Throughout the campaign and the beginning of his presidency, President Donald Trump has criticized a lot of different people. But there is one group that he has consistently attacked with passion and fervor like no other: “The Media”

His attacks are blunt and relentless, he has gone after world-renowned organizations like the New York Times, and has even posted a video meme of himself attacking a CNN icon, calling it the “Fraud News Network.”

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN pic.twitter.com/WYUnHjjUjg

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

Wow, the Failing @nytimes said about @foxandfriends “….the most powerful T.V. show in America.”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2017

He contends that these major news corporations are “enemies” to his administration because they consistently post critical stories.

But now Trump seems to have found a solution to counteract “Fake News”… his own “Real News”. On Sunday, the Trump presidential campaign announced a short weekly segment on its Facebook page called “Real News.” The show aims to be a brief two minute recap of news about the Trump Administration, straight from Trump Tower. The show is hosted by Kayleigh McEnany, a Trump-supporting CNN pundit, who resigned from her position at CNN to work on the show as well as become a spokesperson for the GOP.

While the resources to produce the show are not directly coming from Trump himself, investigative reports from The Daily Beast and Mic show that the effort is being spearheaded by Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law. The money is coming from a PAC that is raising money for Trump’s reelection campaign.

Though the show aims to produce so-called “real news,” it seems to focus more on touting Trump’s accomplishments than anything else. In the two minute segment McEnany discussed Trump’s new immigration policy, data that showed global economic confidence at an all-time high, and Trump awarding a medal to a Vietnam veteran.

It’s fair to note that this is not the first time a president has had his own “information” show. Obama’s administration hosted a weekly video series titled “West Wing Week,” which discussed the activities going on in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue during the week. Nevertheless people all over social media couldn’t get enough of the idea of Trump TV and its quest for “real news.”

Donald Trump’s “Real News” seems kinda familiar. pic.twitter.com/TAMDYHGtXq

— Zac Richey (@the_zacsta) August 2, 2017

This is the person reporting the “Real News” from Trump Tower on Trump TV.

In New York.

The End. https://t.co/tgyWJMWk9S

— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 7, 2017

The left must be going crazy knowing #Trump TV is “Real News”
Those who laugh last, laugh best!#MAGA #DrainTheWashingtonSwamp #YesWeWill pic.twitter.com/43erYELDin

— Joel Fischer (@JoelFischerNYC) August 7, 2017

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Trump’s “Real News” Sparks Social Media Reactions appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice released an internal memo that instructed the department to look into whether universities are discriminating against white candidates.

While the memo does not specifically mention white students, it pointed to programs that lead to “intentional race-based discrimination,” a clear reference to the policy of affirmative action, which President John F. Kennedy introduced in the 1960s to promote equality in education.

The move is popular among Trump’s conservative base. Roger Clegg, president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, hailed the project as something that has been long overdue:

The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well.

In a way Trump and his team are right: there is a serious discriminatory problem in college admissions. However, the problem has less to do with race and more to do with socioeconomic status. Children whose parents rank toward the top of the income bracket are overly represented at top colleges in the U.S., compared to students whose parents come from the bottom tier.

A study by The Upshot earlier this year shows that since 2002, the share of students from the top one percent (in terms of household income) attending elite universities has steadily increased. But the share of students from the bottom 40th percentile and below has slightly decreased. At 38 colleges in America, including five Ivy League schools, the top one percent had more representation than students from the bottom 60 percent.

Why is this the case when some of the best schools in the country provide full tuition to students who are in the lowest socioeconomic class? The answer is simple: legacy, connections, and resources. Some students are given priority admission to top schools because of family ties, while largely ignoring the merit of their applications.

Take for instance the story of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law. Kushner attended Frisch’s, a well known New Jersey prep school. One college prep counselor said that Jared was “certainly not anywhere near the top of his class.”

However, Daniel Golden, author of “The Price of Admission,” claims Kushner’s father donated $2.5 million right around the time his son applied to Harvard. Unsurprisingly, Kushner was accepted. But according to Golden, Kushner would not have been accepted on his own merits

If the Justice Department truly wants to fight against discrimination, it should focus on preventing those with the financial means from buying their way into a top school.

This is where race plays a factor, as minority groups tend to be the ones who are historically financially disadvantaged in the U.S. The median household income for whites is approximately $30,000 dollars more than black and Hispanic families, according to a 2016 Pew Research Center study.

Universities should accept more students whose household income is in the bottom percentile, and prevent those who are in the from the top percentile from using their financial resources to usurp those who do not have the same financial means.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Irony of the Justice Department’s Affirmative Action Probe appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re a person of even average height who has flown in the past year, you’ve probably noticed that you’re starting to get less space. And you know that if you do want a little extra room to make sure that the person in front of you doesn’t crush your legs into oblivion, it will cost you a significant fee.

This is the phenomenon that a federal judge recently referred to as the “incredible shrinking airline seat.” And on Friday, a three judge Federal Appeals court in Washington, DC ruled that the FAA standards for allowing diminished seat spacing were potentially harmful to passenger health and safety.

The panel ruled in favor of Flyers Rights, the passenger advocacy group, which argued against the recent average seat width reduction from 18″ in the early 2010s to 16.5″ now. The group pointed out that airlines also reduced seat pitch (which is the combination of seat thickness and legroom) from an average of 35″ to 31″ for an economy level seat. Low budget airlines such as Spirit go as low as offering only 28” seat pitches for its economy seats.

Flyers Rights contended that the significant decrease in legroom, combined with the increase in size of the average American passenger, can make it significantly more difficult for passengers to exit a plane in case of an emergency evacuation. Furthermore, the group argued that a decrease in seat pitch can lead to an increased risk of heightened vein thrombosis–a condition involving blood clots in the legs that has been connected to longer flights.

In a statement, the FAA said it: “does consider seat pitch in testing and assessing the safe evacuation of commercial, passenger aircraft. We are studying the ruling carefully and any potential actions we may take to address the court’s findings.”

But the judges found that the FAA was relying on outdated studies. The FAA even admitted last year that it lacked the data that would be able to prove whether airlines could evacuate an airplane in the minimum required time if each seat had 31 inches of pitch. The ruling will not guarantee or force the FAA to change its seat space regulation policy, rather it merely requires that it conduct a formal review.

But for the first time, it feels as though there’s finally some progress. Flyers Rights had lobbied Congress for legislation to bring a change to the seating requirement earlier this year, but it failed to gain the necessary support.

Legal aviation experts such as Arthur Alan Wolk have characterized the ruling as being groundbreaking in terms of an organization having any success lobbying against the FAA. He told the New York Times on Sunday: “This is the first case I have seen where an organization has successfully challenged the F.A.A.’s basically being asleep at the switch and not fulfilling its safety responsibilities adequately.”

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Curious Case of the “Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat” appeared first on Law Street.

Wednesday night at FedEx Field in Washington D.C., Spanish soccer giant Barcelona played a friendly match against the English football club Manchester United. The game ended in a 1-0 victory for Barcelona, with the only goal coming from Brazilian forward Neymar, who was able to put pressure on the ball and escape multiple defenders in order to score a beautiful goal. Neymar has been a catalyst for his team since arriving in 2013, bringing nine trophies in just three years to Barcelona. But it appears that the superstar striker may be on the move.

Over the past week, there have been multiple reports that Neymar is interested in joining French football club Paris St.-Germain (PSG). The team plans on activating Barcelona’s €222 million release clause, as well as a potential transfer payment of €196 million. PSG would also pay Neymar’s wages of €30 million a year for the next five years, as well as a €40 million fee to his father, who acts as his agent. The entire deal could amount to €450 million, which would obliterate the previous transfer payment record, set by Manchester United, which payed €105 million for French midfielder Paul Pogba last summer.

However, some sources say that a decision has not been made yet because Neymar and his associates are concerned that the deal may violate the Financial Fair Play rules. Before he signs the deal with PSG, Neymar reportedly wants assurances that he will not be investigated by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), European soccer’s governing body.

Financial Fair Play is a financial reform established by former UEFA President Michel Platini in 2010, in response to the growing number of teams running huge debts and declaring bankruptcy.

The rule requires clubs to balance spending with revenue. The end goal is for a club to break even for every three-year assessment period. However, clubs are allowed to spend more than they take in if the excess expenditure “is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party.” Under FFP regulations, players’ wages are not allowed to exceed 70 percent of the club’s income.

If a soccer club is found to be in violation of FFP regulations, the consequences can be severe. Teams and individual players can be banned from participating in major UEFA competitions, and the UEFA can withhold a club’s revenue. PSG was previously found to be in violation of FFP rules, and was fined €60 million.

During the 2015-16 season, PSG made €105 million, and players’ wages made up about 54 percent of the club’s income. But even if PSG absorbed Neymar’s massive contract, the club’s total wages would be 65 percent of its income, which would put them in compliance with FFP regulations.

The overall problem posed by the transfer would be the addition of €100 million in expenditures just from adding Neymar this year alone. But PSG is confident that bringing in a player of Neymar’s caliber and popularity would dramatically increase merchandising sales for the club, which would help offset his massive fee. Neymar is one of the most marketable and recognizable sports figures in the world–he has 78.6 million Instagram followers.

To make up for their Neymar-related spending, PSG can offload some of its more expensive players. But so far, according to Andrea Traverso, the head of UEFA’s club licensing committee and financial fair play, PSG has been following the FFP regulations. As long as the club is able to break even on the deal, the UEFA has no problem with it spending €450 million for one player.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Could Financial Fair Play Rules Force Neymar to Stay in Barcelona? appeared first on Law Street.

Sophie Hall was out with a group of friends at a night club in London in early April. It was 1 a.m. and they were still having fun before she noticed a fight breaking out next to her. Then she became overwhelmed by the smell of petrol and her face felt like it was on fire. The next thing she could remember was being stripped of her clothes and transported to the hospital for treatment for an acid attack.

Sophie was one of twenty people who were victims of the acid attack at the Mangle nightclub. The attack was not an isolated incident, but part of the larger epidemic of gang- and drug-related acid attacks that have increased in London in recent years.

According to data from the London police released in March, acid attacks from 2015-2016 increased by 74 percent. There has been a 30 percent rise in England overall. The problem has gotten so serious that London police officers have been issued acid treatment kits to allow officers to give immediate on-scene treatment to victims.

Acid attack epidemics are nothing new for the city. During the Victorian era it was common for women to throw corrosive acid on men who had “crossed them in love” as revenge. However, in the UK today most corrosive acid attacks involve men. Gang wars are believed to be the primary cause.

There are a variety of reasons why acid attacks may be popular for gang members. For example, there’s the relative cheapness of purchasing and concealing the substance. A liter of 95 percent sulfuric acid only costs £6.50 (about $8.50) and can be easily concealed from police. Furthermore the rise in acid attacks also coincides with efforts by lawmakers to deter possession of knives and guns.

Simon Harding, a Criminologist at Middlesex University, believes that the frequency of acid attacks has risen because they’re more difficult to prosecute and see more lenient repercussions, pointing out: “If you throw [acid] in someone’s face, it’s going to affect their eyes and eyesight so you have a high chance of getting away with it.” He went on to say: “Acid is likely to attract a ‘[Grievous Bodily Harm] with intent’ charge while using a knife is more likely to lead to the attacker being charged with attempted murder.”

In recent weeks, acid was used to target food delivery workers for popular services such as UberEats and Deliveroo. Jabed Hussain, 32, was one of five delivery bikers who were attacked during a 90-minute acid attack spree on July 16 in East London. In response, Hussain and other busy drivers blocked a central street in London during rush hour to protest the lack of safety. Hussain told reporters: “I’m just shocked, using acid to steal a bike? What’s a bike worth? My life is worth more than that.”

Representatives from the British government are currently meeting with police officers and the office of Home Secretary to discuss banning some kinds of acid, but have encountered difficulties because variations of the chemical are found in household goods. One MP, Stephen Timms, has recommended making it illegal to carry such noxious chemicals without justification. Violating that law would lead to penalties more on par with people caught with guns or knives. But while it may deter the number of acid attacks, it could inspire criminals to search for new, more dangerous weapons to use.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What You Need to Know About the Rise of Acid Attacks in London appeared first on Law Street.

Orenthal James “OJ” Simpson, the Hall of Fame NFL running back who was once lauded for his speed and ability to escape defenders on the field is now equally as recognizable for his ability to escape lengthy prison sentences.

On Thursday, a Nevada Parole Board unanimously voted 4-0 in favor of granting OJ Simpson an early release on his 33-year sentence for a bizarre incident that took place in a Las Vegas hotel in 2007. Simpson, along with other armed men, attempted to reclaim sports memorabilia items that he claimed were stolen from him. Simpson was convicted of armed robbery, attempted kidnapping, and assault in 2008 and is set to be released as early as October 1.

But Simpson is far more notorious for his involvement in what was known as “the trial of the century. ” He was accused and eventually acquitted of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman in Nicole’s home in Brentwood, California in June of 1994.

Tony Corda, one of the parole commissioners on the hearing, cited as his reasoning that Simpson was at “low risk to re-offend” and the board felt that he had served enough time based on his criminal actions as well as his good behavior in prison.

During his hearing Simpson expressed remorse for his actions, saying: “I am sorry the things turned out the way they did…I had no intention to commit a crime.” But Simpson also expressed that he felt that he had served his time and that he deserved to become a free man.

So what are the legal ramifications for Simpson’s parole? His parole will likely be set to expire on September 29, 2022. Based on Nevada law he must submit written reports to his parole officer every month, and he will be subjected to random drug and alcohol screenings. If he violates the terms of his parole in any way he can be sent back to prison.

He did indicate to the parole board during his hearing that if granted parole he wished to return to his home state of Florida, saying: “I can easily stay in Nevada, but I don’t think you guys want me here,”

Whether this request will be granted or not depends on a couple of factors. Florida has to first confirm that Simpson is eligible to complete parole in the state, and he needs to have an approved place to live. The home that he bought in Miami in 2000 was foreclosed upon in 2012, so that seems like an unlikely destination for now.

But money shouldn’t be a big problem for Simpson, despite the fact that he is still responsible for paying damages from a multi-million dollar lawsuit to Ron Goldman’s family. He is still receiving his NFL pension. Based on his time in the NFL, ESPN estimated that OJ could have made up to $600,000 while in prison.

Simpson had managed to live a relatively media-free life since his conviction, but after the release of two enormously successful television series based on his life, he has been thrust back into the pop culture news scene. So when word broke that Simpson will be getting out of prison, social media exploded:

OJ Granted Parole! @RealDonaldTrump, You got a position for OJ in your Administration. This Murderer is gonna need a job! #OJSimpsonParole pic.twitter.com/7nF6si1Izx

— stacey roberts (@1sroberts) July 20, 2017

OJ Simpson has been granted parole. As awful as it is, the board had to follow the law + not consider past behavior he wasn’t convicted for

— Yashar Ali (@yashar) July 20, 2017

POLL: Should OJ Simpson be granted parole? 888-788-9910 #ToddStarnesShow #OJSimpsonParole

— toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) July 20, 2017

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post OJ Will Be Free: Here’s What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever thought about having the ability to make people say whatever you want? You could get the chance to make Trump say that he loves Hillary Clinton, or get Christopher Nolan to finally say that Cobb was in a dream at the end of “Inception.” Well, with the help of some new technology, soon we may all have that ability.

Earlier this month, computer scientists at the University of Washington, with the help of an artificially intelligent neural network, were able to create video footage of former President Barack Obama that they can manipulate into perfectly matching any audio recording. Check it out:

The researchers used AI to model Obama’s face, and mapped the model based on 14 hours of video and audio footage of the former president’s weekly addresses to produce a “synthetic” video replica. The researchers were even able to put in audio from an interview Obama gave in 1990, and could theoretically insert the voice of an Obama impersonator.

In an interview with tech website Digital Trends, Dr. Supasorn Suwajanakorn, a researcher on the project, said:

Unlike prior work, we never require the subject to be scanned or a speech database that consists of videos of many people saying predetermined sentences. We learn this from just existing footage. This has the potential to scale to anyone with minimal effort.

So, in the near future it may only take minimal effort to create fake videos. While the current technology requires many examples of video and audio footage to produce a forgery, it may only be a matter of years until just a few audio and voice recordings would be needed.

Earlier this year a German artist, Mario Klingemann, released a video that represented French singer Francoise Hardy depicted as a 20 year old answering questions from someone offscreen.

However, just like in the Obama video, that isn’t Hardy’s real voice. Nor is that what she looks like anymore–she’s now 73. Instead, Klingemann used the voice of Kellyanne Conway from the infamous interview in which she introduced the term “alternative facts.”

Granted, the quality of this video is nowhere near the impressive feat of the fake Obama video. But it’s important to note that this video wasn’t created by a team of scientists, but just one guy. Perhaps most impressively, it only took him a few days and required absolutely no digital editing software.

Kingemann made the video using old music video clips of Harding from her twenties, and inserted them into a generative adversarial network (GAN). GAN is a machine-learning algorithm that was developed back in 2014. It uses neural networks to learn statistical properties of audio in order to produce the context of said audio. Once the algorithim is provided with enough audio context, you can tell it what words to say, and it will do so using the speech patterns of the given individual’s voice.

Reconfiguring audio is relatively easy, but the development of images is a much more complicated process. Ian Goodfellow, the inventor of GAN and a recent addition to Google’s AI division, has made progress in improving image creation. When asked about how long until the generation of “Youtube fakers” arrives on the internet, he expected it would be about three years until anyone with a computer and minimum coding experience could have access to this technology.

However, there have been breakthroughs in how to combat this new trend in technology as well. Analysis of metadata of photos, videos, and audio recordings can tell us exactly how, when, and where the content was created and will be able to indicate if the content was doctored.

But in this day and age it’s becoming harder to convince people that everything they see and read may not be true. A significant number of people still believe a debunked theory that DNC staffer Seth Rich was killed because he leaked information pertaining to Hillary Clinton. If such conspiracy theories run rampant, how are we going to convince people that videos they can see simply aren’t real?

The potential for fake videos could have a profound effect beyond what we can imagine. Think about this: less than six months ago a man walked into a D.C. pizza restaurant with a shotgun because of a conspiracy theory spread on social media. Imagine what the reaction to “Pizzagate” could have been if there was somehow a fake video involved?

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Fake Obama Video: Will this Be the Next Development in Fake News? appeared first on Law Street.

This article has been updated. Click here to jump to the update.

President Trump’s travel ban–which according to his aides and representatives is “not” a travel ban, but based on the president’s tweets, is in fact a travel ban–has just been handed another discouraging ruling from the courts.

Late Thursday, a U.S. District in Hawaii, ruled that the president’s executive order restricting immigration from six Muslim-majority countries can’t be used to exclude “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.” The ruling rejected the government’s interpretation of recent guidance issued by the Supreme Court.

That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

The ruling, from Judge Derrick Watson, stems from Trump’s revised executive order that was issued on March 6. Later that month, Judge Watson issued a nationwide halt on the revised travel ban, ruling that it discriminated on the basis of religion. Judges in other parts of the country issued similar rulings that were upheld by multiple circuit courts. The issue then made its way to the Supreme Court after an appeal from Justice Department. In June, the Supreme Court said that it would hear the case in the fall and issued a partial ruling in the meantime.

The Supreme Court’s order stated that until it makes its final decision, certain aspects of the executive order could proceed. The court said that if someone seeking a visa or a refugee from one of the six countries could establish a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity of the United States then they should be allowed to enter the country.

While the Supreme Court offered guidance as to what a “bona fide relationship” is, much of the interpretation was left to the executive branch. The State Department interpreted the ruling through a diplomatic cable saying the only acceptable relationships include: spouse, parent, parent-in-law, child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, fiancé, and sibling.

In his ruling, Judge Watson stated that the administration’s definition “represents the antithesis of common sense” by including son-in-law and daughter-in-law but not grandparent as qualifying relationships.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions immediately sought clarification from the Supreme Court, saying that the district court:

Undermined national security, delayed necessary action, created confusion, and violated a proper respect for separation of powers… The Supreme Court has had to correct this lower court once, and we will now reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court to again vindicate the rule of law and the Executive Branch’s duty to protect the nation.

At the Supreme Court’s request, the state of Hawaii responded to the Justice Department’s arguments on Tuesday night, forcefully supporting Watson’s initial ruling and arguing that any appeal should go to the lower courts before the Supreme Court. The Justice Department fought back hours later with another brief making a case for the government’s narrower definition of a bona fide relationship. The government also justified its decision to go directly to the Supreme Court, saying that it is “is the only court that can provide definitive clarification.”

Although the Supreme Court is currently on its summer recess, it’s possible that the justices will decide to weigh in on the dispute in the near future.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Confused About the Latest in the Travel Ban Case?: Here’s What you Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever been driving on the highway just a tiny bit over the speed limit, and then a sneaky robotic cop pulls you over? No? Well you may have an encounter just like that someday in the not-so-distant future.

Last month, Dubai introduced its first autonomous police robot, known as REEM. REEM stands at 5’7″, weighs approximately 220 pounds, and looks loosely based off the robots introduced in the 2004 Will Smith film “I, Robot” (but definitely not as cool). While it has complete autonomous navigational control, its actions are severely limited. It can provide information on directions, the weather, and the locations of nearby restaurants. REEM can carry small packages and has a computer touchscreen that allows for a person to communicate via videoconference with a human police officer.

This is just one of the major developments that makes up the Smart Dubai 2021 Strategy, which aims to utilize smart technology to make Dubai one of the most technologically innovative police forces in the world. Other services that are part of this plan include the Dubai Police App that helps users connect with the police force without having to go to a police station, the introduction of autonomous mini-robotic cars that will be used for patrols, and providing officers with Aston Martins and Bentleys as squad cars.

Dubai’s goal is that by 2030 robots will make up 25 percent of the police force. But Ramon López de Mántaras, a research professor at the Spanish National Research Council, believes that plan is a bit over-ambitious. He contends that it is feasible, but constructing a machine that is capable of making complex human-like decisions is very difficult. He stated:

For a human, the principle of proportionality or how to apply a just answer to each situation is already complex. For a machine it’s almost impossible right now.

There are also questions about the legal ramifications that are inherent in introducing a robot that has authority. Some experts have started to delve into those questions–for example, the UCLA law review published a report on how we could handle the likely introduction of police robots in the coming years.

The report also suggested that there are many hypothetical scenarios that lawmakers and regulators can address now instead of waiting until the technology catches up in the near future. Such scenarios include whether a robot should be allowed to possess a weapon and if it’s allowed to fight back when threatened. Researchers also need to determine whether introducing robotic police will increase social inequality and distrust that currently exists between the police and large subsets of the population.

These questions obviously don’t need to be answered right now, as the police robots currently in place in Dubai are simple observant machines. But the technology is catching up fast and sooner or later robotic police officers may just become the new norm.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Dubai Brings Real Robocops to its Streets appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Amnesty International, the global human rights organization, said that patterns of attack conducted by forces on both sides of the battle between ISIS and the Iraqi-American coalition violated international law in Mosul.

The report was released a day after Iraqi Prime minister Haider al-Abadi declared victory for the Iraqi-led forces in the ISIS stronghold city of Mosul almost three years since the the terrorist group captured the city.

A long and bloody nine months of fighting between the forces led to not only thousands of innocent deaths, but caused hundreds of thousands to be displaced from the city.

Amnesty International’s report claims that many of those deaths were not simply casualties of war, rather they were the result of  seemingly indiscriminate and reckless attacks conducted by members from both sides of the conflict. Lynn Maalouf, Director of Research for the Middle East at Amnesty International, expressed the importance of justice for the citizens of Mosul:

The horrors that the people of Mosul have witnessed and the disregard for human life by all parties to this conflict must not go unpunished. Entire families have been wiped out, many of whom are still buried under the rubble today. The people of Mosul deserve to know, from their government, that there will be justice and reparation so that the harrowing impact of this operation is duly addressed.

In its report, Amnesty describes how ISIS forced citizens of Mosul into new areas of the city to effectively use them as “human shields.” By relocating citizens to the western part of Mosul, ISIS created a barrier between its fighters and the Iraqi-American coalition. ISIS was able to keep civilians there by welding doors shut and booby trapping exits, and fighters would kill anyone who tried to escape.

On the flip side, the U.S. and Iraqi coalition chose to use weapons that were much too powerful for their intended targets or take the necessary precautions to protect civilians when conducting attacks. For example the report states on March 17 a U.S. airstrike that targeted two ISIS snipers ended up killing 105 innocent civilians. The report charges that the coalition failed to “adapt their tactics” and ended up doing significantly more harm than necessary.

Military officials from the Pentagon have so far rebuffed the alleged violations of international law. Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend said in a press conference:

I would challenge the people from Amnesty International or anyone else out there who makes these charges to first research their facts and make sure they’re speaking from a position of authority.

Next steps at this point are unknown. Holding states liable for their actions during wartime is difficult, even more so when non-state actors like ISIS are involved. But U.N. officials have said that accountability will be sought for the situation in Mosul.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post War Crimes in Mosul?: Amnesty Claims All Parties Violated International Law appeared first on Law Street.

It’s one of the most controversial topics of the last 20 years. And before you ask, yes it is a matter of life and death.

Physician-assisted suicide is expanding in the United States. Last year after a statewide referendum, Colorado became the sixth state to allow assisted suicide, with 65 percent of Colorado voters casting a ballot in favor of the measure. According to Compassion & Choices, an advocacy group that supported the ballot initiative in Colorado, so far 10 people have received prescriptions from doctors giving them access to the life-ending drugs. So far there is no data on whether those who received prescriptions for the life-ending medication have actually gone through with the procedure.

But the practice, which was taboo to even discuss 25 years ago, enjoys a large base of support in the United States. According to Gallup, physician-assisted suicide is supported by nearly 70 percent of the population.

Just last year, California passed the End Of Life Option Act. The first analysis of the law, which the California Department of Public Health recently released, indicates that 173 doctors had prescribed life-ending drugs to 191 patients. Out of those 191 patients, 111 have used the drugs to end their lives since the law was passed in June of 2016. However, Compassion & Choices, says it knows of 500 deaths in California as of this year. We will not know the full information until California releases the data for 2017 next year.

Physician-assisted suicide is an issue that has been debated for a long time. It has been subjected to rounds of philosophical, ethical, and moral debate. But the issue came into the spotlight in the United States in the 1990s with the legal battle between the State of Michigan and Dr. Jack Kevorkian, aka “Doctor Death.”

Jack Kevorkian was a pathologist who wanted to challenge the status quo of the ethical guidelines of a doctor. He contended that if a doctor had a patient that was truly suffering in pain from a terminal or debilitating illness for which there was no cure, then why couldn’t that doctor help end their suffering? He contended that it a doctor’s moral duty to focus on the welfare of the patient, and if the option of death presented itself as a suitable form of welfare for the patient than it should be allowed.

Kevorkian invented his own “suicide machine” in 1989 and assisted over 130 patients in assisted suicide. However, the Michigan legislature made it illegal to perform an assisted suicide in 1998, but Kevorkian continued to practice and was arrested after he allowed “60 Minutes” to air a video that showed him injecting life-ending medication to a man with ALS. He was convicted in 1999 of second-degree murder and served eight years in prison.

While Kevorkian was controversial, particularly because in at least one case he administered the procedure himself, experts agree that he brought assisted suicide into the forefront of public debate.

Since Kevorkian’s conviction, five states and the District of Columbia have passed assisted suicide legislation. Only three of these states have voluntarily provided data on physician-assisted suicide so far. Since Oregon legalized the practice in 1997, 1,127 patients have died. In Washington, where legalization was approved in 2009, there have been 917 reported deaths. And in Vermont, physicians have filed reports for 53 patients seeking life-ending medication.

While assisted suicide has made great progress over the years, many still have issues with the way it is practiced.

Marilyn Golden, a Policy Analyst for the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund opposed California’s law for a variety of reasons. She says that in theory it could discourage medical insurance companies from paying for new and expensive experimental treatments when providing assisted suicide medication is a cheaper option. She also argues that people in a vulnerable state of mind could be manipulated by heirs and caregivers to end their life, and that there is a lack of oversight for the current process–citing the fact that there is not an independent individual who is there that can confirm that the person who is taking the medication wants to end their life.

It should also be noted that assisted suicide can be a particularly expensive process. A pharmacist in California told the San Diego Tribune that doctors’ preferred drug, which makes the process of assisted suicide quick and painless, costs as much as $3,400 per dose. While the cost of life-ending medication is not cheap, it can be significantly cheaper than what it takes to provide care to someone with a terminal illness.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Colorado and the Rising Trend of Assisted Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

Hobby Lobby is a family-owned arts and crafts chain based in Oklahoma. The chain has a decidedly religious flavor–in its mission statement it says it is committed to “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” But now the company is under fire for a seemingly unethical move–smuggling ancient artifacts out of Iraq.

On Wednesday, Hobby Lobby and the Department of Justice reached a resolution that will require Hobby Lobby to pay $3 million and forfeit over 5,000 artifacts that it smuggled out of Iraq. The items include clay bullaes (clay balls with seals on the surface) and cuneiform tablets that were improperly labeled.

Here is a timeline of events that details the criminal activity based on court documents:

• In 2009, Hobby Lobby began collecting historically significant artifacts and documents.
• In July 2010, Hobby Lobby President Steve Green and a consultant met with antiquities dealers to inspect a potential sale of 5,548 distinct artifacts.
• Later that month, Hobby Lobby hired a cultural law expert to review the legal issues relevant to the acquisition.
• In October 2010, the cultural law expert warned Hobby Lobby’s in-house counsel that some of the items that Hobby Lobby was interested in purchasing might have been stolen from Iraq, and could be seized by customs, leading to criminal charges.
• In December 2010, Hobby Lobby purchases the artifacts for $1.6 million.
• Over the next year, the antiquities dealers and Hobby Lobby imported the artifacts under false pretenses. For instance, package labels indicated the goods originated from Israel and Turkey when they actually originated from Iraq.
• In January 2011, five shipments containing artifacts were detained by U.S. customs.

By reaching a settlement, Hobby Lobby accepts full responsibility for its actions in the scandal. In a statement on the matter, Green said:

We should have exercised more oversight and carefully questioned how the acquisitions were handled. Hobby Lobby has cooperated with the government throughout its investigation, and with the announcement of today’s settlement agreement, is pleased the matter has been resolved.

U.S. Customs has not commented on what will happen to the artifacts it seized from Hobby Lobby.

This is not the first time that Hobby Lobby has been on the front page due to a legal issue. In 2014 the store was part of the landmark Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby argued that due to their religious beliefs as a corporation they did not have to provide female employees with free contraception. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, expanding the rights of religious freedom to cover corporations as well.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Hobby Lobby: Specializing in Arts, Crafts, and Ancient Artifact Smuggling appeared first on Law Street.

This week Tesla announced that production would commence for its new midsize Model 3, a fully electric midsize sedan that can seat five and travel up to 215 miles per charge. Its advertised price is $35,000, but new fees for electric cars may have you forking over more green to go green.

Over the last year five states have introduced legislation that added fees to the purchase of an electric or hybrid vehicle. In West Virginia, a bill that was passed in June requires a $200 fee every year for an electric vehicle and a $100 yearly fee for every hybrid. Similar legislation has been enacted in 10 states since 2011, with most governors and state legislatures justifying the added fees due to backlogs in road repairs and the need to make up for money that would have otherwise come from gas taxes.

Even California, which is home to Tesla and the Zero Emission program, approved of a $100 yearly fee for electric car owners. Governor Jerry Brown cited a need for “safe and smooth roads” to support the fee.

Granted, for someone who is willing to pay $35,000 for a car, an additional $100 service fee seems like a small increase. But supporters of electric (and other environmentally friendly) vehicles believe that the fees and lack of tax incentives can stall the sales growth of eco-friendly cars in the automotive market.

Large auto companies such as Ford, Nissan, and Volvo currently have electric models and are expanding their electric programs, but electric cars only make .6 percent of the auto market and sales growth has dramatically decreased from 227 percent to five percent last year.

For example, in 2015 when Georgia ended the $5,000 tax credit for electric and hybrid vehicles and instead put a $200 fee on them, the sales of electric cars dropped by 93 percent.

But what could really damage electric vehicles’ ability to break into the mainstream market is the potential that Congress will not extend the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit (for the first 200,000 vehicles produced) in the new budget.

The tax credit is important because currently the technology to produce electric cars hasn’t caught up–essentially Tesla can’t make an affordable mass produced electric car that will cost the same as a regular car because the technology hasn’t gotten there yet. The tax credit allows for producers such as Tesla to still be competitive in the automobile market and to turn a profit. By doing this the government is hoping for more innovation and expansion of the electric car market. Experts believe that if this credit is removed, then the projections for electric cars by 2025 will decrease by 250,000 vehicles. As the U.S. struggles to deal with its carbon footprint, electric cars could be a valuable tool, and priorities need to be seriously considered.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Some States Are Making it More Expensive to Buy Electric Cars appeared first on Law Street.

There is a crisis afoot: Puerto Rico’s economy is collapsing. The territory owes about $73 billion in bond debt and $49 billion in unfunded pensions. In May, the Governor of Puerto Rico, Ricardo Rosello, filed for a protection ‘similar’ to bankruptcy hoping to restructure the territory’s massive debt.

However, since filing for the protection, things have only gone downhill.

The territory’s budget has still not been approved by the Federal Oversight Board, it’s attempting to sell its ports to private contractors in order to raise capital, and its power utility (the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority) just filed for bankruptcy after it was unable to restructure its $9 billion debt.

It is still unclear at this moment how this economic crisis will be solved. But here’s what you need to know about Puerto Rico as it makes its way into the national debate.

How Puerto Rico Got To This point?

Puerto Rico’s economic status has always been in limbo. Its precarious situation as a U.S. territory made it the island with the highest per capita income in the Caribbean.

However, in 1996, President Bill Clinton decided to phase out longstanding tax incentives for companies located on the island, which helped stimulate economic growth for decades. Once the rollback of those exemptions ended in 2006, corporations and jobs left the island and economic growth stagnated while unemployment rose.

This is compounded by two unique aspects of Puerto Rico’s situation as a territory. For one, tax rates are incredibly low–exempt from federal income taxes, residents only need to pay a 4 percent tax on income earned on the island. Additionally, citizens of Puerto Rico are also U.S. citizens, granting them the ability to freely move to the mainland. When it became clear that jobs were no longer coming to Puerto Rico, many residents left the island, depleting workforce and leaving smaller tax base to draw from.

With a lack of tax revenue, Puerto Rico’s government needed revenue to balance its budget. Instead of raising taxes or cutting spending it issued government bonds to raise money for much of the difference. The bonds are incredibly valuable to investors from outside Puerto Rico. Its status as a territory means the bonds are exempt from local, state, and federal taxes. But due to the long recession, the government could not generate enough the revenue to pay the bonds back, and in 2014, its bonds were downgraded to “junk” status.

Furthermore, island’s government is incredibly inefficient. For example, the island’s main power company has accrued a debt worth more than $9 billion, partly by providing free electricity to municipal building and projects that barely generate any profit for the government. For instance, the utility company provided free electricity to an ice-skating rink built in the city of Aguadilla (it’s expensive to keep ice cold in the tropics!).

Falling corporate interest in investing in the island, low tax rates, attractive government bonds, and an inefficient government all led the territory to accumulate a massive debt that it couldn’t escape.

Pension Problems

Not only does Puerto Rico owe billions to its creditors, but it also owes a large sum to its own people in the form of unfunded public pension programs. In addition to Puerto Rico’s bond debt, it has about $49 billion worth of unfunded pension commitments.

Since the 1990s, Puerto Rico has slowly but surely reduced payments to its employee retirement program, to the point where its public pensions became significantly underfunded. Furthermore, the population in Puerto Rico is getting older, with 14.2 percent of its residents above the age of 65. As the local workforce shrinks and the population ages, the territory’s unfunded pension commitments will become an even larger issue.

But the owners of Puerto Rico’s bonds are demanding that they are paid their debts first even if that means further cuts to public programs such as education and healthcare.

Is A Solution Possible?

The situation is dire for the citizens of Puerto Rico, they are almost completely out of money and President Trump has stated that he will not bail out the island.

One solution that could enhance the government’s financial situation is for the territory to seek statehood. Gov. Rosello recently held a referendum to gauge public interest in statehood. If Puerto Rico becomes a state, the economic recovery from the debt crisis could be a lot quicker with the backing of the federal government. The result of the referendum was an overwhelming 97 percent in favor of statehood, but only 23 percent of voters participated. Critics have said that despite the vote’s margin, the plan is not favored among the entire population.

Experts have pointed to debt forgiveness as the best possible solution to solving Puerto Rico’s debt. If austerity measures are put in place, Puerto Rico will need to pay off its debts to creditors first, which would mean the people who rely on the publicly funded programs such as schools, health care, and pension payments suffer. Furthermore, cutting back on public spending will only make for a longer and more painful economic recovery.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What You Need to Know About Puerto Rico’s Debt Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Former South Korean President Park Geun-hye doesn’t have a ton of fans right now. The former president was ousted and is currently facing corruption charges. At one point toward the end of her presidency, her approval rating fell to a measly 4 percent. But now there is apparently one more thing she has to worry about: North Korea.

While North Koreans have never been too fond of their neighbors to the south–technically speaking they are still at war–they appear to have a particular hatred for the former South Korean president. In an announcement on North Korea’s state-run television, the state claimed that it had discovered a “revelation” that implicated Park and her National Intelligence Minister in organizing an assassination attempt in 2015 against Kim Jong-Un, the leader of North Korea.

Representatives from the North Korean government declared her actions “unpardonable”and issued a statement on North Korean state-run TV, saying she should receive: “A miserable dog’s death any time, at any place and by whatever methods from this moment.”

This announcement may have come as a response to an article published in a Japanese newspaper, Asahi Shimbun Daily, on Monday. It cited an anonymous source that claimed Park had approved of a plan to oust Kim from his position.

This is the second time in as many months that North Korea has accused the South Koreans of an assassination plot. In May, the North Koreans accused South Korea of teaming with the CIA in a biochemical attack against the supreme leader.

Alternately, North Korea’s claims could be based on the attack that killed Kim Jong-un’s half brother earlier this year in a Malaysian airport. That attack may have triggered internal fears that the North Korean government is vulnerable to assassination attempts. However, that theory might not hold up because others have claimed that the assassination of Kim’s brother came from inside the government in the first place.

North Korea has attempted to assassinate leaders of South Korea before. In 1983, North Korean assassins attempted to kill then-South Korean dictator Chun Doo-hwan when he was visiting Burma, but the attack was unsuccessful.

Park already has enough problems to contend within in her own country. In December of 2016 it was alleged that she abused her power, supposedly accepting bribes and leaking classified information to an influential friend. The South Korean Parliament suspended her powers in December 2016, and in March she was removed from power by a South Korean court and then arrested.

It’s incredibly unlikely that current South Korean President Moon Jae-in would grant an extradition request from North Korea. He recently visited Washington to meet with President Donald Trump. The two leaders were slated to discuss the ongoing tensions between the three countries and a possible joint response to the North’s development of nuclear weapons.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post North Korea Proclaims a Death Wish for Former South Korean President Park Geun-hye appeared first on Law Street.

The long legal battle over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline looks like it will continue to drag on after a recent court ruling.

Last week, U.S District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the pipeline, owned and constructed by Energy Transfer Partners, had not undergone an adequate environmental review by the Army Corps of Engineers and that a more thorough environmental review is needed. He wrote:

[The Army] did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial.

However, it was a partial victory for the environmentalists and Native American tribes who opposed the pipeline’s construction. Boasberg said that oil could still flow through the pipeline at this time but indicated that he would make a formal ruling on that decision at a later date.

The judge asked lawyers from both sides to submit written arguments to determine whether the pipeline should be shut down while the Army Corps of Engineers makes its evaluation, or if it should continue to transport oil. A lawyer representing the Sioux tribe expects a decision to be made in September.

This is only the most recent development in the long and complicated battle to establish the 1,200-mile pipeline that will transfer crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois. Since the Army Corps of Engineers published a plan to approve the pipeline route in 2015, there has been a wave of protests, legal challenges, and executive orders to determine the project’s status.

In December 2016, the Obama Administration temporarily halted the construction of a controversial segment of the Dakota Access Pipeline, citing the need for a further environmental review. But when Trump took office in January, he signed an executive order calling on the Army to expedite the review process and complete construction as soon as possible.

The Army is still in the process of determining a timeline for the environmental review, but according to the Army Corps of Engineers Lawyer Mathew Marinelli, the Army will have an updated schedule when the first briefs are required by the court on July 17.

The order for a new environmental review in Dakota has created yet another issue for Energy Transfer Partners. The company’s construction of another $4.2 billion natural gas pipeline is under a rare public investigation for pollution in Ohio wetlands and the destruction of a historic home. The company could lose $10 million a week if it fails to finish construction by November 1.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Judge Orders Further Environmental Review for Dakota Access Pipeline appeared first on Law Street.

In 2014, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the social networking giant was making a transformative new acquisition: Oculus VR. Oculus is a virtual reality company that aims to redefine digital entertainment by taking its users into a completely virtual world. However, the VR company may have to completely redesign its coding platform and remove some VR headsets from the market due to a lawsuit from prominent video game maker ZeniMax.

A jury Awarded ZeniMax $500 million in February, but now the company is seeking an injunction to block Facebook from selling the Oculus Rift headset on account of alleged copyright violations. According to the February ruling, former employee and Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey, violated his non-disclosure agreement and committed copyright infringement and false designation when he took code from ZeniMax to develop the Oculus VR technology. If ZeniMax does not receive a permanent injunction from the judge, the company wants a 20 percent cut of all Oculus sales over the next 10 years.

According to Bloomberg, the likelihood that the product will be pulled from the market is not very high, even though the two companies are competitors. Historically, judges have preferred financial compensation over ordering companies to take products off the shelves. The judge in this case–Ed Kinkeade, a district court judge in Northern Texas–encouraged both sides to reach a settlement and avoid a trial when they presented their cases on Tuesday.

Facebook is strongly resisting efforts to stop Oculus sales. The company’s lawyers argue that placing a ban on the products would put unfair hardship on Oculus, only benefit ZeniMax, and “detract from the public’s enjoyment” of virtual reality technology. Furthermore, in a court filing on June 15, Facebook argued that the required payout was unfair and said that $50 million would be more than reasonable.

Facebook has a lot at stake with this decision. Not only did the company spend $2 billion to purchase Oculus in 2014, but according to Bloomberg, the virtual reality and augmented reality industry may be worth an estimated $40 billion in 2020.

Virtual reality and augmented reality technologies are continuing to grow within the tech world. For example, in Apple’s upcoming iOS 11 update includes an ARkit for developers to incorporate AR into their apps. Apple forged a partnership with Ikea to use ARkit, which will let users see how the company’s furniture would look in their homes. The possibilities in VR and AR are seemingly endless and Facebook does not want to miss out.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Lawsuit Seeks to Block Facebook from Selling Oculus VR Products appeared first on Law Street.

It was billed as the trial of the century–Bill Cosby, a national treasure and pioneer for black Americans, on trial for sexual assault. Most people expected a guilty verdict, convinced that Cosby was overwhelmingly guilty of sexually assaulting former Temple University basketball staffer Andrea Constand. But in the end, there was no verdict at all.

After a week of deliberations, the jury could not come to a unanimous verdict and the judge was forced to declare a mistrial. Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele immediately vowed to retry Cosby, but the lack of verdict still left some legal experts surprised. Here are several key factors that could have led to a hung jury.

Andrea Constand’s Credibility

Cosby’s defense team, led by Brian J. McMonagle, argued that Constand was not a viable witness due to several inconsistencies in her statements made to police. Philadelphia defense lawyer Alan J. Tauber analyzed the case and noted several highly contradictory statements in Constand’s 2005 police statement. At the time, Constand claimed that she had never been alone with Cosby before the assault, she denied having contact afterwards, and she said the assault occurred in March of 2004. Tauber called those statements “demonstrably false“–the alleged assault actually occurred in January of 2004 and she called him over 50 times afterwards–and said they likely swayed the jury.

While Constand’s conflicting testimony doesn’t mean that she is a liar, it did allow for the defense to poke holes in her credibility. Therefore, a handful of jurors may not have felt comfortable convicting Cosby based off her testimony.

Trouble With Defining Consent

This case was never about whether or not the two ever had sexual relations with one another. Cosby’s defense was that he’d had consensual sex with Constand in January 2004. He also admitted to giving her pills before they had sex, but said they were Benadryl, not Quaaludes. However, no forensics, no toxicology report, and no physical evidence of any kind were presented in the trial to corroborate either story. But since many of the key facts in the case are undisputed, Above the Law argues that it’s not a case of “he said, she said.” The real question, it contends, is “what defines consent?”

Jurors in the case clearly grappled with determining whether or not Constand consented to the sexual interaction. They even asked the court to define “reasonable doubt” and clarify what “without her knowledge” means in reference to one of the counts. Some jurors may have believed that the encounter was consensual since Constand took the pills voluntarily. The defense also argued that Cosby assumed that he had achieved “mutually informed consent.”

Lack of Other Accusers

A total of 60 women have accused Cosby of sexually assaulting them, but jurors were only allowed to hear from one other accuser during the trial. The prosecution wanted 13 accusers to testify at trial, but the judge granted only one, a woman who accused Cosby of drugging and assaulting her in 1996.

It could be more advantageous for prosecutors to appeal to the judge to allow the thirteen women to testify, rather than go straight to a retrial. The additional testimony could potentially help erase reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jury and trigger a different strategy from the defense.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Bill Cosby Mistrial: What Kept the Jury Deadlocked? appeared first on Law Street.

The Dreamers are here to stay–for now. Late Thursday night, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly issued a press release and Q&A page on the department’s website announcing a two-year expansion of President Obama’s 2012 DACA policy, which protects immigrants who came to The United States as children. These children are commonly known as “Dreamers.”

It’s a surprising move by the Trump Administration. During the campaign, Trump once said that Obama’s 2012 DACA program “defied federal law and the Constitution” and vowed to end the program if elected.

DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was an executive order issued by President Obama in 2012 designed to protect children who entered the U.S. as minors from being deported. While DACA does not provide citizenship to those who qualify, it prevents them from being deported from their established lives in the United States and makes them eligible for work permits.

A sister program known as DAPA, for the parents of American citizens and lawful permanent residents, was blocked a few years earlier by a federal judge in Texas who declared that the program overstepped the president’s constitutional authority. Last week’s announcement formally rescinded the program, although it had never actually been implemented.

This change in immigration policy was praised by members of the immigration community, but to Trump’s hardline supporters, it may be seen as a betrayal of one of his key campaign promise on immigration.

However, aides to the president and representatives from Homeland Security confirmed that the DACA program is only under a temporary extension. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Jonathan Hoffman stated that it is still up to Congress to form a long-term solution to the immigration debate. This means that when the extension of DACA ends in just two years, the ‘Dreamers’ could still face deportation in the absence of a further extension or legislative solution.

But for now, it looks as if the Dreamers are safe to stay, that is unless Trump changes his mind.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Trump Gives Dreamers a Temporary Reprieve appeared first on Law Street.

Fox News started making moves to drop its well-known slogan “Fair and Balanced” from programming last year. The network has since instructed producers, hosts, and reporters to only refer to the network’s other slogan: “Most Watched, Most Trusted.” According to a source at the company, a new slogan could be coming soon.

The change was first noted by Roger Ailes’ biographer in a story in New York Magazine. According to the Fox News’ statement on the slogan, the change was not prompted by editorial or a programming decision. Rather, insiders believe the move was made to further distance the company from the legacy of Roger Ailes, who created the iconic slogan back in 1996. Ailes was ousted from Fox News last year after accusations of sexual harassment while working at the company. The network stopped using the phrase shortly after Ailes left his position as CEO of the network.

For Ailes and Fox, the “Fair and Balanced” slogan was a sort of doctrine, and a huge part of company culture. Ailes would host meetings and seminars based around the slogan, and would not hire reporters if he felt they didn’t come across as “fair and balanced” in his eyes. Most importantly, it gave the appearance to those who watched the network that both sides were being heard while still producing conservative-leaning content.

While the phrase may have shaped the modern cable landscape as we see it today, that hasn’t stopped Twitter from having a ball (as per usual) with the fact that Fox News will no longer be calling itself “Fair and Balanced.”

Fox News is apparently ditching the “fair and balanced” bit and going with something more nuanced. pic.twitter.com/xysOUMVlx6

— TK (@TKhatesyou) June 14, 2017

If a fig leaf falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? https://t.co/smvjLrKWkZ

— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) June 14, 2017

Fox News saying they are no longer “fair and balanced” is like McDonalds saying they are no longer “healthy”.

It was never the case, kids.

— TrumpsTaxes (@TrumpsTaxes) June 14, 2017

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post “Fair and Balanced” Slogan Out at Fox News: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

For anyone who has ever taken an intro to economics class, the phrase supply side economics should be familiar. Supply side economics essentially argues that economic growth happens through capital investments and lowering the barriers of production. The idea behind supply side economics is that you can stimulate growth by encouraging capital investment and lowering the barriers to production. Supply-siders argue for lowering tax rates across the board to reduce the tax burden on businesses and high-earners in the hope that they invest more to boost the economy. It’s a conservative theory and it was largely implemented during the Reagan years (dubbed Reaganomics). Depending on who you ask, it was considered a success or a failure. But one state may have taken Reaganomics a little too far, and is now paying the price.

In 2011, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback attempted to fully embrace a supply side economic policy, on steroids. He has called it “a real live experiment” in conservative economic policy.

Since 2011, he has drastically reduced income taxes across the board. A fellow from the Show-Me Institute, a right-leaning think tank, called it “the biggest tax cut of any state, relative to the size of its economy, in recent history.” Brownback’s policies allowed for 300,000 businesses to become tax exempt, eliminated many deductions–including ones on child care–and significantly decreased public spending in all sectors. It got to the point where the Kansas supreme court ruled unanimously that public school spending was unconstitutionally low. While Brownback claimed these policies would stimulate economic growth and bring private sector jobs to the state, the budget did just the opposite. Kansas now has a $900 million dollar deficit and lags behind in job growth compared to the rest of the country.

Unfortunately for Brownback, this experiment seems to be coming to an end. Last week the Kansas state legislature overrode the governor’s veto in favor of a progressive tax increase across the state. What makes it even more surprising is that this occurred in a state where Republicans have a two-thirds majority in both the house and the senate. The measure will bring $1.2 billion in revenue over the next two years to combat the $900 million shortfall in the budget, and most of the tax revenue will go toward funding the vastly underfunded public schools. It will also reverse a policy that made over 300,000 businesses tax exempt.

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Kansas Center for Economic Growth, since the tax cuts were introduced in 2012, Kansas has significantly lagged behind in terms of GDP and personal income growth compared to neighboring states and the rest of the nation. Furthermore, job growth for private and non-farming jobs measures at approximately half the rate of their six state neighbors.

But what’s shocking is not just that the Kansas Republicans turned against their Republican governor, but that a Republican led legislature voted for an increase in taxes. Not raising taxes has been a staple among the GOP since the days of President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. President George W. Bush implemented tax cuts during his presidency in 2001 and 2003, and every single GOP candidate for President during the 2016 election, except for Trump, signed the pledge promising to never raise taxes.

For Kansas Senate majority leader Jim Denning, who voted for the tax cuts back in 2012 hoping that they would bring a spike to economic growth, reality set in. He admitted that he couldn’t vote for more cuts that they weren’t working and worked with Democrats to find a solution. “I’ve always backed up and mopped up my mess. That’s what I’m doing now,”

Of course this one example does not prove that supply side economic theory or cutting taxes is harmful. Supporters of the governor’s tax plan argue that the plan wasn’t effective because it didn’t go far enough. But it will certainly be a point of interest to see if it’s an isolated incident or the beginning of a long trend against conservative economics–specifically the promise to never raise taxes under any circumstances.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s Tax Pledge May Be Cracking appeared first on Law Street.

Before his presidency, Donald Trump was a builder. Specifically, he built towers, golf courses, and even vineyards. Last week, he took on his biggest building job yet: America’s national infrastructure network. This push was dubbed by President Trump and his administration as “Infrastructure Week.”

Using a series of events and announcements, the current administration presented a $1 trillion plan to revamp this nation’s infrastructure, which includes highways, electrical systems, waterways, and airports.

Given that much of the news last week had little to do with infrastructure–notably Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before Congress–here are some of the highlights in case you missed it.

Privatizing Air Traffic Control

President Trump made his first major infrastructure announcement at an event last Monday at the White House with executives of numerous airline companies. At that meeting, President Trump announced his plan to privatize the air traffic control system with the hope that the private industry can significantly upgrade air travel. He said:

At its core, our new plan will dramatically improve America’s air traffic control system by turning it over to a self-financing, nonprofit organization. This new entity will not need taxpayer money, which is very shocking when people hear that. They don’t hear that too often.

The plan is based off of a bill written by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pennsylvania) last year and is supported by the air traffic controllers’ union as well as the CEO of Airlines for America (A4A), Nicholas E. Calio, who said it could potentially save the economy billions and dramatically improve air traffic control.

While the plan may not increase taxes as Trump claims, the cost of airline travel could increase for consumers as new fees would provide funding. The structure of this nonprofit corporation would give broad decision-making power to the board, which would be made up of mostly airline representatives and airline workers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that completely modernizing the aviation system through privatization would actually cost more money (because of an expected increase in spending to modernize air traffic control) than maintaining the current system under the FAA. Reports have also indicated that privatization of the system increased air traffic control fees in Canada and the U.K. by 59 and 30 percent respectively. And if the cost burden is decided by airline executives and workers then it may be more costly for the consumers.

$1 Trillion= $200 Billion?

It’s important to understand that the $1 trillion infrastructure plan does not actually involve $1 trillion dollars in direct federal government spending. Instead, the government will foot $200 billion in infrastructure spending with the expectation that private companies foot the other $800 billion.

However, infrastructure projects typically don’t yield high return rates, leading some to question how the Trump Administration will be able to convince private companies to take on 80 percent of the workload. A potential consequence of this approach would be the prioritization of projects that will lead to higher returns for investors, rather than those with greater public need.

Trump and his team have said that they will change rules and regulations to make the process more appealing to businesses. So far the Trump Administration hasn’t said how exactly it will change the regulations.

Rolling Back Regulations

On Wednesday, during his speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, President Trump said that he will work aggressively to fight the red tape (regulations) that makes infrastructure spending difficult. He said:

So we’re getting rid of the regulations, and we’re massively streamlining the approvals and the permitting process. Already my administration has expedited environmental reviews and critical energy projects all across the country.

Trump was in Cincinnati to discuss waterway reform, which is one area where the administration may seek to remove regulations.

Part of the plan that President Trump and his Secretary of Transportation recently emphasized is the amount of time it takes for new projects. When talking about his plans to cut regulatory hurdles in April, Trump said, “We’re going to try and take that process from a minimum of 10 years down to one year.”

Still No Detailed Plan

Probably the most confusing aspect of “Infrastructure Week” is that there is still no fully completed infrastructure plan detailing specific policies.

On May 1, Trump stated that his infrastructure plan would be completed in two to three weeks. It’s been almost five weeks since that announcement and there are still many questions left unanswered.

For example, while Trump has touted that he will help rural infrastructure, he has only given vague hints as to what he wants to improve. On Wednesday, the president said, “Rural America will receive grants to rebuild crippled bridges, roads, and waterways.”

According to NPR, there were no further details given on how, specifically, rural American will receive this spending.

The bottom line is until there is an official bill, or at least a detailed proposal, presented to Congress with specific plans for how the administration will drive $1 trillion of infrastructure spending, Trump’s plan will be just that, a plan.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Because We All Missed it: Highlights from Infrastructure Week appeared first on Law Street.

Soccer, according to FIFA, is a “beautiful game” meant to “inspire the world and increase international cooperation.” However, for Qatar–FIFA’s 2022 World Cup host country–it may actually be causing unrest in the Middle East.

Qatar is in jeopardy of having its World Cup plans derailed, after some of the most powerful nations in the Arab world broke diplomatic ties with the Gulf state Monday.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) accused Qatar’s government of sponsoring terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda and Islamic State, to provoke violence in the Middle East.

The diplomatic crisis may be the final straw in a flood of controversies plaguing the world’s richest country since it was formally elected by FIFA to host the World Cup soccer tournament back in 2010.

Qatari sports officials have been accused of giving bribes to members of FIFA in exchange for their vote for the World Cup, and there has been backlash over whether or not hosting a Winter World Cup will disrupt club soccer league seasons throughout the world.

It’s also unclear if Qatar will be open to the LGBTQ community–Qatar has strict laws against homosexuality (former FIFA president Sepp Blatter’s solution to this problem was for gays to simply not have sex while in Qatar).

Furthermore, there have been multiple news investigations into the alleged abuse of migrant workers from Nepal and India, who were brought in to build the infrastructure needed to accommodate millions traveling to Qatar for the World Cup. These workers are said to live in horrendous conditions, have slave-like wages, and have had their passports illegally taken from them.

But these are just a handful of the dozens of accusations against the Qatar government, and FIFA as well.

Qatar relies heavily on the use of its neighbors airspace; therefore, the end of diplomatic relations with Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE will make travel in and out of the country extremely difficult. Qatar’s singular land border with Saudi Arabia will also hinder the country’s ability to bring in materials needed for major infrastructure projects.

No decisions have been made by FIFA, but officials are said to be “in regular contact” with Qatar’s government. But with Qatar spending an estimated $220 billion toward the soccer tournament (10 times what Brazil spent on the 2014 World Cup), don’t expect the country to fold easily on its investment.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Qatar at Risk of Losing 2022 World Cup Due to Gulf Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

India is growing… fast. For the first time in its recent history it became the fastest growing economy in the world with 7.6 percent growth in 2015, beating out China. Some economists believe that India will continue to be the fastest growing economy in the 2017-18 financial year. While India may still be in better shape economically than everyone else, will it be able to lead a thriving and free democracy?

On Monday, it was reported by multiple news outlets that India’s Central Bureau of Investigation raided the homes and offices of the private news channel NDTV (New Delhi TV) co-founders Prannoy and Radhika Roy.

In a statement, the Roys claim that the raids were conducted based on a complaint that they had not repaid a loan to the private bank ICICI in 2007. However, documentation provided by the Roys seems to prove that they repaid their loan more than seven years ago.

In a statement to The Washington Post, Prannoy Roy said that he wasn’t surprised by the raids because of how the media is treated by the government. He said:

In American media, it is considered patriotic to question and make the government accountable, here to be patriotic is to just agree with everything the government says.

His comments suggest that this investigation is not isolated but emblematic of how India lacks a robust free press that is guaranteed by the government.

The questions are reasonable. According to World Press Freedom Index of 2017, India ranks 136 out of 180 possible countries, down three slots from a year before. In contrast, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan, two places with massive amounts of political instability and non-democratic regimes rank 135 and 120 respectively.

Though India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has stated that he believes that having a free press is “vital in a democracy,” his actions since being elected in 2014 contradict that sentiment. In the first months after his election, Modi chose to use state-backed media sources as his primary choice for disseminating information.

In November 2016, the government shut down NDTV for 24 hours, accusing them of reporting on sensitive information when they covered an attack by terrorists on the Pathankot military base. This was done without even needing a court order, and is completely legal under the Indian government.

Furthermore, the laws in India make it significantly easier to curb dissent from media sources. Section 124A of the Indian Penal code, also known as the sedition law, gives prosecutors the ability to issue life sentences based on negative comments against the government.

India may be on the verge of becoming a superpower, but it remains to be seen if the country will be able to accomplish its lofty goals and still allow a free press. Though the Indian government may say that they love the press, they need to start backing up those words with action.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post As India’s Economy Booms, Can it Maintain a Healthy Free Press? appeared first on Law Street.

At the 2017 WorldWide Developers Conference in San Jose, California, Apple executives gave their first preview of their new software update: iOS 11. The update will include over a dozen new tools and platforms, including a new Augmented Reality feature, an enhancement to Apple Pay, and the addition of a stylus that can be used in conjunction with the iPad Pro.

But one new feature stood out above the rest. During the keynote address, Apple introduced a Do Not Disturb add-on feature that will prevent an iPhone user from receiving notifications of any kind while behind the wheel. This includes texts, social media notifications, and news alerts. The add-on uses bluetooth and wi-fi doppler effect to determine if the device is moving within a car.

If it detects the specific type of movement, it prevents the person from receiving any notifications. The add-on must be turned on voluntarily and it can be turned off if you are in a vehicle and are not driving. And if you are worried that you won’t be able to communicate? The add-on will send out an automated reply to people who text you while you’re driving to inform them that you will answer them once you reach your destination.

“We think this is going to be a really important step for safety in the car,” said Craig Federighi, Senior Vice President of Software Engineering at WWDC.

The update won’t be released until the fall, but already people within Silicon Valley and the tech industry are praising the Do Not Disturb feature.

The importance of an Apple taking distracted driving seriously can’t be overstated

— Matt Peckham (@mattpeckham) June 5, 2017

“Do not disturb while driving” will save lives.

— Benedict Evans (@BenedictEvans) June 5, 2017

Do Not Disturb while driving turns the screen off automatically. This will save lives. And probably get turned off by the teens but good.

— Matthew Panzarino (@panzer) June 5, 2017

Distracted driving has been a serious problem in the age of smartphones. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2015 there was approximately 391,000 traffic accidents and approximately 3,477 deaths as a result of distracted driving. The risk level dramatically increases among youth drivers. The National Security Council reported that teen drivers are four times more likely than adult drivers to get into an accident when talking or texting on the phone while driving.

Smartphone usage among millennials in general has also exploded. According to a 2016 Nielsen study, of those who own a mobile phone between the ages of 18-24, 98 percent have a smartphone. Furthermore, 43 percent of those who do have a smartphone have an Apple iOS device.

The announcement follows a recent string of attempted regulation of distracted driving. In New York, the legislature is currently mulling over whether to implement a “textalyzer,” a device that would allow officers at the scene of an accident to access the drivers’ phones to see whether they were using their phones while driving.

The legislation has been criticized for allowing law enforcement to breach people’s private cell phone information for only minor incidents. However, the legislation is currently under review and similar legislation is being proposed in Tennessee, New Jersey, and Chicago.

Whether Apple’s voluntary feature will be useful or not remains to be seen, but with nine people dying a day from distracted driving, it is certainly trending in the right direction.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Apple Takes a Stance on Texting and Driving with iOS 11 appeared first on Law Street.

Sweeping changes are likely to come in Britain’s policy toward terrorism and extremism after Prime Minister Theresa May declared that “enough is enough” during a speech outside of 10 Downing Street on Sunday. The speech was prompted after another attack on Saturday night at the London Bridge where a white van struck pedestrians in a coordinated attack that killed seven and injured dozens that was later claimed by ISIS.

This is the third major attack that has occurred in Britain this year including a terror attack on Westminister Bridge that occurred in March and the bombing at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in May.

In her speech, May responded with the introduction of a new four-point plan toward combating the “new trend” of ideological extremism. While the plan presented was broad and skimmed on policy specifics that might be introduced, it was indicative of the direction of counter-terrorism policy in Britain.

Defeating the Extremist Ideology

In her remarks, May recognized that while the attacks were not committed by the same organizations, they were all committed in the sense of a singular ideology. Her conclusion is that terrorism can only be defeated by changing the mindset of those vulnerable to violence, and to have them embrace British values.

This could mean that there could be a further expansion of the Prevent Strategy, a measure of the UK counter-terrorism system that aims to stop people from becoming or supporting terrorist and terror organizations.

Prevent was originally created in response to the London attacks in 2005 and aimed to support organizations that would improve integration of minority groups. But in 2011, under then-Home Secretary May, the program was revamped to focus on terrorism and training public officials to spot radicalism.

Prevent has shown success: data from 2015 shows the amount of people who travelled to Syria and Iraq from Britain has decreased. But the program has its critics who believe that it will naturally lead to more discrimination toward Islamic groups.

Crackdown on Online Extremism

May called upon both internet companies as well as democratic countries to form more international agreements to regulate extremism on the web.

Currently, the UK employs a counter-propaganda campaign where in 2015 social media snoopers were able to remove 55,000 pieces of radical propaganda. How this strategy could move beyond Britain and become an international agreement is still unknown.

“Too Much Tolerance of Extremism”

In perhaps the most controversial excerpt from her speech, the prime minister spoke candidly about the potential new powers that could come as a result of her new strategy, saying:

There is – to be frank – far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations.

One suggestion that May made was to increase custodial sentences for terrorist-related offenses, one of the harshest possible forms of criminal punishment in the UK justice system.

New Powers to Security and Police Forces? 

The final part of her plan indicated that May is leaning toward giving an increase in new powers to the security and protective services. This could mean that May is planning to revamp her counter-extremism bill that was rejected by the government’s lawyers in January because it failed to adequately define “extremism” and “British values.”

Critics of the legislation argue that by broadening the definition of what extremism is, it could lead to infringement on basic rights such as free speech and religion. But with the recent attacks that have taken place and an election within a matter of days it is very possible that legislation and reforms are on the horizon.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What is the Future of British Counter-Terrorism Policy? appeared first on Law Street.