For months, journalists and law school professors speculated about where Tiffany Trump, President Donald Trump’s daughter from his second marriage, would end up for law school. Though she toured Harvard, Columbia, and New York University, no one was certain where she had applied or been accepted.

But on Monday, officials at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. confirmed that Trump had “taken all the steps to enroll” in their law school.

Trump is somewhat following in the footsteps of her older half siblings. Eric Trump, Donald Trump’s second son from his first marriage, graduated from Georgetown with a finance and management degree. The president’s oldest daughter Ivanka, also from his first marriage, attended Georgetown for two years before transferring to the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School. Like her half sister, father, and half brother, Donald Trump Jr., Tiffany Trump attended the University of Pennsylvania as an undergraduate.

In a Washington Post article published this March, writer Roxanne Roberts questioned whether or not Trump’s family name would boost her chances of getting into an elite school. U.S. News and World Report ranked Georgetown Law as one of the country’s top 20 law schools–it is tied for 15th place with the University of California-Los Angeles. With an acceptance rate of 26.4 percent, it is also highly competitive.

But Trump is forging her own path in a few ways. While her siblings and father all studied business, she opted to major in sociology. She is also the first of the president’s children to pursue law school.

The choice in law school also means that Trump, who had mostly kept a low profile throughout her father’s campaign, will now be in close proximity to the White House.

How will Trump’s classmates and professors treat her when she gets there? Her father’s policies have made him unpopular with a number of Georgetown students. In March, the university joined more than 30 other schools opposing the president’s immigration ban in a Virginia circuit court. Last month, Georgetown hosted a panel featuring presidential adviser Sebastian Gorka, who left early when student protesters in attendance started asking questions about Donald Trump’s spread of fake news and attitude toward the Muslim community.

Not to mention the fact that officials at a handful of law schools around the country, including Georgetown, are seeing increased interest in the profession from students in response to Donald Trump and the numerous lawsuits that have been filed against his administration. When it comes to Trump’s immigration ban or his overseas business ties, lawyers have been a key part of resisting his policies and trying to hold him accountable.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tiffany Trump Chooses Georgetown Law appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, Emmanuel Macron won the French presidential election, defeating far-right populist and nationalist candidate Marine LePen. Once he is inaugurated on May 14, the centrist politician will have to address his constituents’ worries about unemployment and terrorism in a divided country.

But across the Atlantic Ocean, the most pressing concern for many Twitter users was whether or not Macron (who will become France’s youngest president at age 39) is more attractive than Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Congratulations @EmmanuelMacron! Let’s meet soon, and keep working to grow & strengthen the deep ties between Canada and France.

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) May 7, 2017

There are few things the Internet loves more than two good-looking, young-ish, and charismatic world leaders befriending each other–just look at the infatuation with Trudeau and former President Barack Obama. So when Trudeau congratulated Macron on his victory, the idea of two good-looking, young-ish, and charismatic world leaders, who also speak French befriending each other sent some people over the edge.

How is the internet going to cope when Macron & Trudeau eventually meet and discuss politics in French?

— cordney (@courtwhip) May 7, 2017

me when justin trudeau and emmanuel macron meet & speak french together pic.twitter.com/rM5WgPtNIh

— Dr. Mantis Toboggan (@beaarthur85) May 8, 2017

Let the Macron-Trudeau fan fiction begin! pic.twitter.com/NDvXsClpgb

— Jaime Woo (@jaimewoo) May 7, 2017

However, not everyone was enamored.

Trudeau has a 48% approval rating, and Macron’s agenda is unpopular and opposed by most French. But they’re good looking!

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) May 9, 2017

Some are hoping the two leaders can get together to accomplish more than just a photo op or bromance.

Emmanuel Macron x Justin Trudeau goodness (credit to my former schoolmate Sulaiman Daud) pic.twitter.com/WAnICRz2ZU

— Adibah (@mmonchatsplash) May 8, 2017

BEST TRUDEAU-MACRON FANFIC:

Trudeau: Hey, man lets do some policy and not blow the world up or be insane

Macron: Oui oui

— St. Lucia (@luciaannv) May 9, 2017

Though President Donald Trump also took to Twitter to congratulate Macron, chances of a friendship between U.S. and France may not be as high. Trump had previously called Le Pen the “strongest” candidate in the election, praising her positions on terrorism and borders.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Fantasizes About Eventual Meetup Between Macron and Trudeau appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since his campaign days, President Donald Trump has pledged to build a wall that will cover the border between the United States and Mexico, as a means of cracking down on illegal immigration. But those promises seem less certain each day, with Congressional Republicans hesitant to allocate billions of dollars to fund the wall and Mexico’s president denying Trump’s claims that his country would fund the project.

Now, the state of California is also pushing back against the wall by weighing the possibility of a blacklist against any contractors that Trump would hire to work on the structure.

California state Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat who represents Los Angeles County, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would block companies that participate in construction of the wall from being hired by the state of California in the future. The state currently shares a substantial border with Mexico. Lara compared businesses that would potentially assemble the wall to those that would help build internment camps or segregated schools.

However, construction businesses don’t want to politicize the issue. Felipe Fuentes, a lobbyist for the state’s contractors, warned that the measure could set a precedent of “hand-picking projects that are not politically favorable to the California Legislature”–and could affect construction of everything from Planned Parenthood facilities to prisons.

Financial resistance to the wall could be the latest growing trend among mainly-Democratic states and cities looking to hit back at Trump on the local level. Soon after he resumed office, a number of mayors and governors across the country vowed that their cities would be “sanctuary cities,” in which undocumented immigrants would be protected from deportation.

Now, in addition to California, legislators in at least four other states have proposed indirect ways of opposing the wall. A public advocate in New York City introduced a bill that would blacklist contractors hired by Trump, and would require the city’s largest public pension fund to divest from participating companies. A Rhode Island representative has called for his state to withdraw its investments in businesses working with Trump. A proposed bill in New Mexico would prevent the state from selling 22 miles of land that it owns to the federal government for the purposes of building the wall. Meanwhile, legislatures in Arizona and Illinois are considering similar blacklist and divestment measures.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will California Say “You’re Fired” to Companies That Build Trump’s Wall? appeared first on Law Street.

When the city of New Orleans finally began the process of taking down its pro-Confederate monuments this week, it faced some opposition. One of the more high-profile critics of the decision was Virginia’s Republican gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart.

Stewart attracted attention on the internet a few days ago for his tweet-storm defending preservation of the monuments. But there was one controversial tweet in particular that stood out.

Nothing is worse than a Yankee telling a Southerner that his monuments don't matter.

— Corey Stewart (@CoreyStewartVA) April 25, 2017

Twitter users quickly reminded Stewart that he is not from the South (he is a Minnesota native), and that a lot of things are actually worse than “a Yankee telling a Southerner that his monuments don’t matter.”

You are from Minnesota. https://t.co/45pEgVGmC2

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) April 25, 2017

@CoreyStewartVA Like, literally, nothing? Nothing is worse?

— John Legend (@johnlegend) April 25, 2017

you know what was worse? Slavery https://t.co/1ACEuYjUh9

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) April 25, 2017

1. Slavery
2. Lynchings
3. Black women raped + their rapists set free
4. Jim Crow
5. Workplace discrimination
6. Housing discrimination https://t.co/aTgOxwXEqd

— Yashar (@yashar) April 25, 2017

Stewart, who is currently a chairman for the Board of Supervisors in Prince Williams County, Virginia, announced his bid for governor of the state in April 2016 (the primary elections will take place this June). Since then, he has become a vocal advocate for honoring Confederate landmarks, and has integrated the issue heavily into his campaign. In February, he organized protests in Charlottesville, Virginia against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. Earlier this month, he attended a Civil War-themed “Old South Ball.”

For many, Confederate symbols (like the flag) will always represent white supremacy because of their ties to the southern states that seceded from the U.S. and defended slavery during the Civil War. Stewart, on the other hand, has said that his position on the issue is not about the Confederate flag, but about “rampant, uncontrolled political correctness that is shaming Virginians who are simply trying to honor their ancestors, their ancestry, their heritage.”

If that anti-political correctness sentiment sounds familiar to you, it’s probably because you’ve heard similar things from President Donald Trump while he was on the campaign trail. Stewart supported Trump during the presidential election and served as the chair of Trump’s campaign in Virginia, until he was fired for orchestrating an unauthorized protest against anti-Trump Republicans outside the Republican National Convention headquarters.

Now, his commitment to protecting Confederate heritage, and combating what he calls “historical vandalism,” could hurt him in his run. Stewart recently lost the support of Prince William County’s sheriff, who switched his endorsement to back Stewart’s Republican opponent Ed Gillespie. Sheriff Glendell Hill told the Washington Post that Stewart’s views on “all that Confederate stuff” were too divisive. Four GOP supervisors who serve on the county board with Stewart also chose to endorse Gillespie.

Like Trump, Stewart is known for being outspoken on the internet. In March, he answered questions on a Reddit thread known as an “Ask Me Anything,” or AMA. At one point in the AMA, Stewart referred to Gillespie as a “cuckservative,” a term coined by the alt-right movement to disparage Republicans who are too moderate. In the same question-and-answer session on the site, he called for deportation of “criminal illegal aliens,” called globalists “BAD people” (even though he has worked as an international trade attorney).

Stewart has also tried to cover up negative information about himself–like low ratings about his claims on the fact-checker Politifact, and his loss in the 2016 race for lieutenant governor–by editing his own Wikipedia page.

From the establishment of sanctuary cities to the legalization of marijuana, a lot of resistance to the Trump Administration and its policies happens on local and state levels. Virginia’s current governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, has opposed the president’s immigration order while Democratic candidates for governor like Tom Perriello and Ralph Northam have both criticized and vowed to push back against the federal government. But a win for Stewart could change that.

However, a recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Gillespie–who voted for Trump, but whose support of the president has been lukewarm in comparison to Stewart’s–leading with 28 percent, while Stewart is currently falling behind at 12 percent. According to the same poll, in the general election both Perriello and Northham would hold double-digit leads over Gillespie.

Not to mention, Trump’s politics haven’t been very popular in Virginia–he pulled his campaign out of the state weeks before the election, a move that was criticized by Stewart.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Corey Stewart, the Pro-Confederate Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate? appeared first on Law Street.

Charlotte School of Law has had a rough couple of months. Last November, the school was placed on probation by the American Bar Association for low test scores and lax admissions policies. A few months later, the federal government withdrew its financial aid to the school’s students, as part of an Obama Administration crackdown on for-profit schools.

Now, the state of North Carolina is opening an investigation into the school, POLITICO has reported. According to a spokeswoman for Attorney General Josh Stein, state officials are “investigating the school under the state’s civil consumer protection laws.”

Whether or not the school will remain open is still uncertain. During the fall semester, there were 716 students enrolled at the school, a number that has dropped to about 220 since the government announce it would stop granting loans to students.

President Barack Obama’s administration began targeting for-profit higher education in 2015, in an effort to make sure colleges and universities don’t attract students by misleading them about how much money they will earn after graduation, only to leave them in debt from steep tuition prices. In one of its earlier measures, the Department of Education required colleges to start monitoring their graduates’ debt, earnings, and jobs.

Charlotte is now looking to President Donald Trump’s administration in hopes that it will be able to reclaim the money it lost. The Department of Education recently urged the school to re-apply for funding, in spite of criticism from Stein. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has a reputation for supporting for-profit educational organizations.

The school landed on the ABA’s probation list in the fall after receiving criticism for low bar exam passage rates and a pattern of admitting students that were unqualified or unlikely to succeed. In January, the DOE announced that current and future students at the school would no longer be eligible for federal aid, after the school’s leaders and education department officials failed to agree on a plan to address its issues. Charlotte refused to implement a “teach out” plan that would allow students to continue their studies at a different accredited institution. Such a system would have required the school to close permanently.

In late January, more than 150 students filed lawsuits against Charlotte in an effort to win back the money they had spent on tuition and recover damages for the shortage of job prospects they faced.

Charlotte is the first accredited school to lose its access to federal aid. InfiLaw, the corporation that owns the school, also owns Arizona Summit Law School, which was placed on ABA probation for similar reasons in March.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Charlotte School of Law Saga Continues: North Carolina AG Investigates the School appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Trade Commission means business when it comes to regulating Instagram advertisements.

The consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen recently complained celebrities weren’t being upfront about which of their posts were sponsored. So, the FTC responded by reviewing the photos and sending warning letters to more than 90 Instagram users. The commission has discussed its standards for advertising on social media before, but has not directly confronted the celebrities named in complaints until now.

Public Citizen wasn’t alone in its push to make sponsored content more transparent—this past summer, the nonprofit Truth in Advertising filed a complaint against the Kardashian family for “deceptive marketing.” Though the FTC won’t name which celebrities received the letters, Public Citizen also included the Kardashians in its petition, in addition to well-known Instagrammers like Rihanna, Michael Phelps, Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lopez, Lindsay Lohan, Lebron James, Drake, Mark Wahlberg, and Blake Lively.

The 113 photos Public Citizen referenced in its complaint usually show the celebrities using a product from the brand that has paid them, with an accompanying caption endorsing it. Products range from makeup and hair care from companies like L’Oreal to athletic gear from Nike and Adidas to snacks from Lay’s and Dunkin’ Donuts.

According to a release on the FTC’s website:

The FTC’s Endorsement Guides provide that if there is a ‘material connection’ between an endorser and an advertiser – in other words, a connection that might affect the weight or credibility that consumers give the endorsement – that connection should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, unless it is already clear from the context of the communication. A material connection could be a business or family relationship, monetary payment, or the gift of a free product. Importantly, the Endorsement Guides apply to both marketers and endorsers.

The release adds that Instagrammers should be clear that their post is an ad within the first three lines of the photo caption, and should avoid writing too many hashtags that could bury disclaimers. The use of hashtags and captions like “#sp” (short for “sponsored”), “Thanks [Brand],” or “partner” do not directly communicate that the post is sponsored and can confuse followers, the FTC says.

In its Endorsement Guides, the FTC writes that ads should be “honest and not misleading”—and consumers should know when they’re reading an endorsement that has been paid-for, because it can affect the way they “[evaluate] the endorser’s glowing recommendation.”

This doesn’t mean your favorite actors, athletes and reality stars are headed to court or getting banned from Instagram anytime soon. Often, it’s the sponsor behind the post that ends up taking the heat for its sneaky ad campaigns. In July, Warner Bros. settled charges that it failed to disclose information about paying “influencers,” like Youtube star PewDiePie, to recommend one of its video games. In March, the department store Lord & Taylor settled charges over its failure to inform consumers that it had sent popular Instagram users free clothing in exchange for promotion of one of its clothing lines.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The FTC Isn’t Kidding About Instagram Ads appeared first on Law Street.

The battle between church and state is moving from the playground to the Supreme Court. Five years ago, Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri applied for money from the state so that it could repair a playground used by students in the church’s learning center. Because children had been scraping their knees and elbows on the gravel, Trinity wanted to cover the area with a rubber surface.

Because Missouri’s constitution does not allow public funds to support religious organizations, it rejected the church’s application for a grant. The church sued in response, insisting that it should have been eligible to receive the grant because the playground upgrade did not serve any religious purposes. After losing in federal district court and appellate court, Trinity’s case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which plans to hear arguments starting on Wednesday, April 19.

What the case boils down to is whether or not the provision in Missouri’s constitution violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which prohibits the government from encroaching on the free exercise of religion.

Now, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens has announced his plans to undo the state’s policy that prohibits tax dollars from going toward religious groups. Jeffrey Mittman, the director of Missouri’s branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, is among Greitens’ critics who said that his move violates the state’s constitution.

Greitens’ new policy will not reverse the state’s refusal to give Trinity the grant. However, because it settles future issues involving religious institutions applying for grants, it could mean that the Supreme Court will no longer see the need to hear the Trinity case.

But one of the church’s attorneys, David Cortman, insisted that the case is still relevant because Greitens’ move does not “resolve the discriminatory actions that were taken” by the state.

Having the recently confirmed Supreme Court appointee Neil Gorsuch weigh in on the matter could benefit the church. While a judge for a U.S. appeals court in Colorado, Gorsuch argued that religious freedom protected the store chain Hobby Lobby from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that it would have to offer its employees free birth control coverage.

And, depending on how narrowly the Supreme Court rules, the outcome of the case could have implications in other parts of the country as well–particularly in the 38 states that currently uphold Blaine Amendments, laws that prevent their governments from giving any financial aid to religiously-affiliated institutions.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How a Church Playground Caused a Dispute Over Religious Freedom appeared first on Law Street.

Self-driving cars might soon become a common part of our lives–TechCrunch recently reported a study predicting that 25 percent of driving could be done by autonomous vehicles by the year 2030.

But the new technology is far from perfect, and has recently caused a number of incidents. In late March, a Tesla in autopilot mode hit a police motorcycle in Arizona, although the officer was able to jump off of the motorcycle before he was injured. And a self-driving Volvo being used by Uber ended up in another crash in Arizona around the same time. Over the summer, a Tesla driver died in a crash while the car was on autopilot (the driver was watching a Harry Potter movie at the time).  In September, one of Google’s self-driving vehicles ran a red light and collided with the passenger’s side of another vehicle.

So, when there isn’t a human steering the wheel, who takes the fall in court for accidents like these? Many lawyers and legal experts who have weighed in on the issue believe that the automobile manufacturers should be held liable.

However, not every case involving self-driving car crashes is the same. Recently, Michael I. Krauss, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, explored how different types of accidents and malfunctions for different types of vehicles should be handled under tort law in a piece for Forbes Magazine. Tort law involves civil cases in which one party has faced injury or damages and another party has been accused of being responsible for them.

According to Krauss, if an accident occurs because of a “manufacturing defect”–meaning the car does not operate as it was designed to operate–then the company that built it should be at fault. If there was an “informational defect”–meaning the car’s owner was not properly educated about how to operate it, and used it incorrectly as a result–then, Krauss writes, the car company should be liable only if it was negligent and failed to give sufficient instructions or warnings.

However, Krauss notes that “design defects” create a legal gray area. A design defect would occur if the choices the car has been programmed to lead the driver into an accident in response to an unforeseen issue. For example, Krauss says that if a moose jumps in front of the car, it could choose to hit the moose and potentially kill the driver or swerve onto the sidewalk and endanger pedestrians. He argues that decisions about liability in these scenarios should once again be based on whether or not the manufacturers were negligent or whether they made the best possible design choice. Such decisions could be left up to juries or decided beforehand by regulators, based on what a reasonable person might conclude, Krauss writes.

The Society of Auto Engineers has established six levels of driving automation, with level zero indicating that the driver has full control and level five indicating that the car is completely autonomous. Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, told USA Today that a human driver is responsible for any crashes involving a vehicle ranked lower than level three. Smith added that because most accidents are caused by human error, which automatic vehicles aim to eliminate, a growing reliance on self-driving cars could mean fewer accidents and thus fewer legal disputes.

But the technology isn’t perfect, and can still make the same mistakes as humans–like speeding or running through red lights. Questions about who would take the blame for these violations remain unanswered.

Government regulation of self-driving cars could be changing under President Donald Trump’s White House. In September, former President Barack Obama’s administration released a set of standards for self-driving car manufacturers that would require them to conduct extensive safety assessments and provide the results to the federal government. Because legislation that addresses the vehicles varies for each state, the Department of Transportation released a centralized list of guidelines each state could adopt. But Elaine Chao, the new transportation secretary in Trump’s Administration, is now reevaluating the old administration’s rules as companies that develop the vehicles like Google and Uber push back against the amount of information they would have to report. Chao has cited safety and jobs–because the technology would eliminate the need for occupations like truck drivers–as her main concerns as she considers the issue.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Liable When a Self-Driving Car Gets into an Accident? appeared first on Law Street.

Are President Donald Trump and Twitter friends again?

The website–Trump’s social media platform of choice–has dropped its lawsuit against the federal government for trying to identify an anonymous user who was criticizing the president.

Twitter filed the case in a California court Thursday after it received a summons from the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection to reveal the person behind the Twitter account @ALT_uscis (which stands for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services). Though it is not a verified Twitter page for USCIS, the account’s administrators claim to be rogue employees who use the platform to criticize Trump’s immigration policies.

So when Twitter received DHS’s order, which allegedly requested the user’s name, login information,  phone number, mailing address, and IP address, the company refused to comply and sought to have the agency’s actions declared “unlawful and “unenforceable” in court. The American Civil Liberties Union also threw its support behind Twitter, offering to represent the individual behind the account.

One day later, the government backed off of its demands and the tech company withdrew the lawsuit.

Twitter’s lawyers say it was aiming to protect the free speech and First Amendment rights of its users from being violated by the government, and that complying with the DHS requests would “chill the expression of particularly valuable political speech.”

https://twitter.com/ALT_uscis/status/850399183127273472

But this may not be the end of the Trump Administration’s attempts to crack down on those who disagree with him. The president is not known for his ability to handle criticism well. In the past, he has lashed out after being made fun of, threatened legal action against newspapers that publish unflattering stories about him, and labeled those who say negative things about him as “haters and losers.“

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Administration vs. Twitter: Twitter Comes Out on Top appeared first on Law Street.

High school journalists across the country are proof that you’re never too young to start holding people accountable.

Students at Pittsburg High School in Pittsburg, Kansas learned this lesson after their investigation into a newly-hired administrator led to her resignation. Although their incoming principal, Amy Robertson, claimed to have earned degrees from Corllins University, some background research by the reporters for the school’s paper found that this was not an accredited institution.

Last Friday, the students published an article in their newspaper, The Booster Redux, detailing how Robertson’s statements about her qualifications did not add up. On Tuesday, she officially stepped down.

Their investigative work comes at a time when journalists are fact-checking more aggressively than ever, particularly under President Donald Trump, who was explicitly called out by the New York Times for his lies—a term that many news organizations don’t use lightly.

Although scoops about Trump’s tax returns or leaked tapes in which he made derogatory remarks about women didn’t hurt his success during the election, the outcome of The Booster Redux’s work provides some hope that thorough reporting about people in power can cause direct change.

Luckily, Pittsburg students aren’t alone. In New York, staff at The Classic, the student newspaper for Townsend Harris High School in Queens, have been shedding light on the troublesome reputation of their interim principal, Rosemarie Jahoda. Jahoda was hit with complaints for unnecessarily tightening regulations and mishandling a case of discrimination against a Muslim student.

Like students at The Booster Redux, writers for The Classic faced resistance from their subject, who avoided answering many questions. An official from the New York City Department of Education, which appointed Jahoda, even referred to the publication as “fake news.” If that sounds familiar, it’s probably because Trump labeled CNN (and other outlets) the same thing at a press conference earlier this year when he refused to take their questions.

Though these aspiring reporters may be getting interested in the field at a time when the media is facing a lot of hostility, at least they’re being prepared to push back against it as early as possible.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking to Avoid Fake News? Check Out These High School Journalists appeared first on Law Street.

Arizona Summit Law School is the latest institution in trouble with the American Bar Association (ABA) for low bar exam passage rates.

The ABA has placed the school–which has recently seen bar passage rates for first-time test takers fall to 25 percent–on probation. This is a significant drop from the school’s 2008 passage rate of 97 percent. The association also cited Summit’s admissions policies as a reason for the probation.

Summit Law School has until May 15 to develop a plan to improve its students’ test results in accordance with the ABA standards, which require that at least 75 percent of a law school’s graduates pass the bar within five years of graduation.

The ABA has been getting tough on law schools recently. Charlotte School of Law in North Carolina, which is owned by the same for-profit company that owns Summit, was placed on probation in November and lost its federal funding in February. In order for students to be eligible for loans from the government, their schools must be ABA-accredited. Charlotte landed in hot water with the association after admitting too many unqualified students who were unable to pass the bar or pursue careers in the field post-graduation.

In February, the association even considered tightening its standards for accredited schools. A proposed revision would have required 75 percent of graduates pass a bar exam within two years instead of five, but this proposal failed. Students and law school deans across the country challenged the idea of imposing stricter criteria, saying that it would limit diversity in schools and eventually the profession. Summit is especially cognizant of these concerns, as 43 percent of its students are minorities.

Last August, the ABA gave the Ave Maria School of Law in Florida a list of measures it would have to undertake to improve its school, and in November it publicly censured the Valparaiso School of Law in Indiana.

One explanation for the ABA’s crackdown on under-performing schools could be because it faces the possibility of losing its accreditation power. Last June, a Department of Education advisory committee suggested that the association’s authority to accredit schools be suspended for a year because of low student achievement.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Bar Association Places a Second Law School on Probation appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that could scrap former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. What does it mean for the future of U.S. environmental policy?

What is the Clean Power Plan?

In 2015, Obama introduced the Clean Power Plan (CPP) as an effort to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions. It gave each state a different quota for reducing its emissions, allowing states the independence to develop their own plans to meet these requirements. States would have had to submit their ideas by 2016, or 2018 if an extended deadline had been approved. If a state failed to do so, then the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would implement its own plan in that state. States would have had until the year 2022 to actually put their plans in action.

What will happen to the Paris climate agreement?

The Obama Administration’s goal was to bring emission levels to at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. It was announced prior to the 2015 Paris climate talks to show the U.S. commitment to lowering emissions. Following the conference, the U.S. joined almost 200 other involved countries in a pledge to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Trump’s order gives the EPA the authority to rework the previous plan. But without the previous administration’s policy in place, the United States may not be able to carry out its end of the agreement reached in Paris. Though the White House hasn’t taken an official position on the Paris climate agreement, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently called it a “bad deal” and Trump has considered removing the U.S. from the agreement over doubts about the existence of climate change. If Trump follows through with exiting the agreement, the U.S. could end up setting a precedent for other countries to back out of their pledges.

According to the New York Times, Trump’s inner circle is divided over whether or not to remain in the agreement. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are reportedly concerned that withdrawing could damage the U.S.’s relationship with the other countries involved, but senior adviser Steve Bannon wants out.

Will the new policy bring back jobs?

The CPP was not popular with everyone. Two dozen states sued the Obama Administration over concerns that the policy would hurt their coal industries, because it urged states to transition from relying on fossil fuels to relying on natural gas and renewable energy. But Trump’s move won’t necessarily restore many of the jobs lost by coal miners; the mining industry has been on the decline for several years, and humans are being replaced by technology. While Trump’s executive order makes good on many of his campaign promises, it may not garner its intended results.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs Executive Order to Get Rid of Obama’s Clean Power Plan appeared first on Law Street.

UC Berkeley used to provide thousands of free lectures and podcasts to anyone who was interested. But now, the school has decided to bar the public from accessing 20,000 videos and podcasts in response to complaints that the content did not meet the needs of vision or hearing-impaired students. Last August, the Department of Justice found that UC Berkeley had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires public universities to provide equal education access to students with disabilities.

Officials say that their decision to restrict access to the videos will allow them to focus their resources on creating newer and more accessible material. In a statement, the university’s vice chancellor for undergraduate education Cathy Koshland said:

This move will also partially address recent findings by the Department of Justice which suggests that the YouTube and iTunesU content meet higher accessibility standards as a condition of remaining publicly available. Finally, moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from ‘pirates’ who have reused content for personal profit without consent.

The DOJ’s review, prompted by complaints from two Gallaudet University employees and members of the National Association of the Deaf, found incomplete or inaccurate closed captioning on videos that would pose challenges for those with hearing disabilities. Low color contrast in some videos would make them difficult to watch for vision-impaired viewers as well.

Berkeley isn’t the only institution where lectures have presented difficulties for disabled students. Two years ago, Harvard University and M.I.T. both faced discrimination lawsuits from advocates for the deaf for not including closed captioning on their online lectures.

But other universities say that removing content altogether isn’t the answer. Inside Higher Ed reached out to the University of Minnesota, M.I.T., Georgia Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and the University of Texas at Austin, almost all of which replied that their lectures meet accessibility standards and that they have no intentions to keep the public from viewing their content.

But the UC Berkeley videos are not lost forever, thanks to one website’s decision to make them available to the public again starting in April. LBRY, a “digital marketplace” where users can publish their content and set a price for other users to view their content, announced the site would re-publish the lectures and make them viewable for free.

LBRY CEO Jeremy Kauffman wrote that uploading the files would be legal because they are under a Creative Commons license that permits non-commercial redistribution with attribution. This means LBRY will not charge for the access to the material or make a profit, and will give credit to UC Berkeley. He told UC Berkeley’s campus newspaper, The Daily Californian, that he is open to collaborating with someone who could add subtitles to the videos that LBRY will publish.

“What motivated our community is that we saw information disappearing that shouldn’t disappear, and our technology is designed to keep information around,” he told the paper.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UC Berkeley Lectures Removed After Disability Discrimination Complaints appeared first on Law Street.

Want to see the new “Beauty and the Beast” movie in Malaysia? Be our guest.

Disney’s live-action remake of the classic animated film won a small victory in the country recently, despite efforts from its censorship board to ban the film over the decision to depict one of the characters, LeFou, as a gay man. 

Malaysian censorship officials pushed to cut scenes suggesting that LeFou is gay, but Disney refused to edit it and the film’s postponed release date is now set for March 30 with a PG-13 rating.

Movies that feature gay characters can only be shown in Malaysia if the characters are portrayed negatively or renounce their sexuality. Malaysia is among a handful of countries, where homosexuality is either outlawed or condemned, that have tried to hinder the movie’s release.

In Russia, the film, which is rated PG in the U.S., has been restricted to viewers aged 16 and older. “Beauty and the Beast” was also pulled from cinemas in Kuwait, where an edited version might return to screens soon. Meanwhile, a group of churches in Singapore has issued a warning about the movie to parents.

The controversy can likely be traced back to the U.S., where, before the movie even came out, a drive-in owner in Alabama said he would refuse to show it because he opposed the inclusion of a gay character on religious grounds.

So what exactly happened in the film to spark such a global scandal? It turns out, the representation of a gay character may actually be overhyped. LeFou is a sidekick to the villain Gaston, and it is implied throughout the story that he has an unrequited crush on Gaston. One scene shows LeFou dancing with another male character for about three seconds, but he never explicitly reveals his sexuality.

If anything, the scene–which director Bill Condon described as an “exclusively gay moment”–deserves criticism for being too subtle, according to some LGBT advocates. Bustle’s Martha Sorren writes:

I can acknowledge that Condon has taken a (small) step forward with this scene, but I’m certainly not going to praise the director and cast for representing the gay community when they did so little to represent us.

Sorren adds that LeFou’s effeminate gestures reinforce stereotypes about gay men, and that his unreciprocated feelings for Gaston could cause “straight people–especially the young viewers who will undoubtedly see ‘Beauty and the Beast’–to think that their gay friends are going to develop creepy, obsessive crushes on them.”

Sorren’s concerns echo those about another beloved children’s tale that stars Emma Watson. In 2007, J.K. Rowling revealed that the character Albus Dumbledore from the Harry Potter series is gay, but critics were disappointed that she never made this clear in the books or movies, and questioned whether she was just tossing in a token gay character as an afterthought.

Though Disney has taken steps to expand racial diversity in its movies in recent years, members of the LGBT community hope to see the studio create more characters like them. Last spring, some fans of the movie “Frozen” started a campaign to give the main character, Elsa, a girlfriend in the sequel.

And then, of course, there’s this perspective:

imagine boycotting beauty & the beast because of a gay character while being totally cool with a teenage girl falling in love with a buffalo

— Tyler Oakley (@tyleroakley) March 5, 2017

It’s certainly not a Disney production without a happy ending. Disgruntled fans could not stop “Beauty and the Beast” from becoming a box office hit. In fact, boycotters who complain about too many women or people of color in Disney’s movies have never had much success before–just look at the attempts to bring down the company’s first “Star Wars” film, “The Force Awakens,” two years ago.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Beauty and the Beast” to Premiere in Malaysia Despite Controversy over Gay Character appeared first on Law Street.

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen settled a lawsuit from a group of former interns who allege they were never paid when they worked for the twins’ fashion company, The Row. The Olsens will pay out $140,000, and each of the 185 interns that filed the class-action suit will receive $530.

The group of interns first sued the Olsens in 2015, with some of them claiming they worked 50-hour weeks and carried out the same work as company employees for no compensation or college credit. One design intern said she was hospitalized for dehydration as a result of working too hard. The suit argued that they should have received minimum wage and overtime.

The Olsens–whose empire is worth about $300 million, according to Page Six–aren’t the only celebrities who have faced backlash from interns for owing them money. In July, instead of going to court, an intern who designed singer Aaron Carter’s website crashed the page when Carter failed to pay him $50,000.

In 2013, PBS’s Charlie Rose settled a lawsuit with a former intern who worked on his show, agreeing to pay about $110,000. In 2014, Lionsgate faced a lawsuit from a past unpaid intern at the “Wendy Williams Show.” First daughter Ivanka Trump does not pay interns at her company either, according to a blog post on Trump’s website written by an intern.

In 2014, Condé Nast–the media company behind magazines like The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and Vogue–scrapped its internship program after getting hit with a lawsuit from two interns who said their pay amounted to less than $1 an hour.

In the debate over unpaid internships, critics have said that low-income students can be forced to miss out on the experience if they need paying jobs to handle all of their expenses. On the other hand, covering the cost of paid interns could mean that companies will have to limit the number of internship opportunities they offer.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen Settle Lawsuit from Unpaid Interns appeared first on Law Street.

A lot has changed since Elle Woods aced her Law School Admission Test to land a spot at Harvard Law in “Legally Blonde.” Now, you may not even need an LSAT score to get in.

As part of a new pilot program this fall, Harvard will begin accepting scores from the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), in addition to the LSAT, which it currently considers.

The new move is part of Harvard’s efforts to attract more diverse applicants, as well as those who may be weighing other graduate school options but don’t want to take two different entry tests because of cost and convenience. The GRE, which is available in more than 150 countries, could also help bring in more international students. It can be taken year-round and on a computer, unlike the LSAT, which is a written test offered four times a year.

Harvard Law Dean Martha Minow said:

All students benefit when we can diversify our community in terms of academic background, country of origin, and financial circumstances. Also, given the promise of the revolutions in biology, computer science, and engineering, law needs students with science, technology, engineering and math backgrounds. For these students, international students, multidisciplinary scholars, and joint-degree students, the GRE is a familiar and accessible test, and using it is a great way to reach candidates not only for law school, but for tackling the issues and opportunities society will be facing.

Though this could be a first step toward making the LSAT permanently optional, law schools are required by the American Bar Association to measure the impact of a GRE policy before they change their admission criteria. Last year, the University of Arizona’s law school started giving students a choice between submitting GRE and LSAT scores. The Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which  administers the LSAT, criticized the University of Arizona at the time, saying that all students should be required to take the test.

The announcement about testing the new admissions policy comes as Harvard faces falling enrollment numbers. The number of applicants to the most highly-ranked law schools has decreased overall between 2011 and 2015, and Harvard specifically has seen an 18 percent drop in applications.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard Law Will Experiment with Accepting GRE Scores appeared first on Law Street.

Will Tiffany Trump’s family name help or hurt her chances of getting into law school?

It’s a question that some people are asking about the first daughter. In a recent article, the Washington Post’s Roxanne Roberts weighed whether President Donald Trump’s youngest daughter would have a harder time getting into her preferred law school because of her controversial father–or if her high-profile connections could land her a spot at Harvard, Columbia, or New York University (which she toured recently), or any other school to which she might have applied.

Last year, Tiffany Trump published an image of her practice Law School Admission Test (LSAT) on Instagram which, according to the Post, revealed multiple wrong answers. But even if she aces the entrance exam, which she took in December, and is accepted to a top institution based on her qualifications, Roberts noted that Trump will still face accusations that she only got in because of her connections. As an undergrad, Trump attended University of Pennsylvania, the institution from which her father and her sister Ivanka also graduated.

Donald Trump himself has been criticized, particularly during the election season, for relying on family connections to advance his career, which differs from narratives he has pushed about being a self-made business man. He drew a lot of attention at the beginning of the campaign season for saying that he started off with “a small loan of a million dollars” from his own father, real estate mogul Fred Trump.

Since taking office, President Trump even faced accusations of nepotism when he hired his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Ivanka’s husband, as one of his advisers. Ivanka has also been very involved in the White House, often joining meetings with foreign leaders and other conferences.

If Tiffany Trump winds up at an elite law school, she’ll be joining a long list of first daughters and sons who attended prestigious institutions. Most recently, former President Barack Obama’s daughter Malia Obama announced she would be enrolling at Harvard University next fall.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Will Tiffany Trump End Up for Law School? appeared first on Law Street.

You may have noticed a lot of tweets pitting Obamacare against a new GOP bill recently. That’s because on Monday, Republican lawmakers introduced the American Health Care Act (AHCA), a measure meant to replace former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, which helped provide about 20 million Americans with healthcare.

The proposal wouldn’t undo the ACA entirely: provisions allowing young adults to remain on their parents’ health insurance until age 26 and ensuring coverage for people with pre-existing conditions will remain intact. But the bill would eliminate Obamacare’s individual mandate that taxes people who don’t purchase healthcare and allow insurers to charge a 30 percent higher premium for those who let their coverage lapse for more than 63 days. It would also roll back the expansion of Medicaid (which is currently used by more than 70 million Americans) by 2019, restrict Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, and postpone the “Cadillac tax”–which fines employers for offering high-cost coverage to their workers–until 2025. Additionally, the measure could allow providers to charge older people five times more for insurance than younger people (under Obama the limit was three times more). For more information, read “What You Need to Know About the New GOP Health Care Plan.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan praised the bill, saying it would “drive down costs, encourage competition, and give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance,” and President Donald Trump has also tweeted out his support of the AHCA. But a handful of Republican senators and several Democrats, who have labeled the measure “Trumpcare,” see it as a downgrade that will increase healthcare costs.

Naturally, opposition toward the bill picked up on Twitter, where users began to draw comparisons between the ACA and the AHCA to famous movies, shows, or characters and their lower-quality knockoffs and sequels. Here are some of the most creative examples.

Obamacare v. GOP replacement pic.twitter.com/C1o8sIXB2I

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) March 7, 2017

https://twitter.com/morninggloria/status/838907799040114694

Obamacare vs Trumpcare pic.twitter.com/8VDZEAAtQx

— billy eichner (@billyeichner) March 7, 2017

Obamacare // the GOP replacement pic.twitter.com/sqTC8yUhAj

— Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) March 7, 2017

Obamacare // the GOP replacement pic.twitter.com/MNbNfhC3sI

— Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) March 7, 2017

Obamacare vs. the Obamacare replacement pic.twitter.com/vf6rQRou2l

— Fun_Beard (@Fun_Beard) March 7, 2017

Obamacare vs. Replacement Obamacare pic.twitter.com/hLyW5sX8HU

— Andi Zeisler (@andizeisler) March 7, 2017

Obamacare vs. GOP replacement pic.twitter.com/wQ9gi9hPsG

— Alia (@MizzzAlia) March 7, 2017

Obamacare vs. GOP Replacement pic.twitter.com/Ajs2fhzKnk

— Ira Madison III (@ira) March 7, 2017

obamacare vs gop replacement pic.twitter.com/74C01phBqh

— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) March 7, 2017

Obamacare VS GOP replacement pic.twitter.com/3G20CtCckf

— shackas (@shackas) March 7, 2017

Obamacare vs GOP replacement pic.twitter.com/NdpwOqS75y

— Philip Lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) March 7, 2017

Reasons why people are against the bill differ, though. A handful of conservatives in Congress, like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), want to overhaul Obamacare completely and have nicknamed the AHCA “Obamacare Lite” or “Obamacare 2.0.” All this criticism could mean that the bill won’t get the support it needs to pass.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Everyone Tweeting About Obamacare vs. the GOP Replacement? appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia is for lovers–and for robots.

State legislators recently passed a law allowing autonomous robots to rove sidewalks, a measure supported by multiple delivery services that could use the gadgets to drop off food, groceries, and other goods. It goes into effect on July 1.

Virginia is the first state to pass a law allowing robots to deliver straight to your door https://t.co/p6P1IRJzMB pic.twitter.com/tQ2YJcBW9D

— Recode (@Recode) March 1, 2017

Don’t make a big order or expect it to get to you anytime soon, however. The robots will not be allowed to move faster than 10 miles per hour or weigh more than 50 pounds, and must be monitored by a person. They cannot travel on the road either, unless they are on a crosswalk.

An Estonian company called Starship Technologies, which has already built and started testing robots, joined Virginia politicians Ron Villanueva, a member of Virginia’s House of Delegates, and Bill DeSteph, a state senator, to draft the bill. Amazon and Grubhub also wrote to lawmakers in support of the legislation.

DeSteph said last month that “passage of the bill in the Senate demonstrates Virginia’s commitment to innovation and the Commonwealth’s willingness to encourage the use of unmanned systems.”

Local governments throughout the state will be permitted to further regulate the robots as they see fit.

The machines could soon be rolling across the country, as politicians in Idaho and Florida push to bring the technology to their respective states.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Special Delivery for Residents of Virginia, Thanks to New Robot Law appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, The Hollywood Reporter released a cover story about CNN’s strategy to rise to the top of the digital media landscape. But the accompanying photo generated controversy when a senior producer for the network tweeted it out, claiming that it represented the “future of media.”

The future of media looks like this.

Proud to be part of this team. @CaseyNeistat @Bourdain @jaketapper @wkamaubell and @CNN chief Zucker pic.twitter.com/B7enhLXqYd

— Josiah Daniel Ryan (@JosiahRyan) March 1, 2017

The cover features the producer, Josiah Ryan, as well as the network’s president Jeff Zucker, anchor Jake Tapper, comedian W. Kamau Bell–who hosts CNN’s show “United Shades of America”—and chef Anthony Bourdain, who hosts “Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown.”

Ryan’s followers were quick to notice something missing about the so-called future of media: there were no women.

The responses ranged from sarcastic to serious, as critics took the opportunity to bring attention to gender disparities in the field. A 2015 report by the Women’s Media Center found that women are still underrepresented in newsrooms across the country. According to the study, 60 percent of news broadcasts are anchored by men, 63 percent of bylines for written articles belong to men, and the proportion of female staffers in newsroom has hovered around 36 percent since 1999.

If this is the case, Twitter users noted that the future of media won’t look too different.

are you sure this is what the future of media looks like because I think maybe this is also what the past & present of media looks like https://t.co/97ws0pVEVP

— Hanif Abdurraqib (@NifMuhammad) March 1, 2017

Some pointed out the irony of the article marking the start of Women’s History Month.

https://twitter.com/NARAL/status/837007640307908610

@JosiahRyan @CaseyNeistat @Bourdain @jaketapper @wkamaubell @CNN great Women's History Month post!! woooo!!!!

— rae paoletta (@PAYOLETTER) March 1, 2017

Though CNN employs well-known journalists and correspondents like Christiane Amanpour, Dana Bash, Erin Burnett, and Brooke Baldwin, none of them were included in the story.

i find it a liiiittle hard to believe THR couldn't find ONE woman at CNN who could sit in on the cover shoot.

— Maya Kosoff (@mekosoff) March 1, 2017

ok come on, this is exhausting. @Bourdain is on here but not a single woman? How is that the future of media? https://t.co/ZzRKX4l7uu

— Olivia Messer (@OliviaMesser) March 1, 2017

One journalist took it upon herself to paint another picture of the future of the media, compiling a list of reporters and writers from a wide range of backgrounds.

since @THR clearly has forgotten that people beyond cis men exist, here's what the *actual* future of media looks like:

— rae paoletta (@PAYOLETTER) March 1, 2017

Sometimes, a gif paints a thousand words.

@JosiahRyan @CaseyNeistat @Bourdain @jaketapper @wkamaubell @CNN pic.twitter.com/zmbobbNmug

— kat calvin (@KatCalvinLA) March 1, 2017

According to advocacy groups like the Representation Project, whose cofounder was behind the documentary “Miss Representation,” when media outlets do not portray women as powerful politicians or journalists—or, in this case, do not give them credit for helping to fight “CNN’s war”–then other women may be discouraged from pursuing high-level jobs that they perceive to be male-dominated. The Hollywood Reporter has also faced backlash before for failing to represent actresses of color specifically, when it hosted an Oscars roundtable of all-white actresses it considered to be Academy Awards contenders in 2015.

When newsrooms are more diverse in terms of not only gender, but race, orientation, religion, or economic background, these factors can contribute to fairer and more well-rounded coverage of the news.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Responds to CNN and The Hollywood Reporter: The Future of Media is Female appeared first on Law Street.

Approximately 250 employees of Sterling Jewelers have testified about sexual harassment in the workplace. Sterling is the company that owns Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria of Jewelry.

According to the Washington Post, multiple women who worked for the company allege that their male bosses and managers groped them or pressured them to engage in unwanted sexual activities in exchange for raises and promotions. Others have reported gender-based pay and promotion discrimination.  

Since 2008, a class action suit against the company has expanded to include 69,000 women. But the attorneys representing the hundreds of men and women who testified received permission to release their clients’ statements on February 26.

The statements detail incidents that occurred in the late 1990s and 2000s. The women who are part of the “class”–or group of people suing the company–are seeking punitive damages and work compensation they say they never received.

Because Sterling makes its employees agree not to take employment lawsuits to public court, the case will go to arbitration court, which means it will be heard in private and the details of the proceedings could remain confidential.

A spokesman for Sterling told the Washington Post that the company had investigated the accusations and found that they were “not substantiated by the facts,” and added that there are “multiple processes in place to receive and investigate allegations of harassment or misconduct.”

However one of a handful of women who spoke to the Post said that a few days after reporting that a male manager had tried to kiss her, she was accused of stealing jewelry and money by one of her bosses and subsequently fired.

According to the Post, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) wrote in a report last year that arbitration policies such as Sterling’s could “prevent employees from learning about similar concerns shared by others in their workplace.”

Sexual misconduct is an ongoing issue in work spaces. Two years ago, Cosmopolitan Magazine published a survey in which one in three women aged 18-34 reported being harassed at work. In June, the EEOC released a report which found that workplace harassment in general–whether on the basis of sex, race, orientation, or other factors–often goes unreported (the study also found that at least 25 percent of women experience harassment in the workplace).

Sterling isn’t the only company at the center of a high-profile sexual harassment case these days. Uber is currently facing widespread claims of mishandling harassment complaints from its female engineers.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hundreds of Jewelry Store Chain Employees Testify About Workplace Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

“Alexa, is your speech protected by the First Amendment?”

Amazon says yes, specifically regarding a murder trial in which authorities are trying to access recordings from one of its devices owned by the defendant.

The case involves an Arkansas man named James Andrew Bates, who police suspect murdered his friend Victor Collins after Collins was found dead in Bates’ hot tub in 2015. They obtained a search warrant for 48 hours of audio recorded by Bates’ Amazon Echo speaker around the time of Collins’ death.

Though Amazon has provided authorities with Bates’ subscriber information, they are challenging the warrant for the Echo data on constitutional grounds.

An Amazon Echo is a cylindrical speaker that can be linked to an artificially intelligent personal assistant called Alexa, whose voice plays over the speaker. Similar to how Siri functions, when a user activates Alexa by saying its name (or another “wake word”), they can ask it to answer questions, play music, send messages, or order food delivery.

Amazon first released the Echo in 2014, but the gadget has become more popular in the past year, topping the list of holiday season best-sellers and appearing in the company’s first-ever Super Bowl commercial in 2016.

In a 91-page memorandum to an Arkansas circuit court seeking to quash the warrant, the company’s lawyers wrote that both a user’s requests to Alexa and its response are protected by the First Amendment, and that handing over this information to the government would violate its customers’ privacy.

Citing the Supreme Court case Riley v. California, which determined that digital information on a cell phone could not be seized without a warrant, the legal team argued:

Once the Echo device detects the wake word, the Alexa Voice Service endeavors to respond to any ensuing voice communications detected in the user’s home. Accordingly, searching Alexa’s recordings is not the same as searching a drawer, a pocket, or a glove compartment. Like cell phones, such modern ‘smart’ electronic devices contain a multitude of data that can ‘reveal much more in combination than any isolated record,’ allowing those with access to it to reconstruct ‘[t]he sum of an individual’s private life.’ Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2489 (2014).

Amazon added that the prosecutors should have to show a “compelling need” for the recordings, meaning that they would not be able to find the information they need elsewhere, and that they should have to prove that the recordings are necessary to the investigation.

The case reflects a growing trend of law enforcement clashing with technology giants. Following the 2015 San Bernardino attacks, the FBI ordered Apple to create a software that would allow it to uncover encrypted information on one of the shooter’s phones. Apple fought back with the assertion that providing the government with the key to one phone would endanger the security of all iPhones. Furthermore, the company said that forcing its engineers to write code for such a software would be classified as compelled speech, a violation of the First Amendment. Ultimately, the FBI found a third party to unlock the phone for them.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Your Conversations with Alexa Protected by the First Amendment? appeared first on Law Street.

After almost a year of protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline, demonstrators at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation went out in a literal blaze of glory Wednesday. Most of the occupants cleared the main protest camp ahead of a government-ordered 2 p.m. deadline, but not before first setting fire to their tents as part of an exit ceremony.

A handful of occupants remained on the grounds in a final act of defiance. Authorities arrested 10 people for not complying with evacuation orders, while a seven-year-old boy and 17-year-old girl at the site were hospitalized for burns.

The protest site in Cannon Ball, North Dakota resides close to where the government plans to build a 1,172-mile pipeline to transport crude oil through the Dakotas and Iowa to Illinois. The cause united environmentalists attempting to hinder the transportation of fossil fuels and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe who opposes the pipeline over concerns that it will destroy sacred sites and contaminate their drinking water.

Months of Pipeline Opposition

Over the summer, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, arguing that it did not properly consult the tribe beforehand and violated the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. 

A judge later denied the injunction request in September. This prompted the company building the pipeline to counter sue the tribe for interfering with construction. Small protests at the designated pipeline locations began to expand in August following the countersuit.

In the fall, Standing Rock began to attract national attention as confrontations between demonstrators–who call themselves water protectors–and private security guards became violent. Protesters reported being pepper sprayed and bitten by security dogs, and a few officers also said they had been injured. 

In late October, military personnel and police in riot gear attempted to force protesters out of an encampment by using pepper-spray and firing beanbag rounds at the crowds. According to authorities, the protesters were attacking officers with firebombs and debris.

Social Media Intervenes and Tensions Escalate

News about the movement spread on social media as Facebook users from across the country “checked in” at Standing Rock to prevent police from finding protesters online (although the effectiveness of this effort was unclear) and show solidarity with those present at the site.

Tensions escalated even more the following month when authorities shot rubber bullets at demonstrators who had been praying, and sprayed water cannons on crowds right before Thanksgiving weekend as temperatures dropped below freezing.

Temporary Reprieve

Protesters achieved a temporary victory in December when the Obama administration and the Army announced that they would suspend work on the project and consider “alternative routes for the pipeline crossing.”

However, President Donald Trump made the decision to move forward with building the pipeline just a few days into his presidency, which brings us to today. Protesters were told to evacuate by Wednesday because of expected floods at the site. The state of North Dakota offered shelter and bus tickets to those exiting the campground.

But the protests aren’t over yet–the movement will just take place elsewhere. In March, a group of activists are planning to march on Washington, D.C. for four days, where they will set up a prayer camp on the National Mall.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters Leave Campsite Before Evacuation Deadline appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) has crossed party lines before, and she says she will do it again–the politician announced that she would not support President Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt.

Collins will not vote for Pruitt, the current Oklahoma Attorney General, at his confirmation hearing because of concerns over his numerous lawsuits against the EPA and potential impact on clean air in Maine. She is the only Republican to voice her opposition to Pruitt so far. 

In a statement, Collins said that she supports EPA regulation of fossil fuel-powered plants to reduce air pollution:

The state of Maine, located at the end of our nation’s ‘air pollution tailpipe,’ is on the receiving end of pollution generated by coal-fired power plants in other states. Reducing harmful air pollutants is critical for public health, particularly for Maine which has among the highest rates of asthma in the country. Controls for mercury, one of the most persistent and dangerous pollutants, are especially important for children and pregnant women. Moreover, there is no doubt that the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change pose a significant threat to our state’s economy and our natural resources, from our working forests, fishing, and agricultural industries, to tourism and recreation.

Pruitt, meanwhile has questioned the extent to which human activity has affected climate change. During his statewide campaigns, he also received money from donors with strong ties to fossil fuel industries.

This isn’t the first time Collins has opposed one of Trump’s cabinet picks before. Earlier this month, she and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) were the only two Republican senators to vote against Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

Collins has a history of taking a more centrist approach to politics, particularly when it comes to social issues–her voting record has shown that she is mostly pro-choice and supports same-sex marriage.

During the election, she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that she would not vote for Trump, and condemned his attacks on a disabled reporter, Mexican-American judge, and the parents of a soldier killed in Iraq.

When Trump announced an executive order at the end of January that would restrict immigration to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries, Collins was one of a handful of Republican lawmakers to speak out against the ban.

She told the Maine Sun Journal at the time that the ban could hurt Iraqi citizens working with the U.S. military and that “religious tests serve no useful purpose in the immigration process.”

Because there is a 52-48 Republican majority in the Senate, more Republicans would need to cross the aisle to join Collins (assuming that the Democrats vote unanimously against Pruitt, which may not happen) and defeat his nomination. The Betsy DeVos vote last week came down to a 50-50 tie, with Vice President Mike Pence casting the final vote in her favor.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator Susan Collins Says She’ll Oppose Trump’s EPA Pick appeared first on Law Street.

Transgender students across the country are fighting for the right to use restrooms that correspond to their gender identities. And an injunction that has thwarted their efforts will officially not be challenged by President Donald Trump’s team.

The Justice Department filed a legal brief on February 10 withdrawing the government’s objections to the injunction, a move that could impact an upcoming Supreme Court case. In August, a Texas federal judge issued the injunction to prevent President Barack Obama’s administration from enforcing a directive which mandates that public schools allow transgender students to choose restrooms based on their gender identities. Non-compliance, according to the previous administration, would violate Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in public schools.

Judge Reed O’Connor wrote in the injunction that the government didn’t follow proper rule-making procedures–also known as “notice and comment”–and couldn’t implement requirements based on “the interpretation that the definition of sex includes gender identity.” 

Trump’s latest move could affect the outcome of a case involving Gavin Grimm, a transgender student who sued the Gloucester County, Virginia school board after his high school refused to let him use the boy’s bathroom. Grimm–who recently received a shout-out from “Orange is the New Black” actress and trans activist Laverne Cox at the Grammys–is scheduled to go to the Supreme Court in March. But the Washington Post reported that because his case is partially based on Obama’s directive, it may not move forward.

While on the campaign trail in April, Trump said he believed that transgender people should be able to “use the bathroom they feel is appropriate.” At the time, he also criticized HB2, a bill signed by North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory that requires people to use only the restrooms corresponding to their biological sex–although Trump primarily addressed the economic impact of the bill on the state’s businesses.

But after the Obama Administration directive came out in May, Trump said he believed the matter should be left up to the states, not the federal government. He used the same argument when he later contradicted himself and announced his support for HB2.   

The DOJ dropped its opposition to the injunction one day after Jeff Sessions was sworn in as Attorney General. Sessions has a history of voting against the expansion of rights for Americans in the LGBTQ community: he has opposed marriage equality, workplace protections for LGBTQ employees, and the inclusion of sexual orientation under the definition of hate crimes. The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group which scores politicians on their civil rights records, rates him at 0 percent.

Although Trump has promised to protect LGBTQ Americans (specifically from “the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology”) Vice President Mike Pence’s record on LGBTQ rights is similar to Sessions’. And over the summer, the Republican Party updated its platform to support the idea that parents should be free to make medical decisions for their children. Some saw that move as approval of conversion therapy–the use of psychological and sometimes physical discipline, including electroshock treatment, as a means of changing someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Pulls Support for Transgender Bathroom Protections appeared first on Law Street.

Two senators aren’t just looking to prevent illegal immigration–they want to scale back legal immigration too.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Sen. David Perdue (R-Georgia) have introduced a bill called the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, which aims to slash overall immigration to the U.S. by 40 percent over the next year and 50 percent in the next 10 years.

If approved, the bill would limit the number of refugees who obtain permanent residence to 50,000 a year and end the diversity visa lottery, which distributes 50,000 visas annually to citizens of countries with low rates of immigration to the U.S.

Though Perdue said reducing immigration would “help improve the quality of American jobs and wages,” one Democratic senator argued otherwise.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) said in a statement:

This legislation sends a terrible message to the rest of the world and is unquestionably a job killer. Immigrants contribute greatly to our country’s entrepreneurial spirit, spurring job growth in New Hampshire and across the country. Cutting successful visa programs and needlessly separating immigrant families is just wrong and senseless.

While U.S. citizens are currently allowed to sponsor their spouses, parents, siblings and children for green cards, the bill mandates that moving forward, they would only be able to sponsor spouses and unmarried minor children.

Cotton said in an interview with MSNBC that the RAISE Act would curb non-skills-based immigration. Immigrants with employment-based green cards would not be affected, he said.

“It simply tries to get a handle on 1 million immigrants coming here a year, virtually none of whom are coming here based on their employment skills or demonstrated economic need,” he said. “I don’t think our immigration system is working for Americans.”

He told POLITICO that President Donald Trump’s administration has been receptive to the proposal so far.

“Donald Trump was the only one who saw that most Americans don’t like our current immigration system,” he said. “This is just the area of politics where I think leaders and elites are most disconnected from the people. Not just Republicans but in both parties, in business, in the media, in the academy, culture and so forth.”

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the RAISE Act Would Cut Back Legal Immigration appeared first on Law Street.

When life hands Beyoncé lemons, she makes “Lemonade.” So how will she handle a $20 million lawsuit?

The singer is being sued by the family of a late rapper, comedian, and Youtube personality for allegedly sampling him without permission in “Formation,” a chart-topping single from her most recent album, “Lemonade.”

The song features the voice of Anthony Barré, better known by his stage name Messy Mya. Barré’s humor made him a local celebrity in New Orleans, where he lived, but he would also use his platform to discuss the short life expectancies of young black men in the city. In 2010, at 22 years old, he was shot and killed.

Recordings of his voice, pulled from a handful of his videos, can be heard at the beginning of “Formation” and in between verses. Some saw Beyoncé’s inclusion of Barré on the track as a both a tribute to New Orleans culture and commentary on the city’s violence.

But the internet sensation’s sister, Angel Barré, is seeking royalties as well as proper attribution to her brother, who is allegedly not listed in the song’s credits. Anthony Barré’s estate said they had reached out to Beyoncé before filing the suit, but she was unresponsive.

The copyright case, which was filed in Louisiana District Court, also names Sony Music and Beyoncé’s company Parkwood Entertainment as defendants. According to MTV News, the lawyers representing Barré’s estate wrote in a statement:

The Estate of Anthony Barré alleges that Beyoncé Knowles Carter, Parkwood Entertainment, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment and others produced, distributed, publicly performed, used and otherwise exploited the voice, words and performance of the late Anthony Barré, also known as Messy Mya, without authorization in the extremely popular ‘Formation’ recording. Barré was a well-known performance comedian, music artist and MC in New Orleans. He is very closely associated with the Bounce music phenomenon in New Orleans. There are more than a hundred videos documenting his performance, statements, comedic routines, etc.

According to Forbes, the popstar could potentially use the fair use doctrine, which allows certain uses of copyrighted material without permission from the owners, as a defense, because of the political statements included in “Formation.” Under the 1976 Copyright Act, reproducing work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching…scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” This argument, however, may not hold up given how much she has profited from the song.

In September, a New York judge dismissed a separate copyright suit regarding “Lemonade,” in which a filmmaker claimed that Beyoncé had replicated scenes from one of his films in the album’s trailer and music videos.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Beyoncé Being Sued for $20 Million? appeared first on Law Street.

From sharing an Onion article about himself, to tweeting out what some have speculated are his own passwords, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer may not be the most technologically-savvy person. So it comes as no surprise that the internet has reportedly discovered his public Venmo account.

The podcast “Who? Weekly” first tweeted about the existence of Spicer’s rumored account after it was discovered by a fan of the podcast. Venmo is a mobile app that allows people to send and request money from each other, so naturally users took advantage of the opportunity to ask Spicer to cover their expenses.

It's recently come to our attention that @seanspicer is on Venmo, and that he is being trolled pic.twitter.com/zQO23BVYWG

— Who? Weekly (@whoweekly) February 7, 2017

After Spicer claimed that demonstrators who protested President Donald Trump’s immigration ban were paid, one person asked him to put his money where his mouth is.

@whoweekly @seanspicer yaaas pic.twitter.com/8eZAWFQFyF

— Sara B. (@saraannb) February 7, 2017

Others threw in a reference to Kellyanne Conway’s made-up Bowling Green Massacre story.

I Venmo requested money from Sean Spicer for the imaginary bowling league we're in together pic.twitter.com/rptdVj3Svc

— Sarah Wainschel (@Swainsch) February 7, 2017

Sent @PressSec a venmo request to help those in need: #BowlingGreenMassacre pic.twitter.com/VZPyWeeYgQ

— Brittany Switzer (@britswitz) February 7, 2017

Concert tickets can be expensive, so why not ask Sean Spicer for help?

.@seanspicer has a public Venmo so I've asked him to pay for my @ladygaga tickets pic.twitter.com/XD4xXWMZMg

— Ira Madison III (@ira) February 7, 2017

A couple of people were stressed  out about the last couple of weeks, and wanted some reimbursement.

https://twitter.com/fransquishco/status/829060357943619586

Sean Spicer is on Venmo #TheMoreYouKnow pic.twitter.com/yyZrrBDJLb

— Jamie (@jlew8) February 7, 2017

Unsurprisingly, people got political.

Sean Spicer has a public Venmo. pic.twitter.com/zYSx6J6WDW

— Carrie Courogen (@carriecourogen) February 7, 2017

And of course, they poked fun at his feud with Dippin Dots and his unusual habit of eating at least two and a half packs of chewing gum each day.

Turns out Sean Spicer's Venmo is public, feel free to request anything @seanspicer pic.twitter.com/vbIgV3dLfW

— Kyle Campbell (@Kyle_C_Campbell) February 7, 2017

He's on venmo @seanspicer pic.twitter.com/3kpgjUgff8

— kaki king (@KakiKing) February 7, 2017

But those who got a response learned that Spicer wasn’t feeling too generous.

That's disappointing. pic.twitter.com/zMbnViJfuh

— Janie Stolar (@JanieFierce) February 7, 2017

Whether or not these Venmo users get paid, the situation may make great material for Melissa McCarthy’s next “Saturday Night Live” appearance.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sean Spicer’s Public Venmo Receives Lots of Requests appeared first on Law Street.

Shortly after refiling a $150 million defamation lawsuit involving claims that she worked for an escort service, Melania Trump has reached a settlement with one of the defendants named in her original defamation suit.

According to Trump’s lawyers, Maryland-based blogger Webster Tarpley–who published the escort claims on his website Tarpley.net–has “agreed to pay her a substantial sum as a settlement.” However, the specific amount of money remains unknown.

Tarpley wrote an article including the escort rumor in August, but had retracted it before Trump sued him in September. The article also included claims that she suffered from a nervous breakdown

Additionally, Trump’s suit named Mail Media, the company that owns the British newspaper Daily Mail, which printed similar rumors. Though a Montgomery County Circuit Court  judge dismissed the Daily Mail case on February 2, because the case does not fall under that court’s jurisdiction, Trump was allowed to move forward with the Tarpley suit.

On February 6, she re-filed the suit against the Daily Mail in New York, where Mail Media has corporate offices. In the suit, Trump claims that the article hurt her potential business interests, including the opportunity to “launch a broad-based commercial brand” that would sell clothes, accessories, and cosmetics.

Trump’s actions have attracted criticism for ethical reasons. Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush, told the Washington Post: “There has never been a first lady of the United States who insinuated that she intended to make a lot of money because of the ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ opportunity of being first lady.”

Painter is among a group of lawyers currently suing President Donald Trump for allowing his businesses to receive money from foreign governments, which they say violates the Constitution and poses a conflict of interest.

The First Lady and her husband have a history of threatening media outlets with legal action. In October, Donald Trump vowed to sue the New York Times for libel when they published an article about two women alleging he had groped them. On the campaign trail, he pledged to loosen libel laws to make suing media outlets easier.

After a writer for People published an article about being sexually harassed by Donald Trump, Melania Trump tweeted at the magazine that she would “consider her legal options” over details from the story that she claimed were false.

! @people #NatashaStoynoff pic.twitter.com/zXNm6boveP

— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) October 13, 2016

Representing Trump in her libel cases is Charles Harder, the same attorney who helped wrestler Hulk Hogan win $140 million in his defamation case against Gawker Media, an outcome that resulted in Gawker declaring bankruptcy and shutting down.

Lawsuits like Hogan’s and now Trump’s spark fears about allowing wealthy individuals to cripple media organizations with costly legal proceedings, a precedent that could endanger the Freedom of the Press.

But the Trumps don’t always go to court with the intention of winning. In July, a USA Today report found that Donald Trump didn’t proceed with most of the defamation lawsuits he filed.

Evan Mascagni, a policy director at the Public Participation Project, told the outlet:

Donald Trump has repeatedly attempted to silence his critics over the years through frivolous lawsuits. If you really examine some of these cases, it becomes pretty obvious that Trump didn’t file these suits to seek justice. Rather, he filed them to intimidate, harass and silence his critics.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Melania Trump Settles With One Defendant in Defamation Battle appeared first on Law Street.

Someone call the fashion police!

A fashion label that created a custom outfit for Rihanna is involved in a legal battle against another brand after Kylie Jenner sported their similar design.

The company L’Impasse Couture, which designed the green fringe jumpsuit that Rihanna wore after the 2016 MTV Video Music Awards, sent a cease-and-desist letter to The Dolls House fashion boutique for allegedly replicating the jumpsuit in white.

Everyone's asking who wore it better?? We think Limpasse slayed Rihanna's Custom Made Green Fringe Jumpsuit!! Riri is a Slay Queen! Still a best seller link in bio @limpasseboutique #limpasseboutique#limpasse#rihanna#jumpsuit#fringe#bloggers#fashionbloggers#custom#sexy#design#designers#slayqueen#celeb#celrbrities#nyc#Paris#dubai#shop#shopping#fashion#kyliejenner#super#dress#woman#insta#instafashion#fashionista#abdulsall

A photo posted by LimpasseNYC® (@limpasseboutique) on Jan 31, 2017 at 9:36am PST

The dispute came to light when Jenner posted an Instagram photo of herself flaunting the jumpsuit earlier this week.

According to the letter, sent in September:

The Dolls House Fashion Ltd. has unlawfully represented a L’Impasse dress worn by  Rihanna by posting a photograph on Instagram claiming the design to be their own. L’Impasse has not granted [The Dolls House] the authority to commercially market their designs or given consent to make representations using L’Impasse’s trademark.

However, The Dolls House is maintaining that they came up with the design before L’Impasse did. In a statement to Refinery29, it said:

We are the original designers of the jumpsuit, which you can find proof of on our Instagram timeline, where we have posted images [of it] since February, 2016. We designed the jumpsuit in September, 2015, and we actually had fabric made a specific way for this style. We have invoices for this fabric dating back to September 2015. The Lanna Cami Fringe Jumpsuit was officially launched in February 2016, and was added to our website, available for customers to order.

Though Jenner herself isn’t involved in the case, she has been at the center of similar controversies before. In February, Jenner tried to trademark her own first name, and at the end of last month, she reportedly settled a deal with a makeup artist who accused her of plagiarism.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kylie Jenner’s Jumpsuit Could Lead to a Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Leaders of tech giants are finding ways to oppose President Donald Trump’s ban on immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, which could hurt their employees and potential new hires.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said he would consider taking legal action against the order, while the heads of other companies have pledged millions of dollars to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

According to the Wall Street Journal, the ban affects hundreds of Apple employees. Cook told the Journal:

More than any country in the world, this country is strong because of our immigrant background and our capacity and ability as people to welcome people from all kinds of  backgrounds. That’s what makes us special. We ought to pause and really think deeply through that.

On January 27, Trump signed the executive order blocking citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria from entering the United States for at least 90 days (though the ban could be expanded), citing concerns over foreign terrorism. The measure also prevents refugees from being admitted into the country for four months.

While Cook has not specified exactly what type of action Apple would take, Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos has already taken to court to condemn the ban. The company submitted a sworn statement supporting the Washington state attorney general, who filed a lawsuit against Trump’s order. Amazon employs nearly 50 people born in one of the seven countries, and is currently offering jobs to non-U.S. citizens, some of whom were born in Iran.

Meanwhile, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey and Chairman Omid Kordestani plan to donate $1.59 million to the ACLU, respectively matching $530,000 that Twitter employees raised for the organization.

The Executive Order's humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt

— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017

The ACLU sued Trump on January 28 on behalf of two men from Iraq – one of whom is a former engineer and interpreter for the U.S. government – who were detained at JFK International Airport in New York.

The taxi service app Lyft announced support for the ACLU as well, promising to donate $1 million over the next four years. Lyft’s primary competitor, Uber, faced backlash when it continued to pick up passengers from JFK during protests – which some saw as a move to profit from the situation. Uber responded to the complaints by calling the ban “unjust” and setting up a $3 million legal defense fund for its drivers impacted by the ban.

3/ We are donating $1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution. https://t.co/0umGOlkhSx

— logangreen (@logangreen) January 29, 2017

Google cofounder Sergey Brin at SFO protest: "I'm here because I'm a refugee." (Photo from Matt Kang/Forbes) pic.twitter.com/GwhsSwDPLT

— Ryan Mac (@RMac18) January 29, 2017

The blanket entry ban on citizens from certain primarily Muslim countries is not the best way to address the country’s challenges

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 29, 2017

Executives and founders of companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla have also released statements criticizing the order.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Technology Companies Rally Against Immigration Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Twelve states are taking the bar out of the bar exam–the newest MacBook Pro’s Touch Bar, that is.

North Carolina’s Board of Law Examiners is the latest board to ask test-takers using MacBooks to disable the function during exams over concerns about cheating. The new rule will go into effect for students sitting for the test in February.

According to ExamSoft, a company that manufactures testing software for the board, the “Touch Bar will show predictive text depending on what the student is typing, compromising exam integrity.”

9to5Mac, a website that covers news about Apple, reported that ExamSoft’s software is typically able to block access to the internet or apps that allow students to cheat, but that the new Touch Bar rule was likely an “extra precaution.”

Meanwhile, California, Colorado, Oklahoma, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia’s bar associations have banned the Apple computers from their tests altogether.

Don’t know if you’ll be allowed to bring your computer to the test? Katherine Silver Kelly, an Ohio State University law professor, has been using her blog Bar Exam Wizard to post the list of states placing restrictions on MacBook Pros and the Touch Bars.

Apple introduced the updated MacBook Pro in October with the Touch Bar as a replacement for function keys. The bar is a touchscreen that runs along the top of the keyboard and can be customized to display users’ most-used apps. It also provides full emoji access.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post MacBook Feature Barred from Multiple Bar Exams appeared first on Law Street.

Given President Donald Trump’s Inauguration lineup, the first White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner of his presidency may be a little less star-studded than in previous years. But comedian Samantha Bee is not going to miss her chance to “properly roast the president.”

The host of TBS’s late night talk show “Full Frontal With Samantha Bee” will bring her own event called “Not the White House Correspondent’s Dinner” to D.C. on April 29–the same night as the actual WHCA dinner.

The dinner is an annual event that brings together politicians, celebrities, and journalists that cover the White House. Traditionally, a famous comedian headlines the soiree and makes jokes at the expense of the president, after which the president performs his own comedy routine.

Nicknamed “nerd prom,” the dinner has also received criticism for creating too friendly of a relationship between reporters and the public figures they cover.

Bee told the New York Times that she and the staff of her show hatched the idea for their alternative event after wondering how the traditional dinner would play out differently under the new president.

“And then we thought, Why don’t we just do one, just to do it in the way that we would want it done if we were hosting it?” she said.

Trump’s attacks on the media and objections to being made fun of have led some journalists to question whether or not he would even attend the Correspondents’ Dinner.

At a recent press conference, he said that Buzzfeed was a “failing pile of garbage” and refused to take questions from CNN’s Jim Acosta, calling the network “fake news.” And last week, his top strategist Stephen Bannon told the New York Times that the media “should keep its mouth shut.”

The president has also been vocal on Twitter about actor Alec Baldwin’s impression of him on “Saturday Night Live,” calling it “unwatchable.”

At the 2011 dinner, Trump was notoriously unamused when President Barack Obama and comedian Seth Meyers mocked his vows to run for president and his role in the birther movement, which claimed that Obama was not a U.S. citizen.

Trump’s own attempts at stand-up have been met with tough crowds. During the election, he attended a New York charity dinner where each candidate was supposed to perform a lighthearted routine. But his jokes quickly devolved into a string of insults toward his opponent Hillary Clinton that was met with boos from the crowd.

Bee, who is currently in the process of booking other performers for her own event, said she thinks trying to plan this year’s Correspondent’s Dinner will be “very challenging” for the WHCA.

“Does 3 Doors Down do comedy? I don’t know, maybe they do,” she said, poking fun at one of the Inauguration weekend headliners.

She added that proceeds from her dinner will go to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Though the former “Daily Show” correspondent is no stranger to mocking the president–she has even compiled a “thesaurus” that catalogues all of her anti-Trump insults–writing new jokes to top “screaming carrot demon” or “tangerine-tinted trashcan fire” will be no easy feat.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Samantha Bee to Host Anti-White House Correspondents’ Dinner appeared first on Law Street.

The Doomsday Clock is ticking.

No, not literally. But on Thursday, a group of scientists moved the hands of the symbolic clock 30 seconds closer to midnight as a result of threats posed by climate change and President Donald Trump.

So what is this clock, if not an instrument used to tell time?

It was created in 1947 by scientists involved in the Manhattan Project–an effort led by the United States to develop atomic weapons during World War II–to warn people about potential disasters caused by nuclear war. The closer it is to midnight, the greater the possibility of an impending catastrophe.

The hands now sit at 2.5 minutes from midnight, the closest they have been since 1953, when they were moved to 2 minutes from midnight as a result of Russia and the United States testing hydrogen bombs during the Cold War.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which oversees the clock, said in a release that “world leaders have failed to come to grips with humanity’s most pressing existential threats: nuclear weapons and climate change.”

Specifically, the Bulletin cited Trump’s “disturbing comments” about nuclear weapons, dismissal of climate change, and the rise of “strident nationalism” as factors that affected the decision to change the time.

A statement from the Bulletin’s Science and Security board referenced growing nuclear arsenals in North Korea and Russia, as well as in Pakistan and India where relations have been tense for decades. Although it praised the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal to limit nuclear programs in Iran, the board questioned how long the deal would last under Trump’s administration.

Additionally, the statement criticized the lack of progress made at the Marrakech Climate Change Conference, following the Paris Accord.

Another issue the board took into account was the risk posed by new, autonomous technologies, like self-driving cars. The scientists described a troubling hypothetical scenario in which such machinery could be used for weapons that  “make ‘kill’ decisions without human input or supervision.” The statement also warned of threats to democracy, like fake news and election hacking.

So how do we turn the clock back?

The board called upon leaders across the world, including Trump, to consider expert opinions and scientific evidence as they make decisions and create policies regarding the environment and use of nuclear weapons.

But it also urged average citizens to pressure their leaders, particularly on social media, to reduce nuclear arm programs, commit to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and consider the consequences of new technologies.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does it Mean When the Doomsday Clock Ticks Closer to Midnight? appeared first on Law Street.

Despite criticism from law school deans across the country, the American Bar Association will meet on February 6 to discuss a proposal that would establish stricter bar passage requirements for school accreditation.

The proposal mandates that 75 percent of an accredited school’s graduates must pass the bar within two years of graduating. But deans have opposed the measure over concerns about California’s declining bar passage rate and diversity within the profession.

More than 90 deans signed a letter from the Association of American Law School’s Dean Steering Committee on January 13, asking for a year to review the proposal before the ABA’s House of Delegates considers it.

That period of time, they wrote, would allow them to understand how the measure might affect a school’s accreditation. In California, where the state bar passage rate has dropped from 56 percent to about 43 percent over the last three years, a handful of schools could lose their accreditations.

The letter notes:

The California bar results, if they become the ‘new normal’ for graduates of ABA-accredited law schools in California, could potentially imperil the accreditation of a very large number of law schools–law schools whose history and profile have demonstrated over many decades an ability to educate successful law students by any reasonable measure.

The letter also included concerns about diversity. More difficult standards could keep minority students–who, on average, score lower on the Law School Admission Test–from being admitted to schools if officials fear they won’t pass the bar.

Most of California’s law school deans, a handful of deans from law schools with connections to historically black universities, and the deans of Harvard and Yale law schools all signed the letter.

At the same time, the ABA risks losing its authority to accredit schools if it does not pay greater attention to student achievement. In June, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity urged the Department of Education to suspend the association’s accreditation power for one year.

The ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education voted to adopt the proposal’s requirement changes in October, but the proposal must still pass through the House of Delegates. If they approve the new rule next month, it will apply to graduates taking the bar exam this July, part of a broader Department of Education crackdown on accreditors.

In a January 19 statement, the council’s managing director Barry Currier said, “There is no reason to delay the effectiveness of this new standard,” which he said the council has been discussing and revising for several years. “The fact remains that to become a lawyer in a jurisdiction, a law school graduate must pass that jurisdiction’s bar exam. The standard that the council adopted holds schools to meeting graduates’ expectations in the jurisdictions where the school’s graduates choose to locate,” Currier said.

He added that the council would continue working with state supreme courts, bar examiners, deans, and diversity groups to ensure diversity and fair exams. He also said the new standard “is not at odds with any of those concerns and objectives.”

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ABA Will Consider New Bar Passage Requirements for Law Schools appeared first on Law Street.

A documentary about the lawsuit that pitted celebrity wrestler Hulk Hogan–whose actual name is Terry Bollea–against news and gossip site Gawker is coming to Netflix.

“Nobody Speak: Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and Trials of a Free Press,” which premiered at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival, explores the case that awarded Bollea over $140 million in damages, drove Gawker’s founder Nick Denton to file for bankruptcy, and resulted in the site shutting down.

Bollea first filed a defamation suit against Gawker in Florida state court in 2012, after an editor at the site posted a segment of a sex tape Bollea had made with his best friend’s then-wife. Although Bollea had already spoken publicly about the tape and stills from it had been published elsewhere, he testified that Gawker violated his privacy by releasing the video footage. In his testimony, he tried to distinguish between his roles as a private figure and as a public persona.

In March, a jury granted Bollea $115 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. Gawker filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied in May. Gawker Media subsequently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in June, closed Gawker.com in August, and sold its six sister sites to Univision.

It was revealed in May that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, the cofounder of Paypal, had secretly been helping Bollea fund his lawsuit. Thiel had previously condemned Gawker; the site outed him as gay in 2007.

Meanwhile, the case sparked a handful of journalists to speak out against allowing wealthy or powerful individuals to intimidate or cause the decline of publications–particularly when President Donald Trump has said he wants to change libel laws to make suing news organizations easier.

According to Business Insider, the film highlights the threat that billionaires like Thiel pose to the freedom of the press. Director Brian Knappenberger told the news site: “This notion of [Thiel’s] nine-year grudge and this epic tale of revenge was so spectacular.”

Denton and A.J. Daulerio, the former Gawker editor who posted the sex tape clip, as well as Bollea’s lawyer will appear in the film, although Bollea declined to appear.

Bollea v. Gawker, which consistently made headlines since the case began, is sure to make for a fascinating movie.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hulk Hogan v. Gawker: Coming Soon to a Computer Screen Near You appeared first on Law Street.

An Asian-American dance rock band known as The Slants is one step closer to securing a trademark for its name. But a victory for them could have some unintended consequences. The group recently argued its case to the Supreme Court after a years-long legal battle that began when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the band’s application to trademark its name, which is intended to reclaim an anti-Asian slur.

According to the PTO, granting the trademark would be prohibited by the 1946 Lanham Act, which forbids the “registration of marks considered scandalous or immoral” or language that may “disparage” a group of people, like Asian-Americans.

But the Washington Post reported that during an oral argument on Wednesday, the majority of justices seemed to come down on the side of The Slants, who argued that blocking the trademark would violate the First Amendment. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the PTO refusing to trademark speech it viewed as negative would be “viewpoint discrimination.”

On the other hand, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that “no one is stopping” the band from calling itself The Slants, and that pushing for a trademark would be “asking the government to endorse” the name. But approving a trademark for The Slants might open the door for the PTO to grant trademarks for other offensive terms (although Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted during the arguments that the band’s intent was not to be disparaging).

A win for The Slants in Lee v. Tam could also mean a win for the Washington Redskins, which was denied a trademark in 2014 for the same reason. The football team filed an amicus brief–a document submitted by a party that is not involved, but has a strong interest in the case–to support the band.

The support from the Redskins is ironic, considering the fact that the team has come under fire for spreading Native American stereotypes, while The Slants prioritize combating racism. The band’s front man Simon Tam has explicitly tried to distance himself from the Redskins’ case and its owner Dan Snyder. “I don’t want to be associated with Dan Snyder,” Tam told the Washington Post.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rock Band The Slants Takes Trademark Case to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Gray wolves, and sage grouse, and prairie chickens–oh my! A new GOP aim may reduce protections for a handful of endangered species.

According to the Associated Press, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said that he “would love to invalidate” the Endangered Species Act (ESA)–although it’s unclear exactly how–and he may now have the support he needs with an incoming Republican president and Republican-dominated Congress.

Republican lawmakers have previously tried to limit the number of species included on the endangered species list, complaining that protecting these animals may restrict drilling, logging, mining, and hunting. Bishop said he believed that the act had been “hijacked” and “used for control of the land.” He claims that the ESA does not actually serve the purpose of restoring endangered species.

The act was passed in 1973 to prevent the extinction of the bald eagle, which was later taken off the endangered species list. The act outlines the requirements for listing a species as endangered and allows the federal government to undertake measures to recover those species. Once recovered, a species may be delisted and no longer subject to government protection as long as its population remains stable.

In the most recent effort to limit the scope of the act, Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) introduced a bill on January 10, backed by 11 Republicans and three Democrats, to delist the gray wolf in the Great Lakes region and Wyoming. The wolf, which often preys on game animals and livestock, was already delisted in Montana and Idaho in 2011, but two of its sub-species are close to extinction, according to Newsweek.

Though President-elect Donald Trump has not expressed a position on the Endangered Species Act, he has discussed plans to better utilize federal lands for drilling and mining.

Throughout President Barack Obama’s tenure, efforts to curb the act–by dropping restrictions for certain species, for example–have been blocked by Democratic lawmakers. According to The Hill, Republican leaders behind the measures have felt that the ESA is ineffective and imposes unnecessary restrictions on landowners.

Meanwhile, the list of endangered animals continues to grow. Recently, a type of bumblebee became the first bee–and one of 300 species added by the Obama administration–to make the list.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Lawmakers Look to Curb Endangered Species Act Under Trump Administration appeared first on Law Street.