People in Oregon who are arrested while in the possession of small amounts of drugs will no longer face felony charges. Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed HB 2355 into law on Tuesday, reducing the classification of possession of certain quantities of drugs from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Individuals convicted of the misdemeanor now face up to one year in prison. Prior to this move, those same individuals faced up to five years in prison for possession of any amount of cocaine and methamphetamine, and up to 10 years for heroin and MDMA, according to the Huffington Post.

Per the new law, individuals may be charged with a misdemeanor if they are found to be in the possession of less than two grams of cocaine or methamphetamine, less than one gram of heroin, less than 40 pills of oxycodone, less than one gram or five pills of MDMA (also known as ecstasy), or less than 40 units of LSD. Individuals possessing larger amounts of those drugs can still face felony charges.

The law also contains a provision to combat profiling of people “based solely on the individual’s real or perceived age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, homelessness or disability.”

In 2014, California became the first state to defelonize minor drug crimes after voters approved Proposition 47. The ballot measure also included the reclassification of other felonies such as certain theft and fraud charges as misdemeanors.

In recent years, the U.S. federal government has begun to rethink sentences for some drug-related crimes. CBS reported in 2016 that more than 26,000 federal drug offenders had received shortened prison terms as a result of sentencing guidelines changes that the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved in 2014. The reevaluation of drug penalties is not just occurring in the U.S., but has become a global effort. Countries are working to lessen the power of organized crime and promote rehabilitative treatments for drug users.

Changes to federal drug policies in the U.S. may be slow to progress under Attorney General Jeff Sessions. But states like Oregon could play a significant role in ending the “war on drugs” through drug defelonization and rehabilitating drug users rather than imposing harsh penalties on them.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Possession of Small Amount of Drugs No Longer a Felony Offense in Oregon appeared first on Law Street.

After Saturday’s white supremacist riots and violence against counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, community members in the city and people nationwide are still reeling. Reported Nazi sympathizer James Alex Fields, Jr., plowed his gray Dodge Challenger through a group of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old legal assistant Heather Heyer and injuring at least 19 others. Fields has been charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding, and one count of hit and run.

Fields’ attack was only one piece of the violence on Saturday. White supremacists, neo-Nazis, and neo-Confederates beat counter-protesters and marched through the streets of Charlottesville with Nazi flags, white supremacist images, and anti-Semitic chants. Following the weekend’s attacks, people are passing around the blame for the white supremacists’ acts of terror in Charlottesville.

In an interview with NPR’s David Green, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe explained that the city of Charlottesville had tried to relocate the rally to a more open park about a mile and half away from Emancipation Park, outside of downtown Charlottesville. However, the ACLU of Virginia joined a lawsuit against Charlottesville after the city refused to allow “Unite The Right” organizer Jason Kessler and his supporters to access Emancipation Park on Saturday for the previously approved demonstration.

“That rally should not have been in the middle of downtown – to disperse all those people from the park where they dispersed all over the city streets,” McAuliffe told NPR. “And it became a powder keg. And we got to look at these permits, and we got to look at where we put these rallies and protesters. I got to protect public safety.”

The ACLU of Virginia’s Executive Director Claire G. Gastanaga fired back at McAuliffe on Monday, condemning the violence that took place in Charlottesville but defending her organization’s involvement in the lawsuit against the city.

“We asked the city to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and ensure people’s safety at the protest,” Gastanaga said. “It failed to do so. In our system, the city makes the rules and the courts enforce them. Our role is to ensure that the system works the same for everyone.”

She said the city had failed to present sufficient evidence to the judge that moving the location of the rally would in fact result in no demonstration in downtown Charlottesville, instead of creating a situation in which the city would have to deal with two demonstrations in two separate locations.

“But let’s be clear: our lawsuit challenging the city to act constitutionally did not cause violence nor did it in any way address the question whether demonstrators could carry sticks or other weapons at the events,” Gastanaga said.

Over the years, the ACLU has taken somewhat of an absolutist stance on First Amendment rights, even defending speech that it hates. The organization was recently criticized by one of its own attorneys after the ACLU decided to defend Milo Yiannopoulos, a writer and speaker who is infamous for espousing hate against people of color, Muslims, immigrants, transgender people, and other marginalized individuals.

The events in Charlottesville and the ACLU’s defense of the constitutional rights of white supremacists, Nazis, and other hate-mongers raises an important question: what happens when the First Amendment–or any constitutional right for that matter–is used to protect hate and oppress other people?

In United States v. Schwimmer (1929), a pacifist applicant for naturalization was denied U.S. citizenship because she expressed that she “would not take up arms personally” in defense of the country. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes asserted that the Constitution protects thoughts that we may not agree with.

“Some of her answers might excite popular prejudice, but if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought–not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate,” Holmes wrote.

That idea has been applied in other cases over the years and has evolved to include hate speech as part of protected speech. The Supreme Court upheld that principle in June when it reaffirmed that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Matal v. Tam dealt with the right of Asian American musician Simon Tam and his band “The Slants” to trademark their band name. The band’s trademark application was originally denied because of the band’s inclusion of a racial slur used to refer to Asians in their name.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the government’s restriction of “speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'”

Of course, there are exceptions to that rule as well. The “fighting words” doctrine, which arose out of the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) decision, has been used to curtail speech used to incite violence. According to Chaplinsky, fighting words are “words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.”

So where does the legality of the language used in Charlottesville fall on the protected/unprotected speech spectrum? Well, it can be a bit tricky. During the Charlottesville riots, white supremacists and neo-Nazis chanted anti-Semitic phrases like “Blood and soil,” which is derived from language that was used in Nazi Germany. However, if those chants were not spoken directly to a specific person, precedent may deem them to be hate speech but not fighting words. In other instances, rioters targeted specific individuals with racial and homophobic language. In those cases where particular individuals were singled out, a court might find that the aggressor was using fighting words.

Under current legal precedents, restrictions on free speech are not the clearest. What is clear is that hate groups are able to use discriminatory language that instills fear in marginalized communities without necessarily experiencing repercussions for that speech.

But it is also important, and perhaps more effective, to call out hate speech within our own communities. Eliminating hate speech is an important step in combating racism and other forms of hate, but people must also be willing to confront the beliefs and behavior that language is rooted in. Organizations like the subscription-based service Safety Pin Box provide substantive ways that allies can actively show their support for marginalized people, beyond mere social media posts “in solidarity.” People can also donate to anti-racism organizations and call their local, state, and national representatives in regard to specific issues. The events in Charlottesville are an overt demonstration of white supremacy, but they are only symptomatic of more systematic white supremacist structures. In order to combat white supremacy and other forms of hate, people must first address oppressive language and behavior in their own lives among family, friends, co-workers, and other community members.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happens When the First Amendment Is Used to Protect Hate? appeared first on Law Street.

The parents of an intersex child reached a $440,000 settlement in their four-year lawsuit against the hospital that performed genital surgery on their son prior to his adoption, according to court records released Wednesday. The lawsuit is likely the first of its kind for intersex people.

Pam and Mark Crawford’s son, identified in the lawsuit as “M.C.” because he is a minor, was born intersex with both male and female genitalia. The South Carolina Department of Social Services took M.C. into custody after his biological father abandoned the family and the state determined his biological mother to be an unfit parent. The Greenville Hospital System referred M.C. to surgeons at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) who performed genital surgery on him in 2005 and 2006 to remove his male genitalia and further construct female genitalia.

The Crawfords first saw M.C. on an adoption website on which he was listed as a girl. They later learned that M.C. had been born intersex and had been assigned female through genital surgery. The Crawfords adopted M.C. when he was 20 months old. As he grew up, M.C. rejected “girlier” clothing, opted for a more “boyish” appearance, and eventually expressed that he wanted to be a boy, according to Buzzfeed.

M.C.’s family and community accepted him as he transitioned, but his parents told Buzzfeed that the social workers and the hospital’s decision to perform genital surgery on their intersex child should have never been allowed in the first place. In 2013, the Crawfords sued the South Carolina social services department, MUSC, and the hospital system, claiming the hospital had committed medical malpractice.

The Crawfords claimed that “M.C. has incurred medical bills, pain and suffering, damages, and permanent impairment” as a result of the surgery, according to court records. The hospital system settled for $20,000 last year, according to Buzzfeed. MUSC, which settled for $440,000, will pay $270,000 to a structured settlement company to purchase an annuity policy that will pay $440,000 to M.C. over the next 16 years.

While gender is increasingly being accepted as a spectrum, many people still maintain that sex is a binary system. However, intersex activists hope to demonstrate that sex, too, is more than either “male or female,” and that intersex children can be perfectly healthy without needing sex “normalization” cosmetic surgeries that they have not consented to. Additionally, intersex people’s characteristics are not limited to external sexual organs that fall somewhere in the middle of the sexual spectrum, but may also have internal sexual organs and secondary sexual characteristics that appear later in life.

An intersex kid’s non-consensual surgery malpractice case settled for $440,000. Time for real regulation: https://t.co/D7yl2IkEhK #DoNoHarm pic.twitter.com/j9EfNQ1f1b

— Kyle Knight (@knightktm) August 2, 2017

Intersex surgeries. Catastrophic results. Unproven benefits. Lifetime consequences. Don’t cut before a child can decide. #DoNoHarm

— Hayley Gorenberg (@184Justice) July 25, 2017

3 US surgeons general say childhood genital surgery “can cause severe and irreversible physical harm and emotional distress.” #DoNoHarm

— Hayley Gorenberg (@184Justice) July 25, 2017

Human Rights Watch, in collaboration with interACT, spoke with intersex people, their parents, surgeons, and other professionals for a report released last week. The report condemned the practice of non-consensual cosmetic genital surgeries on intersex children. In a June report, three former surgeons general said that such surgeries “can cause severe and irreversible physical harm and emotional distress.”

“Cosmetic genitoplasty should be deferred until children are old enough to voice their own view about whether to undergo the surgery,” the surgeons’ general report said. “Those whose oath or conscience says ‘do no harm’ should heed the simple fact that, to date, research does not support the practice of cosmetic infant genitoplasty.”

As acceptance expands, hopefully the stigmatization of intersex people and efforts to force them into a binary system will fade as well.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Parents of Intersex Child Win $440,000 Lawsuit Over Surgery appeared first on Law Street.

Michelle Carter, the Massachusetts woman who urged her boyfriend to commit suicide through text messages, was sentenced to two and half years in prison on Thursday. However, the now 20-year-old Carter won’t serve any time until her appeals are finished. If Carter still has to serve prison time after those appeals, she will only serve 15 months in prison at first, with the balance of that sentence suspended until August 1, 2022.

In June, Bristol County Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz found Carter guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend, 18-year-old Conrad Roy III. Carter, who was 17 at the time, repeatedly texted her boyfriend as he contemplated suicide. Initially, she urged Roy to seek medical help for his suicidal thoughts and discouraged him from harming himself. However, a couple weeks later, Carter began urging Roy to kill himself and actually discussed how to use carbon monoxide.

On the day of his suicide, when Roy expressed that he was scared to go through with it, Carter “told him to get back in” the truck. Roy was found dead from carbon monoxide poisoning in July 2014 after he filled his truck with the toxic gas. When delivering his verdict back in June, Moniz said that “instructing Mr. Roy to get back in the truck constituted wanton and reckless conduct,” ABC News reported.

According to Buzzfeed, Moniz ordered Carter to abstain from any contact with Roy’s family and her friends who testified against her. He also ordered Carter not to try to profit off of the case, such as through movie or book deals, as part of her sentence.

Roy’s family members read statements in court before Moniz delivered his sentence.

“She exploited my son’s weaknesses and used him as a pawn in her own well-being,” Roy’s father said, according to Buzzfeed.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michelle Carter Sentenced to 2.5 Years in Prison in Texting Suicide Case appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Homeland Security waived more than three dozen environmental laws and regulations Wednesday to speed up the first phase of construction of border wall projects near San Diego.

#NoWallsNoWaivers
#Resist#ResistTrump#RevitalizeNotMilitarize#OurLands pic.twitter.com/80JZkd5Maa

— cyndi tuell (@cctuell) August 1, 2017

The projects will be constructed along an approximately 15-mile segment of land that starts at the Pacific Ocean and extends eastward toward a point called Border Monument 251, according to a statement from the DHS. The waiver follows one of President Donald Trump’s January executive orders, which called for greater security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The DHS invoked a 1996 law to waive several environmental protections, including a law that would have required the department to assess the environmental impact the wall would have. In spite of the waivers, the department maintained in a statement that they are “committed to environmental stewardship with respect to these projects.”

The statement read:

DHS has been coordinating and consulting–and intends to continue doing so–with other federal and state resource agencies to ensure impacts to the environment, wildlife, and cultural and historic artifacts are analyzed and minimized, to the extent possible.

However, environmental advocates and border wall opponents weren’t convinced. The Center for Biological Diversity, which sued the DHS in June to obtain documents on Trump’s border wall prototypes, published a statement condemning the waiver and the wall. Brian Segee, and attorney for the center, criticized Trump’s planned wall for being harmful to the environment and the people who live near the border.

“Trump wants to scare people into letting him ignore the law and endanger wildlife and people,” Segee said in the statement. “Trump’s wall is a divisive symbol of fear and hatred, and it does real harm to the landscape and communities.”

In another critique of the decision, American Oversight Executive Director Austin Evers cautioned against impulsively expediting the border wall.

“Today’s announcement by DHS is a disturbing sign that President Trump will barrel ahead with building a border wall no matter the cost to taxpayers or effect on our environment,” he said. “Given the widespread skepticism towards the effectiveness of the border wall by leaders in both parties–including the new White House Chief of Staff–effective safeguards are more important than ever to prevent President Trump from spending tens of billions of dollars and radically transforming our Southwestern border based solely upon his whims and impulses.”

Environmentalists fear that Trump’s border wall would negatively impact the surrounding environment through actions such as impeding animal migration and increasing floods in the desert. Segee pointed out that the construction wouldn’t be limited to just the wall, but would include roads, lighting, and other infrastructure that would accompany it.

In a May study, the Center for Biological Diversity found that the wall and related infrastructure would potentially affect 93 threatened, endangered, and candidate species. But the full impact of such large-scale construction projects cannot be known unless an environmental impact assessment is performed, a procedural step that DHS does not appear to see as a necessity.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DHS Waives Environmental Rules To Build San Diego Border Wall appeared first on Law Street.

Catalonia, an autonomous region in Spain, will hold an independence referendum on October 1.

Tensions between Spain and its Catalan region can be traced back to the 18th century when Spain conquered the Catalan capital of Barcelona. With the adoption of a new constitution in 1978, Spain granted some autonomy to the country’s 17 communities, including Catalonia.

Pro-independence parties have built political momentum in recent years by gaining a majority of seats in the Catalan parliament in 2015. In a nonbinding 2014 referendum, Catalan officials reported that 80 percent of voters were in favor of independence, however, turnout only reached 40 percent.

Beyond its historical and cultural differences with the rest of the country, Catalonia’s case for independence relies largely on the economic disparity between it and the other Spanish communities. Proponents of independence see this referendum as a way to separate wealthy Catalonia from the remaining, poorer segment of Spain.

Catalan lawmakers voted 72-63 on July 26 to allow the region to declare independence within 48 hours if the upcoming referendum passes, according to the Associated Press. However, the referendum on October 1 will not be met without opposition. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy spoke out against the independence efforts during a press conference on July 28.

“There will be no referendum on October 1 because that is what the Constitutional Court has determined. […] The Spanish government is going to defend the law,” Rajoy said. Previous rulings from Spain’s Constitutional Court have said that attempts to secede would be unconstitutional.

Rajoy also tweeted: “After hearing the opinion of the Council of State, we filed an appeal to ensure compliance with the law and to protect civil servants.”

Some citizens are afraid to vote in the upcoming referendum because it could violate Spanish law and the directive of the country’s leaders. Polling stations must decide whether to even open and allow people to cast their votes. Across Spain, uncertainty remains in the months leading up to the referendum.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Catalonia Approaches Independence Vote Amidst Tensions With Spain appeared first on Law Street.

Survivors of sexual assault could receive around-the-clock access to a specialized medical examiner if a bill proposed by a Texas congressman passes.

Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced a bill on July 26 that would require hospitals to provide access to sexual assault forensic examiners (SAFEs) or sexual assault nurse examiners (SANEs) for survivors of sexual violence. SAFEs and SANEs are specially trained examiners who are certified to provide forensic examination to survivors of sexual assault. According to a statement from Poe, hospitals would be required to have a SAFE on staff 24/7 or a plan to transport survivors to an area hospital that can provide forensic services. Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) co-sponsored the bill with Poe.

The bill, titled the Megan Rondini Act, is named after a University of Alabama student who committed suicide after her alleged rape. Rondini’s case was recently investigated by Buzzfeed News.

According to that investigation, Rondini alleged that T.J. Bunn, the son of a wealthy businessman, raped her after she blacked out at a bar with friends. Buzzfeed News reported that Rondini went to the authorities, but that the police focused on the fact that Rondini didn’t physically resist Bunn, despite telling him that she didn’t want to have sex with him. Rondini sought charges against Bunn, but later dropped them after learning that she could face felony charges for taking his gun while he was passed out–which she dropped outside after accidentally firing it. Unable to receive assistance from law enforcement or her university, Rondini withdrew from school and returned to her family’s home in Texas. However, Rondini’s depression and anxiety worsened, and on February 26, 2016, she committed suicide.

Poe introduced his bill to improve treatment for survivors of rape and sexual assault.

“Rape is a crime that destroys the very soul of a victim,” Poe said in his statement. “Often times, it is a fate worse than death. A victim must relive their attack over and over again…. The failures that drove Megan to commit suicide must not be allowed to continue in our society. Victims must be given a voice and the ability to have evidence collected and tested to bring them justice. This legislation helps give them both.”

The bill awaits further consideration until after the House of Representatives’ summer recess, from July 29 to September 5.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bipartisan House Bill Aims to Give Survivors of Sexual Assault Better Care appeared first on Law Street.

Fifteen undocumented youth were arrested in Austin, Texas on Wednesday during a protest against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s threat to sue the federal government over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, according to a statement from the protest organizers.

The protest, organized by national immigrant rights advocacy group Cosecha, brought together about 40 protesters for the first DACA-led civil disobedience action under the Trump Administration. Four DACA recipients and eleven allies were arrested after they blocked traffic by sitting in an intersection in front of the State Capitol, according to Cosecha.

“I am getting arrested today to tell my parents, my community, and the rest of the 11 million [undocumented immigrants] that no matter what politicians say, you are worthy and we will not settle for the crumbs they offer us in exchange for being the economic and labor force that sustains this country day in and day out,” said Catalina Santiago, a DACA recipient who was arrested during the protest.

Another shot of the sit-in blocking traffic. People opposing Paxton’s move to end DACA pic.twitter.com/V3KfkKMxMS

— James Barragán (@James_Barragan) July 26, 2017

 

Here’s video of DACA protesters being loaded onto police vehicle pic.twitter.com/MZQ0vf2xqy

— James Barragán (@James_Barragan) July 26, 2017

DACA is an Obama-era program which allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. if they had entered the U.S. before they turned 16, in addition to certain other provisions. Paxton, alongside nine other Republican attorneys general, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in June. In the letter, the attorneys general threatened to sue the federal government if Trump does not rescind the DACA program by September.

During the protest, “DACAmented” youth–a combination of “DACA” and “documented”–and allies marched through the streets of Austin chanting and singing phrases like, “One struggle, one fight, immigrants of the world unite,” and “The power is in our hands. This is our state. Injustice is not welcome here.”

Upon arriving at the capitol building, protesters laid posters in the middle of the intersection which read “Permanent protection. Dignity and Respect,” but a state trooper removed the signs immediately. The protesters sat in the intersection as drivers blared their car horns, and law enforcement officials began arresting those protesters about 10 minutes later.

BREAKING: Support the #DACAmented youth who were arrested at a sit-in in Austin, TX this morning: https://t.co/bW7Oo3eKv3pic.twitter.com/sp8YP22Rbi

— Movimiento Cosecha (@CosechaMovement) July 26, 2017

“Best case scenario is that they don’t arrest us,” one protester in the intersection said in an interview with KVUE. “The worst case scenario is that we get deported and I’m willing to do that for all 11 million undocumented immigrants. Not just DREAMers, not just DACA recipients, all 11 million undocumented immigrants that deserve dignity, respect, and permanent protection.”

After the protesters in the intersection were arrested, the remaining protesters continued their demonstration on the lawn next to the capitol building with chants of “Undocumented, unafraid.” Cosecha live streamed the protest on their Facebook page.

Paxton’s opposition to DACA is the latest in a series of state and national actions aimed at ramping up restrictions against undocumented immigrants. Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB4 into law on May 7, punishing local governments, officials, and police who do not comply with federal immigration laws. Opponents say the SB4 law, which essentially bans sanctuary cities, threatens the safety of undocumented immigrants and communities as a whole by placing distrust in law enforcement and government officials.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 25 which enlisted local law enforcement officers to act as immigration officials to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. In the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, undocumented immigrant arrests increased by 38 percent compared to the same period in 2016, according to data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Wednesday’s protest is only the most recent demonstration in support of immigrant rights. A group of 15 girls donning quinceañera gowns took to the steps of the Texas capitol building on July 19, where they danced to “Immigrants (We Get The Job Done)” and spoke out against SB4.

“We will resist through celebrating our families and our culture.”

Latinas are protesting an anti-sanctuary city law, quinceañera-style. pic.twitter.com/PQgfMNF1et

— Splinter (@splinter_news) July 20, 2017

 

#SB4Basta Quinceañera protest. They begin by dancing to traditional music, finish w/@Lin_Manuel‘s Immigrants We Get the Job Done! pic.twitter.com/JJLdY2YY2t

— Alyssa Harad (@alyssaharad) July 19, 2017

The Trump Administration has taken a tough stance against immigration over the past six months. While delivering a speech to the National District Attorneys Association on July 17, Sessions said that “our goal is not to reduce illegal immigration but to end illegal immigration.” But as undocumented immigrants and allies push back against policies that would negatively affect their communities, the fight for immigrant rights wages on.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 15 Protesters Arrested at Texas Capitol in Demonstration Defending DACA appeared first on Law Street.

From a Pennsylvania prison’s mistreatment of mentally ill prisoners to prisons in Tennessee offering inmates 30 days off their sentences in exchange for undergoing birth control procedures, the United States prison system has a demonstrated history of subjecting inmates to substandard conditions. With a criminal justice system that has touted the “tough on crime” mantra, U.S. prisons have largely failed to rehabilitate inmates and prepare them for re-entry into society.

The U.S. has one of the highest recidivism rates in the world with 76.6 percent of prisoners rearrested within five years of their release. At 20 percent, Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. In an effort to curb some of the issues within their state’s criminal justice system, prison officials in North Dakota took a page out of Norway’s book to make prisons more humane. Leann Bertsch, director of North Dakota’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and one of her deputies, Karianne Jackson, ventured to Norway’s Halden and Bastøy prisons in 2015 to study how the inmates are treated.

Halden Prison is a maximum-security facility about 60 miles south of Oslo, Norway’s capital. Yet Halden stands in stark contrast to the high-security prisons found in the U.S. Halden, which Time named “The World’s Most Humane Prison,” houses its prisoners in private rooms that look more like college dorm rooms than the stereotypical prison cell or common sleeping area. The prison is outfitted with colorful interior decor, athletic facilities, a recording studio, and outdoor trails and seating areas, according to Time.

The Halden and Bastøy prisons were both featured in Michael Moore’s 2015 documentary film “Where to Invade Next.” At Bastøy, prisoners dress in regular clothes, stay in private rooms with their own key, and even work in a kitchen which–as Moore points out–is equipped with sharp knives. Yet it’s this culture of compassion, trust, and humanity that keeps Bastøy running. And if you weren’t yet convinced that Halden is about as close to paradise as prisons get, its orientation video features the prison guards singing a rendition of “We Are The World.”

After returning from Norway, Bertsch and Jackson took the lessons they learned at Halden and Bastøy and began implementing them at North Dakota’s Missouri River Correctional Center, nicknamed “The Farm.” At The Farm, prisoners are now housed in communal rooms with eight to 16 men, according to Mother Jones. They’re not the “interior design magazine” level of stylish that Bertsch and Jackson visited in the Norway prisons, but they’re certainly an improvement on traditional prison sleeping quarters. Plus, if an inmate is close to his release date and has proven good behavior, he can obtain a private room which shares a bathroom with only one other room.

Before Bertsch and Jackson’s trip, the state penitentiary’s administrative segregation unit was rampant with rules that placed prisoners in solitary confinement instead of addressing their behavior in a constructive manner. Now, only inmates who endanger somebody will end up in solitary, and the maximum time they can be held there has been shortened. Prisoners who have been isolated for long periods of time undergo behavioral therapy before they re-join the general prison population, giving them time to acclimate, according to Mother Jones. Another change was an effort to foster stronger relationships among guards and prisoners. Guards in the segregation unit are required to have at least two conversations with each inmate under their supervision per shift. Prisoners gather in sweat lodges and play handball outside on the court to build their relationships with one another, and seek on-site and off-site jobs to further their employment prospects once they are released.

If North Dakota, as a red state, can start taking steps to reform its prison system in a way that is actually beneficial to its inmates, then surely the rest of the country can too, right? Well, it might not be so easy. Shortly after being confirmed as Attorney General, Jeff Sessions doubled down on the use of private prisons despite several officials’ statements that private prisons put profits before the lives of inmates.

Likewise, the U.S. prison system has become increasingly overcrowded which is, in part, the result of convictions for nonviolent drug offenders instead of providing those individuals with treatment. That “tough on drugs” stance is likely to continue under Sessions. Sessions praised the anti-drug campaign Drug Abuse Resistance Education, more often referred to as DARE, at a DARE training conference in Texas on July 11, despite an abundance of research that has shown the program has been ineffective and may have even had a negative impact on substance abuse.

Providing substance abuse treatment instead of prison sentences to drug offenders would be in line with similar programs in Norway and could be a step toward reducing prison overcrowding, but it’s certainly not a magic bullet. The U.S. prison system also needs to focus on ways of rehabilitating violent offenders, reducing exorbitant sentences, and address the racial biases within the criminal justice system that disproportionately and negatively impact people of color.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Dakota Looks to Norway for Inspiration to Make Prisons More Humane appeared first on Law Street.

Commercial space mining of asteroids and other celestial bodies will soon be legal, following Luxembourg’s passage of a law establishing property rights for space resources on July 13. The Chamber of Deputies, Luxembourg’s unicameral parliament, passed the bill almost unanimously with a vote of 55-2 in favor of the law, making Luxembourg the first European nation with a legal framework for space resource utilization.

“Luxembourg is the first adopter in Europe of a legal and regulatory framework recognizing that space resources are capable of being owned by private companies,” Deputy Prime Minister and Economy Minister Étienne Schneider said in a press release. “The Grand Duchy thus reinforces its position as a European hub for the exploration and use of space resources. The legal framework is part of the expertise ecosystem and the business-friendly, innovation-nurturing environment that Luxembourg is offering to space industry companies.”

The law, which will be implemented on August 1, is part of the country’s SpaceResources.lu initiative to “promote international cooperation in order to progress on a future governance scheme and a global regulatory framework of space resources utilization,” according to the press release.

Of course, space mining won’t occur without certain restrictions. Per an English translation of the space resources law provided by the Luxembourg government, companies may only explore and use space resources if they obtain written mission authorization from the minister(s) of the economy and space activities. Luxembourg’s law mirrors the U.S.’s Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015, which served to “promote the right of United States citizens to engage in commercial exploration for and commercial recovery of space resources,” including water and minerals.

Both the Luxembourg and U.S. laws make sure to respect the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which prohibits states from claiming sovereignty over outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies “by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” By mining celestial bodies, companies cannot lay claim to that body–only the resources the company extracts from it. “Our law does not suggest to either establish or imply in any way sovereignty over a territory or over a celestial body,” Schneider said in November 2016. “Only the appropriation of space resources is addressed in the legal framework.”

With the Asteroid Belt over 100 million miles from Earth, space mining operations may be more than a few years out. But despite the U.S. and Luxembourg’s legislation, there is still a lack of regulations on space mining and extraterrestrial activities in general. In April, Goldman Sachs estimated that a space craft could extract between $25-50 billion worth of platinum from an asteroid. NASA announced in January that it will be launching a mission to an asteroid called 16 Psyche. That asteroid has been estimated to hold $10,000 quadrillion worth of iron, a sum which would collapse the world economy.

As space industries blast off, Earthly governments will have to decide how to deal with the inevitable influx of valuable resources into the economy, as well as the legal issues that will arise from doing business in space.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Luxembourg Law Establishes Space Mining Property Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Disney is being sued over the ownership rights to a visual effects technology it used in this year’s “Beauty and the Beast,” 2015’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” and 2014’s “Guardians of the Galaxy.”

Rearden, a company founded by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Perlman, filed a lawsuit against Disney Monday in a U.S. district court in San Francisco, alleging copyright, patent, and trademark infringement stemming from the use of a facial-capture technology called MOVA Contour.

MOVA, which was used in “Beauty and the Beast” to convert actor Dan Stevens’ facial movements into those of the Beast character, was developed by Perlman and his associates in the late 1990s. To use MOVA, actors’ faces are airbrushed with glow-in-the-dark paint that is only visible under a black light. A light strobes rapidly–unseen to the human eye–allowing a camera to capture those movements for animators to then use as the foundation for the animated character.

According to the lawsuit, “Disney used the stolen MOVA Contour systems and methods, made derivative works, and reproduced, distributed, performed, and displayed at least ‘Guardians of the Galaxy,’ ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron,’ and ‘Beauty and the Beast,’ in knowing or willfully blind violation of Rearden Mova LLC’s intellectual property rights.”

The lawsuit arose from another ongoing dispute between Rearden and Chinese-based company Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology (SHST). According to court documents from a lawsuit between SHST and Rearden, Greg LaSalle, a former associate of Perlman, helped develop MOVA while employed by Perlman’s companies, Rearden and OnLive.

OnLive went out of business in 2012 and the MOVA Assets were transferred to a company called OL2. When LaSalle transferred from OnLive to Rearden he signed an employee contract containing a Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement (PIIA), in which he agreed to assign all proprietary information that he acquired during his employment to Rearden.

Following Rearden unsuccessful attempts to launch MOVA commercially, Perlman transferred the MOVA Assets to LaSalle. Perlman later claimed that LaSalle’s PIIA gave Rearden sole ownership rights to the MOVA Assets. Despite those claims, LaSalle sold the technology to SHST in May 2013, according to court documents from the SHST lawsuit.

However, Rearden claims that SHST should not have even been able to buy MOVA, because MOVA Assets–along with their ownership rights–were transferred to a Rearden subsidiary in April 2013. The complaint also notes that LaSalle was not a Rearden employee at the time of the sale, and therefore did not have the authority to sell the technology.

As part of the complaint, Rearden requested an injunction to prohibit Disney from “reproducing, distributing, performing, or displaying” the three movies that used MOVA.

The lawsuits that Rearden and Disney are entangled in are complicated to say the least. But these cases demonstrate the complex nature of intellectual property law, a field that has only become more complex in our increasingly globalized world.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Disney Sued Over “Beauty and the Beast” Visual Effects appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has failed to provide adequate treatment to prisoners with mental illnesses, according to a July 12 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General. Among the OIG’s criticisms are the BOP’s failure to properly track and limit the length of time prisoners spend in “restrictive housing,” and prisons’ inadequate documentation of inmates’ mental illness resulting in inappropriate mental health treatment or no treatment at all. The report highlighted issues with multiple facilities for their mistreatment of mentally ill inmates, but singled out the U.S. Penitentiary (USP) in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in particular.

The report said the BOP’s failure to document inmates’ mental health diagnoses leaves many cases of mental illness underreported. According to a DOJ survey that was conducted between February 2011-May 2012–which the recent DOJ report was based on–14 percent of state and federal prisoners and 26 percent of jail inmates reported experiencing serious psychological distress (SPD) in the past 30 days. Thirty-seven percent and 44 percent respectively had been told by a mental health professional they had a mental disorder. However, according to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, only 3 percent of BOP sentenced inmates were being treated regularly for mental illness as of 2015. “Without an accurate count of all inmates with mental illness, the BOP is unable to ensure that it is providing appropriate mental health care for its inmates,” Horowitz said in a video message.

According to the DOJ report, the BOP claimed that “the Bureau does not recognize the term solitary confinement. Therefore, the Bureau does not have a definition or a reference to provide.” The BOP also does not clearly define “restrictive housing” or “extended placement.” However, the OIG found that inmates, including those with mental illness, were confined to single-occupant cells, isolated from other inmates, and had little human contact at multiple facilities. At the U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Security Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, the OIG observed two inmates at the Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU) when they were each confined to single-occupant cells for over 22 hours per day.

Additionally, BOP does not limit how long an inmate can be held in restrictive housing–during individual periods or cumulatively over multiple periods of confinement. The OIG’s sample of inmates with mental illness showed that those inmates had been placed in the ADX for an average of about 69 months. One mentally ill inmate had spent 19 years in an ADX cell before they were transferred to a residential mental health treatment program. That time spent in isolation can be psychologically harmful to prisoners, increase the likelihood of recidivism, and make it more difficult for inmates to re-integrate into society after being released, according to the report.

In May 2014, the BOP adopted a new mental health policy to improve the treatment of inmates with mental illness, including those being held in RHUs. However, after that policy was implemented, the BOP exhibited a 30 percent reduction in the number of inmates receiving regular mental health treatment. Inmates are classified based on Mental Health Care Levels (MHCL) 1-4. MHCL 1, the lowest classification, represents “no significant level of functional impairment associated with a mental illness” and requires no regular mental health intervention. MHCL 4, the highest classification, represents that an “inmate may require inpatient psychiatric care and acute care in a psychiatric hospital.” The policy was meant to increase the number of inmates designated as MHCL 2-4 through proper diagnoses. Due to a lack of staffing and resources, the policy “raised the bar” for determining whether an inmate would receive mental health treatment. Without those upper tier diagnoses, many inmates went without the care they needed, according to the report.

One inmate who arrived at a Special Management Unit (SMU) was diagnosed with three mental disorders and was prescribed medications. The inmate’s psychologist removed him from his medications after claiming the patient was faking his mental illness. “Despite the litany of diagnoses and psychiatric medications [the inmate’s] contacts with psychology staff indicate a clear history of malingering and feigning symptoms to change conditions of his confinement,” the psychologist wrote in their notes. Two of the inmate’s three mental disorders were classified as “no longer current.” One year after arriving at the SMU, the inmate was transferred out for mental health reasons.

The American Correctional Association recommends that single-occupant, restrictive housing cells should be a minimum of 80 square feet with at least 35 square feet of unencumbered space. An unknown number of cells at USP Lewisburg did not meet that standard, according to the report. The BOP said that some cells were only 58.5 square feet. Additionally, the report said USP Lewisburg lacked air conditioning and instead relied on ceiling fans, according to the report. “This is especially troubling since psychotropic medications can hinder the body’s ability to sweat,” the report said. “These conditions can make inmates who take psychotropic medications more prone to heat stroke and heat-related illnesses.”

The DOJ acknowledged that the BOP has taken steps to improve these conditions for mentally ill inmates, such as diverting inmates with serious mental illness from traditional RHUs to residential mental health treatment programs and other alternative programs. However, the DOJ maintained that there are still numerous issues with the BOP system, such as high staffing needs and lack of measurement of programs’ effectiveness.

USP Lewisburg is currently involved in a lawsuit, filed on June 9, in which the prison has been accused of providing poor treatment to mentally ill inmates, such as cutting off medications and swapping crossword puzzles for counseling sessions, according to NPR. One of the plaintiffs in McCreary v. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is Jusamuel Rodriguez McCreary, a Lewisburg inmate who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, mood disorder, psycho-social, and environmental problems, ADHD, and antisocial personality disorder. McCreary attempted suicide on multiple occasions and is now being held in an ADX cell at Lewisburg. He has not left his cell since May 16 and has to yell through his cell door for his weekly, two-minute “therapy” sessions, according to the lawsuit. With the findings from the DOJ’s report, it’s unclear yet exactly how many more cases like McCreary’s there are. But for inmates with mental illness to receive proper health care, big changes must come to the U.S. prison system.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Report Criticizes Prisons’ Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates appeared first on Law Street.

Oceana is challenging the Trump Administration’s withdrawal of a proposed Obama-era rule that would have limited the number of protected marine animals that could be “incidentally captured” by drift gillnets. Oceana, a non-profit ocean conservation and advocacy organization, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on July 12 against the U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

In 2015, the Pacific Fishery Management Council introduced a proposal for hard caps, or limits, on the number of injuries or deaths of nine protected species allowed during a rolling two-year or four-year period.

The Obama Administration published a proposal of how to implement the caps in October 2016 that would temporarily close a thresher shark and swordfish drift gillnet fishery in California if that fishery reached the cap. According to NOAA, gillnets are walls of netting with holes that fish can fit their heads through, but not the rest of their bodies. When the animal tries to back out, their gills get caught on the net. The more the animal struggles to free itself, the more it becomes entangled in the netting.

In addition to the swordfish that are intentionally being fished off the coast of California, the nets also accidentally trap marine animals that are considered “protected species.” The regulation would have protected fin, humpback, and sperm whales; leatherback, loggerhead, olive ridley, and green sea turtles; short-fin pilot whales; and bottlenose dolphins. However, the Trump Administration withdrew the proposal in June after the NMFS decided that the proposed changes “are not warranted at this time.”

Oceana released a statement on July 13 regarding the lawsuit. It said the proposed rule would have been an opportunity for the fishery to reduce “bycatch,” or species being caught inadvertently, and adopt “cleaner fishing methods” such as deep-set buoy gear or harpoon gear. Oceana attorney Mariel Combs said in the statement that “the withdrawal of this important protection … is plainly illegal.”

“Drift gillnets are a dirty and unsustainable way to catch swordfish,” Combs said. “Incremental steps, like limits on bycatch, are important tools to help move toward cleaner fishing. The Fisheries Service has supported these measures in the past, and its change of course is both disappointing and illegal.”

This isn’t the first time the Trump Administration has reversed some of the Obama Administration’s environmental decisions. In June, six environmental conservation groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency for suspending Obama-era regulations that limited leaks of harmful toxins during oil and gas production.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oceana Sues Government for Withdrawing Proposed Rule to Protect Marine Life appeared first on Law Street.

Need to fill out legal forms but can’t afford a human lawyer? Well, there’s an app for that. DoNotPay, a chatbot that has been dubbed “The World’s First Robot Lawyer,” provides free legal aid to users on issues ranging from appealing parking tickets to landlord disputes. Don’t expect the robot lawyer to represent you in court any time soon, but it can arm you with some of the tools and knowledge to deal with your legal case.

The artificial intelligence asks the user a series of questions about their legal issue. Then, after learning about the user’s personal situation, the AI can help fill out necessary legal forms or provide links to other resources. Joshua Browder, the founder and CEO of DoNotPay, launched the bot in 2015 to help people appeal their parking tickets. According to The Telegraph, DoNotPay has helped beat an estimated 375,000 parking tickets worth around $10 million since its launch. But the bot hasn’t stopped there.

DoNotPay started out in London and was programmed with New York City laws soon after. Since the bot first went live two years ago, it has expanded its reach to the rest of the United Kingdom and United States and will be able to assist people with 1,000 areas of law. A Facebook Messenger portion of the app can even help refugees complete immigration applications for the U.S. and Canada, and apply for asylum support in the U.K.

Browder, who was named on multiple Forbes 30 Under 30 lists for Europe for 2017, hopes DoNotPay will provide better access to legal resources for lower income individuals. The 20-year-old Stanford student told VentureBeat that DoNotPay started as a tool to fight his own parking tickets, but ended up revealing to him “how lawyers are exploiting human misery.”

“From discrimination in Silicon Valley to the tragedy in London with an apartment building catching fire, it seems the only people benefitting from injustice are a handful of lawyers,” Browder said. “I hope that DoNotPay, by helping with these issues and many more, will ultimately give everyone the same legal power as the richest in society.”

With tools like DoNotPay, people may not have to pay a hefty price for a lawyer to help them fill out legal paperwork. But for more complex cases, a human touch might still be the better way to go.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Free Chatbot Lawyer Makes Legal Aid More Accessible appeared first on Law Street.

A federal district court judge in Texas upheld a state law allowing residents to carry concealed handguns on university campuses on July 7, after three University of Texas at Austin professors sought to ban guns from their classrooms.

The plaintiffs, Professors Jennifer Glass, Lisa Moore, and Mia Carter, argued that “classroom discussion will be narrowed, truncated, cut back, cut off” if guns are allowed in classrooms. The defendants, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, UT-Austin President Gregory Fenves, and the university’s Board of Regents, defended the law’s implementation at UT-Austin.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel said the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they had suffered an “injury in fact” and had not established that there was a “causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of” that could be traced to the defendants.

In other words, the plaintiffs failed to show beyond speculation that they would be harmed by the concealed carry of handguns, or that concealed carry could be connected to having a “chilling effect” on classroom discussions. Therefore, Yeakel ruled that the “plaintiffs present no concrete evidence to substantiate their fears” and that they did not have standing to sue the defendants.

“The court’s ruling today is the correct outcome,” Paxton said in a statement. “The fact that a small group of professors dislike a law and speculate about a ‘chilling effect’ is hardly a valid basis to set the law aside.”

Texas passed a law in 2015 allowing licensed concealed handgun owners who are at least 21 years old to carry a concealed handgun on campus. The law prohibits institutions from creating rules that restrict gun owners’ right to carry a concealed handgun on campus, except for rules pertaining to the storage of handguns in dorms and residence halls.

The controversial bill was met with opposition from gun control advocates, but gun rights supporters won out in the end when Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill into law in June 2015. Still, the fight against the “campus carry” law continued. UT-Austin students protested the law in August 2016 by organizing a “Cocks Not Glocks” demonstration during which they handed out more than 4,500 donated dildos, according to the Texas Tribune.

“We want these dildos on backpacks as long as there are concealed handguns in backpacks,” UT-Austin student Ana López, who helped organized the protest, told the Texas Tribune at the time.

Under UT policies, the concealed carry of handguns is permitted on campus and in university buildings, but is prohibited in all on-campus residence halls, with some exceptions: staff members and visiting family members may carry a concealed handgun, and concealed carry of handguns is permitted in common areas. Unless the plaintiffs appeal the ruling, concealed carry will remain at UT-Austin and other Texas universities.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Judge Rules Residents Can Carry Concealed Handguns on College Campuses appeared first on Law Street.

Protests began Tuesday evening in Hamburg, Germany, ahead of the G-20 summit where leaders from 19 countries and the EU will gather on Friday and Saturday to discuss global issues, including trade and climate change.

Thousands of G-20 protesters gathered in Hamburg to protest capitalism, environmental inaction, and the G-20 summit itself. The protesters believe the summit is undemocratic because a select group of world leaders is making decisions that will impact the entire world. German police fired water cannons to disperse a group of about 500 protesters on Tuesday, according to the UK news outlet The Daily Express.

On Wednesday, 1,000 performance artists clad in clay-covered clothes crept and crawled through the streets of Hamburg. The performance by artist collective “1000 Gestalten” (1,000 figures) was meant to represent individuals’ advancement of themselves rather than society as a whole, and to get people engaged in the political process, according to the group’s website.

The demonstrators, coated head-to-toe in gray clay, inched their way down the street with dull expressions on their faces. Eventually, they stripped off their gray clothing to reveal colorful clothes–and for some, naked bodies–underneath as a symbol for joyous liberation.

Germany: Actors smeared in clay protest #G20 summit https://t.co/UgnAmmrVmT pic.twitter.com/IbmCdu8PjL

— RT (@RT_com) July 6, 2017

Peaceful protests continued on Wednesday and Thursday, including a march resembling a block party with music and dancing.

In Germany, they protest the #G20 with dragons on top of cars, beer, and serious, serious techno. pic.twitter.com/egGxSKMqVy

— James H-H (@jamesonthewaves) July 5, 2017

Stores boarded up their windows in preparation for property destruction and looting.

Hamburg: stores closed/boarded up in anticipation of (anti-NATO/IMF) #G20 protesters,”Hamburg macht dicht” #G20HAMpic.twitter.com/jrWIdn3OJc

— Kristina Dei (@2kdei) July 6, 2017

One group of protesters dressed as the heads of state present at the summit to protest the leaders. Another group carried a sign reading “Welcome to Hell,” a phrase which became the moniker of Thursday’s march.

G20 Welcome to Hell – My pictures of yesterday are online. Escalated After Police attack https://t.co/pclzlbMUTn #g20 #nog20 #w2h #nog20en pic.twitter.com/FEiePPHhWA

— Fabian Schumann (@schumann_fabian) July 7, 2017

According to the Guardian, the “Welcome to Hell” march was supposed to travel from Hamburg’s harbor toward the convention center where the summit is being held, however police stopped the protesters from proceeding shortly after the march began.

Hamburg police deployed water cannons and tear gas against protesters Thursday evening around 7 p.m. Some protesters began tossing bottles and other objects back at police, according to The Daily Express.

Demonstrators clashed with police in Hamburg during an anti-G20 protest, with tear gas and water cannon being used #G20 pic.twitter.com/eYyTIWksqk

— Sky News (@SkyNews) July 6, 2017

Protests at the G-20 summit are nothing new. During the 2010 G-20 summit in Toronto, peaceful protests were interrupted by a group of anarchists who destroyed police cars, store windows, and other property. Police used batons, tear gas, pepper spray and plastic bullets against protesters, and detained more than 1,000 people.

While the G-20 has seen protests before, the events leading up to this year’s summit were especially tense given protesters’ opposition to President Donald Trump. Trump visited Poland’s President Andrzej Duda in Warsaw, Poland, on Thursday and gave a speech questioning “whether the West has the will to survive.”

Trump then flew to Germany later that day for the G-20 summit, arriving amidst the protests in Hamburg, where he met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The president declined to say what he and Merkel discussed behind closed doors. However, Merkel told the German parliament on June 29 that “we cannot expect easy talks in Hamburg” on climate issues.

On Friday, the first day of the summit, demonstrators resumed peaceful protests with sit-ins and marches.

RAW: Police cleared a sit-in protest ahead of the opening of #G20 summit (Video: Sebastian Kroeck) pic.twitter.com/96Ai6X1WE7

— dwnews (@dwnews) July 7, 2017

“You are 20, we are plenty,” reads a banner shown at a #G20 protest rally in #Hamburg. #G20HAM17pic.twitter.com/7yEKqGfRiE

— Arafatul Islam (@arafatul) July 7, 2017

With the start of the G-20 summit, Trump will continue to meet with fellow heads of state, including his first face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet for the first time at the G20 summit in Hamburg pic.twitter.com/LQmSKkWQks

— Sky News (@SkyNews) July 7, 2017

If one thing is clear, it’s that demonstrators from Germany and around the world are dissatisfied with the G-20 summit and the direction in which the world’s top leaders are moving.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters and Police Clashed Ahead of G-20 Summit in Germany appeared first on Law Street.

A pair of Senate immigration bills could imprison undocumented immigrants convicted of felony reentry and cause sanctuary cities and states to stop receiving certain federal grants.

Kate’s Law would increase penalties against immigrants who have been convicted of felony reentry–or reentering the country after being deported. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit cities and states that don’t cooperate with immigration authorities from receiving grants from the Justice Department and Homeland Security.

Both bills, which were sponsored by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), were passed by the House of Representatives along mostly party lines on June 29. They now move on to the Senate, where Republicans face a steeper challenge from Democrats in passing either bill. Senate Republicans would need to vote unanimously and persuade at least eight Democrats and Independents to vote in favor of the bills in order to clinch a filibuster-proof majority. A 2016 version of Kate’s Law and the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, a 2016 bill similar to the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, both previously failed to pass the Senate.

Kate’s Law is named after Kate Steinle, a 32-year-old woman who was shot and killed in San Francisco in 2015. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, was charged with Steinle’s murder. Before his arrest, Lopez-Sanchez had been convicted of seven felonies and had been deported five times. Lopez-Sanchez’s original December 2016 trial date was postponed. He is scheduled to appear in court on July 14, when another trial date could be set.

White House Support

The White House released a statement from President Donald Trump on June 29 regarding the two immigration bills.

“The implementation of these policies will make our communities safer,” Trump said in the statement. “Opposing these bills, and allowing dangerous criminals back into our communities, our schools, and the neighborhoods where our children play, puts all of us at risk.”

Trump also urged the Senate to pass the bills in a video address over the weekend, saying, “If the government had simply enforced our immigration laws, these Americans would still be alive today.”

Weekly Address #KatesLaw#NoSanctuaryForCriminalsAct
Statement: https://t.co/I8cqKGDK2B pic.twitter.com/00mao6Vk7R

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017

Growing Opposition

Immigrant rights advocates are opposed to the bills, and over 400 organizations have signed a letter urging the Senate to vote against both pieces of legislation.

Jose Magaña-Salgado, Managing Policy Attorney at the Immigration Legal Resource Center, said in a statement that the bills would not only tear apart families and undermine the rights of immigrants in the U.S., but they would also put an even heavier burden on the federal prison system.

“Legislation that erodes public safety, disrespects local democratic processes, and raises serious constitutional concerns represents an abdication of the Congress’ responsibility to enact fair, humane, and just immigration policy,” Magaña-Salgado said.

Instead, he proposes that Congress enact legislation that provides ” a roadmap to citizenship for the nation’s eleven million aspiring Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation programs that undermine fundamental human rights.”

GOP lawmakers believe both bills will crack down on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, but the bills’ impact on immigrant communities is not quite so cut-and-dry. Under Kate’s Law, undocumented immigrants previously convicted of a crime who attempt to re-enter the United States after being deported could face fines and between 10 to 25 years in prison depending on the severity of their original conviction.

However, the bill also includes sentencing guidelines for undocumented immigrants who have not been previously convicted of a crime. Undocumented immigrants who reenter the U.S. after being removed could face up to two years in prison; those who reenter after being repeatedly removed three or more times could face up to 10 years in prison. Additionally, the bill limits “collateral attack on underlying removal order.” In other words, undocumented immigrants would not be allowed to challenge the validity of any prior order under which they were removed from the country.

Trump’s Immigration Agenda

During his first week in office, Trump issued an executive order on border security and immigration enforcement, signaling a stricter stance than his predecessor on illegal immigration. In the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 41,318 immigrants, a 37.6 percent increase from the same period last year, according to a statement from ICE.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is part of a months-long endeavor by the Trump administration to restrict federal funding to sanctuary cities and states. Trump issued an executive order to withhold federal grants from jurisdictions that refused to comply with federal immigration enforcement authorities, but that order has been tied up in a legal challenge over its constitutionality since April.

The ACLU issued a warning that both immigration bills were intended to “empower Trump’s depotation force and anti-immigrant agenda,” and urged the Senate in a statement to “reject these bills, to defend the Constitution, and protect the rights of all people, no matter their background.”

“These bills are riddled with constitutional violations that completely disregard the civil and human rights of immigrants,” Lorella Praeli, the group’s director of immigration policy and campaigns, said in the statement.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump-Backed Immigration Bills Face Uphill Battle in the Senate appeared first on Law Street.

A Miami judge ruled on Monday that new revisions to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law are unconstitutional. Florida Governor Rick Scott signed the amended “Stand Your Ground” law on June 9,  requiring prosecutors to prove a defendant wasn’t acting in self-defense at pretrial hearings.

Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Milton Hirsch held that the legislative changes altered the burden of proof in “Stand Your Ground” cases, raising the threshold “from mere preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence.” Per Florida’s Constitution, such changes could only be made by the Florida Supreme Court, not the state legislature, and were therefore unconstitutional, Hirsch said. In outlining the necessity for a separation of powers among the three branches of government, Hirsch even referenced a paper about the Ministry of Magic’s judicial overreach in “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.”

Hirsch’s ruling comes as the result of two “Stand Your Ground” cases in his court. Liletha Rutherford was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm and grand theft for pulling a gun on a couple during an argument. Omar Rodriguez was charged with first-degree murder for shooting and killing Jose Rey over an argument about Rey’s dog. Rodriguez claimed Rey charged at him with a knife. Police recovered a knife at the crime scene, but discovered Rodriguez’s DNA on the knife, not Rey’s.

Florida lawmakers reacted to the ruling on social media. State Senator Rob Bradley, who sponsored one of the amendments to the “Stand Your Ground” law, said in a tweet that the court’s ruling “attacks the Legislature’s role in defining and protecting our individual rights.”

Today’s Miami trial court ruling attacks the Legislature’s role in defining and protecting our individual rights. /1

— Rob Bradley (@Rob_Bradley) July 3, 2017

Following Hirsch’s ruling, Rutherford and Rodriguez will now each have to prove they acted in self-defense. Currently, the ruling only applies to those two cases. However, appeals are likely to make their way to appellate courts and the Florida Supreme Court.

The effectiveness of “Stand Your Ground” laws hasn’t exactly been clear. In March, Florida State Senator Dennis Baxley claimed that since Florida’s 2005 “Stand Your Ground” law, “we’ve seen violent crime continuously go down.”

PolitiFact pointed out some flaws in that statement. While violent crime in Florida has dropped a cumulative 34.9 percent from 2005 to 2015, that decrease is not “continuous” as Baxley contends. Data show occasional increases in Florida’s violent crime rate during that 10-year period, however not enough to really counteract that overall decline in violent crime.

That said, PolitiFact also highlighted the fact that national violent crime rates have also been decreasing since the 1990s. It has yet to be proven whether Florida’s decrease in violent crime has been due to its “Stand Your Ground” laws, considering several states with similar drops do not have “Stand Your Ground” laws.

Critics of “Stand Your Ground” say the laws disproportionately benefit defendants who kill black victims compared to those who kill white victims, and often allow defendants to avoid murder charges.

The Tampa Bay Times identified nearly 200 “Stand You Ground” cases. Of those cases, 70 percent of defendants who invoked a “Stand Your Ground” defense were acquitted. Seventy-three percent of defendants who killed a black person faced no penalty, while 59 percent of defendants who killed a white person faced no penalty.

One of the most high-profile “Stand Your Ground” cases involved George Zimmerman, the “neighborhood watchman” who shot and killed 17-year-old black Florida teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012. Zimmerman did not invoke the “Stand Your Ground” law in his trial, but the judge issued instructions to the jury along the same lines as the law’s language, saying Zimmerman “had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.” Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges in Martin’s death.

“Stand Your Ground” may stay in place in Florida for now, but Hirsch’s ruling could limit the extent to which the law is allowed to reach. The question has the potential to make it to higher courts and get decided once and for all.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Miami Judge Rules “Stand Your Ground” Law Revisions Are Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

Maryland is officially the first state with a law in place to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. The Maryland General Assembly passed a law in April ensuring the organization’s continuity; the law went into effect on July 1.

SB 1081 establishes the Family Planning Program in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and provides that Maryland will pay for Planned Parenthood’s health care services in the state if Congress cuts off funding for the organization. The bill, which was backed by a veto-proof majority in Maryland’s House of Delegates and Senate, became law without Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s signature.

Karen J. Nelson, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, applauded the law’s passage in April but also highlighted the continuing fight for health care nationwide.

“As Marylanders, we must remember that a state solution does not change the fact that politicians in Congress are trying to prohibit millions of people from accessing care at Planned Parenthood,” Nelson said. “It’s incumbent on all of us to keep up the fight for women. No state should have to step in to fulfill the federal government’s responsibility to ensure everyone has access to care.”

In addition to defunding Planned Parenthood for one year, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate health care bills include sweeping cuts to Medicaid spending. Supporters of Planned Parenthood joined other protesters on June 27 to specifically protest the Senate’s health care bill, including a group of activists dressed as women from “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

There are nine Planned Parenthood locations in Maryland, and their funding will be protected by the legislation. However, the future for Planned Parenthood is less promising in other states. Take Iowa for example–four of its Planned Parenthood clinics have recently closed. Iowa has approved a state budget that cut off the organization’s funding. Some Iowans fear that more closures could be on the horizon if the Senate’s health bill passes.

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards condemned Iowa’s defunding of Planned Parenthood on social media.

Today, a devastating “defunding” law in Iowa is forcing 1/3 of our health centers in the state to close.

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) June 30, 2017

Here’s what that means: nearly 15,000 people will lose access to the doctors and nurses they trust. https://t.co/DMQ6NAUzwf pic.twitter.com/dwCDSuZ9Cd

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) June 30, 2017

If other states follow in Iowa’s footsteps instead of Maryland’s, health care services could be in jeopardy for those states’ citizens who rely on Planned Parenthood.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maryland Becomes First State to Pass Law Protecting Planned Parenthood Funding appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released a draft recovery plan for endangered Mexican gray wolves on Thursday. An Arizona district court ordered the FWS to complete the plan by the end of November.

The last time the FWS revised the recovery plan for the Mexican wolves was 1982. The new recovery plan focuses on increasing wolf populations in Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico.

“At the time of recovery, the Service expects Mexican wolf populations to be stable or increasing in abundance, well-distributed geographically within their historical range, and genetically diverse,” a FWS statement said.

The recovery plan provides for the establishment and maintenance of “a minimum of two resilient, genetically diverse Mexican wolf populations.” According to the plan, the Mexican gray wolf will be considered for downlisting from endangered to threatened status when there are at least 320 wolves in the U.S. and 170 wolves in Mexico.

Michael Robinson, a conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that threshold is “far fewer wolves than the number scientists have said is necessary for a viable population.” Robinson also criticized the plan for not including regions that scientists have said would be “essential to their long-term survival,” including the Grand Canyon.

Before becoming endangered, the Mexican gray wolf, or “el lobo,” roamed northern Mexico and throughout Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The Mexican gray wolf was listed as an endangered subspecies under the Endangered Species Act in 1976, and was absorbed into the endangered species listing of the gray wolf in 1978. Efforts to reintroduce wolves to the wild began in the late 1990s.

According to the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field, there are currently only about 100 Mexican gray wolves in New Mexico and Arizona. Environmentalists and wildlife advocates have supported efforts to release more captive wolves into the wild. However, they met opposition with ranchers and rural leaders who worried that the wolves would attack livestock and wild game.

In June 2016, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish brought a case against the U.S. Department of the Interior, the FWS, and certain government officials for releasing two Mexican gray wolf pups in New Mexico without a state permit. New Mexico, along with 18 other states, argued that the Endangered Species Act required the federal government to work with them to determine how species would be reintroduced inside of their borders. The district court enjoined the defendants from releasing any Mexican gray wolves into New Mexico without a state permit.

In April 2017, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish had failed to present sufficient evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm due to the release of the wolves. The appellate court reversed and vacated the district court’s injunction and remanded the case to the district court.

Following the FWS’s release of the recovery plan draft this week, Bryan Bird, Southwest program director for Defenders of Wildlife, called the plan a “backroom deal” that restricts the wolves from moving in suitable habitats. He also noted that President Donald Trump’s planned border wall will cut off access for wolves trying to pass between the U.S. and Mexico and make the wolves “incapable of beating the clock of extinction.”

“Future generations should have the chance to hear wolves howl on the landscape,” Bird said. “Scientists–not politicians who had undue influence on the recovery plan for Mexican gray wolves–should be making decisions about how best to protect endangered species and their habitat.”

The FWS will hold information meetings in July where members of the public will be able to submit comments on the draft recovery plan in Flagstaff, Arizona; Pinetop, Arizona; Truth or Consequences, New Mexico; and Albuquerque, New Mexico. People can also submit comments on the document online.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Wildlife Officials Draft Court-Ordered Recovery Plan for Mexican Gray Wolf appeared first on Law Street.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers are moving forward with plans to repeal the Clean Water Rule, an Obama-era water pollution regulation that’s long been on the Trump Administration’s chopping block.

The Obama Administration signed the Clean Water Rule in 2015, extending existing pollution protections of larger bodies of water under the Clean Water Act of 1972 to include all “navigable waters,” including smaller bodies such as rivers, streams, and wetlands. Opponents of the rule included farmers who claimed it infringed on their property rights. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February to review that rule.

“It is in the national interest to ensure that that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing, regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution,” the order read.

The Clean Water Rule provides for the protection of about 60 percent of the nation’s bodies of water. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said by rescinding the rule, the government will restore power to states, farmers, and businesses.

“We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses,” Pruitt said in the EPA’s announcement. “This is the first step in the two-step process to redefine ‘waters of the U.S.’ and we are committed to moving through this re-evaluation to quickly provide regulatory certainty, in a way that is thoughtful, transparent and collaborative with other agencies and the public.”

Pruitt released a proposal Tuesday that would rescind the Clean Water Rule and revert regulations to the language in the Clean Water Act prior to the 2015 definition of “waters of the United States” or WOTUS.

Environmentalists opposed the Trump Administration’s rescission of the rule. Without regulations, they said, the nation’s water would be threatened by pollution. John Rumpler, senior attorney and clean water program director at Environment America, spoke out against the EPA proposal.

“Repealing the Clean Water Rule turns the mission of the EPA on its head: Instead of safeguarding our drinking water, Scott Pruitt is proposing to stop protecting drinking water sources for 1 in 3 Americans,” Rumpler said. “It defies common sense, sound science, and the will of the American people.”

Clean Water Action President and CEO Bob Wendelgass also released a statement, saying that the only people who stand to gain from the Clean Water Rule repeal are special interest groups.

“The Clean Water Rule is essential to public health,” Wendelgass said. “It is vital to communities that rely on healthy wetlands and streams to power small businesses and provide drinking water. We’re not going to protect clean water by ignoring science and common sense. Americans understand that–yet President Trump and Scott Pruitt don’t seem to.”

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EPA Moves To Repeal Obama Administration’s Clean Water Rule appeared first on Law Street.

A lawsuit challenging Texas’ controversial immigration law made its way to a federal court in San Antonio on Monday.

SB4, which Governor Greg Abbott signed into law on May 7, essentially bans “sanctuary cities” in Texas. While the law does not specifically mention the phrase “sanctuary city,” it does punish local governments, officials, and police who adopt, enforce, or endorse a policy that “prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws.” The law is slated to go into effect on September 1.

According to the law, those entities and individuals may not prohibit “peace officers” from asking a person who is lawfully detained or under arrest about their immigration status or place of birth. They also may not impede peace officers from cooperating with a federal immigration officer, or permitting a federal immigration officer to enter a jail to conduct enforcement activities. If they fail to comply with immigration laws, local governments can face fines of up to $25,500 per day of non-compliance, officials may be forced to give up their positions, and police chiefs can be charged with misdemeanors.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the City of El Cenizo, Texas; Mayor Raúl L. Reyes of City of El Cenizo; Maverick County Sheriff Tom Schmerber; Maverick County Constable Pct. 3-1 Mario A. Hernandez; and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). They filed a lawsuit against the defendants–the state of Texas, Abbott, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton–one day after the governor signed SB4.

The lawsuit claims that SB4 puts Texas and its local government officials and entities “at the complete mercy of federal officials,” and violates the Tenth Amendment and due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit asserts that Texas “may choose to voluntarily relinquish its retained sovereignty entirely to the federal government,” but cannot force local governments to do so.

The lawsuit also asserted that SB4 threatens community members’ trust in local government and law enforcement officials.

Plaintiffs are safer when all people, including undocumented immigrants, feel safe when their local law enforcement officers can be trusted for reporting crimes or just speaking with them about issues in the community. Plaintiff’s communities are healthier when all residents including undocumented immigrants, access public health programs,  unafraid to seek health care. And Plaintiffs’ communities are economically and socially stronger when all children, including undocumented immigrants, attend school.

The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest on June 23 supporting Texas in the litigation. According to a press release from the DOJ that same day, United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions explained that the DOJ is participating in the lawsuit to facilitate state and local cooperation with national immigration laws.

“President Trump has made a commitment to keep America safe and to ensure cooperation with federal immigration laws,” Sessions wrote in the press release. “Texas has admirably followed his lead by mandating state-wide cooperation with federal immigration laws that require the removal of illegal aliens who have committed crimes.”

In a CNBC commentary piece about SB4, author Julissa Arce expressed her opposition to the law. “SB4 is essentially a ‘show me your papers’ law that is set to create an environment for racial profiling in a state where 10.4 million Hispanic Americans live,” wrote Arce, who is also the co-founder of Ascend Educational Fund, a nonprofit in New York City that provides scholarships to students regardless of their ethnicity, national origin, or immigration status.

Arce expressed hope that the court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs and protect immigrants regardless of their immigration status.

“I believe the Texas that led the country in giving undocumented students an opportunity at higher education, my home state, is the state that will ultimately prevail,” she wrote.

SB4 opponents spoke out against the law at a protest in San Antonio on Monday.

Undocumented youth have come from all over Texas to stand up for communities of color and against SB4. #HereToStay #SB4isHate pic.twitter.com/ut41Wtn8rz

— Yunuen Alvarado (@ysalvarado5) June 26, 2017

On 2nd anniversary of #MarriageEquality I’m proud to be #undocumented & #queer fighting racist laws like #SB4 in TX! #Pride2017#HereToStay pic.twitter.com/PaMnvq4Fry

— Sheridan (@SirSheri) June 26, 2017

Among the crowd were Austin Mayor Steve Adler, and members of the San Antonio and Austin city councils.

LIVE elected officials address crowd #SB4isHate #HeretoStay https://t.co/DbAoIgxEnJ

— Yunuen Alvarado (@ysalvarado5) June 26, 2017

Austin Councilman @GregCasar speaks to protestors against #SB4 this morning before federal judge hears both sides. “Alright let’s do this.” pic.twitter.com/5rrkRtFXoi

— Nick Wagner (@WagsPhoto) June 26, 2017

SA Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Sillar gives an impassioned plea and prayer against #SB4 outside federal courthouse. pic.twitter.com/HNMZXVEoVZ

— Joey Palacios (@Joeycules) June 26, 2017

“We will not accept overt racism embedded in #SB4. Not today not ever.” @LUPE_rgv outside of the courthouse to #BlockSB4#SB4isHatepic.twitter.com/iAYPoHMKPI

— ACLU of Texas (@ACLUTx) June 26, 2017

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, who heard the case, declined to make a decision on Monday, according to the Texas Tribune. It is not yet clear when a decision will be handed down.

That same morning, Reverend Jim Rigby, a pastor at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church of Austin, was charged with a criminal trespassing misdemeanor after he was arrested on May 1 for protesting SB4 in a state office building. Rigby was among about 20 protesters, including immigrants, students, and Austin City Council Member Greg Casar, who were arrested in May for protesting the law.

On May 8, the day after Abbott signed SB4 into law, Paxton filed a lawsuit to uphold the constitutionality of the law. That case will be heard Thursday. These lawsuits could have a huge impact on undocumented immigrants in Texas and set a precedent for other areas that have designated themselves as “sanctuaries.”

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Municipalities Challenge State’s “Sanctuary Cities” Law appeared first on Law Street.

Under current North Carolina law, women cannot withdraw their consent after beginning to have sexual intercourse with a partner or partners.

In a 1979 ruling, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that “if the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman’s consent, the accused is not guilty of rape, although he may be guilty of another crime because of his subsequent actions.” In other words, if a woman begins having sex with someone and decides that she wants to stop, any action after that woman stops consenting is not considered rape under North Carolina law.

Per the 1979 ruling, consent can only be withdrawn, but not once an instance of sexual activity is ongoing. This has affected survivors who have tried to have their alleged rapists charged with rape but were unable to do so because of the court’s ruling. Many states adhere to similar legal principles as those reflected in North Carolina law.

North Carolina State Senator Jeff Jackson introduced a bill in March to the North Carolina General Assembly to address that legal loophole. If passed, the bill would “provide that a person who continues to engage in intercourse after consent is withdrawn is deemed to have committed the act of intercourse by force and against the will of the other person,” regardless of whether the parties had had sex previously or the situation in question was their first encounter.

While well-meaning, the bill does have its fair share of shortcomings. Although the bill is meant to correct the current law’s faults in regard to rape and women’s ability to consent, the bill is narrowly tailored to vaginal intercourse. The bill makes no mention of other forms of intercourse or people who do not have vaginas.

The bill also outlines that “the withdrawal of consent must be clearly communicated in a way that a reasonable person would understand to constitute withdrawal of consent.” This idea still puts the responsibility on the person withdrawing consent, whereas consent should be a continuous conversation among all people involved. After all, consent is not the absence of a “no,” but rather a clear, ongoing, mutual, and uncoerced “yes.”

It is unclear yet whether the bill has any hope of passing. Jackson failed to pass a similar bill last legislative session, and the current bill is still stuck in North Carolina’s Senate’s Rules Committee. However, the bill could have the potential to address some very real issues with North Carolina’s rape laws and bring justice to any future survivors of rape.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women Unable to Withdraw Consent Under Archaic North Carolina Law appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s ban on “gay propaganda” violates international law, Europe’s top human rights court ruled on Tuesday. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held that the ban was discriminatory and violated freedom of expression.

“Above all, by adopting such laws the Court found that the authorities had reinforced stigma and prejudice and encouraged homophobia, which was incompatible with the values — of equality, pluralism and tolerance — of a democratic society,” the ECHR wrote.

Life in Russia has long been unwelcoming–and at times, perilous–for LGBTQ people. According to Russian news outlet Novaya Gazeta, more than 100 gay men in Chechnya, a Russian territory in Eastern Europe, have been detained in Chechan prisons. Some have been tortured and killed due to their sexual orientations. In an interview with VICE News, Ayub Kataev, a Chechan prison warden and head of the ministry of internal affairs, not only denied the reports of the imprisonment and abuse of gay men, but denied the existence of gay people altogether.

“My officers would not even want to touch such people, if they exist, let alone beating or torturing them,” Kataev told VICE News.

Since 2003, regional governments in Russia have passed variations of the “gay propaganda” ban, and in 2013, the ban was adopted nationwide. Three Russian LGBTQ rights activists, Nikolay Bayev, Aleksey Kiselev, and Nikolay Alekseyev, protested the ban between 2009 and 2012 at a school in Ryazan, a children’s library in Arkhangelsk, and an administrative building in St. Petersburg–some of the cities that had instituted a ban at the time. The activists were found guilty of administrative offenses and fined. After the activists unsuccessfully appealed the convictions to Russia’s Constitutional Court, the ECHR agreed to hear their case.

According to the ECHR, Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences was amended in 2013 with the ban that prohibited “the promoting of non-traditional sexual relationships among minors, … creating a distorted image of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships.”

The ECHR held that the Russian government had failed to demonstrate how LGBT expression would negatively impact so-called “traditional families,” and minors, who the government claimed needed to be protected from non-heterosexual orientations. To the contrary, the ECHR asserted that the ban “embodied a predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority.”

The decision was handed down by a seven judge chamber comprised of judges from seven different European countries. The chamber’s judge from Russia, Dmitry Dedov, was the lone dissenter, claiming that “a positive image of homosexuality adversely affects the development of children and puts them at risk of sexual violence.”

The ECHR ordered Russia to pay a total of 43,000 euros to the three activists who brought the lawsuit. However, whether that ruling will be followed has yet to be seen as Russia approved a law in 2015 allowing the country to ignore ECHR rulings if they conflict with the Russian constitution.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post European Court Rules Russia’s “Gay Propaganda” Ban Violates International Law appeared first on Law Street.

Two congresswomen from New York have introduced bills that could establish greater transparency in the ways menstrual product companies label ingredients and assess the health risks of products.

Rep. Grace Meng introduced the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act of 2017, which would require companies to include a list of ingredients on the label of menstrual products, such as menstrual cups, menstrual pads, tampons, and therapeutic vaginal douche apparatuses.

She’s joined by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, who reintroduced a bill that would amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a research program to determine whether chemicals in feminine hygiene products present any health risks. The bill, titled the Robin Danielson Feminine Hygiene Product Safety Act of 2017, was named after a 44-year-old woman who died of toxic shock syndrome from a tampon in 1998.

According to the Maloney’s bill, the average person who menstruates “may use as many as 16,800 tampons” in their lifetime.” Tampons can contain trace amounts of dioxin, which the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization have both concluded can cause cancer.

Aside from dioxin, Maloney’s bill would also instruct the National Institutes of Health to research the presence of synthetic fibers, chlorine, fragrances, dyes, preservatives, and other components in tampons and other feminine hygiene products.

“It is astounding that manufacturers of tampons, pads, menstrual cups and other menstrual hygiene products are not required to disclose the ingredients of these products,” Meng said in a statement on her website. “We can easily see the ingredients used in the shampoo we put in our hair—why doesn’t this apply to products that touch, or are inserted into, sensitive female anatomy?  Consumers are being denied access to crucial information, which affects their safety and impacts their ability to make informed choices. My bill, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, would finally change that.”

Activists took to D.C. in May in support of the bills.

Thank you to Rep. Grace Meng for introducing legislation on the right to know what’s in our menstrual products! #ComeClean #FemCarerally pic.twitter.com/6An6yA3rGl

— COLOR (@colorlatina) May 23, 2017

Thrilled to join @colorlatina to urge Congress and companies to care about feminine care! #FemCarerally #comeclean #detoxthebox pic.twitter.com/0fKr9jjFDz

— Morgan MenesesSheets (@morgmeneshets) May 23, 2017

Activism surrounding menstrual products is nothing new for Meng. In February, she introduced a “menstrual equity” bill to increase the availability and affordabillity of menstrual hygiene products.

The congresswomen’s bills are still in the early phases of the legislative process, but they highlight a need for transparency in menstrual health.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bills Push to Make Menstrual Product Ingredients More Transparent appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that a law banning the registration of offensive trademarks was unconstitutional. The decision was a victory for the Asian-American dance rock band The Slants–and potentially the Washington Redskins.

Simon Tam, the band’s frontman, filed a lawsuit after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied his application for a trademark for the name “The Slants.” The agency cited the Lanham Act, which prohibits trademarks “which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

The court ruled in an 8-0 decision that the “disparagement clause” of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Justice Samuel Alito, who delivered the majority opinion of the court, said Tam chose the name of the band “to ‘reclaim’ the term and drain its denigrating force.” According to Alito, the ban on offensive trademarks “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

The federal government had argued that trademarks are government speech, but Alito wrote to the contrary, saying “trademarks are private, not government speech.” Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer were in agreement on the majority opinion.

While the justices reached a unanimous judgement, they were split on why they believed it violated the first amendment. In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, wrote that the measure in question constitutes “viewpoint discrimination.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not contribute because he had not yet been confirmed as a justice in January when the court heard the case.

The Slants celebrated the victory with a lengthy statement following the ruling. “The Supreme Court has vindicated First Amendment rights not only for our The Slants, but all Americans who are fighting against paternal government policies that ultimately lead to viewpoint discrimination,” wrote Tam.

Tam said the band never considered itself a political group, but that “the establishment of an Asian American band was a political act in of itself.” As a result, the band has integrated activism into their work by raising awareness and funds for issues affecting Asian Americans.

“Music is the best way we know how to drive social change: it overcomes social barriers in  a way that mob-mentality and fear-based political rhetoric never can,” Tam said.

The Slants’ trademark case could also impact other controversially named groups like the Washington Redskins, which has been in jeopardy of losing its team name for being racially offensive.

In 2014, the Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team’s trademark because the team’s name is a derogatory term for Native Americans. The Redskins appealed the case, but the federal appeals court had delayed hearing it until the Supreme Court ruled in Tam’s case.

Redskins attorney Lisa Blatt said the Supreme Court’s decision “resolves the Redskins’ long-standing dispute with the government.”

“The Supreme Court vindicated the team’s position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or cancelling a trademark registration based on the government’s opinion,” said Blatt.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Says Offensive Trademarks are Protected by Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

YouTuber Austin Jones was charged with two counts of child pornography production in a Chicago federal court on June 13.

Jones, 24, allegedly solicited pornographic videos from two underage fans, according to a criminal complaint. In an affidavit, Special Agent of Homeland Security Investigations Michael Ploessl said Jones had communicated separately with two girls who had each identified themselves as 14 years old.

Ploessl said that during a videotaped interview with HSI, Jones waived his Miranda rights and admitted to having sexually explicit chats with the girls over Facebook in which he instructed them to make and send videos of themselves “dancing in a sexually explicit way” and performing sexual acts, despite knowing that the girls were underage.

Ploessl said Jones directed both girls, identified as Victim A and Victim B in the affidavit, to send him videos of themselves dancing in a sexual manner. According to Ploessl, Jones coached the girls on what to do, wear, and say in the videos, including telling each girl to explicitly identify her name and age at the beginning of the videos.

Ploessl said Victim A repeatedly told Jones that she was “tired and wanted to stop,” but that Jones pushed her to continue. Ploessl said Victim B also expressed her discomfort with what Jones was asking her to do, but Jones continued to pressure her, repeatedly calling her his “biggest fan.” Victim A sent Jones approximately 15 videos; Victim B sent approximately 25. According to the affidavit, several of the videos depicted Victim A and Victim B dancing nude from the waist down.

If convicted, Jones could face up to 30 years in prison.

People on social media reacted to the news about Jones. Some condemned him for “[abusing] his position as a public figure.”

dont ever say that those girls who sent austin jones those videos are at fault. he abused his position as a public figure who many young

— reanne (@plediswon) June 14, 2017

girls idolized, as a way to manipulate and guilt trip them into sending him videos. those girls were 14 years old, young gullible children

— reanne (@plediswon) June 14, 2017

One ex-fan burned some of their Austin Jones memorabilia, including an Austin Jones poster and shirt.

I used to be one of Austin Jones’ biggest fans. I met him twice. I couldn’t even look at this poster anymore, so I burned it (1/2) pic.twitter.com/UUeIbx2V5s

— sky☾ (@skylarstillwell) June 14, 2017

I also knew I could never wear this Austin Jones shirt again either, so I burned that too. ‍ (2/2) pic.twitter.com/j3guskwnDD

— sky☾ (@skylarstillwell) June 14, 2017

Another said they were not surprised by the news after similar allegations surfaced a few years ago.

Absolute ZERO shock about Austin Jones & the charges against him. I haven’t forgotten about the sketchy claims involving girls 2 years ago.

— glitterdick (@danger0usperson) June 14, 2017

These are not the first allegations of Jones pressuring underage girls to send him videos. In May 2015, screenshots of alleged messages, as well as more detailed explanations of those message interactions, between Jones and a girl named “Ashley” were posted on the website PupFresh. In that article, “Ashley” said she and Jones started talking during a Facebook Q&A at which point they began messaging one another privately and Jones asked her to send him videos of her twerking. Other women have made online posts and videos accusing Jones of similar actions, but thus far only two unnamed individuals are referred to in the complaint.

In June 2015, Jones uploaded a video on YouTube in which he responded to the accusations against him. Jones apologized for his conduct but denied that anything went beyond twerking.

“Nothing ever went further than twerking videos,” Jones said in the video. “There were never any nudes, never any physical contact.”

Jones’ case is one among a growing number of allegations against YouTubers–most of whom are white men–who have allegedly used their status as internet personalities to coerce fans and other individuals into uncomfortable situations, abusive relationships, and incidents of sexual assault and/or rape.

In 2014, at least four women came forward to accuse British YouTuber Sam Pepper of inappropriately touching them and/or sending them inappropriate messages. Three of those four women were under the age of 18 at the time of their alleged interactions with Pepper, according to BuzzFeed News.

Also in 2014, several individuals accused another British YouTuber, Alex Day, of pressuring them into sexual situations and having inappropriate relationships with fans. Day initially denied the allegations, but eventually admitted to having “occasionally manipulative relationships with women” in a Tumblr post from his account that his since been deactivated. However, Day maintained in another Tumblr post that “at no point in my life have I ever had a sexual relationship with someone under the age of consent.”

Organizations like Thorn, an international anti-human trafficking organization, are working to address the sexual exploitation of children and to eliminate the production and spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). In addition to providing resources for trafficking victims, Thorn is advocating for increased intelligence sharing among organizations that are fighting child trafficking to decrease redundancy and inefficiency. Thorn also communicates with people searching for CSAM to encourage them to seek help and deter them from exhibiting harmful behavior.

Ploessl’s affidavit did not say that Jones had circulated the videos he had received from the girls. While Thorn is working to end sexual exploitation of children by tracking the circulation of CSAM, it can be difficult to track CSAM that perpetrators are keeping solely for themselves.

Unlike television and film celebrities who are largely unreachable to fans, YouTubers and other internet stars often establish more personal relationships with their fans and are able to connect with their viewers in real-time thanks to social media. For many, YouTube is a community where fans and creators can have meaningful, appropriate interactions with one another. But the combination of YouTubers’ perceived relatability and celebrity status can result in some creators abusing that fan-creator relationship.

In his conversation with Victim B, Jones allegedly asked her, “do you realize how lucky you are?!?!” and told her that she needed to “prove” that she was his biggest fan. Jones allegedly told Victim B things like “I guess you really aren’t my biggest fan…..ok then” and “I’m just trying to help you! I know you’re trying your hardest to prove you’re my biggest fan. And I don’t want to have to find someone else,” according to the affidavit.

By reinforcing the idea that they should be placed on a pedestal and worshiped, some celebrities have forced fans into situations in which they do not or cannot consent to. If the allegations of YouTubers manipulating and abusing their fans are any indicator, increased accountability within the YouTube space is a necessary step in ending certain internet personalities’ predatory behavior toward vulnerable, underage fans.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post YouTuber Charged With Child Pornography Production appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a federal immigration law that made it easier for children of U.S. citizen mothers to obtain citizenship than children of U.S. citizen fathers.

Per the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the citizenship of children born outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and one parent who is a citizen of another nation is decided differently depending on whether the U.S. citizen parent is the child’s mother or father. A child of a U.S. citizen mother would automatically become a U.S. citizen as long as the mother had lived in the U.S. for one year. However, a child of a U.S. citizen father would only automatically become a U.S. citizen if the father had lived in the U.S. for five years before the child was born, and if at least two of those years had occurred after the father had turned 14.

In an 8-0 decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, the Court held that such a “gender line” was “incompatible” with the Equal Protections Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not contribute because he had not yet been confirmed as a justice in November 2016 when the court heard the case.

Luis Ramón Morales-Santana has lived in the U.S. since he was 13. When Morales-Santana was born, the requirement was that fathers needed to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years before the child was born, five of which had to be after the age of 14–as opposed to the current requirement of five years in the U.S., including two after age 14.

His father, José Morales, moved to the Dominican Republic just 20 days before turning 19 and, therefore, did not meet the earlier requirement of living in the U.S. for at least five years after turning 14. Without his father satisfying that requirement, Morales-Santana was not considered a U.S. citizen. The U.S. government attempted to remove Morales-Santana from the country in 2000 based on several criminal convictions.

Morales-Santana asserted that the U.S. government’s refusal to grant him citizenship violated the Equal Protections Clause because it hinged on gender based classification of his parentage. Had Morales-Santana’s mother been a U.S. citizen and lived in the country for one year, he would have already been considered a citizen.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion of the court in which she explained that laws granting or denying benefits based on the sex of a parent are subject to “heightened scrutiny.”

Before 1940, Ginsburg said, standards for citizenship of children born abroad were rooted in two gender based assumptions. “In marriage, husband is dominant, wife subordinate; unwed mother is the natural and sole guardian of a nonmarital child,” Ginsburg wrote, describing those assumptions. Children of married parents derived their citizenship status from their fathers, while children of unwed parents derived their citizenship status from their mothers.

The Nationality Act of 1940 eliminated fathers’ sole control over children’s citizenship, instead allowing either married U.S. citizen mothers or fathers to pass citizenship on to their child. The Act also codified unwed mothers’ ability to pass citizenship on to their child, but did not do so for unwed fathers since mothers were regarded as children’s sole guardians in cases in which the parents were not married.

The U.S. government argued that when a child is born to unwed parents, the mother is the only legally recognized parent at the child’s birth; the father is acknowledged after the fact. Ginsburg explained that, according to the U.S. government’s argument, the lengthier residency requirement for U.S. citizen fathers is warranted due to the “‘competing national influence’ of the alien mother.”

However, Ginsburg wrote that the assumption is based on “the long-held view that unwed fathers care little about, indeed are strangers to, their children.” Such a characterization, she says, “no longer passes equal protection inspection.”

The Court held that the gender-based distinction violated the equal protection clause, but did not decide whether the requirement for U.S. citizen mothers should be applied equally to fathers.

Ginsburg said Congress had made an exception for unwed mothers, but not for unwed fathers. Therefore, it is up to Congress, not the Court, to decide whether the standard for unwed mothers should be extended to unwed fathers.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rules Gender-Based Citizenship Requirement is Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

Japan’s lower house of parliament, the House of Representatives, approved a bill on June 8 that would amend the country’s rape laws. Japan has not changed its rape laws since 1907.

The amendment would expand the legal definition of rape, add a provision about the psychological factor of rape and sexual assault, raise the minimum sentence for rape convictions, and remove a provision requiring victims to press charges themselves to prosecute their accused rapist.

Currently, Japan’s legal definition of rape is limited to forced vaginal intercourse, but the new amendment would expand that definition to include all forms of forced sexual intercourse.

Current law also requires the use of threats and/or violence for an offense to be considered rape or sexual assault. However, the amendment would expand that definition to include instances in which an aggressor in a position to control or influence a victim–such as the relationship between a guardian and a child–exhibits psychological control over that victim.

The minimum sentence for those convicted of rape would be raised from the current three years to five years under the new law. The amendment would also remove a provision requiring victims to request the indictment of their accused rapist. As of right now, victims must decide whether to pursue the case, which can lead to aggressors pressuring their victims to drop charges.

Even with the amendment, however, prosecutors can still decide not to pursue rape charges. In fact, 53 percent of rape and sexual assault cases are dropped by prosecutors. In September 2016, prosecutors decided not to pursue rape charges against Japanese actor Yuta Takahata, who was accused of allegedly raping a hotel worker.

Support for an amendment to Japan’s rape laws was sparked by Former Minister of Justice Midori Matsushima in 2014. Matsushima founded the Discussion Group on Sex Crime Penalties which led to further governmental discussion about how the penal code addressed sex offenses, and later led to the submission of the amendment.

If the bill is approved by the House of Councillors, the upper house of parliament, Japan will amend the country’s rape laws accordingly.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Japan Moves Toward Amending its Rape Laws appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration is proposing to allow seismic air guns to survey oil and gas deposits along the U.S. Atlantic coast, but some environmentalists are concerned that the surveys could harm marine mammals.

Seismic air gun surveys use ships that tow seismic air guns. The guns are used to shoot compressed air through the water and into the seabed. That blast reflects back information about oil and gas deposits below the seabed, according to Oceana, an international advocacy organization focused on ocean conservation. The guns shoot compressed air every 10 to 12 seconds, said Ingrid Beidron, a marine scientist and campaign manager at Oceana.

The use of seismic air guns has a controversial history due to its impact on the environment. The Associated Press reported that the United States has not conducted any seismic air gun surveys in the mid- and south-Atlantic regions for at least 30 years. In January, the Obama Administration denied six energy companies’ applications for permits to conduct air gun seismic surveys in those regions. In May, under the Trump Administration, the Department of the Interior began reviewing those same six applications.

Most recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration took action on those applications by releasing a proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service on June 6 outlining the details of the plan as it seeks permits for the use of five seismic air gun surveys that could incidentally harass marine mammals.

The proposal includes measures to minimize harm to marine mammals such as prescribing a standard exclusion zone and, under some circumstances, shutting down the acoustic source so as not to disturb marine mammals. However, many environmental organizations, local governments, and businesses remain opposed to seismic air gun surveys.

Michael Jasny, director of marine mammal protection for the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in a blog post that some of the potential negative effects of the surveys could include causing marine animals to abandon their habitats, preventing animals from feeding regularly, obstructing animals’ communication, and injuring and killing fish and invertebrates.

The Endangered Species Act prohibits the “take”–or harassment, harming, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capture or collection–of species listed as “endangered” or “threatened. However, a 1982 amendment to the Act allowed for taking that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.”

The proposal in question lists five energy companies’ seismic operations, each spanning a range of days. The shortest operation would be 70 days; the longest, 308. According to the proposal, the seismic operations would generally occur within 200 nautical miles of the coast between Delaware and Cape Canaveral, Florida, with some additional activity up to 350 nautical miles from the shore. The operations would typically occur 24 hours per day.

Jasny called the surveys “an environmentally assaultive activity” that will open the east coast to offshore oil drilling. Over 120 East Coast communities, over 1,200 elected officials, over 41,000 businesses, and over 500,000 fishing families have opposed seismic air gun surveys and/or offshore drilling, according to Oceana.

If the NMFS finds that the taking will have a “negligible impact on the species or stock(s)” and “will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence users,” an incidental harassment authorization will be granted. Individuals can comment on the proposal until July 6, exactly 30 days after the date on which the proposal was released, by contacting Jolie Harrision at the NMFS.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Environmentalists Blast the Trump Administration Plans for Seismic Air Gun Surveys appeared first on Law Street.

A lesbian filed an appeal in the Mississippi Supreme Court on June 1 to be recognized as the legal parent of a child she raised with her ex-wife.

After Chris Strickland and her ex-wife, Kimberly Day, divorced in 2016, a lower court recognized only Day as the legal parent of the couple’s children.

Strickland sought joint custody of their younger child, but was told she did not have a legal option to seek joint custody of their older child. The judge did not grant Strickland joint custody, but did grant visitation with both boys.

Strickland and Day adopted their older son in 2007. Since same-sex couples could not yet get married or adopt children in Mississippi at the time, only Day legally adopted the child and was listed on his adoption papers. However, Strickland still considers him to be her child.

“Me personally, that’s my child,” Strickland told NBC. “A piece of paper doesn’t mean anything to me.”

Strickland and Day decided to get married in 2009 and traveled to Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legal, to tie the knot.

Two years after the couple married, Day got pregnant via in vitro fertalization and gave birth to their younger son. Again, same-sex marriage was not yet recognized in Mississippi, so only Day’s name was  listed on their son’s birth certificate.

Following the lower court’s decision, Strickland appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court for legal parentage of her younger child. Strickland is being represented by Lambda Legal and attorney Dianne Ellis. Day is being represented by attorney Prentiss Grant.

In a similar case in May, Judge Greg McMillan of the Knox County 4th Circuit Court recognized a Tennessee woman as the “husband” in a relationship during a same-sex couple’s divorce proceedings. The couple, Sabrina and Erica Witt married in Washington, D.C., in 2014.

The couple had a child via artificial insemination with Sabrina carrying the child. Since same-sex marriage was not legal in Tennessee at the time, Erica was not included on the birth certificate. While McMillan initially ruled that only Sabrina was the legal parent, he eventually reversed that ruling. McMillan named Erica as the “father” of the child and granted both parents custody.

That ruling came days before the Tennessee legislature passed a bill requiring judges to give “natural meaning” to gendered words such as “mother” and “father.” However, McMillan’s decision remained standing.

When children are born from opposite-sex relationships, both parents are more often listed on the child’s birth certificate and child custody disputes are less complicated–if only slightly so.

However, in cases which deal specifically with same-sex couples, those couples are especially affected by parental rights disputes arising from births and adoptions prior to marriage equality.

Depending on the decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court, a new precedent could be set for Mississippi and potentially lay the groundwork for future child custody cases nationwide.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lesbian Appeals to Mississippi Supreme Court for Child Custody appeared first on Law Street.

A federal government contractor was charged with removing and mailing classified materials about Russian interference in the 2016 election to a news outlet, the Justice Department announced June 5.

Reality Leigh Winner, a 25-year-old intelligence contractor, printed and retained classified intelligence reporting from the National Security Agency, containing classified national defense information, on or about May 9, according to the Justice Department.

A few days later, Winner allegedly mailed that intelligence report to The Intercept, which subsequently published the NSA report on its site on June 5.

The report identified two cyber attacks by Russian intelligence actors: one in August 2016, the other in November 2016. In the August cyber attack, the intelligence actors executed a spear-phishing campaign against a company that sells voter registration-related software. As part of that campaign, the actors sent emails to members of the company to entice employees to click on a “link within a spoofed Google Alert email, which would redirect the user to the malicious domain.” The report said the campaign “appeared to be designed to obtain the end users’ email credentials.”

During the November cyber attack, the actors also contacted the email addresses of 122 local election officials about a week before the 2016 election. The report said it is possible that those officials’ email addresses were obtained from the compromised accounts of members of the company from the August attack.

The Intercept isn’t new to publishing leaked classified information, having released 166 documents from whistleblower Edward Snowden in May 2016.

In its statement, the Justice Department announced that the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested Winner at her home, on June 3. Winner appeared in federal court on June 5 where she was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. Section 793(e), a provision of the Espionage Act which deals with gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.

If convicted, Winner could face up to ten years in prison.

“Releasing classified material without authorization threatens our nation’s security and undermines public faith in government,” said Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein as part of the Justice Department’s statement. “People who are trusted with classified information and pledge to protect it must be held accountable when they violate that obligation.

FBI Special Agent Justin C. Garrick said in an affidavit that the U.S. government agency conducted an audit of six individuals who had printed the intelligence reporting. It revealed that Winner had been in email contact with the news outlet. The audit did not reveal that the other five individuals had been in contact with the news outlet.

According to The Intercept, the NSA document was provided to the outlet anonymously.

Garrick also said Winner confessed that she had intentionally identified and printed the classified intelligence reporting, removed it from her office space, retained it, and mailed it to the news outlet.

In a series of tweets on June 5, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange showed his support for Winner. He said sources like Winner, who does not have “elite immunity,” should be “strongly encouraged” to communicate knowledge.

Alleged NSA whistleblower Reality Leigh Winner must be supported. She is a young women accused of courage in trying to help us know. pic.twitter.com/B4aIdt7qz6

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) June 6, 2017

Reality Leight Winner is no Clapper or Petraeus with “elite immunity”. She’s a young woman against the wall for talking to the press.

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) June 6, 2017

It doesn’t matter why she did it or the quality the report. Acts of non-elite sources communicating knowledge should be strongly encouraged.

— Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) June 6, 2017

NY Daily News writer Shaun King also voiced his support for Winner, calling her a “courageous young woman” and “a brilliant Air Force veteran disturbed by what she saw.”

I stand w/ this courageous young woman, Reality Winner, who leaked NSA docs.

She’s a brilliant Air Force veteran disturbed by what she saw. pic.twitter.com/1U7MqsOPxS

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) June 6, 2017

Still, others on social media remained staunchly opposed to Winner’s actions.

Reality Winner is going to prison for her “snowflake” espionage acts.. who names their child Reality?#potus #maga #@CNNPolitics

— Cindi Turchik (@CindiTurchik) June 6, 2017

The more I learn about #RealityWinner, the more I think we need to be prosecuting whoever gave her a security clearance. Is there no line?

— Adam Goldstein (@AdGo) June 6, 2017

For now, however, Winner awaits her trial.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reality Winner: NSA Contractor Charged With Leaking Classified Materials appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court will hear a case concerning cellphone privacy rights, and whether the government must secure a warrant to obtain a private individual’s location tracking data from that person’s cellphone company.

In Carpenter v. United States, the case the Supreme Court will be hearing, Timothy Ivory Carpenter argues that prosecutors in his criminal trial violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they obtained location data from his cellphone company, MetroPCS.

Prosecutors obtained data not just from the days of the crime, but from a range of dates totaling 127 days. Carpenter was convicted in 2013 for his role in a series of cellphone store robberies and sentenced to 116 years in prison in 2014.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that government officials must obtain a warrant to search an individual’s cellphone. However, whether that restriction extends to requesting individuals’ location data from their cellphone providers is murkier territory.

In an age when we are constantly plugged in to technology, some people fear that the electronic devices we use on a daily basis could know more about us than they’re letting on. As the companies in charge of those devices and services store customer data, the dilemma arises of protecting customers’ information versus abiding by federal law.

After two men shot and killed 14 people in San Bernardino in 2015, Apple refused to help the FBI gain access to an iPhone that belonged to one of the attackers, Syed Farook. Apple CEO Tim Cook explained at the time that bypassing the security of Farook’s phone could create a backdoor for any hacker to access anyone else’s iPhone in the future. The FBI eventually accessed Farook’s phone without Apple’s assistance.

While Farook’s and Carpenter’s situations share some parallels regarding cellphone privacy, there is a notable difference between them. Bypassing the San Bernardino attacker’s phone security required the creation of a software that had not existed at the time, software that Cook believed had the potential of exposing other iPhone users to cyber attacks.

Obtaining Carpenter’s location data, on the other hand, merely required information that the phone provider already has available. Still, the issue remains of whether it is constitutional to request that data from cellphone providers.

The Stored Communications Act, enacted as Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, requires prosecutors to go to court to acquire an individual’s tracking data. However, the prosecutor does not have to show probable cause, but must just demonstrate that there are “specific and articulable facts” showing that the contents “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

A federal appeals court ruled that Carpenter’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. If the Supreme Court upholds that decision, the government will not require a warrant to obtain cellphone users’ location data from their providers, thus limiting individuals’ cellphone privacy during criminal investigations.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court to Hear Cellphone Privacy Case appeared first on Law Street.