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

Insert Mooch Pun Here

After an illustrious 10 days as President Donald Trump’s communications director (sort of), Anthony Scaramucci is officially out. Sources close to Trump have explained that his remarks to various news outlets–including Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker–”disgusted” Ivanka and Melania Trump. Newly minted White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told Scaramucci on Monday that his services were no longer needed as one of his first tasks on the job.

Twitter had an absolute field day, mocking Scaramucci’s incredibly rapid rise and fall.

I’m still laughing at the fact that Mooch was fired before his official start date. Only WH staffer in history to serve for negative days.

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) August 1, 2017

gotta add “scaramucci” to the dictionary as a measure of time

— Desus Nice (@desusnice) July 31, 2017

These constant staff shake-ups have marred the White House in recent weeks, so insiders are hoping that Kelly will be able to chart a smooth course moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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.

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.

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

Teacher and Student Dead After San Bernardino School Shooting

Yesterday, a teacher and an eight-year-old student at a San Bernardino elementary school died. They were murdered by the teacher’s estranged husband, who shot her before killing himself. Another student was seriously injured. The children are believed to have been caught in the crossfire, as Cedric Anderson’s target was his estranged wife, Karen Elaine Smith. This tragedy happened just a little over a year after a radicalized Muslim couple shot and killed 14 people at San Bernardino’s Inland Regional Center.

Smith’s son described Anderson as “paranoid and possessive.” He managed to enter the school after telling staff he was just going to drop something off for Smith. San Bernardino schools increased security after the 2015 terrorist attack, but it’s hard to believe they could have stopped Anderson. “[It] is not uncommon for a spouse to be able to gain access to a school campus to meet with their other spouse,” said Police Chief Jarrod Burguan.

Police are investigating San Bernardino shooting as domestic violence incident. There’s much more that can be done to keep guns from abusers pic.twitter.com/aT6v0kj7Ds

— CAP Action Guns (@CAPActionGuns) April 10, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

When Jeff Sessions was confirmed as the attorney general late Wednesday night, his Alabama Senate seat needed to be filled. Meet Luther Strange, the man who was tapped for the job. Nicknamed “Big Luther” (he is 6’9″) Strange is the attorney general of Alabama, and a former lawyer and lobbyist. Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley announced the appointment of Strange in a statement on Thursday.

“Alabama has surely been well represented by Senator Sessions, and I am confident Senator Strange will serve as a fine representative for our people,” Bentley said. “His leadership on a national level, service as a statewide elected official and long record of taking on tough federal issues are the very qualities that will make him a strong conservative Senator for Alabama.”

In December, a few weeks after President Donald Trump nominated Sessions as the attorney general, Strange said he would run for the vacant Senate slot in 2018. Strange, 63, will now hold Sessions’ seat until 2018, when a special election will be held; an election for a full six-year term will follow in 2020.

Congratulations to Alabama’s new Senator, Luther Strange. I’m confident you’ll serve the great people of Alabama with honor and distinction. pic.twitter.com/QTbIwGhwry

— Vice President Pence (@VP) February 9, 2017

For his part, Strange said he is “greatly honored and humbled” to succeed Sessions, who by a 52-47 vote was confirmed on Wednesday. “I pledge to the people of Alabama to continue the same level of leadership as Jeff Sessions in consistently fighting to protect and advance the conservative values we all care about,” Strange added.

Strange and Bentley, the governor who appointed him, share some unusual history together. Last spring, 23 members of Alabama’s House Judiciary Committee pursued impeachment proceedings against Bentley. They accused him of having an affair with a political aide, Rebekah Mason. In November, Strange wrote a letter to the committee requesting that they suspend their investigation “until I am able to report to you that the necessary related work of my office has been completed.”

It is unclear if Strange investigated the claims against Bentley–on Thursday he said his November letter “speaks for itself.” But it seems the impeachment proceedings have, at least for the time being, been put on pause. Bentley also has the power to choose Alabama’s next attorney general.

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 Meet the New Senator from Alabama: Luther Strange appeared first on Law Street.

A memorial dedicated to the victims of racial terror lynching is being planned in Montgomery, Alabama. It will be called the Memorial to Peace and Justice and will be built in tandem with a related museum. The effort is being spearheaded by the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI).

We are building a nat’l memorial to lynching victims & opening a museum addressing our history of racial injustice. pic.twitter.com/XgWNYhe4hS

— EJI (@eji_org) August 18, 2016

According to EJI, the memorial looks over “the City of Montgomery and out to the American South, where terror lynchings were most prevalent.” In a recent interview with PBS, Bryan Stevenson, the founder of EJI, explained his organization’s motivations for building the lynching victims memorial and museum. When asked why we need a memorial like this Stevenson said:

We are really burdened by this legacy. And I don’t think we have acknowledged it adequately. We terrorized African-Americans at the end of the 19th century and through half of the 20th century. The demographic geography of this country was shaped by this era of racial terror and lynching.

Currently there is no official memorial that commemorates the decades of violence that black Americans experienced–EJI documented over 4,000 racial terror lynchings between 1877 and 1950. EJI argues that in order to recover from that era of mass violence, and the profound effects it still has on our country today, we need to acknowledge and confront our history. In the PBS interview, Stevenson explains the success that other nations have had with this kind of approach:

So, we have been asking people in the community to engage in acts of truth-telling and acts of recovery, reconciliation, reparation. I think we need that in this country.

In South Africa, you have seen that. In Rwanda, you have seen that. In Germany, you have seen that. I think they are healthier communities because they acknowledge their histories of mass atrocity and violence. I think we’re less healthy because we haven’t talked about the genocide of Native people, we haven’t talked about slavery, we haven’t talked about lynching.

The effort is almost completely funded, and was recently propelled into the news again as the result of a $10 million donation from philanthropists Jon and Pat Stryker. The memorial will contain the names of over 4,000 victims, on 800 columns. There will also be a duplicate 800 columns made, that will be given to states where the lynchings occurred, to be be placed onsite. The 11,000-square-foot museum, called the From Enslavement to Mass Incarceration museum, will be nearby. If everything goes according to plan, the museum will be opened in 2017, and the memorial in 2018.

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 Lynching Victims Memorial Planned in Montgomery, Alabama appeared first on Law Street.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore previously ordered local judges to defy federal guidelines allowing same-sex marriage. But on Friday he was suspended from his position by a unanimous vote from the Alabama Court of the Judiciary, the COJ. Moore will also have to pay for the legal proceedings against him and will not be compensated for the remainder of his term, which is set to end in 2019.

But the decision to suspend Moore is not because Alabama has become more open-minded. The court pointed out that the decision was not technically because of the Supreme Court’s ruling that allows same-sex marriage–Alabama adopted a law in 2016 that says only straight couples can marry–but because of Moore’s behavior and decisions.

Roy Moore, Alabama’s chief justice, has been essentially been fired for his defiance to marriage equality. https://t.co/6cc0sa9bv3

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) September 30, 2016

Earlier this year, Moore ordered local judges to go against the federal ruling that allows same-sex marriage and stop the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples, which created chaos in the state’s marriage license offices. He was charged with six counts of violation of the canons of judicial ethics. Moore on his part claimed he was only providing judges a “status update.” The COJ did not buy that explanation, but couldn’t agree on whether or not to remove him from office, which left them with the option to suspend him. There is no real difference in practice between removing and suspending someone from office.

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) first filed the complaint against Moore that later led to the charges against him. SPLC President Richard Cohen was relieved on Friday, saying in a statement:

The Court of the Judiciary has done the citizens of Alabama a great service by suspending Roy Moore from the bench. He disgraced his office and undermined the integrity of the judiciary by putting his personal religious beliefs above his sworn duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Moore was elected to be a judge, not a preacher. It’s something that he never seemed to understand. The people of Alabama who cherish the rule of law are not going to miss the Ayatollah of Alabama.

SPLC tweeted the six charges against Moore.

Here are the judicial canons Ala. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is guilty of violating: https://t.co/H8DqRKzv1A pic.twitter.com/gvmYv6j53F

— SPLC (@splcenter) September 30, 2016

Moore was previously removed from office in 2003 for his refusal to take down a Ten Commandments monument from a judicial building, despite orders from a federal court. He then claimed he was removed because of his acknowledgement of God, and voters re-elected him in 2012. But this time Moore, 69, cannot run again because of the age restriction for the position.

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 Alabama Chief Justice Suspended Over Anti-Gay Marriage Order appeared first on Law Street.

Forty-one Nigerian students have sued Alabama State University for misusing their government’s scholarship money, overcharging the students, and treating them “like animals.” Though it is one of America’s historically black colleges, the students think discrimination was a contributory factor. “I’m a black man and I’m proud to be black, but I felt discriminated against,” said former student Jimmy Iwezu to The Daily Beast. He also said the school called him and his fellow Nigerian schoolmates “cash cows”.

Students Godsgift Moses, Promise Owei, Thankgod Harold, Success Jumbo, Savior Samuel and others, came to America thanks to generous scholarships for four years of college from the Nigerian government. The government paid around $30,000–$35,000 per student per year—to cover tuition, books, room and board and any other expenses. But instead of forwarding excess money to the students’ accounts, the University held on to the money.

Nigerian students sue Alabama University for treating them ‘like animals’ https://t.co/eQNpI9WW4g via @todayng pic.twitter.com/JHpbbCWuP6

— Nigeria Newsdesk (@NigeriaNewsdesk) September 12, 2016

According to the students’ lawyer Julian McPhillips, who first filed a lawsuit in April that was dismissed, these students were treated differently from other attendees. The scholarship money that is supposed to go to the students was instead used to help solve the school’s “bond issues,” pay for a new stadium, and create a new civil rights awareness center.

The Nigerian students were not allowed to eat anywhere other than the school cafeteria and their scholarship funds were charged for living in the school’s dorms even if they didn’t live there. The cost for living on campus was also allegedly raised specifically for the Nigerian students, who had to pay $3,000 per semester. One student named Success Jumbo was married and lived off campus, but the school took money from his scholarship for dorm expenses anyway, instead of transferring the money to his personal account to use for his actual rent. Jumbo told the Montgomery Advertiser:

I got married May 2014. I’ve approached ASU on several occasions, I even took my wife and my baby to them and said, ‘Look, I no longer live on campus. I believe you guys understand the importance of being married. I need to get this money so I can use it to pay for my housing elsewhere.’

“The school compelled us to buy books from the book store and eat only at the cafeteria,” said Iwezu. “I tried to make them understand, ‘Hey, we don’t want to live in the dorms anymore, and we don’t want to eat our entire meals at the dorms.”

After complaining and demanding a refund for the students, McPhillips received an answer from the school–its officials said: “there is no financial agreement between the University and the individual Nigerian students,”–and the request was denied. Another student was charged for summer school after he graduated that he never attended or even applied to.

“They had me as if I was going to school this summer. I asked them, ‘I graduated in May, so where is the scholarship money my government gives to you?’” said Kehinde Batife.

But the students won’t give up–on the other hand, they’re more determined than ever to fight for their cause. Batife said: “I cannot forget about this and I’m ready to fight the school, even if it means 10 years from now I’m still fighting to get justice.”

“I want justice to prevail, and the remaining money should go to [Nigeria’s] Treasury and make a better life for other Nigerians,” concluded Iwezu.

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 Nigerian Students Sue Alabama University For Using Up Their Money appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time in nearly two decades, the state of Alabama might implement a lottery system in order to pay for basic services that it currently cannot afford.

In a video released yesterday, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley announced, “the state of Alabama has not and cannot at this time pay for the most basic services that we must provide to our people.”

He continued, “the time has come for us to find a permanent solution. This solution will provide funding that we can count on year after year without ever having to raise your taxes or put one more Band-Aid on our state’s money problems.”

BREAKING:We need your help solving our funding crisis.I’m giving you the opportunity to vote on a Statewide Lottery. https://t.co/BLzE3bOXLP

— Gov. Robert Bentley (@GovernorBentley) July 27, 2016

The lottery could bring in $225 million annually, a steady revenue that would help alleviate the state’s reliance on borrowing money and using one-time money to fill the gap in Alabama’s dismal finances. Bentley said the revenue would be applied to General Fund programs like services for law enforcement, the mentally ill, children, and “those in the most need.”

State lawmakers have tried cutting “wasteful” spending, shifting the management of Medicaid to the private sector, and borrowing money, and a proposed, but rejected, tax plan–but those efforts have still not been enough to fix the financial problem.

Bentley said he wants the voters to decide whether or not a lottery should be implemented to fix Alabama’s financial situation, which means the issue would appear on the Nov. 8 ballot. However, in order for that to happen, the Legislature would have to approve the amendment by Aug. 24 with a three-fifths vote in both the House and Senate.

With less than a month until the date the amendment would have to be approved by, it doesn’t seem like the Alabama governor has made any plans to get the ball rolling. Though he just made the video announcement Wednesday, he has not provided any other details on a special session which would have to be called in order to create the amendment.

State representatives and senators from Alabama took to the proposal differently. Rep. John Knight (D-Montgomery) chairman of the Alabama House Black Caucus, said he was disturbed that Bentley had not talked about the lottery proposal with him or anyone in the Caucus.

“It seems like everything that is being done now is being done behind closed doors,” Knight said.

Acting House Speaker Victor Gaston (R-Mobile) shared those sentiments, saying in a statement, “the governor has not outlined his plan to legislators in any detail, nor, to my knowledge, has he even set a concrete start date for the special session, so it is difficult to comment with so little information at hand.” He continued, “I hope that the governor reaches out to lawmakers over the next several weeks in order to seek their input on any lottery proposal that comes forward and to do the prep work that is necessary for any special session to be successful.”

Others, like Rep. Craig Ford, (D-Gadsden), leader of the Democratic minority in the Alabama House of Representatives, do not believe Bentley’s plan will work.

“A lottery will do nothing for this year’s Medicaid shortfall, and at best will be nothing more than a band aid for the General Fund that will leave us right back where we are now in just a few years,” he said in a statement. “The lottery is a one-shot deal, and a lottery for the General Fund will become, as it has in other states, a victim to legislative shell games; it will become nothing more than a slush fund for legislators.”

.@RepCraigFord says his proposed lottery must fund scholarships, and will not save the state’s budgets: https://t.co/yxGV9vUygK #alpolitics

— AL Reporter (@ALReporter) July 27, 2016

Sen. Quinton Ross (D-Montgomery), minority leader in the Alabama Senate, agrees with Bentley’s lottery proposal.

“These gaming dollars can provide stability and long-term economic streams for many of our General Fund and Education Trust Fund needs.”

Until Bentley schedules a special session, it’s unclear whether or not the lottery will come to the Crimson Tide state.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could a Lottery Save Alabama’s Lack of State Funding? appeared first on Law Street.

Lawmakers in many states still seem to be having a hard time coping with the idea of not only same-sex marriage, but that same-sex couples should receive equal rights.

Kentucky, Alabama, and Georgia are not the only states to seemingly reject the principle of the SCOTUS decision last year, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage, but they are the three most recent examples. If we tried to actually discuss all of the different states’ provisions following the Supreme Court ruling, it would take hours to read this. According to the Human Rights Campaign, last year more than 100 anti-LGBT bills were filed in 29 states.

Kentucky and Georgia are two states that have recently passed religious liberty legislation through one or both of their houses. Kentucky’s bill, SB 180, passed through the senate with a 22-16 vote and is now awaiting its fate in the house. Georgia’s HB 757 passed through both the senate and the house and has been sent to the governor’s desk. The governor, Nathan Deal, has expressed that he will not sign the bill into law in its current form. Meanwhile Alabama is changing around marriage laws following the 2015 Obergefell decision.

Religious liberty laws prohibit the local or state government from infringing on businesses’ rights to deny services to people who violate their religious beliefs. Such legislation is usually written in a way that does not explicitly mention the LGBT community, but this aim is implied by the swift wave of new legislation following same-sex marriage’s effective nationwide legalization and recent cases of businesses refusing service to same-sex customers based on their religious beliefs.

Many cases about businesses and state officials refusing services to same-sex couples have been brought to court recently, including: in May 2014, a Colorado bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage citing religious beliefs, and the infamous Kim Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Kentucky

Kentucky’s recent legislation was created to enhance the state’s 2013 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The new legislation clarifies that businesses cannot be punished in certain cases for violating pre-existing local ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Albert Robinson of London, said the legislation is designed to protect everyone’s religious liberties…but critics worry it doesn’t extend to civil liberties.

Robinson spoke on the senate floor and said that businesses should have the freedom to refuse service if they are required to “use their skills to provide a customized service celebrating something that violated one of the tenets of their faith.”

But religious liberty legislation has a history of causing economic problems for the states that enact it. Last year following the passage of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the state saw a loss of  a dozen conventions resulting in a $60 million loss in revenue, according to a document prepared by Visit Indy obtained by the Associated Press.

Georgia

In Georgia, where a similar bill has passed through both houses in the state legislature, the effects of its possible passage are causing some businesses to plan on relocation.

Telecommunications firm 373K, which was founded by Kelvin Williams and is located in Atlanta, is one of the outspoken businesses against the bill. Williams, who is gay, said he and his employees supported the decision to relocate to possibly Delaware or Nevada if the bill passes.

“For the past year we’ve been building a global carrier network. We have to start hiring more,” Williams said to CBS News. “I can’t always find the perfect person in Georgia. I might have to reach out across the world. Would I want to move to Georgia if someone else offered me a job after this? The answer was no.”

Alabama

Alabama is a bit of a different situation, but still relevant for the discussion of anti-LGBT proposals. Recently, the Alabama Senate passed a bill that would do away with marriage licenses and change to contracts that are filed with the state. Alabama (like many other states) was previously having the issue of some county probate judges who had stopped giving marriage licenses altogether in order to avoid giving them to same-sex couples.

Openly gay Representative Patricia Todd, who opposed the bill, deemed it unnecessary and said that the judges should just do their jobs, according to the Associated Press.

There is no way to tell how this will affect other aspects of the law, especially when it comes to divorce. If one aspect of the marriage system is altered in the eyes of the state, other things will likely need to change as well. For example, will divorce procedure need to be changed? How is that going to work? There is really no way to tell how this is going to change the system, all to alleviate the pain and burden on a few officials who refuse to do one of their explicitly stated jobs. If any of these bills are enacted into law, it will be interesting to see the outcome and the potential economic and social consequences that could arise.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s 2016 and Some State Lawmakers are Still Trying to Fight LGBT Equality appeared first on Law Street.

Rene Hoover, whose son Alex suffers from a terminal heart condition, refuses to allow her son to return to school in fear that school officials will not allow him to die naturally. She’s now locked in a battle with the school over how to proceed and best care for her son.

Fourteen-year-old Alex Hoover is autistic and suffers from aortic mitral valve stenosis, which occurs when the aortic valve narrows and restricts blood flow. Hoover has endured years of hospitalizations, four catheterization procedures, and continues to receive hospice care twice a week for his condition. Alex’s mother told the Decatur Daily that she does not want to put her son through another procedure. Although doctors may be able to help prolong Alex’s life if he were to go into cardiac arrest and be revived, his mother believes that his quality of life would be greatly diminished.

Rene explained:

That would be the rest of his life, surgeries and treatments. As a kid with autism, it is very hard on him mentally and physically because he doesn’t understand. Just typical doctors’ appointments are extremely hard on him. For my son, I choose quality, peace and happiness over that.

Alex’s autism has hindered his ability to speak, and because of that his mother obtained an advance directive to guarantee that medical professionals “do not resuscitate” if Alex were to go into cardiac arrest.

But the problem is that Limestone County school board officials have refused to honor the advance directive. Do not resuscitate orders only apply to individuals 19 or older in the state of Alabama. With the lack of a state of federal policy on how schools should handle a situation like the Hoover’s, the school administration has decided to follow standard medical procedure. Rene Hoover requested that she attend classes with Alex for a few hours each week to ensure that she can make medical decisions for him, but the school declined based on a policy about how much time parents can spend on campus. Rene said in response:

My child has a right to be there just like any other child in that school … For him to not be able to go to school and finish out the last days that he has, it breaks my heart.

From a policy standpoint, the school administration is put in a tough position here. However, the administration could be doing more to protect Alex and his mother’s wishes for him as members of the school community. Obviously the nature of Alex’s situation is unique and devastating, and there is no question that he deserves to spend the remainder of his life happy with his friends in school. The school has an opportunity here to set the standard for how schools around the country respond to the unique needs of students (and their families) with illnesses.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alabama Mom Battles School Over Treatment of Terminally Ill Son appeared first on Law Street.

As long as I have been writing about these weird legal cases, I have written on a shockingly low number of weird Alabama stories. And let’s face it: surely Alabama has some weird things going on in its legal system.

Has the fact that I lived in Alabama for 16 years made me biased? Am I hiding all the juicy gossip to downplay this great state’s craziness? Or have I really just not been able to find any good ones because I get too distracted by the oddities going on in Florida (and also in my current state of New Jersey where my bias has certainly not been showing)?

Whatever the reason I have been ignoring good ole Bama in the past, I am over it this week. Because I’m about to tell you all a story about the Alabama fashion police. You know. Since Alabama is so well known for its fashion forwardness and all that.

For those individuals out there who believe God only gets involved in big picture items, you will want to read this: it turns out you are obviously very wrong. Because God recently decided to give us all a fashion lesson of a very basic nature.

A civil council member in Dadeville, Alabama (where I am not from, thank goodness, since my fashion sense is pretty nonexistent) is trying to create a dress code that would ban, among other things, baggy pants.

I’m well and fine with that, personally, because I hate the look myself. However, why did Councilman Frank Goodman suddenly decide this should be his life mission? Because God, who I’m assuming got the idea after watching this year’s New York Fashion Week, told him to.

Okay. I admit, Goodman does not actually claim God spoke those words to him, but he does say that he has been thinking on this for a while. And more importantly, he has been praying about it.

What was the result of said prayer? Goodman–whose name seems very fitting in this story–determined that “God would not go around with pants down.”

Thank you for the info, Goodman. Because I have been wondering if that would be God’s fashion sense for quite some time now.

What is more, when Goodman asked God to show him if the councilman should do anything about the baggy pant epidemic, God gave him a pretty clear answer.

“He would show me this saggy pant,” Goodman told The Daily Beast, “—it’s one of the things He did not do. It is not in His orders to do that to gain eternal life.”

So there you have it, folks, right out of the mouth of some random Councilman in Alabama: wearing baggy pants is not one of the things you need to do to gain eternal life. Which is probably a big disappointment to the people who wear baggy pants, since I am sure that gaining eternal life was the sole purpose in the low-riding pants.

Now, there is some history in towns banning or trying to ban saggy pants. In that sense, this is not a unique story. However, as to my knowledge, this is the first time that the ban is being attempted on God’s direct orders.

I’m not exactly sure how saggy is too baggy, but if this dress code is passed, people of Dadeville, you just might want to invest in a good belt or two. After all, you don’t want to get a ticket from the fashion police–especially when those fashion police are being sent directly on God’s commands!

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post God Doesn’t Like Saggy Pants, According to an Alabama Councilman appeared first on Law Street.

The science curriculum for Alabama public schools is getting a much needed facelift thanks to state officials deciding that both evolution and climate change should be taught to all students.

The unanimous vote decided last week by the state Board of Education was the first change to Alabama science standards in a decade, according to NPR, and is indicative of the state being behind in the times in more ways than one.

Take the state’s controversial evolution “warning stickers” for example, which have accompanied biology textbooks containing any mentioning of Darwinism since 1996. The stickers act as a glorified disclaimer, referring to evolution as a “controversial theory” and sometimes even mention creationism as an alternative. Even though the board’s decision shows a willingness to make this material more accessible to students, the state hasn’t made any substantial steps to banish the archaic stickers.

Some of the motivation behind the board’s decision could also stem from college educators, who claim that students who lack knowledge about scientific theories such as evolution are ill-prepared for college curriculums and arrive at a disadvantage compared to other students.

According to NPR, dozens of Alabama school teachers welcome the change in curriculum, including science teacher Ryan Reardon, who supports the new standards saying,

You might not accept it, but that doesn’t change the fact. Talking about evolution in a classroom is controversial, but there is no controversy about how all the organisms on the planet are related to each other.

Another controversial theory is that of climate change. Like the theory of evolution, climate change has also been adopted as fact within most circles of the scientific community, with a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing global warming. Despite this, several Republican presidential candidates including Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump have all publicly denied its existence. The Obama administration, on the other hand, considers climate change to be one of the biggest threats Americans face. Obama also recently took a highly publicized trip to Alaska, where he attempted to rally support for the issue by highlighting melting glaciers and rising sea levels.

Just because Alabama students will now be required to learn about both theories, it doesn’t mean they will be required to believe in them. Instead students will need to be able to show “detailed knowledge” of the subject matter and are encouraged to come to their own conclusions.

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 Evolution & Climate Change Added to Alabama’s Science Curriculum appeared first on Law Street.

Police have the duty of serving and protecting our communities. They are supposed to stop crime and make us feel a little safer knowing that we have people to help us during our times of need. Unfortunately this perception of the police has completely changed due to the enormous amount of unnecessary police brutality and senselessness that has affected the lives of many. A white Alabama police officer who was once awarded for his great work has been exposed to be another officer that may not be very heroic after all.

Alabama officer kept job after proposal to murder black man and hide evidence http://t.co/CT3Sw69SpF pic.twitter.com/9sr9YP1sfA

— The Guardian (@guardian) August 4, 2015

Officer Troy Middlebrooks, 33, was caught a few years ago on a secret recording device discussing how to kill Vincent Bias (an African American man) and get away with it. However, the tape was just revealed on Tuesday, sparking controversy.

In 2013 Bias was at his brother-in-law’s house when Middlebrooks showed up because of an unleashed dog. Bias was cited for the dog being unleashed even though it belonged to his brother-in-law. Bias alleged that at the time he was being repeatedly harassed by city officers, including Middlebrooks. He claimed he was singled out because he was a black man and because he was in a relationship with a white woman. Middlebrooks had previously arrested Bias on drug charges earlier in the year, but he had been released on bail after paying a bond. Reportedly frustrated that Bias had been released, the officer pulled aside his brother-in-law, who is white, and told him he did not trust Bias. The brother-in-law then secretly began to record Middlebrooks’ statements. On the recording, Middlebrooks is heard saying if he were in the same position he would, “f-cking kill that motherf-cker with whatever I had in that f-cking house”. He continued to say, “And before the police got here, I’d f-cking put marks all over my shit and make it look like he was trying to f-cking kill me. I god damn guarantee you. What would it look like? Self f-cking defense. F-ck that piece of sh-t. I’m a lot different from a lot of these other folks. I’ll f-cking tell you what’s on my f-cking mind.”

He also began to mock Bias’ brother stating, “That motherf-cker right there needs a god d-mn bullet. And you f-cking know exactly what I’m talking about. The way he f-cking talks to you? Like you’re a f-cking child? Like he’s your … Are you his b-tch or something? He talks to you like that.”

After receiving the tape, Bias hired lawyers and played the recording for police chiefs and the mayor and told the city that he planned to sue for $600,000. The situation ended up being handled quietly outside of court, and Bias was given a much smaller amount of $35,000 by Alexander City authorities so they could avoid being publicly sued. He told NBC News that he took the money in hopes of moving away from Alexander City, so that he would no longer be targeted unfairly by the police. But members of the Alexander City Council said they had not been told about the case or the payment to Bias. One city council member, Tony Goss, said he was “absolutely flabbergasted” to learn of the details. Goss also said,

 This is absolutely unbelievable. Thirty-five thousand dollars is a lot of money and our city council is being left out of deliberation.

While referring to the recording he stated:

If an officer is recorded saying something like that, there are potential grounds for termination.

Middlebrooks shockingly kept his job and could not be reached for comment. Police Chief Willie Robinson stated that Middlebrooks was disciplined, but would not give out any details. Robinson also tried to cover for Middlebrooks and said that he was suggesting for the brother-in-law to carry out the killing. “He wasn’t saying that he was going to do that,” said the police chief. “He was talking about the man doing it himself.” Middlebrooks was repeatedly investigated and cleared by the State Bureau of Investigation.

However, it is downright frightening that a policeman that may have tried to tell someone how to kill a person is still on the workforce. In an environment where distrust of police appears to be at an all time high, and many questions are being raised about the ethics of our police forces, the fact that this was covered up is simply unacceptable. 

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alabama Police Officer Caught on Tape Explaining How to Get Away With Murder appeared first on Law Street.

Florida has so many moronic laws that it could almost take up an entire post by itself.

The popular college spring break destination features some rather entertaining laws, for example one prohibiting committing “unnatural acts” with another person. Gotta love those vague terms! Furthermore, unmarried couples may not commit “lewd” acts and live together in the same residence.

Lewd acts? Define, please.

If you wish to get around via a swamp buggy, a very popular mode of transportation in Florida, be aware that they are not included in the state’s definition of “motor vehicle,” and are thus not regulated.

Some lawmaker must have gotten sick of the lack of consistency regarding the direction that doors open, as they decided to make it a law that all doors open outward. I’m not sure if this law applies to airport bathrooms, but I always thought that it was irritating that they open inward when you are trying to close it around your suitcase once inside.

Even parents who are driven to the brink of insanity by their children’s actions may not sell their kiddos in Florida. Pigs can be confined in cages in Florida unless they are pregnant, in which case the law requires them to roam free.

Watch your mouth in Mississippi, where you could be fined up to $100 for using “profane language” in public places. And if someone is disturbing your spiritual experience in church, go ahead and arrest him or her. There, private citizens may personally arrest any person who disturbs a church service.

There are tons of laws relating to sexual relations, illegitimate children, and other similar topics in Mississippi. For starters, if someone is a parent to two illegitimate children, that person can go to jail for at least one month. Living together while not married or having sex with someone who is not your spouse results in a fine of $500 and/or six months in prison. Unnatural intercourse (whatever that even means), if both parties voluntarily participate, results in a maximum sentence of ten years and $10,000. Lastly on the sex topic, it is not legal to teach others what polygamy is.

Phew, those two states were a doozy, and we still have two more to go! Moving on to Alabama….

It’s a bit sad that this law had to be created, since it seems like a pretty commonsense thing to never do, but Alabama officially banned incestuous marriages. Another one that confuses me as to why it needs to actually be written into law is that driving blindfolded is illegal.

If you plan to attend a bear-wrestling match in Alabama you’ll have to change your plans as they are strictly prohibited. Also, beware that impersonating a person of the clergy is against the law, as is maiming yourself to get out of duty or to obtain alms. People whose preferred pastime is playing Dominoes will have to come up with an alternative game for Sundays as playing that particular game on that particular day is illegal.

As is the case with Florida, Georgia has almost enough dumb laws to warrant an entirely separate post, so I’ll try to keep it concise. Do you have a life goal to live on a boat in Georgia? Too bad. You cannot live on a boat for more than 30 days during the year. No getting kinky on boats there either, as sex toys are banned.

Not for 30 days in Georgia, you’re not

In Acworth, Georgia there must be mass amounts of leaves covering the ground during the Fall months, as residents there are required by law to own a rake. Athens-Clarke County takes the cake for the strangest laws in the state, though. There, adult bookstores may not sell alcohol. Didn’t think that was generally a place people flock to for booze, but what do I know. I also wasn’t aware of anyone venturing to a massage business for his liquor, but Athens-Clarke County felt the need to ban that as well so who knows. Yeah, lots of weird stuff with alcohol. It is also illegal to sell two beers for a single price as a deal. For example, “a bar can’t run a two Bud Lights for $5 special.”

There are some bizarre curfew laws in Athens-Clarke, where one may not read a book out loud in public after 2:45 AM and persons under 16 may not play pinball after 11:00 PM. Bummer for them, because 11:00 PM is prime pinball time.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws of the United States: Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia & Florida appeared first on Law Street.

Politico Magazine just published an illuminating article on the money that goes into judicial elections in the United States, written by Sue Bell Cobb, the former Chief Justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court. The article, “I Was Alabama’s Top Judge. I’m Ashamed by What I Had to Do to Get There: How Money is Ruining America’s Courts,” contains many revelations by Cobb about the state of our elected judicial system.

Cobb was a judge for over 30 years, and spent four years as the Chief Justice of Alabama’s courts. When she was elected, she was one of the candidates in the most expensive judicial race that year. She raised a grand total of $2.6 million to win, and the candidate that she beat raised over $5 million. She described the difficult process of calling up friends and acquaintances to ask for money–although laws differ from state to state, in Alabama she was allowed to ask directly for money. She could even talk to lawyers who had argued cases in front of her in the past, or lawyers who might argue in front of her in the future.

Cobb highlighted the problematic logic inherent in this system by pointing out that it’s difficult to imagine that the judges who ask for money wouldn’t feel beholden to those who give it, and that lawyers or other businesses wouldn’t feel pressured to donate out fear that a lack of donation could play out in courtroom biases. Or, as Cobb also points out, it could be less nefarious than that. Interest groups could back candidates heavily that they know would rule in their favor based on ideology alone. Cobb puts it like this:

In 2005, shortly before I joined the Alabama Supreme Court, the justices heard appeals in 18 cases in which businesses had been hit with jury verdicts. The court—dominated by Republicans backed by business interests—threw out 17 of these verdicts. I don’t think that the justices who voted to overturn these cases were corrupt. My take is that they were genuinely ruling according to their beliefs. But what this proves is how proficient special interests have become at identifying and then supporting candidates who are reliable votes for their cause.

According to the American Bar Association, 38 states currently have some type of judicial election at the state high court level; 39 states have judicial elections at the appellate level; and 39 states have judicial elections in trial courts of general jurisdiction. Those who don’t have elections appear to mainly rely on appointments to fill their courts. While those can be inherently partisan too, depending on who does the appointing, there’s less of an issue of justices being seemingly beholden to those who give them money.

Cobb isn’t the only judge to speak out against a judicial election system. Texas Supreme Justice Don Willet has essentially said that he doesn’t agree with the system of judicial elections either.

There’s also evidence to back up that judicial elections can affect justices’ behavior. The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy released a study in 2013 entitled “Justice At Risk: An Empirical Analysis of Campaign Contributions and Judicial Decisions.” There were multiple revelations in the study, but one of the most telling was this:

The data confirm a significant relationship between business group contributions to state supreme court justices and the voting of those justices in cases involving business matters. The more campaign contributions from business interests justices receive, the more likely they are to vote for business litigants appearing before them in court. Notably, the analysis reveals that a justice who receives half of his or her contributions from business groups would be expected to vote in favor of business interests almost two-thirds of the time.

Although Cobb’s comments are not anything new, they do shed a particularly poignant light onto the difficulties that a judge seeking reelection faces. Cobb ends her piece with a sort of call to action, saying, “judges are not, and should never be, like ordinary politicians. We cannot and should not promise anything for those who elect us, but to be fair.” Let’s hope people are listening.

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 Former Alabama Chief Justice Speaks Out Against Judicial Elections appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a new year, and I for one am excited to see what it will bring. No matter what, there will definitely be a lot of legal issues to discuss, debate, and bring changes to all of our lives. The five cases below are the top five to watch in 2015; some have already appeared before SCOTUS and await decisions in 2015, while others will be heard throughout the year. Here are five fascinating Supreme Court cases to watch in 2015.

Anthony Elonis v. United States

Law Street has actually been covering this interesting case for a while–check out our coverage of the case, the University of Virginia law clinic that’s gotten involved, and the all the legalese behind it. The reason we’ve followed it so closely is because it really is fascinating. Anthony Elonis was convicted of threatening multiple people, including his wife, an FBI agent, the police, and a kindergarten class. But these weren’t threats in the classical sense. They were written on his Facebook page in the form of rap lyrics. He claims the posts are art, protected under the First Amendment, and that he never intended to hurt anyone. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if such intent needs to be shown when convicting someone of making threats. The case was heard on December 1, 2014, but the court has yet to rule.

King v. Burwell

In King v. Burwell, SCOTUS will yet again be asked to weigh the Affordable Care Act. This time, it’s all about the tax subsidies, and weirdly, the central question in really depends on one word: “state.” The way that the ACA reads, in order for an individual to qualify for a tax subsidy, he needs to be receiving healthcare “through an exchange established by the state.” So, can people residing in states that haven’t set up their own exchanges, but instead rely on the federal program, get those tax subsidies? The IRS certainly thinks so and has been granting the subsidies. It’s an argument based pretty much on semantics, but it could have a huge effect on the ACA itself. This case will be heard in March.

Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service 

This case will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on how pregnant employees are treated. Peggy Young, formerly a delivery driver for UPS, is arguing that the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA says that pregnant workers should be treated the same as any other worker who is “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young and her lawyers argue that other employees who sustain temporary injuries or something of the like are moved to other positions, while she was forced to take unpaid leave. UPS claims that those other workers are given different jobs based on policies that don’t apply to Young, and she was treated the same as she would have been had she sustained an injury out of work. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who’s in the right here. The case was just heard in December 2014; an opinion is forthcoming.

Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs will require the justices to look into prison procedures that prevent inmates from growing a beard in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Gregory Holt, wants to be able to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. The state is arguing that it could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband. SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not those prison procedures violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The question that the justices will consider is whether or not there’s a compelling enough government interest to prevent Holt from expressing his religion. The case was heard in October 2014; the opinion will be issued this year.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

This case centers on the practice of gerrymandering. The justices will have to decide whether or not it was illegal for Alabama to redraw the districts in 2012 after the Census in a way that packed black voters into particular districts. The Alabama Black Caucus says that it relied too much on race when drawing those districts. While partisan gerrymandering is usually legal, racial gerrymandering is not–so the justices will have to decide which actually happened here. This case was heard in November 2014; the opinion is expected in the coming months.

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 SCOTUS Cases to Watch in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Quietly nestled on Alabama’s ballot on Election Day at the top of a list of proposed amendments was Amendment Number One, a measure that would ban the application of “foreign law” in Alabama when it would violate the rights of the state’s citizens. The measure overwhelmingly passed, and at the surface seems like a legitimate amendment. Voters may have glazed over it because the wording seems benign:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to prohibit the State of Alabama from giving full faith and credit to public acts, records, or judicial proceedings of another state that violate the public policy of the State of Alabama and to prohibit the application of foreign law in violation of rights guaranteed natural citizens by the United States and Alabama Constitutions, and the statutes, laws, and public policy thereof, but without application to business entities. (Proposed by Act No. 2013-269)

No one wants any laws to violate Alabamans’ rights, right? That is all the amendment appears to ensure, but in context, it may have some unintended consequences. Foreign law often does need to be interpreted in U.S. courts. There are private disputes relating to foreign or religious law that often need to be settled in the U.S. and there are cases that are litigated in Alabama but are governed by the law of another jurisdiction, Vox notes. Marriages and adoptions that occurred outside the country but came to Alabama are a good example.

All this falls under “choice of law,” the notion that courts have to reconcile the differences between the relevant laws between two jurisdictions if a case involves them. Since this is so common, Alabama’s Amendment One could be redundant or problematic, depending on how courts interpret it.

So why was this amendment on the ballot in the first place if it’s so questionable? The amendment appears to a revision of one that didn’t make it onto the ballot in 2012. That amendment, introduced by Alabama State Senator Gerald Allen, was known as the Sharia Law Amendment, specifically targeting Islamic law in an effort to prohibit its use in judicial decisions. A similar measure in Oklahoma was struck down by an appeals court on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

After his first measure failed, Allen reintroduced the measure without any explicit reference to Sharia law, though the media is still talking about it as if it is the Sharia Law amendment. The amendment that Alabama voters actually passed on Tuesday is about all foreign law.

But let’s talk about Sharia law. What is it? Is it foreign? Does it pose a threat to the United States judicial process? Simply put, Sharia law is a set of rules aggregated from the Quran, the Islamic holy book, and the hadith, the teachings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. While it does come from sacred sources, there is no single codification of Sharia law, leaving the interpretation of what is or isn’t Sharia law up in the air, and usually in various courts’ hands. Different Muslim-majority countries apply it in different ways. Generally, it encompasses everything from finance to marriage to prayer. Theoretically, there are instances where Sharia law and U.S. law coincide (for instance, murder is prohibited under both). So you can see why blanket bans on Sharia law are laughable, and why the ACLU denounced the idea that “anything Islamic is un-American.”

In fact, to say that anything Islamic is automatically un-American may be un-American itself. After all, so much of this nation’s history is inextricably linked to religious freedom. You probably didn’t learn this in your eighth grade civics class, but Thomas Jefferson owned a Quran. Yes, Thomas Jefferson, founding father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and third U.S. president. A 2013 book by Denise A. Spellberg details Jefferson’s role as an advocate to allow Muslims and all religious groups the ability to hold citizenship and public office.

Whether or not Amendment One was an attempt to bring back the Sharia Law Amendment, maybe only the Alabama lawmakers who approved it know. But one thing remains clear. The United States is not a legal island. It is influenced by foreign and religious law and it’s often necessary to use those laws for the country to carry on its judicial process.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alabama’s Amendment One: An Attempt at Banning Sharia Law? appeared first on Law Street.

Congratulations on surviving another Halloween, everyone! While recovering from your big night, you might as drag out the holiday a bit more and freak yourself out a little with all the weird things that people have gotten themselves arrested for this week. Check out the top five weird arrests from this week.

[SlideDeck2 id=27715 ress=1]

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 Top 5 Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

In an era when it seems like there’s constantly a story about a shooting on school grounds, we’re always looking for solutions to our school shooting epidemic. One long-discussed argument has been to arm teachers, and people across the country are taking action to do just that.

In many conservative-leaning states, the push to arm teachers is getting pretty serious. As of this year, in 28 different states, adults who own guns will be allowed to carry them into school buildings under certain parameters. Recently, legislation was passed in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas related to arming teachers and staff members in public schools.

There’s also been some expansion of the way in which those who are armed in schools are trained. In some places, free classes are offered for staff members who want to carry guns into schools in an attempt to protect students. The Centennial Gun Club in Colorado is offering free classes to teachers who want to learn how to carry and operate guns. A former Colorado teacher named Tara who is thinking of returning to the classroom named explained her interest in the class, saying:

While I am a teacher, those kids, those students in my class are my kids, and my first responsibility is to protect them at all costs. When all the school shootings happened I realized that I wanted it more for my own personal protection and I thought that that idea of being prepared to protect translates very well to the classroom for teachers.

That’s all well and good, but what they don’t seem to be offering is classes that particularly relate to stopping armed intruders or using a gun under high-pressure circumstances.

In other places, the emphasis is on cutting the response time in case of an armed intruder by training designated staff members who have access to weapons. In some cases, teachers need to disclose information to superiors that they’re bringing a gun into the classroom, in other states the legislation doesn’t require that kind of step. While the laws are varied, one thing is pretty clear — bringing more guns into schools in an attempt to stop horrific tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting has become a fairly popular mindset, without any whiff of consistency from state to state or even school district to school district.

Now, I’m very split here. On one hand I’m frustrated. Part me of thinks that we literally are so bad at finding solutions to our mass shooting problem that we’re just bringing more guns into schools as an answer. That is where we are. We so fundamentally can’t agree on how to deal with gun violence that we can’t even make the laws or required training consistent. Never mind the fact that arming people more to prevent shootings is a kind of miniature mutually assured destruction. Never mind that while shootings are occasionally stopped by bystanders, it’s relatively rare. Never mind that the ability to stop a shooting takes a blend of training, instinct, and temperament that requires way more than one class to learn. Never mind that in the last year, 100 children died in accidental shooting deaths in the United States. Never mind that by bringing guns into our classrooms, we are teaching our children that school is not a safe place, and that gun violence is a reasonable answer. That’s the obnoxious liberal in me talking.

But on the other hand, I have a side that I like to think is rational, and that side is also kind of frustrated. Now, I want to be clear, because I’ve learned from experience that this kind of disclaimer is needed: this is not an attack on the Second Amendment. This is an attack on the complete lack of common sense that we are now employing. If we sat down, as a nation, and truly determined that the best way to protect children is to arm their teachers, fine. We can do that, if we really think that will work. It’s a plan, at least, and as much as I don’t think it’s a good plan, I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

But what we have right now is such a fundamental disagreement on literally everything to do with this debate that we’re half-assing it. We’re passing laws that allow certain people to bring guns into schools under the guise of protection without necessarily creating corresponding legislation to make sure that the plan has the chance to be effective. We’re ignoring the possibly negative ramifications of these laws because it’s just easier that way. We are so far from being able to have a rational debate on this topic that any ability to be able to work together has been thrown out the window.

Every gun death is a tragedy, and the only way we’re going to be able to prevent situations like Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or UC-Santa Barbara from happening again is if we all grow up and talk about this in a rational way.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Wendy House via Flickr]

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 Risky Idea Alert: Arming Teachers in School appeared first on Law Street.