Thousands of parents in California have recently done their children a great disservice by signing a petition to remove a sex ed book from the classroom called “Your Health Today.”

The book, which was slated to be used in 9th grade sex ed classes in Fremont, California this fall, takes a refreshingly new approach to sex ed by actually discussing things most 9th graders are questioning. It actually manages to go beyond clinical discussions of eggs, sperm, and vague references to how one reaches the other.

The petitioners claims that the book “exposes youth to sexual games, sexual fantasies, sexual bondage with handcuffs, ropes, and blindfolds, sexual toys and vibrator devices, and additional instruction that is extremely inappropriate.” With a description like that, you would think that the school district accidentally purchased a Cards Against Humanity deck rather than a textbook.

No one denies these topics are mentioned, but as pointed out by Slate, the book only provides definitions (students looking for anything more will need to sneak in to 50 Shades of Grey when it premieres next year. Or just use Google.) And on closer inspection, “Your Health Today” is actually a really informative book that provides information every sex ed class should: how to put on a condom, anatomically correct drawings of reproductive organs, and a myriad of topics affecting today’s youth that range from online dating to the idea of “hooking up” with someone.

But parents are seemingly up in arms over their teenagers being “exposed” to this information, as if talking about sex toys could do the same kind of damage as, say, a complete lack of information about preventing HIV. The parents are protesting even though school officials in Fremont say their own internal surveys show many students are sexually active.

I can’t say I’m surprised parents have had this reaction. As a culture, we regard sex as shameful and wrong, which has led to a lot of misinformation about sex and the topics surrounding it. Time after time we have heard about students who are uninformed about birth control, the importance of consent, and STIs. Sweeping sex under the rug and only talking about it in the most clinical of senses does not do anything to change that.

If we want children to develop healthy attitudes towards sex–ones that revolve around respect, emotional preparedness, and a working knowledge of the good and bad parts of being sexually active–we need to actually talk about it with teenagers. We need books that teach kids about their birth control options, that their sexual preferences aren’t wrong or unnatural, and that a lot of responsibility comes with being sexually active.

But we need parents to be on board, too. Mercury News reported one parent griping that: “there’s a section that tells you how to talk to your prospective partners about your sexual history […] How does that relate to a 14-year-old kid? I don’t see it at all.”

And therein lies the problem–that parent clearly doesn’t understand that this kind information could be invaluable for their child in just a few years. So I’m leaving it up to the rest of the parents in Fremont–the ones who are okay with their children learning about the great, bad, and everything in-between parts of sex–to tell the school board the support this book, and they support sex ed. We can’t get by with just teaching out kids “how sex works.” I promise, they already know that much. Let the school district teach an effective, comprehensive sex education class so your kids are as prepared as they can be. The more information they have, the better off they are.

[Petition] [Salon] [Mercury News]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hey Parents: Comprehensive Sex Education is Worth It appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, was shot and killed by police last weekend in Ferguson, Missouri. He was supposed to start college this week. The incident sparked days of protest in the town, and showed a growing divide between law enforcement and citizens. The police originally said that prior to being killed, Brown tried to take the officer’s gun. A witness to the crime, Brown’s friend, said the boy’s hands were up and it was clear he was trying to cooperate. Now law enforcement claims that he was involved in a strong-arm robbery prior to the shooting. The story is unclear, muddled, and deeply problematic.

Incidents like this are not uncommon. Some have drawn parallels to the killing of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner. And like those incidents, Michael Brown’s killing got big, quickly.

Social media, especially Twitter, exploded with hashtags, pictures, and stories of other similar situations. Michael Brown’s story didn’t stay in Ferguson for too long. In a matter of hours, it was all over the country. What started as raging fire on social media turned into protests and riots in Ferguson. Police responded quickly, and situation has continued to escalate. Many have called for the name of the police officer who killed Brown to be released, and despite the fact that the name has now been released, there are still more questions than answers.

And people besides social media activists and residents of the town have taken notice. Missouri’s Governor made a statement, The FBI announced it would conduct an investigation of the incident, and both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have made statements.

But much of the rhetoric surrounding this event has been about the bigger issue at hand here. While the death of Michael Brown is a tragedy in itself, the nation-wide dialogue has been focused on the killings and discrimination by police of young black men. Ferguson is a small town, and two thirds of its residents are black. But on the police force, there are 50 white officers, but only three black ones. Situations like this are repeated in towns around the country.

Many point to what happened in Ferguson as a microcosm of what is happening in the rest of America. And through social media, there has been increased awareness on the issues–both in Ferguson, and beyond. One of the biggest hashtags to come out of the incident was #IfIWasGunnedDown. People posted two pictures of themselves–one in a very flattering light, and one in a light in which they thought the media would portray them should they be killed.

Another picture that went viral was from students of Howard University. Thousands gathered and stood with the same pose–hands in the air–and Tweeted the picture out. In a matter of hours, it had thousands of favorites and re-tweets.

This pic from last night at Howard U is crazy powerful. Thanks @the_blackness48 @tasneemraja http://t.co/z4hxOR3QHU pic.twitter.com/EyAqYLT49A

— Julia Lurie (@julia_lurie) August 14, 2014

And though the narrative has been similar for some time now, with many young people taking part in the conversation, it seems that more and more leaders on the national level are taking notice and getting involved. Not only are they discussing this specific instance of violence, but the larger, deeply rooted problems in American society. Obama discussed transparency in local police departments. Nancy Pelosi made a statement imploring the Justice Department to investigate Brown’s death. And Rand Paul wrote in Time about a “systematic problem with today’s law enforcement.”

It remains unclear what will happen as a result of Michael Brown’s death. And there is absolutely no way to know whether the calls for change in the justice system, police force, and overall mentality in America will come to fruition. But with these all too common events going viral more often, it may just be a matter of time until something substantive comes as a result of these tragic losses.

[Huffington Post] [Huffington Post] [Holder Statement] [Pelosi Statement] [Howard Picture]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michael Brown’s Death Sparked a National Dialogue appeared first on Law Street.

A contentious court battle has left California teachers in need of a new tenure system, after the California Supreme Court ruled that the current model does not allow all students equal access to education.

Back in February, nine students sued the school system. The students argued that the process by which teachers receive tenure and the way teachers are distributed to schools created inequity in the education received by minority students with lower income status.

One of the first things the ruling  references is Brown v. Board of Education, a landmark case that stated all students must have equal opportunity and access to education under the 14th Amendment– specifically, the equal protection clause. The case looked at three facets of the system: the 2 year tenure track, firing process, and “last in, first out” policy that led to newest teachers automatically being laid off first– regardless of how effective they were. All of these policies were found to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the court argued the minority and low-income students were disproportionately affected by these policies.

So, what are the implications of this ruling?

1. Other states will see similar lawsuits

California is not the only state that has rules like these, so it’s only a matter of time before other states are faced with people challenging their tenure laws, as well. It will be interesting to see if all states rule the same way- in all likelihood, they will not. Some might say these kinds of tenure programs are not unconstitutional, which could lead to drastically different tenure models in each state. There is also the possibility that some groups will try to appeal rulings to the Supreme Court. That’s still pretty far off, though.

2. Unions may get more creative in protecting teachers

This ruling does not remove the possibility of a tenure system for teachers, but makes clear that the system currently in place is unconstitutional. California, and other states who want to be proactive, will need to reassess the ways they protect their teachers. For example, the track to tenure may need to take more time, the firing process may need to get simpler, and newer teachers might not automatically be the first to go during layoffs. Of course, this ruling did not provide any specific limitations or recommendations for what changes should be made, so that debate will have to take place in the legislature.

3. Not a “fix all” for the education system

Education reform advocates are cheering after this ruling, but it is important that we do not get ahead of ourselves. Getting rid of tenure alone is not going to change the bad schools in California, because there are astronomically large social and bureaucratic barriers that play a much bigger role than this tenure program. As Jesse Rothstein points out in the New York Times op-ed, getting rid of bad teachers and fully integrating students in the classroom are not mutually exclusive. Even with good teachers, issues like poverty and language barriers affect how effective teachers can be in classrooms. While the tenure system certainly impacted students by way of ineffective teachers- even the best teachers in the world will still have a hard time in the most difficult schools.

Whether you consider this a win for students or a loss for teachers, one thing is for certain: no one has the answers to come to a balanced solution. As Judge Treu notes in the final paragraph of his ruling, “It is not the function of this Court to dictate or even advise the legislature as to how to replace the Challenged statutes.” Until state lawmakers come up with a new system, balancing the interests of students and teachers, this ruling might not be a win for anyone.

[CNN] [Court Ruling] [New York Times]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Colleen via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Major Ruling in Education: California Must Change Tenure System appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, two 12-year-old girls, Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier, were arrested for stabbing their friend 19 times in hopes of appeasing a mythological character known as “Slenderman.”

The girls had allegedly been plotting the attack for months. They invited the victim to a sleepover the night before, and took her into the woods the next day, where the crime occurred. The girls allegedly stabbed the victim 19 times, missing an artery in her heart by just a millimeter. The victim then crawled to a road where she was found by a cyclist. Her condition was said to be stabilizing as of June 4.

In this case, under Wisconsin law, the girls are being tried as adults- meaning they will not be tried in juvenile court, which is the “default” for most minors who are arrested. Instead, they will face prison terms with the potential to extend far beyond their 18th birthdays.

In Wisconsin, juveniles over the age of 10 who are suspected of homicide have to be charged as adults. This law was enacted in 1996, as a way to curb violence among young people. The girls, if convicted, will face up to 60 years in prison- meaning at most, they will not be released until they are 72.

At least one of the girl’s attorneys is petitioning to have the case moved to juvenile court, but it could take months for a judge to decide whether or not that will happen. So while the fate of these girls is being called into question, here are factors that may influence how the trial plays out:

1. Mental Health

The girls claimed they stabbed their friend in order to appease a fictional character known as “Slenderman.” Originating in 2009, this character was created and depicted online in stories and pictures. The character is often depicted as being very tall, thin, and not having a defined face. The girls allegedly carried out this stabbing to get the approval of this character, and thought he had a mansion in the woods where the crime took place.

If their legal teams can prove these girls are deranged in some way, it could help their case. And if these preteens honestly believed in this character, and then acted so violently in its name, it could point to signs of mental illness. At this point, we do not have any information about whether the girls had histories of other violent actions. But if the court deems them unfit to stand trial by reason of mental insanity, they may be heading to a psychiatric hospital rather than prison.

2. Premeditation

If the girls had been planning the attack for several months, it could be a strike against them in the eyes of the jury- planning implies intent, and would show that the girls had multiple opportunities to re-think their plan. It shows this was not a freak act committed by two young girls who were not thinking clearly. Careful planning and consideration would definitely add weight to the homicide charges these girls are facing. During police interrogations, the girls said they went back and forth before one of them actually stabbed the victim. And one of the girls went so far as to say she had no remorse for committing the crime. All of these things would make a jury weary at giving these girls a second chance.

3. Age

This could be both harmful, and helpful. If the girls claim they committed this crime in order to appease this mythological figure- a jury could easily say they are old enough to know real from fake. After all, most states allow 12-year-olds to legally babysit younger children, so they are deemed to be at least somewhat responsible. It is an excuse that may work for a 6-year-old, but these girls have had plenty of time to learn right from wrong- and there is no gray area for stabbing a “friend” 19 times.

On the other hand, 12-year-olds cannot even drive, and these girls were in middle school. If they have a compassionate jury, it is possible they would rather see the girls given a second chance at reform rather than being locked up for life after one terrible act. After all, a lot of people are fed up with how punitive, rather than rehabilitative, the prison system is.

It seems like the best case scenario for the girls is if the case is moved to juvenile court. But with the media attention and violence associated with the case, that is unlikely to happen. Determining the girls’ motive and intent will be critical when a jury deliberates this case. The victim is alive to tell the story, the girls have apparently told their side to the police, and the weapon was collected. Unless they are found to be unfit to stand trial, the girls are probably going away for a long time.

[Star Tribune] [Boston Globe] [NBC]

—

Molly Hogan(@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [ mdl70 via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cold-blooded Killers, or Stupid Preteens? A Jury Will (Probably) Decide appeared first on Law Street.

Millennials love the Internet, and most can tell you that from a young age, bullying was as present there as it was on the playground. As states have struggled to keep changing technology on the books to prevent bullying, they have faced challenges when it comes to preventing, or correcting, behavior that happens online and outside of school.

In Illinois, the Senate just passed a law that would ban students from using phones and computers as mechanisms for cyberbullying- whether in school or at home. The bill is on its way to the governor’s desk, and if signed, would be one of few around the country to include such far-reaching rules for cyberbullying; most only tackle in-school behavior. But critics call into question whether the bill can be effective, and even if it is, whether or not it goes too far- making school administrators step in where law enforcement should instead. The law in Illinois previously covered cyberbullying only if it took place on school computers- this new bill goes far beyond that.

This Illinois bill, while in many ways necessary, calls into question a number of things, the first of which being the jurisdiction of a school’s administration. If cyberbullying is taking place outside of school altogether, it is hard to find legal precedent for why the matter should be brought inside the school. Some critics of this bill, and of others like it, say cyberbullying is best dealt with by local police authorities instead of those at the school. Furthermore, not all cyberbullying is a result of students being victimized by others at the same school- it is entirely possible that the bullying can happen from students in other school districts, other states, or even other countries.

Another potential problem with this bill would be the mechanisms by which it is enforced. The simplest way to keep track of this cyberbullying would be to have victims show school administrators websites or other social media platforms that have the bullying. But oftentimes, victims are too scared or embarrassed to do that. And even for those who do come forward, social media websites like Facebook and Twitter, and other new platforms like YikYak (which has already been called a haven for bad behavior), can allow bullies to act anonymously. Of course, some simple sleuth work or help from law enforcement would be able to dig up a lot of information on the root of the cyberbullying, but with many schools being underfunded and understaffed, there are questions about how effective administrators could be about looking into all of these instances.

But even if it were possible for school officials to effectively monitor this kind of behavior- what are the legal complications of instituting this kind of policy?

1. Historical Precedent

At public schools, students are granted a degree of free speech, and there have been a plethora of court cases trying to define such boundaries. One of the earliest is the famed Tinker v. Des Moines, which held students have the right to free speech so long as they don’t disrupt what’s supposed to happen at school (learning in a calm environment). One of the reasons cyberbullying is difficult to mesh in with a case law on free speech, is because it usually does not take place on campus, so that “disruption” is more difficult to pinpoint.

2. Different ways cyberbullying is defined

Currently, 13 states have off-campus behaviors included in their cyberbullying policies, all to varying degrees. Some states, like Arkansas, require off-campus attacks to be directed at students or staff and be “intended for the purpose of disrupting school, and has a high likelihood of succeeding in that purpose.” Other states, like Connecticut, define cyberbullying a bit more broadly, considering cyberbullying anything that “creates a hostile environment at school for the victim.” Obviously, the more broadly defined, the more instances of bullying it will include, and the more work that will need to be done by school officials as a result.

In Illinois, bullying is defined as “any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act of conduct, including communications made in writing or electronically” that results in a student fearing harm of self or property, that substantially interferes with academic performance, or causes harm to a student’s physical or mental health. That definition has always been in place in Illinois, just now extends further to cover off-campus online bullying, too.

It is not yet clear where the line will be drawn in terms of cyberbullying rules each school can enact. It seems that as long as schools can prove the bullying (on campus, or off) led to significant disruption within the school, they are within their rights to enact these policies.

[Education Week] [State Facts] [Tinker v. Des Moines] [boston.com]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Flickr- woodleywonderworks]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Illinois Tries to Expand Cyberbullying Laws Outside of Schools appeared first on Law Street.

Since the Supreme Court released its ruling on affirmative action in Michigan earlier this week (which we covered back when it was argued in October), there has been a lot of controversy surrounding it. Some say the justices ignored very real problems of race in America, turning a blind eye to such a serious topic, while others say the court left it to the hands of the voters. But what many people are failing to overlook is that this decision does not speak to the merits or disadvantages of affirmative action: it looks at what a state’s rights are when deciding how to apply affirmative action.

Before we get into the semantics of the ruling, it’s important to go over some background of affirmative action cases.

Way back in 1978, the Supreme Court decided setting racial quotas was unconstitutional in Regents v. Bakke. Basically, a college could not decide to admit X percent of students of a certain race based on their race alone. The court upheld, however, the larger idea of affirmative action- saying schools could consider race as one of many factors in admissions. That holds true to this day.

Fast forward to 2003, when the University of Michigan was sued in Gratz v. Bollinger because it has applied an admissions policy in which minority students are awarded certain “points” based on their race. The Court held that this was unconstitutional because it did not allow the school to look at applicants as individuals, rather, assigned preferential treatment based on race alone.

But that is not all- also in 2003, the University of Michigan Law School was sued in Grutter v. Bollinger, under similar claims, that the University’s consideration of race in admissions was unconstitutional. But the Law School’s admissions policies regarding race (which were seemingly less stringent than the undergrad ones) were upheld and Constitutional.

So what’s a state to do after its premier educational institutions keep getting sued?

Outlaw affirmative action, of course. And Michigan did just that in 2006, when 58 percent of the state voted in favor of outlawing it. Needless to say, this caused a lot of controversy among people who hold that affirmative action is a helpful and necessary way of ensuring equality in schools. So people sued the state, a lower court upheld the ban as legal, the ruling was appealed, and the appellate court determined it was unconstitutional. And that brings us to the Supreme Court hearing the case.

The most important thing to remember about this case is that it does not decide anything about affirmative action on its own- since 1978, we have known that it is legal to consider race in admissions. This case, as stated in the opinion, deals with “whether, and in what manner, voters in the states may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions.”

Basically, the Court had to look at whether voters in a state could decide that they do not want to take affirmative action policies into account at their state colleges – not whether or not affirmative action is good or bad, or even constitutional in its own right. Michigan is not the only state to have outlawed affirmative action, it joins seven others: California, Arizona, Florida, Washington, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire. The only thing this ruling has done is say that citizens have the ability to enact laws in their states that make affirmative action illegal. Those laws may not be agreeable, and many people may take exception to them; but the Court has ruled that states are able to decide on policies like these for themselves.

But when the 6-2 decision affirming Michigan’s right to outlaw affirmative action came out, there was an uproar from people who claimed the courts were refusing to take minority rights into consideration. But that’s not what the Court was doing. It was not commenting on whether or not affirmative action should be implemented- that is up to the members of each state. Furthermore, the Court’s ruling also has no bearing on the affirmative action policies of private universities within these states.

When the Supreme Court makes decisions, it is important to keep in mind their decisions are based off of legal statutes, not emotions or what “feels right.” It is easy to want to Supreme Court to rule a certain way, especially for programs like affirmative action which have been lauded by many as a step in the right direction for racial equality. But it is not right to expect them to do so, if there is a legal precedent behind an opposite outcome.

[Michigan Ruling] [Regents v. Bakke] [Gratz v. Bollinger] [Grutter v. Bollinger] [USA Today]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Marty Hogan via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Breakdown: States Can Ban Affirmative Action appeared first on Law Street.

What happens when two Supreme Court Justices, who rarely rule the same way, sit down for an hour-long conversation on the First Amendment? Surprisingly, a lot of laughs, and some strong opinions about free speech. On Thursday, April 17, Justices discussed the First Amendment on the Kalb Report at the National Press Club.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg couldn’t be more ideologically different- Scalia is an originalist, meaning the Constitution should be interpreted as it would have been when it was created. Ginsburg, on the other hand, sees the Constitution as a living document, one that can be interpreted differently based on how society has evolved.

Agreement on Free Speech:

But for being so different in their opinions, the two agreed on the most basic idea that freedom of speech is a necessary function of democracy.

“The right to speak my mind, that’s America to me,” Ginsburg said.

Scalia seemed to agree, saying, “democracy means persuading one another […] you can’t run such a system if here is muzzling of one point of view.”

Times v. Sullivan:

The two didn’t agree for long, though. One discussion over the case New York Times v. Sullivan elicited two very different opinions from the Justices.

Times. V. Sullivan was the case that holds public officials have a much harder time suing for libel. Basically, unless they can prove someone made libelous comments on purpose, they don’t have a shot at a lawsuit.

Scalia had no time for that, saying the founding fathers “would have been appalled at the notion they could be libeled with impunity,” and that rather than interpreting the Constitution, the Times v. Sullivan decision revised it.

Ginsburg disagreed, saying, “Times v. Sullivan is now well-accepted […] I suspect that if the founding fathers were around to see what life was like in the 1960s, they would have agreed with that.”

Using your rights… isn’t always right?:

The conversation also pointed to the fact that while the Justices may support First Amendment Rights, it doesn’t mean they agree with the ways in which people utilize those rights.

“You can be using your 1st amendment right and it can be abominable that you are,” Scalia said and continued with,  “I will defend your right to use it, but I will not defend the appropriateness of the manner in which you’re using it now- that can be very wrong.”

Specifically, Ginsburg referred to a case, which Scalia ruled on, that held flag burning was Constitutionally protected, even though he did not personally agree with the idea of it.

“I would have thrown that guy in jail if I were king,” alluding to the fact in a democracy, we don’t have that option.

The First Amendment Debate isn’t Over:

At one point, Ginsburg referenced a case the Supreme Court will hear next week, questioning whether it is legal to lie about candidates running for office.

The case is Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, and it challenges an Ohio law that says groups and individuals can’t make false statements about political candidates. The court will be tasked with deciding whether or not false statements in the context of political races are protected speech.

Though it’s hard to tell how the court will rule, there have been other cases that deal with lies in relation to free speech. In 2012, the court ruled that a man who lied about receiving the Medal of Honor was protected by free speech. In 2006, after Xavier Alvarez lied about receiving a military award, he was prosecuted under the “Stolen Valor Act,” which made it illegal to do so.

Precedent for the Case:

The court held 6-3 that the First Amendment protected Alvarez’s lie. Ginsburg was in the majority; Scalia was not.

The opinion state specifically, “the Court has instructed that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment; the statement must be a knowing and reckless falsehood.”

The combination of Alvarez and Times as precedent will be make for an interesting decision by the Court, and Ginsburg and Scalia could very easily end up on different sides of the decision again.

Their Friendship hasn’t Waned:

But through the differing opinions on how to interpret the Constitution, Ginsburg and Scalia have remained close friends.

When Kalb asked Ginsburg if she would have voted in favor of the Times case, Scalia jumped in saying, “oh God yes she would have!”

At another point, Ginsburg poked fun at Scalia after he mentioned using telephone booths, saying, “we don’t have to worry about that anymore!”

The moderator, Marvin Kalb, seemed to appreciate the dynamic between the two, saying “they are like the old days in this capital when political differences did not stop a good friendship from flourishing.”

Having two Justices discuss not just their friendship, but views on issues as decisive as the First Amendment, as well, gives the public a great inside look into the reasoning behind Supreme Court decisions. While they had vastly different ideas about how laws should be interpreted, they both had strong reasoning behind their opinions, and respected each other as people regardless of their professional views.

You can watch the whole program here.

[Times v. Sullivan] [Alvarez Case] [Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Petteway, College of the Supreme Court of the United States via Wikipedia]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The First Amendment: Two Supreme Court Justices Debate What it Means appeared first on Law Street.

Not even the rich and famous can escape being subpoenaed. And sometimes, a delusional fan is the reason for it.

At the premiere of his latest movie last Thursday, Johnny Depp was served legal documents calling him as a witness in a murder case. But Depp wasn’t a witness to the crime, nor does he know the person who committed it. So what’s the connection?

In 2009, Nancy Lekon  was driving in Los Angeles when she struck and killed a passenger, who was dragged by her car for over a mile. Lekon claimed that she was in such a rush because she was on her way to meet Depp; with whom she claimed to be in a relationship.  But there is no connection between Depp and Lekon besides the woman’s (perhaps) delusional obsession with him.

Lekon’s lawyer has been trying to prove she is not guilty by reason of mental insanity, and wants Depp’s testimony to prove that. If Depp testifies that he was not dating Lekon, it would go to support the claim. The fact Depp was subpoenaed is a bit of an anomaly in itself. A subpoena is a legal document that compels someone to testify in court. If you’re subpoenaed and don’t show up, you could be held in contempt.

In a lot of cases, it makes sense to subpoena someone. If there is a crime with one key witness, or someone with a very specialized field of knowledge, it would make sense to compel them to testify in a trial- without them, important information would not be heard by the jury or judge, and the verdict could be skewed as a result. But in this case, it seems like just about anyone could have surmised that Lekon wasn’t actually dating Depp.

So why was Depp subpoenaed so publicly, five years after the crime? One would assume Mr. Depp’s publicists could have gotten this information to Lekon’s attorney in writing, and have the information be just as effective. It’s possible that despite this subpoena, which Depp probably wasn’t expecting, he won’t take the stand physically. Rather, he could submit a written statement, or testify via a phone call.

This isn’t the first time a celebrity will have testified about someone they don’t know. In November of 2013, Alec Baldwin took the stand to testify against a stalker of his. But the difference between Baldwin and Depp is that Baldwin’s life had been affected by the woman stalking him- as she repeatedly called and messaged him. Depp, on the other hand, has never been in contact with Lekon.

Nonetheless, the tactic is an interesting one from Lekon’s public defender. There will probably be other medical evidence and professional testimony to support the insanity defense, but the ability to utilize a figure as public and well known as Depp himself might really drive home the attorney’s assertion about Lekon. While many people claim insanity defense as a way to escape being held responsible for their actions, a delusion as grandiose as this one could be the icing on the cake to help Lekon escape this murder charge.

And while this is definitely a new (and odd) tactic, it’s possible that Lekon’s attorney is doing it for show. In situations like this, where a party has relevant information but could provide the same information in a written format, they would just go through a deposition. So the fact Depp was served these papers at his movie premiere, about a 5-year-old case, regarding a woman he has never met, seems fishy at best. Knowing the extent of Depp’s resources, it wouldn’t be surprising if his own lawyers find a way for Depp to get out of testifying in person.

[CNN] [TMZ]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Caroline Bonarde Ucci via Wikipedia]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Celebrity News: Johnny Depp Subpoenaed appeared first on Law Street.

For 7 years, Rennie Gibbs was charged with the murder of her stillborn child. But last week, a Mississippi judge threw out the case. This wasn’t a “normal” murder charge- it involved the concept of fetal harm.

In this case, Rennie gave birth to a stillborn daughter, whose umbilical cord was wrapped around her neck. While tragic, cases like this do happen, and mothers are never charged with a crime, much less murder.

But the twist is that Rennie’s daughter tested positive for traces of a byproduct of cocaine- which is different than the drug itself- at the time of her death. When the medical examiner found this out, he ruled the death a homicide. Shortly after, charges were filed against Rennie, and only now, seven years later, was the case thrown out.

The charges of second-degree murder brought against Rennie are known as “depraved heart murder” in Mississippi. This is constituted by actions “eminently dangerous to others” and “regardless of human life” even if unintentional.

No one thinks taking drugs while pregnant is healthy, but is it enough to result in a murder charge? Not according to one Mississippi judge. The case was recently thrown out on the grounds that there was no conclusive proof that the drug usage during Rennie’s pregnancy caused the baby’s death. Furthermore, taking the drugs was not so egregious of an act that it constituted murder. At most, the judge ruled that charges of manslaughter could be re-filed.

And while Rennie’s case is a tragedy in itself, it isn’t an anomaly. Over the past few decades, there have been a number of these “fetal harm” cases that target mothers who either lose children during pregnancy, or have stillborn children.

One woman in Iowa was jailed for two days after she fell down the stairs and suffered a miscarriage. She was going to be charged with “feticide” which, in Iowa, is when someone “intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester.” In this instance, the woman had to purposefully fall down the stairs with the intention of killing the fetus. Sound crazy? There’s more.

One woman in Indiana found herself in jail for over a year after she tried to kill herself while pregnant. Though she survived, the child did not. And three months after her suicide attempt in 2010, she was arrested. Though she was supposed to originally be charged with murder, in 2013 she plead to a lesser count of misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

But something is missing from all three of these cases: intent.

There was no proof in any of these cases, and certainly not enough to convict, that the women intended for their children to die- and in most murder cases, that’s a necessary element. So why did the prosecutors move forward with these charges in the first place? Mississippi, Iowa, and Indiana are all very conservative states when it comes to the rights of unborn children. And there are certainly merits to the points brought up regarding if a fetus deserves rights like those of humans. But there is something inherently wrong about making examples out of women who clearly made accidents, or acted negligently, but without a clear disregard for human life.

These cases aren’t even about abortion. They are about people who don’t know how the law works, or don’t care about how the law works, trying to take advantage of loopholes and inconsistencies to advance their agendas. No one- not mothers, not children, or the judicial system, can be helped from people like medical examiners who ignore scientific evidence to prove a point.

This debate goes beyond the rights of fetuses and mothers; it expands into personal vendettas and ideologies getting in the way of practicing good law. By targeting women with unfairly applied laws, no one wins in the end.

 [Mississippi Bill] [Pro Publica] [RH Reality Check] [Huffington Post] [Iowa Law]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fetal Harm: A New Kind of Crime? appeared first on Law Street.

Americans may soon get some information regarding CIA operations and intelligence procedures in the post 9-11 information gathering frenzy.

For the past five years, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been compiling a report totaling 6,300 pages, in which details of the Agency’s information-gathering tactics are assessed. The committee began looking into the Agency’s actions after 9/11. In 2012, the report was completed but remained confidential. And apparently, it doesn’t reflect too highly on the CIA. This Thursday, the Committee voted to declassify a 480-page summary of the report. Now, the White House has to agree by giving the final approval.

But declassification may not be as straightforward as many hope it to be. Before the findings are released, the CIA will have the opportunity to redact any statements which compromise national security. And rightfully so- the public doesn’t need to know every detail of what the Agency has been doing for the past decade. But the question has to be asked- if this document is so detrimental to the Agency, as Committee Chairwoman Diane Feinstein has claimed, will it stop at redacting only the parts of the document that are a threat to national security?

Another problem is the time it will take for this document to be declassified. Some suspect that because there are still trials for terrorists going on, groups like the Pentagon and FBI need to be called in to review the documents further to ensure information critical to those trials is not released. President Obama has supported declassifying the report, but his press secretary Jay Carney made it clear Obama doesn’t have a specific timeframe in mind, saying “he would expect that the actions that are necessary to declassify a document that be conducted in all due haste,” but refusing to give a specific timeframe in which they would happen.

But perhaps most problematic with the potential declassification of these documents is the fact the findings might not change anything. When Obama came into office in 2009, he stopped waterboarding. While it’s important the Senate has looked into these activities, what if releasing this information to the public is untimely? If the CIA has amended their policies to conform to Obama’s standards, is there any substantive benefit that could come from the public seeing how they messed up years ago?

I would argue yes, to an extent. From Edward Snowden to Chelsea Manning, the American public has been debating whether or not this kind of information should be provided in large quantities, and who should release the information in the first place. This committee report seems to be the best of both worlds: information released about government actions from a reliable source, in a way that won’t compromise national security. Americans will get more transparency, but not in a way that puts intelligence officers, or relations with other countries, on the line.

But at the same time, what does the American public gain from finding out about the ill actions of the CIA years ago? While there is probative value to understanding how past administrations have functioned, and this may allow citizens to stay cognizant of government officials (both elected and otherwise), it’s possible there will not be enough context provided in regards to this report. Without working background knowledge on the subject, a lot of people could look at snippets of information while missing the bigger picture.

So this declassification seems to be a step in the direction of transparency for American citizens, but a standstill for actual change in CIA policy. Ultimately, that will have to come from powers much higher up than the average American reading the report.

[White House] [CNN] [Huffington Post] [USA Today]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Votes to Declassify CIA Documents appeared first on Law Street.

Money has always been a big part of politics, and campaign finance laws have been put in place to curb potential corruption. But the Supreme Court continues to rule on parts of campaign finance laws- most recently allowing individuals to give money to more campaigns in the case McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission. Is this one more way to allow big money into politics, or a protection of free speech?

Campaign contributions are protected as free speech under the First Amendment, but with restrictions in order to prevent corruption. Since 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo, the Court has ruled that campaign contribution limits can be enforced as “primary weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions.” Basically, it’s fine to limit contributions from individuals to avoid corruption. And understandably so- it isn’t unreasonable to think donating huge sums of money from an individual to a campaign could lead to some kind of favoritism toward that person.

So to combat that potential, the government set a cap for the amount of money an individual can contribute to campaigns, and it’s been like this since 1976. Currently, that limit is $5,200 to each campaign over a two-year period. As time has gone on, the courts have continued to rule more on the side of campaign contributions as free speech, making those laws less restrictive, and continuing to hold them as protected free speech under the First Amendment.

One of the most recent examples was in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, where the Court ruled restrictions on how much money unions and corporations could donate weren’t legal. Liberals saw this as a way to equate corporations to people, and conservatives saw it as an expansion of First Amendment rights.

So McCutcheon tackled another part of the campaign finance puzzle: caps on individual donations… kind of.

Prior to this ruling, there was a limit on how much money an individual could donate to one campaign, as well as a cap on how much an individual could donate to campaigns total. Individuals could give up to $5,200 to any one candidate, but no more than $123,200 total during a two-year election cycle. And of that $123,200, only $48,600 could go to individual campaigns. The Supreme Court held on Wednesday that that total limit, the $123,200, was unconstitutional, while the caps on donations to individual campaigns still stand.

So, what does this mean in practice? Basically, wealthy people can give money to more candidates… but they can’t give more money to one candidate. Again, liberals have gotten upset-worried that increasing the amount of money individuals can donate to campaigns will somehow unhinge a balance of power, or make a system already centered on money even more uneven. But to be frank- this decision doesn’t change a whole lot of anything, and it’s constitutionally sound.

If the goal of campaign finance limits is to combat corruption (legitimate corruption, not just speculative or hypothetical corruption), then giving a limited amount of money to a few more candidates really isn’t a huge problem.  Individuals won’t be able to wield more influence over one candidate because to individual caps are still in place.

Still, there is concern that this ruling only helps the wealthy, as they’re the only ones who would be able to give this much money to campaigns in the first place. But more important than worrying about rich people giving money to campaigns is worrying about what the First Amendment protects. The First Amendment, time and again, has protected campaign contributions as free speech. Arbitrary limits on one kind of free speech are no better than arbitrary limits on another.

Though it’s easy to get caught up in thinking allowing the wealthy to give more money to a campaign isn’t fair, the McCutcheon decision by the Supreme Court upholds rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The only restrictions the courts should impose on campaign limits are ones that protect against corruption and limiting the amount of campaigns individuals can donate to do not protect against corruption.

[Supreme Court] [Oyez] [Washington Times] [Citizens United]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr/Tracy Olson]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Money, More Problems? Supreme Court Rules on Campaign Finance Laws appeared first on Law Street.

What do churches, schools, and bars all have in common? Once a new law is signed in Georgia, you have the potential to legally carry guns in all of them. It’s known as the “Safe Carry Protection Act,” and a lot of people are talking about what it allows.

Among other things, it allows people to bring guns into government buildings, churches (if the congregation wants them), airports (not past security), and bars (should the owner allow it). Governor Nathan Deal hasn’t signed the bill yet, but most people expect him to do so without issue.

It also allows for officials to designate teachers or administrators at public and private schools to have weapons within school safety zones. According to the bill, local school boards would be responsible for deciding who within their districts are allowed to carry guns. Not law enforcement, not the state legislature but the school boards. How does that make sense?

The debate between whether or not expanding where people can carry guns has gone on for years, and will continue after this bill. But will this vast expansion help encourage dialogue about the topic, or polarize people against each other further?

Americans for Responsible Solutions, founded by Gabrielle Giffords, put out a video condemning the bill for allowing “guns everywhere.”

And the sentiments of Giffords and other pro-gun control groups seem to be reflective of the people in the state. One poll by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found 70% of voters disagreed with allowing guns on college campuses and in churches- two provisions some lawmakers hoped to include in this bill (lawmakers ultimately decided to not include guns on college campuses in the bill).

But politicians in Georgia obviously supported it. Governor Deal is up for re-election and has been endorsed by the NRA since 2010. As a Republican, maybe that isn’t so surprising. But consider the fact Deal’s Democratic opponent, Jason Carter (grandson of Jimmy), also voted for the bill. If the people of Georgia don’t agree with the ideas behind the bill, what’s the motivation?

Without being too cynical, the NRA, which lobbied for this specific bill to pass, and other pro-gun lobbies probably have a lot to do with it. There are also a lot of well-intentioned people who say that in the wakes of tragedies like Sandy Hook, we need more people with guns, not less. A consistent narrative relayed by pro-gun groups is that people who will register their guns and follow these laws aren’t the same people who shoot up schools.

But there is language in the bill that would restrict law enforcement for stopping people to check their gun permits: “A person carrying a weapon shall not be subject to detention for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license.”

So even if a police officer suspects someone has a weapon illegally, there’s no way to check in accordance with the law. Police will either have to pin an additional charge on the person they want to check, or just ignore the situation altogether. This seems to discount the argument that citizens shouldn’t worry since only law-abiding gun owners will carry them. If there isn’t a provision to discern between the two, how will anyone know the difference? What would stop someone from carrying a gun without a license  if they’re aware the police can’t check it anyone?

Creating legislation this broad in one fell swoop doesn’t seem like the best idea for pro-gun advocates. Often faced with criticisms of being too reactive and far-reaching, a bill like this doesn’t do much, if anything to change public sentiment on the issue. Just because the Georgia legislature had the votes to change all of these laws doesn’t mean that they should have. Instead, it could have started small, showing a dedication to ensuring the safest pro-gun options for the state rather than the broadest. Compromises and “baby steps” like this could have helped decrease the backlash the bill is now facing across the country.

[Bill Text] [NYT] [NRA] [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Wikimedia]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oh, Georgia: Potential Law Allows Guns [Almost] Everywhere appeared first on Law Street.

So as I predicted in my previous article, issues of liability were around the corner. It looks like they came sooner than expected and from an unexpected volunteer. On Tuesday, Malaysia Airlines announced the first batch of payments it would make to families of passengers on Flight 370. The amount? $5,000 per passenger. This pre-emptive payment is not by any means the final payment by Malaysia Airlines, as the Montreal Convention set the $150,000 threshold, and experts expect next of kin compensation could eventually exceed millions of dollars per passenger.

So far, Malaysia Airlines has also provided money for food, lodging, and any travel expense the families may have since the incident unfolded on March 8. The airline has pledged to continue this aid for as long as possible. But with more and more people assuming all lives have been lost, people are turning their eyes toward compensation for the families of passengers.

One attorney, Monica Kelly, spoke to CNN and said that within her experience, Malaysia airlines may be forced to pay between $400,000 and $3 million per family.

Another attorney, Mike Danko, said the amount of money families are awarded has a lot of to do with where they filed a lawsuit. For instance, U.S. courts will probably give families more money than those in China. Passengers on Flight 370 came from 14 different countries, so lawsuits could be filed in any of those.

At least in the US, one of the more difficult (and arbitrary) set of decisions will come when the courts decide how much each family gets… by figuring out how much each person’s life was worth in the first place. Each passenger will be assessed separately, and the amount of money awarded to each family is decided on a number of factors. For instance, someone with 3 small children may receive more money than a single person in his 40s.

But Malaysia Airlines may have some help, as well. Airlines tend to be covered by insurance policies ranging between $2 to $2.5 billion, with as much as $10 million set aside by each passenger, according to Brian Havel, director of the International Aviation Law Institute at DePaul University.

And as previously discussed, the logistics surrounding this still-missing aircraft could slow the process down. But assuming a long period of time goes by and no sign of the aircraft is found, courts might go ahead and rule the passengers as deceased, allowing families to sue for damages and collect life insurance.

[CBS] [CNN] [Yahoo]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Allen Watkin via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Payments from Malaysian Plane Crash: Only $5,000? appeared first on Law Street.

Two weeks in, everyone with a television knows about the disappearing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. And even if you don’t, turn on just about any news station, and within two minutes you’ll get the gist of it. Recently the Prime Minister of Malaysia said the flight crashed in the Indian Ocean, and rumors about what actually happened are still floating around. But one thing that hasn’t been discussed as heavily as the conspiracy theories: Who is liable?

To be frank, things like this are logistical nightmares. Before compensating families of victims, a number of questions need to be answered: who is responsible for what happened? Does the fact  that no remains have been recovered (yet) make a difference? Would foul play affect the amount of money families are eligible to receive? And, perhaps most basically, who will actually have to pay?

Luckily, we have some answers to these questions. Back in 1999, the Montreal Convention, which outlines rules and rights that passengers have in international air travel, was adopted. In response to who is liable, the article 17 of the treaty puts it quite simply- “the carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger”. The convention even goes on to describe how much money they must pay to compensate for death or injury of passengers. After some conversions, we find that amount is roughly equivalent to $150,000. (Yep, that is a cost of life now a days). Now, if the family members suing the airline aren’t claiming damages worth any more money than that, the airline can’t “exclude or limit its liability.” Basically, the airline is on the hook.

But this is the 21st century, and it would be surprising if families didn’t sue for much, much, more. This is where we hit a fork in the road. According to the Convention, if the crash was the airline’s fault, courts could rule in favor of passengers, giving their families more money. But if the airline wasn’t negligent, or if a 3rd party alone (like a terrorist group) caused the damages, Malaysia Air might be off the hook in paying damages.

So, what’s the most obvious problem with all of this? We don’t know what happened. We don’t know if it was a mechanical failure, if the pilot made a mistake, or if this was intentional. Until there is evidence of a crash, let alone who is at fault for it, determining who is liable for what will be difficult at best, and impossible at worst. Unfortunately, the Montreal Convention didn’t account for this potential lack of information.

But assuming we get the answers to at least some of these questions, there are still a number of things to address.

First, where will these lawsuits take place? In Malaysia, where the airline is based? Or, in the home countries of those presumed dead? The Montreal Convention accounts for this as well. The most likely place for these lawsuits to take place will be the home of the airline, the homes of the passengers on the flight, or the destination of the flight. In this case, that means Malaysia, China, and/or the United States could be involved, among others. Obviously, all three of those countries have vastly different court systems, and could rule incredibly differently. So there is a potential for families to be compensated with vast differences depending on where the lawsuit was first filed.

But wait, there’s still more. Not only is there a potential for families to sue the airline, they could sue the maker of the plane- Boeing, or the maker of the engine- Rolls Royce. And these lawsuits could be based just about anywhere.

There’s a lot up in the air about what happened to Flight 370, and a lot of questions still need to be answered before the victims’ families can be compensated. Because there is so much we don’t know, it’s hard to guesstimate how much the airline will be required to pay as a result of this tragedy. But the Montreal Convention, if nothing else, gives us a good baseline parameter.

[BBC] [Montreal Convention] [ABC]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr/Abdallahh]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Malaysian Airplane Crash: Who’s Liable? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s safe to say that BP became one of the most hated companies in America in April of 2010 for causing the biggest oil spill to happen in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana. Almost 5 million barrels of oil ended up in the water. Needless to say, the Gulf States were affected by the tremendous damage, and some individuals and businesses continue to suffer even now.

Facing not just an image crisis, but also the potential for hundreds of lawsuits, BP started compensating businesses and individuals soon after the spill started. The swift action looked good for the company, but recently, has proven to be a headache for its legal team.

The actual agreement to compensate individuals and businesses after the spill took almost two years to develop- it was completed in December 2012. But it didn’t take long for BP to take exception with how the settlement was applied. Late last year, BP tried to stop paying settlements for two reasons: first, because the formula being used to calculate claims was inflating the amount of money people received, and second, too many of the claims being awarded couldn’t be tied directly to the spill. If BP got its way, it would owe a lot less money to a lot fewer people.

BP argued in court that the terms of the settlement were being misconstrued and taken advantage of- but the court disagreed. 2 of 3 judges on an appeals panel said that while certain accounting methods need to change (a win for BP’s first claim), the company agreed to the terms of this settlement, and now has to stick to them. According to a company spokesman, BP is considering the possibility of an appeal.

Companies battling out the terms of an agreement in court aren’t particularly unusual, but this case is interesting because of the circumstances surrounding the agreement, and how BP has responded as a company. The settlement was drafted over a two-year period; it wasn’t created in a day, or even a month. But the settlement was certainly great PR for the company. While it didn’t undo everything that happened during the spill, it showed the company was willing to work with those who had been negatively affected by its actions.

With that said, throughout the course of developing this agreement, BP could have had any kind of financial expert look over the calculations. It should be safe to assume that someone from BP looked over the math, because as the appellate panel pointed out, BP agreed to the terms of the settlement before signing them. BP now claims that the formulas used were too broad or not accurate enough, but in the two year period leading up to the deal being signed, we should wonder whether that question ever came up.

And the same goes for BP’s contention that too many business and individuals who can’t prove they were affected by the spill are getting money. If there was a loophole so large, one that didn’t narrow the beneficiaries of the settlement to people affected by the spill- wouldn’t BP have caught that? Additionally, while they aren’t required to provide supplemental documentation while making the claim, individuals and businesses that apply for money from the company are held to the penalties of perjury. Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick noted the settlement’s claims “are not as protective of BP’s present concerns as might have been achievable, but they are the protections that were accepted by the parties and approved by the district court.” Basically, BP had the opportunity to narrow the definitions and procedures used in the settlement, but they didn’t.

But the bigger picture here might be that companies, no matter how big, can’t just renege on a settlement they debated and eventually agreed to. BP is paying billions more than it expected to as a result of this settlement. And understandably, it’s probably looking for a way to minimize the loss. But BP should have thought ahead when it agreed to a settlement that wasn’t as precise as possible. Of course, it’s also possible the company had no problems with the settlement until it realized just how much money it would have to hand over to people filing claims. According to BP’s website, the company has already shelled out over $11 billion, and people are still filing claims.

Whatever happens, BP is turning into a prime example of an agreement gone wrong.

[NYT] [Bloomberg] [Case] [BP]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Roy Luck via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Rules BP Must Stick to Agreement it Signed appeared first on Law Street.

By now, it is not unusual to hear stories of states trying to circumvent Roe v. Wade by closing medical facilities that conduct abortions, or imposing laws that restrict the amount window for a woman to get an abortion. But it seems like recently states have been looking for even more out-of-the-box ways to restrict access to this service. Let’s take a look at the four newest bills presented to state legislatures, and what’s wrong with each of them.

1. Making women wait 72 hours to get an abortion

New bills in Missouri would require women to wait 72 hours after deciding to have an abortion to actually get one. In some states, there is a 24-hour waiting period, but Missouri would be the first to extend that by two full days. There would be no exceptions for cases of rape.

There really isn’t an explanation for this law besides the fact it stalls women looking for an abortion, and may provide an opportunity to talk them out of it. By making women wait three days after deciding to have the procedure, and actually going through with it, she may feel pressured into changing her mind. And without exceptions to the law, women who have been raped or face medical emergencies are put in a dangerous situation.

2. Letting women sue their doctors up to 10 years after their abortion if they regret having it

In Iowa, a bill has been introduced that would allow women to sue their abortion provider long after the abortion has taken place. The reason is not because of medical malpractice, lack of information, or the procedure was done incorrectly, but because they regret their abortions.  Women would have up to 10 years to sue their doctor after having the procedure. Women would be allowed to sue for compensation because of emotional distress. Even women who sign a consent form for the procedure would be eligible to sue their doctors if they think more information about alternatives, or potential dangers from abortions could have been provided to them.

Some women do regret the abortions they have, but that isn’t the fault of the doctor. If a woman is given accurate information about the procedure, signs consent forms, and the doctor does the procedure correctly, why would he or she be held responsible for emotional damage afterward? A doctor is supposed to inform a patient of her options, and should not be held accountable for someone’s regret, no matter how painful, down the road.

3. Make sure not just one, but both parents of an underage girl seeking an abortion are notified

Also in Missouri, there is a new bill that would require not one, but both parents of a girl seeking an abortion to be notified before the procedure take place. Currently, at least one parent of a minor is notified before a girl can have an abortion, but this law goes beyond that. It presents a number of problems, among them being children who may not know both of their parents, but be restricted from receiving an abortion because of this legislation. Additionally, young women may choose to cross state lines or have riskier abortions if they think their parents won’t find out. While the bill does include exceptions for parents who have been convicted of sexual abuse of the child, or if the courts had previously terminated their rights, it doesn’t include any exceptions for medical emergencies. So, if a parent were out of town, or just not a part of the girl’s life, her access to abortion would be cut off.

Parental notification has been contentious throughout the abortion debate because it concerns people who are underage. But most states have adequate parental notification laws with just one parent- adding this law serves as nothing but a hinderance and waste of time for women looking to get an abortion.

4. Restrict abortions to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy

West Virginia has been the most upfront in their aim to restrict access to abortion- by trying to limit them to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. Doctors who perform abortions after this time period could be fined up to $5000, and face between 1 to 5 years of jail time. As a reminder for everyone- Roe v. Wade (the Supreme Court decision that settled this decades ago) said that women are able to have abortions until the pregnancy is “viable,” and went on to say that 24 weeks into pregnancy is the earliest a child is viable. Simple math shows us that West Virginia is at least four weeks short with this bill.

Perhaps the most troubling part of each of these bills is the way the people who introduce them try to cover their true intentions. Rather than just saying, “I’m against abortion and trying to restrict it,” lawmakers bring in pleas for “family values,” and perhaps most insulting, by insinuating a woman who wants an abortion isn’t capable of making the decision to get one without a plethora of “help” from lawmakers in her state. State legislatures are allowed to pass laws for the betterment of that state, but it’s hard to take some of these laws seriously when they were so obviously written to restrict access to abortion.

[Slate] [RH: West Virginia] [Iowa Bill] [RH: Missouri 1] [RH: Missouri 2]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [ProgressOhio via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 New Laws Restricting Women’s Access to Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

When most students attend a university, be it public or private, the money they pay into tuition goes back into the school–be it for new dorms, professors’ salaries, taxes, or any other expense. For years, our institutions of higher learning have operated in this manner. But a growing trend in higher education is for-profit schools, ones that operate to make money for their investors and shareholders by offering a service, in this case, and education. They are often characterized by fierce publicity campaigns, and wide recruitment techniques, getting as many people as possible to enroll in programs.

Do these names ring a bell….University of Phoenix and DeVry University? They, among others, are examples of these for-profit schools.

But recently, for-profit schools are under fire, and seven former employees of Premier Education Group, a company that owns over 24 schools in almost a dozen states, filed a lawsuit against their former employer. The plaintiffs allege that administrators purposefully misled students and gave them false information about graduation, testing, and certification; all as a means to rake in the federal funding they received from the students. They say the schools were willing to keep under-performing students at the school, and mislead others, so that they could collect this funding, thereby increasing their profits. The allegations go so far as to say test scores were fudged in order to keep students in school rather than risk losing them- and their money. Obviously, this is unacceptable at any establishment of higher learning. The programs Premier offers cost about $10,000 a year, oversee 17,000 students, and the company receives $112 million per year in Pell Grants. Needless to say, this isn’t pocket change.

Politicians have also taken notice of for-profit schools. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced legislation in 2013, which would restrict the amount of federal funding for-profit schools could collect. Rather than getting up to 90% of funding from the federal government, schools would only be eligible to receive up to 85% through federal funding. While this doesn’t seem like a huge drop, it would be a step in the right direction for deterring for-profit schools from treating students as cash cows. Hopefully, publicity raises awareness for students to make more informed decisions about attending a for profit school.

But aside from this lawsuit, what’s the deal with for-profit schools?

The lawsuit points toward a bigger trend of people being skeptical of for-profit colleges potentially taking advantage of students- whether by preying on them for the federal money they bring in, or providing less than exceptional educations leading to hardship post-graduation. Studies have shown that students at for-profit schools end up having higher rates of unemployment and greater debt after graduation than their counterparts at traditional schools, according to some studies, at almost double the rate- as this graph shows.

These stats are important because students at for-profit universities account for almost 10% of all degree-seeking students in the United States, a number that continues to increase with time. If a large contingent of students are going to use for-profit schools to get a degree, they should be protected as much as possible against any unfair practices the schools may have.

Imagine if a well-known state school was employing similar tactics: people would be up in arms about it. For-profit colleges, though not as well known, still graduate thousands of people into the workforce each year. These students need to be as prepared as much as possible for what’s ahead, and informed of the challenges attending a for-profit college can present…. before enrolling in one.

Even Adult Swim joined in on the fun, making this video that mimics the advertising strategies for-profit colleges often use, poking fun at the lack of accreditation, lax admission standards, and lofty claims many of these schools make to students.

This isn’t to say that all for-profit schools rip off their students. In fact, for-profit schools have been an effective way for many students to receive degrees in their field. But this lawsuit shows how important it is to keep for-profit colleges honest when giving students their options, especially when receiving federal funds.

[NYT] [Bill] [YouTube] [GAO]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Tracy O via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post For-profit Schools Getting Sued: A Growing Trend in Higher Ed? appeared first on Law Street.

Students have to go to school- it’s the law. But what happens when a student, legally bound to go to school, is suspended for a long period of time, or even expelled? In some places, there is no contingency plan to make sure the student is learning while out of school. Should students who have been suspended or expelled be expected to keep up with schoolwork the same way their peers- who remain in classes- are?

Massachusetts has recently passed a new law, which would require school districts in the state to provide some kind of provide some kind of education to students facing long-term education or expulsion. Specifically, it says: “any school district that suspends or expels a student under this section shall continue to provide educational services to the student during the period of suspension or expulsion.”

The bill does not highlight specific ways in which school districts could supplement these students’ education, but with modern technology, online options seem feasible. Some people have pointed out that the cost of educating students outside of the classroom is expensive, but if the alternative is not having students taught at all, some expenses don’t seem like that much of a problem. There are also alternative schools, which are funded publicly for students with behavioral problems. But again, each state handles admissions to these schools differently. There is also always the concern of over-filling alternative schools, and having the education there suffer as a result.

Long-term suspensions and expulsions are not the norm for most students, but have become an increasingly common way to deal with behavioral infractions of students. Many schools have instituted “zero tolerance” policies in respect to actions like fighting and bringing weapons, alcohol, or drugs to school. If a student is found to have partaken in one of the “zero-tolerance” behaviors, he or she faces immediate and severe punishment, ranging from suspension to expulsion.

While the safety of students is of course a priority, educators and legislators need to consider the ramifications of these “zero-tolerance” policies, and many others, which lead to so many suspensions and expulsions in the first place. While the Massachusetts law is a great attempt to keep students on track when they otherwise would not be, perhaps it is more important to address these problems before students have to leave school.

The ACLU outlines something known as the “school-to-prison pipeline.” People claim that when students aren’t in school, they are more likely to engage in other destructive behaviors, making it more likely for those individuals to end up in prison. The group outlines a number of policies, including zero-tolerance policies that they say only adds to the number of students suspended or expelled each year.

By implementing this law, Massachusetts has stuck a wrench in the school-to-prison pipeline, which currently exists. Rather than letting a student’s education fall by the wayside during the suspension, students will have the opportunity to continue to keep up with classes even while not in the school building itself. Obviously, the long-term benefits of the policy are not known, but it shows that state legislatures across the country could be addressing similar topics.

Regardless of whether this method has been proven to work, the idea and rationale behind it is solid. When students are in school, they’re taught. When students aren’t in school, they don’t get taught. Having a student not in school because of behavioral problems not getting taught seems like a recipe for disaster. If more states took the path Massachusetts is taking now, down the road we could see some significant changes in the population of incarceration among youth who have faced these problems in school at a young age.

[ACLU] [Sentinel and Enterprise] [Law] [Dignity Schools] [Huff Po]

—

Molly Hogan(@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Larry Darling via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massachusetts Expands Instruction to Expelled Students appeared first on Law Street.

Tenure for teachers has always been a contentious issue in public schools, but recently, students in California have taken the issue to a whole new level by suing the state over its tenure policies.

Tenure itself is a system designed to give teachers due process should they be accused of poor performance or other less than satisfactory behaviors. The system was implemented as a way of making sure teachers weren’t fired unfairly because it got too expensive to pay them; because they were too old; or a number of other political reasons. The process to remove a tenured teacher can have a number of steps, and can take a relatively long time, depending on the situation.

Proponents of tenure say it helps strengthen a teacher’s ability to act with autonomy within his or her working environment. But other people haven’t been so sure about the effectiveness of the system.

Those against tenure claim that once it is enacted, there is no way to hold a teacher accountable for being an effective educator. With tenure, they say, it is much harder to fire a teacher who isn’t doing his or her job correctly. The process can go on for years, and can cost school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Some students in California tended to think the same way, and brought a lawsuit against the state, claiming the state’s tenure laws hindered their abilities to get a quality education. The case, Vergara v. California, is being heard before the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Nine students and their families raised the case through a group called Students Matter.

According to its website, the group aims to strike down three laws: permanent employment statute, dismissal statutes, and “last in, first out” layoff statutes. The group believes that by getting rid of these three laws, more ineffective teachers will be let go, regardless of how long they have worked in the schools, meaning more effective teachers can be brought in, better serving students’ needs.

One quote from the preliminary statement filed reads as follows:

“A handful of outdated laws passed by the California legislature are preventing school administrators from maintaining or improving the quality of our public educational system by denying them the flexibility to make teacher employment decisions driven by the needs of their students.”

The group claims that by having these three laws surrounding job protections for teachers, their right to a quality education is diminished. Rather than having the teachers’ best interest in mind, the students’ well-being should be the main focus of the state.

Currently in California, teachers start off with a probationary status, and must remain in good standing for two consecutive school years before they gain permanent status starting at the start of their third year teaching (permanent employment statute). Once granted this status, teachers can only be fired with “just cause” or in the case of layoffs. In order to determine “just cause” teachers are allowed to have a full hearing in front of a panel in order to determine any wrongdoing, in addition to another of other steps, in a process which can take several months, if not more (dismissal statutes). Additionally, in the case of layoffs, it has been customary for new teachers to automatically be let go first, keeping permanent teachers in place without regard for level of effectiveness in the classroom (last in, first out statute).

This lawsuit is one of the first of its kind, targeting the entire school system for something as institutional as tenure, and the Students First group recognizes this. Their website has an entire page dedicated to the idea of taking this issue through the courts rather than a lawmaking body. They claim by using litigation, politics will be less likely to affect the ruling and subsequent change to policy.

But even if the group wins, will California schools get better?

It’s hard to say what kind of impact a potential “win” for these plaintiffs would mean for the future of teachers in California.

Even if the regulations Students Matter are fighting against get struck down, there are a number of other hurdles California school districts will need to overcome in order to see improvements in the schools there. Language and socioeconomic barriers, budget problems, and poor test scores cannot solely be fixed by removing these allegedly detrimental barriers dealing with teacher permanency.

Without comprehensive education reform, more than just tackling tenure, schools in California (and other states) cannot expect to improve. While there may be some instances in which ineffective teachers cannot be fired because of institutional barriers, it’s hard to believe that the majority of the state’s problems stem from these few regulations.

Before blaming regulations aimed at protecting teachers from unjust discrimination, it may be important to look towards other pressing features which bar a student’s right to a good education. Only with this comprehensive view of an education system will real change be accomplished.

[New York Times] [Vergara v. California] [California Policy]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Liz via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Students vs. State: Students Bring Lawsuit Against Tenure Program appeared first on Law Street.

2 + 2 = 4. George Washington was the first President. Dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth together.

Does one of those things sound different than the others, something you wouldn’t learn in school? If you’re a student at many private schools, and recently discovered, some charter schools in Texas, creationism is taught along with evolution.

Charter schools are privately run but publicly funded. Depending on the school, charters may focus on a particular teaching method, specialized curriculum, or just as an alternative to neighborhood public schools about which parents are concerned.

The charter school movement has been growing across the country, but not without concern. While some schools have seen incredible jumps in test scores and student abilities, other still suffer. This has led to discussions about effectiveness, management, and selectivity within charter schools.

One recent topic of conversation has to do with the curriculums in certain charter schools, specifically, those that teach creationism and other Christian themes.

A recent article pointed out that the largest charter school provider in Texas is teaching Creationism, among other topics, to its students. Responsive Education Solutions runs charter schools across the state, and on its surface, doesn’t seem to be partisan or religious in any way.

But as more people have looked into it, it seems Responsive Ed schools use materials that teach creationism, and discount other, more commonly taught, scientific principles like evolution.

So what’s the problem?

Absolutely nothing, if this was a private school. But even though Responsive Ed manages its own personnel and classrooms, it receives a lot of money from the state. And unfortunately for the company, the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism in schools is unconstitutional.

In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism would violate the First Amendment because it would force Christian ideology into a public school. That was in 1987.

So why, over 15 years later, is this still happening? Charter schools have a large amount of autonomy, and Texas has a lot of people in charter schools. Responsive Ed themselves claim to have over 17,000 students enrolled at their various campuses around the state.

The reason schools often get away with presenting information to discredit evolution, is because of state standards. While in Aguillard, it was decided schools can’t teach creationism, the way some Texas curricula are worded, students can be taught to question the “theory” of evolution. So while a teacher may not come straight out and say, “evolution is incorrect,” he or she could tell students about the “lack of evidence” surrounding the Theory.

And while people outside the state are certainly discussing the ramifications of these actions, including Bill Nye, who will be debating creationism at the Creation Museum in Kentucky (yes, that’s a museum dedicated to the idea of creationism) soon, some politicians in Texas don’t seem to mind. Earlier this month, a candidate for the Texas Board of Education made quite the statement when she said, “we know we didn’t come from monkeys.”

And Texas isn’t the only state in which this is happening. Recently, Virginia legislators have proposed a bill which would encourage students to “respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific controversies in science classes.” This sounds wonderful without the context of the rest of the bill, which reads in part, “[This bill shall not] promote or discriminate against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs.” In short, religious ideas can be presented as a counter-argument to scientific ideas like evolution.

As recently as this week, South Dakota has proposed legislation which would make it illegal to restrict teaching Intelligent Design in schools. Though, as previously discussed, it’s already illegal to teach Intelligent Design. States across the country seem to be looking for ways to get around these laws.

This isn’t to say there is never a place for Intelligent Design in the classrooms, or that talk of creationism should be banned. In Humanities, social sciences, and religion/philosophy classes, there is a clear and distinctive reason for having students discuss these topics in the proper context, not as hard science.

But by attaching these discussions to science classes, and presenting them as legitimate alternatives to scientific theories like evolution, students will be at a disadvantage. We already know that American students are behind other industrialized nations in math and science testing scores, and by perpetuating the idea that evolution is a theory without any merit will only harm students who wish to attend college and beyond.

Additionally, teaching creationism in publicly funded schools could be the start of a slippery slope. By injecting religious (or really any politically fueled topic) tenets into science classes, who is to say they won’t soon enter history classes as well? Public schooling is supposed to provide all students, regardless of beliefs, the most factual and non-partisan education possible. Teaching creationism is not the best way to accomplish this.

But change to these policies cannot come without lawmakers taking a stand on the topic. And unfortunately, the trend seems to be swinging towards allowing the teaching for creationism more rather than less.

So without politicians taking note that there is an inherent problem with schools using taxpayer money to teach creationism, and discount evolution, creationism may be around schools in Texas, and other states, for a while longer.

[Slate] [Edwards v. Aguillard] [Washington Post] [Virginia Legislation]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Ray Bodden via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teaching Creationism in Public Schools…Really? appeared first on Law Street.

For the past several years, the NYPD has been in trouble over a troubling “stop and frisk” policy. But with the election of Bill De Blasio, it looks like that policy may be going away.

The term “stop and frisk” stems from the practice of stopping individuals on the street, and searching them for contraband items- without probable cause. New York in particular came under fire over the past few years for taking part in the “stop and frisk” activities, and targeting minorities in the process.

Legally, there is some precedent on the issue. Terry v. Ohio was a case in 1968, which determined that officers could stop individuals without probable cause, so long as the officer had a “reasonable suspicion” to believe something was wrong. Many people claim that the NYPD took this to a new level, and used it to discriminate the people they stopped based on race, using “reasonable suspicion,” as a backdrop for that.

A lawsuit was brought against the city in 2008, and it was decided that the NYPD did indeed unfairly target minorities, specifically African American and Latino men. Rather than accept the fact the NYPD was acting in a systemically racist way, the city fought an appeals process over the ruling.

But with the newly elected mayor, Bill De Blasio, came a change in regards to the policy. This stance was one on which De Blasio campaigned last year. On Thursday, January 30, 2014 the mayor announced he would stop the appeals process of the lawsuit, agreeing to the recommendations by the judge who ruled on the case last year.

It seems as though the mayor might be looking at solutions outside of the courts, too.

This week, NYPD Chief William J. Bratton announced that rather than putting rookie police officers in high-crime neighborhoods, the NYPD would instead place more veteran officers with a better understanding of the complex dynamics in these situations.

The proposal can be seen as a step in the right direction when trying to train officers for the future. As Bratton pointed out, it would be possible for young, inexperienced, officers to take the “easy” way out, and engage in stop-and-frisk activities because it seems like the simplest way to target suspicious behavior. But starting a career with activities like this could lead to acting that way for years to come, perpetuating the kind of system for which New York is now under fire.

But are these two actions enough? Probably not, but they are two good places to start.

By changing the rhetoric and course of action Bloomberg had regarding the stop and frisk policies, De Blasio is acknowledging the systematic wrongdoings the NYPD took part in over the past years, and perhaps even decades. While the settlement itself may not change the attitudes of every NYPD officer, it is a sign of De Blasio’s willingness to move forward past these discriminatory policies.

On the same token, changing policies regarding young officers in dangerous neighborhoods may make an impact, but not until further down the road. It may not have been the lack of experience of the officers, which lead them to stop and frisk thousands of individuals without reasonable suspicion. That could have just as easily come from poor training, or a poor example set by higher-up officers in the NYPD. It could have been the result of already prejudiced individuals. And it some cases, it could have just made a mistake.

Regardless of the motivations behind the stop and frisk frenzy that took place in New York, moving forward, there isn’t going to be an easy fix to it. Though De Blasio seems to be taking the right steps in promoting change, it would be naïve to think that something as systematic and prejudiced as this policy will go away overnight. It will take major commitment on De Blasio’s part to maintain growth away from this policy.

[WSJ] [Terry v. Ohio] [NYT] [Floyd Case]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [debra via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With a New Regime, Can New York Settle on Controversial Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, Bob McDonnell, a former Virginia Governor, and his wife, Maureen, were indicted on 14 counts of public corruption based on improper gifts he received. Most of the expenses were gifts from Jonnie Williams, the CEO of Star Scientific, a tech-based nutrition company.

According to the indictment, McDonnell and Williams met after McDonnell was elected Governor. Allegedly, Williams offered to help cover the expense of Maureen’s dress for the inaugural ball, helped pay for McDonnell’s daughters’ weddings, invited the McDonnells to a vacation at his home, and gave a Rolex engraved with the phrase “71st Governor of Virginia.”

In return, the McDonnells allegedly assisted Williams with research Star Scientific was doing regarding a product called “antabloc.” McDonnell himself met with various Virginia officials to tout the product, and pushed for it to be further researched and tested.

McDonnell and his legal team claim no wrong has been done in this case. In a statement released after the indictment, McDonnell acknowledged the fact he received gifts and donations from Williams, but said that nothing he did was illegal because he never used his capacity as Governor to help Williams in return.

He stated, “I repeat emphatically that I did nothing illegal for Mr. Williams in exchange for what I believed was his personal generosity and friendship. I never promised – and Mr. Williams and his company never received – any government benefit of any kind from me or my Administration.”

McDonnell’s logic would suggest that a politician can receive any gift or benefit from a donor or supporter, and so long as that politician does not help the donor in return, no harm has been done. And in a way, he may be right. It isn’t unusual for highly influential people with a lot of money to give some of it, be it in the form of sports tickets, a vacation, or just a check, to politicians.

But is that really what happened here?

In the McDonnells’ case, these “gifts” were ongoing, lasting for nearly four years. And if the facts in the indictment are correct, McDonnell started promoting Williams’ product and company during that same time period.

One would be hard-pressed to find a reason that someone who starts donating large amounts of money and goods to a politician during his election campaign, and continues to donate to that politician throughout his time in office, wouldn’t expect something in return.

But even if the donor didn’t expect something, it seems even less likely that a politician accepting gifts worth so much money wouldn’t feel some kind of obligation to that donor. That could be part of the reason politicians are supposed to report all of their assets, gifts and donations included, at each year’s end. So if McDonnell did no wrong in this case, he would have had no problem reporting any stock he owned in Star Scientific on his annual records.

But apparently his wife did. According to their indictment, Maureen contacted her broker in order to sell her stock in Star Scientific before the year’s end. She then repurchased the same amount of stock at the start of the following year.

The facts of this case seem to have less to do with the interactions between the McDonnells and Williams as it does the fact they took any means necessary to deny and withhold information about these gifts and donations. While the outcome of the case has yet to be determined, if McDonnell and his wife are convicted, it will be yet another example of a political power-grab gone wrong.

[Huffington Post] [Indictment] [Washington Post] [Statement]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Queen Bee via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Gifts Turn to Greed: Former Va. Governor Indicted on 14 Counts appeared first on Law Street.

The fourth amendment is supposed to protect Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures. You may think that law enforcement officials always need a search warrant, or at least probable cause, to confiscate and look through items like electronic devices. But if you live, or just happen to be, within 100 miles of the American border, you would be wrong.

Assisted by the ACLU, Pascal Abidor brought a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, after his laptop was searched without probable cause after he returned from an overseas trip to Lebanon.

While on a train from Canada to New York, Abidor was approached. Officials told him to enter his password on the computer, and subsequently saw pictures from Hezbollah rallies in the Middle East. Abidor claims they were for educational purposes (he is an Islamic Studies student), but the officers proceeded to detain him for several hours, further searching the computer and questioning him. He was held for several hours and eventually released without being charged, but his laptop was not returned to him for over 10 days.

The government has historically been able to conduct searches for just about any reason if they take place at, or around, the US border. But this case, and others like it, has sparked a debate about 21st century searches: ones that involve electronic devices.

In this case, the ACLU contended that broadly allowing the government to search electronic devices at the border could lead to unfairly targeting individuals who may not be breaking the law, or using the “buffer zone” (the 100-mile radius in which these kinds of searches are allowed) around the US border, in which these searches without probable cause are allowed, as an excuse to search random persons.

But Judge Korman, who ruled on the case on December 31, 2013, thought otherwise. He noted that searches at the border have been common, as well as legally allowed, to take place at the border historically. It only makes sense, then, to extend that precedent to electronic devices like laptops in the 21st century, which were not previously accounted for only because they did not exist.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of pursuing electronic devices specifically, but there are two cases that are often cited in support of the government’s border-searching ability. In 2005, the 4th circuit Court of Appeals decided in U.S. v. Ickes that a search of a laptop in a man’s car, on which child pornography was discovered, was indeed legal.

In 2008, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed a similar ruling in USA v. Arnold, which upheld the practice allowing US Customs and Border Control agents to inspect computers without probable cause.

So with this historical precedent, what is the confusion over these searches?

One problem might rest with the fact there is so much information stored on things like laptops and cell phones. Where historically searches were limited to physical items, searching electronic devices presents a difficulty in that they have virtually no boundaries. While some things, like files and pictures, are contained on the physical device, others, like email and social media sites, are connected to the Internet. Theoretically, a person’s contacts, connections, and other personal information could all be searched at any airport or border inspection, without probable cause. This amount of information has never been accessible to agents before.

Additionally, some believe that until the Supreme Court has reviewed and ruled on the practice, we have no way of knowing if it will be upheld Constitutionally. But there is no guarantee the Supreme Court will ever hear the matter, so for now, only rulings that matter are those handed down by the various appellate courts.

While proponents of these border searches point to the security benefits attached to them, it is important to question whether the information gained from these searches outweighs the personal liberty and security that has been lost by them.  We must take into account how an age filled with technology and near unlimited information accessible on mobile electronic devices may be a different ball game than searches and seizures at borders in the past.

 [Huffington Post] [RT] [U.S. v. Ickes] [U.S. v. Arnold] [Abidor v. Napolitano] [ACLU]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Office of Public Affairs/Shane T. McCoy/US Marshals via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Warrant Not Necessary appeared first on Law Street.

In the “Age of the Internet,” consumers expect to have access to any information they want, as fast as possible, with little charge. But a recent court ruling against the Federal Communications Commission could allow Internet Service Providers to explore options that may alter the level of access, and possibly the price point, at which consumers have access to web content.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) act as “go between” for consumers and the content they want on the Internet. Companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast, are the means, which we use to access the web. Until a few days ago, these ISPs were subject to a series of regulations from the FCC. But on January 14th, the US Court of Appeals in DC shot down these regulations. As a result, many are worried consumers are at risk.

The concept of “net neutrality” contends that consumers should have equal access to all content on the Internet, and that no content should be discriminated against, or unfairly promoted. In theory, this applies to governments, as well as companies with the ability to control web content.

In order to better protect consumers from potentially unfair business practices, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set out a list of three guidelines in 2010 that all ISPs had to follow. These included transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination. All ISPs had to follow the rules, and as a result of the regulations, consumers couldn’t be charged differently based on what sites they visited, and no websites could be purposefully hindered from loading as fast as others, among other things. Some people saw these as a win for consumer protection, while others thought it was an infringement on the rights of the ISPs, and web businesses that were not able to promote themselves.

But Verizon, a large ISP, sued the FCC, saying it had overstepped its bounds in trying to control ISPs to this extent. And earlier this week, the US Court of Appeals in D.C. agreed with Verizon, saying the FCC could no longer dictate such strict stipulations for ISPs. With these regulations out the window, people have begun analyzing tactics ISPs could theoretically use to boost business, while potentially harming consumers.

One possibility would be allowing websites to pay the ISP more for faster service. While this is good for large companies that have the money to pay off a corporation like Verizon, it could be disastrous for small businesses that don’t have the same resources.

A second tactic ISPs could use is to charge customers extra for accessing certain websites. One Reddit user created an infographic signaling the potential for price increases users could see simply for accessing popular websites. Hypothetically, ISPs could upcharge users frequenting video hosting sites (like Netflix and Hulu). Or, the ISPs could charge those companies higher prices, threatening to slow the website down, or remove it altogether, should they refuse to pay. The companies would have to defray those costs somehow, probably through by charging the consumer more.

Finally, and most drastically, ISPs could just block certain content all together. While certain businesses, like Au Bon Pain, have allegedly blocked content either directly or through obscenity filters, ISPs could dictate what content would not be allowed as part of their service. Unless a consumer wanted to switch their ISP altogether, he or she would be at a loss in this situation.

But is all of this hype warranted? Not necessarily. While a few specific provisions of the FCC were struck down, the Commission didn’t lose all of its regulating muscle.

In the opinion filed by Judge Tatel, the court points out one of the specific reasons these regulations were deemed inappropriate: “given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such” (Verizon v. FCC). This means that if the FCC chooses to change how it classifies ISPs, it may be able to impose restrictions on them once again. Additionally, the FCC has reportedly considered appealing the ruling.

We also have to look into what is in the best interest of the ISP. Consider the fact consumers can choose from several providers. Rather than raise their rates as soon as they can, these ISPs will probably wait to size up what their competition is doing, and then proceed with any price or content changes. There will still be competition among them, and consumers will still be able to choose which provider best matches the content and price point for which they are looking.

So while changes may happen down the road, it’s probably nothing serious enough to warrant binge-watching all 5 seasons of Breaking Bad on Netflix this weekend (unless that was already the plan).

[FCC] [Washington Post] [Court Opinion]

—

Featured Image Courtesy of [Randy Stewart/Stewtopia via Flickr]

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Neutral No More: How One Court Ruling Could Affect Everyone who Uses the Internet appeared first on Law Street.