As the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court is viewed as having the greatest authority over the interpretation of the law. It is often assumed that when the court issues a decision, the ruling marks the final word on the legal question proposed. However, something that many citizens might not know is that the Supreme Court decisions can be altered after their publication without public notice.

Richard J. Lazarus, professor of law at Harvard University, has written an article set for publication in the December 2014 Harvard Law Review that exposes the Supreme Court’s practice of editing and changing opinions after they are initially published. He states that the Court’s decisions do include a statement in small text that reads, “this opinion is subject to formal revision before publication.” However, in many cases, these changes are not simple edits, and the court does not make a public notification of these additions or deletions from opinions.

This practice of editing court opinions is by no means new: the Supreme Court has been altering the wording of its decisions since the early days of its existence. Indeed, some of the most famous rulings have been edited after they were issued. The 1857 Dred Scott case, for example, received an additional 18 pages written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who wrote the majority opinion for the case. More recently, the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, which significantly struck down a Texas law against sodomy, was altered: a sentence written in Sandra Day O’Connor‘s concurring opinion was struck in which she had stated that Justice Antonin Scalia “apparently agrees that […] Texas’ sodomy law would not pass scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.” In these cases and so many others, justices have changed the wording, added or deleted sentences, and made other edits to their opinions without the notification of these alterations. Something here doesn’t seem right.

3 reasons why these discrete changes are problematic:

1. It can cause discrepancies in understanding the law.

Law professors rely on many court decisions in their instruction. If changes to court decisions are not announced, these professors continue to teach and discuss older versions of court decisions that may have undergone important edits. How can professors properly instruct the next generation of lawyers and lawmakers if they do not have access to the most recently updated copies of case law? Additionally, lawyers also need to have the correct version of court cases at their disposal in order to use Supreme Court decisions as precedents for their current cases.

2. Failing to notify what changes were made in the final draft of a decision does not allow for uniformity of the law.

The fact that the court makes unpublicized changes to the law leads to a number of different versions of court decisions, which can become confusing. Supreme Court decisions are extremely important: as the highest judicial body in the nation, the Supreme Court can, through its rulings, overturn decisions by lower courts and declare laws at the local, state, and national level unconstitutional. After the Supreme Court reaches a decision, government at all levels in the United States must comply with the Court’s ruling and make the necessary changes to the law. However, in order to do so, there needs to be a uniform understanding of what the Supreme Court has ruled.

The fact that the court makes discreet changes to the law without public notification allows for different renditions of their decisions to circulate. Some who pay close attention to the court may realize that a ruling’s wording has changed, but many websites continue to have older versions of court rulings. The copy of O’Connor’s concurring opinion on the Cornell Law website, for example, still contains the sentence that, as previously explained, has been admitted. The fact that even law websites exhibit older versions of cases is troubling.

3. The public deserves to be made aware of any changes to the interpretation of law that could affect them.

The Court not publicly announcing when edits are made to its decisions provides yet another example of the lack of government transparency. Even though the court notes that its decisions are subject to change, it is hard for average citizen to realize when edits are made unless the Court announces them. And while many of these changes constitute simple word changes, it could also be the case that the court could make a substantial addition to a case that could affect the livelihoods of Americans. Even something as simple as the addition or deletion of a few words could change the way a phrase in a decision is interpreted, and this could be crucial in Americans’ understanding of the law.

Unfortunately, there is no law or mechanism that can force the supreme judicial body to publicize these changes. However, the court should still choose to do so, and some justices of recent times such as Harry Blackman realized that the Court “operates on a strange and ‘reverse’ basis, where the professional editing is done after initial public release.” To preserve the credibility of their institution, it is incumbent upon justices to publicize their changes

[NY Times] [Harvard Law] [Cornell Law]

—

Sarah Helden (@sheldren430)

Featured image courtesy of [Kenudigit via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post 3 Reasons Why the Supreme Court Needs To Publicize Its Edits appeared first on Law Street.

It goes without saying that bullying is a condemnable practice and that it remains a crucial problem to solve in this country. But can we really punish children for bullying with the law?

A bill, which ultimately failed during a final vote held on May 20, would have made bullying a criminal offense in Carson, California. Jim Dear, the mayor of Carson, wanted to designate his city as a bully-free zone. Dear and the city council supported a bill that would have made bullying a misdemeanor for culprits that are 25 and under. The ordinance imposed a fine on those convicted of the misdemeanor. Mayor Dear felt that this measure would help to prevent bullying.

Two reasons why the bill failed:

1. The language used was extremely vague, making the bill hard to interpret. The bill did not define bullying, and it’s lack of specifications as to what actions constitute bullying was worrisome to many. The ambiguous language could have allowed law enforcement officers to determine that bullying had occurred at their own discretion.

2. Many members of the Carson community expressed concerns over the measure’s application to young children, noting that elementary school children are still beginning to develop and cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their actions.

But while the measure failed, the fact that it was close to passing puts great importance on the matter of whether ordinances against bullying should be enacted into law. Moreover, although the Carson bill did not pass, a similar measure in Florida will soon be put to a vote.

Controversy: should bullying be considered a criminal offense?

Susan Porter, author of Bully Nation, thinks not. Porter, a seasoned educator and counselor, debated the issue with Mayor Dear on a public radio station in California. In her book, Ms. Porter expressed that through her experience in schools, she found that increasingly harsh anti-bullying policies in schools did not decrease the amount of bullying in schools but made the situation worse. She claimed that school policies labeled children as bullies or victims, and that these children continued to adhere to those roles in the future.

Many anti-bullying policies treat the situations as black and white, attempting to solve the problem by shielding victims rather than working with both children to resolve their conflict in a less harmful way. By focusing on the punishment rather than the problem, the issue of bullying in American schools has yes to be resolved. Given this view on bullying, Ms. Porter argued against Carson’s proposed law, viewing the measure as another method of focusing on the punishment rather than taking steps to prevent children from bullying in the first place.

For more insight into Susan Porter’s argument against anti-bullying laws, check out this interview with her from Reason TV:

Despite Susan Porter’s reasoned argument, many municipalities and cities are still considering anti-bullying laws on the books. In fact, several cities already have, including Milton, Wisconsin. But while Carson’s potential anti-bullying law was met with a great deal of criticism and media attention, Milton’s law, which has been in place for four years, has not had any issues in its enforcement.

What, then, can cities like Carson learn from Milton’s law in shaping anti-bullying policy?

For one thing, Milton’s policy allows for schools to internally handle the first instances of bullying rather than immediately resorting to law enforcement. This can allow schools a chance to work with students to teach them why bullying is wrong rather than simply stating that it is wrong through formal punishment. While schools still need to improve the ways that they handle bullying, allowing the schools to handle offenses first gives them the opportunity to guide children in the error of their ways before they are convicted of bullying. This practice, if coupled with successful school counseling, could lessen the number of bullies that would be formally charged by the law.

Additionally, the policy gives a clearer definition on the kind of practices that constitute severe bullying. Jim Martin, the Milton school policer officer, noted that he “only engages the most severe cases, and draws a sharp distinction between the kind of behavior that requires intervention and the usual push and pull of the schoolyard.” Ensuring that only serious cases of bullying could be brought to court gives a clearer sense of what actions would violate the law and does not put children who name call and those who beat up others into the same category. 

With a clearer definition of what actions make bullying a crime and allowing schools to work with children to teach them about the harm bullying causes rather than immediately punishing them, the Milton law remains a good example of an anti-bullying policy. If cities feel that enacting an ordinance against bullying will help curb the problem in their schools and communities, careful wording must be put into the law to allow for the proper handling of these situations.

[NPR] [SCPR] [Susan Porter] [Desert News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post New Anti-Bullying Bill: 2 Reasons Why it Failed appeared first on Law Street.

How many times do we check online reviews of a product before choosing to buy it? Reviews are important for many consumers to make sure they are spending their money on something that is of good quality. But can companies really sue customers for posting a negative review of a product on an online forum?

After posting a negative Amazon review of a Mediabridge brand router, a Florida man recently received a letter from Mediabridge’s lawyers threatening a lawsuit. The company claimed that the review contained false information intended to hurt its reputation and that the man’s statements could be considered slanderous. The company went on to warn that it would sue the man unless he removed his review, stopped purchasing Mediabridge products, and ceased future discussion of the company on the internet.

Can companies really sue individuals over their negative reviews on the internet?

Legal precedent works in favor of the companies. For example, Virginia courts heard a case in 2012 of a similar issue on Yelp and Angie’s List. A retired military captain living in Fairfax County posted a negative review of a contracting service on Yelp and Angie’s List claiming that not only was the service poor, but also that she was billed for services that weren’t performed, and the contractor may have also stolen jewelry. The contractor, Christopher Dietz, sued her for $750,000 for defamatory remarks on an internet review site. Dietz argued that the reviewer’s statements were false and that her negative review impacted his business and reputation. The court held for the contractor. The case was later overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court.

How could this affect consumers?

Providing real insight into the quality of goods and services is the purpose of consumer reviews. It is helpful to read positive reviews in order to make a wise purchase, but negative reviews are also important to warn others of faulty products and poor service. If consumers realize that they can be sued over their critical comments about products, however, many may not be truthful or even write reviews at all anymore. Consumers have a right to know information about the quality of a good o service before they spend their money, but if people are deterred from sharing this information for fear they may create legal trouble for themselves it will become much harder for consumers to make informed decisions.

Can consumer reviews be protected?

Companies like Amazon need to step up to protect their customers. According to Amazon’s terms of use, product sellers are not allowed to demand consumers remove their reviews. These terms are there for a reason: Amazon wants customers to freely critique the items they have purchased through the site. If companies threaten customers with lawsuits over negative reviews, then Amazon needs to step in.

—

Sarah Helden (@SHelden430)

[National Journal] [TIME] [Amazon]

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Reviewers Beware: Negative Product Reviews Might Cost You appeared first on Law Street.

Attention public workers: Due to legal precedent, the Supreme Court may not be willing to protect your job if you’re forced to testify against your employer.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 28 in Lane v. Franks, in which Edward Lane, an Alabama state employee, is suing his employer, who he says fired him after he testified against the agency several years ago. The case poses a serious question: does freedom of speech protect public employees from being fired after exposing harmful practices by their employer?

In 2008 and 2009, Lane was subpoenaed to testify in a public corruption case in which his testimony was key in exposing corrupt practices and spurred a major overhaul of the state’s ethics codes. Despite all of that, Lane ultimately harmed himself with his testimony: he was fired from his position as an employee at Central Alabama Community College.

Precedent set in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) likely won’t help Lane’s case. In Garcetti, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a difference between speaking as a public employee and as a citizen, and that when people issue statements about their duties and roles in a public position they are not speaking as an average citizen and therefore they are not protected by freedom of speech. Because of that distinction, public employees cannot be guarded from the disciplinary procedures of their employers.

The Supreme Court should overturn Garcetti v. Ceballos and protect public workers’ free speech — here are three reasons why:

1. Public institutions must be held accountable for their actions.

During oral arguments in Lane v. Franks, Justice Sotomayor asked, “What are you doing about the truth­ finding functions [in a trial] setting when you’re saying or telling people, employees, don’t go and tell the truth because if the truth hurts your employer, you’re going to be fired?” As the justice points out, ruling that employees are not protected by the first amendment when exposing truthful problems about their employer can lessen the degree to which public institutions can be held accountable for improper actions. If the court rules against Lane, public employees, who have the most knowledge of the inner workings of their organizations will be silenced and will not continue to expose the wrongdoings of public institutions. If public employees cannot speak up and tell the truth about these problems, it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to fix the faults in our public institutions.

2. Public and private employees will be treated differently.

If the Supreme Court’s differentiation between rights of free speech between citizens and public employees is upheld, the U.S. will effectively treat public and private employees differently. Private employees will be treated as ‘citizens’ and will be guaranteed freedom of speech in exposing their employer’s unlawful practices, while public employees will not be given this right. The fact that some, but not all, employees will have freedom of speech is discriminatory and unjust. All American citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech no matter their race, religion, or gender — and this should include type of employment.

3. Subpoenaed public employees have no choice but to testify.

If the court rules against Lane, public employees may have to choose between their jobs and a legal battle. Lane was subpoenaed to testify against Central Alabama Community College. This means it was mandated that he appear before the court to give his testimony, and failing to do so would have put him in serious legal trouble. Additionally, it is against the law to lie under oath, and if Lane had been subpoenaed to testify but issued false statements to protect his employment, he would also face legal charges. This presents a lose-lose situation for public employees. If subpoenas require a citizen’s testimony in court, public employees should not be faulted for following the law. Being forced to testify should not enable one to be fired.

When such important cases can affect the lives of so many Americans, the justices have a duty to make a sound and reasoned decision. But will they be able to do so if some of them can’t recall their own previous decisions? Justice Kennedy, who wrote the Garcetti opinion, couldn’t believe why a subpoenaed testimony wouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment. In order to give justice to Lane and other public employees, the court needs to pay attention to how their earlier decisions can affect later outcomes.

[Washington Post] [ABA Journal] [NPR]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Daderot via Wikimedia Commons]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post 3 Reasons Why the Supreme Court Must Protect Public Workers appeared first on Law Street.

Until recently, everyone thought the Obama administration got away with targeting and killing an American citizen without any disclosure of the legal means that allowed this action to unfold. Now, a court ruling could change this, which draws attention to a very important question: How can we keep the President accountable?

In 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen declared a terrorist by US intelligence, was targeted and killed by a drone strike in Yemen. After committing this action, the government declined to reveal any documents detailing the decision and even their legal reasoning that explained why the President was able to authorize the killing of an American without a trial or due process of the law.

A suit was filed against the government by the ACLU and reporters from the New York Times. The case was brought to a US district court and was decided in January 2013. The decision came out in the government’s favor: the court ruled that the government did not have to release any of the requested information. District court judge Colleen McMahon, commenting on the court’s decision, stated that while she personally criticized Obama for failing to disclose the information, she felt that the court had no authority to force the administration to release any documents relevant to the situation.

However, the case was appealed, and on Monday April 21, 2014, the court of appeals for the 2nd circuit issued a ruling that overturned the lower court’s decision. The three judge panel on the bench of the court ruled that the government must release documents created by the Justice Deparment that describe the administration’s legal reasoning behind the authorization to commit the killing of al-Awlaki.

In the wake of the appeals’ court decision, two important question must be answered: How did the court justify this decision, and will this court ruling change the legal nature of presidential action?

The Court’s Reasoning

The appeals court’s main justification for its ruling was that since the Obama administration had publicly commented on the legal justification for killing al-Awlaki, the government can no longer refuse to disclose the official documents. Judge Jon Newman‘s opinion, joined by the other two appellate judges, explained that if the government makes public claims to convince the public that lawful actions were taken, the government has an obligation to prove those statements are true. The judge stated, “whatever protection the legal analysis might once have had has been lost by virtue of public statements of public officials at the highest levels and official disclosure of the DOJ White Paper.”

The decision also addressed the arguments against releasing the information. The government claimed that by being forced to reveal the documents and other information detailing the legal justification for al-Awlaki’s killing, other agencies will be more hesitant to seek the assistance of the Department of Justice, since they may fear the eventual release of private information used to consult with the DOJ. Refuting this argument, the court’s opinion highlighted the fact that smart officials representing agencies should be fully aware of publicly discussing the advice of the DOJ could result in the mandated disclosure of the legal information. Furthermore, as long as the agency makes no public statements about the assurance of the legality of actions taken with help from the DOJ’s legal advice, the information need not be revealed.

What implications will the ruling have on the operations of the President and the US government?

Keeping in mind the court’s rationale for ruling, the effect this decision could have on the future operations of the President and the government must be explored.

The good news is that the case showcases a way for the public to hold the President and the government accountable for his secret decisions. In a matter of killing an American citizen without due process of the law, the American people deserve to understand the reasoning behind the action. By declaring that the government loses its right to secrecy after publicly commenting on the supposed legality of its actions, the public has gained some recourse for finding transparency within government’s decisions.

But while the appellate court decision marks progress in keeping the President and government accountable, the ruling does not mean that the government must now release information on their reasoning behind every decision. It is important to remember that the court came to its decision after the President made public remarks on the legality of al-Awlaki’s killing. Therefore, while we can celebrate the appellate court’s decision, remember that this ruling is only a step in the right direction in providing more ways to keep the government accountable.

[The Atlantic] [POLITICO] [The Guardian]

—

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post A New Method to Keep the Government Accountable? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, an uproar over General Mills’ new legal terms caused a great deal of commotion, so much so that the company reversed the changes within a few days. While things have calmed down, it is nevertheless important to examine what could have been a dangerous change to consumer legal rights. 

General Mills, a major company in the food industry, recently underwent a change in its legal terms on Thursday, April 17. The affect the changes had on consumers was extremely unfair.  Under the new legal terms of General Mills, consumers that interact with the company in ways such as downloading a coupon from a website, joining their group on Facebook, enter a sweepstakes, or other such actions would have to give up their right to sue the company. Instead, costumers would be forced to solve their disputes with the company through arbitration or negotiation. Clever, right?

When asked to comment about the new policy, General Mills spokesperson Mike Siemienas noted that buying a General Mills product or ‘liking’ one of the company’s pages on Facebook would not bar an individual from suing. However, he did note that if someone liked a page in order to download a coupon, that action would constitute as ‘joining the General Mills online community’ and the right to sue would be forfeited.

Thankfully, the added language to General Mills’ legal terms evoked a strong response from consumers of the company’s brands. People took to the internet to protest the changes, and their efforts did not go without notice. It only took a few days for General Mills to revert back to their old legal terms and issuing an apology about the changes to consumers‘ rights.

If these changes were so unpopular, what could have prompted the company to issue new legal terms in the first place?

Recently, General Mills had to pay large sums of money for losses in legal suits. For example, the company paid a sum of 8.5 million dollars over a lawsuit involving the Yoplait brand’s product Yoplus. In response, the company tried to prevent other cases by preventing many of its consumers from being able to sue. The tactic here, called ‘forced arbitration,’ aims to minimize the costs of legal action taken against a company. If the General Mills’ legal changes had stayed in place, the policy would have prevented many consumers from filing suit against the company in court. Those who took such actions that would prevent them from suing under the policy would have had to enter into arbitration to settle their claim. Under forced arbitration, the arbitrator’s decision is binding, and so consumers would have also lost any chance of appeal. Moreover, under forced arbitration, individuals are not permitted to sue, enter into a class action law suit, or appeal any decision that has been reached.

It is fortunate that General Mills decided to rescind their new legal changes; however, the example is but one among many actions companies that have taken to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. While it is important to note that the voice of angry consumers can evoke changes in company policies, there are other laws and policies in effect that limit consumer legal rights.

In 2008, a Whataburger in Texas placed a sign on their window saying that once customers entered, they forfeit the right to sue the company. While this is perhaps an extreme example, there are many other companies that contain clauses in their legal terms that prevent customers from suing and entering into class action lawsuits. Public Citizen, a consumer advocate non-profit, lists on their website companies that contain such clauses in their legal terms. Among the many corporations are Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Wells Fargo, American Express, Dell, Toshiba, Starbucks, Netflix, and the list continues.

It is alarming that there are so many companies operating in this country that contain provisions in their legal terms that basically prevent consumers from exercising their rights. When consumers enter into forced arbitration with these companies to settle claims, they are placed into binding agreements with arbitrators who usually take the company’s side.

Non-profits such as Public Citizen can only do so much to counter the tactics of large corporations. That is why it is encouraging that the response from angry consumers forced General Mills to back down on its new legal policy. The fact that so many people were outraged over the changes caused the company to realize that these legal changes could have resulted in a loss of many consumers. This example shows that consumers do have power to fight back against unfair legal policies. If people continue to band together and withhold business from companies with such policies, other changes could be forthcoming.

[New York Times] [The Atlantic] [NACA] [CNN Money] [Public Citizen]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [ GeneralMills via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post A Worrisome Precendent for Consumer Legal Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Whether its for spring break, summer vacation, or anything in between, Florida remains a top destination for vacationers in the U.S. Miami is perhaps one of the most frequented cities for this reason. Miami is a great city to vacation in for twenty somethings: not only are there beaches, but Miami boasts one of the best night life scenes in the country. It’s no surprise that the city attracts a variety of people. But whether you are planning a trip to Miami or even considering a move to this Florida city, it’s important to know what laws are on the books in order to have a fun but safe time there.

Drinking Laws

When you’re going to Florida to vacation and you’re 21 or older, odds are you would be interested in consuming alcoholic beverages. Here are some things you might want to know about Miami’s alcohol policy:

• There is an open container law on the books. Miami maybe a party town, but it certainly isn’t NOLA. Getting caught with an open container could result in a fine of 50 dollars. According to the Miami News Times, this regulation isn’t very heavily enforced. But unless you want to lose some money, it’s better to finish up that drink inside.
• Purchasing alcohol: In most counties of Florida, the sale of alcohol on Sunday is prohibited. However, in Miami-Dade county, liquor stores are allowed to remain open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You can therefore buy alcohol at any time if you are of age, but stay safe!

The Beach

Miami is famous for its coastline, and a visit to Miami isn’t complete without spending some time relaxing by the ocean. Here are some important things you should know about the use of Miami’s beaches:

• The beach does close. Miami Beach is closed from 12 AM to 5 AM. And this law will be enforced. So if you were planning on taking a dip in the middle of the night, you’d better make other arrangements.
• There are also specific hours when a life guard is on duty. Miami beaches’ hours happen to be from 9:30AM to 6PM. While the beach is open during times when no lifeguard is present, it is highly advised that beach goers swim when a lifeguard is on duty.
• It should also be known that cans of any kind, alcoholic or otherwise, are prohibited on the beach. Styrofoam containers are also unlawful to have with you while on the beach. The Miami News Times noted that individual had been given a fifty dollar fine for the possession of a Diet Coke can and a styrofoam container while on the beach, so this law is enforced. It may seem more economical to bring your own snacks and beverages to the beach, but treat yourself to a lunch in a cafe instead.

Pets

Moving to the area and have a pet or looking to get one? Make sure you don’t violate these rules:

• In Miami Dade County, pets must not be chained or tethered outside without you present. This means you can’t keep your dog tied to a pole while you eat lunch in a restaurant. So if you’re running errands or meeting friends for a meal, keep Fido at home.
• Dogs have to wear tags at all times and must be registered yearly.
• You cannot take your pet on a bus or train without the animal being kept in a cage or carrier.

Florida State-Wide Laws

Miami residents and visitors should also respect state-wide laws. Miami-goers should be considerate of these laws as well, including:

• No texting while driving. A new law took effect in October that outlaws texting while operating a vehicle, making Florida the 41st state with this law on the books.
• Concealed weapons: Florida is a unique state in that it allows concealed weapons to be carried with a license. This isn’t to say that you should go to Florida to carry around a gun for fun, but rather it’s a warning to stay extra careful.

There are many other laws to take note of while traveling or moving to Miami, Florida, but this is a starting guide. Miami is a great city, and knowing the laws of the city and state of Florida can help you to have a fun and risk-free visit.

[Miami News Times] [Legal Beer] [Miami Beach] [Miami Dade] [Miami Herald]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Marc Averette via Wikipedia]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Traveling to Miami: Here Are the Legal Need to Knows appeared first on Law Street.

Thanks to petty politics, your local federal court may be lacking in the positions that it needs most to address citizens’ grievances: trial judges.

When it comes to federal court vacancies, the president has an obligation to respect senatorial courtesy, meaning that the president asks the senior senator of his political party to recommend a nominee for an open seat in the district court of his or her state. While this unwritten precedent usually does not extend to senators of the opposite political party, the president may also wish to consult senators of the other party so that their nomination is not blocked in the Senate, as senators have a de-facto power to veto nominees for a court in their home state.

However, many Republicans and even a few Democrats have begun a trend of failing to recommend nominees for vacancies on district court trial benches. These vacancies have significantly increased during Obama’s Presidency. By leaving seats in federal district courts unfilled, senators are undermining federal authority in the states. They are making a statement that demonstrates they would rather leave seats open than fill them with Obama’s appointees.

According to the Alliance for Justice, there are thirty-seven current vacancies and twenty-one future vacancies in federal courts around the country that currently have no nominees to fill these positions. The majority of these vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. And these seats have been open for quite some time. The most extreme example comes from Texas, where one vacancy has been left unfilled for 1,951 days.

There are so many reasons why this trend is troubling, but I’ll attempt to explain just a few:

It’s giving states less federal oversight, and it undermines the rule of law.

By leaving the positions open, senators are effectively limiting federal jurisdiction over states. A lack of enough judges on the bench means that judges cannot handle the amount of cases brought to the court, which slows down rulings and therefore curtails the extent of federal authority over the presiding cases in these states. And states that are more conservative and have more Republican senators are experiencing more of this restriction on federal oversight than Democratic states.

But this policy goes against the rule of law in the United States. Indeed, there are certain matters that can and should be brought to state courts if there is no federal law involved or at stake. However, there are many cases that require a suit to be brought to federal court, and the fact that senators are intentionally leaving open seats on the benches of federal courts goes against the rule of law. Courts need a certain amount of justices to operate, and withholding nominations unjustly limits the power of the federal judiciary. Additionally, there should not be an uneven balance of federal oversight among states. Red states must experience as much federal oversight as blue states, otherwise the level of independence from the federal government of the different states will be unequal.

It’s a prime example of partisan politics at its worst.

As previously said, the majority of federal court vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. Only eleven out of the total fifty-nine current and future vacancies with no nominees come from states with two Democratic senators. States with one Republican and one Democrat are having trouble coming to a consensus on a nominee. For example, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey (R) and Bob Casey (D) had trouble working together to fill the eight open seats on Pennsylvania’s federal courts. The fact that political differences are now limiting the function of courts is concerning to the operation of government institutions.

Ultimately, it just hurts citizens.

When it comes down to it, the political move of leaving vacancies open hurts citizens and can deprive them of the right to receive speedy justice. Litigants will have wait for long periods of time before their case can be heard and ruled on. And some business is extremely important, such as immigration rulings. It is extremely unfair to keep citizens in limbo over cases that can impact their lives and futures.

While the senators who are neglecting to suggest nominates may feel they are protecting their states from federal judicial oversight, the reality is that they are actually failing to serve their constituents’ needs. They are depriving citizens of their right to court and failing to help them receive justice by blocking appointments. To many residents of the affected states, it doesn’t matter whether judicial appointments came from Bush or Obama; they simply need their cases to be heard. The vast amount of federal court vacancies shows the worst of how partisanship can negatively affect constituents.

Perhaps the most unfortunate part about this problem is that it won’t be solved unless citizens physically take action and rally outside court houses. Senators clearly need a reality check if they feel their methods are helping their constituents.

[The Atlantic] [Alliance for Justice] [Dallas News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Sorry, Citizens: Senators Won’t Fill Court Vacancies appeared first on Law Street.

A new law recently implemented in New York City is a significant step in the right direction for improving the rights of workers.

On April 1, 2014, an updated paid sick leave law took effect. The measure requires businesses with five or more employees to provide sick leave to employees caring for themselves or their relatives. After taking office, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that paid sick leave would be extended to cover more employees in the city, and he was now fulfilled that promise. Because of the law, 1.2 million more workers in New York will have paid sick leave, many of whom work low to minimum wage jobs.

Skeptics worried about the possible negative effects the new policy would have on businesses. Some small business owners were worried that they wouldn’t be able to afford paying for their workers’ sick leave. Yet when the law took effect, it did so without a commotion. There were no voiced complaints or protests. This silence bodes well for the law’s success and sustainment, and can perhaps pave the way for more progressive labor legislation. And for Mayor de Blasio, who has already faced a setback in failing legislation to raise the minimum wage, granting more residents of the city paid sick leave is a substantial victory.

So what allowed for this measure to be successfully implemented without protest?

Businesses found the law to be reasonable.

Since the law did not take effect immediately, businesses had time to check their budgets to see how offering paid sick leave to employees will impact their profit. While businesses may lose a little money to offer five (or more) sick days a year for employees, the cost of this is not exorbitant. Moreover, business can take comfort in the fact that they do not have to allow an employee paid sick leave until after he or she has been on the job for more than three months. This provision of the law allows time for trust to develop between an employer and an employee, which will lower the risk of an employee’s taking advantage of paid sick leave.

Many people believe that extending paid sick leave to more employees is fair.

One small business owner, Shiv Puri, reflected on the importance of paid sick leave while he worked on Wall Street. He noted that his staff should receive the same benefits as employees as he has been given. Additionally, a poll by FindLaw found that 71% of respondents across the country were in support of extending paid sick leave. In New York and across the United States, the extension of benefits such as paid sick leave are gaining support for being fairer to all employees. Despite the people that had vocalized their concerns before the law took effect, there are many others who support the measure.

Businesses can also benefit from giving workers paid sick leave.

Employees who work low earning jobs know that money is hard to earn and therefore every shift is crucial to supporting themselves. Many have had to make the choice between going to work feeling ill or staying home to care for themselves. Employers don’t want sick workers on the job: they are less productive and can infect co-workers and even customers. Allowing a few days of paid leave will keep sick workers at home, which is ultimately good for business. Additionally, employees who receive more benefits from their employer will feel better treated and will translate how they feel about the job into their work ethic. Providing paid sick leave can also make workers more productive, another benefit to businesses.

It just makes sense.

People that earn low wages already have a harder time making ends’ meat. Why is it then that our system extends more benefits to the people that receive higher salaries? The point of benefits such as paid sick leave is to assist employees, but the people who need the most help are those who work low and minimum wage jobs, because they have a harder time as it is affording basic necessities. Of course, good benefits are a nice incentive for businesses to entice qualified candidates to work for their company. But these benefits can also be used to encourage those in minimum wage positions to stay on the job and to attract more workers to fill open positions.

The law makes New York, the most recent of more than twenty cities and states that have mandated paid sick leave for employees of certain businesses. With the success of the policy’s implementation in New York, perhaps more places in the US will adhere to this just principle.

[NY Times] [HRE Online] [In These Times]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Paid Sick Leave in NYC: It Just Makes Sense appeared first on Law Street.

Conservative media personality Glenn Beck has been known to make outrageous statements. But now, one of his assertions could land him on trial.

A 20 year old Saudi Arabian student, Abdulrahman Alharbi, has filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Boston charging Glenn Beck with defamation. The international student was a survivor of the Boston Marathon bombings, and was questioned (along with others) by authorities after the incident and was found to be uninvolved with the violent plan and was released.

However, even after Alharbi’s release and the identification of the Tsarnaev brothers as the true suspects of the terrorist attack, Glenn Beck used his radio show to urge the U.S. government to release information on the supposed third suspect, Alharbi. Beck claimed the student was affiliated with Al Qaeda and ‘the money man’ behind the attacks. He also claimed that Alharbi had been officially deemed a terrorist by the U.S. All of the above accusations are, of course, untrue.

What is the legality of defamation, and can Beck be convicted?

According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell, in order to prove defamation has occurred, four criteria must be met:

1. A false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity.

2. Publication or communication of that statement to a third person.

3. Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence.

4. Some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

With this information in mind, it seems that Abdulrahman Alharbi has a good chance of receiving justice from Glenn Beck’s slanderous comments.

Glenn Beck’s comments about Alharbi were stated as facts. Beck labeled the student as an ‘al Qaeda control agent’ and claimed that Alharbi was the source of money behind the Boston Marathon bombings. He clearly labelled Alharbi as a terrorist, an assertion of a factual statement that in actuality was untruthful. In fact, the FBI had interrogated Alharbi and found him to be completely innocent. Therefore, Beck created a falsely factual statement about Alharbi.

Glenn Beck communicated his statements about Alharbi to a third party: his radio listeners. Beck did not only state the above falsehoods about the muslim student, but he publicly communicated them to the listeners of his radio broadcast. In making his assertions known to others, he caused his listeners to be influenced by his statements, and many of them may have believed him (though why anyone would believe Glenn Beck is a true mystery). The second criterion for the proof of defamation has been met.

Glenn Beck is clearly the one at fault for his statements, whether they were made intentionally or with negligence. Glenn Beck has said a lot of crazy things throughout his career as a media personality. He has espoused ridiculous conspiracy theories, called President Obama both Hitler and a communist, and list continues. Sometimes, it can be difficult to determine whether he says all of these things for entertainment value or whether he truly believes what he states on the radio or television. Nevertheless, whether Glenn Beck intended to target an innocent individual or failed to properly research and establish if there were any merits to his claims, Beck is liable for defamation. Beck has continually failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support his assertion that Alharbi was a terrorist involved in the Boston Marathon bombings. Unless Glenn has miraculously found some evidence that the FBI has overlooked, it’s not looking good for him.

Finally, but most importantly, there has been some harm caused to Abdulrahman Alharbi due to Glenn Beck’s wrongful statements. Alharbi’s lawyers have stated that “Alharbi’s reputation has been substantially and severely damaged” by Beck’s assertions. The student has received many harmful and accusatory messages after Beck publicly and falsely accused him. Beck’s claims have wrongly led others to believe that Alharbi was involved, and although no threats or physical harm have come to fruition, the student has suffered great emotional distress. The fourth criterion in establishing defamation has been met: Beck’s falsehoods have impacted the personal life of Alharbi and changed how others view him.

As all four criteria for establishing defamation can be proven in court, Glenn Beck is clearly liable for the defamation of Abdulrahman Alharbi. The student deserves justice and payment for the damages that Beck’s lies have caused him.

After the news of Alharbi’s filing in court broke, Glenn Beck has been unusually quiet. He has refused to comment in newspapers, and even his twitter account has fallen silent. Perhaps this means that for once, Glenn Beck realizes that he has gone too far.

[Washington Post] [Politico] [Cornell]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Hey, Glenn Beck It’s Time to Pay Up appeared first on Law Street.

Patent trolls have long been a problem in the realm of intellectual property, but companies have yet to devise a solution to successfully combat against them. As the years have gone by, patent trolls have no longer solely affected the technology industry but have begun to target many other businesses as well.

Well, now the government is getting involved in this widespread issue. The Senate is considering a bill, the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act that would force the losers of patent lawsuits to cover the winner’s legal fees in order to minimize patent trolling. The bill is similar to one that passed the House this past December. Diane Feinstein, a Democratic Senator from California, stated, “I think we are united on the troll. The troll must go.” The White House also has said it supports the measure.

Will Congress’ actions, if implemented, help to prevent patent trolling? There is evidence that suggests it will.

Making the losing party pay the other party’s legal fees will discourage patent trolls from pursuing legal action. Engaging in litigation can be a taxing and costly process, especially for small businesses, who lack the funds to engage in huge lawsuits. And in 2011, small businesses encompassed 90 percent of patent troll victims. The cost to defendants in a patent lawsuit can range from two to six million dollars. However, now faced with potential consequences, these companies engaging in patent trolling will have to think twice before filing lawsuit and extract licensing fees.

In addition, the bill would help protect true innovators. The bill’s provisions deter patent trolling companies, which exist solely to make a profit and do not actually contribute real innovation. These companies don’t create anything themselves; instead, they buy old patents and use them to file suits against other companies. Since patent trolling companies make their money off of legal cases, the potential cost not only deters these companies from filing lawsuits but also discourages anyone from forming these ventures in the first place.

Meanwhile, businesses that are actually creating innovative products or services can benefit from the bill. 40 percent of small businesses affected by patent trolls stated that the lawsuits they were forced to undergo hurt their business and ability to innovate. With the decreased threat of patent trolls, businesses will feel freer to create unique and new products without worrying about frivolous lawsuits.

The bill potentially also evens out the bias in the legal system that has long worked in favor of plaintiffs in intellectual property cases. Suing a company or individual over patent rights is relatively simple and inexpensive, but defending them can be extremely complex and costly. The fact is, patent cases are difficult to defend, many businesses are forced to settle out of court, which still costs them. Knowing that losers will have to pay for legal fees will encourage businesses to hold out for court settlement, whereas patent trollers will have a much harder time to defend their bogus claims.

While the bill exhibits many benefits against patent trolling, another question arises in the discussion of the bill: How will it affect legitimate patent litigation?

Some worry that the bill, while working against bogus patent troll lawsuits, could also affect litigation of serious infringements on patent rights. Skeptics of the bill argue that the bill goes too far and it could make it more difficult for inventors to profit from their innovations. Combatting this fear, several senators note that any legislation they support will protect the rights of companies that have legitimate claims to sue. Plus, parties with real claims of patent infringement still have the advantage of being the plaintiff in lawsuit, and can be confident of winning if their claim is truly legitimate. While fears of protecting innovation are not unfounded, those entering lawsuits to protect their legitimate patents need not fear of taking legal action.

If the bill passes in Congress and is signed into law by President Obama, businesses entangled in frivolous lawsuits will gain vital help in protecting their companies from patent trolls.

[Reuters] [Forbes] [Nextgov] [The Hill]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post S.1720: A Real Solution to Patent Trolling? appeared first on Law Street.

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard people complaining about ‘career politicians’. Many people feel that term limits can help fight against this trend by allowing new people to run for office. However, recently there has been talk of getting rid of term limits.

Governor LePage of Maine has brought the issue of term limits into the spotlight again. In a speech made on March 20, 2014, LePage stated that he wants to do away with the term limits imposed on Maine’s state legislators. He explained that they create an influx of “young people with firm agendas” and make legislators feel rushed. The Governor called for an overhaul of the legislation from 1993 that prohibited legislators from serving in office for more than four two-year terms. While LePage made these comments perhaps without any solid argument, the issue remains important. Term limits have come up in many political debates, and 15 states currently have some kind of term limit laws on the books.

So what are some real arguments for and against term limits, and are they valid?

1.Term Limits Give More Power to Lobbyists.

It has been argued that creating term limits for legislators only allows lobbyists to gain more influence over those in office. Because term limits can cause a loss of experienced legislators who have lived out their terms in office, there will be a greater number of newer and younger members of state assemblies and senates. Having less political experience, newer members of state legislatures could turn to lobbyists for expertise on certain issues, giving non-elected individuals power over the actions of legislators.

This argument does have some support; research by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that in their 2006 study, imposing term limits on state lawmakers did increase the influence of lobbyists and other non-elected individuals.

However, the same study also found that term limits also worked against the efforts of lobbyists. Term limits created shorter relationships between legislators and lobbyists. Additionally, the report noted that new legislators bound by term limits tended to be more suspicious of lobbyists. So, really it’s a mix bag theory. 

2. Term Limits Increase Diversity

Some believe that term limits are able to increase diversity among membership in state legislatures. It is known that incumbents have an extremely high likelihood of reelection, and this can preclude legislatures from increasing the number of women and minorities in public office. Instituting term limits, it is believed, can mitigate this problem by opening up more seats for candidates of different genders, ethnicities and backgrounds.

Despite this belief, it has not been proven that term limits are integral in increasing the diversity of state legislators. The 2006 National Conference of State Legislatures found no significant increase in diversity of state legislatures that had instituted term limits. While term limits may have opened up more seats in state houses and senates, the amount of diversity in state legislatures also depends upon the candidates running for office and their opportunities, which can affect who runs for and wins seats.

3. Term Limits Prevent Inefficiencies Like Big Spending.

Another myth is without them, there will inevitably be more inefficiencies in government like increased spending. The argument is that with term limits, the greater amount of newer legislators will have less tenure and therefore vote to reduce spending. This view was made popular in the 1990s when there was growing support for term limits. 

However, empirical evidence suggests there isn’t a real correlation between term limits and government spending. A study that compared the fiscal policies of the states showed that there were little differences in spending between the fourteen states with term limits and the rest of the states without term limits. The same study also found that states that repealed term limits did not significantly increase spending. Therefore, while theories suggest term limits may allow for a decrease in government spending, this hypothesis has not been proven true in practice.

So if arguments for and against term limits haven’t been validated, what’s the point?

If it has not been proven that the existence of term limits make a serious impact on the workings of state legislatures, should we continue to waste time worrying about whether or not to have term limits? I would argue that we shouldn’t.

In a day and age when so many districts are gerrymandered along party lines, does it really matter whether there is a new or old face representing a primarily Republican or Democrat district? And whether or not term limits are enacted into law or done away with, there hasn’t been any evidence suggesting that the amount of time a person can serve in a legislature truly makes an impact on how legislatures function. It’s understandable that people desire their representatives to be more accountable to citizens, but the implementation or deletion of term limits probably won’t fix that problem. Let’s stop worrying about term limits and focus greater attention on methods to increase the accountability of whomever sits in public office, whether they can continue to run for that office or not.

[Bangor Daily News] [Washington Post] [Legislative Quarterly]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Again, with Term Limits: Debunking 3 Myths in the Media appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re applying to law school, chances are there may be a smaller number of spots available in your class.

For the past several years, many law schools around the country have decreased the number of students admitted into JD programs, and the downsizing trend is only continuing. The University of Buffalo‘s Law School has recently announced that they will be shrinking the number of incoming 1-L’s from 225-200 to 200-180. The Dean of the school, Makau Mutua, stated that this move is necessary in order to maintain the school’s standards for its admitted students. The University of Buffalo Law School is by no means the only school that has made this decision. Other institutions such as Appalachian Law School, New England Law, and many more have also cut their class sizes. In total, last year 51% of law schools made a decision to downsize.

And it’s not just class sizes that are being cut: many schools are also trying to decrease the size of their faculty. The University of Buffalo’s Law School, for example, is beginning to offer retirement benefits to professors over 55, in order to decrease their faculty without having layoffs.

What is really interesting is that this trend has even reached the top tier schools. Last year, Northwestern University‘s School of Law declared it would decrease their class sizes by ten percent. It’s clear that this trend is affecting law schools in general, not just lower tier schools, which means that the factors that could be causing the downsizing of law schools are more universal in nature.

So what are some possible reasons that explain why law schools are choosing to downsize?

1. The number of individuals applying for Law School is decreasing.

The American Bar Association‘s report on the number of students enrolled in ABA accredited law schools show that the trend of declined enrollment in law school is continuing. 39,675 full and part time students enrolled in law school in the fall of 2013. This number marks an 11% decrease from 2012 and a 24% decrease from 2010, the highest year of enrollment. Data from last October also shows that the number of LSAT takers are also lower than in years past, and in fact the amount of individuals who took the LSAT decreased by 11% from the previous year. The number of LSAT takers has continued to decrease since the peak of administered tests four years ago.

With less overall students taking the LSAT and applying to law school, it is likely that there are less students applying that fit the credentials for specific schools. And with less students choosing to pursue a legal education and smaller class size, law schools do not have enough funding to maintain the amount of professors on their faculty and courses offered as in previous times.

2. There are still too many lawyers on the job market.

With an overcrowded job market for lawyers, less people are enrolling in law school, which contributes to many schools’ decision to downsize. According to the American Bar Association, only around 55% of all 2012 graduates found full-time legal work six months after graduation. There is possibility that more are employed in other kinds of work, but those jobs do not require their JD degree (that they spend so much time and money pursuing).

Adding to the problem of too many lawyers, the number of legal jobs also seems to be decreasing. Wharton professor Richard Shell explains that “Law firms — which have been the traditional employers — are having to revise their compensation and fee practices because clients are demanding more fixed price contracts and less billable hours.” Law firms have been one of the main sources of employment for legal grads, and if law firms are hiring less people, there will be more unemployed lawyers.

3. Schools are choosing quality over quantity.

Law schools don’t want to keep the same class sizes as in previous years if it means having to lower their standards of admission. Schools don’t want to admit applicants that would not have been as qualified in previous years simply to fill all vacant spots in their classes. This could potentially result in the law school receiving a lower rank, which is certainly undesirable.

Not only do law schools want to maintain the quality of their students, but they also strive to keep the quality of education. For example, Appalachian Law School explained that in deciding to downsize, the school wanted to maintain a 12 to 1 student to faculty ratio, something the school considers unique among other institutions.

With decreasing applicants, an overcrowded job market for lawyers, and the aim to maintain quality, it is no wonder that many law schools are making the hard decision to downsize. It will be interesting to see whether and how long this trend continues.

 [Bizjournals] [Wharton] [ABA] [ABA Journal] [Wall Street Journal] [Register-Herald]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post 3 Reasons Behind Law School Downsizing Trend appeared first on Law Street.

The quick response of a state legislature to overcome a loophole in a law demonstrates the power of public action.

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that taking ‘upskirt’ photos did not violate the right to privacy as guaranteed in the state’s voyeurism law. Upskirting is the practice of taking secret photos of an individual’s private area; they can be snapped, for example, of a woman’s private parts while she walks up stairs wearing a skirt.

The incident that prompted the case occurred in 2010 when a man took photos of women wearing skirts on a MBTA trolley on two separate occasions. In its ruling, the court noted that the state’s voyeurism law dealt only with taking pictures of naked or partially undressed individuals, but the upskirting photos were taken when they were fully clothed, therefore, the law did not apply. In addition, the court declared that the second part of the voyeurism law, a reasonable expectation of privacy, was not met. Because the MBTA trolley operates in a public environment and there were cameras, the victims of the photographs could not have expected their privacy to be upheld.

By ruling solely on a matter of law, the court’s decision did have some merit. The Supreme Judicial Court was ruling in the context of law on the books and so, the existing policy did not provide the court with legal reason to declare the upskirt photos illegal. However, the court’s deeming that the defendants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on mass transit is less understandable. Being in a public place with cameras should not justify the exposure of individuals’ private areas; in fact, because they were fully clothed, the women proved they had no intention of showcasing their bodies to the public eye.

While it was disappointing that the court declared upskirting legal according to existing law, the ruling highlighted the need to update the law. The court felt that the practice of upskirting should be illegal, but that they had no power to enforce that themselves. This was a legislative loophole that needed to be closed.

The court’s decision enraged the public, and their outcries prompted the Massachusetts legislature to quickly respond by drawing up a bill that would make upskirt photos illegal. The legislation passed both the state House and Senate, and on Friday, March 7, Governor Deval Patrick signed the bill into law. It took only two days from the time that the court ruled to the governor’s signing legislation outlawing upskirting.

The swift timeframe demonstrates that the case serves as a prime example of public reaction in creating an incentive for the efficient passage of legislation. 

Boston.com noted that the decisive action of the Massachusetts state legislature was a welcome change from its usual slow pace of work. But in the midst of such a strong outcry from the citizens over the court’s decision, lawmakers knew that swift action should be taken and would be appreciated. Commenting on the pace of the legislation, Speaker of the House Robert A. DeLeo stated, “we can send a message out there, to women especially, that this type of action will not be tolerated.” The legislature hastened to pass the legislation to demonstrate its commitment to citizens’ right to privacy.

Perhaps the last time the state government acted as quickly was in 2006 when a woman was killed after the collapse of a Big Dig ceiling. The amount of press attention and public outrage the incident caused allowed the government to quickly resolved the problem of the project’s oversight between the executive and legislative branches. Hopefully, the success of the rapid response to outlaw upskirting shows that there does not need to be an emergency to hasten legislative action, but that people’s voices and responses to a situation can influence legislatures to speed up the process of passing laws.

[Boston Herald] [Boston.com] [NY Daily News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Geneva Vanderzeil apairandasparediy.com via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Down Vote on Upskirting: Why the Mass. Legislature Got it Right appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, March 3, 2014 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments that charged Florida with failing to properly establish an inmate’s IQ before ordering the death penalty. In determining the level at which inmates are ineligible for capital punishment, Florida has drawn a strict line at an IQ of 70 or below. However, experts in the medical field as well as several justices feel that this policy does not take into account the five point margin of error in IQ testing in establishing whether or not someone is intellectually disabled. The five point error margin could be crucial in sentencing capital punishment; whether or not you agree with the death penalty at all, it is essential that the decision for a death sentence is justly made.

Here’s the breakdown of the case:

Freddie Lee Hall, a 68 year old, is facing the death penalty for the crimes of raping and killing a 21 year old pregnant woman as well as a police officer. Hall was given several IQ tests throughout his incarceration and received scores of 71, 72, 73, 74, and 80, all of which are above Florida’s 70’s point marker. However, studies have shown the five point margin of error is necessary, concluding that scores as high as 75 considered indications of intellectual disability. Even if you take the average of all Hall’s scores, a 74, he falls within the margin and could be deemed ineligible for the death penalty. Seth Waxman, a lawyer for the defense, stated that this matter “can only be properly diagnosed by professionals.” It seems that other justices shared Waxman’s concerns. Justice Kennedy questioned why states like Florida drew such a hard cutoff, when professionals acknowledged that the IQ test design includes a margin of error.

Looking back at prior verdicts:

The 2002 case Atkins v. Virginia established a precedent for establishing the eligibility for the death penalty based on an inmate’s IQ. The decision gave states a general guideline to follow in establishing proof of intellectual disability in inmates. It stated that in order to declare someone as intellectually disabled, it must be proven that the individual lacks practical and social abilities as well as possesses a low IQ score. The decision stated that low IQ scores are “typically under 70.” In discussing the Atkins ruling, Justice Scalia explained that the court did not make their decision primarily on the studies done by the American Psychiatric Association’s assessment of intellectual disability, but on the adopted policies of the states. But shouldn’t the opinions of experts in a particular field factor in significantly to justice’s decisions, especially in an area they personally are unfamiliar with?

It’s useful to take the precedent into account when determining how to rule in a case with a similar principle; however, the court’s previous decision only vaguely answers the question of whether establishing a hard line at an IQ of 70 is appropriate. The court should, therefore turn to experts on IQ measurements in order to make an appropriate judgement on the state a man’s life.

Furthermore, the case brings attention to the lack of focus on rehabilitation in Florida prisons and the United States in general. In this specific situation, Hall has spent over half of his life on death row, and the man is almost 70 years old! This situation is unfortunately not unique in Florida; as Justice Kennedy mentioned in oral argument, the last ten Florida inmates who received the death penalty spent on average 24.9 years on death row. Florida is not alone in keeping prisoners waiting on death row for longer periods of time, but the amount of years prisoners have spent in this status is concerning. Maintaining someone’s uncertainty over whether he or she will live or die for this long can cause anxiety and the general deterioration of his or her mental state. It is true that a factor involved in the lengthening of the time spent on death row is a more thorough appeals process, which is important in determining guilt and fair sentencing. Nevertheless, an average of 24.9 years is way too long to keep someone waiting on a question of life or death.

Indeed, Hall v. Florida’s significance will reach far beyond the determination of a man’s mental abilities. The case exposes that Florida’s justice system has failed to take into consideration an error margin and other factors in determining whether the death penalty is appropriate. Additionally, it allows inmates to wait extraordinary amounts of time on death row before a final decision. Capital punishment is serious, and the Florida justice system must change to treat those on death row appropriately.

[New York Times] [SCOTUS Blog] [Washington Post] [Death Penalty Info]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Jeff Kubina via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Hall v. Florida: What Will the Ruling Be? appeared first on Law Street.

A new bill placed on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s desk had me looking at the calendar to make sure we’re still living in 2014. On Monday, February 24, 2014 the Arizona State Legislature passed a bill that would allow companies to deny services to gays and others on ‘religious grounds’. Other Arizonians, despite their conservatism, spoke out against the measure, and various groups lobbied the governor to veto the bill. Both of Arizona’s Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, tweeted that they hoped Brewer would veto the measure. Thankfully, the veto came on Wednesday, February 26.

It seems unusual for an executive to veto legislation coming from a legislature dominated by their  own party. Arizona’s government is dominated by the GOP, both in the state legislature as well in the governor’s office. However, this was no ordinary bill: in fact, even some of the original supporters and drafters were having second thoughts about the potential consequences of the radical legislation. They noted that the bill’s final product was not what they originally intended and believed that its passage would cause the state “immeasurable harm.” 

Here are three reasons why it is important that Brewer vetoed the bill: 

1. It’s just bad business.

If the law passed, Arizona could have lost out on bringing new business and capital to the state. Representatives from Apple and American Airlines, two major companies that planned to build new operations in Arizona, wrote to Brewer to express deep concern about the bill’s effects and stated that they would relocate their new facilities elsewhere. And there was potential for many more companies to react the same way. 

Governor Brewer’s state had already experienced economic backlash due to the implementation of another controversial policy. After the state passed its notorious immigration law in 2010, Arizona’s economy lost about $140 million in business and tourism revenue. Moreover, the state is slated to host next year’s Superbowl, but the NFL has already publicly criticized the bill and could potentially threaten relocation of the game. Again, this wouldn’t be the first time — Arizona lost its ability to host the 1993 Superbowl because it failed to recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. day as a national holiday. Both of these experiences showed Brewer the economic danger of passing controversial legislation.

2. The bill misinterpreted religious freedom.

Supporters of the bill, SB-1062, argued that it was intended to better protect religious freedom. Doug Napier, an attorney representing the Alliance Defending Freedom, commented after the veto: “Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona.” However, the grounds on which the legislation’s supporters argued that the bill enhanced personal religious freedom are not supported. If enacted into law, the bill would have changed Arizona’s religious exercise clause to allow citizens and businesses to refuse services to a specific group of people.

The drafters of the bill incorrectly applied the notion of freedom of religion. The First Amendment states that freedom of religion is guaranteed to all Americans to freely practice their beliefs without persecution or discrimination. What freedom of religion was not intended for, however, was the imposition of one’s religious beliefs on another. It is understood that practitioners of some religions may oppose homosexuality due to the teachings of their faith, but that does not mean that services can be denied to gay Americans because of someone’s religious beliefs. The fact that someone identifies as anything other than heterosexual should not impact someone else’s practice of religion, and therefore to say that freedom of religion supports the Arizona bill is simply wrong.

3. And of course, the bill was highly discriminatory toward gay Americans.

If signed into law, SB-1062 would have allowed gay Americans and others to be denied services just because of who they are. These people would have been discriminated against because of their personal identities — something that cannot be changed. It is no different than denying someone services because of his or her race or ethnicity. In fact, the bill would have violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that states cannot limit the rights and privileges of American citizens. The bill would have limited the rights and privileges of gay Americans, and thus would have inflicted discrimination on a group of citizens in Arizona.

Because Brewer vetoed the bill, citizens in Arizona will not be forced to comply with the discriminatory law. However, the fact that the legislature passed it in the first place is deeply troubling. 

[New York Times] [Bloomberg] [NBC] [CNN] [FJC]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mel Green via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Brewer’s Choice: Why the Veto Was the Only Option appeared first on Law Street.

Whether you’re for or against drone strikes, it should at least be accepted that regulations should be followed when using drones. The Obama Administration’s drone strike policies have most recently come into question after a wedding procession turned into a funeral. The December 2013 drone strike in Yemen violated the Administration’s own policies to prevent civilian casualties, according to a recent report by Human Rights Watch. A dozen people were killed and many others injured, including the bride. While the government claimed that the strike targeted and killed only militants, Human Rights Watch reported otherwise. This incident begs two questions:

1. What are the Obama Administration’s drone strike regulations?  

2. Are the regulations effective at targeting terrorists and protecting civilians?

Obama cited his administration’s drone policies in a speech last May, stating that strikes are permitted only when there is ‘near certainty’ that no civilians will be hurt. However, the phrase ‘near certainty’ was never officially defined and remains ambiguous. Additional guidelines included the following: ‘near certainty’ of the presence of the enemy; the enemy still poses a threat to the United States; and no possibility of the enemy’s being arrested or captured by different means. According to Human Rights Watch, the U.S. did not meet any of these guidelines in the December Yemeni attack.

Did the U.S. have ‘near certainty’ that the terrorist was among the group in the wedding procession?

The U.S. claimed they did, and that among the members of the targeted group was Yemen’s most-wanted terrorist, Shawqi Ali Ahmed al-Badani; however, the government has not offered any conclusive evidence or video proof that the target was, in fact, present during the attack. The government is not legally required to report the logistics of drone strikes, but this very fact points to a potential flaw in the policies. Without a record, there is no way to demand accountability. Moreover, the government’s claim contradicts statements that Human Rights Watch gathered from witnesses and members at the wedding party, none of whom affirmed the presence of the terrorist or other members of Al-Qaeda.

Was the main target and others involved in the attack a threat to U.S. security? 

Shawqi Ali Ahmed al-Badani is claimed to be an Al-Qaeda affiliate who was involved in the shutdown of around a dozen U.S. diplomatic centers across the Middle East last year. It seems that the target did, in fact, pose a continuing threat to U.S. security. However, the study suggests it is likely that the terrorist was not among the group attacked. Furthermore, Human Rights Watch acknowledged that there was a possibility that some Al-Qaeda associates were among the dead; however, it is unknown whether these people posed imminent threats to U.S. security.

Did the U.S. have ‘near certainty’ that no civilians would be hurt?

The fact that those targeted were part of a wedding makes it hard to believe that the United States was sure no civilians would be killed or injured. Moreover after the attack, Yemeni officials presented money and assault rifles, a traditional gift of apology, to the families of the dead and wounded. The Yemeni officials’ apologetic actions signify that many of those attacked were civilians and were mistakenly targeted. Finally, Human Rights Watch asserted that targeting the whole group to eliminate the terrorist would still not justify an attack by the United States since the attack would involve a disproportionate amount of civilian casualties.

According to the report, the Obama Administrations’ drone strike guidelines were not properly followed. Furthermore, the guidelines are not stringent enough to protect civilian lives, as there is no clear and established meaning of ‘near certainty.’ The phrase leaves much to the interpretation.

As more civilians are killed in the process of targeting terrorists, the United States risks endangering its relationship with countries that are working with them to stop terrorism. The U.S. risks breaching international laws of war due to the amount of civilian casualties. There have been more than 390 drone strikes during the Obama Presidency, and the consequences of these strikes include the deaths of 273 civilians. Lawyers from a British human rights organization have already filed in the ICC for the killing of civilians in a drone strike in Pakistan, which signifies the threat of a violation of international law is real. Not only do drone strikes pose a potential threat to civilian life, but they could also worsen the United States’ diplomatic relations with other countries and its own international reputation.

[Washington Post] [Human Rights Watch] [Bureau of Investigative Journalism] [Truthout] 

—

Sarah Shelden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [doctress neutopia via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians? appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. military isn’t doing enough to protect the health and safety of the people who make their clothing, according to The International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF). In the ILRF’s recent report, Dangerous Silence, the organization asserts that the U.S. Military has not properly looked into the sources of the clothing sold in their over 1,100 base stores, much of which comes from outsourced factories in Bangladesh.

According to the ILRF, the military doesn’t gather  sufficient information about the safety conditions and treatment of workers in these factories, and in many cases, relies on audits by companies such as Walmart and Sears that have failed to properly protect workers in their own factories. In some cases the military exchanges were aware of safety violations but did not alert Bangladeshi authorities; for instance, the Army and Air Force Exchange failed to act when they learned that Green Fair Textiles workers were being submitted to 80-hour work weeks.

Considering the fact that it is legal for the military to use overseas suppliers, some believe that they do not need to protect the factory workers. Army and Air Force Exchange Service spokesman Judd Anstey stated that the agency abides by guidelines issued by the Department of Defense which necessitates that all local laws are followed and merchandise is not made by forced labor or children. But what about overworking those in factories that is illegal by American standards, if not locally?

The military exchanges’ failure to report and solve the problems with their clothing suppliers is all the more surprising in the wake of last years’ tragedies in Bangladesh. The Tazreen Fashions factory, which manufactured Marine Corps logo clothing, experienced a fire in which 112 workers died. In April 2013 at Rana Plaza an eight-story clothing factory collapsed, killing more than 1,134 people and leaving 200 people missing as of last December.

The U.S. military fights for freedom across the world and defends liberty at home, yet the message strikes some as hypocritical when their uniforms are made in places that condone human rights violations. Although the U.S. has no legal responsibility for the conditions in factories in other countries, government entities should not turn a blind eye to the safety and labor violations in the factories they patronize.

An interesting comparison is the nearly nonexistent criticism directed toward military exchanges with the public’s reaction to the 2012 U.S. Olympic uniform controversy; the difference is striking. Ralph Lauren received a significant amount of negative press during the London Olympics because the U.S. delegation’s uniforms were made in China rather than domestically. Perhaps the backlash to this outsourcing was due to the fact that the Olympics is a spectacle that attracts international attention, while the military exchanges lack public prominence. Nevertheless, the Ralph Lauren controversy shows how public outcry can stimulate change: in reaction to the negative press over their uniforms, Ralph Lauren made a point to use American sources and labor for the 2014 Sochi uniforms. If the military exchanges garnered the same level of attention, perhaps they would be compelled to act, too.

United States officials should take a stance against this abuse of workers and safety in outsourced factories in order to set an example for other retailers to follow when it comes to factory conditions. The ILRF’s report provides several suggestions as to how the United States military can help protect Bangladeshi workers, including requiring suppliers to comply with international labor standards, issuing mandatory repairs and inspections to ensure safety, organizing worker unions and committees, and publicly disclosing audit results. The Marine Corps appears to be taking the lead. The branch’s Trademark and Licensing Office issued a new policy mandating its retail suppliers be signatories to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety.
—

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post The U.S. Military & Bangladeshi Factories: Who’s Responsible for Safety? appeared first on Law Street.

Attorney General Eric Holder shined a spotlight on state voting laws this week when he spoke out against voting bans for felons. The laws vary across states, with the harshest in Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia where felons are banned from voting for life, with the exception of individual permissions granted by the governor. Other states require ex-convicts to abide by a waiting period prior to regaining the vote, and others still have long and complicated re-registration procedures. To prove the severity of these laws, Holder pointed to Florida where anti-felon suffrage regulations ban 10 percent of the citizens from voting.

While a significant portion of the country is barred from voting, even after they finish their time in prison, these laws also disproportionately affect minorities. African-Americans encompass a third of the approximately 5.8 million Americans who are barred from exercising their voting rights. Holder emphasized the large number of minorities affected by these restrictive laws, stating that they are remnants of the discriminatory policies enacted after the Civil War in order to keep minorities from going to the polls. And unfortunately their efforts were successful: 1 in 13 African-Americans are disenfranchised due to anti-felon voting bans.

Due to these, and other, restrictive policies, any attempt to protect minority voting rights is important, especially after key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were declared unconstitutional in a 2013 Supreme Court Ruling. The decision deemed Section 4 unconstitutional, which determined states with histories of voting discrimination would have to submit any changes to their voting laws to be pre-approved by the Attorney General. Without the coverage formula, states are able to pass discriminatory voting laws and the federal government cannot prevent the laws from going into effect.

In this context, the Voting Rights Act’s power is minimized, and any legislation that could help restore some minority voting rights would be welcome. Senator Rand Paul is currently drafting a bill that, if passed by Congress, would give many felons the right to vote in federal elections. However, Paul’s bill still contains restrictions: the proposed legislation restores the vote specifically to non-violent felons, which is a compromise with other legislators who are hesitant to restore these rights in the first place.

Holder also noted that the laws preventing ex-convicts from voting only enhances the stereotype and social stigma surrounding felons. Laws affecting felons, such as these restrictive voting ban, increase the feeling of separation from the rest of the community and increase the likelihood that felons will commit further crimes. Treating ex-convicts as second-class citizens is neither the proper nor the most successful way to reintegrate them into their communities.

These laws teach others that there are no second chances in American justice: once a convict, always a convict. Some may think that this is a good message to send, and that such laws could dissuade citizens from committing crimes in the first place. However, this philosophy mistakenly precludes the possibility that once felons finish their time, they could serve some benefit to the community. If societal attitudes continue to influence felons to go back to jail, states miss out on the potential for these people’s efforts to contribute to the workforce and other communal needs. By getting rid of some of the restrictive laws on felons after they return to normal life, they can better return as contributing citizens.

While Mr. Holder has no authority to enact changes to the laws himself, congressmen and state legislatures should listen up.

[Washington Post] [New York Times] [SCOTUS Blog] [The Hill] [Politico]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Lobo via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Holder Speaks Out Against Felon Voting Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Abortion rates in the US are at the lowest point since the procedure was legalized in 1973. Between 2008 and 2011, the rate of abortions nationwide decreased by 13 percent, and according to a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, there are several explanations contributing to this downward trend. Researchers noted that the decreasing abortion rate coincided with a general decrease in the number of pregnancies and births in the US, an increase in contraception access, and the general effects of the recession. Significantly, the study did not find a correlation between the lower rates and restrictive state policies on abortions. For instance, some of the states included in the remarkably lower rates of abortion were California and New York, states that do not have very restrictive abortion laws. 

These findings are very interesting, but what is really important about the research is how it is handled by the media. The differences between the sources reporting on this study provide an excellent example of the subtle techniques news outlets use to impact the opinion of their audiences.

Here is Fox News‘ rendition of the story.

Although Fox claims to be ‘fair and biased’, it is pretty well known that Fox News is right leaning. The article correctly reports the published data from the Institute, but also includes certain additions to the piece that speak to the ability of news sources to include an ideological slant. First, the outlet incorporates a picture of pro-life activists as if the decreased abortion rate has been attributed to the success of groups lobbying to restrict abortion, which is contradictory to the findings’ inability to correlate the implementation of states’ restrictive policies and the decrease in abortions.

Furthermore, the Fox article includes statements from leaders of pro-life organizations who were confident that the results of the findings meant that their efforts to discourage abortion were succeeding, despite the lack of supporting evidence. The article includes quotes from the presidents of the National Right to Life Committee and Americans United for Life, both of whom remain committed to the belief that the pro-life movement should be credited for the drop in abortions. On the contrary, there are no statements from a pro-choice organization. By only including the opinions of one point of view on the abortion issue, the Fox article fails to objectively report on the story.

Another conservative source, the New American, goes further in its article; it almost chastises the Institute’s study by failing to include data of abortion rates after many states in 2011 enacted new restrictive abortion policies. It also includes statements from pro-life affiliates who discuss the next steps in the fight for limiting abortion, which completely strays from the discussion of the study’s findings.

Compare that to the Daily Beast’s rendition of the study, which was largely in response to conservative positions on the story.

In this article, The Daily Beast clearly showcases its slant by not only featuring a picture of pro-choice activists, but by arguing that progressive efforts such as increased contraceptive access and sex education policies have a greater impact on the decreased abortion rate than policies limiting abortion clinics. While the study did find contraceptives to be a factor in the decreased abortion rate, the article fails to mention anything about the other variables listed by Guttmacher, which are crucial to the overall findings: decreased birthrate and the recession. The article takes only the pieces that fit well into their argument.

The Daily Beast’s liberal take on the story is echoed by Slate, which featured a picture of condoms and stated that the lower rate should be championed by pro-choicers.

Of course, freedom of the press allows the media to say what they want about different stories, and these sources did correctly display the Institute’s data. However, what the contrast of the sources shows is that readers need to be aware of potential bias depending on where they choose to get their information. True, it is pretty well known that Fox News and The Daily Beast have clear political ideologies. However, these blatant examples of the media’s tricks to slant their reporting highlights the importance of smart and careful reading. By providing visual images of a clear ideological stance on an issue as well as selectively including or deleting certain parts of the study, the different articles show the subtleties that they utilize to influence their readers or viewers.

Additionally, this example shows the importance of seeking out sources of one’s opposing viewpoint in order to get a different perspective and learn how the other side can view the same issue. In order to truly grasp the crux of the issue at hand, readers must be prepared to compare different media sources to really get the best information. 

[Guttmacher] [Fox News] [The Daily Beast] [New York Times] [Slate] [The New American]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [lalavnova via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Abortion Rates Are Down, But Why Does Your News Outlet Say That Is? appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday, January 30, 2014 saw a huge victory for the rights of transgender students. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, overturning a decision made by a lower court, held that being transgender does not inhibit the right of equal access to restrooms in public buildings.

Nicole Maines’ rights were violated in the fifth grade, when she was told by school administrators that she must use the staff bathroom instead of the girl’s room at Asa Adams School in Orono, Maine. The case was first brought to Penobscot County Superior Court. Nicole was represented by lawyers of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who argued that the student had been deprived of her rights under the Maine Human Rights Act, which requires equal access of all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation and other identifications, of public accommodations. However, the court held for the school district, claiming that a 1983 law that mandated schools to have separate bathrooms according to sex outweighed the provision in the Human Rights Act.

The state supreme court noted that the old law really was meant to provide access for all people, regardless of gender, to sanitary facilities in public buildings, including schools. With this interpretation, the court found there was a violation of the Human Rights Act: by prohibiting Nicole from using a female restroom though she identified as female, the school district discriminated against Nicole because of her gender identity.

Other cases around the country hint at further progress on the issue of transgender bathroom use. Two individuals in Iowa, both of whom were born as males and identify as females, won the right to use women’s public restrooms. In June, in Colorado, six year old Coy Mathis’ family won their case against the Fountain-Fort Carson School District that had barred Coy’s use of a female restroom. Now, the Maines case can be added to the list of successes in furthering the rights and acceptance of transgender individuals.

This court decision, the first to invoke an amendment to Maine’s Human Rights Act that protected transgender persons in schools, will have great importance for transgender students across the country. Nicole Maines is certainly not the only individual that has faced hardship in schools due to being transgender. Adolescence can be a difficult time for any pupil, and the problem of bullying has grown in visibility throughout the country. Students like Nicole need the support of their teachers and school officials in the face of adversity, and singling Nicole out as different by requiring her to use a unisex bathroom hardly helps. Children don’t just learn from their teachers in the classroom; they set an example for certain behavior. If school officials, through their actions, show students of transgender identity to be different than others, what’s to stop other students of thinking the same?

The seemingly minor issue of which bathroom to use can mean a lot to a transgender individual. The majority opinion of the court addressed this when it stated, “it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity.” The choice of what bathroom to use reaffirms a person’s notion of their sex. Denying someone the ability to use a bathroom associated with the gender they identify with in effect denies acceptance of their chosen gender.

Moreover, requiring a transgender person to use a separate unisex bathroom not only denies him or her the recognition of their sex identity but makes their private issue into a public one. For instance, Nicole Maines was given access to the staff bathroom but was escorted by a teacher whenever she had to use the facility.  This policy was extremely unfair to Nicole as it clearly made visible the fact that she was transgender, something that, like the choices and beliefs of other individuals, is a personal matter. The school district directly interfered with Nicole’s freedom of expression in disallowing her use of a female restroom, though despite the genes she was given, Nicole is a female. The treatment that Nicole Maines was given in her public school should not have to be experienced by any other transgender individual in the future, and her case’s outcome displays progress in how schools can accommodate the needs of all of their students.

It is hopeful to know that, in fighting the school’s policy, Nicole did not only have the support of her family and lawyers, but many of her fellow classmates. Students reportedly cheered in Nicole’s high school when the verdict was declared. Teenagers evidently understood that a policy was discriminatory when adult school officials did not. Activists like Nicole and her like-minded family and peers give hope that similar discriminatory policies across the country may be reversed in the coming years.

[NPR] [Press Herald] [Maine Legislature] [Daily Mail] [USA Today] [CNN]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Susan Sermoneta via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post The Significance of Restrooms: Transgender Rights Upheld in Maine appeared first on Law Street.

A new idea is being proposed that could dramatically change education requirements in United States public schools. In New Mexico, State Senator Jacob Canderlaria, a democrat, has proposed a bill that would allow computer programming to count towards student’s foreign language requirements. Candelaria claims this measure would help promote the teaching of computer coding since its inclusion in a school’s curriculum would be funded by the state. Schools would still be able to choose which languages they offer to their students, as they currently do, but also would provide any computer programming language to students as an alternative to a traditional foreign language. New Mexico is not alone in offering this intriguing suggestion; Kentucky has had a similar bill mentioned in its own state legislature. State Senator David Givens, a republican, sponsored the Kentucky bill, and stated that the measure would make it easier for students to begin studying computer science.

It is true that state sponsorship of computer programming classes could have many benefits. The salaries for computer programming jobs are much higher than the national average, and students pursuing computer science could expect to receive a good income. In addition, there is evidently a greater need for understanding computer code in this digital age, and incentivizing early learning of computer programming could boost the number of college students who choose to major in the field. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that in 2010, only 2.4 percent of graduates received degrees related to computer science. With a low number of college graduates receiving education in this lucrative field of study, it is evident that the nation could benefit from some kind of incentive for schools to teach computer programming.

But is the answer to increasing the computer programming skills of students to count them as foreign language classes? Deeming computer programming as a foreign language would have negative implications: the measure would hurt the already struggling foreign language program in the United States when the need for fluency in languages other than English has only increased.

There are a multitude of reasons why learning foreign languages is extremely important.  As globalization increasingly links countries together in business, foreign relations, trade and other areas, knowledge of other languages can be the deciding factor when choosing candidates for higher level jobs. In addition, the United States is already way behind other countries in terms of the percentage of their population who understand multiple languages. According to data from 2010, while 53 percent of Europeans know at least one other language besides their native tongue, just 18 percent of Americans speak an additional language. Most European schools begin instructing their pupils in different languages in elementary school, while only a third of US elementary schools include this vital component of education. This is especially troubling as studies have shown that people are better able to master languages when they start at young ages.

And yet, foreign language education was among the budget cuts made in 2012. The Department of Education had bequeathed 27 million dollars in foreign language education funding before the program was cut in the budget deal. Adding computer programming to the list of ‘languages’ a school offers would only further detract from the weakened language programs. If the United States is so worried about global competitiveness, why are foreign language programs not given their needed attention and funding?

The United States is still very much in the mindset of an English centered world in which English is the lingua franca. Many Americans know that English, for the time being, remains an extremely important language that citizens of many other countries are learning. However, the comfort of only needing to speak English could be challenged as the years go by. As China continues to increase its economic power, many other countries are starting to focus on Mandarin as well as English. Additionally, other areas of the world that speak languages like Arabic, Russian, Hindi and others are becoming increasing important for business and diplomacy. And even closer to home, the English dominance of America will soon be challenged: it is projected that by 2050, Spanish will replace English as the most widely spoken language in the country. It is crucial that Americans begin to learn other languages to prepare for the future, and the first step should be to focus on strengthening foreign language programs in schools.

This is not to say that schools should not offer computer programming at all. There are obviously many benefits to having tech savvy students, and computer programming should be included in the push to promote STEM education. But foreign languages should not be deemphasized to promote computer coding. It is true that not all students would take the option of switch to a computer programming language, but offering a choice between the two only weakens foreign language education and would deplete the attention and resources devoted to traditional languages learning. The US is already very behind in the amount of students who learn multiple languages, and computer programming as an alternative could decrease the percentages of students enrolled in languages even further.

Schools should not be opposed to finding more ways for computer programming to enter their curriculums but not at the expense of foreign language.

[Washington Post] [ABQ Journal] [NCES] [Forbes] [Language Magazine] [Huffington Post] [US News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Erre via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Computer Programming as a Foreign Language? appeared first on Law Street.

Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is facing criticism for comments he made during a speech on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at the Republican National Committee’s Winter Meeting. Ironically, the former Arkansas Governor was discussing how Republicans need to increase their efforts to attract women voters when he stated, “If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it.”

There was instant outrage as soon as Huckabee finished delivering his speech. The Democratic National Committee was quick to jump at the chance to attack the Republican Party for Huckabee’s words. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated that Huckabee’s comment “sounds offensive.” And a storm of tweets related to the subject were issued after the speech, including this one from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

Even 100 years ago, it would have been hard to imagine a man making a statement as ridiculous as what Mr. Huckabee said today.

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) January 23, 2014

What is not important about his statement is the fact that his comments have been easily misconstrued to mean that women can’t control their sexual urges. Though it may have seemed that Huckabee said women have uncontrollable libidos, the former Governor actually meant something else entirely. Reading into the context of the quotation, Huckabee was really discussing that, in his view, Democrats are using the ‘war on women’ to portray women as needing the government’s help to manage their reproductive systems.

However, the actual meaning of Huckabee’s comment is what is truly disconcerting for the three reasons:

1. Huckabee believes that women don’t need the government’s aid with respect to their reproductive health.

Due to a key provision in the Affordable Care Act, women are now able to get their prescribed FDA-approved contraceptives without co-payment. This measure is huge for lower income women who, prior to the passage of the legislation, couldn’t fit the payment for contraceptives into their already tight budgets. If the federal government did not mandate that contraceptives be free to women through their insurance,  many women would not be able to gain access to birth control.  Thus, it is very concerning that Huckabee’s statement suggests woman do not need the government to step in to protect their reproductive rights.

2. The comment echos the common misconception that birth control is only for preventing pregnancy.

Huckabee’s statement draws further evidence to the fact that many have the wrong idea about birth control. Contraceptives are not solely used to prevent unplanned pregnancies while engaging in sexual activity (though it is extremely important that woman have access to birth control to control what happens in their own bodies).  Birth control is prescribed to many women for a variety of reasons. In response to Huckabee’s speech, Planned Parenthood released a statement noting that birth control “helps women plan their pregnancies and manage their lives, and many women use it for a variety of other medical reasons, including treatment of endometriosis that can lead to infertility.”  In addition to treating endometriosis, there are many other uses for birth control, including regulating a woman’s menstrual cycle, relieving menstrual pain, and clearing acne. In addition, according to a study done by the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of women surveyed who use a contraceptive use birth control for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Thus contraceptives are not merely used for preventing pregnancy but for a multitude of other important issues related to women’s health.

3. Huckabee’s statement exposes his own hypocrisy with regard to government law on contraceptive coverage.

By claiming that the government should stay out of contraceptive coverage for women, Mike Huckabee ignores his own past as Governor of Arkansas. Bill Scher of Campaign for America’s Future noted that in 2005, Huckabee signed into law a measure that required Arkansas insurance plans to include coverage of birth control and other kinds of contraception. And Huckabee was not the only Republican supporting mandated contraceptive coverage for insurance. Five other GOP governors were responsible for signing similar bills into law, and George W. Bush never challenged federal mandates on contraception during his presidency. However, as soon as birth control became a partisan issue, Republicans were quick to move away from supporting state-mandated contraceptive coverage. If Huckabee believes that government should not sponsor birth control coverage, he should not stop at blaming only Democrats, but should also include his own past actions and those of other Republicans.

What is certain about Huckabee’s statement is that it won’t help the Republican party gain an influx of female voters. From this comment to Todd Akin’s infamous ‘legitimate rape’ gaffe, there are so many instances that prove Republicans are failing to properly address and understand women’s issues.  And while Huckabee’s comment has been misinterpreted as being more offensive than what he actual meant, perhaps the former Governor should have taken time to ensure his words would be clear before making a public speech that would be covered extensively by the media. Moreover, in bringing up the issue of women’s reproductive rights in an attempt to gain political clout for his party, Huckabee demonstrates that politicians are still politicizing an issue that needn’t be controversial at all: the right for women to control their own choices.

[Washington Post] [Twitter] [CBS News] [Guttmacher] [Campaign for America’s Future] [LA Times]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Nozell via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post What Is and Isn’t Important About Huckabee’s ‘Libido’ Comment appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014 saw yet another shooting unfold on a college campus. Andrew Boldt, a senior at Purdue University, was shot and killed inside the university’s electrical engineering building. The police responded quickly to the scene and arrested the suspect, Cody Collins, shortly after the shots were fired.  Purdue University responded to the incident by sending text message alerts to students telling them to take shelter in their present locations.  Later, the university cancelled classes for the rest of Tuesday as well as Wednesday and held a candlelight vigil to pay respects to Boldt.

Unfortunately, Tuesday’s shooting is only one of a number of recent events involving gun violence on college campuses and schools.  On the evening of Monday January 20th, a student was shot and injured near the athletic center of Widener University in Eastern Pennsylvania.  On Janurary 9th, a seventeen year old student was shot outside the main office of Liberty Tech High School in Jackson, Tennessee.  On January 14th, a twelve year old boy brought a loaded gun into the gym of Berrendo Middle School in New Mexico, shooting and wounding two students. On January 19th, another shooting occurred inside Delaware Valley Charter High School, where two students were shot and wounded.  And the list continues.

With so many shootings at schools and universities in January alone, the issue of gun control in school again resurfaces.  These recent events and past tragedies such as Sandy Hook Elementary and Virginia Tech begs the question: has there been any progress in preventing gun violence in schools?

The Youth Risk Behavior Survey‘s most recent findings in fact show that only 5.4 percent of high school students brought guns onto school property.  This percentage is half of that in 1993.  However, the recent violence in the news has not gone unnoticed: around 540 bills on school security were introduced in state legislatures in 2013, and 106 were passed into law.  The measures include gun-safety education, emergency drills, and security officers on school grounds.

Some local school boards have also gone as far as providing guns to teachers and other staff in the school to try to provide safety for students. Bills that allow school officials to possess guns passed into law in eight states. This policy corresponds with the National Rifle Association’s claim after Newtown that the way to prevent gun violence is with the use of guns, not without them.  Perhaps, as the NRA argues, armed officers or teachers in schools can deter shooters from committing further violence. After Sandy Hook, Wayne LaPierre, President of the NRA, stated, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Proponents of this view point to the case of the shooting in Prince Middle School in Georgia: after a student shot another student, an armed officer was able to disarm him and end his streak of violence.

However, there are several problems with this solution. First, even if arming teachers and officers in schools can potentially limit violence, how can it prevent the initial action before it occurs?  Second, who is to say the “good guy with a gun” won’t make a mistake and target an innocent person?  And additionally, seeing teachers and officers respond to emergencies with guns can encourage children to desire to emulate their superiors by acquiring a weapon of their own. Responding to violence with violence is not the answer.  Instead, the focus must be on preventative measures such as education on weapons and counseling.  Schools need to get to the root of the problem and determine why children and young adults resort to using weapons to solve their issues.  The focus of schools must turn to learning about behavioral issues in adolescents and how schools can implement strategies to teach children to turn away from violence.

In the mean time, efforts are still needed to ensure the wrong people can’t acquire a gun.  The issue of gun control is still very much on the President‘s mind.  Earlier in January, President Obama announced two executive actions that will increase the ease for states to provide records of citizens with mental illness to the background check system of the federal government.  After failing to get enough votes in Congress for legislation to make it harder to purchase guns last year, the President announced he would use the power of executive orders to do what he could on his own to create progress on gun control.  While these actions are encouraging, this month shows that children and young adults are still able to get their hands on guns and endanger the lives of their classmates.  Therefore, much that can be done to prevent gun violence in schools and universities depends upon the institutions themselves.

[CNN] [NY Daily News] [NBC] [WBBJTV] [Philly.com] [NY Times] [The Daily Beast] [NPR]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [CT Senate Democrats via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Gun Violence in Schools and Universities Continues appeared first on Law Street.

It should first be stated that I personally don’t condone the practice of the death penalty at all; to me, the idea begs the notion of “an eye for an eye,” a facet of the ancient Hammurabi’s code. Nevertheless, regardless of one’s position on the issue, the fact remains that when the death penalty is used, efforts must be made to ensure that the method of capital punishment limits unreasonable pain and suffering.

The Constitution protects against unnecessarily harsh treatment in the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. In United States history, many methods of capital punishment have been swept out of use for being considered inhumane methods of execution. Practices used in the American colonies such as burning at the stake, crushing, and beheading are now determined cruel and unusual. In most states, methods such as hanging, electrocution, death by firing squad and gassing are also considered cruel and unusual, and the most accepted form of execution in recent years has been lethal injection.

However, in the case of Dennis McGuire, the lethal injection that caused his death should also be considered cruel and unusual. McGuire was given a combination of two drugs: midazolam, a sedative, and hydromorphone, a painkiller. McGuire’s lawyer argued that the combination of the drugs could produce the effect of air hunger, an uncomfortable experience that causes a sufferer to gasp for air. Additionally, since McGuire has shown several symptoms of the condition, sleep apnea, the drugs were even more likely to lead to suffocation. David Wasiel, a Harvard Medical School professor, testified to the apparent terror McGuire would be subjected to under the effects of the two drugs. Nevertheless, District Judge Gregory Frost claimed that there was not enough compelling evidence to prove there would be a risk of extreme discomfort and pain.

What is further striking about the decision to allow the injection is the fact that the specific combination of drugs had never been used. Even if the amount of evidence pointing to the likelihood of air hunger was lacking, surely it would seem reasonable to allow for a period of experimenting and testing, since the injection’s exact effects remained unknown.

Despite all warnings and uncertainty about the drugs’ effects, on Thursday, January 16th, Dennis McGuire was administered injections of both midazolam and hydromorphone. After the first five minutes following the injections’ entrance into the blood stream, McGuire’s breath grew irregular and he began to gasp and utter strange noises for about ten minutes. His family members, who were permitted to witness the guilty man’s final moments, grew shocked and horrified as they watched McGuire’s clear discomfort and agony prior to his death. In total, the execution took over twenty minutes, one of the longest in Ohio’s history since it reinstated the death penalty.

Of course, McGuire’s actions that led to his execution certainly offer little cause for sympathy. In 1989, he raped and subsequently killed twenty-two year old Joy Stewart, a pregnant woman, by stabbing her to death. McGuire deserved to be brought to justice for his heinous crime. However, when a state pursues a method of capital punishment that also causes unnecessary suffering, how then is a state’s law above the actions of the perpetrator?

The use of an untested injection to put Dennis McGuire to death is despicable. Why, it must be asked, was the injection involving the combination of drugs allowed to be administered? Other than the judge’s poorly made decision that the lack of evidence to prove there was a great risk of pain and discomfort involved in the use of the injection. Another reason may exist; Ohio was all out of its usual lethal injection cocktail and simply, needed something to fill the void.

Previously, Ohio had been using a sedative called pentobarbital for capital punishment, which typically had caused a shorter and less painful death. However, pentobarbital’s manufacturer recently cut off Ohio’s  access to the drug, barring its use for the death penalty. Without supplies of its usual drug of choice, the state turned to its untried back up method, the combination of midazolam and hydromorphone.

Desiring to carry out the execution of McGuire on schedule, Ohio would not wait for possible testing of the drugs’ effects or research into potential alternatives. Lacking regard for the human dignity of prisoners, Ohio decided to administer the injection despite its uncertain consequences, giving the execution an air of experimentation. The state must now answer to the McGuire family’s cries for legal action and has earned a place in the nation’s spotlight for its blunder. In the situation’s aftermath, other states should learn from Ohio’s misjudgment to prevent similar occurrences from taking place in the future.

 [Cornell Law] [The Guardian] [DailyMail] [National Journal]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Ken Piorskowski via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Cruel and Unusual: Never Before Used Injection Prolongs Dennis McGuire’s Execution appeared first on Law Street.