On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) cannot be copyrighted, reversing a decision by the district court in the case of Code Revision Comm’n v. Public.Resource.org.

The court held that the Official Code, including editorial catchlines and annotations written by LexisNexis, is constructively authored by the people of the State of Georgia, through its representatives in the legislature and their contractors. As such, the court reasoned, Georgia’s single official version of its statutes, the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, is in the public domain.

The case was brought when nonprofit Public.Resource.org scanned the O.C.G.A., distributed the scanned version to state legislators and published it online.  The state Code Commission sued Public.Resource.org in federal district court for copyright infringement, and Public.Resource.org countersued for a declaratory judgment holding that state statutes are in the public domain and therefore uncopyrightable.  The district court ruled for the state and issued a preliminary injunction, requiring Public.Resource.org to take all copies offline.

The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion reversed, holding that the statutes themselves were clearly in the public domain under centuries of copyright precedents.  In analyzing whether editorial annotations written by private publisher LexisNexis were copyrightable, the court held that the Code Commission had supervisory control over the work of LexisNexis, and that its annotations were merged with the statutory Code to produce the single, official, authoritative version of Georgia’s statutes.

Therefore, the court held, the complete O.C.G.A., including editorial annotations written by a private publisher on behalf of the Georgia Legislature, is constructively authored by the people of the State of Georgia.  The court held that the entire O.C.G.A. was therefore uncopyrightable and in the public domain.  As the court concluded:

[T]he annotations in the OCGA are attributable to the constructive authorship of the People. To advance the interests and effect the will of the People, their agents in the General Assembly have chosen to create an official exposition on the meaning of the laws of Georgia. In creating the annotations, the legislators have acted as draftsmen giving voice to the sovereign’s will. The resulting work is intrinsically public domain material, belonging to the People, and, as such, must be free for publication by all.

Code Revision Comm’n v. Public.Resource.org, No. 17-11589 (11th Cir., Oct. 19, 2018). The opinion is considered an important win for entrepreneurs, innovators, and members of the public who wish to use public law.

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Eleventh Circuit Rules Georgia Code is Uncopyrightable appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit doesn’t have this problem often.  But in an October 15 filing, it sent 18 copies of a petition for rehearing to the U.S. Marshalls Service for disposition, because the petitioner attached cannabinoid samples to each copy.  Appellate litigation for the win.

From the Court’s order:

Appellant Jeffrey Nathan Schirripa submitted to the court 18 copies of his confidential petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Upon examination, Appellant affixed to each petition what appear to be samples of cannabinoids, which may be controlled substances possessed or mailed in violation of federal law.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit these 18 documents to the U.S. Marshals Service for appropriate disposition or alternate action within the purview of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Court of Federal Claims denied Mr. Schirripa’s demand that the court enjoin the United States from enforcing the Controlled Substance Act, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.  You can find the complete docket for the case here.

Hat tip to University of Missouri School of Law Professor Dennis Crouch who originally tagged this nugget on Patentlyo.  As of this writing, there is no word about whether Schirripa will appeal the case to the high court.

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Appellate Litigation Protip: Do Not Attach Drugs to Your Petition appeared first on Law Street.

With only so many billable hours in the day it’s costly to spend your time on tedious administrative tasks. Luckily there are a growing number of productivity solutions geared towards helping your office’s efficiency skyrocket and your costs decline, all while saving you from the daily grind. Lawyer Sean Robichaud recently asked his colleagues on Twitter:

Question for lawyers: what is one implementation of tech into your firm or practice that has changed everything for the better?

— Sean Robichaud (@SeanRobichaud) October 11, 2018

Here are a few of the best responses:

Clio x Vonage

You’ve probably heard of Clio, the cloud practice management software is one of the biggest names in legal tech, but Clio is hardly a static product that can be easily defined at any given moment. Rather, it’s a veritable ecosystem of integrations and networks that work with office tools you may already be using.

One of the most exciting examples of this is the Clio plugin for Vonage, the VOIP provider. The Vonage gUnify Connector for Clio allows you to log your calls and associate them with your matters in Clio. You can also use your web browser to make calls with the “click to dial” feature directly from the plugin.

iAnnotate

Whether we like it or not PDFs are still heavily used in the practice of law. The iAnnotate app for iOS makes it easy to manipulate PDFs and easily share them. It’s simple to add drawings, comments, and other annotations, clip web pages and convert them to PDF, as well as access your files located in Dropbox, Google Drive, and BOX with cloud storage integrations.

Slack

In a few short years Slack has essentially transformed office communication, moving complicated team conversations away from tiresome e-mail chains and into fast-paced chat rooms called “channels.” Slack also allows for quick direct messages between team members, all but eliminating the need to send short messages with e-mails or speak over the phone. The platform is also customizable, with offices able to install various automated bots to fit their needs.

SimplyFile

E-mail can be overwhelming, and the longer it takes you to find messages, the less productive you become. With SimplyFile you can automate e-mail filing so you always know where your important correspondences reside. After you train the Outlook plugin to understand your filing patterns, it will begin suggesting the best folder for each message, helping you keep everything neat and orderly.

TrialPad

TrialPad is an iPad app that transforms your device into a virtual trial notebook. But where it truly shines is as a presentation tool that allows you to cleanly display information to fact finders. There’s the ability to pull out and highlight quotes in documents, play video clips, and add evidence into an “admitted” category, or apply exhibit numbers, in real time.

ScanSnap Desktop Scanner

Now for something in the hardware category. The Fujitsu ScanSnap Document Scanner may seem like a luxury, but there is something to be said for a duplex scanner that just works and makes sharing documents wirelessly a breeze. The ScanSnap is able to drop documents and business cards straight into all of your favorite cloud storage and business services, like Evernote and Salesforce.

HelloSign

It’s hard to believe signing contracts is still a logistical headache for many firms, but it is. HelloSign has created a suite of products that are designed to make eSignatures as simple as possible, with Google plugins, APIs, Salesforce integration, and HelloWorks (for employment documentation). Whether it’s on a desktop or over a mobile app, HelloSign makes signing and sharing documents that require large numbers of signees simple.

In any office, productivity is king.  Simple office solutions like these help law firms earn more money, be more profitable, and help more people in less time.

Morgan Wright

Morgan Wright is a product manager at Fastcase and publisher of RAIL: The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law. She earned her undergraduate degree from Hood College and her law degree from the University of Richmond School of Law. She has worked at the Institute for Actual Innocence and the Office of the Capital Defender in Virginia, as well as in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

The post Legal Productivity Tools to Transform Your Firm appeared first on Law Street.

Times are changing in the world of law school admissions, with at least 23 institutions, including Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, and Georgetown now accepting GRE scores instead of, or alongside, the long-favored LSAT. What’s more, 25 percent of law schools are currently working on retooling their processes to accept the GRE.

Why the shift? According to administrators, GRE scores are predictive of a student’s success as a 1L and open the legal profession to students with a wider set of skills and backgrounds. The GRE is also offered in a computer format, almost every day of the year, in more than 1,000 places, while the LSAT is not nearly as accessible – it’s offered on paper only and can only be taken four times a year.

However, it’s unlikely the LSAT will become obsolete any time soon. The American Bar Association (ABA) still requires that 90 percent of an entering class at an ABA accredited-law school have an LSAT score.  The Princeton Review keeps a running tally of law schools accepting the GRE.

Morgan Wright

Morgan Wright is a product manager at Fastcase and publisher of RAIL: The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law. She earned her undergraduate degree from Hood College and her law degree from the University of Richmond School of Law. She has worked at the Institute for Actual Innocence and the Office of the Capital Defender in Virginia, as well as in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

The post Growing Number of Law Schools Accept GRE Instead of LSAT appeared first on Law Street.

For marijuana businesses, it can be extremely challenging to utilize social media to its fullest marketing potential. Historically, social media companies have erred on the side of caution when establishing their community guidelines, siding with the feds’ prohibition of marijuana. However, a recent statement from Instagram could indicate a change in that company’s stance on marijuana advertising.

The critical language was noticed by Ganjapreneur after a recent Leafly report on the ongoing Instagram impersonation of Kiva Confections, a popular California-based edibles company.

As Leafly reported, a fake account using Kiva’s name suddenly began abusing people in comments and direct messages. Kiva contacted Instagram and successfully had the internet trolls’ account shut down. However, it was through this exchange that Instagram revealed some potentially critical changes to its existing policy on cannabis as it relates to advertising.

The statement reads in full:

Instagram does not allow people or organizations to use the platform to advertise or sell marijuana, regardless of the seller’s state or country. This is primarily because most federal laws, including those of the United States, treat marijuana as either an illegal substance or highly regulated good. Our policy prohibits any marijuana seller, including dispensaries, from promoting their business by providing contact information like phone numbers, street addresses, or by using the “contact us” tab in Instagram Business Accounts. We do however allow marijuana advocacy content as long as it is not promoting the sale of the drug. Dispensaries can promote the use and federal legalization of marijuana provided that they do not also promote its sale or provide contact information to their store.

As Ganjapreneur points out, the emphasized portion above leaves out any mention of “websites.” Therefore, “without listing your location’s contact info, you can drive customers to your website where your contact info, daily deals, and updated menus are all prominently displayed.” In other words, as long as companies don’t advertise or promote the sale of cannabis, they should be in the clear.

Instagram’s omission signals a progressive push for the social media platform, which was bought by Facebook in 2012. Facebook’s community standards specifically prohibit content that promotes marijuana sales–even in states where it’s legal–but Instagram has a history of not enforcing its vague policies uniformly.

“What’s so interesting is that you’ll see posts from other companies or users and it’s naked women and paraphernalia and guns and cash,” Kristi Knoblich, co-founder of Kiva, said. “But all the posts we had on our real page were about education. Things like how to keep edibles away from kids, how to store and lock your edibles, pointers and tips for how to use safely. The nature of what we were posting didn’t have anything to do with promoting sales, illegal use, shipping or distribution.”

Hopefully, Instagram’s updated guidelines will ensure more breathing room for legal companies looking to grow their businesses with innocuous marijuana posts.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Instagram Change its Marijuana Marketing Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

Energy Transfer Partners, the Dallas-based developer of the heavily criticized Dakota Access Pipeline, has filed a massive $1 billion lawsuit against activist groups including Greenpeace, Earth First!, BankTrack, the Sierra Club, Bold Iowa, and Mississippi Stand. Energy Transfer claims that by protesting, and encouraging others to protest the pipeline, the actions of the groups “violated federal and state racketeering statutes, defamation, and constituted defamation and tortious interference under North Dakota law.”

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in North Dakota. Energy Transfer is claiming that the groups embarked on a campaign of misinformation about the pipeline, sparking the drawn-out protests, and funded and supported eco-terrorists. A press release about the lawsuit from Energy Transfer claims:

In addition to its misinformation campaign, the Enterprise directly and indirectly funded eco-terrorists on the ground in North Dakota.  These groups formed their own outlaw camp among peaceful protestors gathered near Lake Oahe, and exploited the peaceful activities of these groups to further the Enterprise’s corrupt agenda by inducing and directing violent and destructive attacks against law enforcement as well as Plaintiffs’ property and personnel.

The Dakota Access pipeline was heavily protested throughout the fall, but ultimately was able to be completed after President Donald Trump signed a presidential memo allowing the massive project. Construction was completed in April 2017. Greenpeace’s response to the recently-filed lawsuit actually pointed out a connection between Trump and Energy Transfer–the developers are being represented by Marc Kasowitz’s law firm. Kasowitz is one of Trump’s personal lawyers. Greenpeace USA General Counsel Tom Wetterer released a statement that included: “It is yet another classic ‘Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation’ (SLAPP), not designed to seek justice, but to silence free speech through expensive, time-consuming litigation. This has now become a pattern of harassment by corporate bullies, with Trump’s attorneys leading the way.”

Representatives from other groups named in the suit, including the Sierra Club, Bold Iowa, and Mississippi Stand, dispute the allegations and say they still oppose the pipeline.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dakota Access Pipeline Developer Sues Greenpeace, Other Activist Groups appeared first on Law Street.

Texas’ revamped voter ID law is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday. The judge, Nelva Gonzales Ramos, issued an injunction, saying it violates the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution. Gonzales Ramos also blocked another Texas voter ID law, which passed in 2011 and took effect in 2013. A number of subsequent legal challenges have largely blocked that law.

The protracted legal battle over Texas and its voter ID laws–among the toughest in the country–represents a larger voter fraud debate, playing out at both at the state and federal levels. Critics of voter ID laws say Republican-controlled states are deliberately stymying minorities from voting, because they are more likely to vote Democratic. Proponents of voter ID laws say voter fraud is rampant and must be kept in check with tougher voting standards.

Gonzales Ramos said Texas’ updated law, which was set to take effect in January, “remains discriminatory because it imposes burdens disproportionately on blacks and Latinos.” She added that the revisions made in the updated law, known as Senate Bill 5, do not “fully relieve minorities of the burden of discriminatory featured” of the 2011 law.

“The court thus issues injunctive relief to prevent ongoing violations of federal law and the recurrence of illegal behavior,” she wrote in the ruling.

Gonzales Ramos tossed the 2011 law, Senate Bill 14, in 2014. A circuit court affirmed the decision, but asked Ramos and the District Court for the Southern District of Texas to reexamine its discriminatory purpose. In April, Gonzales Ramos once again ruled that the law intentionally discriminated against minorities.

The original law required Texas voters to show one of seven forms of government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport. Critics contend minorities are less likely to have any of the seven ID options, and thus would be disproportionately barred from voting. The revamped law offered more options for identification, including utility bills or bank statements. Still, Gonzales Ramos found the law to be too restrictive.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has vigorously fought the legal challenges to the voter ID laws over the past few years. In a statement, he called Wednesday’s ruling “outrageous,” and vowed to appeal the decision. He also cited the Justice Department’s support of the law. Paxton added: “Safeguarding the integrity of elections in Texas is essential to preserving our democracy.”

Voting rights activists, civil rights groups, and a number of Democratic politicians cheered the decision. U.S. Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX), issued a statement saying, “Republican state leaders’ transparent efforts to make it harder and less likely that some Texans will vote are disgraceful.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Judge Blocks Texas Voter ID Laws…Again appeared first on Law Street.

A Chinese court just found in favor of New Balance in a trademark case. This is a big win for the American sneaker manufacturer. After all, it has been traditionally very difficult for companies to win IP suits in a country that has many times been accused of turning a blind eye to counterfeits.

The Chinese court ruled that three companies in China–New Boom, New Barlun, and New Bunren–all infringed upon New Balance’s logo, a distinctive N. The three companies owe a combined $1.5 million to New Balance. But while that sum may not seem like much, it’s more than American companies usually get. And it may pave the way for other American companies to be successful in IP disputes in China.

In the past, American companies usually ended up as losers when contesting trademarks. In 2016, Apple lost a lawsuit against a Chinese company using the “iPhone” trademark. Pfizer has lost multiple fights over its Viagra trademark. And Michael Jordan went through a protracted battle over the use of his own name. Most of these losses were based on the fact that Chinese law grants a trademark to whoever filed for it first, and most big American companies were just not quick enough.

But, that may be changing. The U.S. has put pressure on China to tighten its IP laws. China revamped its trademark law in 2014, allowing courts to award higher damages. Scott Palmer, a New York-based IP lawyer told the New York Times:

I don’t think this is a one-off. This is a fairly high-profile case, but I think that it falls squarely within a trend, in which the direction is more toward more significant damage awards when indeed it is warranted.

It doesn’t seem likely that American companies will necessarily start winning IP cases in China left and right. But for companies frustrated with their treatment in one of the world’s largest markets, this could be a good sign for the future.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Balance Wins Huge Trademark Case in China appeared first on Law Street.

Arguably the most prominent debate about inequality in the justice system has been the killing of black men by police officers who are often white. Aided by the ubiquity of smartphones used to document these shootings and the growing prominence of movements like Black Lives Matter, the issue has been thrust into the spotlight in recent years. But despite a glaring lack of data, the issue had likely been a problem long before it received so much public attention. While police shootings have rightly become an issue, racial disparities persist in areas of the justice system that often go unnoticed. A notable example of this is justifiable homicides.

In a new analysis from The Marshall Project, researchers found that both the race of the victim and killer are associated with large differences in the rate at which killings are ruled justified. “When a white person kills a black man in America, the killer often faces no legal consequences,” write authors Anna Flag and Daniel Lathrop. They found that although about 2 percent of all homicides committed by civilians were ruled justifiable between 1980 and 2014, 17 percent of homicides involving a white person killing a black man were deemed justifiable homicides. That rate stands out when you compare it to other circumstances; the authors find:

In comparison, when Hispanics killed black men, about 5.5 percent of cases were called justifiable. When whites killed Hispanics, it was 3.1 percent. When blacks killed whites, the figure was just 0.8 percent. When black males were killed by other blacks, the figure was about 2 percent, the same as the overall rate.

It is important to note that in most homicides, the killer and the victim are the same race, and few involve people who are strangers. But although this research covers a fairly small percentage of all homicides, the scale of the racial differences are quite notable.

The analysis, which used data for more than 400,000 homicides between 1980 and 2014, provides a detailed picture of when killings are ruled justified. While the FBI collects data for several different violent and property crimes, it offers expanded data for homicides allowing for several additional layers of analysis. The expanded data includes details about the victim and killer–including age, race, ethnicity, and sex–as well as the circumstances of the crime, like whether a weapon was involved and how the police classified the incident.

There are large racial disparities in the overall number of justifiable homicides, and those differences persist when you filter the data down to a variety of circumstances. Regardless of the relationship of the victim and the killer, differences in age, whether a weapon was used, or the police department reporting the incident, the disparities persist. Flag and Lathrop note,

Even after adjusting for the ages of the killer and victim, their relationship and the weapon used, the likelihood of a white-on-black-male case being called justifiable was still 4.7 times higher than in other cases.

U.S. law generally grants people the right to use lethal force when they fear their lives or the lives of others are in danger, while the specific details of self-defense laws are left up to the states. Much of the research on justifiable homicides has focused on what are known as Stand Your Ground laws, which typically expand a person’s right to use lethal force to a wider range of circumstances. These laws became particularly controversial in 2012 when George Zimmerman was acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager. In fact, the police decided against arresting Zimmerman in the immediate aftermath of the shooting because he claimed that he acted in self-defense, which is likely a result of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

A study published earlier this week in JAMA Internal Medicine found that both justifiable homicides and the total number of murders increased significantly after Florida passed its Stand Your Ground law in 2005. According to the researchers, the total increase in murders–up about 22 percent in the 10 years since the law was passed–exceeded what is attributable to the increase in justifiable homicides alone. The authors note that in the six years before the state enacted its Stand Your Ground Law, justifiable homicides accounted for 3.4 percent of all homicides. That percentage increased to 8.7 percent between 2006 and 2015, a 75 percent increase.

Another study of justifiable homicides from 2013, which focused on the consequences of state Stand Your Ground laws, found racial disparities that are similar to those found by the Marshall Project. In his analysis of the FBI’s expanded homicide data, John Roman at the Urban Institute concluded that not only are there are large racial differences in justifiable homicide rulings, but Stand Your Ground laws actually increase those disparities.

There are important limitations in the FBI data that prevent broad conclusions about the potential role of racial prejudice in these findings, however. One notable example is that while the FBI collects a lot of supplemental information about these homicides, police departments do not provide data on the location of the incidents. If the location–an important piece of the context in self defense claims–is systematically different in cases where a white person kills a black man, the disparity could be attributed to that. Put another way, the facts of a homicide that occurred in someone’s home may be quite different from one that occurred on the street. Because we cannot know all of these crucial details about each case, we can’t conclude that racial bias, either on the part of the police or a jury, is responsible for the difference. Additionally, there can be notable gaps in the available data because it is voluntarily reported by the police and does not always reflect the final result of a case. The authors note that while a jury ultimately acquitted George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin, Martin’s death was classified as “other” in FBI data rather than as a justifiable homicide.

While we cannot know for sure whether prejudice is responsible for the racial discrepancies, there are a number of ways that such bias could come into play. From prosecutorial discretion over whether a case even goes to trial, to the inherent subjectivity involved in determining whether a person is in danger, overt and implicit bias certainly could play a role in these rulings.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Research Finds Justifiable Homicide Rulings More Likely to Benefit White Americans appeared first on Law Street.

Learning to code can be an incredibly lucrative skill in today’s technical age, but is it a potential “threat to order and security?”

Ohio and Michigan prisons ban books that aim to teach computer programming skills, according to MuckRock, a non-profit site aimed at sharing public information via the Freedom of Information Act. The organization recently obtained a list of banned books in state prisons.

“Their decisions to ban educational texts related to programming, alongside erotica and literature published by neo-nazi groups, are in stark contrast with practices in other states and countries, where prisons include coding in educational programs,” writes MuckRock.

Ohio’s list of banned books contained titles like “Beginning Linux Programming 4th Edition,” “The Linux Professional Institute Certification Guide,” and “Operating Systems Demystified.” The state gave no explanation as to why the books were banned.

Ohio prisons ban books on learning @Linux alongside erotica and neo-Nazi literature https://t.co/kYNt6Qfb6E pic.twitter.com/9sUeg204Zw

— MuckRock (@MuckRock) August 18, 2017

In Michigan, prisoners were specifically banned from reading books the Department of Corrections believes “contains information about computer programs and applications.” Texts like “Windows 98 6 in 1” and “Windows Game Programming for Dummies” were banned because they represent a “threat to the order and security of the institution.”

According to MuckRock, 15 books are banned for including information about computer programming, including guides to web design and a book aimed at teaching the elderly how to use computers.

Stark Contrast to Silicon Valley

The decision to ban these kinds of books is a stark contrast from rehabilitation efforts in San Quentin, California. At the San Quentin State Prison, Chris Redlitz of The Last Mile helps to prepare inmates for successful reentry into society through web education and career training opportunities. In 2014, he launched Code.7370 San Quentin, the first computer programming curriculum in a U.S. prison.

Inmates in the program help build apps and other software for startups and established companies like Airbnb. Because they can’t use the internet, the development shop’s coders work on a closed network. The men in the program make $16.77 an hour.

In April, CNBC reported that none of the prisoners who had gone through the program had returned to prison. That is likely due to the fact that the program is exceptionally beneficial to inmates, because it provides prisoners with an entrepreneurial skillset that enables them to start a career for themselves upon release, rather than relying on limited job opportunities available to felons.

The Code.7370 curriculum has since expanded to five more prisons in California, including two women’s prisons, and Redlitz has hopes to create a national program within the next five years.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why are Some Prisons Banning Inmates From Teaching Themselves to Code? appeared first on Law Street.

Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post News Quiz, News Quiz, Get Your News Quiz! appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcus Dieterle

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

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

American Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah has filed a defamation lawsuit against a white supremacist website, the Daily Stormer, after it published an article accusing him of being the mastermind behind the terror attack in Manchester.

The Daily Stormer was recently kicked off of its domain on GoDaddy and was denied service by Google and a Chinese webhost. After the controversial website published a hateful, demeaning article about Heather Heyer, who was killed in Charlottesville last weekend, the website has been even more ostracized than before.

But on Wednesday, the site was live again for a few hours through a Russian domain. In a new article, the writers praised President Trump and claimed his relationship to Russian President Vladimir Putin is responsible for the website’s new domain. But Roskomnadzor, Russia’s watchdog monitoring hateful content on the internet, requested the Russia Network Information Center to take it down, which it did.

Obeidallah filed his suit around the same time, alleging that the Daily Stormer caused him to receive death threats and suffer from emotional distress. The publication first started targeting him after he wrote a piece for the Daily Beast in 2015, in which he urged the Republican Party to speak out against the white nationalists who supported Donald Trump’s candidacy for president.

Today I filed a lawsuit against The Daily Stormer and Andrew Anglin for defamation – there are not two sides to white supremacy. pic.twitter.com/AZxysvqykt

— (((DeanObeidallah))) (@Deanofcomedy) August 16, 2017

In response, the Daily Stormer wrote an article calling Obeidallah a terrorist. Then in June of this year, Obeidallah wrote another article and questioned why Trump wouldn’t use the phrase “white supremacist terrorism.” In response, the Daily Stormer published a text with the headline, “Dean Obeidallah, Mastermind Behind Manchester Bombing, Calls on Trump to Declare Whites the Real Terrorists.”

After that article, some people actually believed Obeidallah was a terrorist, and he started receiving threats. The Daily Stormer even fabricated tweets to look like Obeidallah had written them, taking responsibility for the terror attack in Manchester in May. One of them praised Allah and another said he had fled to safety in Syria.

“Defendants took numerous steps, including mixing fact with falsehood, in an effort to create confusion and convince readers that the entirety of the Article is, in fact, true,” the lawsuit says. The Daily Stormer’s publisher, Andrew Anglin, and ten other people who republished the article are listed as defendants. None of them have responded.

“Right wing publications have come after me for years for everything from my progressive views to the fact I’m Muslim–that’s par for the course. But I had never, ever seen anything like this,” Obeidallah said.

The lawsuit also states that the Daily Stormer is among the 200 most frequented websites in America, with over 3 million monthly visitors. Though it claims to publish news stories, it intentionally spread false information, the lawsuit says. But maybe this suit can help other victims of defamation. “No one deserves to be defamed and threatened online by a racist neo-Nazi mob simply for expressing your ideas and beliefs,” Obeidallah said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comedian Sues the Daily Stormer for Accusing Him of Manchester Terror Attack appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, the NFL issued Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott a six-game suspension for violating the NFL’s personal-conduct policy, following an investigation into domestic abuse allegations. Now the former Buckeye has filed an official appeal, hoping to discredit his accuser by highlighting a text exchange between her and a friend in which she discussed leveraging sex videos featuring her and Elliott for money from the player.

Yahoo! Sport’s Charles Robinson obtained a 160-page report prepared by NFL investigators, which reportedly contains a series of text messages between Elliott’s ex-girlfriend Tiffany Thompson and an unnamed friend that suggest the pair considered blackmailing the second-year pro for $20,000.

According to the report, here is the exact exchange between Thompson and her friend on September 21, 2016:

[Thompson]: What if I sold mine and Ezekiel’s sex videos

[Friend]: We’d all be millionaires

[Friend]: We could black mail him w that

[Thompson]: I want to bro

[Friend]: Let’s do it

[Thompson]: Scared

[Friend]: Shit

[Friend]: Id be like look give me 10k or I’ll just sell our sex videos for the same amount flat

[Friend]: Me and my friends tryna go on vacation and get boob jobs

(the report notes a pair of blank texts)

[Thompson]: 10k Bitch I want 20k

[Thompson]: Go big or go home

[Friend]: That’s fine too

“While none of this appears to be evidence that can conclusively clear Elliott of domestic violence, the NFLPA and his lawyers believe it speaks to the credibility aspect that may ultimately determine the success of his appeal,” writes Yahoo! Sports.

Elliott, 22, was accused of assaulting Thompson in Columbus, Ohio, in July 2016, after she posted images of bruises all over her body to her Instagram, tagging Elliott. In the captions, Thompson said Elliott picked her up and threw her across the room by her arms and choked her. She later called Columbus police and told officers that Elliott had been hitting her for “the past five days.”

Elliott, who was neither arrested nor charged in the case, continues to maintain his innocence.

However, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended Elliott after four independent advisers concluded that there was “substantial and persuasive evidence supporting a finding that [Elliott] engaged in physical violence against Ms. Thompson on multiple occasions during the week of July 16, 2016.” The league found the “photographic and medical forensic evidence corroborates many critical elements of the allegations regarding the causes of her injuries.”

Following the release of the text messages, many were accused of shaming the victim with their responses on Twitter.

Tiffany Thompson was willing to ruin @EzekielElliott career so she and her pals could get $20K worth of boob jobs. https://t.co/QEUpT1Pk6e

— mike fisher ✭ (@fishsports) August 16, 2017

This doesn’t clear Zeke. It just tears away at her credibility. Makes me wonder how unimpressed they were with Zeke’s credibility

— Mark Friedman (@friedo1033) August 16, 2017

I see we’ve reached the “trash the victim” point in Ezekiel Elliott case. Lovely. Remember victims can behave badly, still have been abused

— Nancy Armour (@nrarmour) August 16, 2017

Seeing people paint Ezekiel Elliott as the victim in this situation is … something.

— Scott Bell (@ScottBellDMN) August 11, 2017

Elliott’s lawyers intend to further attack Thompson’s credibility in their appeal using documents that show she allegedly lied to the Columbus Police department during its investigation, and her various threats to “ruin his career,” including one that was racially based, according to sources. In one such threat, Thompson allegedly told Elliott on July 22, “You are a black male athlete. I’m a white girl. They are not going to believe you.”

Elliott will be eligible to make his season debut October 29 against the Washington Redskins. His appeal hearing is scheduled for August 29.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ezekiel Elliott’s Accuser Admitted to Suggesting Blackmail Over Sex Tapes appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the Charlottesville violence this past weekend calls to take a serious stand against white supremacy have abounded. And some companies have complied–GoDaddy and Google have refused to provide hosting services for the Daily Stormer; Twitter has suspended a number of accounts; and Apple has cut off its services to white supremacists.

The Daily Stormer previously had domain registration through GoDaddy. When GoDaddy decided to drop the popular white supremacist site, it attempted to move to Google, which also rebuffed it. Now, the site has apparently moved to the dark web. That means that it doesn’t have to work with any sort of mainstream provider, and can only be accessed through a software called Tor.

Twitter suspended some accounts linked to the Daily Stormer yesterday. For many, that was a welcome surprise–Twitter doesn’t necessarily have the best track record when it comes to dealing with harassment and inappropriate usage.

Apple cut off services like Apple Pay for white supremacist websites selling merchandise. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook also sent out a memo to all the company employees, affirming:

We must not witness or permit such hate and bigotry in our country, and we must be unequivocal about it. This is not about the left or the right, conservative or liberal. It is about human decency and morality. I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans.

Other tech companies that have, at least in part, shut off service to white supremacists include PayPal, which cut off more than three dozen white supremacist groups, and popular dating site OkCupid, which has banned at least one known white supremacist.

We were alerted that white supremacist Chris Cantwell was on OkCupid. Within 10 minutes we banned him for life.

— OkCupid (@okcupid) August 17, 2017

Airbnb actually banned white supremacists from using its platform ahead of the Charlottesville rally, a decision which was reaffirmed by its CEO after the fact. Brian Chesky wrote:

The violence, racism and hatred demonstrated by neo-Nazis, the alt-right, and white supremacists should have no place in this world. Airbnb will continue to stand for acceptance, and we will continue to do all we can to enforce our community commitment.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tech Companies Dump White Supremacists appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Disbands Business Councils as More CEOs Quit

After President Trump seemed to defend white nationalists regarding the violence in Charlottesville, even more former allies are turning their backs on him. Yesterday, he closed down two business advisory councils as many CEOs quit in response to the president’s comments. The Strategy & Policy Forum and the Manufacturing Council are now disbanded. “Racism and murder are unequivocally reprehensible and are not morally equivalent to anything else that happened in Charlottesville,” said the CEO of Campbell Soup, Denise Morrison, as she resigned from the Manufacturing Council. Trump announced the disbandings on Twitter, even though the councils had reportedly decided to call it quits internally before that.

Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2017

Trump’s blaming of “both sides” also caused military officials and Republicans to issue their own statements condemning the alt-right violence and distancing themselves from the president. Even Fox News hosts criticized him in some broadcasts and revealed that they hadn’t found a single Republican to come on air in defense of Trump.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s comments on Charlottesville during a press conference Tuesday in Trump Tower were remarkable…in the worst way possible.

Not only did Trump equate the counter-protesters (whom he labeled the “alt-left”) to the torch-carrying nazis, but he defended the white nationalists and expressed sympathy for their demonstration against the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

“This week it’s Robert E. Lee,” Trump told reporters. “I notice that Stonewall Jackson’s coming down,” he added, referring to another famous Confederate commander.

“I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

Many were appalled by the statements, but there were some–like former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke–who praised the president. However, it was a tweet from actor James Woods likening the toppling of a racist statue to the destruction of democracy that inspired a massive meme clap back.

Before the #liberals find a reason to deface, destroy or degrade this one, I thought some of you might like to see it one more time… pic.twitter.com/juArhCpiXl

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) August 14, 2017

“Before the #liberals find a reason to deface, destroy or degrade this one, I thought some of you might like to see it one more time…,” read the the tweet, which was paired with a photo of the Marine Corps War Memorial.

Awed by the sheer ridiculousness of such a tweet, it didn’t take long for the “#liberals” to swipe Woods’ caption and troll him with his own words. Here are some of my favorites:

Michael Jackson and Bubbles Sculpture

Before the #liberals find a reason to deface, destroy or degrade this one, I thought some of you might like to see it one more time… pic.twitter.com/7n7V0Gnc9w

— Heidi Hits Children (@heiditron3000) August 15, 2017

Man Assaulting Creepy Green Babies 

Before the #liberals find a reason to deface, destroy or degrade this one, I thought some of you might like to see it one more time… pic.twitter.com/M67xuXFhCL

— Anthony Oliveira (@meakoopa) August 15, 2017

This Bronze Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo

Before the #liberals find a reason to deface, destroy or degrade this one, I thought some of you might like to see it one more time… pic.twitter.com/0JqE5obRJj

— Freddie Campion (@FreddieCampion) August 15, 2017

A Giant Butt Plug

before the #liberals find a reason to deface, destroy or degrade this one, I thought some of you might like to see it one more time… pic.twitter.com/8GzpoF0LCK

— Goth Ms. Frizzle (@spookperson) August 15, 2017

This Lindsay Lohan Wax Figure That Tried to Impersonate Beyoncé

before the #liberals find a reason to deface, destroy or degrade this one, I thought some of you might like to see it one more time… pic.twitter.com/I9zbhn5yzf

— corey (@corey4evrfamous) August 15, 2017

And Who Could Forget This Gem…

Before the #Liberals find a reason to deface, destroy or degrade this one, I thought some of you would like to see it one last time… pic.twitter.com/8ltPIoGFeJ

— Victor Vega (@Cpt_ShitPost) August 16, 2017

The compilation of wacky sculpture memes managed to make light of the monument debate, but don’t count on a ceasefire from either side. Confederate-era symbols were removed overnight in Baltimore, and a plaque honoring Robert E. Lee was taken down in Brooklyn on Wednesday.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Before the #Liberals” Meme Trolls Actor With Wacky Monuments appeared first on Law Street.

The state of South Carolina is suing Purdue Pharma over its alleged contributions to the opioid epidemic.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson announced the lawsuit at a press conference on Tuesday. It accuses the Connecticut-based company of deceptive marketing practices and downplaying the addictive qualities of OxyContin.

In particular, the suit addresses Purdue Pharma’s failure to comply with the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. In 2007, Purdue Pharma signed an agreement with South Carolina and other states, which required the company to correct its marketing practices.

However, according to Wilson, Purdue Pharma continued to encourage doctors to prescribe OxyContin for unapproved uses. Representatives also assured doctors that the users would become only “pseudoaddicted.” Supposedly, they could reverse their symptoms by taking even more drugs.

In reality, OxyContin is a Schedule II controlled substance, which means it is highly addictive.

“Opioid addiction is a public health menace to South Carolina,” Wilson said at the press conference. “We cannot let history record that we stood by while this epidemic rages.” Recovering addicts and family members of overdose victims stood around him.

“While we vigorously deny the allegations,” a Purdue Pharma spokesperson said in a statement, “we share South Carolina officials’ concerns about the opioid crisis and we are committed to working collaboratively to find solutions.”

Over 565 South Carolinians died of opioid overdoses in 2015. Last year, the state had the ninth-highest opioid prescribing rate in the country.

Comparatively, the U.S. as a whole had over 33,000 people die from opioid use in 2015. Experts predict that number will rise.

This is not the first legal action against Purdue Pharma. In January, the city of Everett, Washington. sued the company for negligence and inaction over the city’s OxyContin crisis. Six months later, the state of Ohio sued Purdue Pharma and four other companies over their marketing of OxyContin and other drugs.

Most recently, New Hampshire filed its own lawsuit on August 1. Like South Carolina, the state accuses Purdue Pharma of overstating the benefits of opioids and recommending it for unapproved uses.

In a similar action, the Cherokee Nation sued six pharmaceutical companies in April, accusing them of unjustly profiting from over-prescription of opioids.

Last week, President Trump declared the opioid epidemic a national emergency. Since then, he has not specified any plans or resources to combat the crisis.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Carolina Sues OxyContin Maker over Opioid Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Now that medical marijuana is legal in more than half the country, patients suffering from chronic pain or PTSD are flocking to marijuana dispensaries across the nation for symptom relief. But what if I told you that marijuana may not actually help with either ailment?

Apparently, there is little scientific evidence to draw conclusions about the benefits and harms of marijuana in patients with PTSD and chronic pain, according to two studies published Monday in the journal “Annals of Internal Medicine.”

In an editorial accompanying the research, Dr. Sachin Patel of Vanderbilt Psychiatric Hospital noted that the findings aren’t unique, and that “scientific evidence for the effectiveness and safety of cannabis and cannabinoid products in treating medical and psychiatric disease has recently come under substantial scrutiny.”

“The current studies highlight the real and urgent need for high-quality clinical trials in both of these areas,” Patel continued in an email to Reuters. “If cannabis is being considered for medical use, it should certainly be after all well-established treatments have failed.”

Both of the studies were conducted by researchers at the Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System and funded by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs.

Is Marijuana Causing More Harm Than Good?

Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical use, and the number of medical and recreational users has nearly doubled between 2001 and 2013, with one in 10 adults saying they use it.

According to the researchers, more than one third of patients seeking cannabis for medical purposes in states where it is legal list PTSD as the primary reason for their request, and between 45 percent and 80 percent of people who seek medical cannabis do so for pain management.

For one of the studies, the team of researchers reviewed 27 studies examining marijuana use for chronic pain. While they weren’t able to conclude that it helped pain sufferers, they did find evidence that marijuana led to an increased risk of car accidents, psychotic symptoms, and short-term cognitive impairment.

When reviewing prior research on the effects of marijuana on PTSD, they “found low- to moderate-strength evidence that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk for psychotic symptoms, psychosis, mania, and–in active users–short-term cognitive dysfunction,” the authors noted.

In fact, one of the studies they examined involving veterans with PTSD showed a small but “significant” worsening of symptoms among veterans who either started or continued using cannabis during the study period.

It’s important to note again that the researchers maintained that there was insufficient evidence for them to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of cannabis in both patient populations.

Is This Fuel for Sessions?

Short answer: probably not.

It’s no secret that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is actively looking for research to support his disapproval of marijuana legalization. After his Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety failed to offer up any new suggestions for dealing with marijuana in states that have legalized it, experts said that Sessions could still invoke federal law to push his anti-marijuana agenda.

While these new studies cast doubt on marijuana’s effectiveness at treating these particular ailments, the findings don’t definitively negate prior research attesting to the benefits of marijuana for patients suffering from chronic pain and PTSD. The effectiveness of marijuana treating these symptoms could also depend on potency and dose, Patel said in an email to CNN. Most studies use lower doses and lower potencies of medical marijuana than what is found in dispensaries.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marijuana May Not Actually Help with PTSD or Chronic Pain appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcus Dieterle

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

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

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Celebrities Protest at Trump Tower After Outrageous Press Conference

Last night, Michael Moore invited the audience that attended his Broadway play “The Terms of My Surrender,” featuring Mark Ruffalo, to join them at a protest outside the Trump Tower in New York. He then bussed 200 people in double-decker buses over to the tower and encouraged the rest of the audience to walk over. The protest was also a vigil in honor of counter-protester Heather Heyer. Ruffalo opened with a speech urging people to say her name. Actors Olivia Wilde and Tom Sturridge joined the protest right after they finished their Broadway show, “1984,” and led some chants.

.@MMFlint and @MarkRuffalo are leading a Trump Tower protest with #1984Play‘s Olivia Wilde and Tom Sturridge in tow https://t.co/PFfJ08I54a pic.twitter.com/rqf62i5qwS

— Ashley Lee (@cashleelee) August 16, 2017

The outrage aimed at President Donald Trump increased yesterday, after he defended his initial remarks regarding Charlottesville, when he said that “many sides” were responsible for the violence. Yesterday, he repeated that claim, and said the “alt-left” groups that attended the rally were “very, very violent” and that the blame is on “both sides.” People were shocked by the callous comments, and former KKK leader David Duke thanked the president on Twitter.

No words. https://t.co/pCSYUE5iZN

— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) August 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The jury in the Taylor Swift groping lawsuit ruled in favor of the pop star after four hours of deliberation. Swift counter-sued former Colorado radio host David Mueller for grabbing her behind at a meet-and-greet in 2013. Previously he had sued her for $3 million, claiming that her accusations were false. That suit was dismissed by a judge last week, but yesterday, the jury found in favor of Swift in her counter-suit. Mueller will have to pay her $1 in damages, an important symbolic victory for the pop star.

For Swift, this was more than a case of “he said, she said.” She hopes to inspire more victims of sexual assault to come forward. Swift recognized the uniqueness of her ability to launch a countersuit in which she was only seeking $1. After the verdict, she said: “I acknowledge the privilege that I benefit from in life, in society and in my ability to shoulder the enormous cost of defending myself in a trial like this.”

According to Swift, she posed with Mueller at a meet-and-great in 2013, and he reached under her skirt to grab her butt. One of the key points of contention was a photo from the event. In it, Mueller’s hand is clearly below Swift’s back. He claimed that he had just touched her ribs, Swift says that’s when he grabbed her bare butt. Her bodyguard and the photographer testified that they had seen him grope her as well, and her mother testified about the conversation they had in the immediate aftermath in which Swift disclosed what had happened to her.

Mueller was fired from his position as a radio host two days later. In addition to suing Swift, he also sued her mother and her radio promotions director Frank Bell. He claimed that Andrea Swift and Bell told his bosses, leading to his firing. They were both found not liable as well.

Swift has said that she plans on donating to organizations that aid women who have suffered from sexual assault. And she acknowledged that as one of the most recognizable pop stars in the world, she has a unique ability to be a role model for young women, as did her lawyer, Doug Baldridge. He stated during closing arguments: “By returning a verdict on Ms. Swift’s counterclaim for a single symbolic dollar, the value of which is immeasurable to all women in this situation…You will tell every woman…that no means no.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taylor Swift Vindicated With Groping Lawsuit Win appeared first on Law Street.

The father of a participant in the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, has published an open letter to his son, denouncing his “hateful opinions” and saying he is no longer welcome at family gatherings.

Peter Tefft of Fargo, North Dakota, attended the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, where white nationalists gathered to protest the removal of a statue of confederate general Robert E. Lee. Participants met with counter-protesters and police in an explosion of chaos and violence that left dozens injured and one killed after a rally participant drove a car through the crowd.

Peter Tefft’s father, Pearce Tefft, published the letter to North Dakota-Minnesota news site Inforum on Monday morning. In the letter, Pearce Tefft writes that he and his family “loudly repudiate” Peter’s white nationalist rhetoric–which he calls “hateful and violent”–and emphasizes that the family does not share these beliefs.

“His hateful opinions are bringing hateful rhetoric to his siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews as well as his parents,” Pearce writes. “None of his beliefs were learned at home. We do not, never have, and never will, accept his twisted worldview.”

In the letter’s closing, Pearce urges his “prodigal son” to renounce his hate and return home, where he will be welcomed only if he decides to “accept and love all.”

“We have been silent up until now, but now we see that this was a mistake,” the letter reads. “It was the silence of good people that allowed the Nazis to flourish the first time around, and it is the silence of good people that is allowing them to flourish now.”

“A Maniac…Crazy Nazi”

Peter became the center of local controversy in Fargo earlier this year, when posters showing his photo and calling him a Nazi and a white supremacist were posted in the city’s downtown area in February.

He spoke with several news organizations about his involvement in the Charlottesville rally and defended his views, which he calls “100 percent pro-white.” Before traveling to Virginia, Peter penned a letter, published on Inforum, encouraging other white conservatives to “advocate for our civil rights” and warning them of “the left’s plan for demographic displacement.”

Peter wrote that he was attending the Unite the Right event in Charlottesville to “stand up for rural, traditional Americans” and rally around the statue of Lee.

“We seek to create a contrast between our position and the left; we like debate and they don’t,” he wrote. “Maybe we will even teach the left a lesson or two about the dangers of censorship and how angry it makes people.”

Peter’s image and participation in Charlottesville went viral this week after the Twitter account @YesYoureRacist posted his photo, garnering thousands of retweets and likes.

This charming Nazi is Pete Tefft of Fargo, ND — spotted in @UR_Ninja‘s video: https://t.co/2oslzXHtRZ #GoodNightAltRight #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/Zqd2gm8mOC

— Yes, You’re Racist (@YesYoureRacist) August 12, 2017

Jacob Scott, Peter Tefft’s nephew, responded to the viral tweet in a statement, calling Peter a “vile person” who has made “violent threats” against his own family. Scott wrote that several family members had been harassed, both in person and online, by strangers who are under the assumption that they also endorse Nazism.

“We are all bleeding-heart liberals who believe in the fundamental equality of all human beings,” Scott wrote in a statement to Inforum. “Peter is a maniac, who has turned away from all of us and gone down some insane internet rabbit-hole, and turned into a crazy Nazi. He scares us all, we don’t feel safe around him, and we don’t know how he came to be this way.”

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Father of Charlottesville Rally Participant Denounces “Hateful” Son appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump is Considering a Pardon for Joe Arpaio

President Donald Trump said that he is seriously considering issuing a pardon for Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff who was recently found guilty of criminal contempt for repeatedly profiling Hispanic people in violation of a court order. He has been dubbed “America’s toughest sheriff” and was a staunch Obama opponent who joined Trump in the “birther” movement. And Trump seems to like him quite a bit.

“Is there anyone in local law enforcement who has done more to crack down on illegal immigration than Sheriff Joe?” Trump reportedly said during a conversation with Fox News. “He has protected people from crimes and saved lives. He doesn’t deserve to be treated this way.” Arpaio’s sentencing is scheduled for October 5 and he is facing up to six months behind bars. Trump retweeted a Fox News article about the possibility of a pardon. Yesterday, Trump finally condemned the violence in Charlottesville, so some critics believe that the Arpaio comments might be a nod to white supremacist groups.

Make no mistake: If Trump pardons Arpaio, this would be an official presidential endorsement of racism.

— ACLU National (@ACLU) August 14, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A story involving an inventor, a missing female journalist, and a sunken submarine has gripped the people of Scandinavia. But despite what it sounds like, it’s not a crime novel or an action movie. Danish inventor Peter Madsen has been charged with involuntary manslaughter after taking a Swedish journalist, Kim Wall, out for a ride in his self-made submarine.

Early Saturday morning, Wall’s boyfriend reported her as missing, because she hadn’t returned home the night before. A search and rescue operation began, and Madsen was discovered sitting on a sinking submarine. He jumped off the sinking vessel near Copenhagen, just as rescue boats approached.

Later on Saturday, the submarine, called UC3 Nautilus, was recovered from the bottom of the sea, but no body was found inside and there’s no chance to recover any potential DNA evidence because it would have been washed away. Madsen claims technical issues sank the submarine.

Madsen also said that he dropped Wall off outside a restaurant on the mainland at 10:30 p.m. on Friday. But she hasn’t been seen since a passerby snapped a photo of the two on the submarine tower before they left the Copenhagen harbor on Thursday.

A Danish submarine inventor has been charged in the death of Kim Wall, a journalist. But her body is still missing. https://t.co/hWTvDNuCLg pic.twitter.com/1i2IKQqIge

— New York Times World (@nytimesworld) August 13, 2017

Danish police believe Madsen may have accidentally killed Wall and then tried to cover his tracks by sinking the submarine. They said they still hope to find Wall alive, but that they are prepared for the worst case scenario. Madsen is denying any wrongdoing.

Wall is a 30-year-old Swedish freelance journalist who graduated from Columbia University in New York and has worked with publications like the New York Times, Vice, and Time.

According to Swedish media, Wall was in the submarine with Madsen as part of her research for an upcoming article about Madsen and his new space project. Madsen also reportedly gave a second explanation of when and where he supposedly dropped Wall off on the Friday evening, but the police have not revealed any details about that version.

Kim Wall remains missing. Please share her photo with anyone you might know in Denmark. https://t.co/ercjiTclmM

— Jenny Hollander (@_JennyHollander) August 12, 2017

Madsen is known as a “hobby engineer” with “low social skills,” who is currently attempting to build space rockets. His nickname in Denmark is Rocket Madsen, and he is currently running Rocket Madsen’s Space Laboratory, which aims to become the first non-governmental and volunteer-only organization to send humans to space.

In 2014, he started a crowd-funding page attempting to raise $50,000 for the refurbishment of the submarine. He only raised $6,170. But 10 volunteers worked on finishing the refurbishment, which actually ended in an ownership dispute. Nautilus was initially built as a hobby project by a group of enthusiasts, which included Madsen. But after the dispute, the ownership was transferred to Madsen. After that he allegedly said, “You may think that a curse is lying on Nautilus. That curse is me. There will not be peace on Nautilus for as long as I exist.” That eerie statement sounds even more harrowing today, as the search for Wall continues.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did a Danish Inventor Kill a Female Journalist on His Homemade Submarine? appeared first on Law Street.

Less than a week after opening, Hawaii’s first–and only–medical marijuana dispensary has already been forced to temporarily close due to not enough marijuana on hand.

Maui Grown Therapies announced in a press release Sunday that it will close Monday and Tuesday as it awaits action from the Department of Health’s Labs Division to “help unclog a backlog of products.”

The Maui-based dispensary officially opened for business on August 8, but it was only permitted to sell flowers to patients. Trouble began after company officials anticipated a recent batch of flowers to clear lab certification by Saturday–but that didn’t happen. As a result, the company says it sold out of its first batch due to “high demand.”

“It’s unfortunate that an administrative hindrance of this magnitude prevents patients from getting the help they need,” said Christopher Cole, director of product management for Maui Grown Therapies. “We had planned to open with a full range of derivative products such as concentrates, oils, capsules and topical products, but at the eleventh hour we discovered that the State Labs Division had failed to certify a lab to conduct testing of manufactured products.”

The supply issues are incredibly disappointing to Hawaiians, who have waited 17 years for a legal way to purchase medical marijuana. Hawaii was among the first states to legalize medical marijuana in 2000, but it wasn’t until 2015 that dispensaries were legalized.

If this shaky launch sounds vaguely similar, that’s because it should. In July, Nevada’s governor declared a marijuana state of emergency to push lawmakers to adopt emergency legislation to fix its supply bottleneck. While Nevada acted quickly to work out some of its supply chain kinks, Hawaii’s state offices were closed over the weekend and so far have not released a statement addressing plans to fix the problem.

“We could serve thousands of patients with the amount of manufactured product we currently have available for final compliance testing,” said Cole. “Even though we were approved by the Department of Health on May 24^th to manufacture cannabis products, the restrictions placed on the only licensed lab have prevented us from offering these products to our patients–and it is entirely unclear to us when this will change.”

Hawaii granted licenses to eight medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the Hawaiian islands last year. While several dispensaries began growing and harvesting the product, they were unable to sell it because until recently the state had not certified a lab.

According to the Cannabist, Honolulu-based dispensary Aloha Green was inspected Tuesday by the Department of Health and later announced it would open for sales Wednesday.

Maui Grown Therapies has also changed its operating hours to accommodate demand and will reopen for business Wednesday.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hawaii’s First Marijuana Dispensary Has Already Run Out of Weed appeared first on Law Street.

For nervous fliers, having a cocktail or two to ease nerves on a flight isn’t unheard of. But apparently the United Kingdom has recently seen a dramatic uptick in the number of drunk passengers arrested for acting inappropriately in the air. The number of passengers arrested for being drunk or disorderly on flights or in airports has increased by 50 percent over the past year. And it’s causing a big problem for members of the cabin crew–roughly half have reported having to deal with a disruptive passenger over the same time period.

A BBC investigation surveyed 18 of the 20 UK police forces that serve major airports. They report arresting 387 passengers over the past year, up from 255 the year before that. Many cabin crew members reported that they were subjected to physical abuse from disorderly passengers. A woman who used to work in a Virgin cabin crew, Ally Murphy, told the BBC reporters about her experience, saying: “People just see us as barmaids in the sky.” She described being assaulted by passengers, stating:

I was pulled into an upper-class bed by a passenger who was feeling particularly lucky I guess. They would touch your breasts, or they’d touch your bum or your legs, or I mean I’ve had hands going up my skirt before.

It’s rage inducing, and you shouldn’t have to deal with that.

I guess I never reported it to the police because sadly, and this is completely wrong and only really occurring to me now, you kind of just accept it as part of the job. And it shouldn’t be.

Drunken fliers can potentially endanger their fellow passengers; Murphy also described a passenger trying to open an emergency door.

But in the U.S., incidents of unruly passengers actually seem to be decreasing. According to the FAA there’s been a steady decline in incidents voluntarily reported by airlines over the past few years–there were 147 in 2014, 105 in 2015, and 97 in 2016. So far, 22 incidents have been reported in 2017. But, those numbers, as well as the incidents reported in the UK, need to be taken with a grain of salt. There are surely drunk passengers who don’t alert suspicion, as well as “unruly” passengers who haven’t imbibed at all. And there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that some Americans like having a few on flights as well. A recent Vice op-ed authored by an anonymous flight attendant reported seeing plenty of drunk passengers, including those who experienced negative interactions between alcohol and calming drugs.

So, wherever you’re flying, don’t be a drunken jerk. It can be dangerous for you, other passengers, and the cabin crew.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UK Police See Big Increase in Drunk Flier Arrests appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

DOJ Opens Civil Rights Investigation into Charlottesville Violence

This weekend, a white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent. The march began on Friday night, with protesters carrying torches, Nazi flags, and chanting a Nazi slogan. On Saturday, a lot of counter-protesters arrived at the scene. On Saturday afternoon, a car drove straight into the crowd of counter-protesters, killing one woman and injuring over 30 others. The driver was later identified as 20-year-old Ohio native James Alex Fields Jr. He has been charged with murder. Governor Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency Saturday evening.

Alleged driver of car that plowed into Charlottesville crowd was a Nazi sympathizer, former teacher says https://t.co/LWgW6UTy3e

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) August 13, 2017

President Donald Trump finally commented from his New Jersey golf club, saying that he condemns the display of violence “on many sides.” But this very brief and vague comment was heavily criticized for not condemning the brazen white supremacy on display.

The Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the violence and even Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a more emphatic statement than the president. “The violence and deaths in Charlottesville strike at the heart of American law and justice. When such actions arise from racial bigotry and hatred, they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated,” he said.

If ISIS rammed a car into a crowd this would be labeled quickly & logically. Charlottesville – call it what it is, domestic terrorism.

— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) August 13, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Bureau of Prisons released a memo last week declaring that feminine hygiene products would be provided to inmates for free. While this will only affect female inmates who are currently incarcerated in federal prisons, it’s a notable step forward for inmates who struggle to access basic hygienic products.

While some products were previously provided to women for free, many had to be purchased through the commissary, with the inmates’ own money. For the many prisoners who are from low income families, or those who are not able to work while behind bars, it can be incredibly difficult to obtain the money needed to purchase such items. And accessing those items through a commissary is actually difficult to begin with–for many prisons there is a long wait when it comes to placing orders. According to some reports, some women are forced to provide sexual favors to guards in order to obtain the feminine hygiene products that they need.

This announcement from the Bureau of Prisons comes right after a bill introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) that would require feminine hygiene products to be provided for free. The bill, the Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act, would also require other humane reforms in how female inmates are treated. Some of those reforms include easier access to visitations, a ban on shackling pregnant women, and access to OBGYNs.

In an interview with Bustle, Booker said:

Most folks don’t understand that so many women are being incarcerated are coming from environments that are not stable, that they are again survivors of violence, they might come in with an addiction. So now you’re struggling to recover from an addiction, you’re going through withdrawal, you have no resources, you have no support system and you’re struggling and all of that, and now you can’t even buy soap, toothpaste, sanitary products.

But while the new move by the Bureau of Prisons is a step in the right direction, the other issues included in the bill need to be addressed as well.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bureau of Prisons to Provide Free Feminine Hygiene Products appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, white nationalists descended on Charlottesville, Virginia, where the University of Virginia is located. Many carried nazi or confederate flags, along with other symbols of white supremacy. Charlottesville has turned into somewhat of a powder keg after plans to remove a confederate statute from a nearby park sparked protests. Today, a car drove straight into a crowd of Black Lives Matter counter-protesters, killing at least one and injuring others. In response to the violence brought by the protesters, Governor Terry McAuliffe has declared a state of emergency in Virginia.

Scenes from the events last night and today have reverberated on social media, with many calling it out for what it is: blatant white supremacy and domestic terrorism.

Emblematic indeed#Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/qTvTB3BpSa

— Andy Campbell (@AndyBCampbell) August 12, 2017

My full statement on the horrifying white supremacist demonstrations and violence in Charlottesville: pic.twitter.com/IFXmqFLv4i

— Senator Tim Kaine (@timkaine) August 12, 2017

Regardless of who this evildoer is… this is terrorism. #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/8eOWpJKp5R

— Ammar Campa-Najjar (@ACampaNajjar) August 12, 2017

Mr. President – we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism. https://t.co/PaPNiPPAoW

— Cory Gardner (@SenCoryGardner) August 12, 2017

Of course, all eyes were on one particular individual’s reaction. President Donald Trump gave a short statement on Saturday afternoon, saying that “we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.” But as many pointed out, there aren’t that many sides to this debate: there are violent white supremacists and then there are peaceful counter-protesters.

No, Mr. President, not “many sides.” There is one side with nazi flags and nazi salutes. America is not on that side. https://t.co/sDpFC9buIz

— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) August 12, 2017

MANY SIDES?!? Ive typed and deleted at least 8 tweets. Words simply arent strong enough to accurately describe how I feel about Donald Trump

— Chris Evans (@ChrisEvans) August 12, 2017

The violence, chaos, and apparent loss of life in Charlottesville is not the fault of “many sides.” It is racists and white supremacists.

— Mark Herring (@MarkHerringVA) August 12, 2017

To be frank, no one expected Trump to have a particularly strong response. Trump had a track record of refusing to condemn white nationalists or violence at his campaign events. But, as the president of the United States, he needs to be doing better. As scenes continue to unfold in Charlottesville, the blatant white supremacy on display needs to be condemned in the harshest of possible terms.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State of Emergency Declared in Charlottesville appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of controversial alt-right writer Milo Yiannopoulos, a decision that surprised and upset many. The organization claims that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) violated Yiannopoulos’ right to free speech by removing ads for his new book from the transit system. The ads were not removed until after people had complained about them.

Yiannopoulos, the outspoken Breitbart editor, has made controversial comments about many groups, including feminists, women, trans people, and gay people. Ironically, he’s slammed the ACLU in the past.

The ACLU routinely defends the First Amendment rights of people not sharing its political views, which lean to the left. The organization has so far tended to be critical of the Trump Administration. But it also makes a point of defending the constitutional rights of everyone, regardless of ideology. “When we give government the power to regulate speakers based on their identity or their perceived level of offense, it reduces speech for all of us,” Lee Rowland, a staff attorney at the ACLU, pointed out.

But the decision to defend Milo–a man who has said that transgender people are mentally ill and that feminism is a cancer–was too much even for some people working at the ACLU. On Wednesday, attorney Chase Strangio posted a statement criticizing the decision on Twitter.

“Milo preys on the deep-seated hatred for Black people, other people of color, trans people, immigrants, Muslim people and women that is sadly a central tenet of our social fabric and political system,” Strangio wrote. “He is vile. And I am sorry for any platform and validation that he receives.”

Here is my personal statement on today’s ACLU lawsuit defending that horrible person. I speak only for myself. pic.twitter.com/4KzsoqnmUn

— Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) August 9, 2017

A lot of people seemed to agree with Strangio and many longtime supporters declared that they do not see the point in working with someone who is so hateful against so many.

You have literally no reason to include him in this case except to grab headlines and milk his fans for donation dollars.

— Lulu Diavolo (@SatansJacuzzi) August 9, 2017

As a long-time ACLU supporter, I could not possibly disagree more. What a wrong-headed position. https://t.co/j96WlB8gtN

— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) August 10, 2017

But others saw the value in always standing up for First Amendment rights.

I cannot STAND this guy. But he has the right to speak, just like we all do.

— Deletrix (@DeletrixV) August 10, 2017

Arthur Spitzer, who is acting as lead counsel on the case, said that it is important to keep defending the constitutional rights of even those who are seen as the most despicable. “We always get some when we defend unpopular people. When we recently supported the Redskins’ right to keep their registered trademarks, we got similar reactions, internally and externally,” he said.

After Strangio’s statement went public, some questioned how it’s okay for him to express views that run counter to his employer’s. Spitzer said the ACLU has 1,000 employees and that it would be impossible for everyone to agree on every case they take. He said all employees and board members can always use their right to free speech to state their opinions, as long as they are clear that it’s their personal opinion and not that of the ACLU, which Strangio did.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ACLU Attorney Criticizes Decision to Work With Milo Yiannopoulos appeared first on Law Street.

Japan’s largest fish market, Tsukiji, caught fire last week in a blaze that burned for 15 hours, destroying massive portions of the historic building that has housed the market for decades. No one was injured in the fire but the cause is still unknown. The fire will not shut down the market, which has been a popular tourist destination since it opened in 1935, but it has brought international attention to the market–which is facing a dramatic move that few of the tourists visiting its stalls and shops are aware of.

Concerns about the antiquated refrigeration systems in the market and the building’s vulnerability to earthquakes have been present for years but the fast approaching 2020 Olympics accelerated plans to move the market, as Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike looks to create space for athletic venues and housing during the games. The Tsukiji market was meant to be relocated last year to the man-made island of Toyosu, a location which was not convenient for fishmongers or tourists, but was purpose-built with modern appliances and resources. However, Toyosu was occupied by the Tokyo Gas Company from 1966 to 1988 and industrial chemicals had saturated the area, skyrocketing past legal levels.

Officials claimed that they had sanitized the land but Koike revealed in a press conference last fall that those measures had never in fact taken place–yet she still plans to move the fish market to Toyosu. The local government has invested millions in cleaning up the Toyosu site but it has not yet been declared safe–leaving both the fishmongers who work there and tourists who plan to visit wary. The original site of the Tsukiji market will be rebuilt as a culinary theme park while the traditional fish market will be moved to Toyosu in the summer of 2018. More than 70 percent of the fish wholesalers working in Tsukiji oppose the move but unfortunately the decision is not theirs to make–there is no union, no collective bargaining and even if there was, this is not the type of battle unions are usually designed to negotiate.

Hosting the Olympics is an intensive process for any city–the infrastructure fiasco at Sochi and the massive protests in Rio are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to exploring all that can go wrong when hosting the international event. Koike faces an almost impossible decision–leave the Tsukiji market where it is, a crumbling building vulnerable to fires and earthquakes, or move it to the new site, where contamination could destroy the health of everyone who sells and shops for fish there. The market can’t be shut down–not only is it a tourist destination, it is the largest fish supplier for the restaurants of Tokyo. In a nation where sushi is sold on every corner, the fish supply cannot be cut off overnight. The fate of the market rests now rests entirely on the shoulders of the clean-up team working to purify Toyosu. If the site is still contaminated next summer, Koike will be back to square one–with the clock ticking closer to the Olympics every day.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Tourism and Toxicity at the Tsukiji Fish Market appeared first on Law Street.

Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The RantCrush News Quiz appeared first on Law Street.

If for whatever reason you have been lucky enough to avoid the news over the past few days, then let me be the first to welcome you to the “fear of an imminent nuclear war”-phase of Trump’s presidency.

President Donald Trump warned North Korea on Tuesday against making any more threats against the United States and announced his own threat of “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” This came in response to a report in the Washington Post that said the country is now capable of creating missile-ready nuclear weapons, according to a U.S. intelligence assessment.

While he did use rather apocalyptic terms, Trump’s threat is not anything new. In fact, threats against North Korea are almost a presidential tradition. In keeping with the tradition, the country decided to call the president’s bluff within hours of his statement. Pyongyang announced on Wednesday that it is “carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam.”

The Trump Administration issued its latest threat from the president’s Twitter account that said, “Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!”

But playing with Guam’s fate is not unusual for the United States. The United States’ historic treatment of Guam–and the fact that many people searched Google for Guam for the first time after this story broke–shows that the government does not really appear to care what happens to the island territory or its people.

What is Guam?

Guam is a U.S. island territory located in the Pacific Ocean–about three-quarters of the way from Hawaii to the Philippines. The U.S. seized the island from Spain in 1898 to provide a fueling station for the U.S. fleet in the western Pacific and has been used as a base for military operations since. Navy and Air Force bases make up approximately 27 percent of the island’s mass.

Guam as it stands governs itself but its foreign policy–like who it trades with and goes to war with–is determined by the federal government, and its citizens pay many–if not, all–of the same taxes that Americans pay. However, they can’t officially vote in the presidential election–despite having a high voter turnout in a straw poll the territory’s government holds–and they don’t have a voting representative in Congress. If any of those traits sound oddly familiar, it’s because they’re very similar to what the 13 original colonies went through before the Revolutionary War. Remember colonialism, that thing we fought England over because we hated it so much? Turns out we have our own version!

That’s an over-exaggeration. Surely Guam’s status as a military hub means something?

The truth is it really doesn’t. According to Guam’s office of veteran affairs, at least one in eight adult Guamanians is a veteran–one of the highest rates in the country. This speaks volumes about their dedication to the country’s armed forces considering they don’t get a vote in choosing a commander-in-chief. The territory also ranked dead last in medical care spending per veteran in 2012. In many cases, the closest veteran care facilities are in Hawaii–just over 3,000 miles away.

Also the colonial comparison is not far-fetched. Just three years after Guam was taken from Spain and cemented as a U.S. territory–not a great start–the Supreme Court wrote a series of opinions. They became known as the Insular Cases and were focused on the territories gained after the Spanish-American War. They decided that even though the territories–Guam included–belonged to the United States, all the laws and rights of the U.S. did not apply because they were inhabited by “alien races” who wouldn’t be able to understand “Anglo-Saxon principles” and laws. In fact, the decisions were authored by the same justice who wrote Plessy v. Ferguson.

Ok that’s not great. But is cynicism the only thing you have to offer?

No. The most important fact about Guam is that it is home to 163,000 American citizens. While the reality of whether or not North Korea could actually pose a threat to the U.S. is debated on the mainland, concern for an attack is apparently growing on the island according to Mayor Paul McDonald.

“Especially with our elders who have experienced the Second World War, when the Japanese force came and invaded Guam — you know, my mom, she’s 91 years old and I was over at the office all day today,” McDonald said to NPR. “She’d call me every 10 minutes to update her. We are really taking it seriously, a lot of the people in Guam.”

Even citizens who have been ignoring threats for years are suddenly feeling a little bit concerned about how the tone in Washington has changed. One example is Todd Thompson, a lawyer who lives on Guam, who said he laughed off past threats because he “figured cooler heads in Washington would prevail, and it was just an idle threat.”

“But I have to say, I’m not laughing now,” Thompson said to the Associated Press. “My concern is that things have changed in Washington, and who knows what’s going to happen?”

When you combine the long history of mistreatment the territory has received from the federal government and the ego-stroking threats the president feels almost compelled to make toward an unstable leader, it’s hard not to be worried.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guam: From Historical Mistreatment to North Korean Threats appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump is “Thankful” to Putin for Expelling U.S. Diplomats From Russia

Late last month, President Vladimir Putin decided to expel 775 U.S. diplomats and staffers from the U.S. Embassy and consulates in Russia. Yesterday, President Donald Trump commented on that decision for the first time. Trump said that he is very thankful to Putin for helping him cut down the payroll and that it was great that he let “a large number of people” go. “There’s no real reason for them to go back. I greatly appreciate the fact that we’ve been able to cut our payroll of the United States. We’re going to save a lot of money,” he said. Some people thought it was a way to troll Putin.

I get it! Trump’s using reverse psychology on Putin … as some 2nd grade teachers do. Certain to work on a KGB trained killler/dictator. https://t.co/J6v5HY3h06

— Ronald Klain (@RonaldKlain) August 11, 2017

But Trump was not clear on whether he was actually joking, and a lot of people were baffled that the president took the increased tensions with Russia so lightly, as well as hundreds of people losing their jobs. Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul was not entertained and pointed out that the diplomatic staff in Russia provides the U.S. with invaluable information about the country, which is an incredibly important function.

Imagine wanting to know less about Russia’s military modernization! That’s what Trump praised today. https://t.co/qMorkknjhU

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 10, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As part of the Treaty on Open Skies, an international program aimed at transparency between allies, a Russian plane scanned much of Washington D.C., including the White House, Capitol, and Pentagon, yesterday, alongside American representatives.

The Treaty on Open Skies is an agreement signed in 1992 between 34 nations that allows them to go on unarmed flights in secure air territory with a representative from the nation they are observing. Countries party to the agreement include Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and many other smaller nations, according to the U.S. State Department. While Russia and the United States have a quota of 42 for observation flights, the smallest nations are only allowed a few opportunities.

The Capitol Police kept tabs on the Russian plane and U.S. military airmen were onboard with the Russians to make sure everything was okay, according to the Washington Post.

Earlier on Wednesday morning the Capitol Police released an alert that an “authorized low-altitude aircraft” would be flying in restricted airspace between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. and would potentially fly directly above government buildings. The airspace around Washington D.C. and its suburbs is the most restricted region in the country, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The plan for the Russian plane was to take a tour of various Trump properties including his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, according to CNN. Trump is currently on vacation at the course for 17 days and had been there for 11 days before this trip began on Monday, according to TrumpGolfCount.com.

While the ride was certainly legal, some felt that Russia may be taking advantage of the treaty. Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been voicing concerns for over a year now. Last year Stewart met with the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee and said he would “love” to potentially deny future Russian expeditions in American airspace, according to the Washington Post.

“The things that you can see, the amount of data you can collect, the things you can do with post-processing, allows Russia, in my opinion, to get incredible foundational intelligence on critical infrastructure, bases, ports, all of our facilities,” Stewart said in March 2016. “So from my perspective, it gives them a significant advantage.”

Despite those concerns, the Trump Administration has continued to be reluctant to be stern with Russia in either rhetoric or actions.

Navy Captain Jeff Davis spoke on behalf of the program in response to Stewart’s comments. Despite the increased American anxiety regarding diplomatic ties with Russia, Davis sees no legitimate reason to renege on a 25-year-old treaty.

“We have to remember that while we have pretty good intelligence on a lot of the world, a lot of other countries don’t necessarily have that great of intelligence on us,” Davis said. “So, in the interest of transparency and miscalculation on their part, sometimes it’s worthwhile to allow them to have a look at what you’re doing or what you’re not doing.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russian Plane Surveys Washington as Part of Open Skies Treaty appeared first on Law Street.

While the United States remains locked in an impasse between state and federal law, Canada looks to pass nationwide marijuana legalization this year and begin recreational sales in 2018. How did Canada get to this point? The path to legalization in Canada has been a haphazard one, driven largely by legal decisions. To make the recent Canadian cannabis developments easier to understand, below are eight key court cases and regulations that shaped the current landscape:

1996: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”)

Provided for limited exemptions for the medical use of cannabis in Section 56, but legal access to dried marijuana for medical purposes was not provided until 1999.

2000: R. v. Parker (Ontario Court of Appeals)

Section 4 of the CDSA was found to be unconstitutional because prohibiting cannabis possession forced people to choose between liberty and health. The medical marijuana exemption in place was found to be unconstitutional because of the Minister of Health’s discretionary power.

2001: Marihuana for Medical Access Regulations (“MMAR”)

R. v. Parker led to the MMAR, which enabled individuals with the practitioner authorization to access dried marijuana for medical purposes by producing their own marijuana plants, designating someone to produce for them, or purchasing Health Canada supply.

April 1, 2014: Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (“MMPR”)

The MMPR replaced the MMAR, which was officially repealed on March 31, 2014. For the first time in Canada, the new system allowed for the production and distribution of cannabis for medical purposes, but still contained restrictions on certain types of marijuana.

June 2015: R. v. Smith (Supreme Court of Canada)

The Court decided the MMPR’s restrictions were unconstitutional and that individuals with a medical need have the right to use and make other cannabis products. To eliminate uncertainty, in July 2015 the Minister of Health issued section 56 class exemptions under the CDSA to allow licensed producers to produce and sell cannabis oil and fresh marijuana buds and leaves in addition to dried marijuana, and to allow authorized users to possess and alter different forms of cannabis.

February 2016: Allard v. Canada

A Canadian federal court found that restricting an individual’s right to home grow and requiring individuals to get their marijuana only from licensed producers violated liberty and security rights protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that individuals who require marijuana for medical purposes did not have “reasonable access” under the MMPR’s restrictions. Instead of striking certain portions of the MMPR or reinstating the MMAR, the court called for a new legislative framework for accessing medical marijuana.

August 24, 2016: Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (“ACMPR”)

The ACMPR, similar to the MMPR, provided for commercial production and distribution of quality-controlled fresh or dried marijuana or cannabis oil or starting materials (i.e., marijuana seeds and plants) and allowed for limited production by individuals. The two types of licenses to be aware of are: (1) Dealers License, issued under the Narcotic Control Regulations and permits activities with cannabis, including analytic testing and (2) Licensed Producers who are authorized to produce and sell cannabis under the ACMPR.

April 13, 2017: The Cannabis Act, Bill C-45 (the “Cannabis Act”)

On April 13, 2017, the Cannabis Act was introduced. If passed, it will provide Canadians with legal access to recreational cannabis nationwide. On June 8, 2017, after the second reading of the bill, the Act passed the House at a vote of 200 for and 76 against. The bill has now been referred to the Standing Committee on Health. The bill is widely expected to pass Parliament and take effect in the summer of 2018.

Canada is already a worldwide leader in the growing cannabis industry, with last year’s sales reaching over one billion Canadian dollars. With the passage of the Cannabis Act, annual sales are expected to increase to between five and eight billion in the first-year post-recreational legalization. And the total estimated annual economic impact could be as high as $23 billion. Given the size of the new market, anyone with an interest in cannabis should pay special attention to Canada and the eight key events listed above.

Amber D. Lengacher also contributed to this post.

Charlie Alovisetti

Charles Alovisetti is a senior associate and co-chair of the corporate department at Vicente Sederberg LLC. Prior to joining Vicente Sederberg, Charlie worked as an associate in the New York offices of Latham & Watkins and Goodwin where he focused on representing private equity sponsors and their portfolio companies, as well as public companies, in a range of corporate transactions, including mergers, stock and asset acquisitions and divestitures, growth equity investments, venture capital investments, and debt financings. He is a graduate of McGill University and Columbia Law School. Charlie is admitted to practice in Colorado and New York.

The post The Path to Cannabis in Canada: Eight Crucial Events appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday in favor of one more search for Hillary Clinton’s missing emails.

D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta ordered the State Department to search its servers for emails related to the 2012 Benghazi attack. In particular, they are tasked with looking for anything Clinton sent to aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, or Jake Sullivan at their state.gov addresses.

“Secretary Clinton used a private email server, located in her home, to transmit and receive work-related communications during her tenure as secretary of state,” Judge Mehta noted in his ruling. “[State] has not, however, searched the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov email server.”

The ruling comes after the watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit calling for a renewed search. The group argued that the State Department had only searched outside sources, such as Clinton’s private server.

Lawyers for the department countered that an additional search is unlikely to turn up anything else. In addition, it would set a poor precedent for any future requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Judge Mehta responded that “this matter is a far cry from a typical FOIA case” and that the email scandal was “a specific fact pattern unlikely to arise in the future.”

He then ordered the department to give him a status report by September 22.

Previously, Clinton and her three aides surrendered more than 30,000 emails to the agency in 2014. The investigation found 348 emails relating to Benghazi sent to or from the then-Secretary of State.

Any emails she deleted off her private server, however, may not have a backup and are likely gone forever.

In contrast, as a government agency, the State Department would have server backups in place. Department officials, though, have admitted that there was no automated archiving system in place during Clinton’s tenure.

The State Department did not comment on the ruling. Tom Fitton, president of the Judicial Watch, said in a statement, “This major court ruling may finally result in more answers about the Benghazi scandal–and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it–as we approach the attack’s fifth anniversary.”

Clinton cites the “emailgate“controversy and then-FBI director James Comey’s subsequent investigation as major reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential election.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders New Search for Clinton Emails appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Takes on McConnell

In his seemingly never-ending quest to pick a fight with pretty much everyone in Washington, President Donald Trump has continued his spat with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell by tweeting about him this morning.

Can you believe that Mitch McConnell, who has screamed Repeal & Replace for 7 years, couldn’t get it done. Must Repeal & Replace ObamaCare!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 10, 2017

Trump and McConnell have been exchanging words publicly since the Senate failed to pass a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act a few weeks ago. On Tuesday, McConnell claimed that Trump had “excessive expectations” about what Congress could accomplish in a short period of time. On Wednesday, Trump responded to that criticism, also through Twitter:

Senator Mitch McConnell said I had “excessive expectations,” but I don’t think so. After 7 years of hearing Repeal & Replace, why not done?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 9, 2017

But if Trump actually wants any of his agenda to make it through Congress–take, for example, funding for the border wall–he can’t really afford to alienate McConnell. This latest fight is seen by many as indicative of deepening tensions between the White House and Congress.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Amid what seems like constant chaos in the White House, it appears as though the next source of trouble for the Trump administration may come from celestial bodies–namely the upcoming solar eclipse–according to astrologers.

On August 21, a solar eclipse will occur that is expected to cast a 70-mile-wide shadow diagonally across the entire United States. Solar eclipses occur approximately once every 18 months, but this will be the first time since 1918 that the shadow will stretch across what is known as “the path of totality.”

While Americans are making plans to see this particularly rare event, astrologers have been analyzing the cosmic events surrounding it to discover what it means for the future. Even in present day, eclipses still hold a lot of power in astrology, according to Wade Caves, an astrological consultant who earlier in July published a 29-page analysis of the coming eclipse.

“What we’re talking about is the ability of the sun to be able to give light and life-generating heat, and all these things being momentarily taken away,” Caves told Newsweek. “So there’s this symbolism that’s built in with eclipses about…things coming to a close, and in often a very dramatic fashion.”

Astrologers are not so much intrigued by how rare this eclipse is, but rather how well the astrological activity surrounding it lines up with Trump’s chart.

Bad Omen for Trump

The eclipse falls just before the end of the Leo sun sign, which is in a “rising” stage on Trump’s astrological chart–meaning that the president is exuding personality traits very similar to that of a typical Leo. The personality of the  average Leo tends to fall somewhere between egotistical and confident, so Trump’s zodiac sign shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Leo is also symbolized as a lion, which is commonly used to represent rulers and kings.

As a result, Caves believes that the timing of the eclipse is a bad omen for Trump.

“It seems to me very possible that by this time next year, we’re looking at the reality of Trump not being in office,” he said.

Caves is not the only astrologer with this belief. Debra DeLeo-Moolenaar, a British astrology blogger, interprets eclipses to be “a big burst of energy” that spreads across the sign chart of a nation or person, “giving energy and power into something that’s already in play.”

She believes that growing frustrations throughout the nation may be “set off” by the solar eclipse, and that the moon symbolizes “the common people” blocking their leader–the sun.

In February, DeLeo-Moolenaar wrote that astrological charts showed Uranus, which is apparently known for being disruptive, approaching Trump’s astrological “birth planet,” Mars, during the eclipse. This, she said, indicates a potential “crisis of some sort” for the president.

Is War Written in the Stars?

Eugene Johnson, another astrologer, wrote an analysis in April of the eclipse that expanded to Jupiter, Pluto, and Neptune, and suggested that the United States should be prepared for some significant event just short of war.

“[The eclipse will] mark important developments on the world stage because of the high preponderance of outer planets involved,” Johnson added.

Astrologer Marjorie Orr noted last November that the eclipse is a part of what is known as the Saros series–which has included eclipses in 1909, 1927, 1945, 1963, 1981 and 1999. Coincidentally, significant political events occurred during each of those years, including the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

“Certainly this eclipse presages violence in one form or another,” Orr wrote.

Pseudoscience or Nah?

While it may be easy to dismiss these astrologers’ conclusions as pseudoscience nonsense, it’s worth noting that there has been speculation over the use of astrology in the White House before.

Not only did Ronald Reagan experience an assassination attempt in 1981–one of the Saros series years–but he had a deep interest in astrology himself. He is said to have scheduled important meetings, presidential debates, cancer surgery, State of the Union addresses, and his 1967 inauguration as governor of California based on astrological information.

First Lady Nancy Reagan was even said to be in constant contact with an astrologer named Joan Quigley, who died in 2014 and wrote a book about her time in the White House. Considering how highly Trump regards Reagan, and some of the similarities between their presidencies, it’s possible that the eclipse is on the president’s radar.

But even so, there are those in the scientific community who come out against such predictions. Duncan Steel, an American scientist and author of “Eclipse: The Celestial Phenomenon that Changed the Course of History,” called them foolish.

“Way back, when people had little ability to predict when eclipses would occur apart from recognizing that there are distinct cycles, perhaps it is understandable that doom-mongering based on eclipses occurred,” he said in an email to Newsweek. “But for people nowadays to imagine that they are portents of doom is just daft…. If people believe that the forthcoming solar eclipse ‘means’ anything for the U.S., for Trump, for the world, then they are deluded.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Astrologers Believe Solar Eclipse Could Signal the End of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

The owner of an Atlanta gym wants the world to know that police aren’t welcome at his business.

Recently, Jim Chambers posted a sign on the front door of the EAV Barbell Club explaining the gym’s rules. The sign is clearly visible from the street and reads, “Do whatever the hell you want, correctly, except crossfit cultism. No f—–g cops.”

According to Chambers, although the sign went up a couple weeks ago, he has enforced this policy since the gym opened. He also does not give memberships to active members of the military.

Former law enforcement and military members, however, are welcome to join.

In an interview with Reuters, Chambers explained that most of his clients are minorities and/or members of the LGBT community. Many of them would be uncomfortable working out alongside law enforcement because police officers had harassed them in the past.

“We know statistically that those people are at risk around police in America,” Chambers said. “I had members who joined because of the policy: they saw it on the door and thought, ‘Oh, that’s cool,’ and joined.”

He has since removed the vulgar sign but plans to put up another without the expletives.

The Atlanta Police Department has not released an official statement about the policy. However, a representative told local news station WXIA, “Were we to respond to an emergency there, this sign would not stop us from lawfully doing our job.”

Chambers doesn’t mind. “If they have a warrant, they can go anywhere they want, but we’re not breaking the law,” he said.

He also noted that, as someone who describes himself as “somewhere between an eco-anarchist and a Marxist-Leninist,” he would not be likely to call the police in the first place.

WXIA reached out to a team of lawyers about the legality of the policy. They agreed that federal anti-discrimination laws do not protect law enforcement as a separate group. The courts could decide if the policy is discriminatory, but for now, it remains legal.

Since the story broke on Tuesday, mixed reactions have been pouring in on social media. The gym’s Facebook page currently has a 1.4 rating and over 2,000 one-star reviews.

Atlanta Gym Owner Puts Up Sign, ‘No F—ing Cops’ – Tells Reporters: No Veterans Either https://t.co/KUGJQNMsCt
Wow
Why would anyone go there?

— Truckster1 (@truckster1) August 9, 2017

Atlanta gym owner you're doing amazing sweetie https://t.co/sLUzClmBkc

— reggie (@1942bs) August 9, 2017

Atlanta gym bans Cops from joining.

It’s their right. And it’s our right not to join & to protest outside the gym. https://t.co/l7BmVeYzV8

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) August 9, 2017

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Atlanta Gym Bans Police and Active Military Members appeared first on Law Street.

Trump’s tweets get him in trouble all the time. But his recent tweets about banning trans individuals from serving in the military have now led to a lawsuit in federal court. The National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates filed a lawsuit on behalf of five active trans service members in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia on Wednesday.

The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s directive is unconstitutional, as it violates the due process clause and the equal protection clause. According to the lawsuit, the five servicemembers have all  “followed protocol in informing their chain of command that they are transgender. They did so in reliance on the United States’ express promises that it would permit them to continue to serve their country openly. These servicemembers, like many others, have built their lives around their military service.”

Trump’s tweets were muddled, and sudden. The three tweet chain didn’t provide any information for how exactly a ban would be implemented, or what it would mean for trans individuals already serving.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

The announcement blindsided the Pentagon and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since that tweet storm, none of those questions appear to have been answered. The Department of Defense says it is still waiting for formal guidance. But the fear and panic that trans military members felt was real, and the lawsuit argues that the tweet-based directive “already resulted in immediate, concrete injury to Plaintiffs by unsettling and destabilizing plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of continued service.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transgender Military Members Sue Trump Over Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Three victims of the CIA’s torture program have filed a lawsuit against the program’s two creators. On Monday, a Washington judge ruled that the case can go to trial.

The plaintiffs in this suit are Suleiman Abdullah Salim of Tanzania; Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud of Libya; and the estate of Gul Rhaman of Afghanistan. All three were detainees in a CIA prison in 2003. The first two are now free and living in their home countries. The third died in prison.

The defendants are James Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen, former U.S. military psychologists who designed the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” in November 2001. Reportedly, the government paid them between $75 and $81 million for their plans.

This is the first CIA torture lawsuit to survive past the pretrial discovery phase. Prior to this, the Bush and Obama Administrations intervened, arguing that the suits put state secrets at risk.

However, a Senate intelligence committee report published in 2014 provided many details that the administrations had tried to keep secret. It confirmed that the CIA tortured 39 people, including the plaintiffs, at a secret prison codenamed “Cobalt.”

According to the report, Salim and Ben Soud’s torture included beatings, sleep deprivation, shackling in stress positions, and waterboarding. In addition, Rhaman died of hypothermia after his interrogators doused him with water and left him in a freezing room overnight.

In a pretrial hearing on July 28, the defense attorneys argued that providing a memo to the CIA does not count as aiding and abetting torture. It was the U.S. government, not Mitchell and Jessen, who conducted the program.

At one point, the defense team compared their clients to the manufacturers who developed the gas used in Nazi execution chambers. The British military tribunal, the lawyers pointed out, did not try those manufacturers for what the Nazis did.

Judge Justin Quackenbush rejected those arguments, ruling that the evidence indicated that Mitchell and Jessen themselves supported using torture on the CIA prisoners. Not only that, he found it “undisputed” that the psychologists used the techniques themselves on the CIA’s first detainee, Abu Zubaydah. Jessen was “physically involved” in Rhaman’s torture as well.

“Defendants have not established they merely acted at the direction of the government, within the scope of their authority, and that such authority was legally and validly conferred,” he decided.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) first filed the suit on behalf of the three plaintiffs in 2015.

“The court’s ruling means that for the first time, individuals responsible for the brutal and unlawful CIA torture program will face meaningful legal accountability for what they did,” ACLU attorney Dror Ladin told the Guardian. “Our clients have waited a long time for justice.”

The trial will begin on September 5.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CIA Torture Victims Sue Program Designers appeared first on Law Street.

There is no such thing as a perfect immigration policy. Even ones that have received praise from leaders of other countries have their cracks. Australia recently took note of a flaw in its system when an automated computer program determined that an Irish vet’s oral English fluency was not up to the standards of Australia’s immigration department, putting her residency in the country at risk.

Louise Kennedy has been working as an horse veterinarian on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland for the past two years. She is a native English speaker and has two university degrees in history and politics–both obtained in English. As her skilled workers visa was coming to an end, Kennedy decided to apply for permanent residency on the grounds that there is a shortage of her profession in the country.

Part of the process of applying for an Australian residency visa is a mandatory English proficiency test–administered by Pearson–with both a written and spoken portion. Kennedy got through the writing and reading portions rather easily, but it was during the oral portion that her troubles began.

The test utilizes an automated question system that asks applicants a series of questions on a monitor and records their vocal responses. The recordings are then analyzed by a system and a score is generated. Despite the fact that Kennedy has been speaking English her whole life, she scored a 74 on the oral section when the Australian government requires a 79 or higher to pass. Needless to say, she was shocked.

“There’s obviously a flaw in their computer software, when a person with perfect oral fluency cannot get enough points,” she said to The Guardian.

Anyone who has had their frustrations using voice-operated “intelligent assistants”–like Siri, Cortana, or Alexa–knows that there are still limits to what voice-analyzing technologies can do, especially when someone’s accent differs from the majority of the population. However, Pearson representatives stood by their programs saying the real problem was that the immigration department set the bar very high for people seeking permanent residency, according to Sasha Hampton, head of English for Pearson Asia Pacific.

Even with the Pearson test being as supposedly good as it is, Kennedy was given the opportunity to retake the test because there appeared to be construction noises that were audible in the background of her recording. Unfortunately, time became a bit of an issue. Her current visa would have expired in the timeframe it would take for all of the paperwork to be completed, even if she was recognized as a fluent English speaker by the testing company. Kennedy now has to resort to applying for a more expensive spouse visa.

“Because I’m married to an Aussie I luckily have a back-up visa to go to but there is a $3,000 cost over the skilled immigrant visa which we weren’t banking on 12 weeks before having our first baby,” she told the Ireland Independent.

This comes within days of Donald Trump announcing a move toward re-hauling the current immigration system into a skills and merits-based one. Though Australia’s system has been criticized for its inability to accurately determine the country’s employment needs, and is getting revamped to meet the demands of far-right politicians who want to ban Muslims from entering the country, Trump Administration officials have offered nothing but praise for the model and hope to enact a similar version in the U.S.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Computer-Based Oral English Test Fails Irish Vet in Australia appeared first on Law Street.

Throughout the campaign and the beginning of his presidency, President Donald Trump has criticized a lot of different people. But there is one group that he has consistently attacked with passion and fervor like no other: “The Media”

His attacks are blunt and relentless, he has gone after world-renowned organizations like the New York Times, and has even posted a video meme of himself attacking a CNN icon, calling it the “Fraud News Network.”

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN pic.twitter.com/WYUnHjjUjg

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2017

Wow, the Failing @nytimes said about @foxandfriends “….the most powerful T.V. show in America.”

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

He contends that these major news corporations are “enemies” to his administration because they consistently post critical stories.

But now Trump seems to have found a solution to counteract “Fake News”… his own “Real News”. On Sunday, the Trump presidential campaign announced a short weekly segment on its Facebook page called “Real News.” The show aims to be a brief two minute recap of news about the Trump Administration, straight from Trump Tower. The show is hosted by Kayleigh McEnany, a Trump-supporting CNN pundit, who resigned from her position at CNN to work on the show as well as become a spokesperson for the GOP.

While the resources to produce the show are not directly coming from Trump himself, investigative reports from The Daily Beast and Mic show that the effort is being spearheaded by Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law. The money is coming from a PAC that is raising money for Trump’s reelection campaign.

Though the show aims to produce so-called “real news,” it seems to focus more on touting Trump’s accomplishments than anything else. In the two minute segment McEnany discussed Trump’s new immigration policy, data that showed global economic confidence at an all-time high, and Trump awarding a medal to a Vietnam veteran.

It’s fair to note that this is not the first time a president has had his own “information” show. Obama’s administration hosted a weekly video series titled “West Wing Week,” which discussed the activities going on in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue during the week. Nevertheless people all over social media couldn’t get enough of the idea of Trump TV and its quest for “real news.”

Donald Trump’s “Real News” seems kinda familiar. pic.twitter.com/TAMDYHGtXq

— Zac Richey (@the_zacsta) August 2, 2017

This is the person reporting the “Real News” from Trump Tower on Trump TV.

In New York.

The End. https://t.co/tgyWJMWk9S

— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 7, 2017

The left must be going crazy knowing #Trump TV is “Real News”
Those who laugh last, laugh best!#MAGA #DrainTheWashingtonSwamp #YesWeWill pic.twitter.com/43erYELDin

— Joel Fischer (@JoelFischerNYC) August 7, 2017

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Trump’s “Real News” Sparks Social Media Reactions appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

North Korea is Threatening a Strike on Guam After Trump’s Warning

North Korean officials say they are considering a missile strike against Guam, a U.S. territory, after President Trump issued a warning against the North that any threat to the U.S. would be met with “fire and fury.” After Trump’s harsh words, experts warned against taking part in rhetorical arguments with Kim Jong Un. North Korea has also claimed that the U.S. is planning a “preventive war” and if that becomes reality, Pyongyang will begin an “all-out war wiping out all the strongholds of enemies, including the U.S. mainland.”

About 163,000 people live on Guam, but it’s also the base of a submarine squadron, an airbase, and a Coast Guard group. U.S. officials have said they would prefer to use diplomatic means to solve any conflicts, but would not hesitate to use force if needed. However, Guam’s governor, Eddie Calvo, dismissed the threat and said the island is prepared for “any eventuality.”

North Korea says seriously considering plan to strike Guam: KCNA https://t.co/XLxpImmfG4 pic.twitter.com/qOiy7PJ0i0

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) August 9, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Former CNN Commentator Made a Pro-Trump “Real News” Video

Last weekend, political commentator Kayleigh McEnany left her position at CNN and by Sunday, she hosted a news segment about President Donald Trump that was posted on his Facebook page. It claimed to be the “real news,” but it looks more like state-run media in countries that have limited press freedom–like Russia or China. “Thank you for joining us as we provide the news of the week from Trump Tower here in New York,” McEnany said at the start of the segment. She went on to list some statistics about the Trump Administration, like the recent unemployment numbers and what Trump has done for veterans. She also claimed that Trump should be credited with creating more than 1 million jobs since taking office; however, she failed to note that recent job growth mirrors the same trend that existed in the last six months of the Obama presidency.

Wow. Feels eerily like so many state-owned channels I’ve watched in other countries https://t.co/dqsLEfuLj8

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 6, 2017

The video segment was filmed in front of a wall with the Trump campaign logo and most people thought it was pretty creepy. McEnany has also been named the new spokesperson for the Republican National Committee.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

During a vacation to Berlin, a pair of Chinese tourists stopped at the historic Reichstag building and took photos performing the infamous Nazi salute. The duo were promptly detained by the German police on the scene and held on a bail of 500 euros for violating a German law aimed at distancing the nation from its horrific mid-20th-century history.

Police guarding the building, which now houses part of the German Parliament, noticed the tourists taking turns posing and snapping pictures and promptly intervened, according to their statement. The pair, a 36-year-old and a 49-year-old participating in a European tour, were allowed to return to China with their group even though their crime could carry a three-year sentence, according to the Washington Post.

The Reichstag is a particularly sensitive location because of its role in the Nazi rise to power. When the Reichstag caught fire in 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party blamed the fire on Dutch Communists and used it as leverage to access more power. In 2011 a Canadian tourist was also arrested and fined for performing the salute in front of the building, according to the Washington Post.

The incident is yet another example of Germany, and other European nations, criminalizing and condemning Nazi history and its recent resurgence. In this case, the tourists violated provisions of the German criminal code instituted after World War II that ban the salute and many other Nazi symbols, signals, and materials.

Since the war ended, Germany has made strides to distance itself from its history and to educate the new generations on the mistakes made by previous generations. The German public school system has a comprehensive education program on the Holocaust that has only gained momentum in the past few decades, according to PBS.

Nazi flags and symbols are banned across nearly every major country in Europe including Austria, Hitler’s home nation. Earlier this month the Switzerland Supreme Court upheld a conviction of a man performing the salute and yelling “Heil Hitler” outside of a Jewish synagogue in Geneva, according to the New York Times.

Not only is Europe cracking down on the distasteful behavior, but the Chinese government is worried as well. The government is testing out new systems to persuade its people to respect local laws and customs when traveling abroad. One new system would keep track of troublesome tourists and rank them based on severity of their behavior while reminding them to behave properly when they land, according to the Washington Post.

So while the behavior may not surprise the Chinese government, it is certainly frustrating for European nations, and particularly Germany, to constantly deal with tourists making ill-advised Nazi references. As the world sees a resurgence in white nationalism and racial strife these instances are part of a larger global problem that likely has no end in sight. Countries across the globe must tackle issues of discrimination, racism, and their individual histories that are often filled with those same problems.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Tourists Arrested Over Nazi Salute at Reichstag appeared first on Law Street.

All Cannabis in America coverage is written by Alexis Evans and Alec Siegel and brought to you by Law Street Media.

STATE OF WEED: WATCH

Sessions Lacks Ammo for Marijuana Crackdown

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety has released its recommendations for dealing with marijuana in states that have legalized it, concluding that the current policy is probably best. According to the Associated Press, the report “encourages officials to keep studying whether to change or rescind the Obama Administration’s more hands-off approach to enforcement.” While the task force failed to advance Sessions’ anti-marijuana efforts, some experts believe the AG could still invoke federal law to push his agenda.

Marijuana Company Buys Ghost Town, Anticipating Green Rush

One of America’s largest marijuana companies, American Green Inc., bought an entire town in California in anticipation of the expanding pot industry. American Green purchased 120 acres of Nipton, California for $5 million, in hopes of turning the nearly-uninhabited town into a pot paradise. The company said it hopes to make Nipton the country’s “first energy-independent, cannabis-friendly hospitality destination,” in a statement according to the Associated Press.

Pollution, Pesticides, and Pot…Oh My!

Pollution from illegal marijuana farms in California has turned thousands of acres into toxic waste dumps, according to Reuters. The use of illegal pesticides and fertilizers has contributed to a list of environmental problems and sent several law enforcement officials to the hospital. The state has amassed a backlog of illegal sites to clean up, but the problem extends to the legal industry as well. According to the Cannabist, many states are just beginning to check for pesticides, or have no testing programs at all. This disconnect is because the EPA is barred from evaluating the safe use of marijuana pesticides as the drug is still illegal at the federal level.

All links are to primary sources. For more information on state laws for possessing, selling, and cultivating marijuana, click here to read “The State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State.”

LAW STREET CANNABIS COVERAGE

Cory Booker Proposes Bill to Legalize Marijuana at the Federal Level

THREE QUESTIONS: EXCLUSIVE Q&A

Each month, the Cannabis in America team interviews influencers in the cannabis industry and gives you an exclusive look into their work, motivations, and predictions for the marijuana marketplace.

As the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Erik Altieri understands the challenges marijuana legalization faces. NORML’s team of pro-marijuana activists are spread out around 150 chapters in the U.S., France, New Zealand, and elsewhere around the world. Law Street’s Alec Siegel spoke with Altieri about NORML’s legalization efforts, when he expects we’ll see federal legalization, and more.

AS: What is the greatest impediment to federal marijuana legalization?

EA: I think the impediment is still a lack of political will among some of the more entrenched and senior officials in Congress. They are starting to realize [marijuana] is something they need to address. We are starting to see that pay dividends in the bipartisan support coming together in Congress. It’s been four decades plus since [marijuana] prohibition, and it will take some time to unwind that problematic policy.

AS:  Has NORML shifted its focus after the new administration came into office?

EA: [The administration] really lit a fire under many of our activists across the country. For the first time, [an administration] represents a real major threat to progress. It would be immensely unpopular if [AG Jeff Sessions] issued a crackdown. We did not take a “wait-and-see approach,” hoping for the best. We wanted to make sure the backlash was clear and evident from the beginning to show this is exactly why we need to reform marijuana laws. If we change the law, Sessions’ hands would be tied.

AS: Where do you see legalization going over the next decade? When do you predict we’ll see full legalization?

EA: It’s not going anywhere any time soon. Unfortunately for people like Jeff Sessions, public opinion is behind us. Movement at the state level is the driving force over the next five years, and pressure from the bottom up will continue pushing us toward the tipping point. The more states we move, the more natural allies we’ll bring on board. For the next couple of years, fights at the federal level will be over budget amendments.

CANNABIS CULTURE

Maine Dispensary Trades Weed for Trash in Community Clean Up Effort

By Josh Schmidt

As part of an effort to engage the Gardiner, Maine, community and clean up the town of roughly 5,000, a nearby marijuana dispensary is rolling out an innovative new program. Essentially, citizens who bring in a bag of collected trash can exchange it for some weed.

Find out more here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cannabis in America August 2017: Sessions’ Pot Task Force Recommends Status Quo appeared first on Law Street.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is officially a suspect in two criminal cases, Israeli police officials said last week. Netanyahu, head of the conservative Likud party, has been under investigation for months. His alleged crimes: accepting illegal gifts from wealthy friends, and floating a quid pro quo deal with a newspaper publisher in a bid for more favorable coverage.

Netanyahu’s fortunes appeared to turn last week, when his former chief of staff Ari Harrow agreed to become a witness for the prosecution. Harrow, according to police, revealed damaging information about his former boss, who is suspected of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

The probes into the prime minister, known as “Case 1000” and “Case 2000,” deal with two separate instances. In “Case 1000,” Netanyahu is accused of accepting cigars and bottles of champagne from wealthy and powerful friends, including a Hollywood producer.

“Case 2000” concerns a phone call Netanyahu allegedly had with the publisher of the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Arnon Mozes. Netanyahu reportedly asked Mozes for more favorable coverage. In exchange, Netanyahu would curtail the circulation of Israel Hayom, a competitor that is traditionally pro-Netanyahu. Israel Hayom is backed by an American casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson.

On Monday, Israel’s Supreme Court said Netanyahu must reveal the dates of his phone calls with Adelson and Amos Regev, the former editor-in-chief of Israel Hayom.

According to legal analysts in Israel, it is likely Netanyahu will face charges, potentially forcing him to end his fourth term as prime minister years before scheduled elections. An indictment, which could still be months off, does not necessarily mean Netanyahu will step down, according to analysts and those familiar with Israeli law. And though Israeli prime ministers have been taken down by corruption investigations, a sitting prime minister has never been indicted.

Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, was released from prison last month after serving a 16-month sentence. Olmert was forced from power in 2008, leading to early elections in 2009, when Netanyahu was elected to the premiership.

For his part, Netanyahu has called the investigations as “background noise,” vehemently denying any wrongdoing. “We cannot go without a ‘weekly affair’, so I want to tell you, citizens of Israel, I’m not referring to the background noise, I’m continuing to work for you,” Netanyahu said in a video published on his Facebook page last Friday.

But according to a recent poll by Israeli broadcaster Channel 10, Netanyahu’s popularity might be dwindling. According to the poll, 66 percent of Israelis say Netanyahu should resign if he is charged.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Investigations into Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday, the Senate confirmed Robert “Woody” Johnson IV, the 70-year-old owner of the New York Jets, as ambassador to the United Kingdom. Now, Johnson will move to London and serve a three-year term as the United States’ main representative in a country struggling to navigate the complex negotiations related to Brexit.

Johnson’s friendship with President Donald Trump goes back to their times as businessmen in New York City. Trump considers Johnson one of his oldest friends, according to the New York Times. Johnson is a registered Republican who helped fundraise in 2012 for Mitt Romney and again in 2016 for Trump, despite initially supporting Jeb Bush.

Many expect the Jets owner to be a mediator between Trump and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who Trump has repeatedly criticized, most notoriously after the June terrorist attack in London.

Trump had long wanted Johnson to serve as the ambassador to London, but he didn’t formally nominate him until June. Since then, the Senate has been holding hearings before his confirmation on Thursday. During one hearing last month, Florida Senator Marco Rubio brought some football into the conversation.

.@MiamiDolphins fan @marcorubio jokes to @nyjets owner Woody Johnson that Tom Brady should be made ambassador to Brazil #Patriots #WBZ pic.twitter.com/AMWQ2873hp

— Joe Giza (@JoeGiza) July 21, 2017

Before purchasing the football team in 2000 for $635 million, Johnson and his family were involved in a number of charities for lupus and juvenile diabetes, which his daughter Casey is affected by. While some NFL owners are self-made businessmen, Johnson is the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, a company worth $65 billion, according to Celebrity Net Worth. Johnson himself is valued at $4.2 billion, according to Bloomberg, while the Jets’ estimated value is around $2.7 billion, according to Forbes.

Woody’s brother, Christopher Johnson, will take over operations of the Jets for the next few seasons. The confirmation of the Jets owner is another example of Trump’s penchant for placing businessmen with no political experience in positions of political power. Now it’s time for Johnson to move across the Atlantic Ocean and begin his work with the English government.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Jets Owner Woody Johnson Confirmed as Ambassador to UK appeared first on Law Street.

Chicago Sues Trump Administration Over Threat to Sanctuary Cities

This morning, the city of Chicago filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump Administration over the threats to withhold funding to so-called sanctuary cities. This comes two weeks after the Department of Justice said it would stop certain grant funding to cities unless they provide immigration officers with unlimited access to local jails. Cities will also need to give the DOJ 48 hours notice before releasing people from jail who are wanted for immigration violations. But now Chicago is pushing back. “Chicago will not let our police officers become political pawns in a debate. Chicago will not let our residents have their fundamental rights isolated and violated,” said Mayor Rahm Emanuel in a press conference yesterday.

The Trump Administration cited Chicago’s high murder rate as a justification to withhold grants to the city. “It’s especially tragic that the mayor is less concerned with that staggering figure than he is spending time and taxpayer money protecting criminal aliens and putting Chicago’s law enforcement at greater risk,” a spokeswoman for the DOJ said.

“Chicago will not be blackmailed into changing our values, and we are and will remain a welcoming city” https://t.co/Cf6M6pkjtS

— NBC Los Angeles (@NBCLA) August 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice released an internal memo that instructed the department to look into whether universities are discriminating against white candidates.

While the memo does not specifically mention white students, it pointed to programs that lead to “intentional race-based discrimination,” a clear reference to the policy of affirmative action, which President John F. Kennedy introduced in the 1960s to promote equality in education.

The move is popular among Trump’s conservative base. Roger Clegg, president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, hailed the project as something that has been long overdue:

The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well.

In a way Trump and his team are right: there is a serious discriminatory problem in college admissions. However, the problem has less to do with race and more to do with socioeconomic status. Children whose parents rank toward the top of the income bracket are overly represented at top colleges in the U.S., compared to students whose parents come from the bottom tier.

A study by The Upshot earlier this year shows that since 2002, the share of students from the top one percent (in terms of household income) attending elite universities has steadily increased. But the share of students from the bottom 40th percentile and below has slightly decreased. At 38 colleges in America, including five Ivy League schools, the top one percent had more representation than students from the bottom 60 percent.

Why is this the case when some of the best schools in the country provide full tuition to students who are in the lowest socioeconomic class? The answer is simple: legacy, connections, and resources. Some students are given priority admission to top schools because of family ties, while largely ignoring the merit of their applications.

Take for instance the story of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law. Kushner attended Frisch’s, a well known New Jersey prep school. One college prep counselor said that Jared was “certainly not anywhere near the top of his class.”

However, Daniel Golden, author of “The Price of Admission,” claims Kushner’s father donated $2.5 million right around the time his son applied to Harvard. Unsurprisingly, Kushner was accepted. But according to Golden, Kushner would not have been accepted on his own merits

If the Justice Department truly wants to fight against discrimination, it should focus on preventing those with the financial means from buying their way into a top school.

This is where race plays a factor, as minority groups tend to be the ones who are historically financially disadvantaged in the U.S. The median household income for whites is approximately $30,000 dollars more than black and Hispanic families, according to a 2016 Pew Research Center study.

Universities should accept more students whose household income is in the bottom percentile, and prevent those who are in the from the top percentile from using their financial resources to usurp those who do not have the same financial means.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Irony of the Justice Department’s Affirmative Action Probe appeared first on Law Street.

Sometimes dubbed “the most hated man in America,” Martin Shkreli has officially been found guilty of fraud. Specifically he was found guilty of two counts of securities fraud, and one count of conspiring to commit securities fraud. But he was also acquitted on a number of other charges. He now faces up to 20 years in prison, although his lawyers plan to appeal.

He doesn’t appear particularly bothered by the “guilty” verdict though. In a press conference he held right after the announcement, he claimed:

This was a witch hunt of epic proportions. Maybe they found one or two broomsticks, but at the end of the day we’ve been acquitted of the most important charges in this case, and I’m delighted to report that.

He also streamed a 10 minute, combative interview with a Boston Herald reporter on Saturday, in which he claimed he wasn’t scared of prison because he was in New York City during 9/11. He said:

I grew up on the mean streets of Brooklyn. I was across the street from 9/11; I’ve built businesses from zero to hero, many times over. A few months in jail does not scare me.

Shkreli vaulted into national infamy when his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, jacked up the price of a drug used for treating HIV and cancer. His callous attitude garnered significant amounts of criticism.

Then, he made the news again when he purchased the only copy of a Wu-Tang Clan album for $2 million, and claimed he had no plans to release it.

Shkreli’s disgusting behavior doesn’t stop there, though. He was also suspended from Twitter for harassing journalist Lauren Duca–the same writer who is a consistent focus of Tucker Carlson’s ire. Recently, when asked by a journalist about what he would do if he was acquitted, he listed “f*cking” Lauren Duca as one of his top priorities. She responded, and pointed out the human price of his consistent harassment:

Here’s my statement on Martin Shkreli: I would (still) rather eat my own organs. So much as touch me, and I’ll gladly chop off one of yours. pic.twitter.com/4jHNWGWanQ

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) July 28, 2017

On a serious note, the most suffocating part of this experience has been people acting as if I have no right to respond to this harassment.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) August 4, 2017

I’m not looking for sympathy, but all of you petty motherfuckers would do well to remember this: Hatred is empowered by silence.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) August 4, 2017

Shkreli’s status as a permanent troll may need to take a little break, depending on how his sentence shakes out. And for many, that will be a welcome silence.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli Found Guilty of Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

The parents of 12-year-old Mallory Grossman are suing her school district in the wake of her suicide in June. They believe that the school was negligent when it ignored allegations that Mallory’s classmates were cyberbullying her.

According to the suit, Mallory’s classmates at Copeland Middle School had been bullying her since October of last year. She told her parents right away. After that, Seth and Dianne Grossman approached administrators of the Rockaway Township School District on a monthly basis, trying to speak to someone about their daughter’s ordeal.

However, although the administrators told them that the school was investigating the matter, they ultimately dismissed the parents’ concerns.

“I‘m going to make the assumption that the school did something, but I’m also going to make the assumption, based on where we are today, that they didn’t do enough,” Mrs. Grossman told NBC News.

According to Bruce Nagel, the family’s attorney, the classmates’ cruel messages were the cause of Mallory’s death. “There were texts, there was Snapchat, there was Instagram, for months she was told she’s a loser, she had no friends and finally she was even told, ‘Why don’t you kill yourself?’,” he said in a statement.

Photos accompanying at least two of the malicious Instagram posts were taken on school grounds. Nagel’s office has not yet released or independently verified the texts.

Mallory’s classmates also allegedly bullied her in person, giving her “dirty looks” and excluding her from their lunch table.

In response to the torment, Mallory’s grades dropped from As and Bs to Cs and Ds. She complained of headaches and stomachaches to get out of going to school.

At one point, the school met with the parents to discuss Mallory’s failing grades. However, Mrs. Grossman claims that “they were not at that time concerned with her emotional well being.”

Hours before Mallory took her own life on June 14, Mrs. Grossman appealed directly to the mother of one of the bullies. “I can tell you that the mother dismissed it, said it was just a big joke and that I really shouldn’t worry about it,” she said. “Even after I asked her daughter to please stop texting Mallory, three minutes later a text message — a series of text messages — came through from that child.”

Nagel claims that he has identified “three or four” of Mallory’s bullies. He also said that the Grossmans are considering bringing legal action against the bullies’ families.

On Wednesday, Rockaway Township Superintendent Greg McGann released a statement on the school district’s website.

Because the case is still under investigation by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, and also the subject of a tort claim, under the advice of legal counsel, The Rockaway Township School District cannot discuss this case in public or with media. The teachers, staff and administrators within the Rockaway Township School District are, as they have always been, and will continue to be, committed to protecting the rights and safety for all our students.

Last year, the district released a self-assessment report on how it dealt with bullies. Copeland Middle School received a 74 out of 78.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post N.J. Parents Sue School District After Daughter’s Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russia’s election meddling and its potential ties to the Trump campaign, impaneled a grand jury. Twitter exploded. The casual observer quickly became a legal expert; it’s only a matter of time before President Donald Trump is indicted and impeached, many concluded. Not necessarily. So what exactly is a grand jury? And what does Mueller’s move portend for Trump’s fortunes?

Grand Jury v. Trial Jury

A grand jury is distinct from a trial jury in a number of ways. For one, a grand jury consists of more jurors than a trial jury, comprised of anywhere between 16 to 23 jurors. The primary function of a grand jury is to issue a preliminary decision on whether or not a prosecutor should indict a defendant. The road to making that decision is a long one: grand jury investigations can last months or even years.

In conducting an investigation, a grand jury has the power to subpoena documents and witnesses. According to Solomon Wisenberg, a white collar criminal defense attorney, grand juries have a broad mandate when subpoenaing witnesses. He said: “Federal grand jury subpoenas are almost never quashed on grounds that they call for irrelevant information or go beyond the grand jury’s authority.”

Grand jury investigations are private affairs. The defense is not present, nor are there any cross examinations. In fact, lawyers are not even allowed to be present during a grand jury’s deliberations.

What Does This Mean for Trump?

It is too early to tell if Mueller’s decision to form a grand jury will lead to an indictment of Trump or any of his campaign associates. In order for the grand jury to determine Trump’s actions warrant criminal charges, they will have to determine probable cause exists. Mueller’s decision to impanel a grand jury essentially means that the investigation is entering a new, potentially lengthy stage that may or may not lead to an indictment.

Mueller took charge of the probe after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself. The investigation then fell to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who appointed Mueller as the special counsel. Trump’s campaign and its potential ties to the Kremlin are also under investigation by the Senate and House.

According to people familiar with Mueller’s inquiry, he is moving beyond Trump’s involvement with Russia’s election meddling, and into Trump’s finances and real estate dealings. Because of their wide scope, grand jury investigations can take prosecutors down roads previously unseen–roads that can sometimes lead to an indictment.

Bill Clinton’s Impeachment

In 1998, Bill Clinton became the first president to testify as the subject of a grand jury investigation. His testimony, which lasted for four hours, was the coda to independent counselor Kenneth Starr’s investigation into the Whitewater scandal. But while Starr’s four-year investigation began with examining real estate deals in Arkansas, it ended with him examining Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton lied under oath, and continued to lie in his grand jury testimony, according to Starr. Clinton has denied that he ever misstated facts–he has said his answers were all “legally accurate.” Starr disagreed, and eventually indicted Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The House voted to impeach Clinton in December 1998, but the Senate acquitted him after a five-week trial.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Mueller Grand Jury appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump endorsed a bill, introduced by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AK) and David Perdue (R-GA) in February, which would halve the number of legal immigrants coming to the U.S.

The RAISE Act would cap the number of green cards the U.S. issues at 50,000 over the next 10 years. Currently, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services awards about one million green cards each year; about six million individuals and employers apply for a green card each year.

Green cards grant legal immigrants the right to permanently reside and work in the country, instead of having to apply and constantly renew work visas.

Inspired by the Canadian and Australian immigration policies, the proposed legislation would establish a competitive “merit-based system,” through which applicants would be awarded points based on a slew of factors. Some of the factors would include an applicant’s financial stability, ability to pay for healthcare, earning prospects, and, most controversially, English language skills.

The RAISE ACT “puts great downward pressure on people who work with their hands and work on their feet,” Cotton said. “Now, for some people, they may think that that’s a symbol of America’s virtue and generosity. I think it’s a symbol that we’re not committed to working-class Americans. And we need to change that.”

The bill also removes the diversity visa program and “chain migration,” the current practice of prioritizing family unity in the immigration process.

I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers & taxpayers. Watch: https://t.co/lv3ScSKnF6 #RAISEAct pic.twitter.com/zCFK5OfYnB

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 2, 2017

“American First” 

This announcement comes on the heels of the Senate’s failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. Many equate this push for legal immigration reform to the administration trying to turn the page on healthcare and secure its first legislative win.

Trump campaigned on reforming immigration, legal and illegal, but several of his initiatives have either run into road-blocks or devolved into large-scale media disasters. Trump’s promised wall along the Mexican border remains unbuilt, and the attempted Muslim ban was stopped in court a number of times earlier this year.

However, Trump’s “America first” message remains at the forefront of his policies and his endorsement of this bill further highlights this.

“The RAISE Act prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare, and protects U.S. workers from being displaced,” Trump said. “And that’s a very big thing. They’re not going to come in and just immediately go and collect welfare. That doesn’t happen under the RAISE Act. They can’t do that.”

Uphill Battle in Congress 

The bill is very unlikely to pass Congress, as it would need unified Republican support as well as some Democratic votes. Some Republicans have already said they would not support the bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released a statement on Wednesday, saying that he agrees with the ideas expressed in the bill, but he would not vote in favor of the legislation.

“South Carolina’s number one industry is agriculture and tourism is number two,” Graham said. “If this proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our state’s economy, which relies on this immigrant workforce.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also cast doubt on his colleagues’ bill. “I think you have to consider that we do want high-tech people, but we also need low-skilled people who will do work that Americans won’t do,” he said. “I wouldn’t do it. Even in my misspent youth, I wouldn’t do it.”

Strong Reactions 

While many Trump advocates support the policy proposal, the bill is drawing significant criticism from economists, citizens, and immigrants.

“Dramatically reducing overall immigration levels won’t raise the standard of living for Americans,” said Randy Johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration, and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “In fact, it will likely accomplish the opposite, making it harder for businesses, communities, and our overall economy to grow, prosper, and create jobs for American workers.”

Some see the RAISE Act as focusing too much on making sure Americans in low-wage jobs don’t face competition from immigrants, instead of investing in those same Americans so that they may obtain higher paying jobs.

It's interesting that outside of immigration policy, nobody ever proposes giving strict priority to the interests of high school dropouts.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) August 3, 2017

Others object to the limits the bill would place on bringing in grandparents or extended family members to the U.S. Under the bill, people like First Lady Melania Trump, a non-native English speaker, would have a tough time getting permanent residency.

“What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration,” CNN’s Jim Acosta said during a White House press conference. “The Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’ It doesn’t say anything about speaking English or being a computer programmer.”

In his response to Acosta’s question, Stephen Miller, Trump’s policy adviser, said: “The poem that you’re referring to was added later, [and] is not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Backs Bill to Slash Legal Immigration, Introduce “Merit-Based” System appeared first on Law Street.

The Justice Department sent letters to a handful of so-called “sanctuary cities” on Thursday, denying them crime-fighting resources until they increase compliance with federal immigration authorities. The letters were in response to requests to take part in the DOJ’s Public Safety Partnerships (PSP) initiative, which would provide additional federal resources to jurisdictions with higher than average crime rates.

The letters, sent to the police chiefs of Baltimore, Albuquerque, and Stockton and San Bernardino in California, said:

Your jurisdiction has expressed interest in receiving assistance through the PSP program. Based on our review, we have concluded that your jurisdiction has levels of violence that exceed the national average, that your jurisdiction is ready to receive the intensive assistance the Department is prepared to provide, and that your jurisdiction is taking steps to reduce its violent crime.

But those four jurisdictions are all sanctuary cities, meaning their officers do not fully cooperate with federal authorities to enforce national immigration laws. So before those cities can participate in the PSP program, they must give federal authorities access to jails. They also must “honor a written request from [Department of Homeland Security] to hold a foreign national for up to 48 hours beyond the scheduled release date,” according to the letters. The cities must show proof of compliance by August 18.

The letters mark the second time in a week that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has threatened to withhold funds from sanctuary cities. Last week, he said cities must comply with federal authorities seeking detainees held on immigration violations–or else they would not receive federal grants. But federal judges have recently ruled that withholding grants from cities that limit compliance on immigration matters is illegal.

Announced in June, the PSP is a “training and technical assistance program designed to enhance the capacity of local jurisdictions to address violent crime in their communities,” according to a statement from Sessions that accompanied the letters. Twelve locations have been selected for the program so far.

Sessions, in a statement on Thursday, said sanctuary cities “make all of us less safe.” He added: “The Department of Justice is committed to supporting our law enforcement at every level, and that’s why we’re asking ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions to stop making their jobs harder.”

Of the requests to the sanctuary cities looking to take part in the PSP initiative, Sessions said: “By taking simple, common-sense considerations into account, we are encouraging every jurisdiction in this country to cooperate with federal law enforcement.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Denies More Crime-Fighting Resources for Four Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Law Street.

Despite encouraging their children to buckle up, many adults are not following their own advice.

A new study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that 91 percent of adults wear their seat belts in the driver or front passenger seats, but only 72 percent do in the rear seats. Moreover, only 57 percent use the belts in hired vehicles like taxis or ride sharing cars.

“When we asked people why they were less likely to buckle up, a quarter of the respondents told us that it’s safer in the back seat, so they don’t need to buckle up,” Jessica Jermakian, an IIHS senior research engineer, told CBS.

It’s true that in cars from the ’60s and ’70s, the back seat is generally the safest place. However, the belts, tensioners, airbags, and vehicle designs of the modern era remove any disadvantage the front seats once had. While experts still consider the rear seats to be somewhat safer, a seat belt is still necessary.

“Even if you’re in the back seat, the laws of physics are not suspended,” Jermakian warns. “You still need to buckle up in order to get the best protection in a crash.”

Crash test footage reveals that an unrestrained passenger in the back seat can slam against the front seats. That sort of collision could injure passengers anywhere in the vehicle.

In response to questions about ride sharing, four out of five adults explained that they don’t wear a seat belt because they are only traveling short distances.

“That statistic [about the risk of a crash] doesn’t change just because you’re in a ride share or a taxi,” said Jonathan Adkins, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association. “We need rear-seat passengers to understand that seat belts are critical for them, too.”

Every state except New Hampshire requires adults to wear seat belts in the front seat. Only 29 states have laws that extend to the back seat as well.

About half of all fatalities in car crashes each year could have been prevented if the victim had worn their seat belt. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that seat belts saved nearly 14,000 lives in 2015 alone.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Don’t Adults Wear Seat Belts in the Backseat? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Michelle Carter Has Been Sentenced

Michelle Carter, the 20-year-old woman who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after her boyfriend killed himself in 2014, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Carter encouraged her boyfriend, Conrad Roy, to kill himself via text messages. Many legal experts did not expect Carter to be convicted, and opinions on the case differ. A lot of people said she deserves more time behind bars and speculated that she received such a lenient sentence because she is a white woman. Others opposed the concept of convicting someone for their role in a second individual’s suicide.

#michellecarter judge orders she cannot profit from the crime.. no movies, no magazines, books or tv interviews for payment #WBZ

— Cheryl Fiandaca (@CherylFiandaca) August 3, 2017

However, the judge in the case granted Carter a stay of incarceration, so she will not go to prison until after her appeals have been wrapped up. Roy’s family delivered emotional statements about their son and accused Carter of pushing Roy to commit suicide so that she could take on the role of the grieving girlfriend. The case remains highly emotional and ultimately could shed light on how to deal with similar cases.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 4, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Kyle Knight (@knightktm) August 2, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcus Dieterle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcus Dieterle

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

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

In an action that’s been called a “public health power move” and a “step in the right direction,” the federal agency responsible for regulating food safety and drugs is taking on smoking addiction.

Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, announced the agency’s comprehensive plan to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels. Citing smoking’s yearly death toll of 480,000, Gottlieb, appointed by President Donald Trump, said the FDA is “ready to do its share” in preventing smoking addiction in future generations.

“Unless we change course, 5.6 million children alive today will die prematurely later in life from tobacco use,” Gottlieb said in his July 28 remarks. “A renewed focus on nicotine can help us to achieve a world where cigarettes no longer addict future generations of our kids.”

This is the widest use of the FDA’s tobacco regulation power as granted by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The act, passed in 2009 under President Barack Obama, gave the FDA regulatory power over tobacco–until now that power has not been used.

The FDA’s announcement comes as more state governments are hopping on the bandwagon to combat teen smoking addiction. New Jersey recently joined Hawaii and California in raising the legal smoking age to 21.

Though the opioid addiction crisis has been a major priority for the government in recent years, Gottlieb said he views the FDA’s opportunity to confront nicotine addiction with the same obligation.

“I’ve pledged a deep commitment to taking aggressive steps to address the epidemic of addiction to opioids,” Gottlieb said. “I’ll pursue efforts to reduce addiction to nicotine with the same vigor.”

We commend @SGottliebFDA & @US_FDA for adopting a common sense, balanced approach to tobacco & nicotine regulation. https://t.co/hOWUntQLhA pic.twitter.com/adf3MabZJx

— Tom Price, M.D. (@SecPriceMD) July 31, 2017

The agency’s next steps include seeking the public’s input on several tobacco and e-cigarette related topics, such as the prevalence of kid-friendly flavors in vaping products.

“Public input on these complex issues will help ensure the agency has the proper science-based policies in place to meaningfully reduce the harms caused by tobacco use,” said Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products.

The nicotine-reduction plan overshadowed the FDA’s announcement of several compromises on e-cigarette regulations, including the decision to postpone the deadline for companies to submit applications for new products by five years, to 2022.

These revised timelines will give the agency time to evaluate how new products and a changing tobacco market best fit into the agency’s wider goal of fighting smoking addiction, according to an FDA release.

“This action will afford the agency time to explore clear and meaningful measures to make tobacco products less toxic, appealing and addictive,” the release reads.

Anti-smoking advocates have criticized this move, saying Gottlieb’s nicotine-reduction plan was announced to detract from the potential consequences of postponing regulations on products that children and teenagers are using more.

In a statement, Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the delay a “serious error.”

“This long delay will allow egregious, kid-friendly e-cigarettes and cigars, in flavors like gummy bear, cherry crush and banana smash, to stay on the market with little public health oversight,” Myers said. “There is no reason to allow these products to stay on the market while developing and implementing the comprehensive strategy Dr. Gottlieb outlined today.”

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board published a response to Gottlieb’s announcement, calling it “troubling,” and questioning the commissioner’s intentions.

“We want to believe Gottlieb is sincere about regulation limiting nicotine,” the piece reads. “It would be one of the most important accomplishments of the Trump administration, though it would take years to implement. The damage caused by delaying the regulations on other tobacco products, however, will be immediate.”

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FDA Announces Groundbreaking Plan to Curb Smoking Addiction appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate unanimously passed a $3 billion expansion to the G.I. Bill on Wednesday, paving the way for veterans to pursue STEM careers while bolstering existing benefits. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the measure, which the House passed last week, also in a unanimous vote. The original G.I. Bill was created after World War II, allowing returning veterans to receive an education in return for their service.

Named after Harry Walter Colmery, a veteran who drafted the original 1944 bill, the expanded benefits “will further invest in the proven educational success of our veterans and help propel them toward becoming the civic, business and public leaders of our country,” according to the text.

The measure expands financial assistance and other benefits for Purple Heart recipients, families of soldiers killed on the battlefield, and veterans who pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, also known as STEM fields. It also repeals the 15-year benefits limit.

“When new industries emerge and we rely on American workers to fill those jobs, it shouldn’t matter if a veteran is five, 15, or 30 years out of the service,” Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Phil Roe (R-TN) wrote in an op-ed after the House passed the measure. “If you haven’t used your benefits yet, you should be able to get an education at any point in your life,” McCarthy and Roe, chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, wrote.

After a brief disagreement on how the expanded benefits would be funded, Congress settled on a solution: reduce the increase in housing benefits for new beneficiaries. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measure, which will cost $3 billion over a decade, will ultimately be cost neutral.

Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, called the bill a “great victory for out veterans and their future.” He added: “When our veterans return home, they should have every opportunity available to them to pursue their desired profession and career.”

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the measure “will help our nation’s service members transition back to civilian life by opening doors for their future success.”

Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin also expressed support for the measure, also known as the Forever G.I. Bill:

The #ForeverGIBill strengthens an important #Veterans benefit. I thank the House and Senate for making this bill a priority.

— Dr. David J. Shulkin (@SecShulkin) August 2, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New G.I. Bill Benefits Focus on STEM Careers appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, New York police arrested Nathaniel Glover, also known as Kidd Creole, for fatally stabbing a homeless man.

Surveillance footage shows the 57-year-old rapper getting into an argument with the victim on Tuesday, police told the New York Times. The altercation took place at around 11:50 p.m. at the intersection of East 44th Street and Third Avenue. TMZ reports that the victim used a “gay slur,” which caused Glover’s angry reaction. It is not clear if or how the two men knew each other before the argument.

As the fight escalated, Glover stabbed the victim multiple times in the torso. EMS took him to Bellevue Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The New York Daily News identifies the man as 55-year-old John Jolly. He lived in a homeless shelter in Lower Manhattan, about two miles from where Glover allegedly stabbed him. According to a police statement, he was a level two sex offender who served five years for beating and raping a 42-year-old woman in 1997. Jolly appeared to be drunk on the surveillance footage.

Glover, a Bronx native, works near the crime scene as a handyman and security guard. He confessed to the murder and told police that he was “extremely remorseful” for his actions.

He was charged with second-degree murder, which carries a maximum sentence of life without parole. There is no information on his lawyer as of yet.

“That is so sad, I’m really in shock right now,” Glover’s 72-year-old neighbor told the New York Daily News. “He was the sweetest man I’ve ever met. Everybody liked him, I’m really about to cry.”

Glover was one of the founding members of Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, a hip hop group active during the 1980s. They reached mainstream fame with their 1982 single “The Message,” which reached Number 62 on the Billboard Top 100. The group was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2007. They were the first hip hop group to reach that milestone.

The Furious Five was supposed to perform at the Dell Music Center in Philadelphia on August 20. Following Glover’s arrest, Live Nation removed the event from its concert listing. Neither the band nor the music center have commented on Glover’s arrest.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rapper Kidd Creole Charged with Murder appeared first on Law Street.

With all that is going on in the world today, it’s easy to forget that an alien life force could come and wipe out all of civilization as we know it at any moment. Thankfully, NASA has an entire office dedicated to keeping up with the dangers that lurk above our atmosphere. Now, the agency is looking for someone to lead the Office of Planetary Protection.

The application to be NASA’s “planetary protection officer” opened last month. The primary job description: to prevent alien contamination during NASA space missions, and to keep alien microorganisms from reaching Earth, according to the federal government’s official employment site. The job will reportedly pay between $124,406 to $187,000 a year, plus benefits.

The United States is not the only country to have this position. Other international space programs usually have it as a shared or part-time role. However, the U.S. is one of two places where one can be a planetary protection officer full-time–the other being the European Space Agency, according to Catharine Conley, NASA’s current planetary protection officer.

While the position may sound like one where a person would be in charge of directing forces during an intergalactic invasion, it appears to be more tame than that. Conley told Scientific American in 2014 that her job mostly involves making sure that the U.S. is complying with a 50-year-old international treaty that set space-based biological contamination standards for all space missions. According to the treaty, any space mission must have a less than 1-in-10,000 chance of contaminating an alien world–a risk assessed by the planetary officer.

In missions to Mars, for example, Conley would be in charge of equipment, protocols, and procedures to reduce the risk of contamination in samples taken from the red planet. She is also in charge of making sure that missions from Earth don’t contaminate other planets. As a result, Conley travels to various space stations around the world to make sure other countries’ planet-bound devices don’t contaminate new worlds through a crash-landing or other methods.

Even though Conley has described the job as having a “a moderate level” of difficulty, the qualifications for it are anything but that. Applicants must have at least one year of experience as a top-level civilian government employee, plus have “advanced knowledge” of planetary protection and all it entails. You will also need an advanced degree in physical science, engineering, or mathematics, as well as “experience planning, executing, or overseeing elements of space programs of national significance.”

Applicants still have time to get their resumes in order–NASA will be accepting applications for the position until August 14. You can apply for the job here.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NASA’s New Job Offer: Planetary Protection Officer appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump reluctantly signed a bipartisan bill Wednesday morning that imposes additional sanctions on Russia. The bill, which also levies sanctions on North Korea and Iran, severely limits Trump’s ability to lift Russian sanctions in the future. Between the House and Senate, 517 members of congress supported the bill, giving Trump pretty much no choice but to sign it.

The bill represents a rare showing of bipartisanship–and of congressional Republicans’ willingness to stand up to the Trump Administration. Republicans, traditionally hawkish on Russia, have until now overlooked Trump’s repeated overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin–during the campaign and his presidency–in order to pursue other legislative goals.

The new sanctions target Russia’s energy and defense sectors, but perhaps more important than the sanctions themselves, the bill gives Congress the final say if the president decides to lift sanctions. Congress would have a 30-day review period to consider any such actions by Trump or future presidents. The administration has decried this part of the bill as “unconstitutional,” as it unfairly limits the president’s flexibility on matters of foreign policy.

In a statement released Wednesday after Trump signed the legislation, the White House said the bill contained “a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions” that “purport to displace the President’s exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) said the bill sends a “powerful message to our adversaries that they will be held accountable for their actions.” He added: “We will continue to use every instrument of American power to defend this nation and the people we serve.”

After signing the bill, Trump released a second statement calling it “seriously flawed” because it “encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.” He went on to deride Congress for its failure to pass health care legislation: “Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking,” he said.

Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, Washington has been engaged in a diplomatic tit-for-tat with Moscow. Last December, after it became clear Russia meddled in the 2016 election, former President Barack Obama increased Russian sanctions. He also expelled Russian diplomats and seized two of its diplomatic compounds.

The Kremlin retaliated with measures of its own over the weekend, ordering the U.S. to slash its diplomatic staff throughout Russia by 755. It also seized two properties used by U.S. diplomats. On Wednesday, after Trump signed the bill into law, Russian officials offered ominous signs, with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying it amounts to a “full scale trade war.”

And Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, added his two cents: “Some U.S. officials were saying that this is a bill that might encourage Russia to cooperate with the United States; to me that’s a strange sort of encouragement,” he said. “Those who invented this bill, if they were thinking they might change our policy, they were wrong.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs “Significantly Flawed” Russian Sanctions Bill appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

— cyndi tuell (@cctuell) August 1, 2017

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

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

The statement read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcus Dieterle

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

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

If you’re a person of even average height who has flown in the past year, you’ve probably noticed that you’re starting to get less space. And you know that if you do want a little extra room to make sure that the person in front of you doesn’t crush your legs into oblivion, it will cost you a significant fee.

This is the phenomenon that a federal judge recently referred to as the “incredible shrinking airline seat.” And on Friday, a three judge Federal Appeals court in Washington, DC ruled that the FAA standards for allowing diminished seat spacing were potentially harmful to passenger health and safety.

The panel ruled in favor of Flyers Rights, the passenger advocacy group, which argued against the recent average seat width reduction from 18″ in the early 2010s to 16.5″ now. The group pointed out that airlines also reduced seat pitch (which is the combination of seat thickness and legroom) from an average of 35″ to 31″ for an economy level seat. Low budget airlines such as Spirit go as low as offering only 28” seat pitches for its economy seats.

Flyers Rights contended that the significant decrease in legroom, combined with the increase in size of the average American passenger, can make it significantly more difficult for passengers to exit a plane in case of an emergency evacuation. Furthermore, the group argued that a decrease in seat pitch can lead to an increased risk of heightened vein thrombosis–a condition involving blood clots in the legs that has been connected to longer flights.

In a statement, the FAA said it: “does consider seat pitch in testing and assessing the safe evacuation of commercial, passenger aircraft. We are studying the ruling carefully and any potential actions we may take to address the court’s findings.”

But the judges found that the FAA was relying on outdated studies. The FAA even admitted last year that it lacked the data that would be able to prove whether airlines could evacuate an airplane in the minimum required time if each seat had 31 inches of pitch. The ruling will not guarantee or force the FAA to change its seat space regulation policy, rather it merely requires that it conduct a formal review.

But for the first time, it feels as though there’s finally some progress. Flyers Rights had lobbied Congress for legislation to bring a change to the seating requirement earlier this year, but it failed to gain the necessary support.

Legal aviation experts such as Arthur Alan Wolk have characterized the ruling as being groundbreaking in terms of an organization having any success lobbying against the FAA. He told the New York Times on Sunday: “This is the first case I have seen where an organization has successfully challenged the F.A.A.’s basically being asleep at the switch and not fulfilling its safety responsibilities adequately.”

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Curious Case of the “Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat” appeared first on Law Street.

Kanye West is well know for his eccentricities.

So when he went on a Trump-praising, Jay Z-dissing rant in November 2016 during one of his Saint Pablo tour stops, it didn’t come as much of a surprise. His eight-day stay at a Los Angeles psychiatric center for “exhaustion,” however, drew whispers in the music community and shocked fans. The mental breakdown led to a canceled tour and thousands of disappointed fans–and now a $10 million lawsuit.

West’s touring company Very Good Touring filed the lawsuit against Lloyds of London, the firm charged with insuring his tour, alleging that the company is stalling on paying out claims relating to the tour’s cancellation.

A loss claim was filed two days after West was hospitalized at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Hospital Center, but his touring company still hasn’t been paid more than eight months later. The lawsuit alleges that the insurer is trying to blame West’s marijuana usage on the mental breakdown.

“[Lloyds] have neither paid on the multi million dollar claim nor denied the claim,” states the complaint filed Tuesday in a California federal court. “Nor have they provided anything approaching a coherent explanation about why they have not paid, or any indication if they will ever pay or even make a coverage decision, implying that Kanye’s use of marijuana may provide them with a basis to deny the claim and retain the hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums paid by Very Good.”

The lawsuit continues: “The stalling is emblematic of a broader modus operandi of the insurers of never-ending post-claim underwriting where the insurers hunt for some contrived excuse not to pay.”

The tour insurance was expected to guard against non-appearances and cancellations due to unforeseen perils such as illness. According to the lawsuit, an independent medical examination of West by a doctor hand-selected by the insurer’s counsel confirmed that he was “in no condition to resume the tour.”

West’s lawyers also accused the insurers of leaking his personal medical information to the press in the complaint.

“Plaintiff is informed and believes that the ‘planting’ of the Confidential Information with news outlets … was part and parcel of Defendants’ efforts to impair Plaintiff’s rights to the indemnity payments due under the Insurance Policies,” states the complaint, which nods to a non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

West is not suing the three additional insurance companies that insured his Saint Pablo tour, as they have already paid Very Good Touring for the cancellation.

Read the full lawsuit below.

Kanye West Lloyds by gmaddaus on Scribd

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kanye West Sues Insurer for $10M Over Canceled Saint Pablo Tour appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

NAACP Issues Travel Advisory for Missouri

The NAACP has issued its first-ever statewide travel advisory for the state of Missouri. This announcement came after Senate Bill 43 passed the state legislature and was signed by Governor Eric Greitens. The new law makes it harder for employees to prove their protected class status in a lawsuit; critics, including the NAACP, say that it makes discrimination easier and dubbed it a “Jim Crow bill.”

The advisory is intended to let people of color and members of the LGBT community traveling through the state know what’s going on, and to be particularly vigilant. It cites recent instances of police brutality and discrimination in Missouri, and asks that everyone “warn your families, co-workers, and anyone visiting Missouri to beware of the safety concerns with travel in Missouri, notify members of your trade associations, social and civil organizations that they are traveling and living in Missouri at their own risk and subject to unnecessary search seizure and potential arrest, and file and seek help on any existing claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistle blowing ASAP before your legal rights are lost.”

.@NAACP issues travel advisory for Missouri, the first in its 108-year history, after passage of “Jim Crow Bill” https://t.co/sEFbjOzQUa pic.twitter.com/N1UyXNEcqk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) August 2, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Prolonged border delays, expanded truck parking, and increased customs staffing could cost the U.K. 1 billion pounds per year after it leaves the European Union, according to a report by Oxera, an economic consultancy.

Andrew Meaney–head of transport at Oxera–wrote this analysis to see what effects Brexit will have on British ports. Using World Trade Organization statistics for trading across borders, Meaney estimated the related costs based on the assumption that Britain would try to create a new customs system that will be as close as possible to the current system. The most likely result would be a “low regulation, high enforcement” policy, he concluded.

“Enforcement is either undertaken at the ports, or on a random checks basis,” the report states. “However, the number of staff involved increases substantially, and many consignments are subject to lengthy checks.”

Meaney described the 10-figure annual cost as “extremely conservative” because it does not take into account the economic costs of uncertainty involved, extra staff, traffic congestion, and land on which to conduct the checks, which led him to conclude, “The full cost is likely to be much higher.”

Even if the billion-pound increase is something that diehard Brexit supporters want, news of the projected increase could not come at a more inconvenient time for the U.K., as the island nation scrambles to figure out how to replace funding from the European Union.

One example of this came up last week when the Local Government Association (LGA) called on Britain’s Treasury to help replace funds that would be used in smaller towns and regions near the coast–known as regeneration funds. Local authorities estimate that nearly 8.4 billion pounds were allocated through the European structural and investment funds between 2014-2020, which means that once Brexit happens, that total would fall on the British government.

“Since the referendum, one of the biggest concerns for councils has been the future of vital E.U. regeneration funding,” said Kevin Bentley, an executive member of the LGA. “Councils have used E.U. funds to help new businesses start up, create thousands of new jobs, roll out broadband, and build new roads and bridges.”

The Treasury’s commitment to these funds would likely mean an increase in domestic taxes for British citizens to maintain existing funding levels. This becomes a bit problematic when wealthier parts of the country–such as London, where a majority voted Remain–will be paying to support the regions inhabited by the people who voted Leave, and much of the tax-paying immigrant base might leave because of Brexit. In fact, Remain voters would be paying double for the government’s decisions–a National Audit Office report in 2016 found that British investments in infrastructure were not doing too well.

Ever since Britain elected to exit the European Union in June 2016, Brexit supporters have seen many troubling revelations about the withdrawal they voted for. From Prime Minister Theresa May confirming that the 350 million pounds a week promised to the NHS after the Brexit vote was a lie, to the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michael Barnier, ruling earlier this month that the government’s hope of securing “frictionless” trade once outside the E.U. was not possible, Brexit proponents have had little to hang their hats on. A projected spike in border spending only adds to the problem.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UK Border Costs are Predicted to Surge After Brexit appeared first on Law Street.

The selfie queen herself, Kim Kardashian West, is being sued for $100 million for copyright infringement relating to her signature light up smartphone case. A man by the name of Hooshmand Harooni filed suit against West’s company Kimisaprincess Inc., claiming the LuMee case she endorses is a rip off his own light up case.

The LuMee cases act like portable ring lights, providing continuous lighting around the phone’s perimeter, and typically retail for around $55-$70.

According to the lawsuit, Harooni obtained a patent in 2013 for an “integrated lighting accessory and case for a mobile phone device” and licensed it exclusively to Snap Light LLC.

West has frequently promoted the LuMee case on her social media accounts, and even used it when taking her now infamous selfie with then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

On the Ellen Show today Hilary Clinton talks about how she never looked better in our perfectly lit selfie! #LUMEE pic.twitter.com/6svy37T46u

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) January 11, 2016

Aside from stealing his product, Harooni also claims that West’s promotion of the case awarded LuMee an unfair competitive advantage due to her trendsetter status.

“Despite having superior, patented products, it has been extremely difficult for Snaplight to compete in the selfie case market against Ms. West’s product influence and Defendants’ ongoing infringement,” Harooni claims. He is also suing Urban Outfitters for distributing LuMee. “Snaplight and Mr. Harooni have suffered financially as a result.”

Harooni is suing for $100 million to recoup his lost profits, and is also asking that West stop promoting the LuMee cases.

In a statement to TMZ, a rep for the Kardashians  called the lawsuit another “attempted shakedown.”

“The patent lawsuit filed by Snap Light has no merit and is just another attempted shakedown,” the statement reads. “Kim has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

LuMee echoed that sentiment in a statement of its own:

LuMee is an innovator of illuminated cell phone cases and was the first to market. Between its patents, copyrights and trademarks, LuMee has developed substantial intellectual property rights surrounding its product line. LuMee is currently asserting patent infringement against Snaplight.

For those of you “keeping up” with the Kardashian/Jenner family’s intellectual property lawsuits, July was a rough month for the reality stars. Both Kylie Jenner and her sister Kendall were sued for misappropriating and exploiting images of Tupac Shakur with their controversial vintage tees, and last week, Kylie was also accused of copying a British artist’s work with her lip bite logo for her new television series “Life of Kylie.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kim Kardashian Sued for $100M Over Selfie Phone Case appeared first on Law Street.

Cory Booker, a Democratic senator from New Jersey, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would legalize marijuana at the federal level. Titled the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017, the legislation aims to lessen the impact of marijuana arrests and convictions, which disproportionately affect minority and low-income communities. The bill also establishes a fund to invest in community programs and institutions.

“Our country’s drug laws are badly broken and need to be fixed,” Booker said in a press release accompanying the bill’s announcement. “They don’t make our communities any safer – instead they divert critical resources from fighting violent crimes, tear families apart, unfairly impact low-income communities and communities of color, and waste billions in taxpayer dollars each year.”

While marijuana is fully legal in eight states and D.C., it is barred at the federal level, classified as a Schedule I substance, joining heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Booker’s bill would declassify marijuana, effectively legalizing it.

The legislation also would penalize states that have not legalized marijuana and have “a disproportionate arrest rate or a disproportionate incarceration rate for marijuana offenses.” Such states would not receive federal funding for constructing or staffing prisons and jails. Other funds would be withheld as well.

The Marijuana Justice Act calls for retroactive expungement, community investment pool + state incentives to change their laws. Interesting. https://t.co/aIs0WCgj2l

— Ava DuVernay (@ava) August 1, 2017

 A prominent advocate for criminal justice reform, Booker also seeks to remedy the ills brought to minority communities by the War on Drugs. The bill would retroactively expunge federal marijuana convictions, and allow prisoners’ sentences to be reviewed. Marijuana arrests make up more than half of all drug arrests. And a 2013 ACLU report showed that in 2010, a black American was four times as likely as a white American to be arrested for marijuana possession.

Booker, in a statement on his Facebook page, said his bill “is the right thing to do for public safety, and will help reduce our overflowing prison population.” The legislation would create a Community Reinvestment Fund “to establish a grant program to reinvest in communities most affected by the war on drugs.” Grants would go toward job training and reentry programs, public libraries, youth programs, and health education programs.

Erik Altieri, executive director of marijuana reform group NORML, applauded Booker’s bill. In a statement, he said: “Not only is it imperative we end our failed experiment of marijuana prohibition, we must also ensure justice for those who suffered most under these draconian policies.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cory Booker Proposes Bill to Legalize Marijuana at the Federal Level appeared first on Law Street.

DOJ vs. Affirmative Action

The DOJ intends to direct its Civil Rights Division’s resources to investigate affirmative action policies, specifically what effects those policies have on white applicants. The DOJ may sue universities it believes are discriminating against white applicants. This is an odd use of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which was designed to address issues faced by minority groups in the United States.

Many have also pointed out the irony of the Trump Administration’s crusade against affirmative action:

The people who hate affirmative action because its ‘unfair’ are gonna be really mad when they find out how rich kids get into elite schools

— Ayatollah Cumonme (@Phonycian) August 2, 2017

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action policies was in 2016, affirming the University of Texas’ admissions policy was constitutional after white student Abigail Fisher sued the university. But that hasn’t stopped additional cases from moving forward. Two more, one against Harvard and one against the University of North Carolina, are pending. Unlike the Texas case, they both allege discrimination against African-American students.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In a report issued on Monday, a commission created to combat drug addiction recommended that President Donald Trump declare the opioid crisis a national emergency. The Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, formed via an executive order Trump signed in March, is chaired by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and is co-chaired by a bipartisan group of governors and health professionals.

In its interim report–a final review is due in October–the commission said its “first and most urgent recommendation” is for Trump to deem the crisis a state of emergency. The report continued:

Your declaration would empower your cabinet to take bold steps and would force Congress to focus on funding and empowering the Executive Branch even further to deal with this loss of life. It would also awaken every American to this simple fact: if this scourge has not found you or your family yet, without bold action by everyone, it soon will.

More Americans die from drug overdoses than from car accidents or gun violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 142 Americans die each day from a drug overdose; 91 die from an opioid overdose. In 2015, opioids like Percocet, Oxycontin, heroin, and fentanyl were responsible for nearly two-thirds of all drug overdose deaths. The trend is on the rise: Since 1999, according to the CDC, the number of overdose deaths linked to opioids has quadrupled.

The commission–which includes Republican Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts and Democratic Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina–recommended a number of other reforms. It asked Trump to waive the barriers that keep patients at addiction treatment facilities from qualifying for Medicaid services. The commission wrote: “This will immediately open treatment to thousands of Americans in existing facilities in all 50 states.”

Regardless of what the Trump Administration decides to do, states are beginning to tackle the opioid epidemic on their own. Earlier this year, the governors of Arizona, Florida, Virginia, and Maryland declared a state of emergency for the epidemic. But if the federal government declared the opioid crisis a state of emergency, would that make a tangible difference?

“It’s really about drawing attention to the issue and pushing for all hands on deck,” Michael Fraser, the executive director of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, told the New York Times. “It would allow a level of attention and coordination that the federal agencies might not otherwise have, but in terms of day-to-day lifesaving, I don’t think it would make much difference.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should the Trump Administration Declare the Opioid Crisis a National Emergency? appeared first on Law Street.

Back in December, Law Street Media explained who then-Secretary of Homeland Security nominee John Kelly was. Only a few months after the inauguration, Kelly has since shifted jobs and replaced Reince Priebus as the chief of staff under President Donald Trump.

Kelly wasted no time making moves on his first day in office, firing Anthony Scaramucci from his communications director post after only 10 days on the job. He was reportedly outraged by Scaramucci’s profanity-laced interview with the New Yorker and found it embarrassing for the president, according to the Washington Post.

The ousting signaled that Trump may be willing to give more power to Kelly than Priebus had during his entire six-month stint in the White House.

“General Kelly has the full authority to operate within the White House, and all staff will report to him,” said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Trump’s chief of staff change is yet another example of him doing the same thing he had previously criticized Obama for doing. While Obama had three chiefs of staff during his eight years, Trump is already on his second in just six months.

3 Chief of Staffs in less than 3 years of being President: Part of the reason why @BarackObama can’t manage to pass his agenda.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 10, 2012

Kelly is known in the political world for his no-nonsense approach to leadership. The former 45-year military veteran from Boston served in the previous administration as the head of the U.S. Southern Command, a unit that focuses on operations in Latin America and the Caribbean.

His new appointment comes as the White House shifts to push Trump’s stagnant agenda, specifically in regards to taxes. The president wants Kelly and other administration officials to help focus lawmakers and citizens on passing tax cuts, which was a key part of his domestic agenda while on the campaign.

According to reports from inside the White House, people are already responding well to Kelly in his new role.

“He’s an adult and a disciplinarian,” said Barry Bennett, a former Trump campaign adviser, to the Washington Post. “He walks in with respect. I don’t think people will go to war with him.”

During his brief stint leading Homeland Security, Kelly pursued a couple of projects, including Trump’s much discussed border wall with Mexico. Kelly called the proposed wall “essential” and vowed that construction on it would begin “by the end of summer,” though that doesn’t seem to be happening. He also stressed concerns over potential terrorist attacks on transportation, and said that if people knew the truth they would “never leave the house.”

While his position atop the Department of Homeland Security was relatively calm, Kelly is now entering a new, chaotic environment inside the West Wing. With weekly firings, constant leaks to the press, and conflicting statements from officials, Kelly will have his hands full balancing Trump, his aides, and other leaders. As a seasoned veteran, Kelly has experience leading groups, but wrangling this group of Washington outsiders–many of whom have unstable temperaments–will be a whole new challenge.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Kelly: From General to DHS to the White House appeared first on Law Street.

Look left, look right…take your eyes off your smartphone. Okay. Now, you can cross the street in Honolulu.

In a 7-2 vote, the city council just passed a law that makes it illegal to stare at a phone screen while crossing “a street or highway.” The “distracted pedestrians law,” which is the first of its kind in the country, also encompasses video games, cameras, tablets, pagers, and other small handheld devices.

“Sometimes I wish there were laws we did not have to pass, that perhaps common sense would prevail,” Mayor Kirk Caldwell said during a bill signing ceremony near one of the city’s busiest intersections. “But sometimes we lack common sense.”

Local law enforcement will have three months to educate people about the new law, but after October 25, so-called “smartphone zombies” will risk incurring fines between $15 and $99, depending on how many times they have gotten caught glancing downwards before.

Pedestrians can still look at their phones on the curb and won’t be penalized if they are listening to music or talking on the phone as they cross the street, as long as their eyes can stay on the road. Dialing 911 is also permitted mid-crossing.

Though many believe this law, much like jaywalking, will be enforced in an arbitrary manner, lawmakers assure they are trying to tackle a serious road fatality problem.

“We hold the unfortunate distinction of being a major city with more pedestrians being hit in crosswalks, particularly our seniors, than almost any other city in the county,” Caldwell told Reuters.

The Governors Highway Safety Association reported that pedestrian fatalities increased 11 percent from the first six months of 2015 to the same period in 2016 and that one possible reason may be the rise in smartphone use.

However critics are saying that this law ought to further regulate drivers instead of punishing pedestrians.

Hawaii already forbids drivers from using their phones or texting while driving, allowing them only to use a hands-free device. However, no law exists preventing them from glancing at their screen. Last year, local police issued over 20,000 distracted driving citations statewide.

“If it’s signed into law,” writes Steven Miller in an opinion piece, “a pedestrian could have the right of way, be struck by a driver, and still receive a ticket for using a cell phone in the crosswalk, even though it’s the driver who should have yielded.”

Others are complaining that this new policy is an overreach of the local government’s authority.

“I don’t know if it should be a law that you can’t use your phone, because it is your phone,” said Sandra Hirooka. “I like the freedom of using my phone whenever I want to.”

“Scrap this intrusive bill, provide more education to citizens about responsible electronics usage, and allow law enforcement to focus on larger issues,” resident Ben Robinson told the city council in written testimony.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Law: No “Crossing and Texting” in Honolulu appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. imposed direct sanctions against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Monday, freezing his U.S. assets and barring Americans from conducting business with him. The sanctions came a day after a vote that expanded his powers, giving the international community fresh concerns that Venezuela is creeping from democracy to dictatorship.

“By sanctioning Maduro the United States makes clear our opposition to the policies of his regime and our support for the people of Venezuela,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said during a press briefing at the White House on Monday. “As we continue to monitor this situation we will continue to review all of our options.”

U.S. officials reportedly considered enacting additional measures against Maduro, including banning imports of Venezuelan oil. But in the end, officials worried that halting imports of Venezuelan crude, which makes up about 10 percent of all U.S. oil imports, would unfairly punish regular Venezuelans. Maduro joins three other heads of state directly under U.S. sanctions: North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Robert Mugabe, the 93-year-old president of Zimbabwe.

On Sunday, Venezuelans voted in a referendum on whether or not to dissolve the country’s legislative body, the National Assembly, for a new, 545-member Constituent Assembly, entirely composed of Maduro loyalists. Maduro’s opponents–not to mention Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Chile, and Panama–saw the vote as illegitimate. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, slammed the vote on Twitter:

Maduro’s sham election is another step toward dictatorship. We won’t accept an illegit govt. The Venezuelan ppl & democracy will prevail.

— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) July 30, 2017

Opposition leaders in Venezuela, and millions of citizens, fear that the Constituent Assembly will be a vehicle for Maduro to re-write the constitution, giving him broader, incontestable powers.

Those powers are already bearing fruit. Early Tuesday morning, two prominent Maduro critics, Leopoldo Lopez and Antonio Ledezma, were reportedly taken from their homes by SEBIN, Venezuela’s intelligence service. The opposition leaders’ families posted on social media detailing their arrests.

Lopez’s wife, Lilian Tintori, tweeted early Tuesday: “They just took Leopoldo from the house. We do not know where he is or where he is being taken. Maduro is responsible if something happens to him.”

And in a video statement, Ledezma’s daughter said: “He was in pajamas. We don’t know where he was taken. A group of men came with their faces concealed and in camouflage and they took him. They have kidnapped him once again. We hold the regime responsible for his life and physical integrity.”

Lopez and Ledezma are among Maduro’s most vocal and influential critics. Lopez was detained in early 2014 for allegedly inciting anti-government protests. He was released from military prison to house arrest last month. Ledezma, the former mayor of Caracas, Venezuela’s capital and the center of political unrest in recent months, is also a leading opposition figure.

As Maduro looks to cement his power, Venezuelans are growing increasingly desperate, struggling to obtain basic necessities like food and water. Since protests ratcheted up in April, at least 125 people have died; 10 people were reportedly killed during protests on Sunday. Maduro seems unfazed by the mounting unrest, the plight of his people, and the condemnation of the international community.

“If the empire’s threats and sanctions don’t intimidate me, nothing scares me,” Maduro said on state television after Sunday’s vote. “Issue all the sanctions you want, but the Venezuelan people have decided to be free and I have decided to be the president of a free people.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Venezuelan President: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

More women than men are paying increased attention to politics after Donald Trump’s election, according to new data about political attentiveness.

Nine months after an election largely defined by its historic gender gap, survey data from the Pew Research Center shows that 58 percent of women say they are “paying increased attention to politics since Trump’s election,” compared with only 46 percent of men.

Overall, 52 percent of the population said they are paying more attention, while 33 percent say they are paying about the same amount of attention, and 13 percent admitted to being less attentive.

“There are similarly wide gender gaps in heightened interest to politics among members of both parties,” according to the Pew. “Sixty-three percent of Democratic women say they are more attentive to politics, compared with 51 percent of Democratic men. Among Republicans, 54 percent of women and 43 percent of men say the same.”

Pew conducted the survey between June 27 and July 9, speaking with 2,505 adults in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

The Gender Gap

Women paying more attention to politics has translated into on-the-ground political activism, according to the data. Seventeen percent of women say they have attended a political rally, event, or protest; 12 percent of men say the same.

It’s likely that a large number of these women were among the estimated 5 million who came out for women’s marches that swept the nation after Inauguration Day.

Education level also appeared to make a difference–the subgroup of the population most likely to have attended a protest is women with post-graduate degrees, with 43 percent having participated.

Out of the total 15 percent of the population who have attended such events, the vast majority (67 percent) did so “in opposition to Trump or his policies,” compared  to the mere 11 percent of those who said they’ve attended a political event in support of the president.

Trump Talk Ending Friendships

The majority of Americans (59 percent) find talking politics with someone who has differing opinions than them on the president to be a “stressful and frustrating” experience. Only 35 percent of the population says it is “interesting and informative” to engage in such conversations.

Women tend to be more frustrated with these conversations–64 percent say they are stressful, compared to 54 percent of men sharing that view.

Going beyond just conversations, about one-in-five survey respondents said that knowing a friend voted for Trump would put a strain on their friendship. However, only 7 percent said that knowing a friend had voted for Hillary Clinton would negatively affect their friendship.

The numbers are even more stark when looking at a breakdown by political affiliation and ideology. Thirty-five percent of Democrats said a friend’s Trump vote would put a strain on the friendship, while only 13 percent of Republicans said the same about a friend #withher. For the Democrats who consider themselves to be liberal, rather than moderate or conservative, 47 percent said their friendships would be strained by a vote for Trump.

A Country Not So Divided

Looking past politics, most Democrats (59 percent) and Republicans (56 percent) said that members of the opposing party probably share their other values and goals.

The ideological group most likely to feel this way is moderate and liberal Republicans, 73 percent of whom said Democrats likely shared their non-political goals and values. These survey questions were only asked of partisan-identifying respondents, not those who said they leaned toward one party.

Click here for the full survey report and methodology explanation from Pew Research Center.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women Are Paying More Attention to Politics in Post-Trump World appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Insert Mooch Pun Here

After an illustrious 10 days as President Donald Trump’s communications director (sort of), Anthony Scaramucci is officially out. Sources close to Trump have explained that his remarks to various news outlets–including Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker–”disgusted” Ivanka and Melania Trump. Newly minted White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told Scaramucci on Monday that his services were no longer needed as one of his first tasks on the job.

Twitter had an absolute field day, mocking Scaramucci’s incredibly rapid rise and fall.

I’m still laughing at the fact that Mooch was fired before his official start date. Only WH staffer in history to serve for negative days.

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) August 1, 2017

gotta add “scaramucci” to the dictionary as a measure of time

— Desus Nice (@desusnice) July 31, 2017

These constant staff shake-ups have marred the White House in recent weeks, so insiders are hoping that Kelly will be able to chart a smooth course moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcus Dieterle

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

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

After a four-year hiatus, Kesha is finally back to belting out pop hits, but that doesn’t mean her legal saga with music producer Dr. Luke is anywhere close to being over. In fact, the contentious court battle has managed to entangle another female pop star: Lady Gaga.

In the latest series of events, Luke’s legal team subpoenaed Gaga to testify in his defamation lawsuit against his former protégée, after several unsuccessful attempts to get her testimony on the record.

Gaga was subpoenaed in relation to a text message conversation between her and Kesha that was submitted into evidence last year, in which Kesha allegedly asked “The Cure” singer to join a “smear campaign” against him. Luke’s lawyers claim Gaga even spread a statement urging Sony Music to cut ties with Luke, according to court documents.

“Dr. Luke’s counsel served a subpoena on Lady Gaga because she has relevant information regarding, among other things, false statements about Dr. Luke made to her by Kesha,” Luke’s lawyer said in a statement on Saturday. “This motion has become necessary because Dr. Luke’s counsel has not been able to obtain, despite repeated request, a deposition date from Lady Gaga.”

Dr. Luke, real name Lukasz Gottwald, sued Kesha for defamation after she claimed he drugged, raped, and emotionally abused her. Gaga showed public support for Kesha throughout her years-long sexual assault case against Luke–including tweeting the popular hashtag #FreeKesha.

There are people all over the world who love you @KeshaRose. And I can say truly I am in awe of your bravery.

— xoxo, Gaga (@ladygaga) February 19, 2016

Gaga’s legal team responded to the subpoena with the following statement to Variety over the weekend:

As Lady Gaga‘s legal team will present to the court, she has provided all of the relevant information in her possession and is at most an ancillary witness in this process. Dr. Luke’s team is attempting to manipulate the truth and draw press attention to their case by exaggerating Lady Gaga‘s role and falsely accusing her of dodging reasonable requests.

Unfortunately, we can’t look at the text exchange for ourselves, because the judge sealed the messages between Gaga and Kesha, making the content confidential.

Now that the subpoena has been issued, Gaga will be required to set a date to appear in-person for a three-hour deposition. Many other celebrities are expected to provide testimony as well in the case.

In July, Kesha made a triumphant return to music with her emotional first single “Praying,” which appears to be inspired by her conflict with Luke. The track will appear on her brand new album “Rainbow”–her first in five years–which is expected to be released in August.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lady Gaga Dodges Dr. Luke Subpoena in Kesha Defamation Case appeared first on Law Street.

A new Florida law allows residents to challenge any school textbook that they find inappropriate.

The legislation, which went into effect on July 1, is known as the Instructional Materials Bill. It permits any resident, regardless of whether or not they have a child in school, to challenge what Florida students are learning via an independent hearing. If the hearing officer deems the complaint justified, they can order the school to ban the book. However, school districts will still have the final say.

The Florida Citizens’ Alliance, a conservative group, pushed for the law after examining more than 60 textbooks in 2015. The group’s founder, Keith Flaugh, found more than 80 instances in one government textbook that he believes gives false information.

“We found [the textbooks] to be full of political indoctrination, religious indoctrination, revisionist history and distorting our founding values and principles, even a significant quantity of pornography,” he told NPR.

He goes on to explain the pornography is in literature within the school library or on summer reading lists.

While the bill can apply to any piece of required reading, the FCA’s main concern is with science textbooks. The group does not believe the schools should teach evolution or climate change as facts. One unnamed member claimed that the “vast majority of Americans believe that the world and the beings living on it were created by God as revealed in the Bible,” so the textbooks should only present evolution as a theory.

Similarly, an affidavit from a teacher complains that her school is teaching climate change as “reality.”

Other issues the FCA has with the books include attitudes toward Islam and anti-American portrayals of history.

In response to the bill, the Florida Citizens for Science Group posted a statement on its blog:

We believe that should this bill become law with the governor’s signature, people who crusade against basic, established science concepts such as evolution and climate change will have the green light to bog down the textbook selection process on the local level and bully school boards into compromises that will negatively impact science education.

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, is also concerned. “It’s just the candor with which the backers of the bill have been saying, ‘Yeah, we’re going to go after evolution, we’re going to go after climate change,'” he said.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Law Fights Against “Political Indoctrination” in School Textbooks appeared first on Law Street.

Wednesday night at FedEx Field in Washington D.C., Spanish soccer giant Barcelona played a friendly match against the English football club Manchester United. The game ended in a 1-0 victory for Barcelona, with the only goal coming from Brazilian forward Neymar, who was able to put pressure on the ball and escape multiple defenders in order to score a beautiful goal. Neymar has been a catalyst for his team since arriving in 2013, bringing nine trophies in just three years to Barcelona. But it appears that the superstar striker may be on the move.

Over the past week, there have been multiple reports that Neymar is interested in joining French football club Paris St.-Germain (PSG). The team plans on activating Barcelona’s €222 million release clause, as well as a potential transfer payment of €196 million. PSG would also pay Neymar’s wages of €30 million a year for the next five years, as well as a €40 million fee to his father, who acts as his agent. The entire deal could amount to €450 million, which would obliterate the previous transfer payment record, set by Manchester United, which payed €105 million for French midfielder Paul Pogba last summer.

However, some sources say that a decision has not been made yet because Neymar and his associates are concerned that the deal may violate the Financial Fair Play rules. Before he signs the deal with PSG, Neymar reportedly wants assurances that he will not be investigated by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), European soccer’s governing body.

Financial Fair Play is a financial reform established by former UEFA President Michel Platini in 2010, in response to the growing number of teams running huge debts and declaring bankruptcy.

The rule requires clubs to balance spending with revenue. The end goal is for a club to break even for every three-year assessment period. However, clubs are allowed to spend more than they take in if the excess expenditure “is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party.” Under FFP regulations, players’ wages are not allowed to exceed 70 percent of the club’s income.

If a soccer club is found to be in violation of FFP regulations, the consequences can be severe. Teams and individual players can be banned from participating in major UEFA competitions, and the UEFA can withhold a club’s revenue. PSG was previously found to be in violation of FFP rules, and was fined €60 million.

During the 2015-16 season, PSG made €105 million, and players’ wages made up about 54 percent of the club’s income. But even if PSG absorbed Neymar’s massive contract, the club’s total wages would be 65 percent of its income, which would put them in compliance with FFP regulations.

The overall problem posed by the transfer would be the addition of €100 million in expenditures just from adding Neymar this year alone. But PSG is confident that bringing in a player of Neymar’s caliber and popularity would dramatically increase merchandising sales for the club, which would help offset his massive fee. Neymar is one of the most marketable and recognizable sports figures in the world–he has 78.6 million Instagram followers.

To make up for their Neymar-related spending, PSG can offload some of its more expensive players. But so far, according to Andrea Traverso, the head of UEFA’s club licensing committee and financial fair play, PSG has been following the FFP regulations. As long as the club is able to break even on the deal, the UEFA has no problem with it spending €450 million for one player.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Could Financial Fair Play Rules Force Neymar to Stay in Barcelona? appeared first on Law Street.

A 72-year-old British man was convicted on Monday of importing a child sex doll that was “anatomically detailed and correct,” according to Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA). Over the past year or so, British authorities have been dealing with an increasing number of such cases, which are difficult to prosecute under British law, as it’s not illegal to own a child sex doll. But importing one could amount to a criminal offense under the 1959 Obscene Publication Act.

Judge Simon James ruled on David Turner’s case at the Canterbury Crown Courthouse in Kent, a city southeast of London. Turner was found guilty of importing a 3-foot-11-inch doll from China. He also bought clothes for the doll, and owned others he used for sexual purposes.

At Turner’s home in Kent, police uncovered more than 34,000 images of children ages three to 16, along with two other child dolls, and 29 stories that “described sexual abuse of children,” according to the NCA. Turner was arrested last November, when customs officers at Stansted Airport seized a doll, which was mislabeled as a mannequin.

The importation of child sex dolls is an emerging trend in the UK. Since March 2016, the Border Force has seized 123 dolls. Those previously charged in similar cases pleaded guilty to importing obscene objects, but Turner asked the judge whether or not using the doll for sexual purposes was considered “indecent or obscene in law.” In a first, the judge ruled that it was. Turner’s sentencing is scheduled for September 8.

“Our front line officers and intelligence teams are vigilant to emerging criminal trends such as the importation of obscene dolls,” Dan Scully, deputy director of the Border Force’s Intelligence Operations said in a statement. “Through our work with law enforcement partners like the NCA, we are committed to preventing the smuggling of obscene articles and bringing those responsible to justice.”

Hazel Stewart, operations manager of the NCA’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection wing, said “Importers of such obscene items should expect to have law enforcement closing in on them.”

Some doubt that child sex dolls can be a therapeutic tool for would-be abusers. “There is no evidence to support the idea that the use of so-called child sex dolls helps prevent potential abusers from committing contact offenses against real children,” Jon Brown, head of development at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said in a statement. “And in fact there is a risk that those using these child sex dolls or realistic props could become desensitized and their behavior becomes normalized to them, so that they go on to harm children themselves.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 72-Year-Old British Man Convicted of Importing Child Sex Doll appeared first on Law Street.

Putin Reacts to New American Sanctions

At the end of last week, Congress passed a bill that would levy sanctions on Russia for its involvement in the 2016 election-related hacking, as well as its annexation of Crimea in 2014. President Donald Trump has indicated he will sign it–although even if he chose to veto it, it appears that Congress has the votes to override his veto. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded to the measures yesterday, ordering a reduction of U.S. diplomatic staff by 755. That would bring American staff to 455 at all the diplomatic missions across Russia. Russia is also seizing some American property in the country.

The Russian government says that the affected diplomats must leave the country by September 1, although State Department numbers indicate that many of the people working at diplomatic missions in Russia are local hires, meaning they’ll likely just be let go. Tensions with Russia have been on a bit of a roller coaster of late–Trump’s staff has been accused of colluding with the Russian government to influence the election. But, Putin has said that he doesn’t see relations changing “anytime soon.”

Putin said Russia had run out of patience waiting for relations with the United States to improve https://t.co/pUzx6nZZYb

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 31, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 31, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Italian newspapers have been filled with tales from the “Mafia Capitale” trial this month, as Massimo Carminati, a right-wing extremist with a criminal history, was sentenced to 28 years in prison for diverting millions of euros that had been designated for public services into the bank accounts of politicians and businessmen.

Among those accused is the former right-wing mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, who was in office when the majority of the bribery and extortion took place. Although the label “mafia” was quickly applied to Carminati, his accomplice Salvatore Buzzi, and 45 others who faced trial for their involvement in the scandal, their lawyers have been quick to push back against using the word as a catch-all phrase.

Giosuè Naso, one of Carminati’s lawyers, stated that “if everything is mafia, nothing is mafia” and argued that using that label detracts from law enforcement efforts against crime syndicates. In Italy, trials involving the mafia come with a different set of punitive measures as “mafia association” itself can be considered a crime. Judge Rosanna Ianniello ultimately decided Carminati and Buzzi were guilty of corruption, not mafia association, even though the state made an argument that the operation was mafia-like and that certain members of the group had ties to the ‘Ndrangheta, Calabria’s powerful mafia. Gianni Alemanno has also been cleared of mafia association charges but is still awaiting trial for corruption and illegal funding of his political party.

The city of Rome is currently in dire economic straits, having pulled out of its bid for the 2024 Olympics  last year because it simply did not have the funds to continue. The financial woes of the city are directly linked to Carminati and Buzzi, whose bribery and extortion racket pulled public funds from a host of civic projects–including public housing for refugees–and shifted the funds into private coffers. Carminati and Buzzi have been in prison for over two years under Italy’s infamous 41-bis prison regime, designed specifically for mafia detainees, but going forward they will be granted more relaxed conditions in prison for their multi-decade sentences.

The two men and their accomplices may have been cleared of mafia charges but it will take years to track down and redistribute the funds they stole. Although law enforcement forces are confident they have removed the crime ring from city hall, there may still be members who escaped the crackdown and will return to their bribery practices once public scrutiny is relaxed. In the meantime, Rome is struggling, overflowing with garbage, struggling to house its population and maintain its public spaces. After a harsh drought this summer, Rome is now considering rationing drinking water for the 1.5 million residents of the city. The Eternal City desperately needs funding and responsible leaders to make sure public funds are spent effectively and responsibly. Mayor Virginia Raggi holds relatively high popularity with Roman voters and her M5S party has framed itself as the “outsider” party, separate from the corruption of the past–yet as the infrastructure and public services of Rome deteriorate, she may see difficulties.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Mafia Capitale: The Line Between Government Corruption and Organized Crime? appeared first on Law Street.

A hearings judge in Hawaii ruled the state could reissue a building permit for a telescope on Mauna Kea, a 14,000-foot dormant volcano that has become a lighting rod over the past few years. While the ruling is sure to fan the flames of a long-simmering conflict between astronomers and Native Hawaiians, the telescope has a ways to go before it can decipher the deepest mysteries of the universe.

The $1.4 billion behemoth, commonly called the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), would be the largest telescope in the Northern Hemisphere. It is one of three mammoth-sized telescopes being considered around the globe–the other two are in Chile. The project is backed by researchers at the California Institute of Technology and the University of California, who say it would be used to observe far-away planets and galaxies. India, China, and Canada have reportedly invested in the project as well.

Would a gigantic observatory despoil Hawaii’s sacred Mauna Kea? A judge says no. https://t.co/APwOLJEZ3y

— NYT Science (@NYTScience) July 28, 2017

But a faction of environmental groups and Native Hawaiians have passionately protested the telescope’s construction on Mauna Kea. The legal battle over Mauna Kea, considered a sacred site by some native groups, began in 2011, two years after the site was selected as the future home of the TMT. The state’s Board of Land and Natural Resources issued a permit for the telescope, which was contested by the project’s opponents to no avail.

In 2015, the Hawaii Supreme Court revoked the building permit, saying the board cut corners in approving the telescope. The application process started over, and retired Judge Riki May Amano was appointed to rule on whether or not the board should be granted the ability to issue a new building permit. On Wednesday, Amano decided that the board should be able to do so, on the condition that workers and astronomers undergo “mandatory cultural and natural resources training.”

“TMT welcomes the recommendation that a state permit be issued, and we respectfully look forward to the next steps,” Ed Stone, executive director of the TMT International Observatory, said in a statement. “We are grateful to all our supporters and friends who have been with us during the hearing process and over the past 10 years, and we remain respectful of the process to ensure the proper stewardship of Mauna Kea.”

Hawaii Gov. David Ige has also expressed support for the project. In a statement released after Amano’s decision, Ige said: “I support the coexistence of astronomy and culture on Mauna Kea along with better management of the mountain.”

Next up, the board will hear arguments on whether or not to accept Amano’s ruling. Regardless of the board’s decision, the case is likely to wind up back at the Hawaii Supreme Court. The telescope’s directors said if the telescope does not get built on Mauna Kea, it will end up in the Canary Islands off the coast of Spain.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Says Telescope on Hawaii’s Sacred Mauna Kea Should be Built appeared first on Law Street.

Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Ultimate News Quiz appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment Thursday that would block the Department of Justice from using any funds to undermine state medical marijuana legislation.

The effort, led by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT),  specifically prohibits the Justice Department from using federal funds to prevent certain states “from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.”

“The Senate is sending a clear message to Jeff Sessions–keep your hands off states that have reformed their marijuana laws,” said Michael Collins, Deputy Director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs. “Today’s vote is a huge win for the marijuana reform movement, because in the face of real pressure from the Department of Justice, the Senate has opted to block Jeff Sessions from interfering with any medical marijuana law.”

Congress has added the amendment, also known as Rohrabacher-Farr, to federal budgets every year since 2014. In May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a letter to Congressional leadership, personally requesting that Congressional leaders exclude the amendment, signaling a possible federal crackdown on marijuana.

Sessions, who oversees the Drug Enforcement Agency, defended the request, writing in the letter:

I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime. The Department must be in a position to use all laws available to combat the transnational drug organizations and dangerous drug traffickers who threaten American lives.

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have passed laws legalizing various forms of medical marijuana, and there are currently over 2 million registered patients.

Last August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the amendment’s language prevents the federal government from prosecuting state-authorized medical marijuana users, if no state laws have been broken.

The Senate Committee still has to approve the amendment for the final appropriations budget. But Thursday’s vote is a clear rebuke of Sessions, who is expected to unveil a DOJ task force report soon linking marijuana to violent crime.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Committee Approves Medical Marijuana Protections appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcus Dieterle

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

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

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made it clear on Thursday what would happen if President Donald Trump fires his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. “If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay,” he told CNN. Graham also said he is looking to introduce legislation next week that would block the firing of special counsels without a judicial review.

Rumors have been swirling around Capitol Hill this week that Trump is looking to dispose of Sessions and Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russia’s election interference, and any potential links between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

“This effort to basically marginalize and humiliate the attorney general is not going over well in the Senate,” Graham told CNN. “If you believe Jeff Sessions should be fired, use the power you have and accept the consequences.”

On Monday, Trump fired off a tweet calling Sessions “beleaguered,” asking why he has not looked into “Crooked Hillarys [sic] crimes & Russia relations.” Trump is reportedly upset that Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, which left an opening filled by Mueller, a widely respected prosecutor who Trump is also unhappy with.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

Sessions was one of Trump’s earliest advocates, and the first senator to embrace his candidacy. The attorney general has also faithfully pursued Trump’s campaign vision–perhaps more than any other cabinet appointee–adopting a hard-line immigration stance and a law and order philosophy on crime.

Republican senators rushed to Sessions’ defense following Trump’s Twitter barrage. They were joined by some Democrats, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who warned that firing Sessions could provoke a “constitutional crisis.” Others said it would further prove that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the investigations involving Russia and his campaign.

Sessions had been largely mum on the topic of his potential firing until Thursday afternoon. In an interview with Fox, he called Trump’s attacks “hurtful,” but said that Trump “is determined to move this country in the direction he believes it needs to go to make us great again.” He added that Trump “wants all of us to do our jobs and that’s what I intend to do.”

Graham’s legislation would essentially make it more difficult for Trump, and future presidents, to fire a special counsel, which includes Mueller. Dismissing a special counsel would require a judicial review to determine if reasons behind the firing “meet the statutory definitions,” Graham said.

The effort is likely to be a bi-partisan endeavor. Graham’s Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have said they are working on the bill. Blumenthal said it “might be a committee effort,” adding that firing Mueller “would precipitate a firestorm that would be unprecedented in proportions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lindsey Graham: If Trump Fires Sessions, “There Will be Holy Hell to Pay” appeared first on Law Street.

Just one day after President Donald Trump banned transgender Americans from serving in the military, a Chinese court decided in favor of a transgender man who had been wrongfully terminated from his job for “looking like a lesbian” and wearing traditionally male clothing.

This is one of China’s most signifiant steps ever when it comes to protecting the legal rights of the LGBTQ community. The court awarded the plaintiff, “Mr. C,” the equivalent of $297. The decision states that workers cannot be discriminated against “based on their ethnicity, race, gender or religious beliefs,” according to the Washington Post.

“The defendant terminated the contract with the plaintiff without a legitimate reason” and “infringed on the plaintiff’s equal employment rights,” the ruling said.

The 29-year-old plaintiff, referred to as “Mr. C” to protect his identity and his family, worked at Ciming Checkup, a health services firm, and was fired last year for his appearance as a man despite legally being considered a female. Mr. C claims he was mocked by some co-workers, and was told that he could damage the company’s reputation before he was fired.

LGBTQ activists praised the court’s decision. For one, the case was China’s first on transgender identity, and it resulted in a victory for the transgender individual. The outcome paves the way for China to institute future anti-discrimination laws in the workplace since workers currently are at the mercy of their employers.

“Personally, I think that in terms of employment discrimination, this judicial precedent goes beyond [current] legislation,” Wang Yongmei, the winning lawyer, said.

The victory marks a seminal moment for those pursuing LGBTQ acceptance in a country that restricts free speech, LGBTQ rights, and human rights more broadly.

The Chinese court’s decision stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent comments that workplace discrimination is perfectly legal. The DOJ released an amicus brief concerning a case between a company and a gay employee claiming that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only covers sex discrimination, not discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Despite the court’s decision, the situation for the LGBTQ community in China is far from perfect. The gay and transgender communities in the country still feel silenced in public spaces. In the past year, Chinese police canceled an LGBTQ conference in the city of Xian, and a month after that internet regulators began to ban LGBTQ content online, according to the Washington Post.

Mr. C is proud that his lawsuit sets a precedent for future employees who may be wrongfully terminated, but also recognizes China–and the rest of the world–still has a long way to go.

“Although the case has ended, we still have a long way to go,” he said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Court Rules in Favor of Transgender Man for the First Time Ever appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Health Care Bill Fails in a Senate Vote Shocker

Late last night, the Senate failed to pass a “skinny repeal” of Obamacare. Three Republican senators defected. Two of the votes, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were known “no’s” and had held strong through multiple repeal attempts. But the third, Senator John McCain, was a surprise. His vote was enough to kill the latest attempt in a seven-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scenes from the Senate floor last night were described as “tense,” as McCain indicated to his colleagues he was about to jump ship, and other members of Republican leadership tried to talk him out of it.

Late last night, the Senate failed to pass a “skinny repeal” of Obamacare. Three Republican senators defected. Two of the votes, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were known “no’s” and had held strong through multiple repeal attempts. But the third, Senator John McCain, was a surprise. His vote was enough to kill the latest attempt in a seven-year crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scenes from the Senate floor last night were described as “tense,” as McCain indicated to his colleagues he was about to jump ship, and other members of Republican leadership tried to talk him out of it.

While McCain is getting much of the credit for being the third “no” vote, many are also calling for more recognition for Collins and Murkowski. After all, had McCain not come back to vote in favor of discussing the bill in the first place, he wouldn’t have needed to dramatically vote against it.

Tomorrow the headlines will focus on McCain, but let’s not forget it was Susan Collins and Senator Murkowski who held the line all the way. https://t.co/J2TWixYHC9

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 28, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, Britain’s Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs released documents detailing the country’s plan to reduce air pollution over the next several years. Most notably, the United Kingdom will ban the sale of new petrol or diesel-powered cars and vans by 2040.

In addition to the ban on gas vehicles, the government reiterated its desire to fully implement its recently-announced £2.7 billion investments into low-emission taxis, car-rental programs, roads, and green bus retrofits.

In its plan, the government pledges to be the “the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it.”

Europe’s Green Trend

Britain’s announcement comes at a time when air quality levels are increasingly at the forefront of policies across Europe, as the continent tries to grapple with the increased effects of climate change.

“It’s important we all gear up for a significant change, which deals not just with the problems to health caused by emissions but the broader problems caused in terms of accelerating climate change,” Britain’s Environment Secretary Michael Gove said.

New diesel and petrol cars are to be banned from 2040 as part of a new strategy to tackle air pollution https://t.co/Bmj3JSq6BN pic.twitter.com/MEjFNoqO9R

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) July 26, 2017

Britain’s new policy mimics France’s ban on gas and diesel cars by 2040, which was announced last month after the country struggled with dense smog and pollution in its larger urban areas. It’s also inspiring some Irish politicians to advocate for a similar commitment.

“If Ireland doesn’t change it’s in the danger of becoming a dumping ground. We need to set a date and work from it, without targets we are rudderless,” said Ireland’s Green Party Councillor Ciaran Cuffe.

Too Little, Too Late?

Some politicians, including former Labour Leader Ed Miliband, are saying that this announcement is largely meant to act as a media charade, to distract from ongoing Brexit negotiations and the fact that the U.K. government has been slow to tackle the issue seriously.

Fear that new car petrol/diesel ban in 23 years time is smokescreen for weak measures to tackle 40,000 deaths a year from air pollution now.

— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) July 25, 2017

Criticism is also emerging from industry officials who condemn the government’s plan because of the negative ramifications it may have on car manufacturing jobs.

“Outright bans risk undermining the current market for new cars and our sector, which supports over 800,000 jobs across the U.K.,” said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Even among supporters of a gas car ban, some are critical of the timeline, which they consider to be too forgiving.

Areeba Hamid, a clean air campaigner at Greenpeace UK said: “We cannot wait nearly a quarter of a century for real action to tackle the public health emergency caused by air pollution.”

While 2040 was set as a benchmark by other countries, India has stated that every vehicle sold in the country should be powered by electricity by 2030.

Norway has adopted a similar rule, but has set its target to ban diesel-powered vehicles by 2025. Forty percent of all cars sold in Norway last year were electric or hybrid, making the country a leader in this area.

Maybe Not…

In comparison to some other countries, the U.K.’s goals seem far off. Yet, researchers are confident that the market might naturally transition to cleaner cars sooner than politicians expect.

The Dutch financial group ING released a report earlier this month predicting that the electric car market will see a major breakthrough between 2017 and 2024, and could supply 100 percent of Europe’s car demand by 2035.

Car manufacturers aren’t wasting any time either. Tesla made waves when it announced its mass market electric Model 3 car earlier this month.

Also this month, Volvo said that all of its cars would be be completely or partially electric by 2019. Volvo’s chief executive Håkan Samuelsson called for the “end of the solely combustion engine-powered car.” And BMW announced on Tuesday that it would start building an electric model of the Mini compact car in England through 2023.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Britain to Ban Sale of Gas and Diesel Cars by 2040 appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump tweeted on Wednesday that transgender people will no longer be allowed “to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military” because the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” would become a burden and distract armed services from “decisive and overwhelming victory.”

The announcement will reverse the Pentagon’s 2016 decision to lift the long-standing ban that had prevented transgender individuals from serving openly in the military. It also falls in line with other measures and decisions the administration has made concerning the transgender community, including removing the LGBT rights page from the White House’s official site, rescinding a rule that allowed transgender students to use their preferred bathroom in public schools, and dropping the federal lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s “bathroom bill.”

Given that track record, it makes sense that Trump decided to discuss the decision with unnamed “Generals and military experts,” rather than with the Pentagon–which has commissioned studies that identify almost no downside to lifting the transgender ban. In fact, the Department of Defense was so out of the loop in the recent decision that reporters who asked Pentagon officials about Trump’s tweets were told to call the White House instead.

This is an obvious leap backward for the rights of transgender people in the United States. The ban will only enhance the existing problems that this country has when dealing with gender identity and the military.

A Financially Dubious Decision

In 2016, the Rand Corporation published a report titled “Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly,” which the Department of Defense commissioned. The report concluded that annual active-component health care costs would increase by anywhere from $2.4 million to $8.4 million–yielding a 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in health care expenditures. In total, those costs would amount to about a thousandth of a percent of the military’s annual budget. Some have said that their biggest concern is the use of taxpayer funding for expensive gender reassignment surgeries, which may not allow transgender soldiers to fight on the front lines. But according to the Rand report, “less than 0.1 percent of the total force would seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.” The report’s authors recommended developing an explicit written policy on for the gender transition process to avoid any disruptions to service member and unit readiness.

Even if you choose to ignore the percent increase in costs and only focus on the total cost of military health care, it’s worth noting that U.S. military spending is high relative to the rest of the world. The United States spends more money on its military than the following eight countries with the highest defense spending combined–an approximate $611 billion–and the House recently passed a bill that would increase military spending by nearly $30 billion next year. The military spends about $50 billion on health care, which includes a few interesting expenses. For example, a Washington Post analysis found the military spends five times as much on Viagra as it would on transgender troops’ medical care. But some in the House were still looking to remove gender reassignment surgery coverage from the military budget nonetheless, although that effort failed. In a way, proponents of such a change got what they were looking for and continued their crusade against denying health care to Americans.

Significant Consequences

Prior to the Pentagon’s 2016 decision, military service members who revealed their transgender identity could be kicked out or denied reenlistment solely on that basis. This meant they would be denied the benefits previously provided for them by the military, including health care and severance pay, due to being considered “unfit to serve.” Trump’s announcement leaves much to the imagination as to what will happen to anywhere from 1,300 to over 15,000 transgender service members currently enlisted, but a return to the old discharge format seems likely.

Current statistics show that 16 percent of transgender and gender nonconforming people have lost their jobs due to their gender identity–according to a 2015 survey of over 27,000 transgender people conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). But Trump still wants to strip the military of its status as the largest employer of transgender workers in the United States for “cost effectiveness.” It is also worth noting that this would cut necessary income and health care from a group that faces significant challenges. According to the same NCTE survey, transgender and gender nonconforming people have an unemployment rate that is three times that of the national average, report having experienced psychological distress in the last month at a rate that is 34 percentage points higher than the U.S. population, and one-third say they have been homeless at some point in their life.

America’s Relationship With its Military

There are two prongs to this topic. The first looks at the general issue of trans-erasure. The cynic will argue that it’s a good thing that transgender people no longer have to participate in a “murderous imperial institution.” But that’s not the only way to look at this issue. The act of excluding a group of people from public institutions–particularly those that are (excessively) associated with social responsibility like the military–devalues that group of people in society because of that lack of exposure and erases their importance. Eventually, the perception will grow that the transgender community is full of people who don’t serve their country, and only take from it instead of giving back. This, of course, would be a stark contrast to our wonderful president–who dodged the draft a total of five times, once arguing he couldn’t serve in the U.S. military because of bone spurs in his heels.

Regardless, both Democrats and Republicans have expressed their concerns with Trump’s decision because many understand that–at its core–the ban is more focused on discriminating against transgender people than cutting costs. A bipartisan stand against discrimination is hard to have a problem with, but I’m going to try anyway. Unfortunately, this bipartisan position comes from the country’s obsession with the military and all of the glory that comes with it, and that’s the second prong.

Whether politicians want to admit it or not, there are transgender people who live in their states and districts. There is a responsibility to show that the lives their constituents–especially those in underrepresented groups–matter to them.

But, unfortunately, they don’t in this country. Trans women face a 4.3 times higher risk of being murdered compared to cis women in the U.S., and at least 87 percent of the trans people murdered between 2013 to 2015 were people of color, according to a study done by the Human Rights Campaign. According to the NCTE, 40 percent of transgender people have attempted suicide at one point in their life. So for a brief moment on Wednesday, it was a nice change of pace to see Democrats and Republicans come forward against the ban and in support of the lives of transgender people. So what changed?

It’s simple. It took challenging transgender Americans’ ability to serve in the military for many politicians to finally stand up for their rights. For many members of Congress, this is the first time they made that kind of statement, which meant that trans rights only began to matter when trans people could no longer die for their country. The transgender community deserves better than that.

The lives of underrepresented, and outright oppressed, citizens should not depend on whether or not they are willing to fight for their country, especially when that country does nothing to fight for them. The optimist will hope that this opens the door for more trans support from politicians, but unless it can score them political points, that probably won’t happen.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Problems with Trump’s Trans Military Announcement appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump has continued to establish a precedent that loyalty to his administration will be rewarded, and anything else will be met with a harsh response on social media. Both of Alaska’s senators were recently on the receiving end of that ire.

Trump decided to publicly and privately express his displeasure with Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski for her “no” vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act. Early Wednesday, Trump took to Twitter to specifically call out Murkowski for her decision.

Senator @lisamurkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday. Too bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

But Trump’s team did not leave it at that. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke called Murkowski and fellow Republican Senator Dan Sullivan yesterday to warn them that opposing the bill could lead to repercussions for Alaskans, according to Alaska Dispatch News. Sullivan told the Alaskan publication that the message was “troubling.”

“I’m not going to go into the details, but I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs, and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop,” Sullivan said.

Some of the key regulatory issues that have been priorities for Murkowski and Sullivan include nominations of Alaskans to Department of Interior posts, an effort to build a road out of King Cove through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, future opportunities to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and expanding drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. All of these could hypothetically be in jeopardy.

However, as is the case with many of the decisions this administration has made, it appears that this may have been a poorly thought out move. First off, Trump has decided to hit back at a senator who is quite popular with Alaskans. In 2010, Murkowski became the first senator in over 50 years to win an election with a write-in campaign over Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. The campaign gave out temporary tattoos to voters so they could remember how to spell her name on the ballot.

Murkowski is the chairwoman of the Interior-Environment Subcommittee, which is tasked with confirming any nominees to the Department of the Interior that Secretary Zinke may put forward. She also helps control the money that goes into the department as a member of the Senate Appropriations committee. It’s been theorized that Murkowski may be hitting back against Zinke. A hearing to confirm a series of nominees to the Interior has already been delayed, according to NBC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Kasie Hunt.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the Trump Administration’s threat is its inadvertent support for the environment. The road through King Cove is supposed to cut through a wildlife refuge. The plans for oil expansion include drilling in protected lands. So, Zinke could end up continuing the Obama Administration’s tradition of prioritizing environmental protection over exploiting federal lands.

Murkowski might still be paying attention to these threats. Oil is one of the largest contributors to Alaska’s economy so any damage to that would be severely damaging to the jobs of her constituents. But it seems that the senator is confident that she made the right decision with her health care vote. “I base my votes on what I believe is in Alaska’s best interest,” she said Tuesday. “So I know that there are those who wish that I would be more in line with following the party platform, but I don’t think it should come as any surprise that there have been occasions that I have not followed the lead of the party.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Threats Against Alaska May Be Misguided appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief stating that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect against employment discrimination based on sexuality.

The brief was in response to Donald Zarda’s lawsuit against his employer, a skydiving company called Altitude Express. Zarda believed that the company fired him in 2010 after he told a female customer that he was gay. According to trial documents, he did this so that the customer would not be uncomfortable that he was strapped so tightly to her.

Zarda died in 2014 in a skydiving accident. Two executors of his estate continued the lawsuit on his behalf. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is currently hearing the case.

The New York district court originally dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Zarda could not file under Title VII because the act does not cover sexual orientation. The Justice Department’s brief encouraged the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the lower court’s ruling.

“The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination. It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts,” the brief says.

It goes on to add that since Congress never specified anything to do with sexual orientation in the act, the courts cannot act independently to change it.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The legislation does not specify the exact meaning of “sex.” However, “in common ordinary usage, the word means only ‘biologically male or female,'” the brief continues.

But the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April that Title VII does protect sexuality. “It would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation,'” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote.

James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT and HIV Project, said in a statement that he was relieved that the courts could interpret the Civil Rights Act, rather than Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the rest of the Trump Administration.

“We are confident that the courts will side with equality and the people,” he concluded.

The Justice Department filed the brief the same day that President Donald Trump tweeted his ban on transgender service people in the military.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ: Civil Rights Act Does Not Apply to LGBT Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

Ten percent of the world’s children aren’t meeting basic global vaccination standards. New data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF estimates that in 2016, nearly 12.9 million infants did not receive any vaccinations. This includes the first dose of the DTP vaccine, which is considered to be an essential vaccination for children.

DTP is the three-round vaccination that protects against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, commonly known as whooping cough. According to a release from WHO and UNICEF, this immunization is “one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions,” preventing 2-3 million deaths annually.

The data shows that in 130 of 194 WHO member states, at least 90 percent of infants received their full course of vaccinations at the national level. Additionally, 6.6 million infants failed to complete all three doses of the DTP immunization series after receiving their first dose.

Jean-Marie Okwo-Bele, director of immunization, vaccines and biologicals at WHO, said in the release that lack of vaccination can indicate overall health of children in a region.

“These children most likely have also not received any of the other basic health services,” Okwo-Bele said. “If we are to raise the bar on global immunization coverage, health services must reach the unreached. Every contact with the health system must be seen as an opportunity to immunize.”

Getting to 90 Percent

While 86 percent of children received their routine vaccinations in 2016, WHO’s goal is to vaccinate 90 percent of children globally. The number has remained at about 86 percent since 2010, and the new data shows there has not been any improvement in the last year.

This 90 percent coverage target is part of the agency’s Global Vaccine Action Plan, which was endorsed in May 2012 by WHO member states. To meet this goal, WHO says, “an estimated 10 million additional infants need to be vaccinated in 64 countries, if all countries are to achieve at least 90% coverage.”

Immunization Barriers

Vaccinating these additional 10 million children has proven difficult due to politics and location. Eight countries failed to vaccinate at least 50 percent of their infants against DTP. Most of these nations are war-torn countries like South Sudan and Syria, where conflict has resulted in the destruction of hospitals and health centers, making it difficult for vaccinations to reach many areas.

Unsurprisingly, poverty was also shown to impact how well a country’s children were vaccinated. According to the data, poor, urban populations are most at-risk of being under-immunized. This is a global problem, but particularly in “rapidly growing slums in Africa and Asia,” the release reads.

Robin Nandy, chief of immunizations at UNICEF, said in the release that immunization is “one of the most pro-equity” public health interventions.

“Bringing life-saving vaccines to the poorest communities, women and children must be considered a top priority in all contexts,” Nandy said.

Still, foreign aid and other factors have given some nations the ability to break through the poverty obstacle. Okwo-Bele told NPR that poor countries, like Tanzania, have improved their DTP vaccination rates because of their prioritization of immunizations as a national issue.

“[Tanzania] has had the political will to make immunizations a priority, and with foreign health aid, has built a well-organized system to deliver vaccines where needed, with trusted community health workers and reliable refrigeration for vaccines,” according to NPR.

UNICEF and WHO are continuing to research the impact of economic inequality on vaccination.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Children Fall Short of Global Vaccination Goal, New Data Says appeared first on Law Street.