in-dying,” “right to die,” and “death with dignity.”

Across states that have legalized the practice of physician-assisted suicide, the process varies. But there are some consistent elements–only licensed medical doctors (M.D.s) or doctors of osteopathy (D.O.s) can issue the prescription. Additionally, doctors must be willing to issue the prescriptions–by no means are they obligated to do so. Many of the states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide also require that there’s some sort of waiting period between when a patient requests the procedure and when it’s granted, and that multiple doctors are consulted in the decision.

Where is Physician-Assisted Suicide Legal?

Currently, there are six states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Colorado, and Montana. It is also legal in Washington D.C.

Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide in 1994, with 51 percent of Oregon voters voting for it. However it wasn’t enacted until 1997. That was just a few months after the Supreme Court decided in Washington v. Glucksberg that state laws banning physician-assisted suicide are not unconstitutional. This meant that the decision of whether or not to legalize physician-assisted suicide would be left up to each state to determine; other Supreme Court rulings have since continued to validate that it’s a matter for states to decide.

In 2008, Washington became the second state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, via a voter referendum. In Washington, terminally ill residents who have less than six months to live may request drugs that would end their lives.

In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court ruled on Baxter v. Montana, and became the first case to essentially legalize physician-assisted suicide through a court case. Although there was no regulatory framework for physician-assisted suicide set up in the state, it ensured that a doctor cannot be prosecuted for the act.

In 2013, Vermont became the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide through its state legislature. Like many of the other laws, it includes caveats, including that terminally ill patients need to make multiple requests and wait 15 days after their initial request.

Then, in 2015, the California legislature passed the End of Life Option Act. Like the other states, California put certain restrictions on physician-assisted suicide. The patient must be at least 18, must have a diagnosis that will–within reasonable medical judgment–result in death within six months, and be deemed competent to make medical decisions, among other restrictions.

On November 8, 2016, Colorado voters voted in favor of Proposition 106, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in the state. Almost two-thirds of Coloradans voted in favor of the proposition, which like other states’ legalization measures, requires that the patient has less than six months to live, and is deemed competent to make a decision to end their life.

In late 2016, Washington DC’s council approved a Death with Dignity law, and Mayor Muriel Bowser signed it into law. However, based on the way that DC is set up, Congress has the ability to block laws enacted by the district. While Congress did not succeed in blocking this particular law, it has been known to prevent the city from setting up successful regulatory frameworks through budgetary measures, which could still happen.

Have Other States Tried to Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide?

Many states have introduced some sort of law or measure to legalize physician-assisted suicide recently, with most floundering. Michigan lawmakers proposed a physician-assisted suicide bill in late March 2017. Hawaii’s House of Representatives “deferred” a physician-assisted suicide bill, essentially killing it for now. New Mexico’s Senate just voted down a physician-assisted suicide bill. Other states have considered or may consider bills soon, including Maine, while others, like Kansas, are considering resolutions that would ban physician-assisted suicide. For many of the states considering legalizing physician-assisted suicide, it’s not the first time. In the mid-1990s, when the debate about physician-assisted suicide first began to heat up, measures failed in many states.

Arguments in Favor of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Most arguments in favor of physician-assisted suicide cite humanitarian arguments. Advocates of physician-assisted suicide argue that if an individual knows he’s going to die within the next six months, it’s cruel to force him to suffer through it. Instead, physician-assisted suicide allows him to end his life on his own terms, humanely and peacefully. Currently, mentally-competent people have the ability to refuse potentially life-saving treatments. Those in favor of legalizing physician-assisted suicide argue that it’s a similar concept.

Real Life Example: Brittany Maynard

In 2014, the story of Brittany Maynard captivated the nation. Maynard, a 29-year-old California woman, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer. After trying treatments, none of which were successful in the long term, Maynard decided to end her own life. She became an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, and in many ways, a modern face of the movement. Maynard and her family moved to Oregon from California, as this was before California had legalized the practice. Maynard wrote an op-ed about her decision, explaining why she believed that physician-assisted suicide was the right choice for her, and explaining that her decision wasn’t about being “suicidal,” but about having an option at the end of her life:

I’ve had the medication for weeks. I am not suicidal. If I were, I would have consumed that medication long ago. I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms.

I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?

Now that I’ve had the prescription filled and it’s in my possession, I have experienced a tremendous sense of relief. And if I decide to change my mind about taking the medication, I will not take it.

Maynard did take her own life, in November of 2014, and remains a face of the movement to extend physician-assisted suicide.

Arguments Against Physician-Assisted Suicide

Those who disagree with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide argue that suicide, regardless of the reasons, is immoral and should not be condoned by the government in any way, shape, or form. Many religious institutions argue against physician-assisted suicide; in some ways, it’s become linked to the pro-life movement. Others argue that physician-assisted suicide inherently creates issues for doctors, as the Hippocratic Oath essentially prescribes that doctors are not supposed to harm their patients. There are also concerns about a slippery slope–if we make any sort of physician-assisted suicide legal, we may open up the door to euthanasia or other harmful practices. Some who advocate against physician-assisted suicide argue that there’s no way to definitively guarantee that it’s completely a patient’s choice to request medicine that would end his life–they worry that a doctor or family member could pressure a patient.

Real Life Example: Dr. Jack Kevorkian

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was known as an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, but was found guilty of second-degree murder for actually administering drugs to one patient himself, and served eight years in prison. Dr. Kevorkian, nicknamed Dr. Death, was believed to have assisted in over 130 suicides throughout his career. He used multiple methods, including setting up ways for patients to inject drugs into themselves, carbon monoxide poisoning, and his infamous “suicide machine,” which was built into the back of a van.

There were claims that Dr. Kevorkian crossed serious ethical lines with his practices. An analysis conducted by a team at the University of South Florida at Tampa of 69 assisted suicides supervised by Dr. Kevorkian claimed that 75 percent of his patients were not terminally ill.

While some defend Dr. Kevorkian as a pioneer, his methods remain controversial, and are often cited as an argument against physician-assisted suicide.

Conclusion

In addition to ethical and moral arguments, there are many other concerns that come to mind when considering physician-assisted suicide. For one, the drugs that are used for physician-assisted suicide are very expensive, and not necessarily easy to get. A patient looking to move forward with physician-assisted suicide must find a doctor willing to help, which can pose challenges, even in states that have legalized the practice. And while the publicity surrounding Brittany Maynard certainly garnered attention for the physician-assisted suicide movement, she died in 2014, and momentum for state laws may be waning. But one thing is certain: the debate over physician-assisted suicide is very far from over.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Right to Die?: The Argument Over Physician-Assisted Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

Same

I love when college kids are like “I’m gonna graduate, go to law school, get married, and then buy a house by 25.” Like lol okay good luck.

— Catie Warren (@catie__warren) March 30, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

United Airlines is receiving criticism, after it was reported that two young girls were prohibited from boarding a flight because they were wearing leggings. The girls were reportedly traveling from Denver to Minneapolis when three of them were stopped for their outfits. One changed out of the leggings and was let on the flight, and the other two were prohibited from boarding. Shannon Watts, a woman who was boarding a separate flight, tweeted about the incident:

1) A @united gate agent isn’t letting girls in leggings get on flight from Denver to Minneapolis because spandex is not allowed?

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) March 26, 2017

2) She’s forcing them to change or put dresses on over leggings or they can’t board. Since when does @united police women’s clothing?

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) March 26, 2017

3) Gate agent for flt 215 at 7:55. Said she doesn’t make the rules, just follows them. I guess @united not letting women wear athletic wear?

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) March 26, 2017

United responded to the tweets Watts sent, indicating that the girls were in violation of its “Contract of Carriage” which includes a provision that passengers be “properly clothed.” But the concept that adolescent girls wearing leggings is improper sparked outrage on social media.

A 10-year-old girl in gray leggings. She looked normal and appropriate. Apparently @united is policing the clothing of women and girls. https://t.co/RKsIFoE8pq

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) March 26, 2017

@shannonrwatts Hey, @united, you know how this ends, right? Images of women in leggings tagging you on social as they fly your competition.

— Jenn (@jennvzande) March 26, 2017

@washingtonpost leggings? Like the ones in your advertisement @united hmmmmm… pic.twitter.com/EfIlBRMlEY

— OLIVIA FOX RADIO (@Oliviafoxradio) March 26, 2017

For the record, the girl wearing the leggings was TEN YEARS OLD. Good luck to @united explaining why she looked too sexual.

— Dana Schwartz (@DanaSchwartzzz) March 26, 2017

@united Leggings are business attire for 10 year olds. Their business is being children.

— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) March 26, 2017

United has since stated that the girls were flying as “pass riders,” which are usually family members of United employees. Apparently, those designated as pass riders are held to a stricter dress code that specifically includes a ban on spandex. A local outlet, 9News, spoke to Jonathan Geurin, a spokesperson for United, about this special pass rider dress code:

Pass riders have a stricter dress code to board. The three people involved in the incident did not meet the criteria for pass riders.

Pass riders are considered representatives of United and that extends to the dress code requirements. Casual attire for pass riders is allowed as long as it is in good taste for the environment.

As an example, Guerin says flip flops are not allowed for pass riders.

9NEWS asked to see the dress code policy for pass riders. Guerin says the information is part of an internal policy and will not be released at this time.

But that concept seems odd–it’s hard to believe that anyone would have mistaken pre-teen girls for employees, or assumed that they represented United just because they may have been related to an employee. United has announced that it’s looking into the policy and the complaint, but many were left with a bad taste by the incident. After all, leggings are normal travel attire for many women–and that’s certainly not the airline’s business.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post United Prevents Girls Wearing Leggings from Boarding Flight appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best legal tweets!

Congrats!

Wow left work on time every night this week, must be a new personal record #lawyerlife #friyay

— Christina Olliver (@C_L_Olliver) March 24, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.