Could a glitch in T-Mobile service be responsible for the death of an infant? A new lawsuit places blame on the mobile company after a babysitter was unable to reach 911 due to a glitch in T-Mobile technology in Dallas.

The lawsuit, obtained by CNN, alleges that Brandon Alex, a 6-month-old infant, passed away in March after he rolled off the bed. It also claims that his babysitter, Michelle Cohen, was placed on hold multiple times after calling 911. The location of the apartment also allegedly did not appear in Dallas’ 911 call center, leaving Cohen without EMT support and no ability to transport the child to a hospital.

The glitch that caused the call center to be unreachable related to an ongoing problem with “ghost calls“: illegitimate calls that can clog up 911 call centers and force actual callers to remain on hold. In Dallas, this occurred when T-Mobile users placed a 911 call and their phone sent multiple calls to the center, clogging the line while they were unable to reach an operator.

The issue, which is still somewhat of a mystery to officials, has also been blamed for another death in the Dallas area. “Ghost calls” are not a problem unique to Dallas or to T-Mobile, but the company has been under FCC investigation in the past for 911 service outages that plagued its customers. In that case, the company reached a $17.5 million settlement provided that it worked to “strengthen its 911 service procedures” and ensure that it was complying with federal regulations.

After the death of Alex, Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings demanded that action be taken by the cell phone company to ensure that the problem was fixed in a swift manner. The company immediately sent executives and engineers to the city to begin investigating the issue.

Public safety of our citizens is my most important priority. I will not be satisfied until this T-Mobile 911 challenge is completely fixed. pic.twitter.com/7LDKYdmRQ1

— Mayor Mike Rawlings (@Mike_Rawlings) March 15, 2017

The lawsuit alleges gross negligence on the part of T-Mobile for ignoring warnings and continuing to use technology apparently incompatible with Dallas’ 911 system.

While the source of the problem continues to remain a mystery, the company has reportedly taken a number of actions to resolve the issue since the March incident.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post T-Mobile is Facing a Lawsuit for the Death of a Child appeared first on Law Street.

Federal workers can breathe a sigh of relief (at least for one week): the Senate and the House both passed a short-term spending bill on Friday to fund the government at its current levels until next Friday. This averted a government shutdown that would have occurred if a deal had not been reached by midnight.

Some of the most contentious issues preventing a longer-term spending bill from being passed were funding for the border wall and an Affordable Care Act subsidy for low-income individuals, among others.

Even the one-week funding bill had a bumpy road to its passage, as many Democrats threatened to oppose its approval as long as Republicans planned to vote on repealing and replacing the ACA this week (within the President’s first 100 days). In the end, the health care vote was not scheduled for Friday.

President Donald Trump did not seem too concerned with the possibility of a shutdown, telling Reuters on Thursday, “we’ll see what happens. If there’s a shutdown, there’s a shutdown.” He also harshly criticized the Democratic Party in a series of Tweets on Thursday, accusing them of putting roadblocks in place and being responsible for a potential shutdown.

The Democrats want to shut government if we don’t bail out Puerto Rico and give billions to their insurance companies for OCare failure. NO!

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

I promise to rebuild our military and secure our border. Democrats want to shut down the government. Politics!

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

As families prepare for summer vacations in our National Parks – Democrats threaten to close them and shut down the government. Terrible!

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

The one-week spending bill buys Congress more time to smooth out conflicts and draft up a longer-term spending bill for the rest of the year.

The environment for government workers has been tenser than usual, to say the least. In addition to the possibility of a shutdown, federal workers have recently had to endure the possibility of job cuts, as Trump’s budget proposals have called to reduce the federal workforce by as many as 200,000 jobs. Also on Friday, officials announced that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proposed to cut 2,300 jobs in the State Department.

Meanwhile, a large number of federal appointments still have yet to be selected by Trump. Politico reported that 470 out of 556 positions requiring Senate confirmation do not have nominees yet. It remains to be seen if the remaining issues in the long-term spending bill will be ironed out before this temporary measure expires on May 5.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Crisis Averted: Congress Approves Funding to Avoid Government Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

An annual local tradition has turned into a charged political topic, after an LGBTQ veterans organization has been excluded from participating in South Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade. The parade organizer, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, voted  9 to 4 on Tuesday to not allow OUTVETS to march in the parade this year, scheduled to take place on March 19. The action sparked bipartisan backlash from politicians, organizations, and sponsors.

In a Facebook post, the group wrote that the Veterans Council “did not give a clear reason” for rejection of the application, but they assumed it was because it was an LGBTQ organization. The group was able to march for the past two years, but they allege that they were put in the rear of the parade last year.

The New York Times reports that Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh (D) and Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker (R) will abstain from participating in the parade due to the exclusion.

I will not be marching in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade unless this is resolved. #OneBoston pic.twitter.com/OalXJfZTQR

— Marty Walsh (@MartyForBoston) March 8, 2017

On Thursday, Anheuser-Busch announced that it is “re-evaluating” its participation in the event, potentially leaving the parade without one of its major sponsors. The Teamsters Local 25 Union also declared that its members would not be marching in the parade if the ban was upheld, saying that it was “no longer representative” of its 11,000 members.

In a press release posted to its website, the Veterans Council defended the decision, saying that the parade’s Code of Conduct “prohibits the advertisement or display of one’s sexual orientation,” a rule which the group’s rainbow flag violated. The Council claimed that the policy is “neutral and not one-sided,” claiming that “the council routinely bars controversial groups from across the political spectrum.” The release also claimed that OUTVETS submitted its application after the deadline.

This is not the first time that the parade has clashed with LGBTQ organizations. In 1995, in a case that went to the Supreme Court, the Council was allowed to exclude certain groups based on First Amendment grounds after it refused to allow a gay veterans group to participate.

On Thursday afternoon, it was announced that there would be an emergency meeting on Friday to re-vote on the decision.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade Excludes LGBTQ Veterans, Prompting Backlash appeared first on Law Street.

Starbucks announced Tuesday that it would offer free legal advice to employees regarding President Trump’s immigration executive order.

In a letter to employees, the company announced that the legal support for employees and family members would be provided via a new Immigration Advisory Program, set up in partnership with Ernst & Young. The letter stated that the company would be “leading with humanity” through the action.

Since its signing, the executive order has created massive confusion throughout the country after its hasty implementation and vague language left it unclear who exactly would be affected. As a result, many major U.S. corporations have pushed back against the order, as it would likely impact many of their employees.

Starbucks is proving to be one of the companies at the front and center of this corporate resistance. Last month, CEO Howard Schultz announced a plan to hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years. In the letter to employees, Schultz additionally affirmed his support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, affordable healthcare for all employees, and the continuation of company business partnerships in Mexico. The letter demonstrated the company’s forceful opposition to many of the new administration’s main policies.

The company’s recent actions have not sat well with some Trump supporters–protestors made plans to boycott the brand as a result of its refugee hiring initiative. However, the #BoycottStarbucks trend also had the opposite effect, drumming up more support for the company.

Conservatives: #BoycottStarbucks

Me: pic.twitter.com/vTGvaWKkaf

— (@goIdenflower) January 31, 2017

Uber, Microsoft, Amazon, and many other big names in the tech industry have also vowed to provide immigration-related legal advice in the wake of the order. However, as BuzzFeed News notes, Starbucks stands out among the rest as an employer of predominantly low-wage workers.

Meanwhile, after a fairly political Super Bowl this past weekend and wave of anti-Trump retail boycotts, it’s clear that corporate America will continue to be pressured to take a stance on the current administration and its policies.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Starbucks is Offering Immigration-Related Legal Advice to its Employees appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no doubt that there are a lot of celebrities who are missing President Barack Obama: his effortless cool drew big names to the White House during his 8-year tenure. Now Chance the Rapper, the 23-year old hip-hop star, has taken his Obama appreciation to the next level, modeling for a new fashion line  named “Thank You Obama.”

I’m a model now. #ThankUObama droppin in like 15 minutes. ThankUObama.us pic.twitter.com/Y7jOHKzRam

— Lil Chano From 79th (@chancetherapper) February 2, 2017

The line, from Chicago designer Joe Freshgoods, includes hoodies and tees showing appreciation for the Obama family. In addition to “Thank You Obama” and “Thank You Michelle” clothing, the line also includes a “Malia” t-shirt that includes the message “We all smoke, it’s OK” (a reference to a video of the Obama daughter that sparked some controversy).

Freshgoods wrote about his motivation to start the line on the site:

With this project I wanted to timestamp a period in my life where I felt like I can do whatever I wanted to do and be whatever I wanted to be. The night Obama won his first term gave me so much hope, especially & most importantly as a black man. I decided to make a collection saying “thank you” and give me something to smile at every now and then when I look in the closet.

The ties between Chance and the former president run pretty deep: Chance’s father, Ken Williams-Bennett, served as Obama’s state director when he was a senator. And it appears Obama is a fan, as he cited Chance as one of the “top rappers in the game” in an interview last October. The fellow Chicago native was also tapped to perform at the White House Tree Lighting Ceremony this past December, and was an attendee at Obama’s goodbye party.

Look up Kensli, say cheese!

A photo posted by Chance The Rapper (@chancetherapper) on Dec 31, 2016 at 4:11pm PST

If you’re looking for a fashionable way to show off your gratitude to the former First Family, you can check out the line at thankuobama.us.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Chance the Rapper Models a New Line of Obama Appreciation Gear appeared first on Law Street.

CBS is being sued for defamation after a TV special on JonBenét Ramsey argued that her brother, Burke Ramsey, was responsible for her death.

Burke has requested $750 million from the network in his lawsuit, in response to the airing of the TV special “The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey,” which investigated the murder of six-year-old child beauty pageant star JonBenét on the 20-year anniversary of her death. The case remains an unsolved mystery, but the CBS special that aired in September attempted to cash in on the current popularity of “true crime” entertainment by using experts such as detectives and forensic pathologists to theorize on possible causes and culprits. It was accused by some critics of being “exploitative” and a re-hashing of old material.

The program included an “experiment” conducted to support the theory that Burke could have committed the murder at age nine. The lawsuit accused the show of conducting a “sham investigation,” according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

While DNA testing conducted by the then-district attorney exonerated the Ramsey family in 2008, the current district attorney has allegedly re-ordered DNA tests and claimed that the exoneration was premature. While Burke was largely kept out of the public eye following the death of his sister, he gave an interview to Dr. Phil earlier this year where he continued to deny any involvement in the murder.

In October, Burke filed a lawsuit for $150 million against Dr. Werner Spitz, the forensic pathologist who appeared in the program, for comments he had made saying he was “sure” that it was Burke who committed the crime. Spitz responded earlier this month, saying that the comments were simply “speculation” and that he expressed his opinion under his First Amendment rights.

While it is unclear if we will ever find out the truth of what happened to JonBenét, the CBS special, as well as Burke’s emergence into the public eye, have reinvigorated interest into one of the most infamous unsolved murder mysteries of this era.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Brother of JonBenét Ramsey Files Defamation Lawsuit Against CBS appeared first on Law Street.

In a lengthy and detailed speech on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry defended the U.S.’s decision to abstain from a vote condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and advocated for a two-state solution as the path to peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Kerry affirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to Israel, describing the relationship as a friendship but declaring that friends “need to tell each other the hard truths.” He then went on to assert that the U.S. did indeed vote in accordance with its values, declaring that a vote against the settlements would jeopardize a two-state solution, which he described as the “only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.”

The speech comes in the wake of a wave of criticism from President-elect Donald Trump and the dismay of pro-Israel advocates who called upon the U.S. to veto the U.N. resolution. The U.N. resolution declared the settlements a violation of international law, and were not vetoed by any of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

Simply the announcement of Kerry’s planned speech was enough to draw ire from many public figures, who believed the U.N. vote showed a disloyalty to the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

After allowing this anti-Israel resolution to pass the UN, Secretary Kerry has no credibility to speak on Israeli-Palestinian peace.

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) December 28, 2016

We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but…….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016

not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016

Kerry said he felt “compelled” to respond in the wake of the backlash, stressing the U.S.’s continued support for Israel but taking a hard stance against the West Bank settlements. He also said that if Israel went down the one-state path, “it will never have true peace with the rest of the Arab world.” He outlined principles for negotiations between the two parties, declaring that both sides must be actively involved in the peace process in order for it to be effective.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the speech a “deep disappointment” during a news conference on Wednesday, saying that it “was almost as unbalanced as the anti-Israel resolution” passed by the U.N. last week. He also allegedly vowed to work with the Trump administration to repeal the U.N. resolution.

While it is unlikely that the speech could substantially change Israeli policies in the region, it sent a powerful statement that the Obama administration was standing by its vote at the U.N. despite opposition from Israel.

While the Trump administration has vowed to strengthen the alliance between the two countries further, Secretary Kerry’s speech has essentially cemented the Obama administration’s legacy as one with a tenuous relationship to Israel and Netanyahu: keeping amicable terms, but refusing to bend to its every demand.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post John Kerry Outlines Middle East Peace Plan in Controversial Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Brianna Wu, a major figure in the “GamerGate” scandal, is planning to run for Congress in 2018, The Hill reports.

Wu, a Democrat from Massachusetts, announced her campaign via her Facebook page, by uploading a poster that included the quote: “She fought the alt-right and won. Now she’s fighting for all of us.”

In case you need a refresher on the GamerGate controversy, which was at its peak in 2014, it was a campaign of harassment against many prominent women in the gaming community that was allegedly born out of increasing participation of women in that community. Wu, who is an independent game developer, became well-known after becoming one of the targets of such harassment.

Wu has said that she received over 200 death threats in the wake of Gamergate, and saw her personal information, including her social security number and bank account info, leaked.

In an interview with the Boston Globe, Wu cited women’s rights and harassment as major issues that she wanted to highlight in the campaign, stemming from her own experiences.

If elected to the House, I promise that I will be one of our nation’s fiercest voices for women’s rights, LGBT rights and #blacklivesmatter.

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) December 22, 2016

This is not Wu’s first exposure to the political scene. Early in the Bush administration, she moved to DC to pursue a career in politics as a Republican. She claims that she quickly became discouraged by the Republican party, and left DC to finish her college education.

It is still not clear in what congressional district Wu plans on basing her campaign, but her race should be one to watch in 2018.

I’ve heard hundreds of times this week that my running for congress is giving people hope. pic.twitter.com/SLg0z2CIX1

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) December 22, 2016

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “GamerGate” Target Brianna Wu is Running for Congress appeared first on Law Street.

Grab your aux cord, because there’s a possibility that your favorite radio station is about to lose the rights to a lot of music.

A legal dispute between music rights organization Global Music Rights (GMR), which represents songwriters for artists such as Pharrell, Drake, and The Beatles, and the Radio Music Licensing Committee (RMLC), a group that represents commercial radio stations in music licensing matters, could pull a lot of songs by major artists off of radio stations nationwide.

GMR, a performing rights organization founded by former entertainment executive Irving Azoff, claims in its lawsuit that current licensing fees are too low, causing songwriters to be under-compensated. GMR’s suit against RMLC reportedly accuses radio stations of acting as a “cartel” that works to keep payments to songwriters low. The lawsuit demands that these fees be raised.

In its dueling lawsuit against GMR, RMLC accuses the organization of trying to “force the radio industry into paying exorbitant prices for a license to the musical works it claims are covered by its repertory, with a credible threat of financially ruinous copyright infringement litigation.” Calling GMR’s objectives “unlawful,” the lawsuit claims that GMR has been luring away songwriters from other performance-rights organizations ASCAP and BMI with promises of higher compensation. This would force radio stations to give in to demands of higher licensing fees, or else risk losing a whole roster of songs.

ASCAP and BMI have agreed to pay royalty rates to artists at rate of 4 percent of stations’ revenues, according to Rolling Stone.

If the dispute is not resolved, it could mean that many stations would be unable to afford the licensing fees for songs written by many of the top songwriters of today. Songwriters represented by GMR are reportedly responsible for 7.5 percent of all songs on the radio.

In the midst of RMLC’s legal battle with GMR, the organization also just signed an agreement with ASCAP to increase royalties for ASCAP members. The agreement seemed to be reached amicably, and the RMLC chairman seemed to aim a subtle jab at GMR in a statement to Billboard: “This agreement demonstrates how the creative and music user communities can work together in good faith to produce an outcome that is positive for both sides.”

This legal battle could potentially turn out to be a big one for the radio industry, as it struggles to survive in the era of digital music.

Editor’s Note: This article has been modified to make a correction to the names of artists with songs written by GMR-represented songwriters.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Radio Stations vs. Songwriters: Will Your Favorite Music Be Affected? appeared first on Law Street.

A lawsuit against their future sister-in-law is the cherry on top of an eventful few months for the Kardashians.

Khloe, Kourtney, and Kim have filed legal documents to prevent Blac Chyna (whose actual name is Angela Renée White) from being able to trademark the Kardashian name for her own personal brand. In case you haven’t been “keeping up,” Chyna is the fiancée of Rob Kardashian, and she took legal action back in May to secure her future family’s name for business purposes.

The legal action taken by the Kardashian family cites that the sisters “will suffer damage including irreparable injury to their reputation and goodwill if the Opposed Mark is allowed to register.”

The relationship between Chyna and the Kardashians has been a tumultuous one, but they seemed to be on good terms recently. However, after being accused of “deliberately seeking to profit from the goodwill and popularity” of the Kardashian name, family relations are sure to get a little awkward.

TMZ reports that the sisters assured Chyna the filings were not meant to single her out and were just “standard” procedures taken by their lawyers.

The Kardashian name itself is an important part of the various businesses owned by the family, which include products such as clothing, fragrance, makeup and home goods, among others. Additionally, the money they make off of self-promotion in the form of personal appearances and social media depend a lot upon the value of the Kardashian name.

Kris Jenner herself considered changing her name back to Kardashian in the past, and cited business purposes for doing so.

Chyna’s lawyer told People that his expectations are that it will be a “clear case win, because it’s actually her name, it’s not a poaching.”

Regardless of the intentions, it should be interesting to see how this all plays out as the family prepares to welcome Chyna into the family.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Kardashians Try to Prevent Blac Chyna from Legally Using Their Name  appeared first on Law Street.

It’s not exactly surprising when President-elect Donald Trump contradicts himself on certain policy views: he’s taken differing stances on issues such as immigration, Obamacare, and gay marriage, among many others. But his inconsistency on climate change just this week has been causing some major whiplash for anyone following Trump’s opinions on the issue closely.

Earlier this week, in a meeting reportedly set up by Ivanka Trump, Al Gore met with the President-elect to discuss the issue of climate change. While the details of the discussion have not been disclosed, Gore told reporters that the two looked for “areas of common ground” in the “interesting discussion.” Trump also allegedly met with Leonardo DiCaprio to discuss green jobs, and was gifted a copy of DiCaprio’s climate change documentary, which he reportedly promised to watch.

While those meetings may have offered some hope to environmental activists, those hopes came crashing down after Trump announced yesterday that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt would be his appointment to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt has called the issue of climate change “far from settled” and referred to himself as the “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda” in his official bio.

The appointment of Pruitt falls more in line with the Donald Trump who has called climate change a “hoax” and has called for abandoning Obama’s climate change actions such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the Clean Power Plan.

Trump has continuously stated that he’s “not a huge believer” in man-made global warming, and while he’s claimed that the research as it stands isn’t conclusive on the issue, he also doesn’t seem to be interested in investing in further research.

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

On the other hand, Politico has reported that Ivanka Trump plans on making climate change one of her “signature issues.” While this might just reflect a difference of opinion between the President-elect and his daughter, Trump has also made comments that have shown a more balanced approach on the issue, such as his comments to the New York Times post-election:

“I think there is some connectivity” between humans and climate change, Trump says.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 22, 2016

If this inconsistency indicates anything besides Trump’s own lack of convictions, it’s that Trump will likely take a backseat on the issue and allow his advisors and appointees to decide what role the U.S. will play in the fight against climate change. While Ivanka puts on a deceptive show of being a climate change spokeswoman, our new EPA director will likely be rolling back the progress made during the Obama administration.

If anything’s certain, it’s that we’re in for an unpredictable four years.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Trump’s Confusing Stances on Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, while Americans were busy analyzing our President-elect’s latest round of ill-advised tweets, France held a presidential primary, and the results could have some major impacts on the country’s 2017 presidential elections. On Sunday, candidate François Fillon beat out his two opponents, Alain Juppé and Nicolas Sarkozy, in the primary elections for France’s center-right Republican party. The victory was a major upset, considering that just last month, Fillon, France’s former prime minister, was trailing far behind Juppé and Sarkozy in the polls, making it unlikely that he would even be a competitor.

If you’re wondering why this news should matter to an American preparing for Trump’s presidency, it’s because France is poised to be the next nation to watch as Western countries are trending strongly toward populism and ultra-nationalism. These attitudes, which led to Brexit and our own President-elect Trump, have also been on the rise in France, a country which has traditionally been known for its left-wing politics.

If you’ve heard Marine Le Pen’s name being thrown around recently, it’s because she’s the leader of France’s far-right National Front, a party that has been known for certain extreme views against immigration and the European Union. Le Pen’s father, who was the party’s former head, was expelled from leadership after anti-Semitic comments.

After the Brexit decision, Le Pen wrote an op-ed for the New York Times calling the European Union a “prison of peoples” and declaring “The People’s Spring” inevitable. While the Brexit decision certainly gave Le Pen more ammunition to use in her cause, it is likely that Trump’s election will further increase the anti-establishment attitudes reflected by Le Pen and her supporters. She herself called Trump’s win a “sign of hope” and an indication that “people are taking their country back.”

Fillon’s victory on Sunday is significant because the Republican party was considered the greatest hope to prevent Le Pen’s victory in the presidential elections. While Fillon is a social conservative who has vowed to fight “Islamic totalitarianism,” he is still considered to be preferable to the left over Le Pen, whose plans to appeal to the working class and those fed up with the “establishment” and “elites” mirror the familiar rhetoric of the Trump campaign. It is unlikely that the left will have any representation of its own in next year’s race, as the low popularity of current Socialist President François Hollande indicates that the party will be unable to compete. Hollande announced today that he would not be seeking re-election, but polls indicate that any alternative candidate chosen by the Socialist Party will likely not be able to challenge Fillon and Le Pen.

If Le Pen is victorious in 2017’s elections, it could spell trouble for the future of the European Union and would likely be a discouraging outlook for liberal politics all over the globe. As the “Trump effect” sends ripples that will undoubtedly shake up the world order, the French election is one to watch.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why You Should Care About the French Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday morning, writers’ rooms were probably frantically trying to re-write many of their planned monologues and sketches in line with election night’s unexpected results. Many of them probably struggled with what tone to approach the news with, as the man who had been their main source of comedic material for the past 18 months is not a joke anymore–he’s now our president-elect. While these hosts were more somber than usual, they still brought the laughs, and demonstrated that not all hope was lost.

If the election results have you stressed, hopefully these late night hosts can offer you the comedic comfort food your soul needs.

“Last Week Tonight” with John Oliver

John Oliver’s last show of the year issued some pretty serious messages and dire warnings in between its laughs. John Oliver urged viewers to “actively stand up for one another” by supporting organizations such as The Trevor Project, Planned Parenthood, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and a myriad of others. He also advised that we constantly remind ourselves that “this is not normal” with regard to a Trump presidency. Oh, and he also “blew up” 2016 at the end, because this year has been all-around awful.

“The Daily Show” with Trevor Noah

This election cycle was seriously missing the voice of Jon Stewart, but Trevor Noah delivered on Wednesday with material that could make a viewer want to laugh and cry at the same time. Particularly moving was a bit by Hasan Minhaj, in which he almost broke down in tears while telling the story of his mother, who is currently abroad and can’t return to the U.S. until February, but wasn’t entirely sure whether she’d be let back in under Trump’s confusing and ever-changing “Muslim ban.” He needs her…and she also owes him $300.

Another moving moment from this week’s show was when correspondent Michelle Wolf also simultaneously laughed and cried as she discussed the absurdity of Trump’s win and its depressing implications for American women.

In the 2016 election, 42% of women voted for Donald Trump. @MichelleIsAWolf responds: https://t.co/lU43mqpyPz pic.twitter.com/BJZCxetT5s

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) November 10, 2016

“Late Night” with Seth Meyers

Seth Meyers just might be the man to blame for a Trump presidency: in 2011, he delivered scathing jabs at Trump for his “birther” comments about President Obama. He also laughed off Trump’s interest in a campaign for the presidency at the time, while cameras showed Trump was in the audience silently seething and accepting the challenge.

Despite that, Meyers received praise for his election coverage, with his “Closer Look” segments. His post election remarks were somber, hopeful, and humorous at the same time, and had Meyers himself on the verge of tears.

“Full Frontal with Samantha Bee”

The central message of Bee’s show? We need to get to work. Bee was definitely angry with the results, blaming the large white voter base that voted for Trump. Bee also shushed white people who didn’t vote for him, and said “if Muslims have to take responsibility for every member of their community, so do we.”

But Bee wasn’t just angry, she was also hopeful for the “nasty women” of the future that need to step up so that we can have more and more women representing us in office.

“The Late Show” with Stephen Colbert

Another character who was sorely missed this election cycle was Stephen Colbert’s “Colbert Report” persona. But even though we didn’t get to hear from his alter ego, the man himself was there to support us through the tough Election Night and into the next day.

Stephen Colbert’s live election night coverage on Showtime ended before Trump’s victory was announced, but at that point it was already clear that a Clinton win was unlikely, so the night ended on a somber and uncertain note. But the next morning, after it was official, Colbert captured the nausea-ridden hangover that overcame much of the country the day after the election. Colbert was blunt about his feelings (“This suuuucks”), but if you’re feeling down, I guarantee that watching Colbert put on cat ears and pretend to be a “sexy kitty” will definitely improve your day.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Here’s How Late Night Hosts Reacted to the Election Results appeared first on Law Street.

So there we have it: what seemed inconceivable is now a reality. Donald J. Trump, former “Apprentice” host, a businessman with a slew of failed ventures to his name, and a man with literally no public service experience, has defeated Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a woman who spent her entire life working toward this moment and who was poised to become our first female president.

Mr. Trump has been surprisingly indestructible during this election cycle. Despite his astounding hypocrisy, consistent lies, and vile and hateful rhetoric toward nearly every group imaginable, he made it. Even after starting his campaign off by calling Mexicans rapists, insulting a Gold Star family, being caught on tape talking about groping a woman, and literally any other time where it seemed like he was self-sabotaging his campaign, he made it.  We have our next Commander-in-Chief.

Look, Trump voters, I get it. A lot of you are part of a disenfranchised and largely-ignored group of Americans, and “Make America Great Again” sounds like a really simple solution to a lot of the major problems you’re dealing with. And yes, the government feels like it consistently is dealing with partisan gridlock, which makes it difficult to actually get things done. People want a change from all of that, and it’s understandable; these are issues we must acknowledge and take action on as a country.

But I’m sorry to tell you: Trump doesn’t care about you. If you voted for him because you think he’s the one who’s going to solve these problems, you’ve made a terrible, terrible mistake.

Here’s what Trump cares about: power, fame, money, and himself.

Here’s what Trump doesn’t care about: climate change, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, income inequality, refugees, diplomacy, education reform, veterans, Black Lives Matter, and criminal justice reform.

Trump has yet to explain his policies on the most pressing issues facing this country today. His views on fighting terrorism? He says he’s going to get rid of ISIS, but he doesn’t want to tell us how because he doesn’t want to tip them off. His immigration plan mainly consists of two words: “the wall.” (By the way, Mexico hasn’t agreed to this wall, and there’s not really a way to make them do it, so that will probably add to our debt).  His proposed Muslim ban is probably unconstitutional.

But hey, he will bring our jobs back, right? Well, a lot of his economic proposals don’t really add up, and his economic plan is likely to add trillions to the debt.

Fine, he can appoint advisors and Cabinet members who have more experience with these issues. But do you really want a leader who doesn’t understand what he’s talking about, and who advocates for policies that are straight-out unconstitutional, unfeasible, and downright criminal? Even if he’s unable to act on certain things he’s said over this campaign, he is now the world’s representative for America.

He doesn’t understand your problems; he’s never lived them. Throughout his campaign, he’s shown us his narcissism and his love for attention. Even with his alleged billions of dollars, he’s not even charitable with his money. Oh, and don’t forget that we still haven’t seen his tax returns, despite the IRS giving him the okay to release them even under audit.

I haven’t written this to shame Trump supporters, but for people to fully understand the choice they made when they stepped into that voting booth. If Trump doesn’t fulfill his promises, don’t say you weren’t warned. After Brexit, a lot of “leave” voters had regrets over their decision. I don’t know if that will happen in the U.S., but I wouldn’t be surprised if some voters have buyer’s remorse not long after he takes power.

Congratulations, Trump voters. You celebrate along with ISIS, the KKK, and many other hate groups that are thrilled that about this election result. For the sake of our country, I genuinely do wish that he does “make America great,” but I don’t have much hope that he will.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Dear Fellow Americans: Trump Doesn’t Care About Us appeared first on Law Street.

Americans take great pride in our democratic system, which we tout as the main opportunity for our citizens to be a part of the political process. Despite this, voting (the mechanism that gives us the most access to this process) is still something we struggle with: America’s voter participation rates are still astonishingly low compared to other developed countries. With a 53.6 percent participation rate among eligible voters, we fall far behind countries such as Belgium (87.2 percent), Sweden (82.6 percent), and France (71.2 percent). In an especially crazy and unpredictable general election year, exercising your right to vote is more crucial than ever.

While the overall national participation rate is low, the rates vary widely on a state-by-state basis. With the presidential election just one day away, Law Street took a look at the average state turnout during general elections to see who’s been voting (and who hasn’t) for president. We’ll have to wait until Election Day to see if these states will maintain their spots on the list.

Click through the slideshow below to see the top to see our rankings of the top five states with the lowest and highest voter turnout rates:

*Note: these numbers reflect the average of the turnout rates of general elections since 1980, based on Census Bureau statistics.

Image courtesy of Ruediger Gros; License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

#1 Lowest: Hawaii

Average Voter Participation Rate: 54.8 percent

Blue/Red/Swing State?: Blue

Hawaii’s voter turnout rate among eligible voters is almost astoundingly low. Among the citizen-age voter population, a little more than half of Hawaii residents on average have shown up to vote during general elections. This past summer, the state set a new record for voter apathy in a primary election, after only 31.4 percent of registered voters cast ballots.

It’s not just the laid-back lifestyle that seems to be keeping people away from the polls; among native Hawaiians, there is reportedly an overwhelming sense of disconnect with American politics. The belief that Hawaii shouldn’t have been occupied by America is still strong among many in the state, which is leading to a lot of voter apathy. So no, people aren’t just too busy surfing (although that honestly does seem to play a small factor).

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Which States Vote the Least and Which States Vote the Most? appeared first on Law Street.

Are you a voter in a solidly red or blue state, and frustrated that your preferred candidate has no chance of winning in that state? Alternatively, are you a voter in a swing state who would like to vote third-party, but are afraid that your vote will help another candidate get elected?

Enter “vote trading,” a practice which allows voters in swing states who are not a strong proponent of either candidate to vote third-party without feeling like their vote is wasted.

It goes like this: say a voter in Virginia, a swing state, does not want to vote for Clinton, and instead prefers a third party candidate such as Jill Stein. However, they do not want to make it easier for Trump to win by taking away a potential vote from Clinton. That individual can reach out to a Clinton supporter in a heavily blue state, such as California, and make an agreement to “swap” so that the Californian votes for Stein and the Virginian votes for Clinton without worrying about contributing to a Trump win in the state.

According to Vox, this practice first came about in the 2000 election, when voter trading websites popped up to help Nader supporters in swing states make sure that their third-party vote didn’t help Bush get elected. This time around, the #NeverTrump app is an attractive option for voters who refuse to vote for Clinton but also fear a Trump victory. The app claims that it “matches Hillary voters in blue states with third-party voters in swing states to help them trade votes.” It also allows users to chat with their matches before agreeing to trade, helping to increase trust (although there’s no way to completely ensure that both parties will follow through on their agreement).

It’s not too surprising that this practice is making a comeback during this election cycle, in which both candidates have favorability ratings of under 50 percent. It is clear that there are a large swath of voters that do not feel that they can vote for either candidate in good conscience, but still want to avoid a worst-case scenario of a Trump presidency.

And yes, vote trading is legal: as this New York Times op-ed explains, a ruling after the 2000 election declared this practice permissible as “constitutionally protected speech and conduct.”

For voters that are particularly uninspired by this year’s major party candidates, vote trading might actually be an option to consider.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What Is “Vote Trading?” appeared first on Law Street.

A recent study found that male birth control injections could be up to 96 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. If this research were to be successful in creating a viable new form of birth control, it could be potentially groundbreaking for women, who have largely held the burden of being responsible for contraception.

But don’t get too excited yet; the study was halted prematurely because too many men dropped out due to adverse effects such as “change in mood,” as well as “acne, pain or panic at first injection, palpitations, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction.”

News of this development drew a collective eye roll from women across the internet. Typical side effects of hormonal birth control for women vary greatly depending on individuals and method used, but for the pill, the most common form of contraception, they include headaches, weight gain, mood changes and nausea–just to name a few. Certain types of pills have also been known to increase a woman’s , a dangerous and potentially fatal possible side effect. Other common forms of contraception, including IUDs,  the vaginal ring, and injectable birth control, also carry serious risks.

As might be expected, the reaction online was not sympathetic:

Men will experience mood swings with male birth control shots ..

Women: pic.twitter.com/ofcGHCoHOn

— SUNNI (@SunniAndTheCity) October 31, 2016

Successful male birth control trials ending due to side effects like depression, mood swings, and acne is LITERALLY A JOKE

— jess white (@jesssswhiiite) November 1, 2016

Male birth control trial canceled after they learn it causes mood swings and depression.

Meanwhile. pic.twitter.com/gO7CLLdndh

— Carina MacKenzie (@cadlymack) November 1, 2016

when u hear male birth control was discontinued cause it was causing them weight gain, acne and mood swings. pic.twitter.com/n7Ih8DlF0v

— brenna (@brennaacasey) November 1, 2016

The Daily Show also delivered a harsh takedown of the men who dropped out. In response to the fact that the side effects of female birth control were potentially much more serious than those that the men suffered from, correspondent Michelle Wolf quipped, “side effects are the only area where women earn more than men.”

However, as Vox notes, the internet criticism toward the study’s participants may be misguided: the rate of side effects was high enough that the safety of the study was put into question. And while it may seem like mood swings and acne aren’t severe enough to end a study, the rate of side effects were allegedly higher than the rate of side effects in female hormonal birth control. In the rush to judgment, it seems that people overlooked the fact that the men who dropped out were not directly responsible for the research ending early.

The study still led to discoveries that could open the door for viable forms of male birth control in the future, by showing that an effective contraceptive for males is indeed possible. Also, “despite the adverse effects, more than 75 percent of participants reported being willing to use this method of contraception at the conclusion of the trial.” (So, not all men are weak).

The hope is still alive for finding some usable form of male birth control sooner rather than later.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post A Study On Male Birth Control Ended Early Because There Were Too Many Side Effects appeared first on Law Street.

Amid uproar over France’s enforcement of the burkini ban, the top court of France has overturned the ban in the town of Villeneuve-Loubet, the Associated Press reports. The decision, issued by the country’s Council of State, is likely to set a precedent for overturning the ban in all other ordinances in which it currently is enforced.

This action comes a few days after photos were released that showed police forcing a woman lying on a beach in a burkini to remove some of her clothing, deeming her outfit not beach-appropriate. As a result, France has been facing heat for what many believe is simply another way of exerting control over women’s bodies.

While the burkini seems to only be a slight variation on the wetsuit, it has its proponents in uproar over issues such as “hygiene” and “morality.”

The #BurkiniBan – ‘C’est ridicule!’ © Amy Clancy (@AmyClancyUK) pic.twitter.com/yohgEJ6G2J

— Amy Clancy (@AmyClancyUK) August 24, 2016

Men: Stop telling women what to wear https://t.co/eHdQ7kPq4y #BurkiniBan pic.twitter.com/zG5l6wrbW5

— Ann Telnaes (@AnnTelnaes) August 25, 2016

However, it is likely that this city’s overturned ban will be met with a lot of resistance in the country, where the ban has also received a lot of support in the name of secularism. Former French president (and current presidential candidate) Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, has called the burkini a “provocation” that supports radical Islam. Additionally, right-wing leader Marine Le Pen vowed that the battle would continue, and declared his support for a banning of headscarves in all public places.

The conservative mayor of the town of Villeneuve-Loubet, Lionnel Luca, isn’t happy with the court’s decision, believing that it “can only heighten passions and tensions, with the risk of trouble we wanted to avoid.”

The burkini ban is a continuation of recent French policies to crack down on overt religious expression, policies which have seemed to unevenly target Muslims. In 2004, a French policy banning religious symbols in public schools prevented students from being able to wear items such as headscarves. In 2011, a policy to prevent face coverings in public made it forbidden for women to wear burqas without facing consequences. This most recent ban seems to be a continuation of this fixation on Muslim women’s wardrobe and what it allegedly represents.

While male leaders in France continue to fight over women’s clothing choices, the repercussions of the French court’s decision will undoubtedly continue the discussions on secularism, religious freedom, and Islam within France and other European countries.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Court Overturns Burkini Ban in French Town appeared first on Law Street.

Is WikiLeaks sacrificing the personal privacy of innocent people in its mission for transparency? On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that the organization’s decision to publish the Saudi Cables last year–in which about a half-million documents from the Saudi Foreign Ministry were made public–exposed the sensitive personal information of hundreds of ordinary citizens. Among those exposed are rape victims, the mentally ill, and LGBT individuals who were essentially “outed” by the leaks.

The cables were published last year, but the AP’s report sheds some light on how WikiLeaks often goes beyond its stated mission, harming the privacy of innocent individuals who may themselves be left vulnerable by leaked documents. The organization claims that the transparency it brings about “creates a better society for all people,” but some of the information exposed is not just embarrassing for the citizens involved–it could even put them in danger.

For example, the AP notes that the leaks include the name of a gay Saudi citizen who was arrested for homosexuality. This “outing” could have profound consequences for the individual, considering that the illegality of being gay in the Kingdom “can lead to social ostracism, a prison sentence, or even death.”

Wikileaks fired back on Twitter, denying that it leaked anything that the government did not already know and alleging that the AP was simply bringing back an old story to stir up controversy in an election year:

No, WikiLeaks did not disclose “gays” to the Saudi govt. Data is from govt & not leaked by us. Story from 2015. Re-run now due to election.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 23, 2016

The organization also tweeted about the importance of the Saudi cables, noting that it exposed important information about the Kingdom that was not being covered by the media:

WikiLeaks’ #Saudi Cables reveal the Kingdom’s foreign media manipulation strategies https://t.co/e3cx2LIJPA pic.twitter.com/JOUlml7ous

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 23, 2016

This isn’t the first time that the site has exposed personal information. Last month, when the organization leaked thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee, it included the credit card and social security numbers of a few dozen people, the report notes.

Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, has attempted to be a strong advocate for privacy in the past, penning a New York Times op-ed on the necessity of protecting privacy in a “surveillance society.” However, while he criticizes modern-day companies and the government for eroding the privacy of individuals, his organization has clearly done the same by leaking Saudi citizens’ personal information.

There is no evidence that the exposure of the information was intentional, but it brings to light some interesting dilemmas facing the organization and its mission: is there a way to be completely transparent without making innocent individuals vulnerable? And how much is too much when it comes to leaking sensitive information? The AP report just reinforces the ethical and moral issues surrounding WikiLeaks, resurfacing debates that have been around since the site launched and will undoubtedly continue as the site leaks additional information.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Did WikiLeaks Expose the Private Information of Innocent Saudi Citizens? appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: Ryan Lochte has since issued an apology for his behavior:

https://t.co/n82dZH2gfl pic.twitter.com/rGp1nmA94G

— Ryan Lochte (@RyanLochte) August 19, 2016

---

A bizarre story just got a whole lot messier. Earlier this week, it was reported that Ryan Lochte, along with three other U.S. swimmers, were robbed at gunpoint while returning home from a party in Rio. The news seemed to affirm worries that the country was not in great shape to hold the 2016 Games, which so far had seemed to be incident-free, and the robbery of a high-profile athlete such as Lochte didn’t bode well for the country’s image. However, Brazilian police are now alleging that the swimmers’ accounts of the robbery are not adding up, and a judge has ordered that the passports of Lochte and swimmer Jimmy Feigen be seized so that they can conduct an investigation into the claims. Last night, officials pulled Jack Conger and Gunnar Bentz, the other two swimmers involved, off their plane back to the U.S. and detained them.

Lochte has reportedly already left Rio, while Feigen’s location hasn’t been disclosed. Since the news broke, there has been a lot of uncertainty surrounding the details of what occurred late Saturday night. While the International Olympic Committee originally vehemently denied that the robbery took place, it quickly doubled back and confirmed the claims. On Tuesday, Lochte told USA Today that the incident was not originally reported because “we were afraid to get in trouble.”

Now, recent video footage has shed light on inconsistencies in the athletes’ accounts of that night. Footage released by The Daily Mail allegedly shows the athletes returning to the Olympic Village early Sunday morning and going through the x-ray machines with items they claimed were stolen in the incident. The actual timing of the return did not match up with the time that the swimmers claimed to have returned. Additionally, the owner of the gas station where the robbery was said to have occurred also told the Daily Mail that, in the surveillance video he turned over to the police, there was proof that the athletes were never there that night.

It is this video in particular that allegedly prompted the judge to order the passport seizure. Filing a false police report is a punishable offense in Brazil that can lead to jail time.

Fortunately for Lochte, he is back home safe and sound: if he was still hanging around Rio, the judge’s order would prohibit him from leaving the country while the incident was being investigated. His lawyer told CNN that even if an arrest warrant was issued by Brazilian authorities, Lochte would not be turning himself in.

Lochte, the 11-time Olympic medalist, responded to the accusations in a conversation with Matt Lauer. He reportedly told Lauer that Brazilian authorities had not asked him to stay in the country, which is why he left on schedule. He also claimed that he  “wouldn’t make this up,” although there were slight inconsistencies with the account he told Lauer from what he originally told the Today Show’s Billy Bush.

Lochte and the other swimmers better get ready: until and unless their claims are corroborated, they will definitely face anger from the Brazilian people for maligning their country. While there’s a lot of speculation surrounding what exactly happened, one thing’s for certain: an already-unpredictable Olympic Games just got weirder.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Was Ryan Lochte Lying About the Rio Robbery? Brazilian Investigation Gets Messy appeared first on Law Street.

Remember the “clock kid”? Ahmed Mohamed, the 14-year-old from Irving, Texas became a viral phenomenon last year after he was arrested for bringing in a homemade clock to school to show a teacher, which was mistaken by school officials as a bomb. The outcry that followed shoved the teenager into the media spotlight, making him an inadvertent symbol for religious tolerance and equal protection under the law. As his story spread, his fame brought with it opportunities such as invitations to the White House, offers for multiple scholarships, and support from organizations such as NASA, MIT, and many major tech companies.

One year later, the Mohamed family is filing a lawsuit against the Irving Independent School District (IISD), his former principal, and the City of Irving for violating Ahmed’s constitutional rights.

The lawsuit highlights IISD’s alleged history of racial and religious discrimination, including many such incidents that Mohamed himself experienced involving classmates and teachers while he was a student in the school district. It also details “unconstitutional arrests” by Irving’s Police Department, which, the lawsuit claims, city officials knew about but showed “deliberate indifference” toward. The failure of officials to provide training to officers after such incidents “[led] Irving police officers to arrest Ahmed Mohamed without probable cause.”

Last November, it was reported that Ahmed and his family wrote letters to the City of Irving threatening a civil suit unless they received $15 million in damages and apologies from city and school officials. This suit did not provide specific monetary demands, only requesting a trial by jury.

Ahmed and his family moved to Qatar late last year, accepting a scholarship offer from the Qatar Foundation. However, Ahmed has expressed a desire to return to the U.S., telling The Washington Post that  he gets “bored” in Qatar and would like to study in an American college.

Both IISD and the City of Irving responded to the lawsuit to WFAA on Monday. The school district said it “continues to deny violating the student’s rights,” while the City “is prepared to vigorously defend itself” in the case.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “Clock Kid” Is Back and Suing His Former City and School District appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump’s campaign has had a rough week. After the intense backlash surrounding the presidential candidate’s comments about Khizr Khan, followed by his erroneous claims that he saw a video of the U.S. plane delivering $400 million to Iran, and recent reports of discord within the Trump campaign, the latest poll numbers are now showing a widening lead for Hillary Clinton. On top of all that drama, rumors have been flying that Trump may not make it to November.

Trump himself doesn’t seem to be backing down from the fight just yet, and it would be surprising if his ego actually let him. However, ABC News reports that Republican officials are already thinking about his potential replacement if he were to leave the race. Many are even questioning if Trump’s recent actions, which seem to be reckless even by Trump standards, are actually a form of self-sabotage, insinuating that he doesn’t want to run anymore but has too much pride to actually say so.

Trump says he would never drop out: https://t.co/Avr6eAK6o8 pic.twitter.com/4hev2jZRaR

— andrew kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) August 5, 2016

If Trump ultimately did decide to drop out, the Republican National Committee would have the authority to choose an alternate nominee. The RNC’s official rule on filling vacancies in nominations states the following:

(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.

(b) In voting under this rule, the Republican National Committee members representing any state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.

(c) In the event that the members of the Republican National Committee from any state shall not be in agreement in the casting of votes hereunder, the votes of such state shall be divided equally, including fractional votes, among the members of the Republican National Committee present or voting by proxy.

(d) No candidate shall be chosen to fill any such vacancy except upon receiving a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the election.

It is unclear who specifically the RNC would have in mind as a replacement, but it would be tough to find someone to replace Trump’s blend of personality traits and anti-PC opinions that have attracted so many to him. If he were to leave the race, it would be difficult to find a candidate to appeal to both establishment Republicans as well as the unique crowd that Trump has been able to attract.

The list of Republicans who won’t be backing Trump in the general election keeps growing, with many prominent figures even pledging to vote for Clinton. Meanwhile, as his poll numbers fall, Trump has begun commenting on his fears of a “rigged election” in November. If Trump’s support does keep falling, could he drop out just to avoid the humiliation of defeat? Or would he decide to stick it out and blame a loss on factors such as the electoral system itself?

A candidate dropping out of the race is fairly unprecedented; the only person to attempt it was independent candidate Ross Perot, who dropped out for 3 months before re-entering the race prior to the election. However, Trump has run a different kind of campaign, one that hasn’t played by the rules of traditional American politics. Having a major candidate drop out would fit right in with the unpredictable atmosphere of this insane election year.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Could Trump Drop Out of the Race? appeared first on Law Street.

In June, “Star Trek” actor Anton Yelchin was killed at age 27 after his Jeep Grand Cherokee rolled away from where it was parked and pinned him against a gate in his driveway. In the media scrutiny that followed, some major issues surrounding the car model and its gear shift became widely publicized, including the recall of nearly 1.1 million vehicles that included Yelchin’s model. On Tuesday, the actor’s parents announced that they would be filing a lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler, the parent company of Jeep, for the wrongful death of their son.

In an emotional press conference on Tuesday, Victor and Irina Yelchin announced the lawsuit, with the actor’s mother explaining that she hoped that his death “might save another life.” Their lawyer, Gary Dordick, blamed the carmakers for the accident, saying the company “failed to take action to protect the families that trusted them to make their vehicle safe. The safety recall was way too little and way too late.”

Yelchin’s death is attributed to the monostable shifter found in the car model and others made by the company. The design and operation of the shifter is reportedly not intuitive for drivers, many of whom mistakenly believe that their cars are in “park” when they are not. This issue has allegedly caused nearly 300 accidents and 68 injuries, leading the company to issue a recall this past April. The shifters were also investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which stated in its report that the “absence of an additional mechanism to mitigate the effects of driver error…constitutes a defect presenting a risk to motor vehicle safety.”

The suit isn’t the first example of legal action taken against the company since Yelchin’s death. In late June, a class action lawsuit for $5 million was filed against the company by drivers of vehicles with the same monostable shifter found in Yelchin’s vehicle. In April, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released the results of their investigation into the shifters, in which they reported that drivers often exited their vehicles after mistakenly believing them to be in the “Park” position. This defect, the report stated, “constitutes a defect presenting a risk to motor vehicle safety.”

Perhaps one of the most tragic parts of this story? The fact that the recall notice was mailed to Yelchin’s house just one week after his death. The notice informed drivers that the software in the cars could be updated to add an “Auto Park” feature which would reduce the risk of rollaway vehicles. The fact that the actor’s death could possibly have been prevented is sure to be a large part of the Yelchins’ case against the company.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Anton Yelchin’s Parents to Sue Fiat Chrysler for Their Son’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s Democratic National Convention was a star-studded parade of the party’s top figures. President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, President Bill Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and an array of Hollywood celebrities delivered speeches. And of course, Hillary Clinton officially accepted the Democratic nomination for president, which gave the media much to talk about. While those speeches produced many notable moments, it appears that the speech that has reverberated the most in the days following the convention is that of Khizr Khan, the father of a fallen American Muslim soldier.

Mr. Khan, with wife Ghazala Khan at his side, criticized Trump for his Islamophobic and xenophobic rhetoric, and drew special attention for the moment he pulled out his copy of the Constitution and directly challenged Trump, saying, “Let me ask you: have you even read the United States Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy.”

He followed up by declaring, “You have sacrificed nothing, and no one.”

These criticisms have proven to have had a powerful impact, one that the Trump campaign has been unable to effectively combat. When asked about his reaction to the speech by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Trump said that Khan “probably looked like a nice guy” but followed by saying, “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably–maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”

I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016

The backlash against Trump’s comments was immediate. In an MSNBC interview, Mrs. Khan explained that she chose not to speak because she would not be able to keep her composure, due to her immense grief. In that same interview, Mr. Khan called his wife his “coach,” and said that he was “strengthened by her presence.” Mrs. Khan then went on to publish an op-ed in The Washington Post, where she refuted Trump’s claims and discussed her son’s sacrifices for his country.

The Khans’ son, Capt. Humayun Khan, was killed in 2004 at age 27 in Iraq after stepping into the line of fire to save his colleagues from a suicide bomb. His sacrifice reportedly saved over 100 of his fellow soldiers from death.

The speech has provoked a large public response. Major figures in the Republican Party, such as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and John McCain, have strongly condemned Trump’s comments. The presidential candidate has also drawn ire from veterans’ groups and other Gold Star families.

On Twitter, #TrumpSacrifices hashtag used Khan’s comment to mock Trump’s (lack of) sacrifices for his country. Another hashtag, #CanYouHearUsNow, attacked Trump’s insinuation that Muslim women were not allowed to speak.

.@realDonaldTrump This is me, giving a talk at @Georgetown. Do I look oppressed to you? #CanYouHearUsNow pic.twitter.com/NVVMJDbnlJ

— Rim-Sarah Alouane (@RimSarah) August 1, 2016

Today we raise our voices for Muslim women around the world who empower their community #LLSP2016 #CanYouHearUsNow pic.twitter.com/n6bId5Usjj

— KaramahDC (@KaramahDC) August 1, 2016

Khizr Khan’s DNC speech, and the response that has followed it, has been able to do what no one has seemingly been able to do: make Trump seem vulnerable. Last December, Trump made the comment that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose any voters.” And so far, it has seemed to be true, as he has gotten away with attacking nearly every group–Muslims, African-Americans, immigrants, Mexicans, women–and yet has still been able to maintain his base of support. This unwavering support has allowed him to make flat-out false statements and be blatantly hypocritical and offensive, without fear of repercussions.

This time, however, Trump’s insensitive remarks toward a Gold Star family, and inability to take any criticism aimed against him, have brought him into a battle he cannot win. By directly challenging Trump, a Muslim immigrant man might be Trump’s most forceful opponent so far.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Are the Parents of a Fallen Muslim Soldier Trump’s Biggest Threat? appeared first on Law Street.

It appears that Stephen Colbert doesn’t own “Stephen Colbert.” Rather, Colbert, the host of CBS’s “The Late Show,” doesn’t own the rights to the character he developed and played for almost 20 years on Comedy Central.

On Wednesday, Colbert announced on his show that the “Stephen Colbert” character from “The Colbert Report” is the intellectual property of Viacom, Comedy Central’s parent company, and would “never be seen again.” In response to disappointed “boos” by the audience, he responded, “I understand, but what can I do? The lawyers have spoken. I cannot reasonably argue I own my face or name.”

Last week, he brought back his former alternate persona in order to make sense of the Trump nomination, using one of his signature bits called “The Word.”

After the show aired, however, “corporate lawyers” from Colbert’s former network allegedly reached out to claim their IP over the character. “Stephen Colbert,” the faux-conservative newsman, was a feature on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” before receiving his own show on the network in 2005. Last year, Colbert retired the character after taking over for David Letterman on CBS.

While this may be sad news for the “Colbert Nation,” don’t fret just yet: Colbert may have found a suitable alternative. After announcing the end of “Stephen Colbert,” he introduced “Stephen Colbert’s identical twin, “Stephen Colbert,” who may be a worthy replacement. He also introduced his new segment “WERD,” which bears only a slight resemblance to “The Word.”

So far, there is no news on whether Viacom’s legal team has fired back to challenge the eerie similarities between the new “Colbert” and his retired cousin.

The Hollywood Reporter notes the legal complexities surrounding this case, and explains why “Stephen Colbert’s identical twin cousin” may avoid copyright infringement claims and may actually be able to qualify for its own copyright. However, the article notes that if the new character earns a separate copyright, it would probably be owned by CBS rather than Colbert himself. So, let’s hope that Colbert stays where he is, otherwise, he may need to pull out another extended family member if he wants his satirical alter-ego to live on.

While Colbert himself may have abandoned his Comedy Central show last year, it appears he hasn’t let go of the character that millions have grown to love.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Stephen Colbert Doesn’t Own His “Colbert Report” Character appeared first on Law Street.

Getting your driver’s license revoked for unpaid fees is undoubtedly annoying, but is it actually unconstitutional? A lawsuit against the Virginia DMV is challenging the policy, claiming that it is unfair to those without the ability to pay.

The class action suit alleges that revoking a person’s driver’s license is a violation of the protections in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. The defendants accuse the policy of being an “unconstitutional scheme that unfairly punishes them for being poor.” Without a license, a person would legally be unable to drive to work, school, or fulfill other necessary obligations, making the license revocation more than just an inconvenience.

Drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked due to unpaid court fines face a $145 reinstatement fee from the Virginia DMV. To put that in some perspective, that would be equivalent to about 20 hours of wages for someone working at Virginia’s minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. While wealthier people would have no problem paying off the fine and getting off scot-free, it could be a financial burden to anyone living paycheck-to-paycheck.

The Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC), which filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, also recently released a full report on this issue, highlighting the ways in which the state’s repayment plans for unpaid fines hurt lower-income families. The report’s findings indicated that the Virginia DMV does not take into account a person’s financial situation before making the decision to suspend a license.

The plaintiffs in this suit hope to prove that these fines are one of the many injustices that come with being poor in America. People with lower incomes generally find it harder to obtain loans, build and maintain credit scores, and are charged fines for things such as negative bank balances. Court fees and fines also disproportionately affect lower-income people, as they are more likely to go through the court system. Essentially, those with lower incomes are penalized for being poor, while wealthier people are often able to avoid such fees, despite their ability to pay.

LAJC is trying to advocate that the policy be changed to take into account one’s income level before revoking or suspending a license. The suit claims that currently 940,ooo people in the state have suspended licenses due to unpaid fees (over 10 percent of the state’s population of 8.3 million), meaning that a policy change could have a significant impact on Virginia’s citizens.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Is It Unconstitutional to Take Away Someone’s License for Unpaid Fines? appeared first on Law Street.

As we celebrated the long weekend in the U.S., the latest round of ISIS attacks sent shocks of terror across the world.

Since Friday, major attacks attributed to ISIS took place in Baghdad, Dhaka, and Saudi Arabia. And earlier last week, on Wednesday, the attack at Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport made world headlines after terrorists caused 44 casualties at one of the world’s busiest airports.

The terrorist group has reportedly called for more attacks during Ramadan, a month of fasting and reflection for the over 1 billion Muslims across the world. And it seems that ISIS followers have heeded that call, bringing death and destruction upon major cities and sites around the world. While it is still unclear if some of the recent attacks were directly ordered by ISIS or simply inspired by them, all most certainly followed the radical doctrine prescribed by the group.

Here’s what you need to know about the targets in the group’s latest spree of terror:

Friday, July 1: Dhaka–a hostage attack at a cafe

On Friday evening, the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka, Bangladesh was a site of terror after gunmen attacked and took patrons hostage. The cafe, located in the wealthy neighborhood of Gulshan, was reportedly a site for many foreign nationals and diplomats, likely making it a target for the attacks.

The horrific 12-hour ordeal ended early Saturday after commandos stormed the facility, leaving 28 dead. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, and reportedly posted pictures of dead victims on an affiliated site.

Sunday, July 3: Baghdad–the deadliest ISIS attack this week

On Sunday, a suicide bombing targeted a shopping district in Baghdad, reportedly killing at least 215 people so far and injuring at least 175 more. The bombing occurred in the predominantly Shia area of Karrada, where many were shopping for the upcoming Eid holiday. The minority sect of Shia Islam has often been a target of attacks by the group, which is predominantly Sunni.

Earlier this month, the Iraqi government wrested control of Fallujah from ISIS, a possible provocation for the attack. The bombing was Baghdad’s deadliest since 2003, and was by far the deadliest attack carried out by ISIS this week.

Monday, July 4: Saudi Arabia–3 suicide bombings in various locations, including the Prophet’s Mosque

Saudi Arabia was the target of three separate, but coordinated, suicide attacks. The first was at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, where policemen were injured and the attacker was reportedly the only casualty.

The second attack took place in the city of Qatif, where a bomber attempted an attack on a Shiite mosque. He failed, however, only successful in taking his own life.

The third attack took place in Medina, where a bomb went off in front of the Prophet’s Mosque (also known as Masjid an Nabawi). The mosque is a major holy site in the Islamic faith, as it houses the grave of the Prophet Muhammad and is a location frequented by many making religious pilgrimages. This attack led to the deaths of four people, with an additional person injured.

The attacks of the past week show the wide reach of the group’s terror, as it hit multiple countries and regions throughout the world. Even without a centralized authority, ISIS is able to carry out its attacks through people who latch on to its poisonous ideology. As Ramadan winds down this week, its final days have unfortunately been classified with bloodshed and tragedy.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Here’s What You Need to Know About ISIS’s Weekend of Terror appeared first on Law Street.

While Zika virus threatens to become more widespread in the U.S. this summer, partisan bickering in Congress has left the country ill-equipped to handle the impending public health issue. According to the New York Times, Senate Democrats shot down a bill for emergency aid for Zika virus on Tuesday, claiming that Republicans added in “politically charged provisions.”

The bill would have allotted $1.1 billion to help fight the virus, but it included provisions that had little-to-no direct relation to Zika funding. The provisions included: a restriction of funding to family planning clinics, a reversal on the ban on confederate flags in federal cemeteries, and a loosening of EPA restrictions,  along with others. This forced Democrats to shut it down despite its urgency.

The heated exchange on the Senate floor, during which our country’s elected officials flung around insults like immature children (see: Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-NY) calling the Democrats “sore losers“), just reinforced the popular stereotype of an ineffective Congress plagued by partisan gridlock.

With the impending Fourth of July holiday and a seven-week recess scheduled to begin at the end of July, there’s a decent chance that there won’t be another vote until September.

Democrats criticized Republicans for the provisions, while Republicans claimed that Democrats would be responsible for a Zika outbreak.

I didn’t think the GOP could write 1 bill to hurt women, vets, Obamacare, PP, AND clean water all at once – but they did it. #Zika

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 28, 2016

Believe it or not, the GOP Zika bill reverses the ban on flying the confederate flag at military cemeteries. Really! Idiotic.

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) June 28, 2016

Lara was born with microcephaly due to Zika virus. How many more will suffer before Senate Ds and WH allow funding? pic.twitter.com/jMSYEeIuZj

— JohnCornyn (@JohnCornyn) June 29, 2016

Senate Dems are making up excuses to justify voting against this bill, which provides $1.1 billion to fight #Zika. https://t.co/qwC88nqBsv

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) June 30, 2016

While senators continue to play the blame game, the blocking of this funding could be potentially dire, as Zika virus threatens to become a public health emergency in the U.S. On Tuesday, the first baby with Zika-related microcephaly was born in Florida. So far, there have been 935 reported cases of Zika in the United States, according to the CDC. The virus, which is primarily transmitted through mosquitoes but can also be transmitted sexually, is expected to become more prevalent throughout the country this summer.

Hopefully the Senate can unite to take necessary action on Zika; meanwhile, instances such as this one just feed the anti-establishmentarian attitudes that are currently pervasive on both sides of the political spectrum.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The U.S. Senate Turns Zika Funding Bill Into a Partisan Battle appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Gun Control: Voisine v. United States

The decision: The 6-2 ruling prevents anyone convicted of “reckless domestic assault” from being able to own firearms.

Some background

This case involves two men from Maine, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong III, who were convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms due to previous convictions for domestic assault. Under both state and federal law, anyone with a domestic violence conviction cannot possess firearms.

Both men claimed that, under federal law, they were allowed to own firearms because their convictions were deemed “reckless” conduct rather than “knowing” or “intentional.”

Under Maine state law, it is a misdemeanor to “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” cause bodily harm to another person. The Federal law, however, only mentions “intentionally” or “knowingly” causing harm as a misdemeanor, so Voisine and Armstrong tried to claim that their convictions fell under “reckless” domestic assault. As a result, they claimed that under federal law they were lawfully allowed to possess firearms despite their misdemeanor convictions.

While this may seem like a minor technicality, it would’ve potentially allowed people convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault to be able to lawfully own firearms.

The Court shut these claims down by ruling that “reckless domestic assault qualifies as a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.'”

Justice Thomas’ Dissent

Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the two justices who did not join the majority decision, wrote a scathing dissent accusing the decision of being restrictive of Second Amendment rights. He wrote in his opinion:

We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly. At oral argument the Government could not identify any other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction punishable only by a fine.

This isn’t the first time that Justice Thomas has been outspoken on this case. Back in February, Thomas famously broke a 10-year streak of never asking a question during oral arguments for this same case. With his question, he claimed that the federal laws that prevented domestic abusers from obtaining firearms were in violation of constitutional rights.

What does today’s ruling mean?

While it was technically already illegal for anyone with a misdemeanor conviction of domestic assault to own a firearm, today’s ruling just closed a loophole. It demonstrated the court’s general support for some gun control measures by offering greater protections to victims of domestic violence.

The decision was another win for advocates of stricter gun control measures.

Read the full opinion here.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Decision Prevents Domestic Abusers from Owning Firearms appeared first on Law Street.

“If _____ gets elected, I’m moving to Canada!” Sound familiar? This “threat” casually seems to get thrown around every election cycle in the U.S., but has seemingly become more common in this year’s tense political climate. Even corporations have gotten in on the joke: Esurance’s April Fools Day ad jokingly offers “election insurance” to anyone who feels the need to escape for the next four years. A tourism campaign for Cape Breton Island in Canada offers refuge to people who fear an America under Donald Trump.

With the possibility of a Trump presidency becoming realer and scarier by the day, a move to Canada is seeming less like a bad joke and more like a genuine option for many Americans. After Trump won a string of Super Tuesday victories this past March, Google reportedly received a 350 percent surge in searches related to moving to Canada. According to NPR, thousands of Americans already move to Canada for political reasons, and there’s no telling how that number could rise if Trump is victorious in November.

While the land that brought the world Drake and Tim Horton’s looks much more appealing with the potential of an impending Trump regime, don’t pack your bags yet: it’s a lot easier said than done. The Canadians may be known for their hospitality, but they’re not just going to let anyone waltz through their doors.

If you really are seriously considering an escape to the Great White North, you probably should start planning now, because immigrating to Canada will take a considerable investment of time and will require you to make some serious life decisions. Here’s some options to earn your ticket in:

Find a job or start a business in Canada

Get your employment locked down now, because competition may become fierce once the influx of Trump-related immigration hits its peak. For skilled workers, Canada’s Express Entry program allows an expedited path to permanent residence for select candidates, and you can also use the Government of Canada’s Job Bank to help line something up.

The Canadian government is also very supportive of entrepreneurship: the country offers a start-up Visa to anyone who has a business idea that could benefit the country. Certain Canadian provinces also have their own respective business immigration programs called Provincial Nominee Programs.

If you’re a wealthy individual with some money lying around, you can also invest it in Canada’s economy to earn your permanent residence.

Marry a Canadian

Not exactly a straightforward solution, but if you can find yourself an eligible Canadian bachelor/bachelorette, they will be able to sponsor you for immigration.

How can you find this special person? There’s an app for that: Maple Match is an app specifically designed for “Americans to find the ideal Canadian partner to save them from the unfathomable horror of a Trump presidency.”

One of the (many) downsides to this option is that it will take a long time, so you will probably be stuck in the U.S. potentially living under Trump’s presidency while your spouse is working to bring you over. Do not recommend this option.

Become a student in a Canadian school

Many Canadian universities are highly ranked globally, making this a good solution for anyone looking to go to school. However, this will only work so long as you are still enrolled in school. Once you graduate, you will need to find another way to stay (see above options).

You will also need to go through the admissions process to earn your place in one of these universities, so this also a time-consuming and tedious option.

Alternatively, don’t go

Don’t just run away from the burning house, help put the fire out! While the thought of a Trump America  may be terrifying, having a large number of people flee the country is not going to help solve any of our problems. And moving to Canada, as shown here, is probably not going to be a quick and easy solution. (It’s also highly unlikely you will be able to claim political asylum, sorry).

In the case that Trump wins in November, don’t let fear force you out of your home. If you still decide you want to make the leap and become a Canadian, you should probably start your immigration applications and your Maple Match profile now.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post How to Actually Move to Canada if Trump Gets Elected appeared first on Law Street.

After last week’s tragedy in Orlando, Donald Trump doubled down on a major theme that has reverberated throughout his campaign: in Trump’s America, Muslims are not welcome.

In an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Trump referred to the profiling of Muslims as “common sense,” and claimed that American Muslims don’t do enough to “report” suspicious behavior in their communities. He also told Sean Hannity last week that Muslim assimilation in the U.S. has been close to “nonexistent.”

It’s not unusual for Trump to make controversial and misleading comments about Islam–since his campaign launched last year, such commentary has been a staple of his rhetoric. Last year, he made a claim that he saw Muslims in Jersey City “dancing in the streets” after 9/11, an accusation that has never been proven true. Then, after the San Bernardino attacks last December, Trump released a plan to ban Muslim immigration to the U.S. indefinitely, “until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the threat that it poses.”

Additionally, he has called for practices such as creating Muslim registries and putting surveillance on mosques, which would place Muslims in another category and treat them differently from other citizens.

His Islamophobia is not new, yet he has been able to use the Orlando attack to advocate for his harmful (and probably unconstitutional) policies toward the Muslim community. His latest round of comments continued to reflect the belief that Islam is somehow incompatible with American values, and that Muslims are fundamentally unable to assimilate into the American system while holding on to their belief systems.

At a rally in Atlanta on Friday, Trump told the crowd that the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, was “born here, but his parents weren’t and ideas weren’t…his ideas were born from someplace else.” The idea that an American citizen by birth could be used as an example of why we need to curb immigration from Muslim countries is another means to alienate Muslims from the general populace. Trump’s grandparents and his own wife weren’t born here either–yet no one questions their devotion to this country.

Mateen and his ideas were not representative of American Muslims, yet Trump’s comments put the blame on his community for not reporting him (despite the fact that somebody actually did–and Mateen was still let off by the FBI).

Hate crimes towards Muslims reached a high last year, signaling that the environment is ripe for Trump’s rhetoric to permeate; if his ideas continue to spread, it will further create an environment that is hostile and harmful towards Islam in America.

Being “American” and being “Muslim” are not mutually exclusive, but Trump is suggesting that Muslims are lesser citizens than the rest of the American populace. Even if he doesn’t emerge victorious in November, it is likely that many of his ideas will continue to live on in the hearts and minds of his followers. If not viciously opposed, Trump’s rhetoric could continue to have a detrimental effect on the American Muslim community.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post After Orlando Shooting, Trump Fans the Flames of Islamophobia  appeared first on Law Street.

Can posting spoilers about your favorite show be considered a form of copyright infringement? AMC, the network that airs the massively popular show “The Walking Dead,” seems to think so, based on recent threats made by its legal team toward a fan community.

Moderators of the Facebook page “The Spoiling Dead Fans” posted Sunday that they had received a cease-and-desist letter from AMC threatening legal action against the community for speculating about a character death from last season’s finale (possible spoilers below, if you’re not caught up on the show).

It’s unclear on what legal grounds the network can threaten the lawsuit–the group says that AMC is claiming “copyright infringement,” under the belief that the group’s leaders received “trade secret information” regarding the next season that they were sharing with their followers. The members deny this, and claims that they were simply speculating about the cliffhanger.

“The Spoiling Dead Fans” is an online community that gives fans a forum to discuss the show. Fans can also submit photos of the show’s filming in Georgia, allowing them to further speculate about possible plot points. The page’s creators, however, maintain that all of the photos taken on their site are obtained legally, without any trespassing or law-breaking.

The page, which has a following of almost 370,000 fans, has been targeted previously by AMC for copyright infringement: posts have allegedly been taken down, and the page has been blocked by Facebook after being reported under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The moderators also claim that the network has been trying to intimidate members by threatening arrest “among other questionable acts.”  However, this cease and desist letter has taken the network’s threats to the next level and forced the group to take down the posts in question for fear of legal action.

“The Walking Dead” is easily one of the most popular shows on TV at the moment, making it somewhat understandable that major plot points are being kept under lock and key as if they are classified documents. However, if speculating about a show can now get people in legal trouble and result in the alleged harassment of a fan community, then AMC has definitely taken this way too far.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “The Walking Dead” Fan Page Threatened with Lawsuit for Spoilers appeared first on Law Street.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo declared Sunday that he would sign an executive order to divest funds from any company or organization in his state participating in the Boycott, Divestment, or Sanctions (BDS) movement, a global campaign aimed at ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine through economic pressure. The Palestinian-led movement targets corporations and products that contribute to the violation of Palestinian rights, and calls for sanctions to be placed on the Israeli state.

Cuomo’s announcement took place Sunday at the Harvard Club in New York, the same day that the Governor participated in the Celebrate Israel parade along with Mayor Bill de Blasio, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and other public figures, as well as celebrities, organizations, and companies. Cuomo followed his announcement with a series of tweets in which he harshly criticized the movement and its participants:

We made a unity trip to Israel because they were under attack. Today, Israel is under attack on a different level. https://t.co/O3oXmEdnXp

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

This BDS movement is an economic attack and generating a corporate enemy to Israel. We cannot allow that to happen.

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

I am signing an Executive Order that says very clearly we are against the BDS movement. If you boycott Israel, New York will boycott you.

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

Why a state government feels the need to get involved in one of the most complex foreign policy issues of our time is unclear, but Cuomo’s actions highlight the deep roots of the U.S.-Israel alliance, in which an “attack” on Israel is treated as an attack toward the U.S. The official executive order declares that New York and Israel “enjoy a special historical relationship and share a commonly forged cultural bond,” and that the state “stands firmly with Israel.”

The order also declared the governor’s intentions to compile a blacklist of sorts, targeting companies and institutions that have participated in BDS activities and threatening to divest if they are proven to have participated in the movement. Once an organization has been added to the publicly-available list, it’s not easy to be removed: it must submit “written evidence” demonstrating that it no longer participates in BDS activities, and a “good faith” determination will be made by the Commissioner of General Services. The punishments make it nearly impossible for any organization to get involved in the BDS movement without facing major repercussions.

The order is already being criticized by many for being a blatant violation of free speech; Palestine Legal calls it a “dangerous precedent reminiscent of McCarthyism.”

The list of companies and organizations participating in BDS will be compiled in the next 180 days, according to the order. Once released, it will undoubtedly have a major impact on a large number of businesses throughout the state.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Bans Boycotts Against Israel appeared first on Law Street.

Major organizations, public figures, and social media users called on everyone to #WearOrange on Thursday, as part of a campaign to create awareness about gun violence. The campaign was created by the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, which declared on the campaign’s official site that the color orange was chosen because it “symbolizes the value of human life” and “hunters wear orange in the woods to protect themselves and others.”

June 2 is official National Gun Violence Awareness Day. This year, it immediately followed Wednesday’s murder-suicide incident at UCLA, which led to the death of a professor and forced the campus on lockdown during one of its busiest times of the year.

Here’s a sampling of some of the responses on social media:

We cannot accept our level of gun violence as the new normal. We must take action to prevent this from happening again & again. #WearOrange

— President Obama (@POTUS) June 2, 2016

These gals are down for the cause #WearOrange @Everytown pic.twitter.com/osycQmyAUo

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) June 2, 2016

Trying to force a smile as I do this today. We are all Bruins! https://t.co/cmWiGKg9BT #WearOrange pic.twitter.com/ei2Q70JR6S

— Perez (@ThePerezHilton) June 2, 2016

The noise around gun violence is loud. Orange is louder. Join me today and #WearOrange. pic.twitter.com/DRuiikzrgm

— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) June 2, 2016

It’s gun violence awareness day #wearorange pic.twitter.com/FpK8Ninueb

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) June 2, 2016

Comedy Central posted a clip from “Inside Amy Schumer” that provided a humorous look at the absurdities surrounding U.S. gun laws:

Spreading awareness the only way we know how. #WearOrange https://t.co/Gi2DvzGwpXhttps://t.co/BiAF42yn2x

— Comedy Central (@ComedyCentral) June 2, 2016

But this campaign expanded well beyond simple wardrobe choice: #WearOrange events were held around the country to bring people together in solidarity for the cause.

With 372 mass shootings in 2015, this campaign has never felt more timely and necessary.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post #WearOrange Brings Attention to Gun Violence in America appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, an appeals court in Indiana heard arguments for Purvi Patel’s appeal. Patel is a 35-year old woman who received a 20-year prison sentence for feticide after she terminated her own pregnancy in 2013.

Patel was convicted by a jury in February of 2015, and so far has spent over one year of her sentence in an Indiana women’s prison. She is reportedly the first American woman to be sentenced to feticide for attempting to perform her own abortion.

What has complicated Patel’s case is the fact that many of the details still remain ambiguous. What is known is that Patel figured out that she was pregnant through a relationship with a coworker, and feared backlash from her religious Hindu family. Realizing that she had most likely passed the window of time in which she could have received a medical abortion from Planned Parenthood, she ordered some pills online and took them in an attempt to terminate the pregnancy.

After the pills began to cause complications, she arrived at the emergency room, bleeding heavily but no longer pregnant. When pressed further by doctors, she admitted that she left the remains of her abortion in a bag behind a Target store, but alleged that the infant was stillborn.

What remains at debate is whether or not the infant was alive when Patel attempted to terminate the pregnancy; during her trial, prosecutors were able to argue that the infant was still alive at the time that she took the pills, and that it would have survived outside of the womb as she was likely far enough along. This issue is essentially what led to her controversial conviction, and was at the center of Monday’s appeal.

Patel inadvertently became a symbol for women’s health and abortion rights advocates, many of whom rallied behind her prior to Monday’s hearing. As #FreePurvi trended, individuals and groups announced their solidarity with Patel and displayed frustrations with a system that would put such a harsh sentence on the termination of a pregnancy–essentially criminalizing abortion.

Any one of us could have been Purvi Patel. How else will state governments punish women for their reproductive decisions? #FreePurvi

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) May 23, 2016

Punishing and criminalizing women for their #pregnancy outcomes does not result in better maternal, fetal or newborn health. #FreePurvi

— National Partnership (@NPWF) May 23, 2016

Purvi Patel became the first woman to go to jail for terminating her own pregnancy. We are with her in solidarity today as she faces appeal.

— Lilith Fund (@lilithfund) May 23, 2016

today a woman appeals her 20 year prison sentence for ending her own pregnancy, by herself, in total isolation. 20 years yall #freepurvi

— Kebé (@JustKebe) May 23, 2016

This case makes me profoundly sad. Sad for Purvi. Sad for every pregnant person who is being criminalized bc they’re not perfect. #FreePurvi

— Imani Gandy (@AngryBlackLady) May 23, 2016

Many other reactions highlighted the idea that she was a minority woman, increasing her vulnerability:

Immigrant women shouldn’t have to fear arrest or jail because of pregnancy outcome or seeking abortion. #FreePurvi pic.twitter.com/WNll9D6IWj

— COLOR (@colorlatina) May 23, 2016

Pregnant women, esp women of color, are being harmed by laws used to criminalize pregnancy outcomes. #FreePurvi pic.twitter.com/UQGQVi6ypJ

— SisterSong (@SisterSong_WOC) May 23, 2016

Must analyze anti-blackness & sexual repression to see how a dark SouthAsian wmn goes to ER after miscarriage & ends up in prison #FreePurvi

— asha rosa (@ashapoesis) May 23, 2016

It remains to be seen what impact that this appeal will have on her conviction; MSNBC reports that a decision could take months. In the meantime, it looks like Patel has certainly rallied the support of advocates and ordinary individuals who seek to #FreePurvi.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post #FreePurvi: Women’s Health Advocates Rally Around Woman Convicted of Feticide appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled Tuesday that part of D.C.’s new gun law, which requires that individuals must show “good reason” to get a concealed-carry permit for firearms, is unconstitutional.

In his ruling, District Judge Richard J. Leon called the requirement “inconsistent” with the Second Amendment and put in place a preliminary injunction to stop its enforcement in the District. In order to hold a concealed-carry firearm in the District, residents need to go through a multi-step application process to obtain a concealed-carry license (open carry is out of the question in the city). A part of this process requires applicants to demonstrate a “good reason” for why they would need to carry. For example, a resident could demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury to a person or property,” such as threats or attacks, or the need to carry a gun for employment purposes.

Judge Leon called the law “overly zealous,” and stated that it “likely places an unconstitutional burden”on the constitutional right to bear arms.

The ruling stems from a case filed late last year by Matthew Grace, a D.C. resident and a member the Pink Pistols, a guns rights group that describes itself as “an international organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for the self-defense of the sexual-minority community.” The group claims that the “good reason” clause is a “travesty of justice” and filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia claiming that the law was unconstitutional.

So what does this mean for D.C. residents? The injunction puts a hold on the “good reason” requirement for the time being, which will make it easier for applicants to receive concealed-carry permits. The law has only granted 74 permits since the law was put into place in 2014, so D.C. will likely have more concealed weapons on its streets.

If and how this ruling has an impact on gun violence in the city remains to be seen, but this is a major development for guns rights activists.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Judge Says D.C. Residents Don’t Need “Good Reason” for Concealed-Carry Permits appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a piece of legislation that would open up the possibility for victims of 9/11 to sue the Saudi government for its alleged involvement in the attacks.

The bill must still be voted on by the House before it is enacted, but the development spells disappointment for the Obama administration. The President expressed his disapproval with the bill last month, saying that allowing lawsuits against other countries was against U.S. policy and could open up the U.S. government to similar claims. The debate has also raised questions about how such lawsuits could impact U.S.-Saudi relations, as the country has already threatened to sell billions of dollars in U.S. assets if the bill goes through.

This isn’t the first time that JASTA has made it to this point; the bill was passed last year by the Senate but was not voted on by the House. It was reintroduced this past September and came to the forefront of the public’s attention last month, after a “60 Minutes” episode looked into potential ties between the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government. This scrutiny could potentially offer a better chance for the bill to move forward this year.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who sponsored the bill along with Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), expressed satisfaction with the Senate’s vote. Schumer issued a series of tweets commending the vote for helping bring justice to the victims of the 9/11 attacks and their families.

Today, @JohnCornyn & I are proud to announce we’re one step closer to justice for the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

In their pursuit of justice, 9/11 families were told American law prevented them from pursuing justice against those who funded the attacks.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

These court rulings were backward, illogical, and wrong & now our JASTA bill has passed with unanimous consent from the Senate.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

JASTA will help the 9/11 families seek justice & also serve as a deterrent to other nations who’d assist in terror attacks against Americans

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

Today is a big step forward, but there is work to be done. I urge the House leadership to put JASTA on the floor for a vote immediately.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

Schumer denied criticisms that the bill could force the U.S. to face similar lawsuits, telling the Associated Press, “We’re not busy training people to blow up buildings and kill innocent civilians in other countries.”

Despite Schumer’s reassurances, it’s hard to imagine that there won’t ultimately be some blowback from one of our closest allies if the bill does end up becoming a law. It’s just another test for the already-rocky relationship that is the U.S.-Saudi alliance.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Senate Approves Bill To Allow People to Sue Saudi Arabia for 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

As climate change continues to wreak havoc on the world’s weather patterns, individuals around the globe are taking their respective countries to task for their roles in contributing to the problem. The New York Times reports that several attempts to take governments to court have taken place in countries such as Pakistan, New Zealand, Peru, and even the United States.

Whether or not these lawsuits could have any effect on actually holding these countries accountable is debatable, but it is giving clout to people who traditionally would have little power in such a fight. Children, farmers, and students  have brought cases in various countries, all citing a need for countries to take action to protect current and future generations from a host of devastating effects.

In the U.S., a group of kids in the state of Washington won a lawsuit last month to force the state to be held to a deadline for taking action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The kids were represented by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit that works to help young people fight for their right to a healthy atmosphere. While this particular case was fought at a state level, the organization has been fighting another case at the federal level–it has also filed a suit against the Obama administration on behalf of a group of kids from various states across the country. The suit claims that the Obama administration has “continued their policies and practices of allowing the exploitation of fossil fuels,” targeting in particular the approval of a CO2-emitting export terminal in Oregon.

Pakistan, a country particularly vulnerable to climate change, has recently seen two such cases come to its courts. Last month, a seven-year-old girl filed a lawsuit against the government, saying that the promotion of fossil fuels violates “the Public Trust Doctrine and the youngest generation’s fundamental constitutional rights.” Last year, farmer and law student Asghar Leghari took his case to the Lahore High Court after his crops were threatened by the unpredictable weather. Leghari’s case prompted a judge to order the formation of a “Climate Change Commission” to ensure that the government is implementing policies to combat the problem.

The Times piece highlights other cases that are popping up worldwide. Regardless of whether or not these suits will actually be successful in forcing governments to change their policies, they are bringing attention to the media and the public of the role that governments have played in the climate crisis.

In the end, these lawsuits might be the most effective way that individuals can truly make their voice heard to the entities that truly have the power to create change. While these methods will still be difficult for those without legal resources at their disposal, it may be the best way to force governments to take action.

Editors Note: A previous version of this story stated that the kids represented in the federal case against the Obama administration were from Oregon. This story has been corrected to clarify that many of the youth plaintiffs in this case live in other states apart from Oregon. 

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post People Are Suing Their Governments for Contributing to Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

The award for “most creative vandalism” may have to go to Minnie Driver–the actress has been accused by her neighbor of throwing “baby food jars filled with black paint” against the walls of his property, according to TMZ. Daniel Perelmutter has filed a lawsuit against the “Good Will Hunting” actress, claiming that she has been interfering with construction on his home and causing him a great deal of stress. He also accuses the actress of blocking access to a shared electric gate in front of his driveway.

The baby food paint grenades are just one part of what seems to be an ongoing, bizarre war between Driver and Perelmutter. Driver was granted a temporary restraining order against her neighbor last year, and last week Perelmutter pleaded not guilty to a contempt charge after Driver accused him of “yelling profanities, scaring her children and jumping in front of her car,” according to KABC-TV.

Cops also had to come by and break up a fight between the neighbors last week, after Perelmutter’s delivery truck blocked Driver’s driveway.

Perelmutter fired back against the claims and spoke in front of the courthouse last week, telling a reporter that the actress has wished death upon him multiple times and that she needed to be “institutionalized.” Perelmutter, who recently had a heart transplant and was holding a cane while speaking to reporters, pointed out that he was “in no condition” to leap in front of her car, and alleged that Driver herself was the one who tried to hit him.

Before rushing to judgment, it seems that this isn’t Perelmutter’s first time fighting with a neighbor over property. A 2008 filing shows that he fought with previous neighbors over access to a shared driveway, a case which he appears to have lost.

It remains to be seen who’s truly at fault in this “he-said, she-said” situation, but with a trial set for August, this totally bizarre case is worth keeping an eye on.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Minnie Driver And Her Neighbor Are In a Bizarre Legal Dispute Involving Baby Food Jars appeared first on Law Street.

In a story that proves there’s at least some humanity left in the world, the Italian Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a homeless man for stealing food this week, saying that since he was hungry, his actions did not constitute criminal activity.

The BBC reports that Roman Ostriakov stole two pieces of cheese and a pack of sausages from a supermarket in Genoa in 2011, and was sentenced to six months in jail and a €100 fine for theft. However, his case was sent for an appeal to reduce his conviction to “alleged theft,” since he was caught before he left the shop.

Instead of just reducing the sentence, Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation (the country’s highest court) overturned it entirely, saying that “he took possession of that small amount of food in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment, acting therefore in a state of need.”

According to the New York Times, a former member of the Court stated that the basis of the court’s decision relied on an Italian legal doctrine that translates to “No one is expected to do the impossible.” Essentially, because his circumstances made it such that he had no other choice, his theft was not a crime. However, as Vox notes, this decision does not set a precedent, so no need to worry about a wave of food thefts as a result of this case.

While this decision doesn’t stand to alter the current laws in any way, it is a great example of a legal system working to uphold human rights and dignity. As a piece in Italian newspaper Corriera Della Sera notes, the growing crisis of poverty in Italy makes Ostriakov an unlikely hero for the underserved. In this reverse “Les Miserables” situation, justice is with the proletariat. The compassion of the Court could go a long way in promoting broader societal attitudes, simply by advocating for something as basic as humanity for the common man.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Italian Court Says Stealing Food Isn’t a Crime If You’re Poor and Hungry appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the big moment that people anticipated (and feared) finally happened: Donald Trump became the apparent GOP nominee for President of the United States. While this development brings no surprise to anyone who had been following the polls for the last few weeks, it still was a huge blow to the GOP establishment, who have seemed absolutely lost and completely divided on how to approach the hijacking of their party by a narcissistic megalomaniac.

While talks of a contested convention and a potential Paul Ryan bid provided a glimmer of hope to the establishment wing of the party, any hopes seemed dashed after Trump’s win in Indiana last night. The elimination of Ted Cruz from the GOP race made it clear that the Trump train could not be stopped–and many in the party had to make a decision about whether or not to get on for the ride.

The reactions to Trump’s impending nomination from party members were varied: while some in the GOP demonstrated that they would back the party’s nominee, no matter who it was, others declared that they would choose Hillary over Trump. Then there were those who just seemed confused about what to do now…as well as those who won’t be voting for either candidate.

The “anyone is better than Hillary” camp (aka #NeverClinton)

GOP chairman Reince Priebus never seemed super-enthusiastic about the potential for a Trump nomination, but he declared last night in a Tweet that the party needed to unite in order to prevent a Clinton win:

.@realDonaldTrump will be presumptive @GOP nominee, we all need to unite and focus on defeating @HillaryClinton#NeverClinton

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) May 4, 2016

Some former presidential candidates, many who were once rivals of Trump, changed their tone as well, including Bobby Jindal, who told Sean Hannity on Tuesday that Republicans who didn’t support the candidate would only be helping Hillary.

Other prominent Republicans provided a (less than) ringing endorsement for Trump, including former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer:

There’s a lot about Donald Trump that I don’t like, but I’ll vote for Trump over Hillary any day.

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) May 4, 2016

While there were few enthusiastic responses from the establishment GOP after Trump locked the nomination, it looks like many members will still be casting their vote for him come November, as long as it keeps Clinton out of the White House.

The “we can deal with a few years of Clinton if it means no Trump” camp (aka #NeverTrump)

The #NeverTrump movement did not die with the elimination of Cruz from the race. Many prominent party members expressed the sentiment that, when it came to Clinton vs. Trump, Hillary would be the lesser of the two evils. Others did not clarify whether they would be voting for Clinton or abstaining completely after last night’s results, but indicated that their #NeverTrump stance wasn’t changing now that there were no other options in the party.

As a conservative, i would always rather lose to a democrat, than support a racist and sexist with my party’s nametag. #NeverTrump

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 4, 2016

Ben Howe, contributing editor at RedState.com, tweeted his endorsement for Hillary yesterday and demonstrated his solidarity with the #NeverTrump movement.

Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE), tweeted that last night’s results didn’t change his #NeverTrump stance.

Another tweet that picked up steam showed the burning of a voter registration card by Lachlan Markey, a writer for The Free Beacon, who also expressed that he was “Never Trump. Still.”

pic.twitter.com/L0hQvfBSvS

— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) May 4, 2016

The “I need some time to figure things out” camp (aka #denial)

Many party members had yet to speak out on their choice, likely confused on how to proceed. A poll conducted  by the Morning Consult said that a quarter of Ted Cruz supporters were still unsure on whether or not to support Trump over Clinton. Cruz himself has yet to speak out on whether or not he will be backing Trump, nor has Kasich, who backed out today.

Basically, this camp of the GOP establishment refuses to endorse Hillary, but also hasn’t yet expressed any sort of desire to vote for Trump. Time will tell how (or if) these party members vote.

The GOP must spend the next few months grappling with the fact that Trump will be the representative for the party in the general election. Meanwhile, Trump must figure out how to woo the establishment wing of the GOP away from a Hillary vote while maintaining the “anti-establishment” message that has brought him so much support. One thing’s for certain: these next few months will certainly defy traditional two-party politics and make for an unpredictable presidential race.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Trump is the Apparent Republican Nominee, and the GOP Establishment Is Confused appeared first on Law Street.

Another month, another potential class action lawsuit against Starbucks. In March, the coffee company faced a lawsuit alleging that it was shorting customers by under-filling latte cups. This month, a Chicago resident has filed a suit accusing the company of doing the same–but this time, it’s the iced beverages that are brought into question.

The class action lawsuit, filed by Stacey Pincus, claims that the company provides “significantly less product than advertised” for its iced drinks, and blames it on the company’s “standard practices” for making iced drinks. While the drink amounts are advertised to be  8 oz., 12 oz., 16 oz. for tall, grande, and venti drinks respectively, purchasers of iced beverages definitely aren’t getting that amount of liquid.

The lawsuit lays out the process by which the drinks are made, and explains that the company uses “pre-measured plastic scoopers” and black fill lines on the cups to standardize the drink-to-ice ratio in the cup. So the next time your grande iced coffee seems to be more “ice” and less “coffee,” it might actually not be the barista who is at fault.

Similar to the latte lawsuit, this one also alleges that the underfilling of cups is a deliberate move by the company to “make more money or higher profits.” If this lawsuit is approved as a class-action, anyone who purchased an iced beverage from the company in the last decade could be included.

While this may sound like one giant “First-World Problem,” the lawsuit also makes note of the fact that iced beverages cost more than their hot counterparts. Not only are you getting less of your beverage when ordering an iced version, you’re putting up more for it. While it remains to be seen whether this complaint actually carries any legal clout, it seems to put up a more convincing argument than the latte lawsuit, which claimed that the hot beverages were being deliberately undefiled.

The company’s response? They’re not having it. A spokeswoman for the company responded by saying, “Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any ‘iced’ beverage. If a customer is not satisfied with their beverage preparation, we will gladly remake it.” Or in other words, this:

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Deja Vu: Starbucks Faces (Another) Lawsuit For Underfilling Drinks appeared first on Law Street.

Is Snapchat partially to blame for accidents caused by “Snapping” while driving? A new lawsuit places some responsibility on the company after an 18-year old driver, Christal McGee, of Hampton, Georgia, caused an accident while using the filter that records speed while in motion. The complaint was filed by Wentworth Maynard, an Uber driver who was hit by McGee while she was traveling at 107 miles per hour.

The accident occurred in September 2015 when McGee was driving home from work in her father’s Mercedes with three of her coworkers in the backseat, one of whom was pregnant. She began to speed down Tara Boulevard, a highway with a 55 MPH speed limit, and pulled out her phone to use the app once she hit 100 MPH. The suit alleges that she was trying to earn a new “trophy” on Snapchat, which is what motivated her to hit that speed. At the same time, Maynard’s car began to pull onto the highway, and the distracted McGee was unable to slow down sufficiently to avoid a collision.

The resulting accident left Maynard with permanent brain damage, detailed in a blog post on a local law firm’s site. McGee’s passengers fared better, and were only treated for “cuts and bruises.” McGee herself faced a head injury, but was conscious enough to post a Selfie from the ambulance letting people know that she was “lucky to be alive.”

Christal McGee caused a serious accident while speeding & using snapchat then took a selfie in the stretcher. #fail pic.twitter.com/ZlKlO1nEFn

— Jess Clackum (@JessicaClackum) April 28, 2016

Maynard’s suit claims that Snapchat should have been aware that the filter would have led to users “putting themselves and others in harm’s way in order to ‘capture a snap’.” It’s not the only case of its kind: the post also mentions similar cases in Brazil and the UK where accidents occurred while using the filter. So, is Snapchat to blame for inviting such behavior in the first place?

The company provided the following response to TechCrunch:

No Snap is more important than someone’s safety. We actively discourage our community from using the speed filter while driving, including by displaying a ‘Do NOT Snap and Drive’ warning message in the app itself.

While Snapchat isn’t responsible for the reckless behavior of its users, it also probably shouldn’t be rewarding “trophies” for it. And why does the “MPH” filter even exist in the first place? The Snapchat craze joins texting and calling as an additional form of distraction for drivers, maybe making the roads a little less safe for us all.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Snapchat Faces Lawsuit After App Usage Causes Car Accident appeared first on Law Street.

The right-wing’s dynamic duo has arrived: after much speculation, Ted Cruz confirmed Wednesday at a rally in Indianapolis that former candidate Carly Fiorina would be his running mate. If this announcement seems premature, that’s because candidates don’t normally choose their number twos until after they have actually ensured their position as the nominee. However, as the outlook for Cruz’s nomination looks increasingly grim day by day, Fiorina may provide him with a much-needed (but probably too late) bump in the polls. The former HP executive endorsed Cruz after dropping out of the race in February, saying that he was the only candidate with the potential to beat Trump.

After this Tuesday’s round of primaries, where The Donald won victories in all five of the Republican contests, it’s looking more and more difficult to slow down the Trump train. In Wednesday’s rally, Cruz reiterated his confidence that no one would reach the 1,237 delegates needed to win the nomination, creating a contested convention.

The announcement also comes after Trump received criticism for accusing Hillary Clinton of using the “woman card” to secure votes. While Cruz’s speech didn’t address these comments directly, he hit hard on Fiorina’s accomplishments as a professional and said that she “shattered the glass ceiling.” Having Fiorina on the ticket stands in contrast to Trump’s comments, and could provide a compelling reason for female GOP voters to side with Cruz.

If I am nominated, I will run on a ticket with @carlyfiorina as my Vice President. Join us: https://t.co/sGy8idmZDEhttps://t.co/4RZxR2zlMz

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) April 27, 2016

Another narrative that Cruz and Fiorina emphasized at the rally was the idea of Trump as a “Washington insider,” comparing him to Clinton and insisting that he was a “liberal” and lover of big government. Regarding the potential Trump-Clinton contest, Fiorina stated: “They’re not going to challenge the system; they are the system.”

For the Republican Party, Trump is looking more and more like the super-villain that can’t be beat, despite the fact that everyone is teaming up to bring him down. Earlier this week, Kasich and Cruz announced their plan to work together to weaken Trump’s lead and create a contested convention, but it seems like it might be too little, too late. Bringing down the relentless Trump machine may be too far out of reach at this point, but there’s certainly not a lack of trying.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Cruz-Fiorina: The Trump Takedown Team Is Here, But Is It Too Late? appeared first on Law Street.

In news that sounds like it would make for a great B-movie plot, the Russian Ministry of Defense is now in possession of some powerful new weapons: five dolphins, which it purchased this week for $26,000. But nobody seems to know for sure exactly how it plans to utilize the animals.

According to NBC News, the Russian Ministry of Defense purchased the mammals for approximately $5,200 each from Moscow’s Utrish Dolphinarium, the winning bidder for the contract. The posting on the Russian website for state tenders set pretty high standards for the selected dolphins, specifying that they must have “…all teeth intact…[and no mucus from the blowhole].”

These aren’t the first dolphins in the Russian military’s possession; Russia gained a whole stock of them in 2014, after the annexation of Crimea. The aquarium that housed Ukraine’s dolphins was part of the land that went to Russia, which became a point of contention between the two countries. According to The Guardian, “The Ukrainian military dolphin [program] was born out of a Soviet-era scheme that, like much of the Soviet army, fell into neglect in the 1990s.”

The training center is one of two such facilities in the world–the other is in San Diego and belongs to the U.S. Navy. Last year, Russian officials told news agency RIA Novosti that the center was still in operation, indicating that Ukraine’s combat dolphins were making a comeback (although Russia claims that they’re not being used for military purposes).

Surprisingly, militarized dolphins are not a new concept. They were used during the Cold War by both the Soviets and the United States for various purposes, including the detection of mines and submarines. A 2002 History Channel documentary called “Inside the Soviet Military Machine: Dolphin Soldiers” looked into the experiments done on dolphins by the USSR (and sadly, many were indeed painful and cruel). 

Russia has continued to remain silent on its plan for the dolphins, but if past experience is any indication, the military could see them as tools in beefing up its defense forces. Although considering Putin’s love for animals, it wouldn’t be completely surprising if he just wanted some new pets.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Is the Russian Military’s Powerful New Weapon a Bunch of Dolphins? appeared first on Law Street.

A piece of legislation introduced in Congress could allow families of the victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia for its potential involvement in the 2011 attacks.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), was passed unanimously by the Senate last year but was not voted on by the House; it was reintroduced into Congress this past September. Suing foreign governments is currently against the law, but this bill would allow for certain provisions to be weakened so that countries could be held responsible for their involvement in terrorist activities. This month, the bill came back into the spotlight after a “60 Minutes” investigation into the classified “28 pages” from the 9/11 Commission Report, which reportedly shed light on official Saudi support for the hijackers responsible for the attacks. The segment featured interviews of Former Senator Bob Graham and various other officials who reiterated support that these documents be declassified.

In an interview with Charlie Rose that aired this week, President Obama stated his opposition to the 9/11 bill, saying that it was against U.S. policy to allow such lawsuits against countries:

This is not just a bi-lateral U.S.-Saudi issue. This is a matter of how generally the United States approaches our interactions with other countries. If we open up the possibility that individuals in the United States can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening up the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries, and that would be a bad precedent…

The bill also has national security and defense officials concerned that it would open up a can of worms for the prosecution of U.S. officials and diplomats, as well as place blame on the wrong parties for the 9/11 attacks.

Support or opposition for the bill has not fallen along partisan lines: contrary to Obama’s criticism of the bill, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voiced their support of the bill while campaigning in New York earlier this week. GOP leaders such as Senator Lindsey Graham and Speaker Paul Ryan have been in actual agreement with the President for once, working with the White House to kill the bill.

.@HillaryClinton defends her support of @SenSchumer 9/11 bill “I stand with Senator Schumer on this” pic.twitter.com/NA6AX5nFlj

— Tamara Gitt (@tamaragitt) April 18, 2016

.@SenSchumer bill to let 9/11 families sue Saudi if tied to attacks becoming political football-@BernieSanders take: pic.twitter.com/Zgab4dABlW

— Molly O’Toole (@mollymotoole) April 17, 2016

Meanwhile, the timing of these developments has made for a pretty awkward presidential visit to Saudi Arabia for Obama this week. The Guardian reports that the trip was “noticeably low-key” and hinted at a “mutual distrust” between the two allies. It also appears that the bill remained an elephant in the room during his visit: the White House told the press on Thursday that it never even came up in Obama’s meetings with the Saudi king.

The relationship between the two countries has already been on the tense side lately, but Saudi Arabia hasn’t exactly responded well to the latest round of threats against it. The country’s foreign minister allegedly threatened to sell up to $750 billion in American assets, which would have strong economic repercussions for both states. These current developments will prove to be yet another test for a tumultuous and controversial alliance.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Obama Doesn’t Want Families To Sue Saudi Arabia Over 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

A pastor who accused Whole Foods of anti-LGBTQ discrimination is now facing accusations and a lawsuit against him alleging that he made up the entire incident.

Jordan Brown, an openly gay pastor at the Church of Open Doors in Austin, Texas, filed a lawsuit against Whole Foods after he allegedly received a cake at the chain’s flagship Austin location on April 14 with an anti-gay slur written on it. While he requested that the bakery write “Love Wins” on top of the cake, he claims that the bakery associate decided to add homophobic language to it:

LOVE WINS FAG. That’s not the cake I ordered, @WholeFoods and I am offended for myself & the entire #LGBT community pic.twitter.com/cuxuv6mL3G

— Jordan D Brown (@PasJordanBrown) April 18, 2016

Brown’s suit alleges that he didn’t notice the writing until he was on his way home, and proceeded to pull the car over and call the corporate office to report what had happened. After he didn’t receive a response, he then called the store itself and received an apology from a Team Leader who promised to investigate the matter. However, a few hours later, he received a call back from the same employee who said that there appeared to be no wrongdoing on the part of the store or the bakery associate.

Brown proceeded to post a now-deleted video that same day in which he tearfully recounted the incident. He also pointed out that the seal on the box hadn’t been broken, as evidence that he hadn’t tampered with the cake.

On Tuesday, Whole Foods responded in a statement that shot down Brown’s accusations as “fraudulent.” The company also released security footage that pointed to the fact that Brown would have easily been able to see the writing through the clear portion of the packaging before he left the store. The company also stated that the bakery associate in question was a member of the LGBTQ community. As of publication, Brown hadn’t yet responded to the latest statements by Whole Foods.

If it turns out that Brown was faking the incident after all, he made a strange choice in choosing which company to go after. Whole Foods has a history of upholding LGBTQ rights as a company, offering benefits to same-sex partners since its founding and participating in pride parades. The company also reinforced its support for LGBTQ rights in its latest statement, posting a photo of its Austin staff with the caption #LoveWins.

The jury’s still out on whether or not Brown was making this up, but this response by Whole Foods is just the icing on the cake for anyone doubting his story. Stay tuned for updates.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Whole Foods Shoots Down Claims of Homophobia Against Openly Gay Pastor appeared first on Law Street.

Late Saturday, former New Orleans Saints defensive end Will Smith was pronounced dead after suffering multiple gunshot wounds to the chest. Smith, 34, was driving his Mercedes SUV with his wife Raquel in tow, when a minor auto accident led to an altercation that left Smith dead and his wife with 2 non-fatal gunshot wounds to her legs.

While the incident originally appeared to be a random act of road rage, details emerged throughout the week that provided a clearer picture of what happened that night. Cardell Hayes, 28, who was charged with second-degree murder in the incident, was a prep-school football star who dreamed of playing for the New Orleans Saints, according to The Daily Beast. He also reportedly had worked as a security guard for the Saints at the same time that Smith was a player. On the night of the incident, Hayes’ Hummer was rear-ended by Smith’s vehicle. The exact details of what followed are still fuzzy, but the accident allegedly led to an exchange of words between the two men that ended with Hayes shooting Smith.

Smith played for the Saints from 2004 to 2013, and played an important role in helping the team win the 2010 Super Bowl. His former teammates have expressed grief over the loss, including quarterback Drew Brees who spoke up on the high rates of gun violence and homicides in the city as a major factor.

Hayes has claimed no wrongdoing in the event; his lawyer told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that his client was “not the aggressor” in the situation. He also claimed that toxicology reports should be conducted, as they would “shed light on the behavior of some of the participants,” insinuating that Smith was possibly under the influence at the time of the alleged incident.

Hayes also claims that their prior dealings were just coincidental and had nothing to do with the killing; he allegedly didn’t even know who the victim was until the next morning.

On Wednesday, the lawyer for Hayes’ passenger, Kevin O’Neal, stated that Smith was armed that night and that Hayes’s actions “may have saved both of their lives.”  She referred to the incident as “justifiable homicide.” Police have stated that while they did find a loaded gun in Smith’s car, there was “no evidence” that it had been fired. Smith’s attorney also responded to these claims, saying that Smith did not threaten Hayes and had a license to carry a concealed weapon.

In another strange coincidence, Smith had dinner earlier that day with William Ceravolo, a police officer who had a history with Hayes. In 2005, a dispute in a Walgreens involving Haye’s father, Anthony, led to an altercation with the police that ended in officers shooting Anthony dead; Caravolo was one of the six officers involved. Hayes sued the New Orleans Police Department for his father’s death, but the officers were not charged. There is no indication at the moment that this was related to Smith’s death at all.

Photo:
Will Smith 1-hour before being shot & killed, w/Pierre Thomas & former NOPD commander Billy Ceravolo.
So sad. pic.twitter.com/PMFpRm3vOl

— Fletcher Mackel (@FletcherMackel) April 10, 2016

Until more details emerge it won’t be clear what exactly transpired that night, but this is clearly a tragic situation all around.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What Led to the Shooting Death of NFL Star Will Smith? appeared first on Law Street.

Early this week, hundreds of migrants in Greece–many of whom made perilous journeys on inflatable rafts to make it there–were placed onto ferries to be sent back to where they came from. This is the result of a new deal between the European Union and Turkey to help ease the undeterred flow of migrants into Europe, which began its implementation on Monday. The deal stipulates that un-vetted refugees who landed in Greece will be sent back to Turkey, and in exchange, a vetted refugee in Turkey can be brought to Europe to be resettled. This “one-for-one” trade sounds like a  simple enough solution for stopping an uncontrolled flow of refugees into Greece, but the endless logistical, ethical, and political issues that have arisen with it are making it a problematic solution to a complex problem.

While the State Department called the deal an “important step,” it has been criticized by many human rights organizations and aid groups who allege that Turkey is not a safe place for these migrants to return to. Amnesty International believes that there are “fatal flaws” in the deal, alleging that Turkish authorities have been forcefully sending hundreds of refugees back to war-torn Syria. The deal also doesn’t offer protections to non-Syrian migrants, who were also being deported under the deal.

Protesters dive into sea as ferry carrying #migrants prepares to leave #Lesbos returning them to turkey pic.twitter.com/q1Gz608HAG

— Sophie Long (@S0Long) April 8, 2016

The deal is facing a variety of challenges so far: BBC reports that arrivals into Turkey have already been delayed, and 3,000 migrants still sit in centers awaiting deportation (which could take weeks at minimum). Tensions have also been high in Greece, where “irregular migrants” who have arrived since March 20 (the date the deal was put into effect) have been put into holding centers that have been described as “prison-like.” Early Friday, protests broke out on the island of Chios between hundreds of migrants who had broken out of their centers and residents of the island. 

To add to that, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has been adding to fears that Turkey is undependable, reportedly threatening to not support the refugees if the EU did not live up to its end of the deal (which consisted of promised cash and EU membership to Turkey).

Main refugee camp on #Lesbos. Minutes earlier aggressive Greek police chased me away and deleted my photos. pic.twitter.com/WQ02iZBlBH

— Nick Squires (@NickSquires1) April 4, 2016

These are only a few of the many issues facing this deal, and it’s only gotten started. It’s hard to definitively say whether this is a step forward or a step back. While the EU clearly needs to confront the problem of an unchecked flow of refugees entering Europe, it also must be careful not to compromise the human rights of these groups, many of whom have already lived through horrific atrocities. This agreement clearly has problematic elements that make it difficult to ensure these rights; however, it remains to be seen how the deal will affect the situation of the refugees in the long-term.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why Hundreds of Refugees are Being Shuffled Around Europe appeared first on Law Street.

Despite shining a light on a country that hasn’t traditionally been well-known for its soccer performance on the world stage, the players on the U.S. women’s national soccer team still aren’t receiving the recognition they deserve. The Women’s World Cup and Olympic Gold Medal champs have been a source of pride for the U.S. Soccer Federation, but now the team’s top players are bringing attention to the fact that they’re still being paid less than their male counterparts, despite outperforming them.

Five of the team’s top players: goalkeeper Hope Solo, forward Alex Morgan, midfielder Megan Rapinoe, and co-captains Carli Lloyd and Becki Sauerbrunn, filed a federal complaint on Thursday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the U.S. Soccer Federation, alleging wage discrimination.

In the complaint, the players point out that the Women’s National Team is projected to bring in a net profit of $5 million for U.S. Soccer while the Men’s National Team is actually projected to bring a net loss of $1 million. Meanwhile, they receive less compensation for Friendlies, the World Cup, and sponsored appearances compared to the men’s team. The complaint alleges:

There are no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for this gross disparity of wages, nor can it be explained away by any bona fide seniority, merit or incentive system or any other factor other than sex.

In an interview with ESPN, the teammates spoke up on the filing, saying that they resorted to legal action after having several conversations with U.S. Soccer that were ineffective. They also said that while only the five of them were listed on the complaint, they were representing the entire women’s team in their fight.

U.S. Soccer responded Thursday, emphasizing their commitment to women’s soccer but claiming that they would not engage in negotiations until the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) expired at the end of this year. The U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati also claimed that the women’s team does not generate as much revenue as the men’s team and that revenue generation must be part of the equation.

US Soccer statement re: today’s developments related to #uswnt. pic.twitter.com/pqk1GinTCB

— Jeff Carlisle (@JeffreyCarlisle) March 31, 2016

For now, the players will need to wait for a response from the EEOC to see if U.S. Soccer violated any laws. This fight goes beyond the actual legal complaint, however, as the players want their actions to send a broader message regarding gender equality. When asked what they hope to achieve with this complaint, the players cited equality, respect, equal pay, and opportunities for younger girls. If the EEOC sides with the team, this could set a significant precedent for female athletes and make a statement regarding equality and equal pay on a broader level.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Top Stars on U.S. Women’s Soccer Step Up Their Fight For Wage Equality appeared first on Law Street.

“Hamilton,” the smash-hit Broadway musical that has drawn universal praise for its diverse casting, may be in hot water over the thing that made it so special to begin with. CBS2 reports that the latest casting notice has drawn ire from a New York attorney over the fact that it specifically requests “non-white men and women” to audition for roles.

Randolph McLaughlin, a civil rights attorney, claims that the casting notice is in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. The law declares it unlawful for any advertisement or publication relating to employment to express “directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination” as to “race, creed, color,” among other characteristics.

While a press representative told CBS2 reporters that the ad was approved by Actor’s Equity, the Broadway union, an Actor’s Equity spokeswoman told Fortune that the ad was not in compliance with its standards and was not approved by the union.

Lin-Manuel Miranda, the show’s creator and star, has been outspoken in the past about the deliberate intention to cast minorities in these roles. He told The Hollywood Reporter:

In ‘Hamilton,’ we’re telling the stories of old, dead white men but we’re using actors of color, and that makes the story more immediate and more accessible to a contemporary audience. You don’t distance the audience by putting an actor of color in a role that you would think of as default Caucasian. No, you excite people and you draw them in.

A publicist for the show later provided a statement to Fortune that emphasized that the show did not break any laws through this posting. He said:

 The producers of Hamilton regret the confusion that’s arisen from the recent posting of an open call casting notice for the show. It is essential to the storytelling of Hamilton that the principal roles—which were written for non-white characters (excepting King George)—be performed by non-white actors. This adheres to the accepted practice that certain characteristics in certain roles constitute a ‘bona fide occupational qualification’ that is legal.

So, there you have it: it looks like “Hamilton” fans need not be too concerned. And considering the intense demand for tickets (seriously…good luck getting tickets before 2018) it is doubtful that the show’s future will be affected by this controversy. With fans like President Obama, Beyonce, and practically any other famous person you could think of, it seems like the “Hamilton” train isn’t slowing down anytime soon.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “Hamilton” Accused of Reverse Racism with Casting Call appeared first on Law Street.

At a news conference on Monday, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal (R) announced his intention to veto a controversial bill that would provide certain protections to opponents of same-sex marriage. House Bill 757 would allow religious leaders, faith-based organizations, and businesses to exercise their freedom of religion and refuse to provide services to the LGBT community, as well as deny employment to LGBT individuals.

The bill was passed by Georgia Legislature earlier this month, but was rejected by the Governor, who stated Monday:

In light of our history, I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask the government to confer upon them certain rights and protections. If indeed our religious liberty is conferred by God and not by man-made government, we should heed the ‘hands-off’ admonition of the First Amendment to our Constitution. When legislative bodies attempt to do otherwise, the inclusions and omissions in their statutes can lead to discrimination, even though it may be unintentional. That is too great a risk to take.

This decision comes after pressures from the business community to veto the bill, including many film and television studios who threatened to boycott the state for filming if the law was passed. Among the companies that threatened to withdraw were Walt Disney Co., Marvel Studios, CBS, AMC, and many others. Additionally, the NFL stated that it would pull Atlanta out of consideration to host Super Bowl LIII in 2019, an event that would surely bring revenue to the state.

Despite this, Deal stated that he did “not respond well to insults and threats,”and cited Constitutional and moral principles for his decision to veto.

If this legislation sounds familiar, it may be because many similar “religious liberty” bills have been popping up recently in states such as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Indiana. It also comes in the wake of the passing of a contentious new law in North Carolina that has been widely criticized for being “anti-LGBT.” The next state to keep an eye on is Mississippi, whose House just passed a bill that supposedly protects religious liberty by prohibiting discrimination against anyone who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Governor Deal’s veto shows a break away from the positions of many of the other conservative governors faced with similar legislation. Whether or not this was a decision based on economic interests or if it was truly about the “character of Georgia,” as the Governor claimed, can be debated;  it was, however, ultimately a win for LGBT rights in the state.

This fight isn’t over yet, however; while the case in Georgia has ben settled, those who believe that their “religious liberties” are in conflict with same-sex marriage will continue to wage their battles in state capitals all over the country.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Georgia Governor Strikes Down Religious Liberty Bill appeared first on Law Street.

In a controversial ruling, Canadian radio host Jian Ghomeshi was found not guilty on multiple accounts of sexual assault and one count of choking based on the allegations of three women. In his judgment, Justice William B. Horkins cited “serious deficiencies in the evidence” that left reasonable doubt in the case.

Ghomeshi was the host of the popular radio show “Q,” but was fired from his position at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) last October after the network claimed to have seen evidence of him causing “physical injury” to a woman. Around the time of his dismissal, multiple women came forward to the Toronto Star with various allegations of violence and sexual harassment against Ghomeshi (there would end up being over 20 accusations total). This particular trial involved incidents occurring in 2002-2003 involving three women, two who chose to remain unidentified during the trial; the third was Canadian actress Lucy DeCoutere.

While it may hold true that there was not enough evidence to garner a conviction for Ghomeshi, the real outrage surrounding the acquittal seems to stem from the actual judgment released by Justice Horkins, which tore apart the testimonies of the alleged victims and addressed any inconsistencies in their recollections of the events as being “outright deception.” Horkins also claimed that the evidence provided included “questionable behaviour” by the witnesses.

Judge in Ghomeshi trial called witness’s behaviour “odd.” Yup! When you’ve been sexually assaulted, things can seem “odd” #IBelieveSurvivors

— DeAnne Smith (@DeAnne_Smith) March 24, 2016

The judge’s comments in #Ghomeshi case uphold that rape culture and victim-blaming is alive and well. #IBelieveSurvivors

— Janet Mock (@janetmock) March 24, 2016

Witness 1 shared rxn to #Ghomeshi verdict w/ @Chatelaine: “He called us all liars. This was an insult to women.” pic.twitter.com/levQxBF1TV

— Sarah Boesveld (@sarahboesveld) March 24, 2016

Further, Horkins hit upon the fact that witnesses failed to disclose information that he believed would be “significant” to the trial, such as the fact that DeCoutere engaged in multiple “kissing sessions” with Ghomeshi the night of the assault, and the fact that victims had engaged in “flirtatious” behavior with him. This response by the judge seemed to imply that this behavior by the witnesses were indications of consent on their part.

Ghomeshi himself was never put on the stand; however, after his firing by CBC he responded in a now-deleted Facebook post, indicating that his aggressive sexual behavior was consensual. He wrote:

Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.

After the news of the verdict broke, protests broke out in front of the courtroom in Toronto, and people gathered to rally in support of the accusers. There were also calls by many for legal reform in sexual assault cases within the Canadian legal system. Ghomeshi’s fight is not completely over yet; he will be back on trial in June to face one of the other charges levied against him.

Actress Zoe Kazan also released a series of tweets yesterday, alleging that Ghomeshi had acted inappropriately towards her:

Before we went on air, he told me I was “just his type.” “Funny, sexy, just the right amount of damage,” he said (after talking abt 3 mins).

— zoe kazan (@zoeinthecities) March 24, 2016

Later he showed up @ party I was at & wdnt leave me alone. His unwanted attention made me feel like I’d “asked for it.” I felt dirty & sad.

— zoe kazan (@zoeinthecities) March 24, 2016

This behavior is insidious, but so is a culture that condones it, by turning a blind eye, or shaming the victim. We internalize these mores.

— zoe kazan (@zoeinthecities) March 24, 2016

Ghomeshi may have been set free by the Canadian legal system, but in the court of public opinion, it looks as if his reputation may be tarnished for good.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Jian Ghomeshi’s Acquittal Provokes Debates on Victim-Blaming and Consent appeared first on Law Street.

Jamie Gilt is not having a great month: the Florida mom and pro-gun activist, who was shot by her four-year-old son on March 9, now may be facing charges for allowing her son access to firearms. Police are recommending that Gilt face a misdemeanor charge, which could carry a sentence of up to 180 days. Ironically, the same day that the incident took place, Gilt had bragged on Facebook that her son “gets jacked up to target shoot,” according to The Washington Post.

The shooting occurred while Gilt was driving, when her loaded gun slid out from underneath the front seat into the backseat where her son Lane was sitting. To add to Gilt’s bad luck, Lane had also apparently just learned how to unbuckle himself out of his booster seat, so he was able to pick up the gun and shoot it through the seat into his mother’s back.

Her Facebook page, “Jamie Gilt for Gun Sense,” has since been taken down, but was apparently flooded with criticism after the incident went public. Her posts included “pro-gun messages, Second Amendment memes, and posts supporting the NRA, as well as photos of her posing with weapons.” Her Twitter account also appears to have been deactivated.

Jamie Gilt bragged about how her son gets “pumped” about guns …

Her 4 yr old shot her in the back.

* sigh * pic.twitter.com/Qg7Iww0lJg

— SuperSoulSistah (@ctv556) March 9, 2016

Under Florida law, it is a second degree misdemeanor if a firearm is not safely stored, and a minor is able to gain access to it as a result. Gilt’s gun was loaded and unholstered under the front seat, which authorities allege could be a violation of this law.

What may be the biggest irony here: the woman who was a strong advocate for gun rights can now be an example for why stricter gun control measures are beneficial.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Pro-Gun Activist Shot By 4-Year-Old Son to Face Charges appeared first on Law Street.

In an ironic development, the Kardashian sisters are now being accused of not enough self-promotion: Kourtney, Khloe, and Kim are being sued for over $180 million due to lack of marketing and promotion efforts for their “Kardashian Beauty” makeup line. In court filings obtained by Radar Online, the Plaintiff, Hillair Capital Management, LLC, alleges:

…in July 2014, whereby Hillair agreed to put up millions of dollars to help the Kardashians salvage their struggling ‘Kardashian Beauty’ makeup line after former distributor, Boldface, went belly up amidst legal and financial troubles. The essence of the parties’ bargain was that Hillair would put up millions of dollars to fund the continued distribution of the Kardashians’ line, and the Kardashians would continue to be the faces of the line and actively promote, market and support the line, while making certain concessions under their existing deal with Boldface.

The problem, Hillair alleges, is that the sisters did not uphold their end of the bargain: “the Kardashians wanted a better, more lucrative deal than they had struck with Hillair after the money to continue the line was already committed, and they used their ability to withhold their support of the line to attempt to force Hillair into a buyout of its interest.”

In return, Hillair is now demanding the return of the over $10 million it invested into the company, as well as up to $180 million in loss of value of equity interest.

This makeup line has been the cause of multiple legal headaches for the Kardashian sisters. The line was launched in 2012 under the name Khroma Beauty, but was accused of trademark infringement by two different companies: the Los Angeles-based Chroma Makeup, and a separate Florida-based company called Kroma Makeup. While the former was denied by courts, the second (Kroma with a K) was successful in forcing a temporary injunction to stop sales of the Kardashian’s brand for the duration of the trial. As a result, the company was finally forced to change its name to “Kardashian Beauty” in 2013.

The troubles only continued from there: the distributor of Kardashian Beauty, Boldface Licensing and Branding, began to experience financial troubles, which is where Hillair stepped in and agreed to invest. Now, the management company is alleging that its deal specified that the Kardashians would continue the promotions they had been working on under their previous deal with Boldface, which they allegedly did not do.

Another day, another Kardashian lawsuit we’re “keeping up with.”

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Kardashians Sued for Not Promoting Makeup Line appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever felt shorted by your barista during your morning Starbucks run?  You’re not alone: the company is facing a class-action lawsuit filed in the state of California last Wednesday for allegedly not providing latte drinkers with the promised amounts of beverage.

While the Tall, Grande and Venti cup sizes are meant to be 12, 16, and 20 ounces respectively, the lawsuit alleges that the cups are “approximately 25 percent underfilled.” The two plaintiffs, Siera Strumlauf and Benjamin Robles, appear to have done their research, as the lawsuit alleges that they “purchased and measured Starbucks Lattes at different stores, in different states, in different sizes, and in different flavors.” Alas, apparently none of them lived up to the amounts stated on the menu.

While to some, this may sound like a petty issue to sue over, the plaintiffs claim that their grievances go deeper than just being shorted a few ounces of sweet, caffeinated goodness, but may actually be a conspiracy by the company: “…by underfilling its lattes, thereby shortchanging its customers, Starbucks has saved countless millions of dollars in the cost of goods sold and was unjustly enriched by taking payment for more product than it delivers.” 

If you’re an avid Starbucks latte drinker, you may also seek to benefit if the Plaintiffs can successfully bring a case against the company According to Top Class Actions, if approved as a class action lawsuit, “…it will be open to all U.S. Class Members who purchased a Starbucks Latte” (apologies to all the Frappucino fans out there, you’re out of luck this time).

Starbucks, on its part, does not seem worried. The company issued a statement to Seattle P-I last Friday stating the following:

We are aware of the plaintiffs’ claims, which we fully believe to be without merit. We are proud to serve our customers high-quality, handcrafted and customized beverages. Hand-prepared beverages increase the likelihood of variations, as disclosed in the nutritional section of our website. Customers often prescribe for us how they want their beverage prepared (e.g. with room, extra foam), therefore beverage volumes are largely collaborative. If a customer is unhappy with their beverage preparation then we are happy to remake it to their satisfaction.

Whether or not the company will face legal consequences remains to be seen, but the question remains: is this just a frivolous lawsuit, or a campaign against corporate greed? Your call.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Angry Latte Drinkers Sue Starbucks for Underfilling Cups appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Ted Cruz announced the creation of his new “national security coalition,” a team of foreign policy advisers that would help him with his “Reagan-esque approach” to national security policy. Among those on the team is Frank Gaffney Jr., who has been notable for propagating wild conspiracy theories  and making Islamophobic comments that rival the things that Donald Trump has said during this campaign. Gaffney is the president of the Center for Security Policy, a think-tank that has been denounced by both sides of the political spectrum for its extreme anti-Islamic views.

Here’s a sampling of his crazy beliefs:

Obama is Basically America’s first Muslim president

This theory is by no means unique in this election cycle: Donald Trump has a history of suggesting that Obama is a Muslim and was a notorious proponent of the “birther” movement.

Gaffney propagates this misinformation even further: in an op-ed for the Washington Times, Gaffney listed the reasons why Obama is essentially America’s first Muslim president, including his apparent “firsthand knowledge of Islam” and the fact that he referred to the Muslim holy book as “the Holy Koran.”

To add to that, Gaffney wrote that the President has attempted to “promote Islam in America” by making statements advocating that Muslims should be able to practice their faith freely in this country (quick note for Frank: the First Amendment of the Constitution says that, too). He adds at the end that “whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim or simply plays one in the presidency may, in the end, be irrelevant,” because he’s basically pandering to the Muslim Brotherhood anyway.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Shariah law are infiltrating our institutions and government

Gaffney has created a 10-part course entitled “The Muslim Brotherhood in America,” outlining how the organization is “destroying Western civilization from within.” He even makes claims that prominent political figures such as Huma Abedin, aide to Hillary Clinton, and President Obama have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Additionally, he claims that Shariah doctrine is playing out in U.S. courts (never mind that the evidence he cites is a study from his own organization). To top that off, he perpetuated a theory in 2010 that the logo for the Missile Defense Agency was created specifically to look like the Obama campaign logo, and also looked like the Islamic crescent moon, arguing that this was somehow evidence of Obama’s secret ties to Islam.

Saddam Hussein played a role in the Timothy McVeigh bombing 

Gaffney has expressed many times that he believes that there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and two major attacks on U.S. soil (in which the perpetrators were found and convicted). In 2009, Gaffney stated that there’s “compelling circumstantial evidence of Saddam Hussein‘s Iraq being involved with the people who perpetrated both the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and even the Oklahoma City bombing.”

I could sadly keep going on and on about Gaffney’s Islamophobic conspiracy theories. The publications on the site for the Center of Security Policy–which include titles such as “Star Spangled Shariah” and “Civilization Jihad,”–as well as his numerous op-eds, are a treasure trove for anyone looking to prop up their anti-Islamic and bigoted views. Trump himself has actually cited a poll created by Gaffney’s organization in order to advocate for a ban on Muslims entering the country.

This Republican primary, unfortunately, seems to be dissolving into a contest for who can prop up more hateful and xenophobic rhetoric. While Gaffney has been banned from the Conservative Political Action Conference in the past, it appears that his beliefs are now becoming acceptable and mainstream among the right-wing of this country, as reflected by Cruz’s choice to appoint him.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post A Sampling of the Craziest Beliefs Held By Ted Cruz’s New Foreign Policy Adviser appeared first on Law Street.

While this doesn’t necessarily imply that there’s any sort of legal obligation of involvement when the word “genocide” is used, it makes a more compelling argument for the U.S. to take stronger action against ISIS. And even though the international law can be very ambiguous, Secretary Kerry said in today’s statement that “we must hold the perpetrators accountable. And we must find the resources to help those harmed by these atrocities be able to survive on their ancestral land.” To add to that even further, it’s also pretty rare for the U.S. to make such a declaration: the last time the U.S. officially declared genocide was over a decade ago, in 2004, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell used it to refer to the atrocities in Darfur.

So while it’s still not completely clear to what extent this affects our current foreign policy toward ISIS, it could mean a significant international effort to take action against the group, and shows that we definitely aren’t walking away from this conflict any time soon.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Kerry Says ISIS “Responsible for Genocide”: What Does That Mean? appeared first on Law Street.

Companies such as Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, and others are smashing the traditional models of business, making it easy for anyone with a smartphone or Internet access to instantly connect with other people to acquire and share goods and services. This trend has contributed to the creation of the “sharing economy” which is quickly becoming the norm in today’s society.

The sharing economy is formally defined as “an economic model in which individuals are able to borrow or rent assets owned by someone else.” On one hand, this new economy seems to offer flexibility and greater options to consumers, while allowing nearly anyone to participate and benefit; on the other, these companies are often subject to less regulation and scrutiny than traditional businesses.

Uber and Lyft’s taxi-like services jump-started a trend that has spread to start-ups in nearly every industry imaginable including clothing, alcohol, and even, as The Daily Show noted, chickens.

This new trend has the potential to be a major disruptor to the economy, as it has already impacted the way that business is done. The ability to rent nearly anything has made ownership much less desirable, especially for the millennial generation, who make up the majority of participants in this economy. When people have the ability to easily rent just about anything, there is much less need for people to make actual purchases. Additionally, many of the largest-growing companies today don’t directly provide the good or service they sell to their consumer base: Uber does not own the cars it drives, Airbnb does not own the properties it rents, and Grubhub does not make the food it delivers. They simply act as intermediaries to connect goods or services with consumers.

Despite its newfound dominance in the modern world of commerce, the sharing economy is still young and as it continues to expand at such a rapid pace, it may face some growing pains. Many companies are coming under fire for allegedly not obeying the laws set in place for traditional businesses to protect consumers and laborers. Additionally, the prevalent usage of contractors and temporary workers in their business models has led to many criticisms claiming that they lack respect for workers’ rights.

Read on for a look at the biggest issues facing the companies of today’s sharing economy.

Consumer Safety

A major issue facing these startups is whether consumers can trust these companies to provide the same level of safety as traditional businesses. Due to their peer-to-peer model, they are often not held to the same legal and regulatory standards put in place to protect consumers, leading to a litany of criticisms.

Airbnb

Airbnb, a company that allows people to go online and list or rent properties for short-term rental, is an alternative to traditional hotels for people traveling for leisure or business. The company is a major player in the hospitality industry, despite the fact that it doesn’t actually own any hotel properties of its own. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the company averages nearly 22 percent more guests per night than Hilton Worldwide.

However, critics are concerned about the safety procedures put in place by Airbnb. The service allows virtually anyone to put up a listing and become a host, and they do not routinely perform background checks on users. The company explains, however, that it has features in place to ensure safety, such as user reviews and a Verified ID process (in which identification is confirmed through a government-issued ID or social media profile). Still, the question remains, is that enough to ensure that both hosts and guests will have a safe experience?

This issue was put in a spotlight last month in a piece published by Matter, in which the author Zak Stone gave an account of his father’s death in a freak accident involving a rope swing in a Texas Airbnb rental. Stone’s piece is an extensive look at the legal and ethical controversies surrounding Airbnb, and includes stories such as one of a woman who died from carbon monoxide in a Taiwanese property. These stories highlight a large concern with the Airbnb business model, which is that the company cannot necessarily hold its listed properties to the same standard as a major hotel chain can with its properties. While hotels must operate under legal and regulatory standards, there are less restrictions on which properties can be posted. Whether user ratings are enough to ensure quality and safety for guests is an issue that can be debated.

Additionally, hosts cannot always be assured by the fact that their guests are trustworthy and will take care of their property. To address this, the company does offer Host Protection Insurance that protects against liability claims liability claims up to $1 million. However, anyone who chooses to become an Airbnb host would presumably be aware that they are agreeing to undertake a certain level of risk by letting a stranger stay in their property.

Uber and Lyft 

The safety concerns that plague Airbnb can also extend to ride-sharing services such as Uber or Lyft. In order to become a driver with one of these services, drivers must pass a background check, in addition to holding a driver’s license and meeting the minimum age of 21. Cars are not maintained by the companies, but must possess a certain level of insurance in order to operate. Despite this, there is a long list of incidents such as assaults, attempted kidnappings, and driver DUIs, among others. There are also allegations that the background checks are not extensive enough, and as such, they are more likely than taxi services to have such incidents take place.

However, taxi drivers have also been accused of similar offenses, so it seems that this issue is not unique to ride-sharing companies. A Cato Institute study found that ride-sharing companies were just as safe as traditional taxis, and also claimed that background checks for such companies often had stricter requirements than those for cabs in the U.S.’s biggest cities. Additionally, users of Uber and Lyft have the personal information of the driver on their phone, making it easier to report incidents (and the same is true if a driver is attacked by a passenger).

Labor Issues

Companies involved in the sharing economy have been held responsible for the emergence of the “gig economy,” which relies on contractors to make up the majority of its workforce. Because of this, they are not offered benefits such as health insurance and vacation. In fact, both Uber and Lyft are facing lawsuits for the “misclassification of drivers” in order to save on labor costs. Because they classify workers as contractors, federal law does not let them form unions to advocate for fairer treatment. Additionally, as noted earlier, drivers are required to use their own car, smartphone, and insurance in order to operate. This may affect the ability of lower-income workers to be able to participate in the first place.

Some may argue that Uber workers are not typically full-time drivers; they often hold other jobs and drive to make some extra money on the side. As such, do these companies need to be concerned about providing them with benefits? It is true that the vast majority of drivers fall in the 18-to-24 age group, and over half of drivers are part-timers. However, Uber and Lyft have been responsible for affecting the businesses of traditional taxi drivers who often do make their living off of their profession. The majority of New York taxi drivers are immigrants, with the median falling in the 50-54 age range. The disruption of car-sharing services on traditional taxi services has been immense, causing taxi drivers all over the world to protest Uber.

Another problem sharing economy startups bring to the forefront is whether or not their models will hinder future job growth. If apps and websites can eventually take over jobs done by people, what effects will this have on the future of the job market?

In a segment on his show, Bill Maher lamented that this sharing economy is a reflection of societal greed, and will lead to greater income inequality because it will decrease the number of jobs available. These concerns, however, are more so related to technological progress rather than directly the result of the sharing economy, so it seems unreasonable to blame the sharing economy. Hillary Clinton also cited the gig economy as dampening wage growth in the U.S., and “raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.”

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the sharing economy has had a tremendous impact on the way that business is done, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Many are still skeptical of this system because it is based on trust, and it is difficult to hold this trust without being ensured that your interests are protected by the law. The traditional legal system hasn’t caught up to these non-traditional ways of doing business, but as this business model becomes more and more prevalent, companies will need to continue to put regulations and protections in place for consumers and laborers.

Resources

Primary 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Consumer Intelligence Series-“The Sharing Economy”

Additional

Medium: Living and Dying on Airbnb

U.S. News and World Report: Who’s a Sharing Economy Worker?

The Seattle Times: The ‘Shared Economy’ is Further Hurting Workers’ Rights

The Guardian: Uber and the Lawlessness of ‘Sharing Economy’ Corporates

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Uber, Airbnb: Is the “Sharing Economy” Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.

After nearly three and a half decades, China’s famous one-child policy is finally coming to an end; the Communist Party announced last week that it will begin to allow families to have up to two children. The change will officially go into effect this upcoming March, when the parliament provides approval at its annual session. The policy, which was introduced in 1979, was meant to help ease the booming population of the country, which is now at approximately 1.36 billion. However, it has had enormous adverse effects on nearly every facet of Chinese society, and has created a chaotic demographic landscape within the country. Essentially, the Chinese population is too male, and too old, and that’s a problem.

So, why should the rest of the world care about this change in China? The one-child policy has been a human-rights disaster, and the demographic, social, and economic effects will haunt China for generations to come. Here’s an overview of what this policy has meant for Chinese society over the past 30 years, and what its end will mean for the country’s future.

The One-Child Policy: A Background

In 1949, the year of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong proclaimed, “of all things in the world, people are the most precious.” This declaration reflected the government’s notion that population growth was beneficial and would help boost the economy. The government even went as far as to ban the import of contraceptives into the country in order to promote this agenda.

This backfired, however, when the population levels became so large that food supplies were not sufficient enough, resulting in famine that caused around 30 million deaths. The severity of China’s population growth became evident, and something needed to be done to slow it. As a result, the one-child policy was born in 1979 and declared that couples must limit their families to only having one child.

Violators who go over the mandated quota can face a variety of consequences, ranging from fines to forced abortions and sterilizations. There are some exceptions: ethnic minorities are generally excluded from the rule, and couples are allowed to give birth to a second child in certain circumstances. Additionally, the policy has been criticized for being applied unequally depending on one’s socioeconomic status: the rich are able to pay a “social compensation fee,” a fine that is a certain percentage of their income, or are able to travel abroad to give birth. This has turned the policy into a class issue as well, because the wealthy elite are easily excluded from the law.

Perhaps one of the greatest criticisms of the policy is how unevenly it is enforced. Regulations and consequences can vary from province to province, in addition to socioeconomic status. Critics cite this as proof that the policy is simply unenforceable; there is no way to hold everyone to the same levels of accountability and ensure that everyone is receiving equal treatment. So, the argument follows, what good is a policy that can’t even be carried out as it is supposed to be?

The consequences of the policy

In a way, it could be said that this policy has been successful: ultimately, it ended up doing what it set out to do by preventing around 400 million births. However, in doing so, it has created enormous disruptions in various facets of Chinese society. The one-child policy is essentially a social experiment that seemingly has done more harm than it has good.

Strict Regulations on Fertility

This policy has led the Chinese government to implement severe methods to regulate fertility, including forced abortions on women who become pregnant with a second child. Official statistics say that there have been approximately 1,500 abortions an hour since the implementation of the policy. Another means by which this takes place is sterilization, which is often forced—nearly 196 million of these procedures have been performed since implementation of the policy. While this sterilization is effective in ensuring that couples do not have to worry about accidental pregnancies, it is not a trouble-free solution. An example of this can be seen in a story told by one reporter, who recounted that after the 2008 earthquake in Szechuan, many couples who lost children were rushing to reverse these procedures so that they would be able to conceive again.

Additionally, there is now a generation of “hidden children” (children born out of quota) who have been abandoned by their families and are often unable to receive official identification numbers from the Chinese government. This is just one of many ways in which the policy is viewed as harmful for human rights in the country.

In some cases, women feel that their reproductive organs are owned by the state, as they no longer have sovereignty over their bodies. The tight hold that the government has over women’s bodies enhances the already-patriarchal nature in Chinese society, which exists largely due to the sheer amount of males in China.

An Altered Demographic Landscape

The one-child policy has created an imbalanced sex ratio (1.16 boys born for every girl) that is becoming problematic for Chinese society. This is because it has encouraged sex-selective practices such as abortions, infanticides, and abandonment of female babies. The statistics regarding some of these practices are heartbreaking: the rates of girls at Chinese orphanages have been found to be as high as 90 percent.

These practices have created a new generation of Chinese bachelors who are finding it difficult to marry. In some rural areas, feudal practices have reemerged that dictate that if a man wants to marry, his family must pay a large price for the girl’s hand. Many men will likely never be able to marry, having even greater ramifications for future generations.

Additionally, the population of China is skewing older, and is likely continue to do so for many generations. The average population of the country is getting older and older, and will continue to do so in the future. However, since the number of younger people is declining, there will be less people to support the growing retiree population. As the video below shows, more people must rely on nursing homes for support, going against traditional Confucian traditions that dictate that families must support their elderly members.

What makes this issue even more serious is the fact that China lacks a social security system, so children are counted on to be the source of support for parents after retirement. In the 2008 earthquake many parents who lost children were rushing to undo their sterilization procedures; one of the main reasons why is that they need someone to provide for them as they age.

Lastly, China’s aging population will potentially harm the economy in a huge way. With a shrinking working-age population, China’s economic future may be in peril.

The consequences of the one-child policy on the demography of China are serious and affect nearly every aspect of Chinese life in the present and in the future. Even with the end of the policy, it will likely take generations for these repercussions to be undone.

How will the end of this policy benefit China?

While the end of the one-child policy is a step in the right direction, it probably won’t be able to undo the disastrous consequences that were created with its implementation. More so, this change won’t be able to make up for the millions of lives affected by the forced sterilizations, abortions and infanticide that took place under this policy. And while the two-child limit still exists, a Chinese woman’s fertility will still remain under the control of the government.

In an article in The Guardian, author Mei Fong argues that the one-child policy has not solely changed the number of kids that a couple has, but has overall changed the way that Chinese people live their lives. Major life decisions such as marriage, employment, and retirement have all been shaped by the policy, and as a result, it is unlikely that the end of the policy will result in any sort of “baby boom” that will undo its negative effects. Fong’s overview demonstrates an important point: it will take a long time before Chinese society sees any effects from ending this policy. So, for a long time coming, we will likely see more of the same in China.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, the one-child policy was an ideal that could never be achieved. There is no simple answer to China’s population problems, but an authoritarian policy is obviously not the solution, and it seems that the country has finally recognized it. China will be a country to watch over the next few decades, as it struggles to figure out how to manage nearly one-sixth of the world’s total population.

Resources

BBC: China to End One-Child Policy and Allow Two

The Guardian: China’s Brutal One-child Policy Shaped How Millions Lived, Loved, and Died

National Geographic: How China’s One-Child Policy Backfired Disastrously

Wired UK: The Harrowing Reality of China’s One-child Policy

TIME: A Brief History of China’s One-Child Policy

The New Yorker: Judging China’s One-Child Policy

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post An End to China’s One-Child Policy: What Does it Mean? appeared first on Law Street.