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 Wednesday, three months after Dr. David Dao was dragged off a United flight at Chicago’s O’Hare airport, the Chicago Department of Aviation released a report on the incident. The report said that the officers who removed Dao from the aircraft were “improperly” marked as police officers. Steps would be taken by the CDA to prevent a recurrence of any similar incidents, the report said.

“CDA is working hard to learn from the regrettable incident that took place on UA Flight 3411 and doubling efforts to strengthen policies, procedures, and training to ensure that something like this never happens again,” the report said.

On April 9, Dao, a 69-year-old physician, was forcibly removed from an aircraft at Chicago’s O’Hare airport. The flight was overbooked, and United needed to secure seats for its staff, the airline said. When none of the passengers voluntarily gave up their seat, officers entered the cabin and selected four passengers to remove at random. Dao was one of them.

He refused to comply, however, and security officers slammed Dao to the ground and dragged him down the aisle like a piece of luggage. The incident was captured on video; it went viral, and incited outrage at the officers’ conduct. Dao sued United, which eventually reached a settlement for an undisclosed amount of money.

The officers who removed Dao were airport security, not Chicago police officers, despite the fact that their uniforms, badges, and vehicles were labeled “police.” The report said the security officers’ labeling would change in the coming months.

And in a more concrete development, the CDA announced a new policy: airport security officers will only be allowed on an aircraft to respond to a disturbance if Chicago police requests them, or “if there is a medical emergency or a battery in progress,” according to CDA spokeswoman Lauren Huffman.

“The safety of our passengers has always been our top priority, and we are taking action to ensure that the policies and procedures are in place to deliver the most effective security responses,” Ginger Evans, commissioner of the CDA said in a news release.

She continued: “We are confident that these actions are necessary to guide our department forward, while improving clarity for the aviation security officers who play an integral role in maintaining safe and secure conditions for the traveling public at both of Chicago’s airports.”

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 Chicago Department of Aviation Issues Report on David Dao Incident 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.

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.

The Trump Administration announced Wednesday that it will  reverse federal protections for transgender students in public schools, citing federal overreach. A letter jointly released by the Education Department and the Justice Department effectively leaves it up to individual schools to decide whether transgender students can use the bathroom that aligns with the gender they identify with.

The heads of the two departments that issued the letter, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, were reportedly at odds over rescinding the previous rule, which was instated by former President Barack Obama last May. According to Republicans with direct knowledge of the discussions, Sessions wanted to rollback the protections, while DeVos wanted to keep them because she worried about the potential harm it could cause transgender students.

The Attorney General needed DeVos to sign on to his directives, but she would not. Therefore Sessions took the matter to the White House where, in the Oval Office on Tuesday, he, DeVos, and President Donald Trump discussed what direction the administration would take. Trump sided with Sessions and told DeVos that she had a choice: agree or resign. She agreed.

The Obama Administration’s previous directive was enacted “without due regard for the primary role of the states and local school districts in establishing educational policy,” said the Education Department and Justice Department letter.

Reportedly at the urging of DeVos, the letter included a passage encouraging the protection of all students. “All schools must ensure that students, including L.G.B.T. students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment,” the letter said. 

Obama’s directive had not gone into effect–even before Trump rescinded it–because of two pending battles in federal courts. Last August, a federal district court in Texas issued an injunction on Obama’s order, blocking it from being implemented.

Judge Reed O’Connor, the presiding judge in that case, said the federal order put states “in the position of either maintaining their current policies in the face of the federal government’s view that they are violating the law, or changing them to comply with the guidelines and cede their authority over this issue.”

Wednesday’s announcement brought hundreds of protesters to the front of the White House, where they chanted: “No hate, no fear, trans students are welcome here.” Civil rights advocates also decried the new directive.

The rollback also prompted Jackie Evancho, the “America’s Got Talent” runner-up who sang the National Anthem at Trump’s inauguration, to tweet at Trump on Wednesday to ask the president to meet with her and her transgender sister to discuss transgender rights.

. @realDonaldTrump u gave me the honor 2 sing at your inauguration. Pls give me & my sis the honor 2 meet with u 2 talk #transgender rghts

— jackie evancho (@jackieevancho) February 23, 2017

“This is a mean-spirited attack on hundreds of thousands of students who simply want to be their true selves and be treated with dignity while attending school,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality in a statement.

In a separate statement DeVos said that issuing statutes regarding school policy is a state-level issue, and that the Education Department “remains committed to investigating all claims of discrimination, bullying and harassment against those who are most vulnerable in our schools.”

“We owe all students a commitment to ensure they have access to a learning environment that is free of discrimination, bullying and harassment,” wrote Devos.

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 Administration Reverses Federal Transgender Protection Rules 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.

In the wake of Donald Trump’s presidential win on Tuesday night, a lot of people were concerned about what a Trump presidency might mean for Americans’ civil rights. One of the biggest defenders of those rights is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a legal organization that regularly sues the government when it believes individuals’ rights are being infringed upon. In the wake of Trump’s election, the ACLU has seen record donations, so many, in fact, that the organization’s website crashed on Wednesday morning.

Between Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, the group recorded almost $1 million in contributions, from 14,000 donations. By Thursday morning, it was up to $2.4 million from 38,626 donations.

These are record-breaking donation totals. Mark Weir, the group’s chief development officer told Business Insider: “In terms of online donations in a single-day, it far exceeds anything we’ve seen before.” The ACLU’s donation website crashed on Wednesday morning, although it’s unclear for how long. According to an ACLU spokesperson who talked to Buzzfeed: “it’s hard to say how long it was down for and we’re trying to pull dollars and gift numbers. Our system is extremely overwhelmed with all of the hits we’re getting.”

The ACLU has been clear that it will sue Trump over some of his proposed policies, should he try to implement them. The organization even took out a full page ad in the New York Times on Friday, making that exact promise:

Today we published a full-page open letter in the New York Times to President-elect Trump pic.twitter.com/FOpRqn9oNY

— ACLU National (@ACLU) November 11, 2016

There are a number of policies that Trump advocated for throughout the election that the ACLU takes issue with, including proposed mass deportation, a ban on Muslim immigration and/or more targeted monitoring of Muslim individuals, changes to abortion laws, and restrictions on Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

It seems that the ACLU’s promise has struck a chord with many Americans, if the donations are any indication.

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 ACLU Website Crashes After Tons of Donations appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday morning, activists from the New York City group “Swipe It Forward” offered free subway rides by swiping their cards for commuters in the city. Advocates said they wanted to protest the NYPD’s “Broken Windows” policies and crackdowns on people who can’t afford the subway fares. According to their numbers, police arrested almost 30,000 people for fare evasion last year, making it a top arrest category. Ninety-two percent of those were people of color. The NYPD also issued 120,000 tickets and summonses.

New Yorkers #SwipeItForward to protest policing of fare-beating https://t.co/9tKRxDUrqA #brokenwindows pic.twitter.com/mQWJxXho7j

— Waging Nonviolence (@wagingnv) November 3, 2016

A metro ride is $2.75, which adds up fast if you have to take the train to get to work, as most New Yorkers do. Many people can’t afford the fare. Still, if you jump the turnstile, it can actually lead to an arrest and a night in jail. For immigrants, it could even lead to deportation. According to activists, each of the arrests cost the city’s taxpayers $1,750. So, they’re asking: why should it be a crime to be poor?

Advocates from eight civil rights groups said they would swipe people in, and also encouraged other commuters to use their unlimited cards to swipe for other people. The groups said in a statement:

By encouraging people to help each other, we offer a direct solution to the problem of criminalizing people who simply can’t afford to pay the ever-growing cost of MTA fares (which are set to rise again),

They believe a better way to use the money that is spent on arrests would be to offer free or lower cost options of commuting for New Yorkers who can’t afford the fares.

In NYC, advocacy groups are offering free subway fares at stations that serve primarily black, brown and poor commuters. #SwipeItForward. pic.twitter.com/wYd7S8TY9a

— B. Scott (@lovebscott) November 2, 2016

Dinick Martinez told the Gothamist that he needs swipes from other people in order to get to his adult learning classes–it is often a choice “between either food or MetroCard.” Another commuter, Trinia McDonald, said that she sees  more police activity in Brooklyn where she lives than in Midtown where she works, where people jump the turnstiles constantly. “Here it’s like the people of color are targeted,” she said about her home neighborhood.

To ask someone for a swipe, or to ask for money after offering a swipe, is not legal according to the MTA Rules of Conduct. But offering a swipe to someone who is not asking or accepting a swipe that is offered to you is totally ok. With the unlimited card there is a time limit for how soon you can swipe it again, but it is ok to do it for someone entering the subway when you exit.

#SwipeItForward is legal and it’s a nice thing to do! Offer to swipe in someone on your unlimited card! Poverty is not a crime. pic.twitter.com/hPF1p58htT

— Wes Nemenz (@wesnemenz) November 2, 2016

Activists were also protesting the disproportionately high fines that can come on top of an arrest. A single metro ride is $2.75 but the fine if you jump the turnstile is $100–making it 37 times the fare price. This was the latest day of subway protests, following similar campaigns in August in Harlem and Queens.

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 Activists Protest NYPD Subway Arrests, Hand Out Free Swipes appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve watched the Netflix hit “Orange is the New Black” you’ve seen Taryn Manning in the ensemble cast as Tiffany “Pennsatucky” Doggett. The 37-year-old actress has also had roles in “Crossroads” (opposite Brittany Spears), “8 Mile” and  “Sons of Anarchy.” But she’s also had a less-than-charmed life as well–she has been arrested multiple times on various charges. However, Manning is now fighting back against one of the arrests, suing the city of New York for $10 million and claiming that she was wrongfully arrested.

#OITNB star Taryn Manning sues NYC for $10 million for “false arrest” https://t.co/0tPAzHmhY6 pic.twitter.com/l27ZPA1qzO

— Huffington Post (@HuffingtonPost) February 9, 2016

Manning was arrested in New York City in November 2014 and accused of making threats against a former friend and roommate, named Jeanine Heller. The case is incredibly confusing, but here’s what we know: Manning and Heller had had a turbulent friendship for a while, and Heller has even claimed that they had a romantic relationship at one point. Their feud, although it’s unclear what caused the showdown, eventually led to both women filing restraining orders against each other. Manning had accused Heller of stalking her in the past, and Heller has served prison time after admitting to her contact with Manning.

However, on November 18, 2014 Manning was arrested after Heller accused her of violating the restraining order and threatening Heller. Manning is now claiming that the police did so even after the District Attorney had already decided not to prosecute Manning, and had told her lawyers that fact. Stacey Richman, a lawyer who represented Manning at the time stated:

I had multiple conversations with the DA’s office as well as the Fifth Precinct Detective Squad before appearing at that Nov. 18 meeting. I am certain that the assigned Detective knew in advance … that Ms. Manning would not be prosecuted. Hence, she should NEVER have been arrested.

However, Manning was arrested, handcuffed, marched through the precinct, and put in a holding cell. Eventually she was released after the District Attorney’s office issued a formal declaration that Manning was not to be prosecuted. But by that point, the damage was done–news of Manning’s arrest had already been leaked to the press. At that point, her lawyer released the following:

The District Attorney declined to prosecute Ms. Manning and the arrest was voided. The allegation was false. It is unfortunate that additional false allegations by an individual convicted of violating orders of protection intended to protect Ms. Manning are facilitated by purported news organizations to perpetuate the harassment of Ms. Manning exponentially.

Now, Manning is suing the city of New York for $10 million, saying that she was falsely arrested and that her civil rights were violated in the process. Now, Manning has also run into some other problems with the law lately–most notably she was involved in a violent altercation with friend and makeup artist Holly Hartman; she was arrested in 2012 after assaulting Hartman as well. But regardless of her violent past, Manning’s claim that her rights were violated in the 2014 arrest could hold water, particularly if her narrative is proven true.

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 OITNB’s Taryn Manning is Suing New York for 2014 Arrest appeared first on Law Street.

Ever wonder how lawyers and law professionals keep their cool, or lack thereof, while discussing polarizing issues such as abortion, gay rights, or police brutality? I was very curious about this precise topic while I was walking around the halls of the 2016 AALS Annual Meeting, deciding which session to attend. I scrolled through the handy-dandy AALS app and found a session called Law and Religion: a conversation about religious responses to same-sex marriage. Bingo! I took one of the last empty seats in the nearly-full room and prepared for a theological and legislative showdown.

I was slightly disappointed when, to my dismay, moderator Michael Helfand carefully navigated the contentious issue at hand.

A few different viewpoints were represented by the speakers of the panel. New York Times reporter Erik Eckholm spoke about his experiences covering the gay marriage beat. Professor Katherine Franke of Columbia University spoke about discrimination in the LGBT community, particularly surrounding the issues of civil unions and legal marriage. Russell Reno, editor of the conservative religious journal First Things, discussed the role of morality in modern law. Kevin Walsh delivered his views about the changing social view of gay marriage in America, as well as a few (in my opinion, slightly problematic) remarks surrounding the “abandonment” of the definition of marriage. Robin F. Wilson spoke eloquently about same-sex marriage, religious liberty, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (aka RFRA).

Despite the opposing views of a few members on the panel, each speaker presented his or her viewpoint with respect and extremely high levels of academic integrity. (Many of the speakers are published, if not celebrated, legal studies authors.)

I was originally drawn to this topic because I thought same-sex marriage was an extremely polarizing subject. Don’t get me wrong, it is definitely polarizing–especially if you have been unlucky enough to bring up the subject at a family dinner where someone starts citing the Bible and bringing up the argument that “homosexuality is a sin.” But the reality at the AALS meeting was that the topic was not discussed at a dinner table in between servings of mashed potatoes and burnt brussel sprouts. As my seat-neighbor David Pimentel mentioned, everyone presented their views respectfully while still acknowledging that their perspectives were different from that of their peers. It was at this moment that I wished law school students could have sat in on the discussion, because it was truly a master class on professionalism.

I took a very different approach later in the day when I scanned the AALS schedule looking for a second session to attend. Instead of seeking out controversy, I looked for a course where I hoped to learn something new. My wish was granted when I sat in on the Civil Rights session. Gilda Daniels, Professor Lynda Dodd, Angela Mae Kupenda, Audrey McFarlane, and Kindaka Sanders all appeared on the panel. My non-law school educated mind zero-ed in on three main topics that were discussed: affordable housing, the use of technology to facilitate equality, and police brutality. Audrey McFarlane spoke about how inequality leads to housing challenges, especially in urban environments such as New York City. She brought up the “poor door” debacle in New York back in April of 2015. Essentially, the story goes that there was a luxury apartment building that set aside a few units for lower-income tenants, as stipulated by the city’s Inclusionary Housing Program. However, the owner of the building ordered two different entrances to be made; one large and elegant entrance for the luxury tenants, and one smaller, simpler entrance for the lower income tenants. Even after controversy arose regarding the disparity between the two entrances, 88,000 people applied for the 55 available units.

McFarlane noted that even now, in the 21st century, people are opting to “take a little discrimination” if it means that they can move to a safer and more affordable neighborhood. McFarlane questioned the practice of inclusionary housing, and urged her fellow colleagues to think about new and innovative ways to make safe housing available to families living in public housing. Would that mean implementing a lottery system wherein a family could have the chance to move from the Bronx to the suburbs? Is integration the goal, or is access? Will creating more community centers improve a neighborhood?

Gilda Daniels and Professor Lynda Dodd brought up ideas surrounding social equality and technology. Specifically, Professor Dodd mentioned Campaign Zero, which is an online initiative that seeks to end police violence through comprehensive policy reform. Their infographics are easily digestible, and all of their information is carefully researched by four leading Black Lives Matter Activists; Samuel Sinyangwe, Brittany Packnett, DeRay McKesson, and Johnetta Elzie. With the rise of social media, activists in rural areas are not limited to convening only in local areas, where it might be difficult to organize people in a physical space. The internet allows for the organization of like-minded individuals no matter where they are physically located.

When I spoke with Angela Mae Kupenda, she also mentioned the importance of staying connected to civil rights groups through the use of technology. “I think social media plays a major role in reinvigorating a movement, because it gets the information out, so that people know what’s going on,” Professor Kupenda said,

It also inspires students. If you see what’s happening at other schools or other cities, you can immediately know what’s going on. That can inspire you to do something the same way, or to do something different.

Mixing tech-talk with good old-fashioned books, Professor Kupenda also offered up a suggested reading list for professors or students who are interested in civil rights history. Her picks include “Reproducing Racism” by Daria Roithmayr and “Black Like Me” by John Howard Griffin, an account of how a white reporter went “undercover” as a black man in the Deep South of the 1950s.

Kindaka Sanders spoke about police brutality, and the concept of self-policing a local community. When he spoke about the Black Panther Party openly and legally carrying guns until the law was changed to prevent open-carry opportunities, I thought of the recent open-carry announcement in Texas. (Namely, that as of January 1, 2015, any person who has a license for a firearm can legally open carry in the state of Texas, even if they are not a resident of the state).

Many Texans support the new open-carry law, but what would happen if a group of young black men (ala the Black Panther Party) decided to re-appropriate the law and follow Texas police officers while showcasing their right to open-carry?

This session on Civil Rights was food for thought–in fact, it was an entire banquet for me. So often, college graduates (or people who have not sat in a classroom for a long time) can get sucked into their own bubble of issues. Living in the tri-state area, I sometimes take it for granted that many people around me support same-sex marriage and gay rights. Sitting in on the Law and Religion session reminded me that although this country has made progress in the realm of gay rights, we still have a long way to go to bring LGBT issues into mainstream conversations and legislation. Similarly, after listening to the speakers of the Civil Rights session, I have realized that it is imperative that lawyers and policy makers address and rectify the systemic racism that is still very much alive today.

Through attending sessions at the AALS Annual Meeting and interacting with other people involved in law academia, I was able to step outside of my bubble and think of issues that affected Americans on a macro scale, not just on my own teeny tiny micro level. I would urge anyone interested in the AALS to definitely check out their website (found here) and consider attending next year’s meeting in San Francisco.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law, Religion, and Civil Rights: Adventure at the AALS Annual Meeting appeared first on Law Street.

As racial tensions become more visible in the United States, particularly at American universities, the Supreme Court finds itself hearing oral arguments on a major affirmative action case. While legal underpinning for affirmative action has been weakening in recent court decisions, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit seek to end the practice altogether.

The lawsuit, Fisher v. University of Texas, was brought by Abigail Fisher after she was denied acceptance to the University of Texas’ flagship school at Austin. Fisher alleges that while she was not accepted other, less-qualified students were admitted to the school because of their race. UT-Austin has a relatively unique admissions process because the school automatically accepts all students from Texas in the top 10 percent of their high school class. In practice, the actual percentage has been slightly lower since a law modified the rule in 2009, which said that UT-Austin must be able to fill 75 percent of the available residences with students from the top of their high school class. Importantly, though, Fisher was not granted automatic admission and was then forced to be considered using the university’s holistic evaluation process, in which race is considered alongside a wide range of factors.

Interestingly, the university’s 10 percent policy has actually helped increase diversity at UT-Austin. The policy leverages the fact that Texas high schools are often racially homogenous in order to promote diversity. Because many of the state’s high schools are primarily black or primarily white, the top 10 percent admissions policy ends up increasing the number of minority students accepted to the school.

What’s particularly interesting about this case is that there is little evidence to suggest Fisher would have been accepted even if race wasn’t a factor. Instead, the case is more accurately a challenge to the use of race in admissions itself and not a challenge of the school’s particular decision in Fisher’s case. Pro Publica’s candid analysis of the case states the subject of the case pretty clearly: it’s about the conservative view that the Constitution is colorblind and no one should be treated differently based on their race. On the other hand, proponents of affirmative action argue that it is necessary to combat the legacy of racism and inequality in the United States, and by many measures those resulting racial disparities still exist today.

That underlying debate is at the heart of the discussion around the case, and it becomes particularly clear you look at the facts. When Fisher applied to UT-Austin in 2008, the 10 percent rule accounted for about 92 percent of all incoming students from Texas. Although she had good grades Fisher did not meet that qualification. Instead, she was evaluated using the university’s holistic review process  using both an academic index (AI), which is based on test scores and grades, and a personal achievement index (PAI), which is based on two essays, the applicant’s life experiences, and, importantly, “special circumstances” that can range from economic background to race.

Based on the applicant pool, available evidence suggests that her rejection was not a result of her race. This fact is put clearly in the case’s court documents, in which UT-Austin notes,

Because petitioner [Fisher] was not in the top 10 percent of her high school class, her application was considered pursuant to the holistic review process described above… The summary judgment record is uncontradicted that—due to the stiff competition in 2008 and petitioner’s relatively low AI score—petitioner would not have been admitted to the Fall 2008 freshman class even if she had received ‘a “perfect” PAI score of 6.’

Put simply, regardless of Fisher’s score on the personal achievement index, her grades and test scores were too low to grant her admission–meaning that race had nothing to do with the school’s decision as the PAI wasn’t a factor. Fisher was also denied admission to the school’s summer program, but the evidence suggests that the same thing happened. For the summer program, there were better qualified black and white students who did not earn acceptance.

Rather than seeking to correct Fisher’s admissions decision, this case is, transparently, about eliminating affirmative action from the college admissions process. The group funding the lawsuit, the Project on Fair Representation, seeks to “support litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts.” This ranges from ending affirmative action in admissions and employment to eliminating voting protections for minorities. And so far, the group has had some notable success achieving that goal. In fact, it was the force behind the Shelby County court case that invalidated a major part of the civil rights act a couple years ago.

In the last landmark ruling on affirmative action, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion that allowed schools to use race as a factor for admissions in order to achieve diversity but gave a sort of expiration date on the practice. According to the decision, affirmative action could be used if it was narrowly tailored to promote greater diversity among the student body. In the opinion, she said, “the court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That was 2003, but 12 years later a renewed push to end affirmative action may move that deadline up considerably.

The Supreme Court is now tasked with determining whether affirmative action remains acceptable or if it should be further restricted and possibly eliminated altogether. Notably, Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case because the Justice Department filed a brief on it during her time as Solicitor General. There is a possibility that the Justices split the decision 4-4, in which case the lower court’s ruling in support of the admissions program will hold.

It’s pretty clear that the Justices are not eager to hand down a landmark decision on affirmative action. In fact, they have already heard this case once before but remanded it back to the lower court to evaluate UT-Austin’s use of affirmative action with stricter scrutiny. In oral arguments earlier this week, some of the Justices wanted to stall even further, questioning whether sending it back for a trial could be beneficial. Now that race is at the forefront of political discussion, the court is in a particularly tricky position. The fate of affirmative action programs now hangs in the balance.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Affirmative Action Makes its Way Back to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Hyunjae Ham, Symon Rowlands, and Toni Keddell.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Family Law.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Civil Rights Law 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch is no stranger to legal trouble due to its alleged discriminatory practices against both workers and customers. The brand came under fire for its refusal to hire a young woman in Oklahoma because she wore a religious head covering. On June 1, after much deliberation, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Samantha Elauf, the prospective employee who was denied a job because of her hijab.

Court rules in favour of Muslim woman who failed to get job after wearing scarf to interview http://t.co/wSiVAgsGvL pic.twitter.com/zagHX1Usdv

— The Independent (@Independent) June 2, 2015

Abercrombie is known for making clothing marketed toward young, preppy, attractive people. Many past employees have claimed that the company discriminated against them for their body type, religious practices, or race. The company has also been known to only market its clothing toward thinner people, as it refuses to make clothing for plus-sized women.

According to Politico, the company paid $50 million to Latino, African American, and Asian job applicants who claimed that there was a lack of diversity in the company. Elauf’s victory in this case has set a precedent for all future employers to follow, which will greatly benefit all potential employees.

In 2008, 17-year-old Elauf applied to Abercrombie & Fitch to work as a salesperson. She did not ask the company to make a religious accommodation for her headscarf during her interview with assistant manager Heather Cooke, and so she was not given the job for two reasons. Firstly, Abercrombie claims that Elauf’s headscarf violated its “look policy,” due to the fact that it was black and considered prohibited headwear, although Elauf claims that she was never informed of this exact policy during her interview. Secondly, Abercrombie also claims that it had no liability since Elauf never identified her headscarf as a religious garment and also because the company did not want to automatically assume that it was being worn for religious reasons so that it doesn’t stereotype any potential employees.

On behalf of Elauf, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal law enforcement agency, sued Abercrombie for discrimination. It was determined that the company did not actually discriminate against Elauf, although her rights were violated under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Abercrombie also has since changed its policies, as now it allows its workers to wear headscarves if they choose to do so.

According to Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in the ruling, “an employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.” The Guardian  also reports that multiple other religious groups were in support of Elauf’s case.

This ruling is a major step forward in terms of workplace equality, as it helps to protect the rights of not only minorities, but all people. Companies now cannot deny employment to any potential worker due to his or her religious observances, which will in turn increase the amount of opportunities available for religious minorities. This court decision also has the potential to completely change how American society views equal opportunity, religious freedom, and workplace discrimination.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Muslim Women Against Abercrombie over Hijab appeared first on Law Street.

This week the Supreme Court began its historic consideration into the federal legality of gay marriage. The nine justices are attempting to decide whether or not the Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses give same-sex couples marriage rights. Currently 37 states have laws permitting same-sex marriage, but a ruling from the court in favor of the challengers would make gay marriage legal in rest of the states.

The legality of #gaymarriage on a federal level is being decided right now: https://t.co/1XiJaJyG3G

— AJ+ (@ajplus) April 29, 2015

Even though the court’s decision won’t be announced until June, people have already begun to categorize the justices in order to decide who could be the deciding factor in the case. The court’s four liberal judges appear to be ready to approve gay marriage, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy being declared the one to watch. Many are speculating that he’ll be the swing vote, like he’s been in the past. However people shouldn’t count conservative Chief Justice John Roberts out as a deciding factor. He was quoted yesterday in the court transcripts as saying,

I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t.  And the difference is based upon their different sex.  Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?

Framing the legality of gay marriage in such a way may be convincing enough to move Roberts to vote with the liberal side of the court. 

The delay in a decision didn’t stop demonstrators from both sides of the argument from flooding the steps of the Supreme Court to share both support and opposition for a change in the way our country defines marriage.

Overflow crowd awaits entry to historic #SCOTUS hearing on gay marriage #WTOP pic.twitter.com/acHOOLCVIB

— Kristi King (@kingWTOP) April 28, 2015

People wait before SCOTUS ahead oral arguments on gay marriage cases Tuesday. (@pmmichalski) http://t.co/tMx9gxrxnu pic.twitter.com/jFChRMv2yo

— Your Take (@yourtake) April 28, 2015

Today KY couples will be part of history. Covering #SCOTUS case on #gaymarriage,protesters by the hundreds outside pic.twitter.com/beoBLcPWae

— Lindsay Allen (@LindAllenWDRB)

Lots of people in front of #SCOTUS ahead of gay marriage oral argument #AFP covers pic.twitter.com/SMCzVWcYBW

— Chantal Valéry (@chantalvalery) April 28, 2015

href=”https://twitter.com/LindAllenWDRB/status/593033167667392512″>April 28, 2015

Early crowds are to be expected in a landmark case of this magnitude. We can be sure to see even more people show up in June when the decision will be announced. As for now things are looking good for marriage equality supporters, but you never know which way the case could turn.

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 Hears Arguments in Historic Gay Marriage Case appeared first on Law Street.

University of Oklahoma’s President is giving chapter members of the fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) exactly one day to get off the campus after a shocking video of the fraternity brothers chorusing a racist chant surfaced on social media.

The video uploaded to Youtube Sunday reportedly shows a bus full of of well dressed white men and women on Saturday chanting in unison: “There will never be a ni**** in SAE. There will never be a ni**** in SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he can never sign with me. There will never be a ni**** in SAE.”

The video can be found here, but keep in mind it is extremely offensive.

According to KOKO Oklahoma City, President David Boren gave the fraternity brothers until midnight Monday to pack up their things and leave. In his statement he denounces the members saying:

Real Sooners are not racist. Real Sooners are not bigots. Real Sooners believe in equal opportunity. Real Sooners treat all people with respect. Real Sooners love each other and take care of each other like family members.

Updated statement attached – DBo pic.twitter.com/xxfiJwCh0P

— David Boren (@President_Boren) March 9, 2015

Sigma Alpha Epsilon’s national chapter was quick to shut down Oklahoma’s Kappa chapter after being informed of the video saying they were “disgusted by this video” and “offer our empathy not only to anyone outside the organization who is offended but also to our brothers who come from a wide range of backgrounds, cultures and ethnicities.” They took to Twitter to offer this official statement:

While we correct our server issues, here’s our statement. pic.twitter.com/yOBqubcLFO

— Sigma Alpha Epsilon (@sae1856) March 9, 2015

The university is taking this situation seriously, announcing they will be launching a formal investigation into the video and will punish any students involved.

If the video is indeed of OU students, this behavior will not be tolerated and is contrary to all of our values. We are investigating. – DBo

— David Boren (@President_Boren) March 9, 2015

What’s probably most shocking about the video is the perfect unison in which the students are heard chanting. It doesn’t at all sound like this is the first time they’ve recited this chant and the lynching references could mean this tradition dates back awhile. However, Sigma Alpha Epsilon’s national chapter is denying any ties to the chant and seems to be just as disgusted with it as the rest of the nation. Like in many hazing or other Greek life scandals, this video may end up tarnishing the organization’s reputation as a whole.

The only positive thing that can be said about this video is the zero tolerance policy for racism shown by University of Oklahoma administrators. This video is just further proof that contrary to some people racism is still alive, and this nation has a lot more work to do before we see its extinction.

—

Alexis Evans (@Lex_vans) is an Editorial Assistant at Law Street and a Buckeye State native new to Washington D.C. She received a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in business from Ohio University. When she’s not taking Buzzfeed quizzes, she enjoys watching reality TV and cooking. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jeff Simms via Flickr]

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 University of Oklahoma Fraternity Shut Down After Racist Chant appeared first on Law Street.

Reverend Al Sharpton is having a rough week. The controversial civil rights activist, along with Comcast and Time Warner Cable, has just been hit with a huge $20 billion racial discrimination lawsuit. This news came among amidst rumors he’s next on the MSNBC show canceling chopping block.

The lawsuit was filed last week in a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The plaintiffs are the National Association for African-American Owned Media (NAAAOM) and Entertainment Studios Network, which was founded by comedian Byron Allen. They argue that Comcast and Time Warner paid activists like Sharpton large amounts of money to “whitewash” their practices by making it appear like the companies were promoting diversity when in actuality they weren’t. According to the plaintiffs, Sharpton and his fellow defendants helped facilitate Comcast and Time Warner’s “racist practices” by refusing to contract with 100 percent African-American owned businesses. The two media giants are currently being reviewed by U.S. regulators for a $45 billion merger.

The lawsuit states:

Comcast and Time Warner Cable collectively spend approximately $25 billion annually for the licensing of pay-television channels and advertising of their products and services ($20 billion licensing and $5 billion advertising), yet 100% African American–owned media receives less than $3 million per year.

The plaintiff goes on to argue that the only fully black-owned channel picked up by Comcast is the Africa Channel, which is owned by Paula Madison, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Diversity Officer of Comcast/NBC-Universal. The lawsuit alleges Madison is part of the supposed scam stating:

[Madison] was directly involved in putting together the sham MOUs and obtaining government approval for the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal, thus creating a serious conflict of interest. In other words, aside from a channel that is owned and operated by the former Comcast/NBC-Universal executive who authored the MOUs, Comcast has not launched a single 100% African American–owned channel—by way of the MOUs or otherwise.

NAAAOM also claims Comcast used other black channels with black celebrities as “fronts” to “window dress” the truth that those channels are majority owned and controlled by white-owned businesses. Sharpton wasn’t the only one accused of receiving “whitewash” money. The lawsuit also alleges that the NAACP, National Urban League, and National Action Network had a hand in the supposed scam, signing phony diversity agreements with Comcast in exchange for donations.

In an interview with Variety, Comcast rebutted NAAAOM’s claims calling them “frivolous” while Sharpton called the lawsuit a “bogus statement from a person [Allen] who has no credibility”.

This lawsuit couldn’t have come at a worse time for Sharpton, whose MSNBC show appears on the verge of cancellation. According to the Daily Beast, low ratings have forced MSNBC to give up on trying to be the Dr. Jekyll to FOX News’ Mr. Hyde, veering away from ultra liberal commentary in favor of a more traditional type of news. As a result they’re planning to nix left-wing programming and liberal commentators, possibly including the famed Reverend’s lackluster show “PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton.” Neither MSNBC nor Sharpton have confirmed these rumors but the Daily Beast credits “knowledgeable sources at the Comcast-owned cable network” with the information leak. These same sources according to the Daily Beast speculate:

[Sharpton] could eventually be moved from his weeknight 6 p.m. slot to a weekend time period, as MNSBC President Phil Griffin attempts to reverse significant viewership slides by accentuating straight news over left-leaning opinion.

As a whole, it’s not looking too good for Sharpton, even though the outspoken reverend has weathered several controversies in the past. It will be interesting to see what evidence NAAAOM has to support their claims. If found guilty of racial discrimination, Sharpton’s career as a civil rights activist may be unable to survive the irony.

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 Civil Rights Activist Al Sharpton Sued For Racial Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

The civil rights movement in America attempted to end segregation and racial discrimination of black Americans and secure federal protections of their rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 seemingly sealed the deal, prohibiting discrimination based on race. In spite of that, there is an argument to be made that racial discrimination is still a persistent problem in the United States. One important facet of the discussion is centered around the “war on drugs” and the so-called “tough on crime” policy approach that the United States has adopted since the 1970s. Racially disproportionate drug arrests have resulted in mass incarceration and prompted civil rights concerns. Read on to learn more about current drug policy and its implications in relation to civil rights.

History of Inequality in U.S. Drug Policy

Throughout history there have been many instances in which unequal treatment of various minority groups was evident in American drug laws. The first anti-drug law dates back to 1875, when smoking opium was penalized in San Francisco, primarily, it is believed, to stigmatize Chinese immigrants. In 1914 the Harrison Narcotics Act expanded the powers of the federal government, and concurrently the media portrayed black Americans as the primary users of cocaine, one such narcotic. Later, multiple reports by the media tied Mexican immigrants, who were entering the country for agricultural jobs, to marijuana-related violence. The result of that particular stereotype was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

Congress created its first mandatory minimum sentencing law in 1952, the Boggs Act, which required a minimum sentence of two to ten years for first-time marijuana possession. But the most notorious mandatory minimum drug laws were enacted in New York under Nelson Rockefeller, who was the governor at the time. That mandatory sentence threshold was raised to a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of life in prison. The “Rockefeller Drug Laws” were enacted in 1973, signifying the beginning of a long-standing “tough on crime” policy in the United States.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was the culmination of the “war on drugs,” requiring identical penalties (a five-year minimum sentence) for five grams of crack cocaine and 500 grams of powder cocaine. As crack cocaine was cheap, it dominated poor black communities, while more affluent, usually white communities, used the more expensive powder cocaine.

 Are the U.S. Drug Policies changing?

Under the Obama Administration, the ratio of crack to powder cocaine was significantly reduced when the Fair Sentencing Act was signed into law in August 2010. The current administration also acknowledged that the previous laws were discriminatory and disproportionately impacted communities of color.

State laws are also slowly changing, with California at the forefront of the movement. A new law, “Proposition 47,” enacted in 2014, reduces simple drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Politicians are also starting to speak up, calling for the end of “War on Drugs.” Outgoing Attorney General,Eric Holder is one of the most vociferous proponents of reducing mass incarceration and re-integrating formerly incarcerated individuals back into society.

In addition, legalization of marijuana is a hot topic everywhere in the United States. More and more states have legalized the drug for either recreational or medical use, prompting the idea of country-wide legalization and regulation in the future. The New York Times editorial board and President Barack Obama have spoken out in support of the legalization movement.

It’s plausible that American drug policy is undergoing a transition from prohibition and harsh sanctions toward regulation and rehabilitation practices. But it can still be characterized as a punitive system, highly centered on deterrence through long and harsh sentencing practices. There are also many concerns that the current drug policies are still racist in practice. People of color are disproportionally imprisoned for drug offenses, often creating vicious circles of poverty and crime.

What are the main concerns with the current U.S. Drug Policy?

Our drug policy enforcers are part of the judicial system, and there are many concerns that the judicial system treats members of minority populations more harshly than their counterparts. For example, black men are stopped and frisked at disproportionately higher rates than members of other communities. In 2011 the number of stops of young black men in New York City topped the city’s entire population of young black men: 168,126 stops compared to a population of just 158,406 young black men. In the same year, 52.9 percent of the people stopped and frisked were black, 33.7 percent were Latino, and only 9.3 percent were white. The stop and frisk racial landscape didn’t change much in 2014: 54 percent of those who were stopped and frisked were black, 27 percent were Latinos, and 12 percent were white. African Americans are also stopped more frequently when driving or entering the country.

Critics of the drug policy worry that black Americans are also more likely to be arrested. The rate of arrests for black Americans is 2.5 times higher than white Americans. At the same time, even though the black and white population use marijuana at roughly the same rates, black Americans are four times more likely to be arrested for drug offenses. Watch the video below to learn more about racial disparities in marijuana-related arrests.

Finally, black users are more often convicted and incarcerated for drug felonies. In 2009, 50.5 percent of the state prisoners convicted on drug offenses were African Americans, 17 percent were Latinos, and 30.1 percent were whites. Black men and women were also sent to prison on drug charges at 11.8 and 4.8 times the rate of their white counterparts, respectively.

Critics of our current polices point out that as a result of such discriminatory treatment, black Americans enter the prison system at a higher rate, stay there longer, and are more likely to go back there again. The harsh penal sanctions for drug offenses result in mass incarceration of individuals of color. Black Americans convicted of drug offenses constitute 53.3 percent of those admitted to state prisons. Watch the video below to learn more about mass incarceration in the United States.

Who thinks the current drug laws aren’t discriminatory?

There is another point of view that claims that the notion of differential treatment according to race is non-existent. Those who subscribe to that school of thought argue that African Americans simply commit more drug-related offenses. This argument posits that the police and criminal justice system are not biased toward minorities. It further asserts that the reason why disproportionately more black Americans end up in the criminal justice system has to do with relative crime rates, not racial bias. Some conservative voices hold the same view, citing that African Americans simply commit more crimes, especially those involving drugs. The video below shows Bill O’Reilly, a FOX News commentator, speaking in support of this point of view.

So, is U.S. Drug Policy a Civil Rights Issue?

What is a “Civil Rights Issue”?

Civil rights are centered on the notion of discrimination. A civil rights issue arises when an individual or group has been discriminated against on the basis of its race, sex, religion, age, physical limitation, or orientation. Civil rights issues are often discussed in the realm of employment or housing discrimination. Such spheres can be considered traditional civil rights battlegrounds.

The criminal justice system has been long overlooked when discussing civil rights violations. Only relatively recently did the ACLU and other civil and human rights groups begin to acknowledge that sentencing practices for drug offenses and the overall treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system is a civil rights issue.

How does the U.S. Drug Policy relate to Civil Rights?

Those who argue that the U.S. Drug Policy is a civil rights issue focus on the particular emphasis in drug laws that are not equal in their intent or enforcement. The majority of drug crimes are not committed by minorities, but the prison system is disproportionally filled with African Americans and Latinos.

The public has long associated poor communities of color with drugs and crime, a notion that was long perpetuated by the media. More minority arrests and convictions for drug offenses result in the belief that certain parts of the population use more drugs and commit more crime. It opens up a discussion on racial dynamics in American society and the impact of structural racism.

In this realm, many argue that the current drug policy can be considered a civil rights issue as it discriminates against communities of color in the criminal justice system by disproportionately targeting open drug markets in poor neighborhoods and failing to recognize the same dynamics in more affluent areas.

Conclusion

The current drug policy of the United States Government is centered on tough sanctions and long sentencing practices. It often ignores the fact that drug use is a public heath issue, locking up individuals for simple possession of certain drugs. At the same time, the enforcement of the current drug laws is disproportionately focused on communities of color, resulting in the mass incarceration of minorities. Thus, numerous civil and human rights groups consider U.S. drug policy a civil rights issue. But not everybody supports this point of view. The counter argument refuses a civil rights interpretation of the issue, claiming that minorities simply commit more drug-related offenses. No matter who is right or wrong, the current drug policy needs serious fixing.

Resources

Primary

The White House: Civil Rights

Additional

New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration at the Age of Colorblindness

Foreign Policy in Focus: U.S. Drug Policy

Huffington Post: More Nails in the Drug War Coffin: Top Stories of 2014

Sentencing Project: Incarcerated Parents and their Children

Human Rights Watch: Race, Drugs, and Law Enforcement in the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics: Special Report. Civil Rights Complaints in U.S. District Courts, 1990-2006.

NYCLU: Stop and Frisk Data

ACLU: Driving While Black: Racial Profiling On Our Nation’s Highways

ACLU: Border Patrol Stops

Anti-Defamation League: Privilege, Discrimination, and Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

Sentencing Project: Drug Policy

Human Rights Watch: Race and Drugs

New Century Foundation: The Color of Crime. Race, Crime and Justice in America

Center For Constitutional Rights: Floyd, et al, v. City of New York, et al.

The New York Times: An Editorial Series on Marijuana Legalization

Huffington Post: Obama: Marijuana No More Dangerous Than Alcohol

Legal Information Institute: Equal Protection

Leadership Conference: Justice On Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System

NYCLU Briefing 2011: Stop and Frisk

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Drug Policy: Civil Rights Issue or Fair Enforcement? appeared first on Law Street.

The passage of voter identification laws has been a popular political fire-starter in recent years. At their core they make sense–you should have to be who you say you are in order to vote. But in practice there are significantly more nuances, problems, and historical concerns that accompany voter ID laws. Read on to learn about the complicated arguments over voter ID laws.

What is a Voter ID Law?

At its core it’s pretty much exactly what it sounds like–a law requiring that photo identification is shown before a citizen votes. It is used to confirm that the person voting is who she says she is, and that she is in fact registered to vote. Voter ID laws have taken a few different forms in the United States. The National Conference of State Legislatures delineated several different categories of these laws.

Strict voter ID laws that require photo ID: At least seven states have strict voter ID laws that require photo identification in 2014, including Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. This type of law require that a voter show some sort of government-issued photo ID, usually from a list of acceptable options provided by the state. These laws also usually allow a voter who doesn’t have an approved form of identification to cast a provisional ballot, but require the voter to take extra steps after the ballot has been cast, such as return with an ID a few days later.

Strict voter ID laws that don’t require photo ID: At least three states have strict voter ID laws not requiring photo identification in 2014, including Arizona, North Dakota, and Ohio. Although these laws don’t require a voter to show photo identification, they do require an approved ID of some sort, such as proof of address or a birth certificate. Again, these lists are curated by the states themselves; however, if that form of identification is not provided, a voter in these states would have to return with it at some point.

Less-strict voter ID laws that require photo ID: At least eight states have this level of photo ID at the polls in 2014, including Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. While states in this category do require photo ID, there are ways around showing it. For example, some states allow a voter to sign an affidavit proving his identity, or to send a letter confirming who he is.

Less-strict voter ID laws that don’t require photo ID: At least 13 states have this level of photo ID at the polls in 2014, including Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington. Voters are required to bring some form of non-photo identification; however, if they don’t they can still vote by signing an affidavit attesting to their identities.

No ID law at all: At least 17 states do not require ID to vote, including California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Some of these states, however, have enacted or are working to enact voter ID laws for future elections.

Voter ID laws are now in 17 more states than they were in 2000. http://t.co/HaPbgUZnnz pic.twitter.com/jop0rVD8Qz

— FiveThirtyEight (@FiveThirtyEight) November 1, 2014

What is the argument for voter ID laws?

The Rock the Vote campaigns have lost a little bit of their edge as voter identification laws are increasingly enacted across the country. Supporters of voter ID laws argue that certain measures of identification are necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure the sanctity of the election process. They also argue that requiring a government-issued ID in order to cast a ballot is not too much too ask, as everyone has some sort of government identification on his or her person at all times.

Voter ID laws have traditionally received support from conservative politicians. As Mitt Romney put it in 2011:

I find it extraordinary that [US Attorney General] Eric Holder is, one more time, making a very serious error [in challenging a South Carolina law that requires a photo ID to vote]… The idea that people should not be able to be identified as they vote so that we can know that they are not voting multiple times. I mean, that’s the purpose here of course. We don’t want people voting multiple times and you can get a photo ID free from your state. You can get it at the time you register to vote…That’s one more lawsuit I’d end if I were president of the United States.

 What’s the argument against voter ID laws?

Those against the bill argue that voter ID laws prevent college students from going to the polls and therefore suppress youth voting, which is already an issue that many organizations work to combat. College students and other young people often don’t have government-issued photo IDs that contain their current addresses, because their permanent residence is often different from where they live during college. There are also allegations that these laws are passed merely for the sake of being passed. Some of the most controversial provisions of the bills seem to be included without much thought and even go unread by those signing them into law.

Some elected officials argue that voter ID laws prevent minority and elderly voters who lack the means to comply with them. Others argue that the laws are American conservatives’ means to subtly discriminate against minority voters. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that as much as seven percent of Americans don’t have proof of citizenship, and as much as 11 percent don’t have a government-issued photo ID. The reasons for this are myriad–the Brennan Center points out that married women disproportionately don’t have anything to prove their citizenship, because they’ve changed their last names. In addition, the elderly, the poor, and those who don’t have the funds to drive are unlikely to have government-issued photo ID.

Conclusion

In a political landscape that can only possibly be described as polarized, who can vote in an election is certainly at issue. While the idea of voter ID laws makes sense in theory, there are certainly valid questions as to the actual functionality of the laws. It is as much a political issue as an ethical one–it will be interesting to see which of those two competing interests ends up winning out.

Resources

Primary

US House of Representatives: House Bill 589 – Voter Information Verification Act

Additional 

Guardian: Felon Voting Rights Have Bigger Impact Than Voter ID Laws

The New York Times: States Rush to Enact Voting Laws

The New York Times: Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

CNN: Civil Rights Struggle Far From Over

Philly: Voter ID’s Fate Now In Judge’s Hands

Brennan Center: Citizens Without Proof

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Voter ID Laws: Are They Necessary? appeared first on Law Street.

Need a lawyer? Well soon, we may have an app for that.

Currently there’s a project on crowdfunding website Indiegogo called Sidekik. The idea of sidekik is based on the fact that many Americans have found themselves in situations where they are confronted by the police, or other security force, and may not know their rights. In such a situation, the Sidekik app can be used for a few different things. It will be able to audio and video record the interactions that the user has with the police, and then upload it to a server where it can’t be deleted by just deleting the physical file off the phone. And it can connect the user, in real time, to an attorney who can help. Here’s a more thorough explanation of the idea:

The idea hasn’t really taken off on Indiegogo — so far, just over $11,000 has been raised of the $250,000 that Sidekik estimates it will need to get off the ground. But according to the founders, that initial money is enough to start developing the preliminary stages of the app.

I think the idea, at its core, is an interesting one. I do agree with the founders that most average Americans don’t necessarily know their rights, although if you’re curious, this guide on what to do if you’re pulled over by Lawstreeter Marisa Mostek is an excellent resource. Given the debates the nation has been having about police militarization and fairness, the Sidekik app could play an interesting part in ensuring that civil rights violations are avoided. I highly doubt that an app like this would have saved Michael Brown in Ferguson, but I could see it preventing some more minor civil rights issues.

There are some serious logistical issues though that need to be worked out when it comes to contacting attorneys. Presumably, you only have a few seconds between being pulled over and the cop walking up to your window. There’s no real time to tell your mobile attorney what’s going on, which will probably make it difficult for the attorney to be of real help.

Sidekik is also built on the fact that it will be in contact with attorneys within the jurisdiction where the user is interacting with the police, and be able to send the calls to those attorneys. It’s assumed that attorneys will pick up because of the desirability of client leads. I think that’s a great idea — during normal business hours. But what if you get pulled over at 2:00am? Will Sidekik be able to find a lawyer for you then? It’s certainly a tough guarantee to make, when it involves outsourcing to third parties.

Issues with the “contact an attorney wherever” logistics aside, the recording and uploading to a remote server is a decent idea. It will certainly allow you to chronicle your interactions with the police officer and ensure that the file can’t be deleted permanently if the phone is confiscated or destroyed. There are other apps that do the same thing, but maybe Sidekik will be able to make itself the go-to authority on secure recording.

I have no idea if this app will take off, but I think what it says about the state of American police is significantly more interesting than the app itself. We’re increasingly mistrustful of our police forces, and with more stories coming out every day, the paranoia is understandable. An app that’s based on the presumption that an officer is going to try to trick you or impede your civil rights is concerning. Whether or not Sidekik ends up being successful, it’s an interesting look into our national state of mind.

—

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 [Jason Weaver 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 Sidekik: An Attorney in Your Pocket? appeared first on Law Street.

You’d think that $68 billion would go a long way. According to the Justice Policy Institute, that is how much the United States spends on its criminal justice system every year – and we get what we pay for. The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population, yet it claims 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population. This staggering number is among the reasons that bipartisanship may make a comeback in U.S. politics. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rand Paul (R-KY) have partnered up to cosponsor the REDEEM Act in an effort to tackle the confused American criminal justice system.

What Does Criminal Justice Reform Look Like?

Booker and Paul’s REDEEM Act – short for the Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment Act of 2014 – is meant to restructure sentencing and incarceration in the United States. The bill’s name alludes to the sealing and expungement of criminal records, which are often obstacles in finding employment for ex-convicts.

The bill would allow nonviolent, adult offenders to “to petition a court and make their case” for sealing their criminal records, and for the automatic sealing and expungement of certain juvenile records. The legislation would also introduce additional reforms to the juvenile justice system and the food stamps program.

Why is the U.S. criminal justice system in such disarray? University of Michigan Professor Salomon Orellana claims that our two-party system is partly to blame. In a guest article in the Washington Post, Orellana says that “when both parties (in a two-party system) emphasize toughness it sends a message to the public that toughness is the only legitimate response to crime.” The Republican-Democratic split favors quick-fixes, and their “tough on crime” attitude is the quick-fix America that has been failing with for the past few decades.

Orellana references New Zealand’s shift from a two-party system to one with multiple political parties. He notes that media discussion of tough policies in response to crime were less prominent in the new system. He says, “Under the multiparty system, minor parties received much more attention and consequently a wider variety of positions emerged.” In the case of New Zealand, the debate was changed for the better.

Bipartisanship is, in a way, America’s own third party. Its efforts are rarely popular on the national level but gets a lot of media attention when it happens. However, it’s possible that the REDEEM Act, and criminal justice reform in general, will provide a good opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to work together. The bill’s aisle-crossing authors make such partnerships seem promising, and not just because they are of opposite parties.

Booker and Paul are both extremely popular. Senator Booker gained state-wide celebrity status and makes an effort to work with members of the GOP when possible. Senator Paul has the name recognition of his father, former Congressman Ron Paul, and made noise himself with a unique Republican stance and a legendary filibuster. Both are revered by young people and boast enormous twitter fanbases. As rising stars within their party their actions have received a lot of attention lately, particularly when they attempt to reach across the aisle.

What Should Criminal Justice Reform Sound Like?

Despite its bipartisan co-sponsorship, the REDEEM Act has not broken the “tough on crime” barrier just yet. In an interview with Politico, Booker and Paul sat together to discuss their partnership. Booker remarked that, “it’s no longer this juxtaposition between tough on crime and public safety… You can be tough on crime and lower recidivism rates by doing common sense things.” While Booker’s statement is relatively bold, he still holds onto what should be antiquated rhetoric.

Perpetuating the same discussion that fostered American mass incarceration is a mistake. It would be healthier to foster a political discussion that rejects “tough on crime” as a legitimate response to issues that handcuff our criminal justice system. Because such rhetoric antagonizes those without opportunity, a complete attitudinal shift is necessary.

Professor Michelle Alexander details the history of “tough on crime” policies and the state of mass incarceration in her book The New Jim Crow. Alexander argues that since Nixon, Democratic and Republican presidents alike have employed hard-line crime policies to incarcerate and marginalize blacks in America. If Booker and Paul are serious about reform, and if they truly consider it a civil rights issue, they will abandon the tough stance that perpetuates many of the issues in our criminal justice system.

Nevertheless, punitive measures do not need to be phased out. Nor would they be. As Orellana writes about multiparty New Zealand, “there were still calls for punishment and enforcement, but there were also calls for alternative solutions.” Rather than promoting “tough on crime” policies working with public safety initiatives, the conversation should demand a balance between fair incarceration and effective rehabilitation.

While the REDEEM Act would be a step in the right direction, the legislation and the discussion surrounding it both fall short. But if we consider the hostility with which our Congress “operates”, the passage of this bill would be a milestone for its authors and the U.S. criminal justice system.

Latest updates on the REDEEM Act:

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia and JD Lasica via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Bipartisan Faces of Criminal Justice Reform appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, an independent investigation into 22 years worth of court filings revealed a history of misconduct by the Oakland Police Department. Among the findings is the conclusion that the police department spent $74 million in civil rights lawsuit settlements, as well as an emerging trend of brutality among decorated officers.

Oakland Police Beat is a project created by Oakland Local, which provides an unprecedented look at police department records and statistics about the history of the Oakland Police Department. The research was conducted by a small team of journalists and interns, who seek to improve transparency in the local police force as well as reveal historical trends using publicly available statistics and court records. The site is funded by The Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation and the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

The most notable finding revealed by Oakland Police Beat so far concluded that the city has spent a considerable amount of money for settlements on civil rights cases. According to their research, the Oakland Police department spent $74 million on settlements for at least 417 cases involving misconduct, brutality, and civil rights violations. They also note that Oakland ranks third amongst California cities (that make data publicly available) for highest settlement payouts.

The project also identified an alarming trend among Oakland’s decorated police officers. Oakland Police Beat found that 40 percent of the 35 most decorated officers were part of one or more officer-involved shootings- a total 29 shootings. Of the same group of officers, 61 percent were named in civil rights lawsuits, 14 of which were in two or more cases. Finally, at least four of the 35 most decorated officers were involved in the police response of the Occupy Oakland protests of 2011 and 2012. Oakland Police Beat notes that this response “used chemical agents as well as beanbag and explosive projectiles during violent clashes.” The city has already spent over $6 million in settling lawsuits related to these incidents.

Oakland Police Beat went through 1,368 lawsuits and complaints that were filed from Jan. 1, 1990 to Jan. 1, 2013. They focused on settled cases, which they found represented roughly 75 percent of the cases filed against the OPD. Using public records the organization was able to identify how many cases were civil rights related and then used those as the basis for their conclusions.

Although anyone can file a lawsuit against the police department, Oakland Police Beat noticed that over 100 cases were dismissed by the court. However, the remaining 417 civil rights cases that were settled outside of court represent instances that the police department determined were substantive enough to deal with. Alex Kats, the City Attorney’s Chief of Staff, told Oakland Police Beat that expected costs are often an important factor in deciding to settle a case. The city will typically settle out of court if they foresee that the costs of litigation or a judgment are higher than settlement. This course of action also does not require the police department to admit fault. It is important to note that in settled cases, there must typically be some legitimate claim made to prevent it from being thrown out by the court.

Why Oakland?

In addition to being ranked by Law Street as the second most dangerous city over 200,000, the Oakland police department has faced issues with its officer’s use of force in the past. The issue first came about with “the Riders” scandal in 2000, where a group of officers were alleged to have planted evidence and excessively beat suspects which sparked an investigation into the police force. Although after two mistrials, prosecutors decided not to attempt a third criminal trial, the civil suit marked a very important settlement.

The terms of the settlement agreement required Oakland to pay out nearly $11 million to the plaintiffs, implement 51 reforms to the police department, including new guidelines for officer’s use of force, as well as dismiss the three accused officers from the police force. Despite settling in 2003, the city has not yet complied with the full terms of the agreement and currently faces problems managing its crime levels.

Oakland Police Beat’s in-depth research into the Oakland Police Department reveal several startling conclusions about police brutality and civil rights cases, and will continue release further findings over the next several weeks. The project marks an never before seen look into Oakland’s historically troubled police force, and provides further understanding as to why Oakland is ranked the third most dangerous city in America.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr/Gregory Veen]

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post What’s New: Police Brutality is the Norm in Oakland appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Susan Sermoneta via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

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

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

“Can’t a young [    ] get money anymore?”

Prophetic words indeed from the twenty-first century’s most evocative and provocative lyricist – Kanye West – in case there is anyone out there who doesn’t recognize the quote. A very serious question indeed in a modern world where many of us, Black and non-Black, define our successes based on our material possessions. But the deeper meaning resonates with every Black person who has heard  the news coming from New York relating to one of the preeminent department stores in the country: Barneys New York. Turns out this lovely little mom-and-pop luxury store, which prides itself on drawing fashionistas the world over, had a little problem with some of their darker shoppers.

The story goes, a male shopper by the name of Trayon Christian, 19 of Queens, felt the inexorable urge to splurge on a designer belt, because, ya know, a guy’s gotta treat himself every now and then. So, with his hard-earned money, about $349 of it, Mr. Christian bought a Ferragamo belt. He bought the belt with his debit card, for which he showed identification, and then happily left the store. Upon exiting, it seems two plain-clothes cops handcuffed him and detained him for two hours. The officers apparently could not possibly comprehend how someone his age could buy a belt so expensive. The card had to be stolen. Mr. Christian had to be a thief, because, ya know, young Black people having money just doesn’t add up.

I wonder if the exchange went like this:

Officers: “Excuse me sir, can I ask you a few questions?”

Christian: “Umm, what do you want?”

Officers: “Did you just buy a belt from Barneys?”

Christian: “Yes, I can’t imagine how you’d know that, but why does it. . .”

Officers: “We’ll ask the questions here! I think we’re gonna have to take you in.”

Christian: “Why, I have a receipt?”

Officers: “Silly kid, receipts don’t mean anything when you’re Black and buy things we can’t imagine someone your age and race should buy.”

:: AND SCENE ::

Now, I’ll begin by saying I totally made that up and have no proof whatsoever that that happened. In that way, I am just like the officers who detained Trayon. Obviously they suspected he had stolen the debit card or something of the sort, and they had naturally no proof whatsoever that that was the case. But who needs facts, anyway?

But it didn’t stop there. Turns out another incident happened at Barneys, where apparently Black is the new guilty. Kayla Phillips of Brooklyn, 21, was confronted by officers at a subway station. Her charge: buying a $2,500 Celine purse. Again, I get all my advice on high fashion from Kanye, and he’s the one who told me when you have on the Zara pant and a girl walks in with the Celine version you feel like shit. Well, Kayla didn’t want to feel like shit. So Kayla, with her hard-earned tax refund, bought herself a designer purse, because that frantic purse dig for her keys that pisses off her boyfriend when it’s cold outside and they’re just trying to get to the car because they are already late . . . – I digress – just isn’t the same unless the purse is Celine.

These two intrepid fashionistas were simply trying to buy nice things. All too often the allure of keeping up with the Joneses plagues minority communities. Is it some underlying desire for conformity? Is it some thirst to bedazzle oneself in the trappings of the majority culture? Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Hell yes. But I am more concerned about what this says about our culture.

It goes like this: Black people were brought here as slaves. [Stop me if this sounds unfamiliar at all.] We were emancipated. We essentially languished for 100 years despite like five Constitutional Amendments and men like Dubois, Washington, Garvey, and King. We got some rights: voting, etc. Then we began to enter the middle class. We begin to live how the other half lived for nearly the entire tenure of our race on the North American continent. We began to believe in our hearts that the color of our skin didn’t matter. Then we sorta lost some voting rights. [Still wondering how the Supreme Court did that.] When it came to material things, the only thing we thought mattered was the color of our money. We were wrong. Turns out all that matters is someone in a position of power and his perception of you. Doesn’t matter if your debit card has your name on it and you showed identification. Merely buying something someone else thinks you ought not, or have no reason to buy, is apparently all it takes to stir up enough suspicion to be arrested.

Therein lies the hard truth of modern America. I have often in my time in Washington, D.C. literally stood in the middle of the street with money in my hand hoping to hail a cab. And time and again I have been passed over for the White couple on date night. Or the drunk frat boys. Greater than the inconvenience of just having to take the Metro is the shame associated with someone whom you don’t even know perceiving something negative about you based on no actions of your own.

I have never been followed in a store. In many ways, what happened to these two people is even worse. No one followed them expecting them to shoplift. They waited until after they had purchased their items to imbue them with the suspicion of illegality. So legally entering a store, legally shopping, and legally purchasing something isn’t enough to dispel suspicion? That begs the question, what the hell will?

At this very moment I am looking at my designer, leather jogging pants and wondering when the Feds will come knocking. I guess I could run, but you folks have no idea how impractical it is to actually do physical activity in leather jogging pants.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Alicia Griffin via Flickr]

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thursdays at Barneys appeared first on Law Street.

Harry Belafonte, now a well-known singer and song-writer, was a huge supporter of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during his early career.  Belafonte provided for the King family both before and after Dr. King’s assassination.  He was able to partly finance many steps in the Civil Rights Movement, including the March on Washington and the Freedom Rides. He also bailed Dr. King out of jail a few times. After Dr. King’s assassination, he continued work as a political and humanitarian activist, and remained close to the family. However his connection to the King family seriously worsened after Coretta Scott King’s 2006 death. The last straw seemed to be when he was disinvited from Mrs. King’s funeral after he publicly spoke out against George W. Bush.

This week, Belafonte made headlines for a different reason. He has filed a lawsuit in the New York District Court against the children of the King family. The lawsuit stems from three papers that Belafonte claims were given to him by Dr. King, Coretta Scott King, and Stanley Levison—an aide to Dr. King. These papers include an outline of one of Dr. King’s speeches on Vietnam from 1967, a letter of condolence from President Johnson after Dr. King’s assassination, and an envelope from Dr. King’s pocket on the day of his assassination. Belafonte claims that the first of these documents, the speech outline, was given to him by Dr. King himself–in fact, the speech was supposedly written in Belafonte’s apartment. The letter was supposedly given to Belafonte by Coretta Scott King. And, finally, the envelope with Dr. King’s last written words was bequeathed to him by Stanley Levison’s will.

In 2008, Belafonte tried to sell these documents at an auction to raise money for charity. However the King family challenged Belafonte’s ability to sell these documents, claiming that he acquired them wrongfully and they belonged to the King estate. Belafonte has officially filed a suit to attempt to get himself declared the rightful owner so that they can officially be sold at a charity auction.

This is not the first time that an argument over Dr. King’s documents has made it to trial. In 1986, Coretta Scott King sued Boston University to return a large collection of Dr. King’s documents that he had given to the university 20-odd years before. In 2011, the King estate sued Dr. King’s former secretary, Maude Ballou to stop her from selling documents given to her by Dr. King before his death.

Belafonte’s lawyer is claiming that there is no evidence to suggest that Belafonte could have stolen or in any way wrongfully acquired these documents. Sources close both to Belafonte and the King family are somewhat dismayed with the actions that the King family have taken. In a recent New York Times piece, Clarence B. Jones, a former lawyer for Dr. King called the King family’s attempt to retake these documents as, “inconsistent with, and, really, a denigration of, the love and integrity that their dad had for the people who worked with him.”

The lawsuit offers an interesting question: what rights does an estate have to documents that have ended up in others’ possession? While it seems somewhat irrefutable that these documents belong to Belafonte and were given to him through legitimate means, will King’s estate have a leg to stand on?

[New York Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Lloyd Lee 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 Old Friends Turned Foes: Harry Belafonte against the King Family appeared first on Law Street.