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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court issued an injunction on a statute that would have severely limited gun rights in the District of Columbia. The 2-1 ruling represents a victory for Second Amendment advocates, and another setback in the effort to curb gun rights in the nation’s capital.

The D.C. measure in question is commonly referred to as a “good reason” clause. It directs the police chief to set guidelines to limit gun possession in the city, making an exception for those who could justify carrying a weapon. But a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the Supreme Court’s guidance made clear that such a law would violate the Second Amendment.

Writing for the majority, Judge Thomas Griffith cited a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down D.C.’s 32-year ban on handguns.

The District of Columbia v. Heller ruling proved that “the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach,” wrote Griffith.

He added, “At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions.”

Gun rights in D.C. have followed a pattern over the last decade: the city passes an ordinance to curb gun rights; the ordinance is blocked in court. From 1976 to 2008, handguns were banned in D.C.

With the Heller ruling, D.C. repealed its ban, and issued a new ordinance that made it impossible to obtain a permit to carry outside the home. In 2014, that measure was ruled unconstitutional. In response, D.C. amended the ordinance, making permits available to those who could show “good cause” to carry a handgun.

Unsurprisingly, gun advocates cheered the court’s decision. Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in a statement that “the opinion makes it clear that the Second Amendment’s core generally covers carrying in public for self-defense.”

He added: “To read the majority opinion and not come away convinced that such ‘good reason’ or ‘good cause’ requirements are just clever ways to prevent honest citizens from exercising their rights is not possible.” 

But Judge Karen Henderson argued in her dissent that, “the sole Second Amendment ‘core’ right is the right to possess arms for self-defense in the home.”

She added: “By characterizing the Second Amendment right as most notable and most acute in the home, the Supreme Court necessarily implied that that right is less notable and less acute outside the home.”

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 Appeals Court Blocks D.C. Effort to Curb Gun Rights appeared first on Law Street.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on Monday that state law enforcement cannot hold undocumented immigrants just to buy time for federal authorities to take them into custody.

The ruling–seen as a victory for immigration advocates–is believed to be the first court decision in the country to forbid local authorities from enforcing federal immigration laws. The court ruled that such enforcement would result in a second detainment that state law does not authorize.

“Massachusetts law provides no authority for Massachusetts court officers to arrest and hold an individual solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer, beyond the time that the individual would otherwise be entitled to be released from state custody,” the court wrote in its decision.

A “federal civil immigration detainer” is a written request from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) to a local jail or law enforcement agency to hold an arrested undocumented immigrant for up to 48 hours, until federal agents can retrieve the detainee. Police departments and court officers are usually given guidance by state officials on how to respond to these requests. Some end up complying. In Massachusetts, for example, state police have held 27 people on detainers as of June 2016.

Other departments, on the other hand, will ignore these requests and release undocumented immigrants before ICE can detain them. Some localities–commonly known as “sanctuary cities”–have faced scrutiny from the Trump Administration, which has threatened to block federal funding. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has claimed sanctuary cities make the country less safe. But now sanctuary cities have a legal basis for their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration officials, as a result of this ruling.

The Massachusetts case revolved around Sreynuon Lunn, an immigrant from Cambodia. Boston Police arrested Lunn last year on larceny charges, and detained him until his trial. The case was dismissed in February after prosecutors were unable to get the alleged victim to come to court.

Lunn should have been freed, but was held for hours after his case was dismissed because of an ICE detainer issued against him. He was taken into custody by immigration authorities, but has since been released without being deported. Though Monday’s decision does not directly affect Lunn, the case persisted because prosecutors and the court knew it would set guidelines for similar situations in the future.

“This court decision sets an important precedent that we are a country that upholds the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. “At a time when the Trump Administration is pushing aggressive and discriminatory enforcement policies, Massachusetts is leading nationwide efforts by limiting how state and local law enforcement assist with federal immigration enforcement.”

Naturally, ICE was quick to speak out against the court’s decision. “While ICE is currently reviewing this decision to determine next steps, this ruling weakens local law enforcement agencies’ ability to protect their communities,” C.M. Cronen, the field office director for ICE in Boston, said in a statement.

Massachusetts is not the first state court system to rule on ICE detainers. Both California and Connecticut have statewide laws that limit who can be held at ICE’s request. Those laws also state that detainer requests are not binding for state and local officials. Boston and Cambridge each have similar citywide laws as well.

However, the state legislature could still undo this ruling if they choose to pass a law allowing Massachusetts state police to honor ICE detainers. Sheriff Thomas Hodgson of Bristol County–an outspoken critic of undocumented immigrants–is currently working on legislation with three Republican state lawmakers.

“It will make the Commonwealth safer if we can get this bill passed by the legislature, which authorizes court officers and law enforcement officers to honor ICE detainers,” Sheriff Hodgson said.

As comments on immigration policy begin to focus on safety, it should be worth noting the Cato Institute found in 2015 that immigrants as a whole–both legal and undocumented–commit less crimes than native-born Americans. Additionally, a University of California analysis of federal data found that sanctuary cities are often safer than non-sanctuary cities.

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 Massachusetts Court Rules State Police Can’t Honor ICE Detainers appeared first on Law Street.

Bad news for doggy day cares. Apparently, they’re breaking the law.

The New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is reinstating a little-known and rarely-enforced regulation. Under that regulation, no resident can board, feed, or groom someone else’s pet for money without a proper license. Those licenses, by the way, cannot be granted to private residences; they are limited to permitted kennels.

Julien A. Martinez, a spokesperson for the Department of Health, said in an emailed statement that the law is meant to protect animals from neglect. “These regulations do not apply to the average New Yorker who may pet sit for friends, family, and neighbors,” he added. In other words, a pet-sitter is not breaking the law if they do not charge or accept money for their services.

The law has been on the books for years, but the Health Department did not enforce it unless they received a complaint. However, the rise of pet-sitting apps such as Rover and Wag have forced the state to take a closer look at violations.

Last October, Health Department general counsel Thomas Merrill sent a letter to Dogvacay.com (which has since merged with Rover), ordering it to confirm that its new users have licenses before signing them up. The site has yet to comply.

In the meantime, the Health Department has started cracking down on unlicensed apartment residents using the app. At least two apartment residences have received violations for caring for pets without a permit. Fines start at $1,000.

Rover, which has over 9,000 registered sitters in New York City, intends to fight the law.

“If you’ve got a 14-year-old getting paid to feed your cats, that’s against the law right now,” Rover general counsel John Lapham told the New York Daily News. “Most places right now continue to make it easier to watch children than animals, and that doesn’t make any sense.”

City Council’s health committee chair Corey Johnson agrees with him, and is reportedly planning to introduce legislation overturning the law.

“There are millions of cats and dogs in New York City, and people I think believe they can pet sit or have someone pet sit for them,” said Johnson. “To have a law on the books that says that’s illegal is antiquated and not practical.”

This is not the first time New York has clashed with emerging “sharing economy” apps. Click here for more on the state’s clash with Airbnb, and here for Uber’s struggles to get a foothold in New York City.

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 Paid Pet-Sitting Illegal in New York Without License appeared first on Law Street.

This article has been updated. Click here to jump to the update.

President Trump’s travel ban–which according to his aides and representatives is “not” a travel ban, but based on the president’s tweets, is in fact a travel ban–has just been handed another discouraging ruling from the courts.

Late Thursday, a U.S. District in Hawaii, ruled that the president’s executive order restricting immigration from six Muslim-majority countries can’t be used to exclude “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.” The ruling rejected the government’s interpretation of recent guidance issued by the Supreme Court.

That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

The ruling, from Judge Derrick Watson, stems from Trump’s revised executive order that was issued on March 6. Later that month, Judge Watson issued a nationwide halt on the revised travel ban, ruling that it discriminated on the basis of religion. Judges in other parts of the country issued similar rulings that were upheld by multiple circuit courts. The issue then made its way to the Supreme Court after an appeal from Justice Department. In June, the Supreme Court said that it would hear the case in the fall and issued a partial ruling in the meantime.

The Supreme Court’s order stated that until it makes its final decision, certain aspects of the executive order could proceed. The court said that if someone seeking a visa or a refugee from one of the six countries could establish a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity of the United States then they should be allowed to enter the country.

While the Supreme Court offered guidance as to what a “bona fide relationship” is, much of the interpretation was left to the executive branch. The State Department interpreted the ruling through a diplomatic cable saying the only acceptable relationships include: spouse, parent, parent-in-law, child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, fiancé, and sibling.

In his ruling, Judge Watson stated that the administration’s definition “represents the antithesis of common sense” by including son-in-law and daughter-in-law but not grandparent as qualifying relationships.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions immediately sought clarification from the Supreme Court, saying that the district court:

Undermined national security, delayed necessary action, created confusion, and violated a proper respect for separation of powers… The Supreme Court has had to correct this lower court once, and we will now reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court to again vindicate the rule of law and the Executive Branch’s duty to protect the nation.

At the Supreme Court’s request, the state of Hawaii responded to the Justice Department’s arguments on Tuesday night, forcefully supporting Watson’s initial ruling and arguing that any appeal should go to the lower courts before the Supreme Court. The Justice Department fought back hours later with another brief making a case for the government’s narrower definition of a bona fide relationship. The government also justified its decision to go directly to the Supreme Court, saying that it is “is the only court that can provide definitive clarification.”

Although the Supreme Court is currently on its summer recess, it’s possible that the justices will decide to weigh in on the dispute in the near future.

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 Confused About the Latest in the Travel Ban Case?: Here’s What you Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

It’s one of the most controversial topics of the last 20 years. And before you ask, yes it is a matter of life and death.

Physician-assisted suicide is expanding in the United States. Last year after a statewide referendum, Colorado became the sixth state to allow assisted suicide, with 65 percent of Colorado voters casting a ballot in favor of the measure. According to Compassion & Choices, an advocacy group that supported the ballot initiative in Colorado, so far 10 people have received prescriptions from doctors giving them access to the life-ending drugs. So far there is no data on whether those who received prescriptions for the life-ending medication have actually gone through with the procedure.

But the practice, which was taboo to even discuss 25 years ago, enjoys a large base of support in the United States. According to Gallup, physician-assisted suicide is supported by nearly 70 percent of the population.

Just last year, California passed the End Of Life Option Act. The first analysis of the law, which the California Department of Public Health recently released, indicates that 173 doctors had prescribed life-ending drugs to 191 patients. Out of those 191 patients, 111 have used the drugs to end their lives since the law was passed in June of 2016. However, Compassion & Choices, says it knows of 500 deaths in California as of this year. We will not know the full information until California releases the data for 2017 next year.

Physician-assisted suicide is an issue that has been debated for a long time. It has been subjected to rounds of philosophical, ethical, and moral debate. But the issue came into the spotlight in the United States in the 1990s with the legal battle between the State of Michigan and Dr. Jack Kevorkian, aka “Doctor Death.”

Jack Kevorkian was a pathologist who wanted to challenge the status quo of the ethical guidelines of a doctor. He contended that if a doctor had a patient that was truly suffering in pain from a terminal or debilitating illness for which there was no cure, then why couldn’t that doctor help end their suffering? He contended that it a doctor’s moral duty to focus on the welfare of the patient, and if the option of death presented itself as a suitable form of welfare for the patient than it should be allowed.

Kevorkian invented his own “suicide machine” in 1989 and assisted over 130 patients in assisted suicide. However, the Michigan legislature made it illegal to perform an assisted suicide in 1998, but Kevorkian continued to practice and was arrested after he allowed “60 Minutes” to air a video that showed him injecting life-ending medication to a man with ALS. He was convicted in 1999 of second-degree murder and served eight years in prison.

While Kevorkian was controversial, particularly because in at least one case he administered the procedure himself, experts agree that he brought assisted suicide into the forefront of public debate.

Since Kevorkian’s conviction, five states and the District of Columbia have passed assisted suicide legislation. Only three of these states have voluntarily provided data on physician-assisted suicide so far. Since Oregon legalized the practice in 1997, 1,127 patients have died. In Washington, where legalization was approved in 2009, there have been 917 reported deaths. And in Vermont, physicians have filed reports for 53 patients seeking life-ending medication.

While assisted suicide has made great progress over the years, many still have issues with the way it is practiced.

Marilyn Golden, a Policy Analyst for the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund opposed California’s law for a variety of reasons. She says that in theory it could discourage medical insurance companies from paying for new and expensive experimental treatments when providing assisted suicide medication is a cheaper option. She also argues that people in a vulnerable state of mind could be manipulated by heirs and caregivers to end their life, and that there is a lack of oversight for the current process–citing the fact that there is not an independent individual who is there that can confirm that the person who is taking the medication wants to end their life.

It should also be noted that assisted suicide can be a particularly expensive process. A pharmacist in California told the San Diego Tribune that doctors’ preferred drug, which makes the process of assisted suicide quick and painless, costs as much as $3,400 per dose. While the cost of life-ending medication is not cheap, it can be significantly cheaper than what it takes to provide care to someone with a terminal illness.

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 Colorado and the Rising Trend of Assisted Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

A Houston judge was suspended from her job on Friday amid accusations that she solicited prostitutes, sexted from the bench, and used her bailiff to buy drugs.

Hillary Green, who has been a judge since 2007, presided over misdemeanors, traffic cases, and civil suits for Harris County Precinct 7. Her lawyer called the decision “frustrating and surprising” in addition to arguing that many of the accusations were already public when Green was reelected with 86 percent of the vote.

She will remain suspended until a civil trial is held to make a final decision, but her lawyer said that trial could be years down the line and another judge is already slated to replace her, according to the Washington Post.

Accusations against Green first arose during her divorce from Houston Controller Ronald C. Green in 2015. It was at that point that Green said his now ex-wife “operates daily with impaired judgment as evidenced by her presiding over cases in which she has ongoing sexual relationships with litigants and witnesses,” according to the Houston Press.

Suspicions rose further when Claude Barnes, who Green admits she had an affair with for many years, came forward with allegations regarding drug use and hiring prostitutes for threesomes.

“The three of us sat,” Barnes said. “We smoked marijuana. We had a couple drinks and then three of us had sex.”

These accusations led the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct to file its first formal inquiry into the Houston judge’s behavior, an investigation that culminated in a 316-page recommendation to suspend her that was released this year. Executive Director Eric Vinson said that the commission has been investigating Green for almost four years and that in his decade in that role he has never seen a judge contest proceedings this strongly, according to the Houston Press.

The commission took note of Green’s inability to change her behavior over a five-year span and called out Green’s “outright betrayal of the public’s trust” in the report.

Other stories allege Green and Barnes smoked marijuana that was confiscated from a citizen, bought cough syrup from a drug dealer named “lover boy,” and that she texted her bailiff about explicit sexual acts that she would perform with him later.

Green admitted to buying $500 worth of cough syrup and smoking marijuana daily, but denied hiring prostitutes. In addition to smoking weed and drinking the syrup, she and Barnes took ecstasy on multiple occasions, but Green denies paying for it. So, even though she was sentencing people for committing minor drug offenses, Green frequently undertook similar behavior, according to the report’s findings.

Disgusted with her behavior, the commission asked the Texas Supreme Court to suspend Green while officials prepared their case to permanently remove her. The state bar wrote in May:

To this day, Judge Green has apparently made no attempt to reassign the bailiff with whom she actively participated in an inappropriate sexual texting relation and whom she recruited to assist in illegal drug activity. She engaged the services of a peace officer to commit a criminal act, and indeed he was apparently willing to do so. Incredibly, Judge Green sees nothing wrong with the arrangement.

Green and her lawyers countered that the allegations are the result of a bitter divorce and that Ronald Green could have stolen her phone and sent some of those text messages. They also argue that the accusations were improperly filed, creating a bureaucratic legal issue. Still, there is already ample evidence that the judge crossed several lines.

Even if some of the allegations aren’t true, Green has already admitted to multiple acts that would break the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The code explicitly states that appropriate action must be taken if a judge is impaired by drugs and that judges must maintain professional relationships with their staff.

Though Green’s civil trial is over a year away, she will almost surely not be reinstated from her suspension with the concrete evidence the bar association already has. Green, who was once part of a powerful political marriage with Ronald, has now had a meteoric fall from grace.

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 Houston Judge Suspended for Buying Drugs and Prostitutes, Sexting Her Bailiff appeared first on Law Street.

A federal district court judge in Texas upheld a state law allowing residents to carry concealed handguns on university campuses on July 7, after three University of Texas at Austin professors sought to ban guns from their classrooms.

The plaintiffs, Professors Jennifer Glass, Lisa Moore, and Mia Carter, argued that “classroom discussion will be narrowed, truncated, cut back, cut off” if guns are allowed in classrooms. The defendants, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, UT-Austin President Gregory Fenves, and the university’s Board of Regents, defended the law’s implementation at UT-Austin.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel said the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they had suffered an “injury in fact” and had not established that there was a “causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of” that could be traced to the defendants.

In other words, the plaintiffs failed to show beyond speculation that they would be harmed by the concealed carry of handguns, or that concealed carry could be connected to having a “chilling effect” on classroom discussions. Therefore, Yeakel ruled that the “plaintiffs present no concrete evidence to substantiate their fears” and that they did not have standing to sue the defendants.

“The court’s ruling today is the correct outcome,” Paxton said in a statement. “The fact that a small group of professors dislike a law and speculate about a ‘chilling effect’ is hardly a valid basis to set the law aside.”

Texas passed a law in 2015 allowing licensed concealed handgun owners who are at least 21 years old to carry a concealed handgun on campus. The law prohibits institutions from creating rules that restrict gun owners’ right to carry a concealed handgun on campus, except for rules pertaining to the storage of handguns in dorms and residence halls.

The controversial bill was met with opposition from gun control advocates, but gun rights supporters won out in the end when Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill into law in June 2015. Still, the fight against the “campus carry” law continued. UT-Austin students protested the law in August 2016 by organizing a “Cocks Not Glocks” demonstration during which they handed out more than 4,500 donated dildos, according to the Texas Tribune.

“We want these dildos on backpacks as long as there are concealed handguns in backpacks,” UT-Austin student Ana López, who helped organized the protest, told the Texas Tribune at the time.

Under UT policies, the concealed carry of handguns is permitted on campus and in university buildings, but is prohibited in all on-campus residence halls, with some exceptions: staff members and visiting family members may carry a concealed handgun, and concealed carry of handguns is permitted in common areas. Unless the plaintiffs appeal the ruling, concealed carry will remain at UT-Austin and other Texas universities.

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 Texas Judge Rules Residents Can Carry Concealed Handguns on College Campuses appeared first on Law Street.

A pair of Senate immigration bills could imprison undocumented immigrants convicted of felony reentry and cause sanctuary cities and states to stop receiving certain federal grants.

Kate’s Law would increase penalties against immigrants who have been convicted of felony reentry–or reentering the country after being deported. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit cities and states that don’t cooperate with immigration authorities from receiving grants from the Justice Department and Homeland Security.

Both bills, which were sponsored by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), were passed by the House of Representatives along mostly party lines on June 29. They now move on to the Senate, where Republicans face a steeper challenge from Democrats in passing either bill. Senate Republicans would need to vote unanimously and persuade at least eight Democrats and Independents to vote in favor of the bills in order to clinch a filibuster-proof majority. A 2016 version of Kate’s Law and the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, a 2016 bill similar to the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, both previously failed to pass the Senate.

Kate’s Law is named after Kate Steinle, a 32-year-old woman who was shot and killed in San Francisco in 2015. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, was charged with Steinle’s murder. Before his arrest, Lopez-Sanchez had been convicted of seven felonies and had been deported five times. Lopez-Sanchez’s original December 2016 trial date was postponed. He is scheduled to appear in court on July 14, when another trial date could be set.

White House Support

The White House released a statement from President Donald Trump on June 29 regarding the two immigration bills.

“The implementation of these policies will make our communities safer,” Trump said in the statement. “Opposing these bills, and allowing dangerous criminals back into our communities, our schools, and the neighborhoods where our children play, puts all of us at risk.”

Trump also urged the Senate to pass the bills in a video address over the weekend, saying, “If the government had simply enforced our immigration laws, these Americans would still be alive today.”

Weekly Address #KatesLaw#NoSanctuaryForCriminalsAct
Statement: https://t.co/I8cqKGDK2B pic.twitter.com/00mao6Vk7R

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017

Growing Opposition

Immigrant rights advocates are opposed to the bills, and over 400 organizations have signed a letter urging the Senate to vote against both pieces of legislation.

Jose Magaña-Salgado, Managing Policy Attorney at the Immigration Legal Resource Center, said in a statement that the bills would not only tear apart families and undermine the rights of immigrants in the U.S., but they would also put an even heavier burden on the federal prison system.

“Legislation that erodes public safety, disrespects local democratic processes, and raises serious constitutional concerns represents an abdication of the Congress’ responsibility to enact fair, humane, and just immigration policy,” Magaña-Salgado said.

Instead, he proposes that Congress enact legislation that provides ” a roadmap to citizenship for the nation’s eleven million aspiring Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation programs that undermine fundamental human rights.”

GOP lawmakers believe both bills will crack down on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, but the bills’ impact on immigrant communities is not quite so cut-and-dry. Under Kate’s Law, undocumented immigrants previously convicted of a crime who attempt to re-enter the United States after being deported could face fines and between 10 to 25 years in prison depending on the severity of their original conviction.

However, the bill also includes sentencing guidelines for undocumented immigrants who have not been previously convicted of a crime. Undocumented immigrants who reenter the U.S. after being removed could face up to two years in prison; those who reenter after being repeatedly removed three or more times could face up to 10 years in prison. Additionally, the bill limits “collateral attack on underlying removal order.” In other words, undocumented immigrants would not be allowed to challenge the validity of any prior order under which they were removed from the country.

Trump’s Immigration Agenda

During his first week in office, Trump issued an executive order on border security and immigration enforcement, signaling a stricter stance than his predecessor on illegal immigration. In the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 41,318 immigrants, a 37.6 percent increase from the same period last year, according to a statement from ICE.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is part of a months-long endeavor by the Trump administration to restrict federal funding to sanctuary cities and states. Trump issued an executive order to withhold federal grants from jurisdictions that refused to comply with federal immigration enforcement authorities, but that order has been tied up in a legal challenge over its constitutionality since April.

The ACLU issued a warning that both immigration bills were intended to “empower Trump’s depotation force and anti-immigrant agenda,” and urged the Senate in a statement to “reject these bills, to defend the Constitution, and protect the rights of all people, no matter their background.”

“These bills are riddled with constitutional violations that completely disregard the civil and human rights of immigrants,” Lorella Praeli, the group’s director of immigration policy and campaigns, said in the statement.

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 Trump-Backed Immigration Bills Face Uphill Battle in the Senate appeared first on Law Street.

A Miami judge ruled on Monday that new revisions to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law are unconstitutional. Florida Governor Rick Scott signed the amended “Stand Your Ground” law on June 9,  requiring prosecutors to prove a defendant wasn’t acting in self-defense at pretrial hearings.

Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Milton Hirsch held that the legislative changes altered the burden of proof in “Stand Your Ground” cases, raising the threshold “from mere preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence.” Per Florida’s Constitution, such changes could only be made by the Florida Supreme Court, not the state legislature, and were therefore unconstitutional, Hirsch said. In outlining the necessity for a separation of powers among the three branches of government, Hirsch even referenced a paper about the Ministry of Magic’s judicial overreach in “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.”

Hirsch’s ruling comes as the result of two “Stand Your Ground” cases in his court. Liletha Rutherford was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm and grand theft for pulling a gun on a couple during an argument. Omar Rodriguez was charged with first-degree murder for shooting and killing Jose Rey over an argument about Rey’s dog. Rodriguez claimed Rey charged at him with a knife. Police recovered a knife at the crime scene, but discovered Rodriguez’s DNA on the knife, not Rey’s.

Florida lawmakers reacted to the ruling on social media. State Senator Rob Bradley, who sponsored one of the amendments to the “Stand Your Ground” law, said in a tweet that the court’s ruling “attacks the Legislature’s role in defining and protecting our individual rights.”

Today’s Miami trial court ruling attacks the Legislature’s role in defining and protecting our individual rights. /1

— Rob Bradley (@Rob_Bradley) July 3, 2017

Following Hirsch’s ruling, Rutherford and Rodriguez will now each have to prove they acted in self-defense. Currently, the ruling only applies to those two cases. However, appeals are likely to make their way to appellate courts and the Florida Supreme Court.

The effectiveness of “Stand Your Ground” laws hasn’t exactly been clear. In March, Florida State Senator Dennis Baxley claimed that since Florida’s 2005 “Stand Your Ground” law, “we’ve seen violent crime continuously go down.”

PolitiFact pointed out some flaws in that statement. While violent crime in Florida has dropped a cumulative 34.9 percent from 2005 to 2015, that decrease is not “continuous” as Baxley contends. Data show occasional increases in Florida’s violent crime rate during that 10-year period, however not enough to really counteract that overall decline in violent crime.

That said, PolitiFact also highlighted the fact that national violent crime rates have also been decreasing since the 1990s. It has yet to be proven whether Florida’s decrease in violent crime has been due to its “Stand Your Ground” laws, considering several states with similar drops do not have “Stand Your Ground” laws.

Critics of “Stand Your Ground” say the laws disproportionately benefit defendants who kill black victims compared to those who kill white victims, and often allow defendants to avoid murder charges.

The Tampa Bay Times identified nearly 200 “Stand You Ground” cases. Of those cases, 70 percent of defendants who invoked a “Stand Your Ground” defense were acquitted. Seventy-three percent of defendants who killed a black person faced no penalty, while 59 percent of defendants who killed a white person faced no penalty.

One of the most high-profile “Stand Your Ground” cases involved George Zimmerman, the “neighborhood watchman” who shot and killed 17-year-old black Florida teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012. Zimmerman did not invoke the “Stand Your Ground” law in his trial, but the judge issued instructions to the jury along the same lines as the law’s language, saying Zimmerman “had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.” Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges in Martin’s death.

“Stand Your Ground” may stay in place in Florida for now, but Hirsch’s ruling could limit the extent to which the law is allowed to reach. The question has the potential to make it to higher courts and get decided once and for all.

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 Miami Judge Rules “Stand Your Ground” Law Revisions Are Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

Maryland is officially the first state with a law in place to protect funding for Planned Parenthood. The Maryland General Assembly passed a law in April ensuring the organization’s continuity; the law went into effect on July 1.

SB 1081 establishes the Family Planning Program in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and provides that Maryland will pay for Planned Parenthood’s health care services in the state if Congress cuts off funding for the organization. The bill, which was backed by a veto-proof majority in Maryland’s House of Delegates and Senate, became law without Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s signature.

Karen J. Nelson, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, applauded the law’s passage in April but also highlighted the continuing fight for health care nationwide.

“As Marylanders, we must remember that a state solution does not change the fact that politicians in Congress are trying to prohibit millions of people from accessing care at Planned Parenthood,” Nelson said. “It’s incumbent on all of us to keep up the fight for women. No state should have to step in to fulfill the federal government’s responsibility to ensure everyone has access to care.”

In addition to defunding Planned Parenthood for one year, the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate health care bills include sweeping cuts to Medicaid spending. Supporters of Planned Parenthood joined other protesters on June 27 to specifically protest the Senate’s health care bill, including a group of activists dressed as women from “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

There are nine Planned Parenthood locations in Maryland, and their funding will be protected by the legislation. However, the future for Planned Parenthood is less promising in other states. Take Iowa for example–four of its Planned Parenthood clinics have recently closed. Iowa has approved a state budget that cut off the organization’s funding. Some Iowans fear that more closures could be on the horizon if the Senate’s health bill passes.

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards condemned Iowa’s defunding of Planned Parenthood on social media.

Today, a devastating “defunding” law in Iowa is forcing 1/3 of our health centers in the state to close.

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) June 30, 2017

Here’s what that means: nearly 15,000 people will lose access to the doctors and nurses they trust. https://t.co/DMQ6NAUzwf pic.twitter.com/dwCDSuZ9Cd

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) June 30, 2017

If other states follow in Iowa’s footsteps instead of Maryland’s, health care services could be in jeopardy for those states’ citizens who rely on Planned Parenthood.

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 Maryland Becomes First State to Pass Law Protecting Planned Parenthood Funding appeared first on Law Street.

It has been nearly 10 years since then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin could not name a single newspaper that she read to stay informed in an interview with Katie Couric. But it appears that she has learned to occasionally peruse national publications since then, as the former Alaska governor filed a defamation lawsuit Tuesday against the New York Times in response to an editorial that linked her to the 2011 shooting of Democratic Representative Gabby Giffords.

Palin’s lawyers claim that the connection was published “knowingly, intentionally, willfully, wantonly and maliciously, with the intent to harm Mrs. Palin, or in blatant disregard of the substantial likelihood of causing her harm.” They also added that by keeping the editorial up, the Times “violated the law and its own policies.”

The editorial in question–titled “America’s Lethal Politics”–drew a parallel between the June 14 shooting that injured Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) and several others at a baseball field in Alexandria, and the 2011 shooting in Arizona. The piece said that both attacks were incited by political rhetoric which has become a “sickeningly familiar pattern.”

“Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs,” it read at one point. It also went on to draw connections between that advertisement and the shooter’s motivation to attack Giffords, despite a Times article from earlier this year that rejected that notion. The Times’ opinion section corrected these concerns the next day and later tweeted out an apology.

The $75,000 defamation suit claims the newspaper’s correction and subsequent apology were “devoid of any reference to Mrs. Palin” and were “woefully insufficient.”

Essentially Palin is arguing that the editorial published by the Times was libelous. Because the defamation in question was published as a written work, the suit would have to follow the legal standards of a libel case. Palin is a “public figure”–specifically an “all-purpose public figure”–meaning she is someone whose fame or position regularly puts them in the public eye. The courts decided in the 70s–ironically through a case that also involved the Times–that public figures have to prove “actual malice”–meaning the statements about the person were published with reckless disregard for whether they were false or true. In other words, Palin’s lawyers need to show that the alleged false statements in the editorial were published intentionally, or with total disregard for the truth.

If it seems like this is a high standard that is tough to prove, it’s because it is. Especially given this situation. Most statements made in editorials are defended as opinion. Even if the court does not consider the statements to be opinions, it might be even more difficult to prove her reputation was damaged. When Sarah Palin’s contract with Fox News ended in 2015, FiveThirtyEight found that her favorability rating was at an all time low, even among Republicans. It is difficult to defame the character of someone who is already not viewed too highly, especially when the average Times reader is left-leaning. Some might even argue that this situation has made Palin more sympathetic. While it was expected that conservatives would cheer the lawsuit, even the Washington Post was quick to call out the Times for its mistake.

There is a chance, as there always is, that she could win this case. Palin’s legal team includes one of the lawyers from the famous case in which Hulk Hogan sued Gawker into oblivion for publishing his sex tape. The Columbia Journalism Review referenced this case–among others–as “evidence that the growing unpopularity of media may translate into less-sympathetic jury pools.”

Regardless of how this case turns out, the Times publishing a debunked talking point is far from a good look for the publication. At best, the editorial board lazily tried to remind readers that Sarah Palin did put out an ad with crosshairs of a gun sight over districts with Democrats that voted for the Affordable Care Act with the phrase “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”, and the next day vandals happened to smash in her office’s windows. At worst, the board committed libel against a woman who promoted birtherism and claimed that former president Barack Obama spent $2 million to hide his real birth certificate.

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 Will Sarah Palin’s Defamation Suit Against the New York Times Succeed? appeared first on Law Street.

A lawsuit challenging Texas’ controversial immigration law made its way to a federal court in San Antonio on Monday.

SB4, which Governor Greg Abbott signed into law on May 7, essentially bans “sanctuary cities” in Texas. While the law does not specifically mention the phrase “sanctuary city,” it does punish local governments, officials, and police who adopt, enforce, or endorse a policy that “prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws.” The law is slated to go into effect on September 1.

According to the law, those entities and individuals may not prohibit “peace officers” from asking a person who is lawfully detained or under arrest about their immigration status or place of birth. They also may not impede peace officers from cooperating with a federal immigration officer, or permitting a federal immigration officer to enter a jail to conduct enforcement activities. If they fail to comply with immigration laws, local governments can face fines of up to $25,500 per day of non-compliance, officials may be forced to give up their positions, and police chiefs can be charged with misdemeanors.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the City of El Cenizo, Texas; Mayor Raúl L. Reyes of City of El Cenizo; Maverick County Sheriff Tom Schmerber; Maverick County Constable Pct. 3-1 Mario A. Hernandez; and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). They filed a lawsuit against the defendants–the state of Texas, Abbott, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton–one day after the governor signed SB4.

The lawsuit claims that SB4 puts Texas and its local government officials and entities “at the complete mercy of federal officials,” and violates the Tenth Amendment and due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit asserts that Texas “may choose to voluntarily relinquish its retained sovereignty entirely to the federal government,” but cannot force local governments to do so.

The lawsuit also asserted that SB4 threatens community members’ trust in local government and law enforcement officials.

Plaintiffs are safer when all people, including undocumented immigrants, feel safe when their local law enforcement officers can be trusted for reporting crimes or just speaking with them about issues in the community. Plaintiff’s communities are healthier when all residents including undocumented immigrants, access public health programs,  unafraid to seek health care. And Plaintiffs’ communities are economically and socially stronger when all children, including undocumented immigrants, attend school.

The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest on June 23 supporting Texas in the litigation. According to a press release from the DOJ that same day, United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions explained that the DOJ is participating in the lawsuit to facilitate state and local cooperation with national immigration laws.

“President Trump has made a commitment to keep America safe and to ensure cooperation with federal immigration laws,” Sessions wrote in the press release. “Texas has admirably followed his lead by mandating state-wide cooperation with federal immigration laws that require the removal of illegal aliens who have committed crimes.”

In a CNBC commentary piece about SB4, author Julissa Arce expressed her opposition to the law. “SB4 is essentially a ‘show me your papers’ law that is set to create an environment for racial profiling in a state where 10.4 million Hispanic Americans live,” wrote Arce, who is also the co-founder of Ascend Educational Fund, a nonprofit in New York City that provides scholarships to students regardless of their ethnicity, national origin, or immigration status.

Arce expressed hope that the court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs and protect immigrants regardless of their immigration status.

“I believe the Texas that led the country in giving undocumented students an opportunity at higher education, my home state, is the state that will ultimately prevail,” she wrote.

SB4 opponents spoke out against the law at a protest in San Antonio on Monday.

Undocumented youth have come from all over Texas to stand up for communities of color and against SB4. #HereToStay #SB4isHate pic.twitter.com/ut41Wtn8rz

— Yunuen Alvarado (@ysalvarado5) June 26, 2017

On 2nd anniversary of #MarriageEquality I’m proud to be #undocumented & #queer fighting racist laws like #SB4 in TX! #Pride2017#HereToStay pic.twitter.com/PaMnvq4Fry

— Sheridan (@SirSheri) June 26, 2017

Among the crowd were Austin Mayor Steve Adler, and members of the San Antonio and Austin city councils.

LIVE elected officials address crowd #SB4isHate #HeretoStay https://t.co/DbAoIgxEnJ

— Yunuen Alvarado (@ysalvarado5) June 26, 2017

Austin Councilman @GregCasar speaks to protestors against #SB4 this morning before federal judge hears both sides. “Alright let’s do this.” pic.twitter.com/5rrkRtFXoi

— Nick Wagner (@WagsPhoto) June 26, 2017

SA Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Sillar gives an impassioned plea and prayer against #SB4 outside federal courthouse. pic.twitter.com/HNMZXVEoVZ

— Joey Palacios (@Joeycules) June 26, 2017

“We will not accept overt racism embedded in #SB4. Not today not ever.” @LUPE_rgv outside of the courthouse to #BlockSB4#SB4isHatepic.twitter.com/iAYPoHMKPI

— ACLU of Texas (@ACLUTx) June 26, 2017

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, who heard the case, declined to make a decision on Monday, according to the Texas Tribune. It is not yet clear when a decision will be handed down.

That same morning, Reverend Jim Rigby, a pastor at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church of Austin, was charged with a criminal trespassing misdemeanor after he was arrested on May 1 for protesting SB4 in a state office building. Rigby was among about 20 protesters, including immigrants, students, and Austin City Council Member Greg Casar, who were arrested in May for protesting the law.

On May 8, the day after Abbott signed SB4 into law, Paxton filed a lawsuit to uphold the constitutionality of the law. That case will be heard Thursday. These lawsuits could have a huge impact on undocumented immigrants in Texas and set a precedent for other areas that have designated themselves as “sanctuaries.”

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 Texas Municipalities Challenge State’s “Sanctuary Cities” Law appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear President Donald Trump’s travel ban case. The hearing will be in October, and until then, the court said parts of the ban will be allowed to go into effect. Trump issued a revised executive order in March, blocking travel from six countries. Two federal courts have since ruled that the ban is unconstitutional and a breach of executive power. The Supreme Court agreed to examine both courts’ decisions.

For the time being, the ban will be reinstated “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the justices said. A bona fide relationship includes “a close familial relationship” for individuals. For entities, “the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the order].”

“The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity,” the court added.

Trump’s second attempt at stemming travel from a handful of Muslim-majority countries reined in a few of the tenets of his first order, which was originally issued in January. For one, the revised order dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries–Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.

The order stipulates that residents of the six countries are barred from traveling to the U.S. for 90 days, until stricter vetting procedures are in place. The refugee program will be halted for 120 days, and the number of admitted refugees will drop to 50,000 from about 110,000.

This is Trump’s first travel ban-related victory since he issued the updated order in March. Both orders faced a torrent of opposition–thousands of people hit the streets and packed airports across the country in protest. Trump’s directive fared no better in the courts.

Last month, a federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, issued an injunction on parts of the travel ban, arguing that it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” and violated the First Amendment.

A few weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the ban violated the president’s authority as granted by Congress. The court said Trump “did not meet the essential precondition in exercising his delegated authority,” which requires “a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”

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 Supreme Court Reinstates Parts of Trump’s Travel Ban, Will Hear Case in Fall appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for the government to strip a naturalized American’s citizenship simply because he or she lied during the naturalization proceedings. The case, Maslenjak v. United States, concerns an ethnic Serbian woman who, fleeing war and prosecution from Bosnia in the 1990s, was granted refugee status in the U.S. in 1999. In 2007, she became a citizen, despite lying about her husband’s service in the Bosnian Serb military.

The court’s unanimous decision largely hinged on the standard on which the case was argued and ruled on by the lower courts. Namely, that any sort of lie, no matter its causal link or lack there of to the granting of citizenship, is enough to revoke a naturalized American’s citizenship. That is how the Justice Department’s lawyer, Robert Parker, argued the case. Those were the grounds on which a district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled. Both sided with the government.

But the Supreme Court fundamentally disagreed that a naturalized citizen’s rights could be revoked based on an immaterial falsehood. It sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit, allowing it to be reviewed on a different standard.

“We hold that the government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the unanimous opinion. She continued:

When the illegal act is a false statement, that means demonstrating that the defendant lied about facts that would have mattered to an immigration official, because they would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to other facts warranting that result.

The story begins in 1999, when Divna Maslenjak was granted refugee status. An ethnic Serb fleeing what was then known as Bosnia, Maslenjak said Muslims would mistreat her and her husband because of their ethnicity. At the same time Serbs would punish them because her husband, she claimed, evaded military service. In 2007, Maslenjak and her husband were granted citizenship.

It turns out, however, that Maslenjak did indeed lie about her husband’s circumstances; he served in a Bosnian Serb military unit–one that was accused of committing war crimes. A district court judge ruled that Maslenjak’s falsehood warranted a revocation of her and her husband’s citizenships. The Sixth Circuit, in April 2016, agreed. Their citizenship was revoked, and both Maslenjak and her husband were deported to Serbia.

The Supreme Court’s decision vacates the lower courts’ rulings. In unanimously rejecting the government’s assertion that any lie, regardless of its relevance to citizenship, could lead to revocation, the court strengthened protections for naturalized Americans.

In April, during the arguments for the case, the justices seemed perplexed at the government’s position. In fact, Chief Justice John Roberts confessed to a past misdeed to make a point. “Some time ago, outside the statute of limitations, I drove 60 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone,” he said.

If on the citizenship form he answered “no” to the question of whether he had ever committed an offense, Roberts asked Parker, “20 years after I was naturalized as a citizen, you can knock on my door and say, ‘Guess what, you’re not an American citizen after all?” Parker continued to baffle the justices, saying, “If we can prove that you deliberately lied in answering that question, then yes.”

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 Supreme Court Furthers Protections for Naturalized U.S. Citizens appeared first on Law Street.

As incidents of police-related violence have become more widely publicized over the past several years, the public’s interest in police accountability has increased alongside it. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recognized this trend on Tuesday and ruled that the public should have access to police dashcam video unless the footage is proven to be related to an ongoing investigation.

A 5-2 majority in the state’s highest court pointed out that there is no blanket rule against these recordings being released. Instead, release decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis where the videos are each analyzed to determine their relationship with any ongoing investigation. However, police have the burden to show why a video is exempt from release.

The case revolved around Michelle Grove, a Pennsylvania woman who requested a copy of a police report as well as any video or audio recordings pertaining to a 2014 car accident she was involved in. She believed at the time that she would receive these documents because of the state’s Right-to-Know Law, which states that commonwealth agencies must provide copies of all public records upon request. Instead, she was denied.

Prior to this ruling, Pennsylvania police officers were denying public access requests that asked for dashcam footage, arguing that anything captured on those cameras were criminal investigative records, which made them exempt under the Right-to-Know Law and the Criminal History Information and Records Act. But the court found in favor of Grove because the video in question only showed state troopers investigating the scene and talking to the drivers and witnesses.

“[Pennsylvania State Police] simply does not explain how the video portion of the [recordings] captured any criminal investigation,” Justice Kevin Dougherty wrote in his majority opinion.

The court did give some leeway to the state police. While the video was released to the public, the court agreed that the audio from the police interviews with the drivers and witnesses did contain investigative information. As a result, the court ruled that any audio of interviews had to be edited out.

Grove’s lawyer, Helen Stolinas, told the AP that the decision is “a decisive victory for the citizens of Pennsylvania and the press to remain aware of the activities of state and local officials and be able to scrutinize how public servants are performing their duties.”

But the ruling comes at the same time that state lawmakers are planning to vote on a bill that creates a blanket exemption from the Right-to-Know Law for police video and audio recordings. Senate Bill 560 passed the state House on Tuesday and now only needs to have its changes approved by the Senate before it is passed to Governor Tom Wolf who believes it is “a step in the right direction,” according to a spokesman. The bill would require anyone who was denied access to police recordings to petition the court for a hearing to appeal to the police directly. The move would cost $125 to initiate and a judge would then have to determine if the requested video’s release outweighed the nondisclosure interest of an individual, law enforcement, or the Commonwealth.

This bill has been met with pushback from the American Civil Liberties Union. Reggie Shuford, director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said the legislation would hide police camera footage from the public, effectively making it just a tool for surveillance.

“If the public cannot obtain video produced by police cameras, they shouldn’t be used at all,” Shuford said in a press release. “While body cameras may be valuable to officers in carrying out their daily duties, the idea of using these cameras came to prominence because people were demanding that police operate with transparency, fairness, and accountability.”

Lawmakers expect SB 560 to be put to vote sometime next week, according to the AP.

Pennsylvania’s relationship with releasing documents from public servants has been complicated, to say the least. Prior to its rewrite in 2009, the state’s Right-to-Know Law had ranked among the worst public information law in the country when it came to giving people access to government records and information because it presumed government records were not public, unless someone who wanted the record could establish otherwise.

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 Pennsylvania’s Confusing Struggle Over Police Dashcam Footage appeared first on Law Street.

It was billed as the trial of the century–Bill Cosby, a national treasure and pioneer for black Americans, on trial for sexual assault. Most people expected a guilty verdict, convinced that Cosby was overwhelmingly guilty of sexually assaulting former Temple University basketball staffer Andrea Constand. But in the end, there was no verdict at all.

After a week of deliberations, the jury could not come to a unanimous verdict and the judge was forced to declare a mistrial. Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele immediately vowed to retry Cosby, but the lack of verdict still left some legal experts surprised. Here are several key factors that could have led to a hung jury.

Andrea Constand’s Credibility

Cosby’s defense team, led by Brian J. McMonagle, argued that Constand was not a viable witness due to several inconsistencies in her statements made to police. Philadelphia defense lawyer Alan J. Tauber analyzed the case and noted several highly contradictory statements in Constand’s 2005 police statement. At the time, Constand claimed that she had never been alone with Cosby before the assault, she denied having contact afterwards, and she said the assault occurred in March of 2004. Tauber called those statements “demonstrably false“–the alleged assault actually occurred in January of 2004 and she called him over 50 times afterwards–and said they likely swayed the jury.

While Constand’s conflicting testimony doesn’t mean that she is a liar, it did allow for the defense to poke holes in her credibility. Therefore, a handful of jurors may not have felt comfortable convicting Cosby based off her testimony.

Trouble With Defining Consent

This case was never about whether or not the two ever had sexual relations with one another. Cosby’s defense was that he’d had consensual sex with Constand in January 2004. He also admitted to giving her pills before they had sex, but said they were Benadryl, not Quaaludes. However, no forensics, no toxicology report, and no physical evidence of any kind were presented in the trial to corroborate either story. But since many of the key facts in the case are undisputed, Above the Law argues that it’s not a case of “he said, she said.” The real question, it contends, is “what defines consent?”

Jurors in the case clearly grappled with determining whether or not Constand consented to the sexual interaction. They even asked the court to define “reasonable doubt” and clarify what “without her knowledge” means in reference to one of the counts. Some jurors may have believed that the encounter was consensual since Constand took the pills voluntarily. The defense also argued that Cosby assumed that he had achieved “mutually informed consent.”

Lack of Other Accusers

A total of 60 women have accused Cosby of sexually assaulting them, but jurors were only allowed to hear from one other accuser during the trial. The prosecution wanted 13 accusers to testify at trial, but the judge granted only one, a woman who accused Cosby of drugging and assaulting her in 1996.

It could be more advantageous for prosecutors to appeal to the judge to allow the thirteen women to testify, rather than go straight to a retrial. The additional testimony could potentially help erase reasonable doubt in the eyes of the jury and trigger a different strategy from the defense.

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 Bill Cosby Mistrial: What Kept the Jury Deadlocked? appeared first on Law Street.

The Dreamers are here to stay–for now. Late Thursday night, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly issued a press release and Q&A page on the department’s website announcing a two-year expansion of President Obama’s 2012 DACA policy, which protects immigrants who came to The United States as children. These children are commonly known as “Dreamers.”

It’s a surprising move by the Trump Administration. During the campaign, Trump once said that Obama’s 2012 DACA program “defied federal law and the Constitution” and vowed to end the program if elected.

DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was an executive order issued by President Obama in 2012 designed to protect children who entered the U.S. as minors from being deported. While DACA does not provide citizenship to those who qualify, it prevents them from being deported from their established lives in the United States and makes them eligible for work permits.

A sister program known as DAPA, for the parents of American citizens and lawful permanent residents, was blocked a few years earlier by a federal judge in Texas who declared that the program overstepped the president’s constitutional authority. Last week’s announcement formally rescinded the program, although it had never actually been implemented.

This change in immigration policy was praised by members of the immigration community, but to Trump’s hardline supporters, it may be seen as a betrayal of one of his key campaign promise on immigration.

However, aides to the president and representatives from Homeland Security confirmed that the DACA program is only under a temporary extension. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Jonathan Hoffman stated that it is still up to Congress to form a long-term solution to the immigration debate. This means that when the extension of DACA ends in just two years, the ‘Dreamers’ could still face deportation in the absence of a further extension or legislative solution.

But for now, it looks as if the Dreamers are safe to stay, that is unless Trump changes his mind.

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 Gives Dreamers a Temporary Reprieve appeared first on Law Street.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law on Thursday that would fine state law enforcement agencies up to $1,000 a day for not reporting officer-involved shootings in a timely manner.

The law, which will officially be enacted in September, was created with the intention of strengthening a current Texas law–passed in 2015–that requires departments to report to the attorney general’s office any time an officer firing their gun results in injury or death.

Gathering data on police shootings has been an issue for the state, whether it’s been through misrepresentation or refusal to comply. A Texas Tribune investigation was only able to gather data on police shootings between 2010 and 2015 from 36 cities that had 100,000 or more residents, totaling less than half of the state’s population. While some precincts were more than willing to put the information on their website, others fought public information requests, gave heavily redacted records, or said they did not keep track of police shootings. Corpus Christi and Pasadena, for example, did not specifically track officer-involved shootings.

Even after the 2015 law was enacted, some departments decided to take their time in filing their reports and reported their data to the state months after the incident had actually occurred. The late responders typically only filed their reports after state publications pointed out that which departments had been slacking.

State Rep. Eric Johnson, the author of the new bill, said that this law will help curtail the inconsistent reporting and provide the state with the data it needs to analyze the issue of police shootings.

“I’m glad that he signed the bill, and I believe that we’re well on our way to leading the nation in getting to the bottom of what causes these fatal encounters between police and citizens, because we’re going to have the data,” Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, said Thursday to the Texas Tribune.

The new law gives departments a 30-day window to file a report after the shooting. Once that window has closed, the attorney general’s office can investigate and notify the department it has seven days to clear up any unreported shootings. After that, the state will be able to fine departments $1,000 a day. All of the money collected from these fines will be going to Texas’ Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund.

The bill did not contain everything that the authors originally wanted. State Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat, was unable to add a requirement for the attorney general’s office to build and maintain an online portal that would collect and analyze police shooting reports to the bill. The addition was struck down on the Senate floor.

Texas legislators might want to revisit that provision at some point. As of this article’s publication, 37 people have been shot and killed by Texas police officers this year, which is on pace to eventually match the total number police killed in the state last year.

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 New Texas Law Will Fine Police for Not Reporting Shootings appeared first on Law Street.

Today, United States law enforcement officials charged the security detail for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after they escalated a protest outside the Turkish Embassy, leading to violence.

The skirmish broke out this May after Erdogan and his security detail met with President Donald Trump at the White House on May 16. Court documents reveal the demonstration was peaceful until a group of “radicalized protesters began taunting the peaceful protesters,” according to the Washington Post.

When Erdogan’s group arrived at the property, Turkish security provoked the demonstrators and a violent outburst broke out that entangled demonstrators from both sides, Turkish security, and American law enforcement. Eleven people were injured and nine were hospitalized, as Erdogan watched from his Mercedes-Benz.

Police in Washington D.C. have been investigating the incident alongside the State Department and Secret Service.

These charges levied against Turkish security officials are the first steps since the attack a month ago. Since the incident, American authorities have been frustrated privately and publicly regarding what they perceived as a foreign government’s attack on American free speech, according to the New York Times. 

The State Department responded by saying “violence is never an appropriate response to free speech” and that officials are “communicating our concern with the Turkish government in the strongest possible terms.”

Just last week the House of Representatives passed a bill condemning the violence and asking for punishment.

While America views free speech and protest as an integral part of its democracy, the same cannot be said for Turkey. After a failed military coup last year, Erdogan’s government has pursued enemies and detractors of his regime. Nearly 200,000 people have been arrested, dismissed, or suspended from their jobs, according to the Washington Post. While the United States ranks 43rd in the World Press Freedom rankings, Turkey is ranked 155th.

One issue is that Erdogan and his team returned to Turkey just hours after the skirmish and it is unlikely that the country would extradite its people to face charges. If they ever return to the United States, however, they risk being arrested, according to the New York Times.

With that in mind, the State Department added that it would consider additional action “as appropriate under relevant laws and regulations.”

Another issue the outburst created was how it would impact diplomatic relations between the nations. It has already halted the progress of a $1.2 million arms sale to Turkey, according to the New York Times.

The incident has certainly raised tensions with Turkey, and American officials may continue to be disappointed with their attacks on protesters. Now it remains to be seen how Turkey, and Erdogan, will respond to the charges from law enforcement.

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 Turkish Security Detail Charged after May Melee appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a federal immigration law that made it easier for children of U.S. citizen mothers to obtain citizenship than children of U.S. citizen fathers.

Per the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the citizenship of children born outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and one parent who is a citizen of another nation is decided differently depending on whether the U.S. citizen parent is the child’s mother or father. A child of a U.S. citizen mother would automatically become a U.S. citizen as long as the mother had lived in the U.S. for one year. However, a child of a U.S. citizen father would only automatically become a U.S. citizen if the father had lived in the U.S. for five years before the child was born, and if at least two of those years had occurred after the father had turned 14.

In an 8-0 decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, the Court held that such a “gender line” was “incompatible” with the Equal Protections Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not contribute because he had not yet been confirmed as a justice in November 2016 when the court heard the case.

Luis Ramón Morales-Santana has lived in the U.S. since he was 13. When Morales-Santana was born, the requirement was that fathers needed to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years before the child was born, five of which had to be after the age of 14–as opposed to the current requirement of five years in the U.S., including two after age 14.

His father, José Morales, moved to the Dominican Republic just 20 days before turning 19 and, therefore, did not meet the earlier requirement of living in the U.S. for at least five years after turning 14. Without his father satisfying that requirement, Morales-Santana was not considered a U.S. citizen. The U.S. government attempted to remove Morales-Santana from the country in 2000 based on several criminal convictions.

Morales-Santana asserted that the U.S. government’s refusal to grant him citizenship violated the Equal Protections Clause because it hinged on gender based classification of his parentage. Had Morales-Santana’s mother been a U.S. citizen and lived in the country for one year, he would have already been considered a citizen.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion of the court in which she explained that laws granting or denying benefits based on the sex of a parent are subject to “heightened scrutiny.”

Before 1940, Ginsburg said, standards for citizenship of children born abroad were rooted in two gender based assumptions. “In marriage, husband is dominant, wife subordinate; unwed mother is the natural and sole guardian of a nonmarital child,” Ginsburg wrote, describing those assumptions. Children of married parents derived their citizenship status from their fathers, while children of unwed parents derived their citizenship status from their mothers.

The Nationality Act of 1940 eliminated fathers’ sole control over children’s citizenship, instead allowing either married U.S. citizen mothers or fathers to pass citizenship on to their child. The Act also codified unwed mothers’ ability to pass citizenship on to their child, but did not do so for unwed fathers since mothers were regarded as children’s sole guardians in cases in which the parents were not married.

The U.S. government argued that when a child is born to unwed parents, the mother is the only legally recognized parent at the child’s birth; the father is acknowledged after the fact. Ginsburg explained that, according to the U.S. government’s argument, the lengthier residency requirement for U.S. citizen fathers is warranted due to the “‘competing national influence’ of the alien mother.”

However, Ginsburg wrote that the assumption is based on “the long-held view that unwed fathers care little about, indeed are strangers to, their children.” Such a characterization, she says, “no longer passes equal protection inspection.”

The Court held that the gender-based distinction violated the equal protection clause, but did not decide whether the requirement for U.S. citizen mothers should be applied equally to fathers.

Ginsburg said Congress had made an exception for unwed mothers, but not for unwed fathers. Therefore, it is up to Congress, not the Court, to decide whether the standard for unwed mothers should be extended to unwed fathers.

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 Supreme Court Rules Gender-Based Citizenship Requirement is Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

While testifying before the Senate on Thursday, Former FBI Director James Comey faced questions seeking to determine whether or not President Donald Trump’s actions amount to obstruction of justice.

The debate first began on Wednesday when Comey’s prepared opening statement was released to the public. The statement recounts conversations with the president in which he pressed for Comey’s loyalty, distanced himself from an unconfirmed dossier, and assured the director that former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was a “good guy” that “has been through a lot.”

But the standout moment came later on in a conversation between Comey and President Trump. Comey noted in his statement:

[Trump] then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ I replied only that ‘he is a good guy.’ I did not say I would ‘let this go.’

While many speculated on the subject, the Senate Intelligence Committee decided it would be best to ask Comey himself. Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) was the first to ask if the president obstructed justice, but the former FBI director would not weigh in on the subject, only noting that he found Trump’s comments to be “disturbing.”

“There was an open FBI criminal investigation of his statements in connection with the Russian contacts and the contacts themselves,” Comey said. “And so that was my assessment at the time. I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct.”

Senator James Risch (R-ID) expanded on the chairman’s questions and asked whether Trump had explicitly “ordered” or “directed” Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. Comey responded that he understood the president’s statement to be an order, but that Trump had used the words, “I hope.”

The senator continued to probe about the semantics.

“He said, ‘I hope.’ You don’t know of anyone who’s ever been charged [with obstruction of justice] for hoping something. Is that a fair statement?” asked Risch. “I don’t as I sit here,” replied Comey with a shrug.

Sen. James Risch asks Comey about obstruction of justice

Watch live here: https://t.co/THlNhXekzk pic.twitter.com/REs7GfdKNY

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 8, 2017

Senator Risch is a strong supporter of the Trump Administration. He is on the record saying that the president was right, and even entitled, to share classified information with Russian officials in the Oval Office. He also agrees with the president that the ongoing leaks to the news media are a cause for concern. It’s likely that he saw Comey’s responses to his line of questioning as a victory and proof that Trump did not obstruct justice.

However, Senator Risch’s questioning implies that an obstruction of justice charge requires an explicit order from the accused, which may not be the case given the fairly broad federal statutes in place. There are several relevant statutes to this situation, which may implicate anyone who “corruptly […] endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law.” So asking Comey to drop part of an investigation, and later firing him, could meet these requirements, particularly when you consider the power dynamic between an FBI director and president.

Samuel Buell, a criminal law professor at Duke University and former federal prosecutor who led the Justice Department’s Enron task force, told the New York Times that the case against Trump has only grown over time.

“The evidence of improper purpose has gotten much stronger since the day of Comey’s firing,” Buell said. “Trump has made admissions about that. And we now have evidence that he may have indicated an improper purpose previously in his communications with Comey about the Russia investigation.”

Of course, Trump did have the legal authority to fire Comey. In fact, the former director even noted in his testimony that he was aware that he could be fired at any moment for any reason at all when he first took the job. But courts have ruled that acts generally considered lawful can be illegal if they are meant to obstruct justice.

Even so, this testimony might not mean much for the immediate future. The process of impeachment is hardly swift and involves both quasi-judicial and quasi-political proceedings. Not only does the president have to have committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but a majority in the House and two-thirds of the Senate need to agree in order to impeach and remove a president from office. Also, the events surrounding this testimony, and subsequent accusations, are largely unprecedented, creating more than its fair share of uncertainty.

It should be noted, however, that two most recent American presidents subjected to impeachment proceedings–Bill Clinton in 1998, and Richard Nixon in 1974, although he resigned before the House could vote–were accused of obstruction of justice.

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 Comey Hearing Recap: Defining Obstruction of Justice appeared first on Law Street.

A lesbian filed an appeal in the Mississippi Supreme Court on June 1 to be recognized as the legal parent of a child she raised with her ex-wife.

After Chris Strickland and her ex-wife, Kimberly Day, divorced in 2016, a lower court recognized only Day as the legal parent of the couple’s children.

Strickland sought joint custody of their younger child, but was told she did not have a legal option to seek joint custody of their older child. The judge did not grant Strickland joint custody, but did grant visitation with both boys.

Strickland and Day adopted their older son in 2007. Since same-sex couples could not yet get married or adopt children in Mississippi at the time, only Day legally adopted the child and was listed on his adoption papers. However, Strickland still considers him to be her child.

“Me personally, that’s my child,” Strickland told NBC. “A piece of paper doesn’t mean anything to me.”

Strickland and Day decided to get married in 2009 and traveled to Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legal, to tie the knot.

Two years after the couple married, Day got pregnant via in vitro fertalization and gave birth to their younger son. Again, same-sex marriage was not yet recognized in Mississippi, so only Day’s name was  listed on their son’s birth certificate.

Following the lower court’s decision, Strickland appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court for legal parentage of her younger child. Strickland is being represented by Lambda Legal and attorney Dianne Ellis. Day is being represented by attorney Prentiss Grant.

In a similar case in May, Judge Greg McMillan of the Knox County 4th Circuit Court recognized a Tennessee woman as the “husband” in a relationship during a same-sex couple’s divorce proceedings. The couple, Sabrina and Erica Witt married in Washington, D.C., in 2014.

The couple had a child via artificial insemination with Sabrina carrying the child. Since same-sex marriage was not legal in Tennessee at the time, Erica was not included on the birth certificate. While McMillan initially ruled that only Sabrina was the legal parent, he eventually reversed that ruling. McMillan named Erica as the “father” of the child and granted both parents custody.

That ruling came days before the Tennessee legislature passed a bill requiring judges to give “natural meaning” to gendered words such as “mother” and “father.” However, McMillan’s decision remained standing.

When children are born from opposite-sex relationships, both parents are more often listed on the child’s birth certificate and child custody disputes are less complicated–if only slightly so.

However, in cases which deal specifically with same-sex couples, those couples are especially affected by parental rights disputes arising from births and adoptions prior to marriage equality.

Depending on the decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court, a new precedent could be set for Mississippi and potentially lay the groundwork for future child custody cases nationwide.

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 Lesbian Appeals to Mississippi Supreme Court for Child Custody appeared first on Law Street.

The trial of Michelle Carter, the 20-year-old Massachusetts woman who urged her boyfriend to kill himself through text messages, is about to begin. Back in 2014, she sent dozens of text messages to her boyfriend Conrad Roy III, telling him that the time was right, and to just “do it.” He subsequently killed himself through carbon monoxide poisoning in his truck.

But Carter’s lawyer has argued that text messages are protected free speech. She also argued that Roy had been depressed for some time and that Carter couldn’t be responsible for his death. Jury selection was set to begin Monday, but Carter opted for a bench trial, which means her fate will be decided by the judge and not by a jury.

She is facing charges of involuntary manslaughter in Bristol County Juvenile Court. Although it’s difficult to convict someone for what they wrote in a text message, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court–which ruled that Carter must stand trial in an appeal of a lower court’s decision not to dismiss the case–said in a 2016 ruling, “But for the defendant’s admonishments, pressure, and instructions, the victim would not have gotten back into the truck and poisoned himself to death.”

NEW: Michelle Carter arrives at court for trial

Carter is accused of sending her friend texts encouraging him to kill himself@Boston25 pic.twitter.com/rQPqrDD8cQ

— Peter Wilson (@PetesWire) June 5, 2017

The police investigation after Roy’s suicide concluded that Carter had “strongly influenced” his decision to take his own life using carbon monoxide. The couple reportedly met online and mainly kept in touch over the internet, only meeting in person twice. They had apparently not seen each other for a year at the time of Roy’s death.

According to a court filing, Roy had a history of mental illness and had previously tried to kill himself. Later, after he expressed a wish to kill himself, Carter tried to persuade him to do it. “You already made this decision and if you don’t do it tonight you’re gonna be thinking abut it all the time and stuff all the rest of your life and be miserable,” she wrote to him.

Carter also wrote, “You have to just do it. You have everything you need. There is no way you can fail. Tonight is the night. It’s now or never.” She added that he always seemed to have an excuse to not do it and scolded him for not going through with it. It’s unclear why she urged him to kill himself rather than getting help. At one point Roy said he was scared and got out of his car to call her. But she convinced him to go back in and finish what he started.

It’s hard to say what the outcome of this trial will be, but the disturbing content and detail of the text message conversations have made it one that many will follow. Opening statements begin on Tuesday morning.

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 A Look at the Upcoming Trial for Woman Who Urged Boyfriend to Kill Himself appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court will hear a case concerning cellphone privacy rights, and whether the government must secure a warrant to obtain a private individual’s location tracking data from that person’s cellphone company.

In Carpenter v. United States, the case the Supreme Court will be hearing, Timothy Ivory Carpenter argues that prosecutors in his criminal trial violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they obtained location data from his cellphone company, MetroPCS.

Prosecutors obtained data not just from the days of the crime, but from a range of dates totaling 127 days. Carpenter was convicted in 2013 for his role in a series of cellphone store robberies and sentenced to 116 years in prison in 2014.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that government officials must obtain a warrant to search an individual’s cellphone. However, whether that restriction extends to requesting individuals’ location data from their cellphone providers is murkier territory.

In an age when we are constantly plugged in to technology, some people fear that the electronic devices we use on a daily basis could know more about us than they’re letting on. As the companies in charge of those devices and services store customer data, the dilemma arises of protecting customers’ information versus abiding by federal law.

After two men shot and killed 14 people in San Bernardino in 2015, Apple refused to help the FBI gain access to an iPhone that belonged to one of the attackers, Syed Farook. Apple CEO Tim Cook explained at the time that bypassing the security of Farook’s phone could create a backdoor for any hacker to access anyone else’s iPhone in the future. The FBI eventually accessed Farook’s phone without Apple’s assistance.

While Farook’s and Carpenter’s situations share some parallels regarding cellphone privacy, there is a notable difference between them. Bypassing the San Bernardino attacker’s phone security required the creation of a software that had not existed at the time, software that Cook believed had the potential of exposing other iPhone users to cyber attacks.

Obtaining Carpenter’s location data, on the other hand, merely required information that the phone provider already has available. Still, the issue remains of whether it is constitutional to request that data from cellphone providers.

The Stored Communications Act, enacted as Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, requires prosecutors to go to court to acquire an individual’s tracking data. However, the prosecutor does not have to show probable cause, but must just demonstrate that there are “specific and articulable facts” showing that the contents “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

A federal appeals court ruled that Carpenter’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. If the Supreme Court upholds that decision, the government will not require a warrant to obtain cellphone users’ location data from their providers, thus limiting individuals’ cellphone privacy during criminal investigations.

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 Supreme Court to Hear Cellphone Privacy Case appeared first on Law Street.

The state of Ohio took a stand against its crippling opioid epidemic Wednesday, filing a lawsuit against five leading pharmaceutical companies that make addictive painkillers.

Ohio’s attorney general, Mike DeWine, accused the companies of “fueling” the opioid epidemic by intentionally misleading doctors and ignoring evidence regarding the addictive nature of the pain medications.

“We believe the evidence will also show that these companies got thousands and thousands of Ohioans–our friends, our family members, our co-workers, our kids–addicted to opioid pain medications, which has all too often led to use of the cheaper alternatives of heroin and synthetic opioids,” DeWine said in a statement. “These drug manufacturers led prescribers to believe that opioids were not addictive, that addiction was an easy thing to overcome, or that addiction could actually be treated by taking even more opioids.”

The defendants in the case include Purdue Pharma, Endo Health Solutions, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Johnson & Johnson, and Allergan. They are accused of Medicaid fraud and violating the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, among other charges.

Dewine said that, in 2014 alone, the companies spent $168 million on advertising branded opioids to doctors.

The drugs the companies sold include OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid, Butrans, Hyslingla, Targiniq, Percocet, Percodan, Opana, Zydone, Actiq, Fentora, Duragesic, Nucynta, Kadian, Norco, and other generic opioids, according to the press release.

According to the lawsuit, 793 million people were prescribed opioids in 2012–enough to supply every man, woman, and child in the state with 68 pills each. In 2016 that number had dropped to 2.3 million patients–still roughly 20 percent of the state’s population.

The lawsuit was filed in Ross County as Southern Ohio is likely the hardest hit area in the nation by the opioid epidemic.

In 2014 and 2015, Ohio had the greatest number of deaths in the nation from synthetic opioids, according to the lawsuit–with 1 in every 14 deaths from synthetic opioids in the United States occurring in the state. In 2015, a record 3,050 Ohioans died from unintentional drug overdoses–2,590 of those deaths came from opioids.

According to the Columbus Dispatch, earlier this month, two Democratic candidates for governor, Sen. Joe Schiavoni, (D-Boardman) and Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, separately called for action against drug companies.

In 2015, Kentucky settled a similar lawsuit with Purdue Pharma for $24 million. And in April the Cherokee Nation tried something similar, filing its own lawsuit against six distribution and pharmacy companies, claiming that they unjustly profited through over-prescribing and selling opioids.

DeWine is seeking accountability from the pharmaceutical companies and unspecified damages on behalf of the state.

“It is just and it is right that the people who played a significant role in creating this mess should now pay to clean it up,” DeWine said.

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 Ohio AG Sues Pharmaceutical Companies Over Opioid Epidemic appeared first on Law Street.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday scrapped a ruling by a lower federal court that deemed otherwise reasonable force by a police officer unreasonable if the officer “intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation.” The justices sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, leaving open a victory for the plaintiffs if the court can find wrongdoing on charges other than excessive force.

The case, County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez, involves an incident that took place in October 2010. Los Angeles County police officers were searching a residence for a parole violator who was at-large and apparently armed. A number of officers searched the main area while two deputies, Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson, burst into a shack in the back of the residence.

In the shack, a homeless couple, Angel Mendez and Jennifer Garcia, who was pregnant, were taking a nap underneath a heap of blankets. Mendez reached for a gun (later discovered to be a BB gun). Conley yelled “Gun!” and the deputies sprayed the couple with bullets.

Both lived, but Mendez had to get part of his leg amputated. Meanwhile, the parolee the officers were seeking was not found on the property. Mendez and Garcia sued the deputies and Los Angeles County on three Fourth Amendment claims: warrantless entry, knock-and-announce, and excessive force. The lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on all three counts, awarding the couple $4 million.

But the Supreme Court, in a 8-0 vote–Justice Neil Gorsuch had not been confirmed when the case was argued in March–vacated the lower courts’ excessive force ruling. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit argued the officers’ use of force was reasonable, but because the two deputies provoked the situation, their actions were ultimately unreasonable. The justices disagreed with that outlook, halting the $4 million recovery for the plaintiffs.

“The basic problem with the provocation rule,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote, is that it “provides a novel and unsupported path to liability in cases in which the use of force was reasonable.” He said the Fourth Amendment “provides no basis for such a rule,” adding: “A different Fourth Amendment violation cannot transform a later, reasonable use of force into an unreasonable seizure.”

In a statement, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs cheered the decision: “This invented rule put the lives of deputies into danger by causing them to hesitate in using reasonable force to defend themselves for fear of later civil liability,” it said.

Alito did allow, however, that the Ninth Circuit could still find reason to award damages to the plaintiffs. He wrote: “For example, if the plaintiffs in this case cannot recover on their excessive force claim, that will not foreclose recovery for injuries proximately caused by the warrantless entry.”

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 Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Two LA Cops Who Shot a Homeless Couple appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, a Muslim man in Dearborn, Michigan filed a class-action lawsuit for $100 million against Little Caesars Pizza which, he claims, sold him a pork pepperoni-covered pizza falsely labeled “halal.” The lawsuit, filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court by Mohamad Bazzi, alleges breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and fraud.

“It’s really upsetting,” Bazzi’s attorney, Majed Moughni, told the Detroit Free Press. “My clients want the public to know. Especially during Ramadan,” he added, referring to the month-long Muslim holiday that began on Friday, “it would be a travesty if Muslims…in Dearborn bought pizza from Little Caesars and discovered they were eating pork.”

The lawsuit describes the incident: On March 20, Bazzi says he was halfway through eating a Little Caesars pizza with his wife when they realized it was topped with pork pepperoni, not halal pepperoni. They were sure of the pepperoni’s nature, he said, because he used to work at a pizza shop, and his wife is a former Catholic who used to eat pork and can recognize its flavor.

Islamic dietary laws stipulate how certain foods are prepared and, in some cases, some foods, like pork, are banned outright. Much like the kosher meat of Jewish dietary law, halal meat is often prepared and butchered under the blessing of a religious leader. Dearborn, with its dense and thriving Muslim population, is home to a number of halal establishments. Many non-halal restaurants, like Little Caesars, offer halal options.

Jill Proctor, a spokeswoman for Little Caesars, said in a statement that Bazzi’s claim “is without merit.” She added: “Little Caesars cherishes our customers from all religions and cultures, and the communities we serve are very important to us. While we can’t comment on pending litigation, we take this claim very seriously.”

Moughni, who is representing Bazzi in the case, has a history of slightly bizarre legal claims. In 2011, when Moughni was running in the Republican U.S. House race for Michigan’s 12th District, he sued Facebook because it flagged his Facebook page in the run-up to the primary election. And in 2010, in a prescient lawsuit in the age of President Donald Trump’s “America First” platform, Moughni sued former Democratic congressman Rep. John Dingell for allegedly plagiarizing his “Make it in America” campaign slogan.

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 Man Sues Little Caesars for $100 Million Claiming it Mislabeled a Pizza “Halal” appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down two mapped congressional districts in North Carolina on the grounds that Republican lawmakers drew them with the intention of diluting the African-American vote. In affirming a lower court’s decision, the justices found a narrow–and contentious–distinction between redistricting for political benefit, and redistricting with the intent to harm a certain slice of the electorate based on race.

The case, Cooper v. Harris, was the latest involving racially-motivated gerrymandering to reach the Supreme Court. According to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, state legislatures can redraw congressional districts based on a number of factors, partisanship being the most common. But although race can be one of a smattering of factors when redrawing a state’s districts, it can not be the predominant one.

“The sorting of voters on the grounds of their race remains suspect even if race is meant to function as a proxy for other (including political) characteristics,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. She was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The North Carolina districts in question include one of the state’s largest, District 1, and one of its smallest, District 12. Both are currently held by black Democrats, G.K. Butterfield and Alma Adams, respectively. According to Kagan, the Republican-held General Assembly fashioned the new congressional map after the 2010 census to devalue the black vote.

In District 1, after the census, black people of voting age rose from 48.6 percent to 52.7 percent. In District 12, the percentage of voting-age black residents hit 50.7 from 43.8. Republicans argue that tilting the districts majority-black is within their legal limits, because distinguishing the black vote from the Democratic vote–a vast majority of black voters support Democratic candidates–is almost impossible.

Justice Samuel Alito argued that same point in his dissenting opinion: “If around 90 percent of African-American voters cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate, as they have in recent elections, a plan that packs Democratic voters will look very much like a plan that packs African-American voters.”

He added: “If the majority party draws districts to favor itself, the minority party can deny the majority its political victory by prevailing on a racial gerrymandering claim.” Alito was joined in dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest member, did not participate, because the case was argued on December 5, months before he was confirmed.

The court’s decision was welcome news for Butterfield and Adams. Butterfield said the decision “clearly reaffirms my position that the Republican-controlled state legislature unlawfully used race as the predominant factor” in gerrymandering. And Adams called for an independent redistricting commission in North Carolina, saying, “we should be working together to make access to the ballot box easier and more fair.”

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 Supreme Court Finds Racial Bias in North Carolina Gerrymandering appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered the final knockout blow to North Carolina’s restrictive voter ID law Monday, declining once again to hear an appeal from state Republicans to reinstate it. The move thereby upholds a lower court’s ruling that found the law had intentionally been designed to restrict black voters.

The law, which was enacted in 2013 by a Republican-controlled legislature, was struck down last year after a federal appeals court found that key parts of the law were to “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

Chief Justice John Roberts cited a “blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law” as the Court’s reasoning for refusing to weigh in on North Carolina, et al. v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. Roberts, however, was careful to note that the court’s refusal did not constitute an opinion on the “merits of the case.”

North Carolina’s law had required voters to present a government-issued photo identification at the polls, but excluded forms of identification that happened to be used disproportionately by African Americans. For example, driver’s licenses, passports, and military identification cards were permitted, but not public assistance cards. It also shortened the early voting period and did away with same-day voter registration, among other things.

North Carolina, along with a string of other states, enacted voting restrictions like these shortly after a Supreme Court decision effectively struck down an integral part of the Voting Rights Act, diminishing federal oversight of voting rights. In late August, a deadlocked Supreme Court declined to reinstate North Carolina’s voting restrictions. The court was divided 4 to 4, with the court’s more conservative judges voting to revive parts of the law.

Proponents of these kinds of measures avow that they are intended purely to prevent voter fraud, not act as discrimination. However, a study of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases in 50 states between 2000 and 2012 found the level of fraud was “infinitesimal compared with the 146 million registered voters in that 12-year span.” The analysis found only 10 cases of voter impersonation, the only kind of fraud that could be prevented by voter ID at the polls.

In lieu of the Supreme Court’s decision, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are now eager to enact new voter restrictions. In other words, the battle over voter ID laws is hardly over.

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 Supreme Court Rejects Appeal for North Carolina Voter ID Law appeared first on Law Street.

A lesbian couple from Knoxville, Tennessee, has officially gotten divorced–but it wasn’t without a hard-fought legal battle that ended up involving the state legislature. In a first for the conservative southern state, a woman has been designated as the “husband” in a custody case. Knox County 4th Circuit Court Judge Greg McMillan’s ruling, which was anticipated, came as the Tennessee legislature was attempting to file a bill that would preclude gay and lesbian couples from being covered under gender-specific words in custody cases.

Sabrina and Erica Witt were married in 2014 in Washington D.C., where gay marriage was legal. At that point, gay marriage wasn’t legal in Tennessee, so when they had a child via artificial insemination, carried by Sabrina, Erica wasn’t included on the birth certificate. McMillan initially ruled that because the language in the Tennessee custody law was specific, and referred to “husband” and “wife,” only Sabrina could have custody. However, more recently, he ruled that the law could be applied to their case.

McMillan’s decision granted both Sabrina and Erica custody. Erica is viewed as the “father” in this situation, and has the right to see her child. Moreover, she is on the hook for child support payments.

But, while the Witts’ case was making it way through the courts, local legislators took notice. A few days after the ruling, the state legislature passed a bill that requires judges in McMillan’s situation to give “natural meaning” to words that are gendered. Governor Bill Haslam signed the bill. However, the legislature was prevented from intervening in this particular case, by McMillan’s decision. The lawmakers are appealing that decision.

LGBTQ rights groups in the state and nationally reacted with outrage that the state legislature was inserting itself into an individual family’s custody battle.

However, that new law is already wrapped up in a lawsuit. Four married lesbian couples, each of whom are pregnant, are suing the state over the law, claiming that it clearly was enacted with the intention to discriminate against gay couples. There are also concerns that this law could conflict with the decision that legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges.

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 Why does the Tennessee Legislature Care About a Lesbian Couple’s Divorce? appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best!

We Have to Go Back

Looking at law school like: pic.twitter.com/MTPtQTTha5

— Michael Tofte (@TofteMichael) May 13, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mariam Jaffery

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

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

Alabama’s new governor, Kay Ivey, effectively legalized a form of discrimination on Wednesday when she signed a bill into law that allows faith-based adoption agencies the ability to refuse to allow gay couples to adopt.

House Bill 24, also known as the Child Placing Agency Inclusion Act, prohibits the state from discriminating against child placing agencies on the basis that the provider declines to provide a child placement that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

“I ultimately signed House Bill 24 because it ensures hundreds of children can continue to find ‘forever homes’ through religiously-affiliated adoption agencies,” Gov. Ivey said Wednesday. “This bill is not about discrimination, but instead protects the ability of religious agencies to place vulnerable children in a permanent home.”

HB 24 was passed last month with heavy support from the state’s legislature, after a vote of 23-9 in the Senate and a vote of 87-0 in the House, with six abstentions. However, opponents of the bill–including the state’s only openly gay lawmaker, Rep. Patricia Todd–protested, calling it “bigotry in the first degree.” Opponents believe it puts the religious beliefs of the placing agencies above the needs of the child.

“We are deeply disappointed that the legislature and the governor took on this unnecessary, discriminatory bill instead of focusing on how to improve the lives of all Alabamians, no matter who they are or whom they love,” Eva Kendrick, state director of the Human Rights Campaign Alabama, told NBC News.

According to Kendrick, the new law will also permit agencies to refuse placements to mixed-faith couples, single parents, divorced people, or others whose family structure “conflicts” with the agency’s religious beliefs.

Ivey took office last month after the state’s former governor, Robert Bentley, was forced to resign after nearly being impeached following a sex scandal with a senior political advisor.

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 Alabama Passes Law Allowing Adoption Agencies to Turn Away Gay Couples appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Slager, the former North Charleston police officer who shot and killed Walter Scott in April 2015, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to charges that he violated Scott’s civil rights by using excessive force. As part of the plea agreement, federal prosecutors will drop the murder charges against Slager. The murder was one of a spate of instances in which a white officer was filmed killing an unarmed black man, and added fuel to the Black Lives Matter movement.

“The defendant willfully used deadly force even though it was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances,” the plea agreement says, according to the Associated Press. “The defendant acknowledges that during the time he used deadly force, he knew that the use of deadly force was unnecessary and excessive, and therefore unreasonable under the circumstances.”

Scott’s death was a galvanizing moment for the Black Lives Matter movement during a year in which, according to a Washington Post database, at least 38 unarmed black men and women were shot and killed by police. The bloody April 4, 2015 episode began as a routine traffic stop. After Slager pulled over Scott’s Mercedes Benz because of a broken taillight, the 50-year-old Scott ran away.

A video, filmed by a local barber, captured the rest of the scene: the two men began to tussle over Slager’s Taser. Scott once again fled from Slager, who fired eight shots at his back; five hit their mark, killing Scott, and igniting national outrage. Slager was immediately fired and, a few days later, charged with murder. Last December, the murder trial ended in a hung jury.

Slager was facing two life sentences: one for the murder charge, and one for the civil rights charge. Because he entered a plea deal, it is unlikely Slager will face life in prison. Slager appeared in federal court for a hearing on Tuesday. Local journalists captured the scene:

The family of Walter Scott entering the courthouse #walterscott #MichaelSlager @postandcourier pic.twitter.com/EurZ42ZtTM

— Michael Pronzato (@MichaelPronz) May 2, 2017

The hearing lasted less than 30 minutes. #WalterScott‘s family wiped away tears as the details of their loved one’s death were retold.

— Janae Frazier (@JanaeFrazier) May 2, 2017

Plea deal does not state possible sentence. Charge carries between no prison time and life behind bars. #WalterScott #chsnews

— Andrew Knapp (@offlede) May 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 Officer Who Killed Walter Scott Pleads Guilty to Civil Rights Charge appeared first on Law Street.

Chobani, best known for producing the popular Greek yogurt, has filed a lawsuit against Alex Jones. Jones, the conspiracy theorist who runs the website InfoWars.com, has claimed that Chobani’s choice to hire refugees at its Idaho factory led to a sexual assault case in a local apartment building. Jones, and InfoWars, also claimed that the refugee workers at the factory led to increased crime in the area and an uptick in TB cases. Chobani is now suing Jones and InfoWars; the lawsuit includes two counts of defamation.

The owner of Chobani, Hamdi Ulukaya, has employed about 300 refugees, mostly from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey, at its Idaho and New York factories. In November, news broke that Ulukaya was getting death threats for those hiring decisions, particularly after some right-wing news outlets started reporting the same type of misinformation as InfoWars.

One particular InfoWars segment claimed that Chobani is tied to a case in the city–Twin Falls–where the factory is located. According to reports, three refugee boys sexually assaulted a five-year-old girl in the area. The assault did happen–the boys pled guilty–but there’s no evidence to suggest that the Chobani factory had anything to do with the children. Here’s one clip:

That clip draws a connection between the factory’s presence in the town and the sexual assault case–the title of the segment was “Idaho Yogurt Maker Caught Importing Migrant Rapists.” Another Jones video that implied that Chobani had something to do with the sexual assault case included “MSM Covers For Globalist’s Refugee Import Program After Child Rape Case.” The lawsuit also points out that these claims were repeated on social media platforms, and remain online to this date.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Idaho District Court, accuses InfoWars of knowingly publishing misinformation about the company and about Ulukaya. Chobani is now seeking at least $10,000 in damages.

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 Chobani Sues Alex Jones, Claims He Spread Misinformation appeared first on Law Street.

The Cherokee Nation has filed a lawsuit in the Cherokee Nation District Court against six distribution and pharmacy companies, claiming that they have unjustly profited through over-prescribing and selling opioids.

The companies included in the lawsuit include three pharmaceutical companies: McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, and Amerisource Bergen. It also includes three pharmacies: CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart. The lawsuit claims that it was the companies’ responsibility to monitor opioid prescriptions and orders in Cherokee Nation, identify the red flags present, and report those issues to the federal government. Essentially, the companies should have noticed warning signs like individual patients trying to fill prescriptions from multiple doctors, or driving long distances to fill prescriptions for no apparent reason.

The lawsuit details the horrific effects that prescription opioids have had on the community, noting that American Indians are more likely to die from drug overdoses than other ethnic groups. Annual deaths from opioid overdose have doubled in Cherokee nation between 2003-2014, and now outnumber deaths from car accidents. It also points out that young people have been hit particularly hard. It reads:

A 2014 study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found a much higher prevalence of drug and alcohol use in the American Indian 8th and 10th graders compared with national averages. American Indian students’ annual heroin and OxyCotin use was about two to three times higher than the national averages in those years.

The lawsuit also details the issues with women who are addicted to opioids and become pregnant, as well as the harm to the community as a whole when drug addiction and crime rise. The Cherokee Nation is seeking restitution for health care costs for those who have been affected by opioid addiction.

Cherokee Nation isn’t the first area to file a lawsuit against companies for the metoiric rise in opioid issues around the U.S.–earlier this year, Everett, Washington became the first city to sue a painkiller manufacturer. A tiny town in West Virginia, called Kermit, sued McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal health, Miami-Luken, AD Smith Corporation and a former Kermit pharmacy, Sav-Rite Pharmacy. Those are just a couple examples–there have been others, and until the opioid crisis in the U.S. is under control, there are sure to be more.

In the Cherokee Nation lawsuit, the companies named in the suit have either elected not to comment or have pointed out that they have stringent policies in place to deal with opioid abuse, or that addiction is the real issue.

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 Cherokee Nation Sues Opioid Providers and Pharmacies appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best.

That is the Question

If Shakespeare was a law student during final exams:
To sleep or not to sleep? @YourLawyerSays

— Bong Pagara (@BongofZamboanga) April 20, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Last September, New Yorker Kelly Gunn went to court to argue that she should be considered a legal parent and gain parental rights to the son her ex-partner adopted in 2011. Last week, she lost her case, but she is now planning to appeal. It’s a complex story that was made possible after a different case led to a new, broader definition of “parent” in New York last fall.

Gunn was in a relationship with Circe Hamilton when they started planning an adoption. The couple split up before the adoption agency had identified Abush, the seven-year-old boy who later became Hamilton’s son. But Gunn still felt like Abush was her son too. She argued in court that her participation in the adoption planning, as well as her support and care after Abush arrived, should qualify her as a legal parent.

On the other side of the argument, Hamilton said that their joint adoption plan ended when they broke up. She claimed that Gunn’s role in her and her son’s life after the breakup was more like that of a close friend or maybe a godmother.

In Gay Rights Case, Woman to Appeal for Parental Rights to Ex-Partner’s Son https://t.co/k7lVw6Mn80 pic.twitter.com/4hdYdqxuWC

— Sara Buitrago (@x3aamphv) April 20, 2017

The case is possible thanks to a decision authored by recently deceased Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam. In a ruling last August, the New York State Court of Appeals decided that a person who is not related by blood to, or the legal adoptive parent of, a child can still ask for custody rights. The ruling came after a case in which another unmarried gay couple, named as Brooke S.B. and Elizabeth A. C.C. in court documents, had a child together.

Elizabeth was impregnated through artificial insemination in 2008. After giving birth to a boy, the three of them lived together as a family until 2010, when the women’s relationship ended. Three years after that, Elizabeth tried to sever Brooke’s ties with their son and didn’t let them have any contact. When Brooke sued for visitation rights, a lower court turned her down, as the law didn’t accept a non-adoptive caretaker with no biological ties to the child as a parent.

But the appeals court overturned the ruling on August 30. Judge Abdus-Salaam wrote that the legal definition of a parent was outdated and didn’t fit how many of us view “family” today. They considered the law especially unsustainable since New York started allowing same-sex marriage in 2011. The ruling stated:

Where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the nonbiological, nonadoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody.

But the Gunn and Hamilton case is more complicated. The couple never married, and they did not conceive the child together. By the time they split up, they had only planned to adopt a child, but knew no other details. Gunn decided to seek custody because Hamilton was planning on moving to her home country of Great Britain with Abush.

One of Hamilton’s lawyers raised the issue that New York State’s new, expanded definition of parental rights could also be very scary for parents. It could open up arguments for trusted people close to the family to claim parental rights. But it doesn’t allow someone to gain those parental rights too easily–according to the judge in this case, Frank P. Nervo, Gunn didn’t provide sufficient evidence that she had played the role of a parent, and that was why she lost the case.

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 Woman Seeking Parental Rights to Ex-Partner’s Son Continues Legal Battle appeared first on Law Street.

Monday was supposed to be the first day in a string of executions in Arkansas, as the state’s supply of the sedative midazolam, which is used in the lethal injection, expires at the end of the month. That is why Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson ordered eight executions to take place over 11 days, before the current stash of midazolam expires. But a succession of lawsuits has stopped the executions from happening.

This is the latest development in a messy legal fight as Arkansas is pushing to execute eight prisoners in almost as many days. Last month, the eight prisoners filed a lawsuit in which they called the state’s rush to kill them “reckless and unconstitutional.” They also cited the use of midazolam as a problem, as many other states have stopped using the drug after a couple of botched executions that led to slow and painful deaths.

At the end of last week, pharmaceutical companies Fresenius Kabi USA and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. filed a friend of the court brief in the prisoners’ lawsuit. Fresenius Kabi said it believes that the state of Arkansas acquired potassium chloride, the second ingredient in the three-drug lethal injection, from the company, and that it did so under false pretenses.

Arkansas fights in multiple courts to carry out two of eight planned executions Monday. https://t.co/ueFxXfktba

— AP Central U.S. (@APCentralRegion) April 17, 2017

On Friday, Arkansas Judge Wendell Griffen halted the use of the third of the three execution drugs, vecuronium bromide. The manufacturer of this drug, McKesson Corporation, also claimed that the state bought it under false pretenses, by using the medical license of an Arkansas physician. Although Griffen’s ruling was not based on the executions legality, it made the carrying out of the executions impossible. And then over the weekend, federal Judge Kristine Baker halted all of the executions, citing the prisoners’ lawsuit.

“The threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs is significant: If midazolam does not adequately anesthetize plaintiffs, or if their executions are ‘botched,’ they will suffer severe pain before they die,” she wrote. But on Monday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned her ruling, saying the evidence that the executions would “cause severe pain and needless suffering” was insufficient.

To complicate matters, Judge Griffen was barred on Monday from hearing any death penalty cases in the state as it was revealed that he attended an anti-death penalty rally right after issuing the halt of the lethal injection on Friday. Griffen not only attended the demonstration, he also lay down on a cot and bound himself with a rope, making it look like he was a death row inmate on a gurney, awaiting execution. The protest took place outside Gov. Hutchinson’s house. Death penalty advocates were outraged and many Republican lawmakers called it judicial misconduct.

Judge rules against #Arkansas #executions. Judge attends anti-#deathpenalty rally. Judge barred from such cases. https://t.co/SodtMofgaj pic.twitter.com/hDLKFp553A

— AP Central U.S. (@APCentralRegion) April 17, 2017

The hurried pace of carrying out eight executions over 11 days is unprecedented in modern times, and Arkansas hasn’t performed an execution since 2005. But Hutchinson has been eager to get going, citing justice for the families of the victims the inmates have killed. And after all the legal back and forth, it looked like the state could go on with the plans. But then in a last minute development, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted a delay in the execution of one of the prisoners, Don Davis, after his attorney sought a stay on Monday. The court also stayed the execution of Bruce Ward.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge asked the U.S. Supreme Court late Monday evening to overrule that decision. The court declined to hear the case. However, late Monday the Arkansas Supreme Court also overruled the restraining order by Griffen on the use of vecuronium bromide, which means the lethal injections are free to use again. But the state is also facing a different problem: it can’t seem to find enough witnesses for the executions. The law requires at least six civilian witnesses at each execution.

So for now, all the prisoners are still alive. But since Baker’s stay of the executions was overruled, there is nothing that stops the state from going through with the executions, as long as there are enough witnesses. On Thursday, two inmates, Ledell Lee and Stacey Johnson, are scheduled for execution.

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 Arkansas Keeps Fighting to Carry Out Planned Executions appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victoria Sheridan

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

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

Check out this week’s picks!

Whoops

*drives to library to take a practice LSAT*
*forgets LSAT book*

Goodbye pic.twitter.com/mR5JlDwMso

— Ashley Courtney (@ashcourtalways) April 12, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

As of April 11, Alabama no longer grants state judges the authority to override jury recommendations in capital cases. As one of her first acts as governor, Kay Ivey signed the SB16 bill into law and put an end to judicial override in capital cases in Alabama. The move was likely a preemptive response to shifting legal tides. Had Alabama not revised its laws, it would likely have faced fierce and ongoing battles in court.

Alabama, Florida, and Delaware are the only states to have ever allowed judicial override in capital cases. In the 2016 case Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court found Florida’s sentencing scheme in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. In response to the high court’s ruling, Delaware’s Supreme Court ruled its state’s sentencing scheme unconstitutional a few months later.

In the wake of Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal by an Alabama death row inmate who claimed he was sentenced under a scheme similar to Florida’s. Alabama’s Supreme Court upheld judicial override nine months later. In spite of these victories, it seems that Alabama was no longer willing to put resources toward defending judicial override in court.

Following Hurst v. Florida, the Florida legislature amended its sentencing practices to reinstate capital punishment. However, Delaware’s General Assembly has yet to pass any such legislation, meaning there is an effective halt on the death penalty in the state. By amending its sentencing laws, Alabama has put an end to a recurrent legal battle and ensured the perpetuity of capital punishment in the state.

While Alabama has removed judicial override, its new sentencing practices could still face legal challenges. Following the chain of events set in motion by Hurst v. Florida, Alabama is now the only state that allows a jury to non-unanimously recommend the death penalty.

Before the Hurst v. Florida ruling, Alabama, Florida, and Delaware allowed a jury to recommend the death penalty with 10 of 12 votes. In the same ruling that banned judicial override, Delaware’s Supreme Court deemed non-unanimous recommendations unconstitutional. While Florida’s initial legislation preserved the practice, the Florida Supreme Court later found non-unanimous recommendations constitutional.

Alabama’s Supreme Court would almost certainly uphold non-unanimous death penalty recommendations, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the matter. The overwhelming consensus against the practice suggests Alabama could once again find itself in court.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Banning Judicial Override for Capital Cases Keep Alabama Out of Court? appeared first on Law Street.

Last August, U.S. officials obtained a FISA warrant to wiretap the communications of Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser to President Donald Trump. The FBI suspected Page was working as a spy on behalf of Russia, a U.S. official told the New York Times. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the wiretap was granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, after the Justice Department provided evidence that Page might have been a mole for the Kremlin.

Previously a Moscow-based investment banker, Page is one of Trump’s former advisers many suspect FBI Director James Comey was alluding to when he said in a recent House hearing that the bureau was investigating the “nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.” Comey said the FBI had been probing the matter since July.

Securing a FISA warrant is no easy feat, and requires solid evidence to justify a wiretap. Usually, FISA warrants are used to surveil the communications of foreign agents, such as Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. For Page, the FBI pointed to two pieces of information that vindicated its suspicions about him acting as a Russian agent:

1. In 2013, Page met with a Russian man who U.S. intelligence officials identified as an undercover Russian intelligence officer. During the meeting with Page, the man was posing as a Russian businessman. Page reportedly provided the Russian agent, Victor Podobnyy, with documents pertaining to Page’s New York-based investment firm, Global Energy Capital.
2. In July 2016, after the Republican National Convention and before he left Trump’s campaign, Page traveled to Moscow to give a speech at the New Economic School. Page delivered a scathing harangue of U.S. policies toward Russia, including the sanctions imposed for its annexation of Crimea and its aggression in Ukraine.

According to the government official, the 90-day FISA warrant has been renewed more than once. Obtaining a FISA warrant is an intentionally complicated process. One of three top senior officials at the Justice Department must approve the request before it can go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Along with Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, Page is one of Trump’s former aides whose communications with Russia have caught the attention of U.S. intelligence officials. Page, according to Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks, had an “informal” role, and never had a private meeting with Trump. There has been no criminal charges brought against Page, and even months-long FBI investigations do not necessarily lead to charges.

For his part, Page has denied any wrongdoing. In an email to the Times on Tuesday, he said it “will be interesting to see what comes out when the unjustified basis of those FISA requests are more fully disclosed over time.” And on Wednesday, in an interview with CNN, he said, when asked if he has acted as a Russian agent: “Let’s not jump to any conclusions, and until there’s full evidence and a full investigation has been done, we just don’t know.”

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 FBI Obtained Warrant to Wiretap Former Trump Aide Carter Page appeared first on Law Street.

Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas just ruled that Texas’ voter ID law intentionally discriminates against minority voters and violates the federal Voting Rights Act. The 2011 law has been thrown out as unconstitutional, and there’s the chance that Texas’ voting laws could once again be put under the purview of the federal government.

The law was passed by the Texas legislature in 2011 but didn’t go into effect until 2013. It required that all voters show some sort of government-issued photo ID before casting a vote, such as a driver’s license or passport. Since its inception, it has been controversial, sparking a drawn out legal battle. Critics point out that black and Hispanic voters are less likely to have those forms of identification. Judge Ramos ruled that the law was enacted with the intent to discriminate against minority voters.

The suit was brought by a number of plaintiffs, including the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives, La Union del Pueblo Entero and League of United Latin American Citizens, several individual voters, and Dallas County.

If you’re feeling a bit of Texas voter ID law deja vu, you’re not wrong. This is actually the second time that Ramos has ruled on this law. She ruled on it in 2014 as well, and then the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, located in New Orleans, sent it back to her. That court “found that Judge Ramos had relied too heavily on Texas’ history of discriminatory voting measures and other evidence it labeled ‘infirm’ and asked her to reweigh the question of discriminatory intent.” She once again found that the law is discriminatory.

The state of Texas is expected to appeal her decision again, but this could set Texas up for federal monitoring of its voting laws. The Voting Rights Act used to require that certain states–Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia–that had a history of passing discriminatory voting laws had to get federal approval before changing their voting laws. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the provision that required such “preclearance” but if a state is found to have passed a law that is intentionally discriminatory, it could be subject to that oversight once again.

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 Federal Judge Rules that Texas’ Voter ID Law is Discriminatory appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best tweets!

Rough

Finals coming at me like….. #lawschoolproblems #1L #2L #3L #lawstudent #finals pic.twitter.com/imhRVTfjdM

— I’m Dead Inside (@LawlzSchool) April 3, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

A federal appeals court in Chicago on Tuesday ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The 8-3 decision is unprecedented, as all other federal appeals court rulings have sided with employers. The Supreme Court has never heard a case on the issue.

Chief Judge Diane Wood, writing for the majority opinion, said “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination,” and that “it would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation.'” Wood, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, added that her ruling was based on the “common-sense reality that it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex.”

The case, Kimberly Hively vs. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, centers around a professor in South Bend, Indiana. Openly lesbian, Kimberley Hively had been working as a part-time professor at Ivy Tech’s South Bend campus from 2000 to 2014. Six times between 2009 to 2014, Hively applied to full-time positions at the college. She was denied an interview all six times and, in July 2014, the college did not renew her part-time contract.

Hively sued the college, but a federal district court ruled in favor of Ivy Tech. Tuesday’s decision vacates the lower court’s decision. Federal law, under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday, is also protected by federal law.

Writing for the dissenting opinion, Judge Diane Sykes said the ruling was “momentous,” and amounted to “the circumvention of the legislative process by which the people govern themselves.” Sykes, who President Donald Trump reportedly considered nominating to the Supreme Court, continued: “We are not authorized to infuse the text with a new or unconventional meaning or to update it to respond to changed social, economic, or political conditions.”

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 Appeals Court Rules LGBT Discrimination Violates the Civil Rights Act appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Governor Rick Scott of Florida used an executive order on Monday to remove the first black elected prosecutor in the state, Orange County State Attorney Aramis Ayala, from 21 murder cases. The conflict between Ayala and Scott started last month after Ayala, a Democrat, announced that she wouldn’t be seeking the death penalty in a murder case. Scott reacted by taking the case, in which a man is accused of killing a pregnant woman and a police officer, away from Ayala.

Scott called the decision “unacceptable,” and said “that she is not interested in considering every available option in the fight for justice.” According to Ayala’s spokesperson Eryka Washington, she didn’t know about the reassignments until they were reported in the media. Washington said that Ayala believes Scott is abusing his authority and “has compromised the independence and integrity of the criminal justice system.”

The news created a lot of mixed feelings on social media, with a lot of people criticizing the governor for overreach.

does an elected prosecutor have right to decide against seeking death? – ongoing legal battle worth following in FL https://t.co/9pLaX7yYJQ

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) April 3, 2017

Many also pointed out concerns about the death penalty:

Thank you to Aramis Ayala. The death penalty is an ineffective deterrent, racially discriminatory and morally wrong. https://t.co/LiFtodFqat

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) April 4, 2017

Also on Monday, State Representative Bob Cortes urged Scott to go even further and remove Ayala from office. He argued that she is trying to change the law–he said that “she is elected there to follow it,” and not change it. He claimed that Ayala is neglecting her responsibility to those who elected her by not considering the death penalty. According to the Florida state constitution, a governor can remove any elected official who isn’t fulfilling her duty.

But it’s hard to determine whether or not she is fulfilling her duty, given that prosecutorial discretion allows Ayala to decide how to best pursue her cases. And it’s worth noting that opinions on the death penalty differ in the United States. Research has repeatedly shown that it’s not effective in deterring people from committing crimes. There is also the risk of executing an innocent person, and examples of botched executions where the prisoner doesn’t die right away but has to endure a slow, torturous death. The drugs that are used are increasingly expensive and hard to access, as many medical companies don’t want to contribute to executing people. And the trials where prosecutors seek the death penalty involve an additional phase for sentencing, which makes the whole ordeal more expensive than a regular trial.

Back in March, when Ayala made it clear that she wouldn’t be seeking the death penalty for the rest of her term, she also mentioned the downside of instilling hope in victims’ families about an execution that might take months or years before being carried out–if ever. “I have determined that doing so is not in the best interests of this community or in the best interests of justice,” she 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 Florida Prosecutor Won’t Seek Death Penalty, Governor Yanks Her Cases appeared first on Law Street.

Same

I love when college kids are like “I’m gonna graduate, go to law school, get married, and then buy a house by 25.” Like lol okay good luck.

— Catie Warren (@catie__warren) March 30, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The two anti-abortion activists who secretly filmed conversations with staff members and doctors from Planned Parenthood are now facing felony charges in California. David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt recorded their conversations with various people associated with the organization in 2014 and 2015, using a hidden camera, to expose what they claimed to be a plot by Planned Parenthood to sell fetal material.

Now California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has announced that the two activists violated state law by filming people without their consent. Daleiden expectedly called the charges “bogus” and “fake news” in a statement on his organization’s website, the Center for Medical Progress. But his theory that Planned Parenthood is “harvesting” and selling fetal tissue for profit has been debunked in more than a dozen states where investigations have been conducted.

Back in 2015, Daleiden and Merritt tried to prove that Planned Parenthood was committing a crime by selling fetal tissue. But representatives from the organization said that the videos were heavily edited and taken out of context. Also, the organization only donates tissue for scientific research–always with the patients’ full consent–and gets reimbursements for expenses.

#PlannedParenthood

Anti-abortion propagandist filmmakers @daviddaleiden, Sandra Merritt charged with 15 felonieshttps://t.co/DLFiG5CH0Q pic.twitter.com/MpRniSu7dq

— WarOnWomen (@WarAgainstWomen) March 29, 2017

A Texas grand jury found that Planned Parenthood had done nothing wrong, but found that Daleiden and Merritt used fake drivers licenses to gain access to a Planned Parenthood meeting. Daleiden was also charged with a misdemeanor for trying to buy human tissue, which is ironic since that was the crime he was trying to accuse Planned Parenthood of. Those charges were dismissed. But the California felony charges are related to the secret filming and total 15 each–one count per person they secretly filmed, and one count of conspiracy.

And there’s more bad news for the two–on Wednesday, a federal appeals court blocked the release of more videos by their group. Daleiden called that decision an attack on the First Amendment. “CMP will continue to fight this unconstitutional abuse of power and vindicate our First Amendment rights and those of all citizen journalists to speak and publish on matters of urgent public concern,” Daleiden said.

But the National Abortion Federation said that the release of the videos would put its members at risk, which is not far-fetched to think. Last January, Planned Parenthood sued the Center for Medical Progress, claiming that the release of the heavily edited and misleading videos caused a dangerous environment for its employees. Many Planned Parenthood employees have received threats, and in 2015 there was a shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado that left three people dead.

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 Anti-Abortion Activists Who Secretly Filmed Planned Parenthood Charged with Felonies appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best legal tweets!

Congrats!

Wow left work on time every night this week, must be a new personal record #lawyerlife #friyay

— Christina Olliver (@C_L_Olliver) March 24, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve ever been at a college football game and thought, “Man this football game is fun, but it would be even more fun if some people in this stadium were packing heat!” then you probably were not very happy with the Arkansas Senate yesterday.

After a good dose of public outrage and some lawmakers speaking out about its dangers, a new Arkansas concealed carry expansion measure has now been watered down by an exemption passed by a 22-10 vote in the Senate. The exemption removes college sports events from the expansion.

Signed into law by Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson on Wednesday, the new measure would have allowed anyone with a concealed handgun license and eight hours of active shooter training to conceal carry in a publicly-owned building like a state college campus or the state capitol. Private establishments like bars and places of worship would also be included, although those establishments still have the right to prohibit guns from their premises. News of this measure expanding gun rights to college sports venues angered and alarmed many, leading the Senate to pass the exemption for college sports venues less than a day after the law was passed.

Among those who were confused by the very logic of the law was University of Arkansas defensive back Kevin Richardson II:

I’m curious as to why… https://t.co/Ynpo3lGUeL

— Kevin Richardson II (@K_Rich30) March 23, 2017

Speaking to USA Today Sports, Democratic Rep. Greg Leading, who represents the district that includes one of the University of Arkansas campuses, said “Most concealed-carry permit holders are responsible people. That said, accidents happen. People like to have a good time before, during and after football games in the South. People drink. People get emotional. If you’re not allowed to bring an umbrella into a stadium, why should you be allowed to introduce guns into the equation?” To add to Rep. Leading’s point, outside food is prohibited from most stadiums, and, on the very same day the new measure was approved, the SEC implemented a league-wide “clear bag policy” that encourages fans to bring only clear and smaller bags to SEC football games.

As the AP points out, the state of Arkansas is no stranger to supporting and expanding gun rights. In 2013, the state passed a law that allowed faculty and staff to carry concealed weapons on college campuses, given that those schools agreed to allow guns on campus, which none of them ended up doing. Governor Hutchinson is also, as the AP points out, a former chair of a National Rifle Association task force whose mission was to push for armed faculty at Arkansas public schools in response to the Newtown shooting. That shooting happened, of course, in Connecticut–over a thousand miles away from Arkansas.

This exemption is expected to pass in the Arkansas House floor sometime within the next week.

This Arkansas law comes at a time where multiple states with Republican governors are moving to pass some version of concealed carry expansion. This week, North Dakota Republican Gov. Doug Burgum signed into law a bill that institutes Constitutional Carry throughout the state and Ohio’s new gun laws that allow for people to carry a concealed weapon into places like day care facilities and non-secure areas of airports went into effect.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Arkansas Senate Backtracks on Allowing Concealed Guns in College Sports Stadiums appeared first on Law Street.

Hundreds of families of 9/11 victims are suing the government of Saudi Arabia for its alleged involvement in the terror attacks that claimed thousands of lives. The lawsuit, filed in New York City last Friday, claims that leading officials in the Saudi government provided terrorists with material support and resources to enable the attacks. Saudi Arabia has never admitted its involvement, but 15 of the 19 plane hijackers that crashed the airplanes into World Trade Center were identified as Saudi Arabian.

The lawsuit, which is 194 pages long, was made possible after Congress passed a bill called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act last September. President Obama vetoed the bill only days before, as he feared it could backfire and allow other countries to file lawsuits against the U.S. for alleged support of terrorists in other countries. But, his veto was overridden, allowing the bill to become law.

Sept. 11 families sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11 attacks https://t.co/RaPc9RjUYY pic.twitter.com/MQzQmu1vOy

— Bloomberg (@business) March 21, 2017

The personal injury and wrongful death suit states that Saudi Arabian officials funded al-Qaeda through governmental nonprofits that posed as charities. But instead of going to a charitable cause, money was sent through complicated webs of middlemen to the terror organization to fund attacks on the U.S. The lawsuit claims that the government even ordered Saudi Arabian officials and diplomats to assist the hijackers after they arrived in the U.S., by giving them fake travel documents, weapons, cash, and other equipment.

The families of the victims say this lawsuit is long overdue. “We’re going to find out what actually happened on 9/11,” said retired FDNY fire chief James Riches, one of the plaintiffs, to Newsday. “If [Saudi Arabia] helped the terrorists commit terrorist acts on American soil, they’ll be held accountable. If the Saudis did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.”

One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Michael Barasch, said that it’s obvious the terrorists couldn’t have carried out such a complicated attack by themselves and he wants to find out who helped them. “If it was Saudi Arabia they need to pay. They need to pay dearly and think twice the next time some Saudi Arabian prince or government wants to do such a heinous and cowardly act,” he said.

But the Saudi government is not happy, and the energy minister, Khalid al-Falih, warned vaguely that there could be “consequences.” He also said that the Saudi government is hoping that the Trump Administration will overturn the new law that makes lawsuits like this possible. He said that he hopes that after “due consideration by the new Congress and the new administration, that corrective measures will be taken.”

Trump wins Saudi praise for a historical “turning point” after meeting Prince Salman https://t.co/T0yylnBved pic.twitter.com/PcEqVaJqHp

— Bloomberg (@business) March 15, 2017

But, Saudi Arabia does have quite a few other reasons to like President Donald Trump. He has been tough on Iran, one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest opponents, and some believe he is less likely to criticize the country’s record on human rights than the Obama Administration was. One week ago, Trump met with Mohammed bin Salman, the Deputy Crown Prince and Minister of Defense, at the White House. Both sides said it was a historical shift and very good meeting. But it remains to be seen if this lawsuit will affect that relationship.

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 Families of 9/11 Victims Sue Saudi Arabia Over Alleged Support of al-Qaeda appeared first on Law Street.

This Fits

My #BarPrep gives dating advice. pic.twitter.com/OL8694xkmN

— Kitty (@mskittenfish) March 17, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The average age of marriage for Americans is creeping up and up–in 2013 it jumped to 27 for women and 29 for men. For perspective, in 1990 it was 23 and 26 for women and men and in 1960 it was 20 and 22 respectively. But while the average age is falling, it doesn’t mean that some people don’t get married much earlier. In fact, almost 60,000 minors aged 15-17 were married as of 2014–and now lawmakers in some states, including New York and New Jersey, are considering making a change to child marriage laws.

In New York, specifically, minors aged 16 and 17 can get married as long as they have parental consent. Minors aged 14 and 15 can get married with parental consent and judicial consent. State legislators, as well as Governor Andrew Cuomo, are working to change the laws, particularly for 14, 15, and 16-year-olds.

The effort has actually been underway for a little while now, although a similar bill last year didn’t end up making much progress, in part because there was pushback from some religious communities. There were about 4,000 legal child marriages in New York last year, and while only about 50 involved teens under 16, there are always concerns that young people–particularly young women–are being pressured into marriage at a young age. A recent New York Times story highlighted the story of one of those women:

Fatima H., an office manager in northern New Jersey, was 15 and thriving in school in Brooklyn in the 1980s when her strict Muslim parents forced her to drop out and arranged a marriage to a first cousin arriving from Kuwait. He was 21 and they had never met. A judge approved the early nuptials and, perhaps not surprisingly, the couple did not live happily ever after.

New Jersey appears to have just become the first state in the U.S. to completely ban marriage for children under 18. While the bill still needs to be signed by Governor Chris Christie, it overwhelmingly passed the state legislature.

Other states are similarly considering restricting child marriage. For example, in New Hampshire, a state representative recently filed a bill to make 16 the minimum age for marriage.

While the number of teens who get married in the U.S. is relatively low, it’s imperative to ensure that children aren’t being forced into coerced marriages. New York, New Jersey, and other states are finally taking efforts to ensure that.

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 States Work to Change Child Marriage Laws appeared first on Law Street.

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB-149 on Friday, a law that protects private foster and adoption agencies from being sued for refusing to place children with an LGBT couple. While other states have similar laws, South Dakota is the first to enact one since the SCOTUS decision that legalized gay marriage in 2015.

According to Daugaard, the bill is intended to protect private organizations–largely faith-based–who act in the best interests of children, from being sued. But advocacy group argue that this bill is just discriminatory, harms children who could otherwise find loving homes, and would allow agencies to turn away couples of different faiths, people who have been divorced, and single parents.

According to Laura Dorso, vice president of the LGBT research and communications at the Center for American Progress, this measure will disproportionately affect LGBT couples and single mothers:

SB 149 allows religiously-affiliated foster care and adoption agencies to turn away qualified LGBT parents and single moms who simply want to start families and give young people a safe, loving home. Same-sex couples are six times as likely to foster than different-sex couples are, and this bill proves once again that opponents of equality are happy to put children at risk and deny them permanent homes to further their anti-LGBT agenda.

The ACLU of South Dakota pointed out in a statement that this law flies in the face of many organizations’ preferences:

South Dakota’s choice to do this now may contribute to some fears that in the Trump era, it will become open season on LGBT rights. Trump’s record on LGBT rights is wishy-washy at best, and there was talk of an executive order that would have overturned workplace protections for LGBT individuals that were instituted by the Obama Administration. While that executive order was reportedly squashed by Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, concerns remain high. Although South Dakota’s law only applies at the state level, the battle for protections remains nationwide.

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 South Dakota Passes Law Legalizing Discrimination Against LGBT Couples appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best tweets from the legal sphere!

Oh no!

When you start the day with a client in custody and a wardrobe malfunction you know it’s going to be an interesting one. #lawyerlife

— Maria K. Powell (@mapleandspice) March 10, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

A Washington D.C. wine bar filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump on Wednesday night, claiming that his continued involvement with the nearby Trump International Hotel creates unfair competition for other businesses. Trump has resigned from the Trump Organization and handed it over to his two sons, but he still holds a financial interest.

The bar claims it has seen a significant decrease in income since the inauguration, and says that now that Trump is president, many officials and lobbyists choose his hotel rather than other local businesses in order to gain political influence. As Trump often drops in on the weekends, there’s also the chance to get some personal time with the president. “It seems to us to be a clear situation in which he’s using his office of the president to get a financial gain at the expense of local businesses,” said the bar’s attorney, Scott Rome.

But Trump’s team called the lawsuit “a wild publicity stunt completely lacking in legal merit.” However, the lawsuit quotes Sean Spicer’s praise of the hotel at a press conference in January as well as an anonymous lobbyist saying that government officials notice who spends money in the hotel bar.

Asked about new Trump hotel lawsuit and claims that Trump hotel is hurting small biz, Sean Spicer says Trump is a supporter of small biz

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) March 9, 2017

The owners of Cork Wine Bar, Khalid Pitts and Diane Gross, are politically active and often host political fundraisers. Gross used to be a civil rights attorney and counsel to former Senator Barbara Mikulski. Pitts was once the campaign director of the Service Employees International Union, a political director for the Sierra Club, and ran for DC Council three years ago. They say that they appreciate healthy competition between businesses, but that now it feels like every place except for Trump’s hotel is a second choice for anyone wanting to do business with the government.

Have to brag about lawsuit just filed by my amazing dad — still making trouble for people in power, at age 78!

https://t.co/jwt08epKnK

— Nina Morrison (@Nina_R_Morr) March 9, 2017

The bar owners have legal help from pro bono attorneys and they are not seeking any money–they just want to end the unfair competition. It is also not filed as a constitutional challenge regarding the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits a president from accepting benefits from foreign states. The suit addresses Trump as a private businessman, but it still suggests that he could get rid of the problem by resigning.

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 Washington D.C. Wine Bar Sues Trump For Unfair Competition appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Health and Human Services has declared widespread opioid abuse to be a serious public health issue. Officials across the country are searching for ways to combat the epidemic and are increasingly calling for “public health responses, not a war on drugs.” However, reports indicate the Ohio city of Washington Court House has begun charging people who survive opiate overdoses with “inducing panic.” Although city officials claim the new practice is not meant to worsen the conditions of those struggling with opioid addiction, the policy directly opposes the prevailing logic regarding addiction and rehabilitation.

In the past month, police used Naloxone, a drug that reverses the effects of opioids, to revive seven people before charging them with a misdemeanor. In an interview with the city’s local ABC affiliate, Washington Court House officials argued charging overdose survivors “gives [the city] the ability to keep an eye on them, to offer them assistance and to know who has overdosed.” The court summons is meant to ensure the city is able to “follow up” with overdose survivors and show them the city cares and wants to help them, not jail them, the officials said.

Nonetheless, those charged with “inducing panic” could face up to 180 days in prison or a $1,000 fine. Regardless of whether or not Washington Court House attorneys plan on convicting the addicts who have been charged, the move is misguided. The criminal justice system is not equipped to assist drug addicts, and attempting to address addiction by using the system only perpetuates the criminalization of drug addiction and addicts.

The U.S. has a long history of criminalizing drug addicts rather than providing them the medical assistance they require. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, those found guilty of drug related offenses constitute 46.4 percent of the prison population. In a 2010 report, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse estimated 65 percent of the prison population “meet medical criteria for substance abuse or addiction” but only 11 percent receive any kind of treatment for their addiction. Furthermore, the availability of drugs within prison walls is well documented, and relapses are common.

There is an expert consensus that addiction is a medical condition and ought to be treated as such. While officials throughout the nation are recognizing the need for cogent and compassionate public health responses, Washington Court House continues the detrimental criminalization of drug addiction.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ohio Town Charges Opioid Overdose Survivors with “Inducing Panic” appeared first on Law Street.

Texas lawmakers have been busy the last few weeks. Controversy surrounding a transgender bathroom bill in the mold of North Carolina’s HB2 law thrust the Texas Senate into the news after its Committee on State Affairs approved the measure with a 7-1 vote. Yet, while all of that was happening, another controversial bill flew slightly under the radar.

Senate Bill 25, which was unanimously passed by the committee and will soon move on to the full senate for a vote, would protect doctors from “wrongful birth” lawsuits. This would effectively prevent parents of a disabled child from using wrongful birth as a cause of action against a doctor who withheld information about a fetus’ condition that would have led parents to choose to have an abortion.

The bill’s supporters argue that wrongful birth as a cause of action in a lawsuit is inherently wrong, as it suggests that a birth could be “wrongful.”

“Senate Bill 25 will send a message that Texas does not believe that a life, in and of itself, is an injury in which parents need a damage payment,” said Texas Senator Brandon Creighton during a livestream of the committee hearing.

Critics of the bill argue that a damage payment is necessary in the event that doctors knowingly lied to parents about the health of a fetus because it limits the freedom of choice that a woman has over her pregnancy and her right to have an abortion.

“Eliminating a wrongful birth claim deprives such parents of the right to sue for monetary damages to cover the lifetime costs of caring for their child,” testified Margaret Johnson on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Texas. “These cases are rare but are appropriate redress for parents in such situations.”

Johnson added,

SB 25 is a not so subtle way of giving medical personnel the opportunity to impose their religious beliefs on pregnant women by withholding information about the condition of the fetus–and depriving women of making an informed decision about continuing the pregnancy.

However, Jennifer Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, contended that the bill “in no way restricts access to testing, in no way restricts access to abortion, and in no way regulates abortion.”

Allmon testified:

It simply says that a lawsuit based on the premise that a child should not have been born is wrong. We believe that a lawsuit that begins as its premise that we should have had the opportunity to kill our disabled child sends a terrible message to those disabled children in Texas.

Supporters of the bill appear to be arguing semantics by pointing out that the bill only targets wrongful birth as a specific course of action because it is morally wrong to suggest that a child should never have been born. They also attest that it wouldn’t hinder a person’s right to bring about another type of medical malpractice lawsuit.

But this logic is dizzying, if not disingenuous. If this law were to take away the option to use wrongful birth and its elements as a claim, constitutional claims could arise that question its validity. Blake Rocap, a legislative counsel for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, pointed out this illogic in his testimony.

Rocap said:

That’s not how it works. If someone were to maintain a suit for medical malpractice and seek the damages for the care of their special child..they would not be able to recover for that care. The court would say ‘What you’re really doing here is trying to maintain a wrongful birth lawsuit, that’s the cause of action you’re really pleading.

If this bill passes in the full senate, it would be added to a list of controversial anti-abortion laws passed in Texas. According to CNN, wrongful birth lawsuits are actually pretty rare, and the bill’s author acknowledges this fact. Additionally, as NPR reported, these lawsuits are incredibly difficult to win.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Debate Over “Wrongful Birth” in Texas appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a landmark ruling on jury secrecy, while declining to hear what would have been its first case on transgender rights. In Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, the court ruled that if racial bias is found to influence a juror’s opinion, an inquiry into the jury deliberations–a secret practice–could be launched. The transgender rights case involved Gavin Grimm, a high school student and transgender man whose school did not allow him to use the boys’ bathroom. Here’s what you need to know about each case: 

Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado

In 2010, a jury found Miguel Angel Peña Rodriguez guilty of sexually harassing two sisters in a racetrack bathroom. One of the jurors, a former police officer referred to as H.C., said he thought Peña Rodriguez was guilty “because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” according to sworn statements from his fellow jurors. H.C. said the defendant’s alibi witness was not credible because he was “an illegal,” the sworn statements said. 

On Monday, in a five-to-three decision, the Supreme Court found that racial bias on the part of a juror–like H.C. in the Peña Rodriguez case–warrants an inquiry into jury deliberations. “Racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion. He added that for an inquiry to be justified, “there must be a showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations and resulting verdict.”

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan agreed with Kennedy, while Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas dissented. Writing for the dissenting opinion, Alito called the prevailing opinion “startling,” adding that “although the court tries to limit the degree of intrusion, it is doubtful that there are principled grounds for preventing the expansion of today’s holding.”

The Gavin Grimm Case

In 2015, a local school board in Virginia enacted a policy that students must use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender on their birth certificate. This was a blow to transgender students who, like Grimm, want to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. Grimm, represented by the ACLU,  challenged the policy in court. Last year, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that the policy is unlawful, concurring with the Obama Administration that Title IX, which protects students from sexual discrimination, also protects transgender rights.

But on Monday, the Supreme Court vacated the appeals court’s ruling, sending it back for further consideration. The case would have been the first transgender rights case to appear in the highest court. The decision to throw away the case for the time being was likely influenced by the Trump Administration’s repeal of an Obama Administration directive requiring public schools to allow students to use whichever bathroom matches their gender identity.

“Thousands of transgender students across the country will have to wait even longer for a final decision from our nation’s highest court affirming their basic rights,” Sarah Warbelow, the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, told the New York Times.

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 SCOTUS Declines Hearing for Gavin Grimm Case, Issues Ruling on Jury Secrecy appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s picks!

Well, it’s 5 Somewhere

Sign of my day: I wondered out loud, perhaps with expletives, whether 9am was too early to start drinking. #lawyerlife #lawyerlifesuuuucks

— Steph Williams (@steffers13) March 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best!

Creative Metaphors

The LSAT is like eating an oatmeal raisin cookie or chugging a bottle of vodka thinking its water or making out in a Taco Bell parking lot

— Shannan M. Brown (@ShaN___B) February 25, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

In a 10-4 decision on Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia upheld Maryland’s ban on assault rifles, concluding that military-style weapons are not protected under the Second Amendment.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” wrote Judge Robert King, who noted that the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller excluded coverage of assault weapons.

The decision overturned a previous ruling that found Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013 unconstitutional because the weapons “are in common use by law-abiding citizens,” and therefore don’t fall under the exception that applies to “unusual” weapons–i.e. machine guns and hand grenades.

The law, which was introduced by Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, prohibits the sale, possession, transfer, or purchase of 45 kinds of assault rifles and places a 10-round limit on detachable gun magazines.

In a scathing dissent, Judge William B. Traxler wrote that his colleagues did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

“[The majority] has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms,” wrote Traxler.

King, however, pointed out that the same kinds of weapons were used in the shootings in Aurora, San Bernardino, and Orlando, adding that the names of those places “have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there.”

The decision is considered to be a major victory for gun safety advocates, but a serious setback for gun proponents who believe their right to bear arms should not be limited.

According to NBC News, the NRA estimates there are somewhere between 5 million to 10 million AR-15s–one of the banned weapons under Maryland’s law–in circulation in the United States for lawful purposes.

“It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected ‘arm’ under the Second Amendment,” said National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker. She added that the majority opinion “clearly ignores the Supreme Court’s guidance from District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects arms that are ‘in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.'”

The plaintiffs could appeal to the Supreme Court, but Frosh says he’s confident that the law will stand.

“It’s a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it’s en-banc and for the strength of its decision,” Frosh said, noting that all of the court’s judges participated.

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 Federal Court Rules Assault Rifles Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence for a man who has been on death row since 1997 because of the racist testimony of a witness called by his own lawyers. On Wednesday, the court decided 6-2 to give Duane Buck another chance. Buck was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend and her male friend, and wounding his own stepsister, with a shotgun in Texas in 1995.

During the sentencing phase of the trial in 1997, Buck’s own defense lawyers knowingly called an expert witness to the stand who claimed that Buck ran a higher risk of posing a danger in the future because he is black. “It’s a sad commentary that minorities–Hispanics and black people–are over-represented in the criminal justice system,” said former prison psychiatrist Dr. Walter Quijano.

ICYMI: Today #SCOTUS ruled in favor of a new sentencing hearing for our client, #DuaneBuck. Read our statement: https://t.co/xlU5mo1zPP pic.twitter.com/CxEOJPTgil

— Legal Defense Fund (@NAACP_LDF) February 22, 2017

The jury listened to Quijano and sentenced Buck to death. Then began Buck’s long series of appeals. He appealed the original sentence, but didn’t raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. A state court affirmed his sentence. Then Buck’s lawyer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but it didn’t mention Quijano or his testimony. But then it was discovered that Quijano had given racist testimony in several other cases. Some of those convicted raised claims in federal court in 2000, and they were granted new sentencing hearings.

Duane Buck’s trial lawyer, who put on testimony that his own client was dangerous for being black, still works in the 208th court every day.

— Franklin Bynum (@bynumlaw) February 22, 2017

Buck’s lawyer filed a second habeas petition, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by the trial lawyers, but it was filed in state court and not in federal. Then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn said that because Buck’s own defense had called Quijano as a witness, there was no mistake made by the state and therefore nothing that needed to be fixed. The fact that Buck didn’t mention Quijano in the first habeas corpus was the final nail in the coffin.

In the new petition, filed in October, Buck’s defense cited “extraordinary circumstances” in order to pursue the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, even though that legally should have been done in the first place. This time SCOTUS listened. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision that the testimony in 1997 by Quijano claimed “that the color of Buck’s skin made him more deserving of execution. No competent defense attorney would introduce such evidence about his own client.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying that the heinousness of Buck’s crime and his lack of remorse justify the death penalty. But, Buck will now be able to have a new hearing on his sentence.

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 SCOTUS Overturns Death Sentence for Black Man Whose Lawyer Called Racist Witness appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments for Hernández v. Mesa, the case of a 15-year-old Mexican national who was fatally shot while on Mexico’s side of the border by a U.S. border patrol agent.

The parents of Sergio Adrian Hernández Guereca (Hernández) are arguing that their son’s constitutional rights were violated, even though he wasn’t standing on U.S. soil at the time of his death.

Hernández was killed in Juarez, Mexico in the summer of 2010 by U.S. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa Jr., who was patrolling the U.S. border on a bicycle at the time of the incident. Mesa fired his weapon through the border fence at Hernández, who was hiding behind a pillar of the Paso Del Norte bridge, killing him.

According to the amicus brief, the family says Hernández and his friends “were merely playing a game, running up the back and down the incline of the culvert and touching the barbed wire fence that separates Mexico and the United States.”

The FBI claimed that Hernández and his friends were hurling rocks at the agent, however, video footage refuted that claim.

Hernández’s parents decided to sue Mesa in federal court, but the district court dismissed the claim. The case was then appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, which also sided with Mesa. The family then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to take the case in October of last year.

With Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat still vacant and Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, still waiting for his Senate hearings to begin next month, we could very well have a 4-4 split decision–the court has been operating with only eight justices for just over a year. In the event of a tie, the court would defer to the lower court’s ruling that favors the agent.

But this isn’t the first time this type of case has been argued in court. An eerily similar shooting occurred in 2012 in Arizona, when a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez 10 times in the back and head through the slats of the border fence.

Rodriguez was also accused of throwing rocks at agents across the border and endangering their lives, but witnesses on the Mexico side claimed Elena Rodriguez was walking down the street when the other youths ran past just before the shooting started.

Following the shooting, Elena Rodriguez’s family and the ACLU filed a civil lawsuit against Agent Lonnie Swartz in the U.S. District Court in Tucson. The judges said they would not rule until after the U.S. Supreme Court decides on Hernandez v. U.S.

The cases “involve almost identical legal issues,” said attorney Sean Chapman, who represents Swartz in both the criminal and civil cases.  “That’s what is interesting about it…It’s incredibility similar to the Rodriguez case in Arizona. I’m waiting to see what they do.”

If SCOTUS deadlocks, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Guereca’s family cannot sue the Border Patrol agent in the U.S. would stand in the 5th Circuit. Then the 9th Circuit may rule on the Elena Rodriguez case, Chapman said.

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 SCOTUS Weighs Case of Teen Shot in Mexico by U.S. Border Patrol appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best legal tweets of this week!

What’s That?

Prof to class: “Do yall even know what a typewriter IS?” #notthatyoung #lawschoolproblems

— Katie Grosskopf (@KatieGrosskopf) February 15, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

On the morning of May 25, 1979, a six-year-old boy walked, without adult supervision for the first time, to his school bus stop in New York City’s SoHo neighborhood. Etan Patz never came home that day. In fact, he never made it to school–and his body has never been found. But on Tuesday, 38 years later, the case that shocked the country came to a close: a jury convicted Pedro Hernandez on one count of second-degree murder, and one count of first-degree kidnapping. He will be sentenced on February 28.

“The Patz family has waited a long time, but we’ve finally found some measure of justice for our wonderful little boy, Etan,” Stanley Patz, Etan’s father, said after the verdict was read. “I’m really grateful that this jury finally came back with which I have known for a long time — that this man, Pedro Hernandez, is guilty of doing something really terrible so many years ago.”

The conviction ends one of the longest-standing child murder cases in U.S. history, and Patz was one of the first missing children to end up on the side of a milk carton. Hernandez, 56, first became a suspect in 2012, when his brother-in-law told police that Hernandez, decades earlier, said he had “done a bad thing and killed a child in New York.”

Hernandez confessed, and police charged him with second-degree murder. In his account, he said he baited Etan Patz with a soda to the basement of a bodega he worked in at the time, which was near the school bus stop. There he choked the child and stuffed him in a bag, which he left at a curb a few blocks away.

JUST IN: Jury finds Pedro Hernandez guilty in kidnapping and death of Etan Patz in 1979. pic.twitter.com/3iOjOxGvga

— ABC News (@ABC) February 14, 2017

But Hernandez’s first trial in 2015 resulted in a hung jury. One juror, Adam Sirois, believed Hernandez was mentally deranged, and his admission did not make sense. “For me, the whole case kind of hinges on mental health, which factors into what I think are the false confessions — or at least the likelihood of false confessions being made by him,” he said at the time.

The defense called on doctors and psychiatrists to testify about Hernandez’s mental condition, and how his admission could have been a fictional account. His daughter described her father’s strange visions. But the prosecutors said his mental incapacities were exaggerated, and perhaps even fake. In the decades following Patz’s disappearance, Hernandez lived in New Jersey with his wife and daughter, with seemingly no run-ins with the law.

In his closing arguments a few weeks ago, Harvey Fishbein, Hernandez’s lawyer, said his client is “an odd, limited, and vulnerable man,” and added that “Pedro Hernandez is an innocent man.” But according to the jury that is, without a reasonable doubt, incorrect. Which for Stanley Patz, was a long overdue sigh of relief. “I am truly relieved, and I’ll tell you, it’s about time,” he said. “It’s about time.”

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 Nearly Four Decades Later, Etan Patz’s Killer is Convicted of Murder appeared first on Law Street.

From the Nashville sit-ins in the 1960s to the Memphis sanitation workers’ strikes, Tennessee has a rich history of practicing civil disobedience in the form of nonviolent protests. And recently, Tennessee has seen a resurgence of nonviolent protests. On Inauguration Day, a group of Tennesseans chained themselves to the state capitol. About 15,000 people marched in downtown Nashville on the day of the Women’s March. And, this past July, hundreds of Black Lives Matters protesters spilled onto the interstate, stopping traffic. But in response to this civic action, a Tennessee lawmaker introduced a road block bill that grants drivers who “[exercise] due care” immunity from civil liability if they injure a protester or demonstrator who is blocking traffic.

According to Tennessee’s WTVC News Channel 9, state Senator Bill Ketron, who introduced the bill, said in a statement, “we believe that citizens have the right to protest. There is a procedure for peaceful protests and the purpose of that process is to protect the safety of our citizens. Protesters have no right to be in the middle of the road or our highways for their own safety and the safety of the traveling public.”

There are two distinctions in the bill that should be noted. The first is that if a person takes purposeful or willful action to injure a protester, they will not be granted immunity from civil liability. The second distinction is that the law does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution.

Tennessee lawmakers said that this bill was introduced to protect both drivers and protesters. As the Epoch Times points out, states like North Dakota have introduced similar legislation. If Tennessee’s bill passes, it will go into effect this summer.

At first glance, these kinds of bills aren’t erroneously offensive. But at the heart of these bills, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the core principles of civil disobedience.

Protesters and demonstrators do not simply block roads for the sake of inconveniencing people who are just trying to have a normal commute. Blocking traffic is a visceral statement that reminds people that some lives are inherently inconvenient–that some lives come with inherent roadblocks simply based on trivialities like the color of someone’s skin or who a person loves. Blocking traffic impedes the inexplicit conveniences that privilege bestows.

We can look at Tennessee’s road-block bill uncynically. We can hold the belief that the bill was introduced with the best of intentions–with the belief that these lawmakers truly want to look after the safety of the public. But we can also maintain the perspective that the bill ignores the principles of non-violent protests and continues to allow people to abrogate their responsibility to help society progress toward moral justice in service of letting them go on with their lives as if everything is as it should be, and nothing is wrong.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why Tennessee’s Road Block Bill Wouldn’t Actually Keep People Safe appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best legal tweets this week!

Extinction

Me turning the page to the LSAT Logic Games section: pic.twitter.com/U3nLA049JR

— Will Shelden (@trillshelden) February 4, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

A federal appeals court late Thursday night affirmed a lower court’s decision to block President Donald Trump’s executive order that banned travel from seven countries to the U.S. The ruling is a blow to Trump’s efforts to clamp down on refugees and immigrants from “terror prone” countries the White House says pose a threat to U.S. security. Trump said the ruling was a “political decision,” and pledged to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

For now, refugees and visa-holders–who have already been vetted and admitted to the U.S. by the Department of Homeland Security–from Syria, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya will be allowed to travel and settle in the U.S. Trump’s executive order, issued on January 27, barred refugees from entering the U.S. for at least 120 days, and visa-holders for at least 90 days. Syrians–refugees and travelers–would have been blocked indefinitely.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, deliberated for two days before coming to a conclusion. The three-judge panel unanimously agreed that the executive order could violate the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from denying “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The three judges, appointees of Presidents Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, said: “we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.” Trump tweeted his disapproval just moments after the court’s decision:

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

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

The road to the appeals court began last Friday, when a district court judge in Seattle granted a temporary restraining order on the travel ban. That judge, James Robart, sided with the states of Washington and Minnesota, the plaintiffs in the case, and said that because of the travel ban, the states “are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” The White House immediately appealed to the court in San Francisco, and after a day of oral arguments and two days of deliberations, the appeals court affirmed Robart’s ruling.

The appeals court was unconvinced by the administration’s argument that the judiciary has no authority to question executive actions involving national security. “It is beyond question,” the decision said, “that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” The court did say the government should enjoy deference in matters of national security, but reiterated that those decisions are not “unreviewable.”

The Trump Administration will likely file an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court within the next few days. With the pending confirmation of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, the court has eight justices, which many consider ideologically split 4-4. If the case ends up in their docket, a 4-4 vote would keep the appeals court’s ruling in place. A Supreme Court hearing and decision could come as early as next week.

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 Appeals Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) October 13, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

Victoria Sheridan

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

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

Check out the best legal tweets of the week:

Modern Struggles

People online talking about the First Amendment and I’m here trying not to WELL ACTUALLY every darn comment. #lawyerproblems pic.twitter.com/j5UWVuiCQ8

— k. (@karlyn_darlin) February 3, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

For many people, high school is neither easy nor pleasurable. In some cases, the situation can get so bad it ends in tragedy. Seventeen-year-old Kenneth Suttner was so severely bullied both in school and at work that he took his own life on December 21. But in an unusual development, his former boss at Dairy Queen where he worked after school has now been charged with involuntary manslaughter for his death.

Friends and family members testified in court that Suttner had fought all his life to shield himself from verbal and physical bullying. He went to Glasgow High School in Missouri where he was a frequent target of bullying for his weight and speech impediment. Other parents said that the school consistently failed to deal with the problem of bullying. One of them, Barbara Smith, said she had to move her son to another school district because the situation was so bad.

In Kenneth Suttner’s case, it didn’t even end when he went home from school. At his after-school job, his 21-year-old female manager Harley Branham kept the harassment going, according to testimony from Sutter’s former coworkers. Dairy Queen employees said Branham regularly harassed Suttner, she would make Suttner lie on his stomach to clean the floor by hand and once threw a cheeseburger at him for not doing a good job. After years of bullying in school and three months of working at the Dairy Queen, Suttner wrote suicide notes to his family and shot himself in the head.

Horribly bullied teen committed suicide; Dairy Queen manager charged https://t.co/XfnaP8nFV9 pic.twitter.com/BjPdM9g3Kf

— Canoe (@Canoe) February 2, 2017

On Tuesday the county coroner, Frank Flaspohler, held an official inquest, which is a process that is similar to a grand jury investigation but open to the public. This can be sought if it is believed that an occurred death was caused by a safety or health hazard that could continue to harm people. After the six-person jury listened to six hours of testimony from almost 20 witnesses, they reached the conclusion that Branham was “was the principal in the cause of death,” that Dairy Queen had failed to properly train their employees about how to prevent bullying, and that the same went for the high school.

Branham was among the witnesses that testified and admitted she had called him names but didn’t understand how that could have caused his suicide. She claimed that everything had been in a joking manner. The special prosecutor in the case, April Wilson, said, “We wanted to be very cautious and responsible. Both sides of the issue are extremely important. A young man is dead. But we also want to acknowledge that it’s not easy being in public education.” On Wednesday, she filed a second-degree involuntary manslaughter charge against Branham.

Dairy Queen released a statement saying that it was gathering more information about the case and that the restaurant is run by an independently owned franchise. County coroner Flaspohler hopes his decision to hold the inquest will lead to some change in how schools deal with bullied children. “Hopefully this makes the school pay attention to what’s going on. And it’s not just in that school. We all need to wake up and say this exists and we need to take care of it,” he said. Kenneth Suttner’s family also hoped the school would take action, saying, “If this can help one child at least Kenneth’s death wasn’t in vain.”

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 Dairy Queen Manager Charged With Manslaughter in Bullied Teenager’s Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday evening, the process of filling the vacant Supreme Court seat began, when President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to succeed conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away last February. At 49, Gorsuch is the youngest Supreme Court nominee in 25 years and, if confirmed, would restore the 5-to-4 conservative bent of the court, which has been ideologically split since Scalia’s passing.

Gorsuch, a Denver native who practiced law in Washington D.C. and was in the same class as President Barack Obama at Harvard Law School, is widely seen as fitting the right-wing mold of Scalia. He has served for nearly a decade on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, and earlier in his career, clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Here are five cases which provide a window into Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy:

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius

One of the mandates in the Affordable Care Act is that employers must provide their employees with health insurance that covers contraceptives. In 2013, the owner of an Oklahoma-based arts-and-crafts chain, Hobby Lobby, challenged that mandate at the 10th Circuit appeals court. David Green argued that the ACA’s mandate infringed upon his religious liberty; providing health insurance that covered contraceptives went against his Christian faith.

Gorsuch, and four of his colleagues, agreed, and Green won the challenge. The Supreme Court later affirmed the 10th Circuit’s ruling. “As the Greens explain their complaint, the ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong,” Gorsuch wrote in his concurring opinion.

Yellowbear v. Lampert

Andrew Yellowbear, an inmate at a prison in Wyoming, sued the director of the Wyoming Department of Corrections for denying him access to the prison’s sweat lodge. As part of his Native American heritage and religious beliefs Yellowbear, serving a life sentence for murdering his daughter, wished to use the sweat lodge for prayer and meditation. In 2014, Gorsuch and his colleagues at the 10th Circuit court agreed with the plaintiff, and reversed an earlier district court ruling.

Writing in the majority opinion, Gorsuch said: “While those convicted of crime in our society lawfully forfeit a great many civil liberties, Congress has (repeatedly) instructed that the sincere exercise of religion should not be among them — at least in the absence of a compelling reason. In this record we can find no reason like that.”

A.M. v. Holmes

In May 2011, a seventh grade student in Albuquerque, New Mexico interrupted a gym class by making fake burping sounds. He was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. The student’s mother brought a case against the school’s principle and the police officer to a district court in New Mexico. The judges ruled in favor of the defendants, and last summer, the case wound up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

The justices confirmed the decision of the lower court, and sided with the defendants–the school and police. But Gorsuch disagreed with the majority opinion. “If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what’s a teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal’s office? Maybe,” he wrote in his dissenting opinion. “Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded.”

American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport

In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found that memorial crosses that ran along a highway in Utah were unconstitutional as an “endorsement of religion” by the government. Gorsuch and three of his fellow justices disagreed with the majority on the case. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2011.

In his dissenting opinion, Gorsuch cited a Supreme Court precedent that found roadside memorial crosses “need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs.” He also said the court’s finding that a “reasonable observer” might not be able to read the names on the crosses as they drove past, and thus that they could interpret the crosses as a government endorsement of Christianity is a moot point. “Most Utahans, the record shows, don’t even revere the cross,” he added.

Direct Marketing Association Inc. v. Brohl

This case centers around a 1992 Supreme Court decision, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which found that if an online retailer does not have a physical presence in a state (like Amazon), it is not required to collect a state sales tax. But an online retailer that does have a physical presence in a state (like Best Buy), is required to collect a sales tax.

Colorado enacted a law in 2010 that forced online retailers, no matter their brick-and-mortar presence in the state, to collect a state sales tax. Direct Marketing Association, a group of businesses, challenged the law in court. Last February, the case ended up in the 10th Circuit appeals court in Denver. The court reversed district court rulings in favor of the DMA, and found that the law does not “discriminate against nor does it unduly burden interstate commerce.” Gorsuch concurred.

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’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch: Five Key Rulings appeared first on Law Street.

When Donald Trump signed an executive order that banned travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, it came as a shock to most people. All of a sudden, families were stranded abroad, students couldn’t return to school, and refugees from war zones were denied entry. But immigration lawyers had suspected this was coming, based on rumors from the White House, and had already begun to prepare. Last Wednesday, a group of lawyers from the Urban Justice Center called for additional attorneys who could volunteer at airports where refugees were scheduled to arrive, in case an order like the one that came on Friday was announced. When that exact thing happened, lawyers willing to volunteer headed to airports across the country.

In New York, Andre Segura, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) arrived at JFK International Airport and said that one section of the airport was completely flooded by lawyers. “There were attorneys from numerous major law firms, nonprofits, all working together,” he said. “I’ve never seen that immediate coming together of teams to start filing actions to try to protect people.” Thousands of Americans protested outside airports, as lawyers were inside trying to talk to family members of detained travelers and offer their legal services pro bono. Many of these lawyers didn’t sleep all night and didn’t eat. Pictures on social media showed them sitting on floors, with laptops and phones connected to the airport’s power outlets.

Please RETWEET this tweet

Lawyers volunteering their time & knowledge to help free those wrongfully detained at #JFK #MuslimBan pic.twitter.com/Zat5mVToci

— #HeWillNotDivideUs (@HWNDUS) January 29, 2017

On Saturday night, Federal Judge Ann Donnelly announced that people with valid visas could not be sent back to where they came from, as there “is imminent danger” that there will be “substantial and irreparable injury” if they are sent back. Big crowds of people had gathered outside the courthouse and cheered the decision, but the lawyers’ work had just started. The judge’s ruling only specifically said not to send travelers back, but did not say that the detained were free to enter the U.S.

On Sunday, Customs and Border Protection Agents defied the court order, according to several congressmen and lawyers. “Four members of Congress asked CBP officials to enforce a federal court order and were turned away,” wrote Representative Don Beyer on Twitter. In New York, an Iranian Fulbright scholar was put on a plane to be sent back to Iran several hours after the airports had received orders to stop sending people away. She was forced onto an airplane, where she asked the crew to let her out but was ignored. The plane started preparing for takeoff before attorneys finally managed to persuade officials to let the woman out. Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, said on Sunday that CBP agents handcuffed people, forced them onto departing airplanes, and tried to make detainees surrender their green cards.

As New Yorkers we have no tolerance for intolerance and that’s what we’re going to stand up and say. pic.twitter.com/1b85T3bD6h

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) January 29, 2017

One of the most difficult tasks for the lawyers was to determine how many people were in custody, as customs officials wouldn’t provide an answer, despite pressure from congressmen and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office. This meant that the lawyers needed to improvise most of their work, handwriting signs stating “immigration lawyer” in the hope that family members of detained people would approach them for help. Many lawyers were also shocked by what they were witnessing. “I’ve never seen anything like this in my practice. Maybe if we look back to Chinese exclusion laws in the 1800s,” said one of the volunteer lawyers, Jonathan Mulligan.

I repeat: A FIVE YEAR OLD BOY was detained and kept from his mother at a US airport. In our name. And Team Trump wonders why the outcry?

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) January 29, 2017

Some volunteer lawyers were physically at the airports, but other lawyers worked on litigation from their offices. “I was sitting at my desk working on a template habeas petition that could be used by lawyers at airports all around the country,” said Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director of the ACLU. Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrant Rights Project, said getting together the paperwork that led to the judge’s stay was not an easy task; they didn’t have anything prepared in advance but had to rush to get something together when Trump’s order came.

And even after the judge’s order, confusion ruled at airports. On Monday it was still unclear how many people remained detained. Although the Department of Homeland Security claimed that everyone had been released, attorneys say that claim is impossible to verify, as the department still hasn’t released a list of names. Judge Donnelly also ordered government attorneys to hand the ACLU a complete list of names of those who were detained, but they have yet to comply. In Washington D.C., some lawyers who were told there were no detainees left at the airport suspect that they have secretly been taken to detention centers, despite the court order.

We are being told there aren’t any there. We also believe they are being taken to detention facilities. Updates when we get them. https://t.co/zuCHaLD9yE

— Mirriam Seddiq (@mirriam71) January 30, 2017

But a tweet by the volunteer group at JFK suggests that only one person was still in custody late Sunday night. Though those numbers are not officially confirmed, it seems hopeful, largely thanks to the hard work of these lawyers.

Lawyers at #NoBanJFK still going strong. #NoBanUSA#NotOnOurWatchpic.twitter.com/AfMh3LU112

— NoBanJFK (@nobanjfk) January 30, 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 Lawyers Rush to Help Travelers as Confusion Continues appeared first on Law Street.

Who had the best legal tweets of the week? Check out the slideshow below:

Everything Necessary

Law school starter pack pic.twitter.com/lhrFNc6HuT

— Renz Sarmiento (@renzdsarmiento) January 23, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from Texas officials who wish to restore their state’s voter ID law, which lower courts ruled unconstitutional and discriminatory against minorities. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the order on the case. In his brief statement, he left open the possibility of hearing the case after it is finished moving through the lower courts.

“Petitioners may raise either or both issues again after entry of final judgement,” Roberts wrote. “The issues will be better suited for certiorari review at that time.” The courtroom tussle over the ID law goes back to 2014, when a federal judge first struck down the bill as “unconstitutional.” Other federal courts took up the case as well; one affirmed the 2014 decision, and another is awaiting trial.

Enacted in 2011, the Texas law requires voters to present photo identification–a Texas driver’s license, gun license, military ID, or passport–at the voting booth. Critics contend that it is specifically aimed at silencing the minority vote; adherents say it is meant to stanch voter fraud. Up until 2013, the Voting Rights Act required states with a history of discrimination, which includes Texas, to get approval from federal authorities before changing a state-level voter ID law.

In 2013 however, the Supreme Court struck down the section of the Voting Rights Act that required federal approval for changes in a states’ voting laws. Texas began enforcing this one. But soon after, the law was challenged in the Federal District Court in Corpus Christi. Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found the law to be an “unconstitutional burden on the right to vote,” adding that it has “an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans.”

Texas officials were adamant that the challengers to the law “presented no evidence that the law resulted in diminished minority political participation or prevented even a single person from voting.” The challengers to the law responded, saying it was an “unusually and unnecessarily harsh law, affecting over 600,000 registered voters, and taking aim specifically at minority voters.”

While the National Conference of State Legislatures previously classified the Texas law as a “strict photo ID law,” it now puts it in in the “nonstrict voter ID” category. This includes states that allow voters to sign an affidavit in lieu of a photo ID if they are unable to produce one at the polls. For now, at least, this policy will hold.

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 Supreme Court Rejects Hearing for Appeal to Restore Texas Voter ID Law appeared first on Law Street.

One of the richest humans on earth is suing hundreds of Hawaiians–some of whom are deceased. Billionaire and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is leveraging his wealth, and taking advantage of Hawaii’s unique land laws, to secure ownership of his 700-acre compound in Kauai. The case, for some, is a familiar land dispute. But to others, it is a stark reminder of the lack of power native Hawaiians have in claiming their ancestral land.

On December 30, Zuckerberg, through several companies he owns on the island, filed eight lawsuits at a Circuit Court in Kauai. The suits essentially act as a preemptive move to ensure the compound remains in his hands, as about a dozen or so slices of land within his property have been claimed by local native families.

Zuckerberg is suing hundreds of people in order to shore up his claim on the $100 million estate. Among the living defendants are Oma, Eliza Kauhaahaa, and Annie I. Some defendants–Kelekahi, Palaha, Laka, Lote, Luliana, Kapahu and Kaluuloa–are no longer alive.

In bringing the families to court, Zuckerberg is aiming to use Hawaii’s “quiet title and partition” law to strike down each claim, which could force the claimants to auction their parcels of land. Zuckerberg, the world’s sixth richest person, would likely be the highest bidder. 

“Quiet title actions are the standard and prescribed process to identify all potential co-owners, determine ownership, and ensure that, if there are other co-owners, each receives appropriate value for their ownership share,” said Keoni Shultz, one of the lawyers representing Zuckerberg.

Since the Kuleana Act of 1850, the Hawaiian government has settled complex land disputes with so-called “quiet title” actions. According to that bill, the courts have the authority “to define and separate the portions belonging to different individuals; and to provide for an equitable exchange of such different portions where it can be done.”

Hawaiian natives are often on the losing side of land disputes. Land on the island is often passed down from one generation to another, and claims can get foggy as land stands dormant for years, until an outsider, like Zuckerberg, comes and buys up land. Claims start coming in, and it’s left for the courts to decide how to apportion the land. In the Zuckerberg case, the defendants have 20 days to respond to the lawsuit. If they fail to do so, they will have no say in the court proceedings.

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 Why is Mark Zuckerberg Suing Hundreds of Hawaiians? appeared first on Law Street.

After a busy Inauguration Day, what is everyone talking about on legal Twitter? Check out the best legal tweets of the week:

Damn Straight

You can’t make this stuff up #lawyerlife #ThursdayThoughts pic.twitter.com/PCWprJz3R2

— WineEsquire (@WineEsquire) January 19, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

In 2011, Rinat Dray went to Staten Island Hospital, already in labor. She had already had two babies through C-sections and had her mind set on giving birth naturally. But she said the doctor immediately started persuading her to have a C-section. In 2014 she sued the hospital for malpractice, among other claims, saying that the doctors did not care about her judgment as a mother, but pressured and threatened her. The hospital claimed it had followed its “Managing Maternal Refusals” policy–a policy for how to deal with mentally competent mothers when they refuse the medical decisions the doctors recommend. The case was heavily covered in the media, but the court did not agree with most of her claims. Now, she’s appealing the case, and the New York City Bar Association has filed an amicus brief in support of Dray.

The new brief argues that New York state law requires hospitals to give patients access to adequate information beforehand, so they can make informed decisions about their own health care. The hospital allegedly never told Dray about the “Maternal Refusals” policy or what choices she had. Also, as the brief notes, it’s against New York law to force patients to undergo care they have not consented to. C-sections are also significantly more likely to cause health problems both for the mother and the baby than natural childbirth. In Dray’s case, her bladder was cut during surgery.

That day at the hospital in 2014, the doctor reportedly told Dray that unless she had a C-section, her uterus would rupture and the baby would be endangered. The doctor claimed that this would be equal to child abuse and her baby would be taken from her. The medical team tried to deliver the baby naturally for hours, before they decided to take Dray to an operating room and perform the surgery despite her protests. The hospital does not deny this–a note in the record for Dray’s delivery, written by the hospital’s director of maternal medicine, said “I have decided to override her refusal to have a C-section,” and that Dray’s doctor and the hospital lawyer agreed with him. Later Dr. Leonid Gorelik claimed that any injuries the mother suffered were due to her own “culpable conduct and want of care.”

We have been proud to support Rinat Dray in her efforts to seek justice after being subjected to cesarean surgery… https://t.co/Ul0iu4M42M

— NAPW (@NAPW) November 23, 2015

According to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ethics committee, pregnancy doesn’t make a woman exempt from the right to make her own decisions. It says, “the use of coercion is not only ethically impermissible but also medically inadvisable because of the realities of prognostic uncertainty and the limitations of medical knowledge.” ACOG adds that it discourages medical providers in the strongest possible terms from trying to coerce a patient into a medical decision, and that includes “threats to involve the courts or child protective services, to motivate women toward a specific clinical decision.”

And in most cases, the judicial system agrees that an individual should have the right to make decisions about one’s own medical care. According to attorney Farah Diaz-Tello, there is no law that says that “pregnant women lose this right upon becoming pregnant.” The hospital would likely need a court order to go ahead and use the procedure against the mother’s will. But in some cases, courts have actually sided with the hospital. National Advocates for Pregnant Women has recorded 30 cases where a court order has been used to force a woman to accept a C-section between 1973 and 2005.

But putting the rights of an unborn fetus above those of the mother creates a scary situation for women. The NAPW says that authorities have often used legal measures to limit women’s physical liberties. There was a case where a woman who delayed having a C-section was charged with murder because one of her twin babies was stillborn. Women have been charged with child endangerment for doing drugs while pregnant, and there have been multiple arrests of women who have had abortions or even miscarriages.

The NYC Bar Association’s brief concludes that in failing to inform Dray about the hospital’s written policy, it took away her opportunity to choose another hospital, which is a violation of her rights under New York law and the U.S. Constitution. We’ll have to see how Dray’s case does on appeal.

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 Rinat Dray: NYC Bar Association Supports Woman Who Sued Hospital for Forced C-Section appeared first on Law Street.

Good Advertising

I just slipped and fell upon this sign #lawyerlife #lawyer #accidentshappen #accident #signs #funnysigns pic.twitter.com/1V6KMpcQGA

— SignYourName (@signyournamenet) January 12, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Consent is essential before engaging in any kind of sexual activity. But as one case in Switzerland makes very clear, consent goes well beyond simply saying yes or no before having sex. In a landmark decision Monday, the Criminal Court in Lausanne, Switzerland convicted an unnamed man of rape after he secretly removed a condom during sex with his partner, without her knowledge or consent.

According to the Independent, the 47-year-old French man met the Swiss woman using the popular dating app Tinder. On the pair’s second date in June 2015, they started having sex with a condom. Afterwards, the woman learned that he had removed the condom during sex.

The judge determined that the woman never would have consented to unprotected sex.

According to bedsider.org, “ignoring a partner’s desire to protect against pregnancy or STIs, or even sabotaging a partner’s efforts to protect against pregnancy or STIs (like taking off a condom in the middle of sex without permission)” is considered sexual assault.

As Broadly notes, our understanding of consent has evolved in recent years. Dr. Sinead Ring of the University of Kent pointed to the UK’s Sexual Offenses Act 2003 as good point of reference for understanding “conditional consent.”

“If it’s proved the woman consented to sex with a condom and he changed the circumstances under which she’d consented, it’s quite possible he’d be convicted of rape,” Ring told Broadly. “But a jury would have to determine that he didn’t have a reasonable belief in consent and just went ahead and did it anyway.”

The perpetrator in this case received a one-year suspended sentence. The woman’s lawyer described the conviction as “a first for Switzerland.”

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 Man Found Guilty of Rape After Removing Condom During Sex appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Donald Trump has a pretty sizable to-do list for his first 100 days in office: repeal and (presumably) replace Obamacare. Label China a currency manipulator.  Suspend immigration from countries with a history of Islamic extremism. But the task on Trump’s agenda that has many conservatives chomping at the bit, and liberals bracing for impact, is appointing the ninth member of the Supreme Court.

Replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last February, has been a tumultuous and highly political spectacle, as Senate Republicans refused a hearing for President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. They won that gamble, and now Trump has the opportunity to shape the ideological makeup of the court for generations. Below is a primer on five of the nominees on Trump’s shortlist.

William Pryor

Pryor, 54, currently sits on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals; George W. Bush appointed him to the federal court in 2004. Pryor attended Northeast Louisiana University for his undergraduate studies, followed by the Tulane University School of Law. While Pryor certainly is a conservative–he staunchly opposes abortion, and compared gay sex to “polygamy, incest, paedophilia, prostitution, and adultery”–he also opposes anti-trans discrimination. In a 2011 case, Pryor supported the opinion that anti-trans discrimination is equal to sex discrimination.

Judge William Pryor has called the Roe v. Wade decision “the worst abomination of constitutional law.” pic.twitter.com/qsbTJqSWsJ

— Terri Green (@TerriGreenUSA) January 3, 2017

Mike Lee

Lee, a Republican Senator from Utah, has never served as a judge. But he has practiced law, and has been a clerk, twice, for now-Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Jr. Lee, 45, did not support Trump in the primary campaign (he is close friends with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who also ran for the Republican nomination), but is still being considered to serve on the nation’s highest court. Lee serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As senator, Lee voted for a bill that proposed to complete a section of the U.S.-Mexico border fence. He also strongly opposes Obamacare, and is pretty far-right on social issues, including same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

Majority of Utahns would support Sen. Mike Lee if nominated to US Supreme Court, poll shows. https://t.co/aOLvuoINHR @SenMikeLee pic.twitter.com/tJkETEhoUG

— KSL (@KSLcom) January 5, 2017

Steve Colloton

Unlike many of the other names on Trump’s shortlist, Colloton, a 54-year-old Iowa City native, is a product of an Ivy League law school; he graduated from Yale Law School in 1988. George W. Bush appointed Colloton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 2003. He has written or supported a number of opinions that put him pretty far-right of center, including one case where he supported companies that refuse free contraception for employees for religious reasons.

A #SupremeCourt Pick in the Mold of #Scalia https://t.co/BR2wTMNrmP via @LifeZette #SteveColloton #SCOTUS #MAGA #ForcesOfLight

— Shelle (@MichellyLaBelly) December 16, 2016

Diane Sykes

Sykes, a self-described “originalist-textualist,” worked as a justice on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court from 1999 to 2004, when George W. Bush appointed her to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In her more than two-decade career as a judge, Sykes has staked out a number of far-right positions on the ideological spectrum.

She ruled that companies have the right to abstain from the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. She also sided with a religious group at Southern Illinois University’s School of Law that did not allow gay people to join its ranks. The dean said the group violated the school’s nondiscrimination policies. The group said the dean was infringing on their First Amendment rights. Sykes agreed with the group.

Who is Diane Sykes, possible Trump Supreme Court nominee? https://t.co/8EKpF5RBCp pic.twitter.com/RF3to3K5OB

— Michele Gorman (@mrich1201) December 16, 2016

Joan Larsen

Larsen boasts an experience that nobody else on Trump’s list can: she clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Judge Antonin Scalia, whose seat she is now vying to fill, from 1994 to 1995. Some conservatives consider her a long shot for the position, largely due to her relative lack of experience serving on a bench; Larsen has spent most of her career as a law professor at the University of Michigan. In September 2015, Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI) named Larsen, 48, to the Michigan Supreme Court to fill a seat left vacant by a departing judge. She won re-election by a landslide last November.

Trump #SCOTUS Short Lister Joan Larsen Is Fast-Rising Star #SCOTUSnominee | Bloomberg BNA https://t.co/Hd1w9HQeXp pic.twitter.com/DGJPhhc7R9

— Patrick Gregory (@PatrickGregry) December 3, 2016

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 Who Will Trump Nominate to the Supreme Court? appeared first on Law Street.

A California woman is suing the popular fast-casual burrito chain Chipotle, alleging that the company used a photo of her in its advertisements, but that she never gave it permission to do so. Leah Caldwell, the plaintiff, is asking for over $2 billion, specifically $2,237,633,000, arguing that the company has made that much money off of the use of her photo that was taken in 2006.

Caldwell claims that she was sitting down to eat at one of the chain’s stores in Colorado, when a photographer snapped her photo without asking permission first. While he then asked her to sign a release to use the photo,  Caldwell claims that she left the store without signing it, thereby preventing Chipotle from using the photo. That photographer, Steve Adams, is also listed as a defendant, along with the food chain.

Caldwell says that she then saw the photo of her in multiple promotional materials in Florida and California in 2014 and 2015, and that alcohol had been photoshopped onto the table in front of her. While the photo was taken in 2006, she didn’t see the picture being used in any promotional materials until 2014, so she didn’t sue before then. She has filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Colorado.

Some of the news outlets who picked up the story pointed out–perhaps rightly so–that Caldwell’s estimate for how much she is “owed” for the picture is a bit high. Caldwell got the $2 billion-plus number by adding up the total of all of Chipotle’s profits from 2006-2015, and believes that Chipotle’s 2016 profits, when they are calculated, should be added to her paycheck as well. But that would mean that all the profits the company made in that eight year period were attributable to her photo. As Lee Morris pf FStoppers–a site dedicated to providing news for photographers–pointed out:

I don’t think there is any doubt that Caldwell should be compensated for this error, but $2.2 billion may be a bit high. Ten thousand dollars and a year’s supply of burritos would be more than enough to compensate for the error, don’t you think?

Chipotle has not made a statement about the lawsuit yet, except to say that it does not comment on pending cases.

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 California Woman Files $2 Billion Lawsuit Against Chipotle After Company Uses her Photo appeared first on Law Street.

At a pool party in 2015, white police officer David Eric Casebolt slammed black teenager Dajerria Becton to the ground and pinned her down with his knee. Now she has sued him, as well as the city and police department, for the psychological damage the incident caused her, citing excessive force and seeking $5 million in damages. Becton was only 15 at the time and was an invited guest to the party, which took place in a predominantly white neighborhood in McKinney, Texas. Another black teenager, Tatiana Rhodes, and her mother were organizing a cookout at a community pool as an end of the school year get-together for classmates. They live in the area.

A cellphone video that went viral shows Becton starting to walk away from the situation after police officers show up, but Casebolt runs over to her and pins her to the ground with a knee in her back. He also pulls her hair and shoves her face down in the ground while she pleads to see her mother. When some boys come up and tell the officer to let her go, he draws his gun at the unarmed teenagers. Many who saw the video thought it was clear that Casebolt overreacted, and he resigned from his position within a few days.

Rhodes, the girl who organized the party, said that it all started when a couple of white women at the pool started aiming racial slurs at the teenagers, calling them names, and saying that they should go back to their Section 8 homes. One woman even reportedly slapped Rhodes in the face. In a Youtube video interview with Rhodes, her mother criticized the grown women for harassing children rather than talking to the parents. At some point during the party, someone called the police and claimed that a group of teenagers from out of town had showed up and started a fight. But the Rhodes family said that only classmates who were invited attended the party.

Becton’s lawyer Kim T. Cole said Thursday that the incident affected Becton psychologically and that she is struggling in school. She said, “I would hope that at a certain point she gets some counseling and kind of regains her life and confidence. Emotionally, she is a wreck.” Cole said that the physical injuries–abrasions, head and neck injuries—have healed, but that the emotional scars will remain. Becton has since received repeated threats, been the victim of cyberbullying, and become a target at her school. Cole also said that Becton is afraid to call the police if anything happens to her, as she doesn’t trust law enforcement officers now.

#Texan teenager unlawfully tackled by #police, sues the city for $5 million: https://t.co/QmlzwopSUB pic.twitter.com/7DrY2wI5cB

— The Voice Newspaper (@TheVoiceNews) January 5, 2017

The lawsuit cites excessive force, assault, and unlawful detention. But a spokeswoman from the city of McKinney denied all the allegations and wrote in a statement that the McKinney Police Department will defend itself vigorously. Casebolt’s lawyer, Jane Bishkin, said that he “let his emotions get the best of him.” He was allegedly stressed after responding to two suicide calls right before arriving at the pool party, one where a man had shot himself in front of his family and one where Casebolt managed to talk a teenage girl out of jumping from a roof. After resigning, he and his family received death threats and had to move to an undisclosed location.

Casebolt was also sued back in 2008 for allegedly abusing a black driver, Albert Earl Brown Jr., who claimed that the officer had yanked his pants down to his ankles during a roadside search. Brown said he was being racially profiled, and that Casebolt told a white woman who was in his car that she had made a mistake by hanging out with him. The case was dismissed as Brown had marijuana in his car and was jailed. But the fact that Casebolt has been at the center of two separate racial incidents has many believing this runs more deeply than misunderstandings or stress.

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 Teenage Girl Sues Police Officer Who Pushed Her Down at Pool Party appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the first best legal tweets entry of the year!

Hide!

When the professor is going down the roster looking for someone to cold call #lawschool @LawSchoolHumor #school #college pic.twitter.com/SCSh4T2kuC

— Faizah Belliot (@futurelawyer20) January 4, 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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

An Arkansas judge resigned from his position on Saturday when accusations were revealed that he had arranged deals for female defendants in exchange for sexual favors. The judge, Timothy Parker, sent a letter to the Arkansas governor, Asa Hutchinson, announcing his choice to step down. He also wrote that he realized he could never serve as a judge again.

The news was made public on Tuesday by the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission, which is investigating Parker. According to the commission, he has repeatedly denied the accusations, but resigned in order to avoid being formally charged with a violation of judicial conduct. He was also worried about how the dispute would affect his family, but said that his term would expire soon anyway.

Arkansas judge resigns after allegations that helped female defendants in exchange for sexual favors https://t.co/Oe1v2lCm1g

— NYT National News (@NYTNational) January 5, 2017

In a letter describing the allegations, the commission wrote that Parker had a pattern of “personal relationships with many female litigants” and made deals such as releasing them from jail without bail, or constructing bond conditions that were favorable for the women. The commission said there are video statements from more than a dozen women, recordings of conversations, and text messages as evidence against him.

There are also other allegations against Parker that say he often showed up without notice at the county jail to release friends of his without bail and would give them a ride home in his own car. This part, the commission said, he admitted to. Parker is also facing criminal charges for the accusations. David Sachar, director of the commission, said:

Bonds would be set, or release of the women on their own recognizance was ordered by going to the jail or via telephone. The bonds or release of these women or their family or friends were done by their request in exchange for sexual favors.

But Parker kept denying his guilt, and when asked by the Associated Press why he didn’t contest the accusations, he answered, “I have young children and I don’t want them exposed to that kind of crap.”

This is not the first time this has happened in the state. In October another Arkansas judge, O. Joseph Boeckmann, was arrested for giving male defendants lighter sentences in exchange for sexual favors, which he called “community service.” The defendants had committed light crimes like traffic or misdemeanor offenses. Boeckmann made at least nine men, between 16 and 22 years old, collect trash from the ground and bring it to his home, where he snapped compromising photos of them and asked them to perform sexual favors. He later threatened or bribed them to make them keep quiet, and focused on vulnerable defendants who couldn’t afford to pay their fines.

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 Arkansas Judge Allegedly Offered Female Defendants Freedom For Sexual Favors appeared first on Law Street.

Revenge porn–the non-consensual posting of someone’s explicit photos or videos, usually by an ex–is deeply problematic. And as our technology evolves, we need lawyers willing to help out those, often women, who fall victim to this kind of online harassment. Brooklyn attorney Carrie Goldberg specializes in sexual privacy and focuses on fighting revenge porn, and recently made headlines after being featured in a New Yorker profile. She was once the victim of online sexual harassment, and basically had to start her own law firm in order to become the kind of lawyer that was needed. She mainly represents young women who are trying to get photos off the internet, are being extorted, or have endured sexual abuse.

ACTIVIST SPOTLIGHT (USA): Carrie Goldberg is a Brooklyn attorney with a practice specialising in sexual privacy,… https://t.co/jNGmstSmH2

— The Pixel Project (@PixelProject) December 12, 2016

Many of her clients feel shame, even though they didn’t do anything wrong. One of the youngest is an African-American girl who is only 15 years old. When she was 13, she was raped by a classmate who filmed it and spread the video around the school. Instead of punishing the boy, the school sent the girl home and later transferred her to another school. She was in effect punished for being raped and harassed. Most other clients are women in their twenties who have ex-boyfriends or husbands who have spread or threatened to spread photos or videos online.

Goldberg has, sadly, seen a steady uptick in the number of clients seeking her help since the emergence of Donald Trump as a serious political contender. By this summer she had 35 active clients and had to hire a colleague. She said that many people seem to believe that a Trump presidency might mean a “license to be cruel.” And it’s not all revenge porn–for example she represents a family whose kids’ pictures were used in memes about the Pizzagate conspiracy.

Abuse on the internet flourishes easily, as it is hard to punish. In the case where someone just sends verbal threats it’s basically impossible to find the perpetrator. But we’re making progress. According to the New York Daily News, Goldberg has already done a lot:

She estimates she’s removed more than 900 pieces of revenge porn from the internet, protecting 72 victims. She’s also lobbied for legislation across the country and 34 states now have it — though not New York.

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 How One Lawyer is Fighting Revenge Porn and Why that Fight Matters Now appeared first on Law Street.

I Don’t See a Problem

Googled “February 2017 LSAT date” and for some reason this image was the top hit: https://t.co/Q08hfklfIb

— Adam (@adamremsen) December 22, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama furthered his quest to give nonviolent prisoners second chances on Monday, when he granted a total of 231 convicts clemency, the largest single act of clemency by a president in the nation’s history. Obama pardoned 78 prisoners, and commuted the sentences of 153 others, bringing his total acts of clemency to 1,324, more than the last 11 presidents combined, and 50 times more than his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Many of the prisoners were convicted of nonviolent, drug-related crimes, and many of them were sentenced under drug laws from decades ago, which are harsher than those in place today. For example, one prisoner who Obama pardoned, Robert Spencer Baines, was convicted in Maine for “conspiracy to possess, possession with intent to distribute over 1,000 pounds of marijuana” in 1986. A pardon erases any legal liabilities from a previous conviction, including restoring a felon’s right to vote, and hold state or local office.

“While each clemency recipient’s story is unique, the common thread of rehabilitation underlies all of them,” White House Council Neil Eggleston wrote in a statement released Monday, adding that all recipients “demonstrated that they are ready to make use — or have already made use — of a second chance.”

More than 30,000 prisoners have applied for the chance to have their cases reviewed by the president. The review process is time consuming and goes through a number of filters. Before a case lands on Obama’s desk, the Clemency Project, an initiative of several advocacy groups, sifts through the applications. Government lawyers and private law firms review the individual cases as well, passing on violent offenders or cases that otherwise did not meet the Justice Department’s standards.

Some have called on Obama to take his clemency powers a step further, and issue a blanket pardon of young undocumented immigrants, and of nonviolent drug offenders. That will not happen, according to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who said last week: “The issue of pardoning someone is an individual decision that’s made on a case-by-case basis, and so there’s no legal framework or regulatory framework that allows for a pardon of a group en masse.”

Almost exactly a year ago, Obama commuted the sentences of 95 federal prisoners. “If we can show at the federal level that we can be smart on crime, more cost effective, more just, more proportionate, then we can set a trend for other states to follow as well,” he said at the time. It’s unclear if similar actions will be taken by President-elect Donald Trump, who has indicated he will be tough on crime. But Eggleston said Obama plans on reviewing cases until the day he leaves office.

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 Obama Grants Clemency to 231 Prisoners; Most Ever in a Single Day appeared first on Law Street.

A new law will go into effect in Illinois next year that mandates that hair stylists and salon workers receive training to recognize the signs of domestic violence. The bill recognizes the often-close relationship that people develop with their stylists, and is the first of its kind in the United States.

The bill will apply to licensed beauty professionals, including hair stylists, barbers, cosmetologists, aestheticians, hair braiders, and nail technicians. There are approximately 88,000 individuals who fit this designation in the state of Illinois. When applying for a new license, beauty professionals will be required to complete an hour-long course, and then continue to take renewal courses as a part of the continuing education requirements needed to keep a license active. These courses will teach beauty professionals how to recognize and deal with signs of domestic violence. They won’t be required to report anything to the authorities, but will be provided with resources they can give to their affected customers.

This bill was an effort led by Chicago Says No More, an organization aiming to raise awareness of domestic violence. The founder of Chicago Says No More, Kristie Paskvan, pointed out how useful the additional training has the potential to be: “When someone is essentially grooming you, you build a relationship with them. It’s a special relationship. People open up.” The organization is also reportedly considering trying to engage other members of the service sector, like bartenders, in similar efforts.

Of course, there are some who are hesitant about the bill and its effects. It’s a big burden to put on beauty professionals. But the point is just to spread more information and make sure that there are as many resources available to victims of domestic violence as possible. According to the Chicago Tribune:

Although the measure does not require stylists to report incidents to authorities, advocates hope the training will ultimately help lower incidents of domestic violence by making more people conscious of the problem, and offering victims one more place they can turn for help, especially when many do not seek help from authorities, said Kristie Paskvan, founder of Chicago Says No More.

Combatting domestic violence–a crime which often goes unreported–should be a priority for all of the U.S. If Illinois’s innovative new idea works, we may see it extended to other states.

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 Illinois Law Will Help Salon Workers Recognize Domestic Violence appeared first on Law Street.