On Wednesday, President Donald Trump endorsed a bill, introduced by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AK) and David Perdue (R-GA) in February, which would halve the number of legal immigrants coming to the U.S.

The RAISE Act would cap the number of green cards the U.S. issues at 50,000 over the next 10 years. Currently, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services awards about one million green cards each year; about six million individuals and employers apply for a green card each year.

Green cards grant legal immigrants the right to permanently reside and work in the country, instead of having to apply and constantly renew work visas.

Inspired by the Canadian and Australian immigration policies, the proposed legislation would establish a competitive “merit-based system,” through which applicants would be awarded points based on a slew of factors. Some of the factors would include an applicant’s financial stability, ability to pay for healthcare, earning prospects, and, most controversially, English language skills.

The RAISE ACT “puts great downward pressure on people who work with their hands and work on their feet,” Cotton said. “Now, for some people, they may think that that’s a symbol of America’s virtue and generosity. I think it’s a symbol that we’re not committed to working-class Americans. And we need to change that.”

The bill also removes the diversity visa program and “chain migration,” the current practice of prioritizing family unity in the immigration process.

I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers & taxpayers. Watch: https://t.co/lv3ScSKnF6 #RAISEAct pic.twitter.com/zCFK5OfYnB

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 2, 2017

“American First” 

This announcement comes on the heels of the Senate’s failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. Many equate this push for legal immigration reform to the administration trying to turn the page on healthcare and secure its first legislative win.

Trump campaigned on reforming immigration, legal and illegal, but several of his initiatives have either run into road-blocks or devolved into large-scale media disasters. Trump’s promised wall along the Mexican border remains unbuilt, and the attempted Muslim ban was stopped in court a number of times earlier this year.

However, Trump’s “America first” message remains at the forefront of his policies and his endorsement of this bill further highlights this.

“The RAISE Act prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare, and protects U.S. workers from being displaced,” Trump said. “And that’s a very big thing. They’re not going to come in and just immediately go and collect welfare. That doesn’t happen under the RAISE Act. They can’t do that.”

Uphill Battle in Congress 

The bill is very unlikely to pass Congress, as it would need unified Republican support as well as some Democratic votes. Some Republicans have already said they would not support the bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released a statement on Wednesday, saying that he agrees with the ideas expressed in the bill, but he would not vote in favor of the legislation.

“South Carolina’s number one industry is agriculture and tourism is number two,” Graham said. “If this proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our state’s economy, which relies on this immigrant workforce.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also cast doubt on his colleagues’ bill. “I think you have to consider that we do want high-tech people, but we also need low-skilled people who will do work that Americans won’t do,” he said. “I wouldn’t do it. Even in my misspent youth, I wouldn’t do it.”

Strong Reactions 

While many Trump advocates support the policy proposal, the bill is drawing significant criticism from economists, citizens, and immigrants.

“Dramatically reducing overall immigration levels won’t raise the standard of living for Americans,” said Randy Johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration, and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “In fact, it will likely accomplish the opposite, making it harder for businesses, communities, and our overall economy to grow, prosper, and create jobs for American workers.”

Some see the RAISE Act as focusing too much on making sure Americans in low-wage jobs don’t face competition from immigrants, instead of investing in those same Americans so that they may obtain higher paying jobs.

It's interesting that outside of immigration policy, nobody ever proposes giving strict priority to the interests of high school dropouts.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) August 3, 2017

Others object to the limits the bill would place on bringing in grandparents or extended family members to the U.S. Under the bill, people like First Lady Melania Trump, a non-native English speaker, would have a tough time getting permanent residency.

“What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration,” CNN’s Jim Acosta said during a White House press conference. “The Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’ It doesn’t say anything about speaking English or being a computer programmer.”

In his response to Acosta’s question, Stephen Miller, Trump’s policy adviser, said: “The poem that you’re referring to was added later, [and] is not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Backs Bill to Slash Legal Immigration, Introduce “Merit-Based” System appeared first on Law Street.

Look left, look right…take your eyes off your smartphone. Okay. Now, you can cross the street in Honolulu.

In a 7-2 vote, the city council just passed a law that makes it illegal to stare at a phone screen while crossing “a street or highway.” The “distracted pedestrians law,” which is the first of its kind in the country, also encompasses video games, cameras, tablets, pagers, and other small handheld devices.

“Sometimes I wish there were laws we did not have to pass, that perhaps common sense would prevail,” Mayor Kirk Caldwell said during a bill signing ceremony near one of the city’s busiest intersections. “But sometimes we lack common sense.”

Local law enforcement will have three months to educate people about the new law, but after October 25, so-called “smartphone zombies” will risk incurring fines between $15 and $99, depending on how many times they have gotten caught glancing downwards before.

Pedestrians can still look at their phones on the curb and won’t be penalized if they are listening to music or talking on the phone as they cross the street, as long as their eyes can stay on the road. Dialing 911 is also permitted mid-crossing.

Though many believe this law, much like jaywalking, will be enforced in an arbitrary manner, lawmakers assure they are trying to tackle a serious road fatality problem.

“We hold the unfortunate distinction of being a major city with more pedestrians being hit in crosswalks, particularly our seniors, than almost any other city in the county,” Caldwell told Reuters.

The Governors Highway Safety Association reported that pedestrian fatalities increased 11 percent from the first six months of 2015 to the same period in 2016 and that one possible reason may be the rise in smartphone use.

However critics are saying that this law ought to further regulate drivers instead of punishing pedestrians.

Hawaii already forbids drivers from using their phones or texting while driving, allowing them only to use a hands-free device. However, no law exists preventing them from glancing at their screen. Last year, local police issued over 20,000 distracted driving citations statewide.

“If it’s signed into law,” writes Steven Miller in an opinion piece, “a pedestrian could have the right of way, be struck by a driver, and still receive a ticket for using a cell phone in the crosswalk, even though it’s the driver who should have yielded.”

Others are complaining that this new policy is an overreach of the local government’s authority.

“I don’t know if it should be a law that you can’t use your phone, because it is your phone,” said Sandra Hirooka. “I like the freedom of using my phone whenever I want to.”

“Scrap this intrusive bill, provide more education to citizens about responsible electronics usage, and allow law enforcement to focus on larger issues,” resident Ben Robinson told the city council in written testimony.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Law: No “Crossing and Texting” in Honolulu appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, Britain’s Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs released documents detailing the country’s plan to reduce air pollution over the next several years. Most notably, the United Kingdom will ban the sale of new petrol or diesel-powered cars and vans by 2040.

In addition to the ban on gas vehicles, the government reiterated its desire to fully implement its recently-announced £2.7 billion investments into low-emission taxis, car-rental programs, roads, and green bus retrofits.

In its plan, the government pledges to be the “the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it.”

Europe’s Green Trend

Britain’s announcement comes at a time when air quality levels are increasingly at the forefront of policies across Europe, as the continent tries to grapple with the increased effects of climate change.

“It’s important we all gear up for a significant change, which deals not just with the problems to health caused by emissions but the broader problems caused in terms of accelerating climate change,” Britain’s Environment Secretary Michael Gove said.

New diesel and petrol cars are to be banned from 2040 as part of a new strategy to tackle air pollution https://t.co/Bmj3JSq6BN pic.twitter.com/MEjFNoqO9R

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) July 26, 2017

Britain’s new policy mimics France’s ban on gas and diesel cars by 2040, which was announced last month after the country struggled with dense smog and pollution in its larger urban areas. It’s also inspiring some Irish politicians to advocate for a similar commitment.

“If Ireland doesn’t change it’s in the danger of becoming a dumping ground. We need to set a date and work from it, without targets we are rudderless,” said Ireland’s Green Party Councillor Ciaran Cuffe.

Too Little, Too Late?

Some politicians, including former Labour Leader Ed Miliband, are saying that this announcement is largely meant to act as a media charade, to distract from ongoing Brexit negotiations and the fact that the U.K. government has been slow to tackle the issue seriously.

Fear that new car petrol/diesel ban in 23 years time is smokescreen for weak measures to tackle 40,000 deaths a year from air pollution now.

— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) July 25, 2017

Criticism is also emerging from industry officials who condemn the government’s plan because of the negative ramifications it may have on car manufacturing jobs.

“Outright bans risk undermining the current market for new cars and our sector, which supports over 800,000 jobs across the U.K.,” said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Even among supporters of a gas car ban, some are critical of the timeline, which they consider to be too forgiving.

Areeba Hamid, a clean air campaigner at Greenpeace UK said: “We cannot wait nearly a quarter of a century for real action to tackle the public health emergency caused by air pollution.”

While 2040 was set as a benchmark by other countries, India has stated that every vehicle sold in the country should be powered by electricity by 2030.

Norway has adopted a similar rule, but has set its target to ban diesel-powered vehicles by 2025. Forty percent of all cars sold in Norway last year were electric or hybrid, making the country a leader in this area.

Maybe Not…

In comparison to some other countries, the U.K.’s goals seem far off. Yet, researchers are confident that the market might naturally transition to cleaner cars sooner than politicians expect.

The Dutch financial group ING released a report earlier this month predicting that the electric car market will see a major breakthrough between 2017 and 2024, and could supply 100 percent of Europe’s car demand by 2035.

Car manufacturers aren’t wasting any time either. Tesla made waves when it announced its mass market electric Model 3 car earlier this month.

Also this month, Volvo said that all of its cars would be be completely or partially electric by 2019. Volvo’s chief executive Håkan Samuelsson called for the “end of the solely combustion engine-powered car.” And BMW announced on Tuesday that it would start building an electric model of the Mini compact car in England through 2023.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Britain to Ban Sale of Gas and Diesel Cars by 2040 appeared first on Law Street.

On July 23, Washington will become the first state in the country to establish a system that notifies domestic abuse victims when their abuser illegally attempts to buy a gun.

The law orders the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) to establish a grant program to “create and operate a statewide system to automatically notify a registered person when a respondent subject to a court order has been denied the purchase of a firearm based on ineligibility.”

The grant program would also allow local agencies to “conduct criminal investigations of persons who illegally attempted to purchase or transfer a firearm within their jurisdictions.”

The law’s two-pronged approach is meant to close existing legal loopholes, which critics say allow potentially dangerous individuals to attempt to buy guns, lie on background checks, and get away with it.

“This will not just keep guns out of the hands of those who are not eligible to have them, but keep the public and our law enforcement officers safe,” Washington Governor Jay Inslee said when he signed the bill in May.

Tamaso Johnson, the Public Policy Director for the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence told Law Street Media that the group worked closely with legislators and other stakeholders on this bill.

“Giving survivors of domestic violence the option to be notified if an abuser attempts to illegally purchase a gun allows them to more accurately plan for their own safety and the safety of those closest to them,” Johnson said.

How the system works

When an individual who is convicted of a misdemeanor for domestic violence or subject to a restraining order for domestic abuse fails the background check required to purchase a gun, the vendor will have five days to report the incident to the WASPC.

The WASPC will then report the incident to the Washington State Patrol, which will officially record it in a database, allowing for local authorities to investigate. Meanwhile, under the bill, the WASPC will also have to send out an alert to victims and loved ones associated with the individual.

The bill states that a person needs to easily be able “to register or update his or her registration information by calling a toll-free phone number or by accessing a public website.” People who choose to be alerted can elect to receive a notification by email or by phone.

A landmark bill

This bill received a lot of support from both Democrats and Republicans as it seeks to address a wide-spread issue in Washington. According to a local investigation by KING5TV Seattle, 3,000 “lie and try” attempts occurred in 2016 and were never investigated.

“If you’re a criminal and you walk into a firearms store, you knowingly violate the law by illegally trying to purchase a firearm, you should be arrested, you should be prosecuted and in an appropriate case you should spend some time in prison,” said Democrat Drew Hansen, the primary sponsor of the bill.

The National Rifle Association isn’t necessarily opposed to the effort, although it remains wary of the potential for erroneous entries into the database, as can occur when identities are mistaken and a background check is run.

Though it is limited to the state, this bill also represents a big step toward addressing the huge problem of domestic violence in the United States. A study conducted by the Center for American Progress concluded that between 2001 and 2012, 6,410 women were “murdered in the U.S. by an intimate partner using a gun—more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”

Paula Harwood testified in support of the bill before it was passed. She shared the fear she felt when she learned that her abusive ex-husband had attempted to buy a gun, despite the fact that she had obtained a protection order against him. She said she only found out about the incident through a reporter who had been investigating the background check law.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Washington Will Notify Victims When Domestic Abusers Try to Buy Guns appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-leaning government watchdog group, announced that as a result of its recent lawsuit, the government will have to turn over logs and records of individuals who visited Mar-a-Lago, President Trump’s Florida residence.

CREW filed the lawsuit alongside the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act. The group has been working to reveal visitor logs for the White House, Mar-a-Lago, and Trump Tower in New York City.

Currently, the Department of Homeland Security says it has no records of people visiting Trump Tower. The lawsuit regarding the White House records is ongoing.

“The public deserves to know who is coming to meet with the president and his staff,” CREW executive director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. “We are glad as a result of this case, this information will become public for meetings at his personal residences–but it needs to be public for meetings at the White House as well.”

District Court Judge Katherine Polk Failla wrote in her ruling: “The Secret Service will complete its search for and processing of responsive ‘records of presidential visitors at Mar-a-Lago,’ and produce any non-exempt responsive records, by September 8, 2017.” CREW says it plans to share the information publicly once it’s released.

Amidst promises to “drain the swamp” and allegations of collusion with foreign officials, Trump’s poorly-disclosed private dealings have been at the heart of public debate in recent months.

The public has essentially been prevented from knowing which lobbyists, political donors, and others the president is meeting with behind closed doors, making it difficult to fully comprehend Trump’s allegiances and stances on issues.

The Mar-a-Lago visitor logs may prove to be revelatory because of the unique role the estate has played since Trump took office. In a sense, Mar-a-Lago, which the president affectionately refers to as the “Southern White House,” best represents Trump: a mix of his gold-plated private life, his business ties, and now, his executive power.

The venue has controversially served as the backdrop for high-profile diplomatic visits with foreign leaders as well as numerous costly golf weekends for the president.

This lawsuit is not CREW’s first attempt to compel transparency from the White House. The group also sued the Obama Administration, which agreed to release White House visitor logs as part of a settlement. That effort began during the Bush Administration before it was settled with President Obama. Since 2009, about 6 million visitor records were made public.

In April, the Trump Administration announced it would end this practice, citing “grave national security risks.” Currently, the website where the logs were previously published is blank and reads: “Thank you for your interest in this subject. Stay tuned as we continue to update whitehouse.gov.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders Trump to Release Mar-a-Lago Visitor Logs appeared first on Law Street.

Last Tuesday, the European Union Court of Human Rights upheld Belgium’s 2011 ban on wearing the full-face veil, also known as the niqab, in public places.

This decision comes after two Muslim women mounted a legal challenge to the ban, claiming that it violated their civil rights. Belgian national Samia Belcacemi and Moroccan national Yamina Oussar both say they voluntarily choose to wear the niqab and that in not being able to, their right to religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Oussar reportedly told the court that she decided to stay home after the ban was introduced in fear of legal repercussions. Belcacemi continued to wear the veil for a period, but stopped because of societal pressure and fear that she would be heavily fined.

Under the law, individuals who fail to comply with the law regarding full-face coverings face penalties ranging from a hefty fine to imprisonment for repeat offenders.

The European Court of Human Rights upholds a Belgian ban on wearing the full-face niqab veil in public pic.twitter.com/S1unR1Y4Dq

— AFP news agency (@AFP) July 11, 2017

Siding with Belgium’s legislature in a unanimous vote, the seven-person panel said a statement that the ban is “necessary in a democratic society” and that the Belgian law is meant to ensure “public safety, equality between men and women and a certain concept of living together in a society.”

A hot-button issue in Europe

The topic of people’s freedom of religious expression in the public sphere has been at the forefront of European politics for several years now.

Belgium is not the first country to take a stance against the niqab or burqa. France banned full-face veils in 2010, and since then, at least 10 other European countries have placed limitations on Islamic dress. Just last month, Norwegian legislators proposed a ban on full-face veils in public schools and universities. The bans are largely seen as a response to the influx of refugees in the region. In Belgium, the 2016 terror attacks have also intensified the debate.

Federal Pensions Minister Daniel Bacquelaine, a member of Belgium’s Reformist Movement party, said on Twitter he was delighted at the court’s announcement, which he believes will strengthen Belgians’ ability to live together.

“To forbid the veil as a covering is to give them more freedom,” Baquelaine said back in 2010 before the law passed. “If we want to live together in a free society, we need to recognize each other.”

Since the E.U. court’s decision, human rights groups have expressed their discontent with the ruling.

“Fostering human relations is a laudable goal,” wrote Hillary Margolis, the Women’s Division Researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But forcing women to choose between wearing what they want and being able to appear in public isn’t the way to do it.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EU Human Rights Court Upholds Belgian Ban on Full-Face Veil appeared first on Law Street.

Okinoshima, a 200-acre island off the Japanese mainland, was announced as one of the newest additions to the UNESCO World Heritage sites list on Sunday. But globe-trotters wanting to visit Okinoshima may need to reconsider: the island bans women.

The reason behind the island’s ban is unknown, but it is commonly thought to stem from an ancient belief that menstruation makes women impure.

Men who wish to go to the sacred island also have to follow strict guidelines, including ridding themselves of their impurities by bathing naked in the ocean before coming ashore. Men are allowed only one visit per year. They must also never speak of the island, nor remove so much as a flower or blade of grass from the environment, according to Japanese newspaper The Asahi Shimbun.

The female-free land mass is manned year round by a Shinto priest who prays to the island’s gods and watches over the 17th century shrines.

The mystical island is also home to a vast collection of culturally significant and virtually intact archeological artifacts that “provide evidence of intense exchanges between the Japanese archipelago, the Korean Peninsula and the Asian continent,” according to UNESCO.

The island’s treasures and new World Heritage status would have likely attracted a number of tourists, were it not for its policy on travelers. But local officials have stated they will not loosen any rules in light of UNESCO’s decision.

UNESCO Faces Criticism

While the Japanese government welcomed the announcement of its 17th heritage site, many took to social media to express their discontent that a site banning women was given a UN commendation.

Okinoshima island's forbidden to women & Unesco thinks it's ok since there's another place forbidden to women. whatever @UNESCO #WonderWoman

— V-Lex (@VitalMilla) July 10, 2017

The UNESCO Committee debated whether Okinoshima’s inclusion as a World Heritage site would be discriminatory, but found a precedent in Mount Athos, in Greece, which also prohibits entry to women. Okinoshima’s approach to gender segregation did not constitute a sufficient reason to prevent the island from becoming a World Heritage site, according to UNESCO spokesperson Roni Amelan.

An island official refuted comments saying the practice was discriminatory, and told AFP that the ban “is meant to protect women, the birth-giving gender” because travel by sea can be dangerous.

Still, some find that the decision sends the wrong message and is directly at odds with UNESCO’s Priority Gender Equality Action Plan, which has a stated goal to “ensure that a gender equality perspective is reflected in all its policies, programs, and processes.”

Rajan Zed, president of the U.S.-based Universal Society of Hinduism, called for UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova’s resignation for failing to uphold the organization’s ideals.

“Where women are revered, there the gods are pleased; where they are not, no rite will yield any fruit,” Zed said, quoting Hindu scriptures.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Japanese Island That Bans Women is Now a UNESCO World Heritage Site appeared first on Law Street.

The parliament in Germany passed a controversial bill last Friday that would give social media companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter 24 hours to remove explicitly hateful speech and “obviously illegal” content before facing a fine of up to 50 million euros ($57 million).

Holocaust denial, dissemination of Nazi symbols, racist agitation, and antisemitic language are considered illegal under Germany’s criminal code and would qualify for prompt removal under the Network Enforcement Act, or “Facebook law,” as some are calling it.

The law, which will take effect in October after Germany’s elections, is the toughest of its kind. It also states that social media companies will have seven days to remove other, less offensive posts, and will have to submit a public report on the complaints they have received every six months and explain how they dealt with each instance.

German Justice Minister Heiko Maas has said he wants to treat Facebook as a media company, thereby making it legally liable for hate speech on its platform.

“Freedom of opinion ends where criminal law begins,” Maas said, adding that hate crimes in Germany have increased by 300 percent in the last two years.

“These [posts] are not examples of freedom of speech. They’re attacks on freedom of speech. The worst danger to freedom of speech is a situation where threats go unpunished,” Maas said while addressing the need for the legislation.

Germany already has some of the world’s strictest regulations regarding libel, defamation, and hate speech. However, in light of recent attacks and instances of homegrown terrorism across the continent, German and European lawmakers are facing pressure to further limit radicalization and offensive speech online.

In 2015, the European Commission created a voluntary code of conduct that called for web companies to remove videos that incite terrorism or hatred.

After the attacks in London, both British Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron said they are considering laws similar to Germany’s to fine companies that “fail to take action” against terrorist propaganda and violent content.

Facebook said in a statement, “This law as it stands now will not improve efforts to tackle this important societal problem.” And in another statement from May, the company said that the measure “provides an incentive to delete content that is not clearly illegal when social networks face such a disproportionate threat of fines. It would have the effect of transferring responsibility for complex legal decisions from public authorities to private companies.”

Because of its war-torn past, Europe has been more willing to place restrictions on freedom of speech in favor of limiting propaganda and hate speech than the United States. However, critics and human rights groups say this law may be going too far.

“Many of the violations covered by the bill are highly dependent on context, context which platforms are in no position to assess,” said David Kaye, the U.N. Special Rapporteur to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “The obligations placed upon private companies to regulate and take down content raises concern with respect to freedom of expression.”

Joe McNamee, the executive director of the digital rights group EDRi, said that the law could establish a precedent for “wholesale privatization of freedom of expression,” with “large internet companies deciding what they want the public discourse to be.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Germany Passes Law to Fine Social Media Companies that Fail to Remove Hate Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Scottish lawmakers announced last week that the government will introduce a “soft opt-out” system for organ donation. The system, which has raised medical ethics questions in other countries, presumes consent unless an individual has opted-out of donations before their death.

“We have made a transforming decision in Scottish politics,” said Anne McTaggart, a lawmaker in the previous Parliament who initially presented the “opt-out” bill.

This system is an attempt to increase the number of life-saving organ donations. The nation has recently invested heavily in donation campaigns, consultations, and petitions. Last year alone, a record-breaking number of people who were waiting for a transplant received an organ they needed, according to NHS Blood and Transplant.

The new law is trying to build on this growth. Previously, adults willing to donate had to “opt-in” and then hold on to a donor card. Now, all adults will be placed on the donor list unless they have officially stated their wish to not donate. However, family members will get the last say. If they don’t want to go ahead with their loved one’s donation, their wishes will be respected.

Public Health Minister Aileen Campbell said “we should not forget that organ donation is a gift, which can only occur as a result of tragic circumstances.”

Though many countries, such as Germany or the United States, still prefer an explicit consent system, Scotland isn’t alone in passing a presumed consent law. In fact, “opt-out” policies are gaining ground in Europe and South America as the need for transplants increases.

France implemented the system in January. Spain has had a comparable policy in place for 25 years and has become the world leader for organ donations with about 43.4 organ donors per million inhabitants. This compares to the United States’ 28.2 donors per million inhabitants in 2015.

In the United Kingdom, Wales also debuted a soft “opt-out” policy in 2013, which inspired Ireland and some U.S. states to consider making the jump.

Last Friday, Theresa May announced that the government will also closely monitor how transplant numbers evolve in Wales and Scotland to assess whether the rest of the Kingdom should adopt this law.

“Organ donation hit a record high last year here and we obviously want that to continue and continue to rise,” a Downing Street spokesperson said.

Mixed reactions to the law

Although the bill was passed after 82 percent of a public consultation agreed to the “opt-out” system, some are resistant or see flaws in the policy.

“The State does not have a right to anyone’s organs. Even a so called soft opt-out system ruins the nature of organ donation as an altruistic gift,” said Dr Gordon Macdonald from CARE Scotland, a Christian action group.

Dr Calum MacKellar, of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics (SCHB) believes the system creates a “very significant risk for serious mistakes,” with no guarantee that a deceased’s wishes are followed and a risk for public confidence to be undermined, thereby impacting overall donation levels.

Yet, many Scots are optimistic that this system will bring about much needed help to some of the roughly 500 people waiting for an organ.

“We believe that genuine choice over organ donation can be facilitated through a soft opt-out system,” said Peter Bennie, chair of British Medical Association for Scotland. “If properly implemented, with adequate resources and staff, and backed up by a high-profile campaign, an opt-out system could save or transform people’s lives.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Scotland to Presume Consent for Organ Donation with “Soft Opt-Out” Law appeared first on Law Street.

Ehe für alle (marriage for all) may soon become the law of the land in Germany after Chancellor Angela Merkel softened her stance on same-sex marriage during an interview on Monday. Merkel said the Parliament ought to carry out a “vote of conscience” on the issue. The body intends to do so on Friday.

Germany is one of the only Western European countries that has yet to legalize same-sex marriage. The country allowed same-sex couples to enter civil partnerships in 2001 and numerous legal battles since then have also won couples the right to inherit items and property. The bill, proposed by the left and green parties following Merkel’s call for a free vote, would add to this list the rights to marry and adopt.

The bill is expected to pass easily on Friday, in part because many believe this law is long overdue. A YouGov poll estimates that two thirds of Germans would advocate for a law allowing LGBTQ individuals to wed and over half of Germans support adoption.

A political move, more than a historic one?

Amid the excitement surrounding the vote, many are speculating that Merkel’s pivot emerged as a political play in her campaign for Germany’s September election, in which she is running for a fourth term.

Merkel, a member of the center-right Christian Democratic Union, has long resisted demands for same-sex marriage to be passed. “For me, personally, marriage is a man and a woman living together,” Merkel said. But, in recent months, she has faced pressure to follow in the footsteps of more progressive parties on this issue.

Her main opponent in the race, Martin Schulz, is the chosen candidate for the Social Democratic party. On Sunday, Schulz promised that same-sex marriage would be legalized in any government involving his party. Family “is not only father, mother, child,” Schultz told supporters. Family is “there wherever people take responsibility for each other.”

We will push through marriage equality in Germany. This week.

— Martin Schulz (@MartinSchulz) June 27, 2017

Two other parties, the Free Democratic Party and the Green Party have said they would not form a coalition with Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) if same-sex marriage was not on the agenda.

Merkel’s call for the vote may have broadened her pool of potential voters, however she risks alienating the CDU’s sister party: the Bavarian conservative Christian Social Union (CSU).

“Germany has more paramount issues to address,” said CSU legislator Peter Ramsauer.

Despite the political motivations behind this decision, many Germans, Europeans, and LGBTQ advocates have expressed their delight that Germany will likely soon join the ranks of countries where same-sex couples can legally marry and establish families–and just in time for the end of Pride month.

For my English speaking followers: German parliament will vote on gay marriage tomorrow – on the 48th anniversary of Stonewall. #Ehefueralle

— Stina ⛱ (@Stinalotte) June 28, 2017

Now only 48% of EU citizens live with marriage equality. From Friday it will be 64%.

#Ehefueralle

— Filipe Henriques (@FHenriques) June 28, 2017

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Merkel Softens Stance On Same-Sex Marriage, Prompting Snap Vote appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential election was noteworthy not just because of its outcome, but also for the extent to which both parties used technical data collection behind-the-scenes to secure victories in swing states. Just last week, a cyber risk analyst stumbled onto a trove of that gathered data, collected on 198 million Americans, on an unprotected server.

The analyst, Chris Vickery, an employee of the cyber security startup UpGuard, came across the 1.1 terabytes of data on an Amazon cloud server, which wasn’t password protected and was accessible to anyone with the URL address. According to UpGuard, it took Vickery several days to download the extensive dataset, which may have been left open and exposed for 10 to 14 days.

UpGuard is calling this leak the “largest known data exposure of its kind,” and confirmed that the discovered content includes names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and indications of individuals’ ethnicities and religions. Voters’ political views on hot-button campaign issues such as fossil fuels and taxes were also minutely recorded, likely for future micro-targeted campaigns.

Currently downloading what is, basically, the home address of every Trump supporter.

Understand the cloud before you upload to it. pic.twitter.com/nRPb98jwoP

— Chris Vickery (@VickerySec) June 13, 2017

The information was collected by GOP data firm Deep Root Analytics, one of three data firms hired by the RNC to help Donald Trump win the presidential election.

The firm acknowledged that the data was theirs on Friday and released a statement apologizing for the breach.

Deep Root Analytics CEO Brent McGoldrick said the company takes “full responsibility” for the leak. He added that the mistake was likely due to “a recent change in asset access settings since June 1.”

Although much of the data collected by Deep Root Analytics is available online through more innocuous sources, many have been quick to analyze the leak’s potential cyber security ramifications.

“That such an enormous national database could be created and hosted online, missing even the simplest of protections against the data being publicly accessible, is troubling,” UpGuard said on their website.

This leak also comes at a time when the U.S. elections and elections in other western nations have been the targets of increasingly aggressive cyber attacks.

“This is deeply troubling,” Privacy International’s policy officer Frederike Kaltheuner told BBC News. “This is not just sensitive, it’s intimate information, predictions about people’s behavior, opinions, and beliefs that people have never decided to disclose to anyone.”

While this leak could have been much more damaging and revealed more secretive information, experts say this should be a cautionary warning. If companies don’t make cyber security a priority, individuals may have to worry a lot more the next time a leak occurs.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Accidental Data Leak Exposes 198 Million Americans’ Personal Information appeared first on Law Street.

Panama established official diplomatic ties with China last Tuesday, thereby renouncing its ties to Taiwan. This decision comes as a major political victory for China as it seeks to further isolate Taiwan and strengthen vital economic partnerships in Latin America.

A joint statement issued by representatives of both countries said that Panama recognizes “only one China” and that the “government of the People’s Republic of China is the only legitimate government representing all China and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the Chinese territory.”

And then there were 20: Taiwan’s isolation solidifies

Panama’s decision leaves Taiwan with just 20 international allies. Many are just small countries or islands in Latin America and the Pacific (its only European ally is Vatican City), yet every loss to China further secludes the island nation.

Both Beijing and Taipei require foreign countries to decide whether to forge diplomatic relationships with either the People’s Republic of China (China) or the Republic of China (Taiwan)–never both.

In recent decades, as China’s global economic influence has grown, many countries have found it more advantageous to build ties with China. The latest country to switch its allegiance in favor of China was São Tomé and Príncipe, which announced the move in December.

Taiwan severed its ties to Panama on Wednesday, one day after Panama’s announcement. Taiwan’s foreign ministry said it felt “anger and regret” over the “very unfriendly” diplomatic turn by Panama, which it deemed “yielded to economic interests by the Beijing authorities.”

Beijing has increased its pressure on Taiwan after Tsai Ing-wen was elected president last year. Her liberal democratic party views have regularly heightened tensions with China. She did not endorse the “One China” policy, after she took office, a common practice between the two countries, which agree to endorse the policy but hold different interpretations of what it means.

Then in January, after Donald Trump’s inauguration, Tsai called him to offer her congratulations. China took offense to the fact that the U.S. took the call and because it saw the potential for the two countries to get closer.

Tsai has tried to foster that possibility. She stopped in the U.S. in January, en route to Central America for diplomatic visits, and made a point to visit politicians such as Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL.).

Tsai, who visited Panama just last June, emphasized the years of friendship between the two countries in a speech she gave on Tuesday. She maintained that Taiwan would not engage in “a diplomatic bidding war” with China, despite the fact that China continues to “pressure Taiwan’s international space.”

“We are a sovereign country,” Tsai said. “This sovereignty cannot be challenged nor traded.”

An important play for Panama

China is currently the Panama canal’s second biggest user and it’s clear this new relationship will give China an economic advantage over the historically U.S.-controlled Panama canal.

China was funding a $50 billion alternative to the Panama Canal in Nicaragua. However, financial struggles and environmental critiques have halted construction before it even started. Though that project has largely fallen through, China can now comfortably rely on Panama’s canal to circulate its goods.

The Panama Canal Authority also just announced it will be looking for contractors and customers to modify infrastructure surrounding the canal later this year, further providing China with strong potential business opportunities.

Asia-based political risk analyst Ross Feingold said that “enhanced communication channel between the Panamanian and Chinese governments following diplomatic recognition can only be a positive for Chinese logistics and infrastructure companies that operate in the canal zone.”

However, China may not be the only party to benefit from this alliance. In the last few years, two of Panama’s main economic drivers, the canal and its status as a fiscal sanctuary, have taken a hit.

In late 2013, President Xi Jinping announced the Maritime Silk Road plan, a development strategy aimed at integrating and coordinating trade between Eurasian countries. This plan completely excluded North and South America. In 2015, the Suez canal, perhaps the Panamanian canal’s main competitor, underwent a renovation, which allows it to accommodate larger ships and ease congestion.

China’s renewed interest in Panama through this diplomatic relationship can be seen as an indicator that Panama and its canal will not be cast away in favor of newer, more convenient options.

New Chinese direct investments are also an opportunity for Panama to revive its financial and fiscal image, which had taken a toll after last year’s “Panama Papers” revelations.

At the time, many officials had complained that the shorthand used by international media outlets for the Mossack Fonseca case hurt the country’s reputation.

“It’s not about Panama, it’s about one company. Nobody called it the Texas fraud when Enron [went] bankrupt,” vice-minister of the economy Ivan Zarak said at the time. “It’s unjust. You are holding accountable the whole country for the actions of one company,”

A renewed relationship with China could indeed help the nation re-boot. In a televised speech given last week, Panamanian President Juan Carlos Varela, who actually met with President Donald Trump earlier today, said he was “convinced that this is the correct path for [the] country.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Shift Away From Taiwan, Panama Established Key Relationship With China appeared first on Law Street.

Two weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 1761, a bill aimed at punishing child pornographers. At first glance, this legislation seems like a common-sense child protection law, but the text’s language is so vague that it could include minors who are caught sexting each other and subject them to a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison.

Freshman congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA), introduced the bill last March to close alleged loopholes in existing child pornography laws.

Johnson’s move is largely a response to a botched legal case involving a man accused of the sexual abuse of his seven-year-old neighbor. The man couldn’t be convicted by federal prosecutors because the only available evidence was a single photo of the abuse, which was deemed insufficient by the court.

The bill, which will soon make its way to the Senate, seeks to “criminalize the knowing consent of the visual depiction, or live transmission, of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” While this would prevent additional cases of digital sexual exploitation of minors, the definitions used also criminalize explicit photos being shared among consenting teenagers in a relationship, for example.

A 2014 Drexel University study found that 54 percent of its respondents sexted as minors, with 28 percent of those saying the sexts were photographic. The study also showed that most of these kids were not aware of the legal ramifications their sexts could bring about. If this bill passes, millions of teens across the country could inadvertently slip into criminality.

Though the legislation passed the House with a comfortable and bipartisan 368-51 margin, Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) called the measure “deadly and counterproductive,” according to Reason. A letter signed by Jackson Lee and six other House dissenters concluded that “no child pornography offense should go unpunished. HR 1761, however, would subject more individuals to mandatory minimum penalties at a time when the federal criminal justice system should be moving away from such sentencing schemes. While well-intentioned, the bill would exacerbate a problem that is clearly unfair and unnecessary.”

The ACLU took to Twitter to object to the bill’s passing, once again emphasizing its good intentionality but poor anticipation of real-life application.

The purpose of child pornography laws is to prevent minors from being abused, not criminalize young people for sexual experimentation. https://t.co/2Nvbhs3u3N

— ACLU National (@ACLU) June 1, 2017

Director of federal legislative affairs at Families Against Mandatory Minimums Molly Gill told Broadly: “You’re talking about 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds—young people who are being certainly reckless, but do they need to spend 15 years in prison? At that young age, their brains are not even done developing yet. They have all the potential in the world ahead of them and a 15-year prison sentence is the fastest way to kill their future.”

After the bill was debated, two amendments were proposed to make the language more specific regarding who the bill is targeting. The first would have removed the possibility for teens to be punished as sex offenders for sexting. The second eliminated the mandatory minimum penalties. Neither amendment passed.

In response to his colleagues’ concerns, Johnson said that “in Scripture, Romans 13 refers to the governing authorities as ‘God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.’ I, for one, believe we have a moral obligation, as any just government should, to defend the defenseless.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Aimed at Pornographers Could Subject Teens to Jail Time for Sexting appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s Twitter account has controversially given his almost 32 million followers direct, unfiltered access to his thoughts and stances on issues. Now that users are getting blocked from the account for offending the president, a group of lawyers say his actions infringe on their freedom of speech.

On Tuesday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University wrote a letter asking Trump to remove the blocks, adding that they constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

This request brings up some novel legal questions: Is access to a president’s tweets and the information they contain comparable to a public town hall, despite the fact that they are being posted on a private account? If so, can the president violate the Constitution if he prevents a user’s access? The lawyers’ letter states:

When the government makes a space available to the public at large for the purpose of expressive activity, it creates a public forum form which it may not constitutionally exclude individuals on the basis of viewpoint. This is true even if the space in question is ‘metaphysical’ rather than physical; even if the space is privately rather than publicly owned; and ‘even when the limited public forum is one of [the government’s] own creation.’

On the same day the letter was written, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a briefing that Trump’s tweets ought to be taken seriously, thereby strengthening the lawyers’ argument. He “is the president of the United States, so they’re considered official statements by the president of the United States.”

Users have been blocked for tweets as simple as covfefe-related jokes, and policy criticism. Holly Figueroa O’Reilly was blocked from the @realDonaldTrump account after she made a joke about how the pope frowned at the president during his trip to the Vatican. She agrees that her blocking may constitute an offense to her First Amendment rights.

“This is an elected official trying to silence an entire sector of the dissenting populace,” O’Reilly said in opinion article. “This is what dictators and fascists do. This isn’t what we do here in America.

@realdonaldtrump isn't a regular citizen. He's @potus His tweets are public record. Unblock us this is unconstitutional #BlockedByTrump pic.twitter.com/a9Kw4KNTlv

— Andy Signore (@andysignore) June 7, 2017

Some, however, do not think cases like these would hold up in court. Ken White, a First Amendment litigator and blogger, told Vox that a blocked user is only being prevented from being able to “read what the president has chosen to vent on this particular site,” and not to speak about matters.

Other issues include the fact that the president has two accounts, including his @POTUS handle, and the fact that ultimately they are both hosted through a private company’s servers further muddle the legal picture.

While the debate over Trump’s Twitter blocks continues, some of his former followers have started a #BlockedByTrump hashtag, choosing to view the president’s move as a badge of honor.

Tonight I am honored to join an elite club … #BlockedByTrump. Apparently, I hurt the feelings of the "leader of the free world". SAD! pic.twitter.com/yQGyt2yBJE

— Rob Szczerba (@RJSzczerba) June 2, 2017

Is #BlockedByTrump just a hashtag or the Holy Grail of Twitter?

— Christoph Rehage (@crehage) May 30, 2017

If Trump doesn’t reverse the blocks or answer the letter, the Knight Institute says his administration should prepare for “legal action to protect the First Amendment rights of blocked individuals.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Trump Blocks Twitter Followers, Does he Violate the Constitution? appeared first on Law Street.

A Milo Yiannopoulos supporter filed a lawsuit on Monday against regents of the University of California, Berkeley for $23 million. Kiara Robles, the plaintiff, says the school infringed on her First Amendment rights when a protest erupted on campus last February.

The protest, which drew over 1,500 students, was a response to the controversial invitation the Berkeley College Republicans student group sent to Yiannopoulos, asking him to speak at the campus. Yiannopoulos, a long-standing fan of President Donald Trump and a self-described cultural libertarian, is a former senior editor of alt-right media source Breitbart.

He gained prominence because of his highly controversial comments on women, Islam, homosexuality, and religion. He once said “gay rights have made us dumber” and called transgender people mentally ill.

Robles was pepper-sprayed during the Berkeley protest and says she and her friends were targeted during the clash because they hold and express conservative views. She was planning on attending Yiannopoulos’ talk before the Berkeley police department canceled the event citing security concerns.

More peaceful protests mad at capitalism. #miloatcal pic.twitter.com/1qrdJ5zeJ8

— Kiara Robles ಠ_ಠ (@kiarafrobles) February 2, 2017

https://twitter.com/kiarafrobles/status/827418775230099456

The lawsuit states that the defendants, which includes local law enforcement, billionaire George Soros, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for allegedly institutionalizing Robles’ concerns, have subjected “students and invitees who do not subscribe to the radical, left wing philosophies … to severe violence and bodily harm for merely expressing a differing viewpoint.”

“She was assaulted,” Robles’ lawyer told The San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday. “The California university system, and in part, Berkeley, is out of control, and they’re facilitating, if not inciting, violence, and the campus police sit around twiddling their thumbs.”

The university said in a statement that it will mount a strong defense “contesting this collection of false claims.”

This lawsuit comes at a time when freedom of speech debates are increasingly common on college campuses and the media. Liberal students’ requests for “safe spaces” and outright bans on perceived hate speech have raised questions regarding whether or not other students’ freedom of expression rights are being curtailed.

Hitting at the heart of the debate and opposing Robles, Jonathan Gow, a UC Berkeley sophomore, said “when it’s hate speech, our free speech is to shut him down,” about the Yiannopoulos protests at Berkeley.

Last Friday, late-night talk show host Bill Maher, who said he would soon invite Yiannopoulos back on his show, was caught up in a similar controversy when he said the N-word on live television. Many outraged viewers called for his show to be canceled or for him to step down, while others said self-censorship of this word placed a limitation on individual freedom of speech.

Yiannopoulos has often found himself at the center of these debates, on and off campuses. Recently, he announced he would resort to self-publishing his new book “Dangerous” after the provocateur lost his controversial Simon and Schuster book deal when videos surfaced of him seemingly defending pedophilia. On Tuesday, the book was at the top of Amazon’s best-seller list in the humor category.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Milo Yiannopoulos Fan Sues UC Berkeley Over Violent February Protests appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, six environmental conservation groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the agency suspended portions of an Obama-era legislation intended to limit leaks of methane and other harmful toxins during oil and gas production.  

The regulations surrounding these leaks were detailed in the 2016 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) passed by the Obama Administration last June. They were meant to go into effect last weekend. The new rules would require oil and gas companies to invest in resources to regularly detect leaks in their well equipment and make repairs as needed.

The groups behind the lawsuit–which include the Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Earthworks–are now calling on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the EPA’s move and reverse it altogether. They claim that the 90-day stay of the rule, issued by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, failed to give the public prior notice or the opportunity to comment on the action. This information, they say, is required by the Clean Air Act, one of the country’s first modern environmental laws.

“In its haste to do favors for its polluter cronies, the Trump EPA has broken the law,” said Meleah Geertsma, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The Trump Administration does not have unlimited power to put people’s health in jeopardy with unchecked, unilateral executive action like this.”

Scientists say methane is more dangerous than we think. The Energy Defense Fund estimates that methane is up to 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, making it more efficient at trapping heat. 

“By emitting just a little bit of methane, mankind is greatly accelerating the rate of climatic change,” said Energy Defense Fund chief scientist Steve Hamburg.

Pruitt wants to ensure that businesses have an opportunity to review these requirements, assess economic impacts, and report back to the agency, even though the original rule had already given companies a year to do so before it took effect. The EPA argues its right to issue the 90-day stay is also included in the Clean Air Act under section 307, which allows it to reconsider the law as long as “the reconsideration does not postpone the effectiveness of the rule.” But environmentalists argue any delays in implementation would indeed hinder its effectiveness. 

Industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute argue that many companies are already checking their equipment for leaks, making the methane rule redundant and unnecessarily costly.

This lawsuit is now one of many actions taken against the Trump climate change policies. Environmentalists sued the administration after the controversial Keystone XL pipeline was approved in March. Just last week, a number of school, companies and states have rallied around Michael Bloomberg to uphold the Paris Agreement on climate change, defying Trump after he announced on Friday that the U.S. would pull out of the deal.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conservationists Sue EPA over Delay of Obama-era Methane Rule appeared first on Law Street.