When Pokémon Go debuted last summer, the mobile game spread across the world–as of April 2017, more than 65 million people were playing, according to Business Insider. The game got people to exercise outside as they pursued Pokémon, but there were also some safety issues because of its augmented reality style.

Milwaukee County enacted an ordinance in February to curb the presence of Pokémon Go-style games in the city. According to the ordinance, game developers would be required to apply for a permit for augmented reality games, like Pokémon Go, to be played in parks.

But last week, U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller halted the ordinance because he said it may violate the First Amendment. Stadtmueller issued a preliminary injunction that the county cannot enforce the measure until a lawsuit between the county and Candy Lab Inc., which develops augmented reality games, is finished.

Candy Lab Inc. filed the lawsuit in response to the county’s ordinance, according to a local Fox affiliate. Under the county’s order, companies must also obtain a “certificate of insurance” worth $1 million of “general liability coverage,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Milwaukee County board supervisor Sheldon Wasserman filed the ordinance because the county was struggling to police activity in parks that doubled as “Pokémon centers” or “Pokémon gyms” for the game. The main issues included “traffic congestion, parking issues, littering, damaged turf, risks to natural habitats, lack of restrooms, and noncompliance with park system operational hours,” according to a report by Milwaukee County Parks. 

Milwaukee County is by far the largest in Wisconsin, home to over 16 percent of the state’s population. Other areas of the country have also experienced safety issues stemming from the game, which can distract people as they walk at night. Last year, three University of Maryland students were robbed at gun point on campus in a one-hour span while playing the game, according to the Baltimore Sun.

The federal judge wasn’t swayed by the public safety issues, however. Instead, Stadtmueller recommends that the county allocate resources to remedying the issue instead of putting the pressure on the companies:

Rather than prohibit publication of the game itself, the County could address its concerns by directly regulating the objectionable downstream conduct. … This might include aggressively penalizing gamers who violate park rules or limiting gamers to certain areas of the park. Such measures would assuage the alleged evils visited upon the parks by gamers while stifling less expression than the Ordinance does.

One issue Stadtmueller brought up in his decision was how broad the restrictions were. For a law such as this to be constitutional, he said, it must be narrowly-tailored to the specific issue and content neutral. The judge didn’t feel that was the case. Stadtmueller believes the current restrictions are too “vague” and provide too much censorship power to government officials, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The county claims that the games can’t be considered speech, according to a local Fox affiliate. But Stadtmueller said the plot, characters, and dialogue make the game an expression of free speech.

Despite the decision, Wasserman is still committed to fighting for the ordinance. He said he is particularly intrigued by the groundbreaking nature of the case and the potential ramifications.

“I’ve also been told by the lawyers that this case is getting so hot, and that it brings up so many constitutional questions, that this has the potential to go all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Wasserman said.

Only 10 years ago it would have seemed impossible that people would walk around with their phones catching virtual Pokémon and visiting parks or buildings to battle other gamers. But now that is a reality local governments are facing.

Whichever direction the court proceeds, it will have a ripple effect across the gaming and mobile application industry. Because of the initial injunction, though, Pokémon Go fans can rejoice and continue to enjoy the application wherever, and whenever, they want.

Josh Schmidt

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

The post Federal Judge Strikes Down Milwaukee’s Pokémon Go Law appeared first on Law Street.

Over the last several years, the separation of church and state has become a prominent part of many legal battles. From the White House to the Supreme Court, the government has started to reinterpret a legal concept that dates back to the founding of the country. But where exactly did the notion that the government and religious institutions should be distinct come from? Read on to find out more about the history of the division of church and state in the United States and whether or not that distinction is in danger of eroding.

History of Church and State

The United States was founded in part by people fleeing persecution at the hands of state-sponsored religions. However, even after crossing the Atlantic, many of these same people were still under threat of religious persecution. The crown attempted to make the Church of England the official church of the American colonies. That effort was put to bed as part of the revolution and may have even galvanized efforts to separate religion and the government at the nation’s founding. Individual states also rolled back their own efforts to establish state-sponsored religions. Part of the impetus behind this effort was the writings of many thinkers from the Enlightenment and Protestant Reformation, which had important effects on the Founding Fathers as they wrote the Constitution.

Although the notion that there should be a division between church and state has been around for more than 200 years, it is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The first recorded mention of the concept comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist Association in Connecticut. The idea gained traction and was first used by the Supreme Court in a decision in 1879. By 1947 it had essentially become a central part of constitutional law when it was cited as such in the Supreme Court decision in Everson v. Board of Education.

Precedents and Court Cases

While the specific phrase, “the separation of church and state,” is not in the Constitution, the distinction is implicit in several aspects of the document. First would be Article VI, which requires that all government officials swear loyalty to the Constitution and prohibits religious tests for public officials. Second is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing any state-sponsored church. Lastly, is the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits Congress from making laws against any religion. These provisions were later extended to the states following the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

These constitutional provisions and others have been used in a number of prominent Supreme Court cases, aside from the two previously mentioned. In 1948, in McCollum v. Board of Education, the Establishment Clause was invoked when the court ruled that religious instruction in public schools is unconstitutional. In 1952, in Burstyn v. Wilson, the court ruled that a state government cannot censor a movie simply because it offended people’s religious beliefs.

In the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the court ruled that school-sponsored prayer is unconstitutional. In 1968, a state statute banning the teaching of evolution was deemed unconstitutional. Three years later, in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court created a test to determine if a government action violated the precedent of the separation of church and state. The test has three parts and can be used to evaluate a law’s constitutionality:

First, the statute must have a secular purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

In Allegheny County v. ACLU, the court determined in 1989 that nativity scenes in public buildings violated the Establishment Clause. In the case Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye., Inc. v. Hialeah, the court ruled in 1993 the city’s ban on animal sacrifice as part of religious exercise was unconstitutional. There are many other cases as well, but these notable examples show that the Court has actively defined a level of separation between the church and state over the years.

Recent Cases

In several recent cases, however, the pendulum seems to be swinging back to less separation between the church and state. One example comes from 2014 when the court ruled that Hobby Lobby, a privately-owned company, could refuse to provide health insurance that covers birth control to its employees on the basis of the owners’ religious beliefs. The ruling created an exception to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that all employer-provided health insurance plans must cover contraception.

In another ruling from June, in the case Trinity Lutheran Church vs. Comer, the court weighed in on an issue that could have a major impact on the divide between church and state. This case centered around whether a private, religious school could use public funds for a secular project–namely rubberizing its playgrounds. While the state had initially ruled against the school because it was a religious organization, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in its favor because it viewed the state’s denial to grant the school funding as discriminatory.

This ruling, in particular, is important for two reasons. First, it seemed to suggest that Blaine Amendments are unconstitutional. The Blaine Amendment was a failed amendment to the Constitution from 1875, which prohibited funds raised through taxes from going to religiously affiliated institutions. Although the effort failed, 35 states currently have their own laws that prevent public funds from going to religious groups.

The second major potential consequence of the Trinity Lutheran case concerns the extent to which this ruling will apply to funding for other activities conducted by religious organizations. Four of the justices attempted to head off this potential problem by clarifying in a footnote that the decision only applied to playgrounds. However, since only four of the nine justices signed off on the footnote, it is technically not the opinion of the court. The ambiguity there will likely result in future legal challenges, as religious groups will seek to identify new areas where they are eligible for public funding.

The video below discusses the facts of the Trinity Lutheran case in further detail:

The Trump Administration’s View

When it comes to the separation of church and state, like many other issues, the president has so far taken a seemingly idiosyncratic approach that may contrast with some of his campaign promises. In May, he signed an executive order that weakened the Johnson Amendment–part of a law that prevented religious organizations from getting directly involved in politics. That order was actually less controversial than what many expected based on Trump’s campaign rhetoric, although it remains to be seen whether he will take more aggressive action in the future.

Less moderate is the viewpoint of President Trump’s Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. DeVos has been an avid proponent of religious charter schools and even helped finance the campaigns of politicians who supported them. One of the fears following the Trinity Lutheran decision was that it opened a path to funnel tax dollars to religious charter schools, whose curricula would still not be overseen by the government.

Conclusion

The notion of the separation of church and state has existed in the United States for hundreds of years, and in Western Civilization long before that. Although the term is not explicitly used in the Constitution, the division has been established by the courts through their interpretation of it, particularly the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over the years this specific clause, as well as a few others, has been used repeatedly to strengthen the divide between church and state.

However, the interpretation of the separation seems to have shifted in recent years, as the perception of an anti-religious bias has grown among many on the right, which the Supreme Court has reflected in its opinions. The clearest evidence comes from the recent Trinity Lutheran Church case, which not only allowed a religious school access to public funds but the opened door for future efforts to direct public money to religious organizations.

This opening presents an unclear path forward. While it is unlikely anyone will try to overtly knock down the proverbial wall between church and state, there are indications some holes might be drilled. While the extent of the recent shift is hard to determine, it does seem likely to continue.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the Separation of Church and State Over? appeared first on Law Street.

As Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro puts together plans to rework the country’s constitution, widespread protests have popped up across the South American nation. Most notably, a 24-hour general protest is planned for Thursday to show Maduro the national mood as it reaches a crucial crossroads. 

Maduro has never been particularly popular, but protest tactics have ramped up recently due to his plans to rewrite the 1999 constitution, removing some democratic principles. The first step is a July 30 vote for a “constituent assembly” that would modify the constitution, according to the Washington Post.

The overhaul would give Maduro new powers and potentially extend his term. Maduro’s term is set to end in 2019, but the assembly could vote to remove limits completely. After almost three years of conflict, many view this as Maduro’s final step in achieving a dictatorship.

According to an earlier survey, 85 percent of Venezuelans oppose changing the constitution, according to the Washington Post.

Earlier this week Maduro’s opposition organized a referendum as a sign of protest to show the government how they felt. The results were overwhelming: of the 7.6 million surveyed, 98 percent rejected the government’s plans and urged officials to uphold their democratic principles.

“People will be disappointed if they expect the government to react directly to the results [of the referendum] or change anything,” said Luis Vicente León, a political analyst and the director of the Datanalisis polling agency, told the Washington Post. “More than 7 million people participated actively in an act of civil disobedience and ignored the government’s allegations that it was an illegal one.” Officials from Maduro’s party–the Socialist Party–immediately dismissed those results as inflated due to some citizens allegedly voting twice, but never offered evidence to support that allegation. 

Anti-Maduro protesters have stuck by their values despite the consistent threat of violence against them. Just recently a gunmen fired outside a police station, killing one citizen while injuring four others, according to the Washington Post.  At least 92 people have been killed in three months of clashes between protesters, opposition, and police forces.

The distaste for Maduro’s regime began around 2014 when oil prices began to drop and the Venezuelan economy began to falter, according to the CIA Factbook. The economic crisis left millions of citizens impoverished and hungry. Many began to seek asylum; many of those who couldn’t leave became fierce opponents of Maduro.

Even President Donald Trump spoke out against Maduro. In the past Trump has praised dictatorial, powerful leaders like Vladamir Putin and Rodrigo Duterte, but he came down hard against Maduro. Trump warned of economic sanctions if Maduro’s aims are realized and added that the Venezuelan leader is “bad leader who dreams of being a dictator,” according to Al-Jazeera. 

Still, Maduro vows that he will not change his course of action. He implored his opponents to “sit down to start a new round of dialogue” with his representatives, according to Al-Jazeera.

The 24-hour strike was organized by the Democratic Unity coalition and leaders say that they hope to bring the country’s operations to a standstill by urging businesses, restaurants, and workers nationwide to cease working. Those leading the opposition view the strike as a last-ditch effort to save their country from a looming dictatorship. They believe if they don’t succeed that Venezuela will have its democratic principles discarded and replaced by a dictatorial leader. 

Maduro was handpicked to run the nation by Hugo Chávez in 2013 and then elected later that year in a vote that drew praise from “Chavistas” and sorrow from opposition. So, there is some dispute over whether or not his election was legitimate. 

The coming weeks will decide the course of action that Venezuela’s future takes and will also dictate possible international reactions or interference. So far the issues in Venezuela have been overshadowed by larger world events, but if Maduro succeeds with his power grab, it may be time for international attention.

Josh Schmidt

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

The post Massive Protests Planned Against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcus Dieterle

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

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

The attorneys general for Maryland and Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit Monday against President Donald Trump, alleging that he violated the Constitution’s anti-corruption clauses by accepting payments from foreign governments since taking office.

This is the first time a state has filed a lawsuit against a president for violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause. While Trump has said that he would transfer his business assets to a blind trust, the lawsuit is centered on the claim that Trump has continued to retain ownership of his vast business portfolio while getting updates from his two sons.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, will require the court to answer whether Trump has violated either the domestic or foreign emoluments clauses.

Both clauses ban any “person holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from receiving any payment from foreign countries or from any of the 50 states without approval from Congress. The founding fathers set up the clauses to limit the influence a foreign country or an individual state could wield over the president.

In a copy of the lawsuit provided to the Washington Post, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh claim that Trump’s global business has him “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors.”

The suit also alleges that businesses in both Maryland and D.C. have been harmed by Trump’s tendency to utilize his own convention centers and properties, such as the Trump International Hotel in D.C. The suit says that hotel payments, tax breaks, and permits all count as domestic emoluments received by Trump, according to CNN Money.

If the lawsuit progresses, the two officials say their first step will be to demand Trump’s personal tax returns in order to gauge the severity of his behavior.

This is the latest in a series of lawsuits attempting to test Trump’s conflicts of interest. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a D.C.-based group, and Cork Wine Bar had previously filed lawsuits against the president.

The Trump Organization, though, argues that everything is perfectly legal. In a response to CREW, the Justice Department argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Trump may legally accept “market-rate payments” for Trump’s real estate, hotel, and golf companies. They even cited George Washington selling farm produce as a previous example in their 70-page response.

Disappointed with the lack of inquiry from Congress, Racine and Frosh felt compelled to file their own lawsuit.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” Racine said.

The attorneys general feel confident that they have the standing to sue because Maryland and D.C. entered a contract, the Constitution, that Trump has violated by accepting gifts.

So while Trump faced plenty of lawsuits before his presidency and a handful since, this lawsuit represents a big moment in the early months of his administration. Trump’s foreign business dealings and potential conflicts of interest have been controversial since the campaign, but now D.C. and Maryland are demanding transparency within the Trump Administration to ease citizens’ concerns.

“This case represents another storm, not just a dusting of snow, but a blizzard of trouble for Trump,” Norman Eisen, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama and is CREW’s board chairman, said. “Who better than governmental actors to say our deal was, our fundamental democratic bargain was, we would get a president who would follow the Constitution.”

Josh Schmidt

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

The post Maryland and D.C. Sue Trump, Alleging He Violated Constitution’s Anti-Corruption Clauses appeared first on Law Street.

One of the powers retained by the President of the United States is the “presidential pardon.” You may also see news coverage of a president “commuting” the sentence of a given offender. Presidential pardons and commutations are an authority granted to the president by the Constitution, and it’s a power that presidents often exercise, especially at the ends of their terms. Read on to learn about presidential pardons and commutations and what exactly the two terms mean.

What are Presidential Pardons? What are Presidential Commutations?

Presidential pardons and commutations are both types of “executive clemency.”

A commutation is when the president cuts short the sentence of an individual who is currently incarcerated in some form. Essentially, a commutation says: “You’ve served enough time for the crime that you’ve committed, I’m going to take away the rest of your sentence.” This does not mean that the person whose sentence is commuted is innocent. The person’s conviction stays on their record, and they’re still subject to certain restrictions known as “civil disabilities”–for example, a felon whose sentence is commuted is still unable to vote in some places, own a gun, or sit on certain kinds of juries.

In contrast, a pardon is given after a person has already served their time, or passed away. According to the Department of Justice, it is given in “recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence.” A pardon does restore the civil disabilities that apply to convicted criminals. Like a commutation, a pardon doesn’t automatically take the person’s crime off their record. A released offender cannot apply for a pardon until at least five years have passed since their release. Pardons can also be granted somewhat preemptively, as President Gerald Ford did when he pardoned President Richard Nixon, which prevents charges from being filed or leads to the dismissal of charges already levied.

Pardons and commutations are by far the most well-known and frequently used forms of executive clemency. There are, however, other types that the president can exercise. One is called a “remission” and relieves the individual of the financial penalties associated with their conviction. Sometimes a remission is given as part of a commutation. Additionally, there’s a “respite,” which is sort of a pause in a sentence, usually given to inmates who are sick.

What Kinds of Crimes can the President Pardon or Commute?

The president can only grant executive clemency for federal crimes, or “offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court.” The president has no ability to pardon or commute crimes that were prosecuted at the state level. The ability to pardon or commute state crimes varies from state to state. In many states, the authority to pardon or commute an offender lies completely with the top executive of the state, namely, that state’s governor. In 20 states, the governor gets to make the decision but each clemency needs the approval of an independent commission. Other states have different processes, including independent boards or commissions.

What Gives the President the Ability to Grant Executive Clemency?

The presidential power to pardon and commute sentences comes from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. It states that “he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” It has been referred to as the president’s only “absolute power.” The Supreme Court has been asked to review this power in the past, and determined on two separate occasions that it has no ability to limit the president’s power to pardon or commute sentences.

How Often do Presidents Pardon or Commute Sentences?

There are only two presidents in the history of the United States that never issued a pardon or commuted a sentence, likely as a result of the fact that they both died relatively quickly after assuming office. President William Henry Harrison died just 32 days into his term and President James Garfield was assassinated just 200 days into his term.

Here’s a breakdown of presidential pardons in the 20th and 21st centuries:

• William McKinley (1897-1901) granted 446 acts of executive clemency
• Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) granted 1099 acts of executive clemency
• William H. Taft (1909-1913 granted 831 acts of executive clemency
• Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) granted 2,827 acts of executive clemency
• Warren G. Harding (1921-1923) granted 773 acts of executive clemency
• Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) granted 1,691 acts of executive clemency
• Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) granted 1,198 acts of executive clemency
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) granted 3,796 acts of executive clemency
• Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) granted 2,044 acts of executive clemency
• Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) granted 1,157 acts of executive clemency
• John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) granted 575 acts of executive clemency
• Richard Nixon (1969-1974) granted 926 acts of executive clemency
• Gerald Ford (1974-1977) granted 409 acts of executive clemency
• Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) granted 566 acts of executive clemency
• Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) granted 406 acts of executive clemency
• George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) granted 77 acts of executive clemency
• Bill Clinton (1993-2001) granted 459 acts of executive clemency
• George W. Bush (2001-2009) granted 200 acts of executive clemency
• Barack Obama (2009-2017) granted 1,927 acts of executive clemency

It’s important to note that those numbers, when taken at face value, don’t tell you everything you need to know about acts of executive clemency granted by presidents over the last century. While Obama is widely viewed as having given the most acts of executive clemency since Truman, The Pew Research Center notes that he also received significantly more requests than his recent predecessors, and still only granted a small percentage of those requests. These numbers also don’t include mass acts of clemency–both Ford and Carter issued executive orders that forgave men who dodged the draft in the Vietnam War.

While presidents can pardon people or commute sentences at really any time, there’s a tradition of presidents issuing more controversial acts of executive clemency right at the end of their terms. Pardons and other acts of executive clemency tend to be somewhat politically controversial, but they cannot be undone by a president’s predecessor. Waiting until the end of a president’s term to issue pardons instead of, for example, issuing them during an election when the political blowback could affect their party’s nominee, makes logical sense.

Notable Cases of Executive Clemency 

Gerald Ford Pardons Richard Nixon 

Perhaps one of the most famous instances of executive clemency occurred on September 8, 1974, when President Gerald Ford pardoned disgraced former President Richard Nixon. Nixon had resigned after the controversy surrounding the Watergate scandal, and Vice President Gerald Ford–who became VP after Nixon’s first Vice President resigned–succeeded him in August 1974.

Ford’s pardon of Nixon was somewhat unusual in that Nixon wasn’t at that point charged with or convicted of any crimes. While the House of Representatives had dropped its impeachment charges against him when he resigned, he could still be prosecuted in a criminal court for his involvement in the Watergate scandal and the aftermath of the scandal. Ford’s pardon was for any crimes that Nixon had committed, and essentially ensured he could never be prosecuted.

Ford’s move to pardon Nixon was highly controversial. He was accused of having made some sort of deal with Nixon, and the pardon caused his poll numbers to quickly plummet. Ford’s choice to pardon Nixon is widely viewed as one of the major reasons why he lost the 1976 election to Jimmy Carter.

Other Notable and Controversial Pardons

Another controversial pardon was when Bill Clinton pardoned his younger half-brother, Roger Clinton Jr. Roger Clinton was one of 140 people pardoned by Bill Clinton on his last day in office. He had served a year in prison in the 1980s after being convicted of possessing cocaine.

Jimmy Hoffa, the leader of the Teamsters Union, was serving a 15-year prison sentence for jury tampering and fraud when his sentence was commuted by President Richard Nixon in 1971. Nixon’s pardon came with strings attached, however. Hoffa was not allowed to “engage in direct or indirect management of any labor organization” until 1980.

On December 24, 1992, roughly a month before he left office, President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and other government officials involved in the Iran-Contra affair.

Right before the end of his presidency, in December 2016, President Barack Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning. Manning was serving a 35-year sentence after leaking a number of classified documents.

Conclusion

The ability to grant executive clemency is one of the most exceptional powers that the President of the United States holds. In some ways, it flies contrary to the important system of checks and balances that defines the three branches of our federal government. Because of this, and because of the way that some of our past presidents have elected to exercise it, it’s a controversial power. But as long as it consistently makes its way into the news at the end of presidential terms, it’s important to remember how it works.

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 Presidential Pardons: How Does Executive Clemency Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Many of us have received it at one point or another—the dreaded jury summons. You arrive home, collect your mail, and get the letter mandating that you show up at a particular courthouse at a given date and time. Many of us see jury duty as a necessary inconvenience—serving on a jury is part of our civic duties, but it absolutely can be an annoying interruption to our daily lives. And most people think being on a jury is incredibly simple—if you’re selected, it’s your job to determine guilt or innocence based on the facts, evidence, and testimony you’re shown. But what many people don’t realize is that guilt and innocence, as they are currently defined, are far from the only options. There’s one particularly controversial option open to juries that you may have never heard of: jury nullification. Read on to learn about jury nullification, what it is, and why it’s important to the American justice system.

Jury Nullification: A Primer

Jury nullification is essentially when a jury decides to acquit a defendant not because the evidence indicates that they were innocent, but because they disagree with the law or the harshness of the punishment the law mandates. Sometimes this is done to make some sort of political point; sometimes it happens on an individual basis. For example, imagine you have a woman, in a state where medical marijuana is illegal, who has purchased marijuana to give to her sister who has cancer and is suffering from nausea. If the buyer is caught, she could be charged for her crime—in this case, purchasing marijuana. There may be all the evidence in the world to indicate that she did buy the marijuana. In fact, the jury may believe beyond a reasonable doubt—the burden in a criminal case—that she is guilty of purchasing marijuana. But, if the jury believes that purchasing marijuana for medical reasons shouldn’t be against the law, or that the punishment that the woman would receive for purchasing marijuana is unduly harsh, they can still recommend an acquittal. At the most basic level, jury nullification means that a jury has chosen to acquit a defendant, despite believing that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jury nullification is possible in the United States based on a few different principles. For one, if someone is acquitted of a crime, per the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, they cannot be tried again. Jury nullification is also possible because juries cannot be punished for the decisions that they make (although someone who becomes part of a jury with the intent to push jury nullification or in some other way not uphold their duties can technically be prosecuted, however rarely.) But generally speaking, for ethical reasons, juries cannot be punished for the decisions they come to, or the important American principle of being judged by a jury of your peers would simply be moot. Additionally, judges cannot direct a verdict of guilt, the way that they can a verdict of innocence if the evidence doesn’t match the conviction.

It’s difficult to actually quantify the number of acquittals that stem from jury nullification. Juries are never under any sort of obligation to explain why they have come to the decisions that they did—although individual jurors may speak about their opinions, if they so wish. Some researchers have attempted to study the subject, and indicate that jury nullification most likely plays a role in fewer than 10 percent of cases, but there’s no real way to pinpoint exactly which cases were affected by jury nullification.

Shh…

One thing that could contribute to jury nullification’s relative obscurity is that it’s in many ways a well-kept American secret. In fact, most people seemingly don’t know that it’s a possibility, and they almost certainly aren’t told about it while serving on a jury. An 1895 Supreme Court decision, Sparf v. United States, found that jurors aren’t guaranteed any sort of Constitutional right to be told about jury nullification. In many cases, attorneys will actively try to avoid seating jurors who may know about jury nullification by asking roundabout questions along the lines of: “do you have any beliefs that might keep you from making a decision purely on the basis of the law?”

While a juror cannot be punished for an acquittal, people can get in trouble as a consequence of jury nullification. One high-profile instance involved a man named Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor who was an advocate for jury nullification. He was charged with jury tampering in 2011. He used to stand outside of a federal courthouse in Manhattan and hand out pamphlets about jury nullification, brandishing a sign that said “Jury Info.” He didn’t target any particular jurors, rather attempted to hand the pamphlets to anyone who walked by his station. The charges against Heicklen were dismissed in 2012, but the idea that informing people about jury nullification could be tantamount to jury tampering isn’t too far-fetched to imagine.

Specific Cases of Jury Nullification in the United States

Jury nullification has a long history in the United States. In fact, an early and well-known example actually predates the nation. In 1735, a man named John Peter Zenger printed articles that criticized the colonial British government. Zenger lived in the colony of New York, and it was against the law for him to publish anything without governmental approval. As a result of his controversial publications, he was charged with libel. Despite the fact that there was no question about whether or not Zenger had written the articles—he actually presented an affirmative defense in which he admitted that they were his work—the jury acquitted him.

Throughout American history, there have been other notable instances in which jury nullification is believed to have been used. Some were seemingly noble; others were almost certainly not. The Fugitive Slave Act was updated in 1850 to prescribe up to six months in prison for anyone who was found guilty of helping fugitive slaves escape. It’s widely believed that some of the acquittals that came out of that era came from abolitionist jurors essentially practicing jury nullification. On the other hand, there’s also evidence to suggest that jury nullification popped up in the Jim Crow-era south with some amount of frequency, when all-white juries chose not to convict white defendants who were accused of violence against black citizens.

There have also been recent cases of suspected jury nullification involving public figures. Washington D.C. Mayor Marion Barry was acquitted of 13 out of 14 drug charges, despite overwhelming evidence, including a videotape of Barry smoking crack cocaine. Barry’s lawyers argued that he was entrapped by the federal government. Barry, a longtime civil rights leader, was very beloved in D.C. and it was a popular belief in the nation’s capital at the time that he was targeted for his political stances and his role as one of the nation’s most prominent black elected officials.

Perhaps one of the most well-known suspected cases of jury nullification is O.J. Simpson. Although many of the jurors involved in that decision have come forward to say that they were compelled by the evidence presented by Simpson’s defense attorneys, Simpson’s attorney, Johnnie L. Cochran, was accused of hinting at the concept of jury nullification in his closing argument by the prosecutor in the case, Marcia Clark.

Other suspected jury nullification situations include the cases of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the controversial physician-assisted suicide advocate who killed patients he deemed to be terminally ill; Lorena Bobbitt, the woman who cut her husband’s penis off after she claimed he raped her; and Oliver North, the NSA staff member who claimed responsibility for the sale of some weapons to Iran during the Iran-Contra affair.

While it’s obviously next to impossible to know exactly why juries chose to acquit Barry, Simpson, Kevorkian, Bobbitt, North, and many others, jury nullification was suspected based on the amount of evidence damning the defendants, and the decision on the jury’s part to acquit despite that evidence.

Conclusion

While serving on jury duty may not be the most glamorous of activities, it is often viewed as one of the most noble civic duties each American is beholden to. But, guilt and innocence aren’t always as black and white as they seem on “Law & Order.” In many cases, jurors take moral issue with the convictions they’re asked to participate in. That’s where jury nullification sometimes comes in. While advocates argue that it’s a way for jurors to protest unfair laws, detractors argue that it makes an unfair playing field for those accused of the same crimes, and can sometimes be used for nefarious or heavily biased purposes. But while jury nullification is somewhat of a well-kept secret, it sometimes makes its way in to the spotlight—often in cases that are beholden to the court of public opinion.

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 What is Jury Nullification? appeared first on Law Street.

Since almost the moment that President Donald Trump took office, there have been calls to impeach him. Cities have passed resolutions calling for Trump’s impeachment, some Democratic politicians have indicated that they believe he should be impeached, and a late-March survey by Public Policy Polling reports that 44 percent of Americans support impeaching the president. Regardless of many unprecedented actions on Trump’s part, this isn’t really anything new–comments about impeachment consistently dogged President Barack Obama’s presidency as well.

But an impeachment is much easier said than done. Over the course of American history, only two presidents have ever been impeached–President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton, but neither president was removed from office as a result. Impeachment proceedings against a third president, Richard Nixon, began, but he resigned before much progress was made. Read on to learn about the impeachment process and the history of impeachments in the United States.

How Does Impeachment Work?

The U.S. Constitution lays out a procedure for impeaching the president (and vice president, and other officials).

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 makes it clear that the House of Representatives has the ability to “impeach” a president, essentially meaning that the House is in charge of bringing impeachment charges. Although there are a few different things that can lead to a House impeachment, usually it begins with some sort of allegations being made against an official. The House Judiciary Committee is then tasked with investigating those allegations. If so, the entire House then votes on whether or not to impeach the official–majority rules–by adopting articles of impeachment. Although not a perfect metaphor, it might be helpful to think of an impeachment like an indictment.

As Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 state, the Senate actually tries an official. Members of the House of Representatives are appointed to act as sort-of prosecutors of the official who is being tried. While usually the senators themselves serve as both judge and jury, in the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Two-thirds of Senators are required to convict, and as a penalty for being convicted, the official must be removed from office. There is no way to appeal.

Impeachments Throughout History

The two most notorious impeachments are obviously President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton. But impeachment isn’t just reserved for presidents. The House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings for over 60 individuals since America’s independence. The House issued articles of impeachment for 15 other individuals. Of those 15, eight were found guilty by the Senate. The majority were judges. Here are the American officials who have been impeached:

• In 1797, Senator William Blount was impeached on charges that he tried to help England seize Spanish-controlled territory in North America. He was expelled from the Senate before he was actually tried.
• In 1803, Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was impeached for being drunk on the bench and acting inappropriately. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1804, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for “arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials.” He was acquitted.
• In 1830, James H. Peck, a judge from Tennessee, was accused of abuse of power. He was acquitted.
• In 1862, West H. Humphreys, also a Tennessee judge, was impeached on charges that he “refused to hold court” and was acting against the U.S. government. He was found guilty, removed from office, and prevented from holding office in the future.
• In 1873 a Kansas judge, Mark H. Delahay, was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. He resigned before a trial began.
• In 1876, William W. Belknap, the Secretary of War, was impeached on various corruption charges. He was acquitted by the Senate.
• In 1904, Charles Swayne, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he misused his office. He was acquitted.
• In 1912, Robert W. Archbald, an Associate Judge of the U.S. Commerce Court, was impeached based on allegations that he had inappropriate business relationships with some litigants. He was found guilty, lost his job, and prevented from holding office moving forward.
• In 1926, George W. English, a judge from Illinois, was accused of abusing his power. He resigned and the charges were dismissed.
• In 1933, Harold Louderback, a California judge, was accused of “favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers.” He was acquitted.
• In 1936, Halsted L. Ritter, a judge from Florida, was impeached on a few charges, including that he was practicing law as a sitting judge. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1986, Harry E. Claiborne, a Nevada judge, was accused of tax evasion, and staying on the bench despite having been convicted of a crime. He was found guilty, and lost his position.
• In 1988 Alcee L. Hastings, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he perjured himself and conspired to solicit a bribe. He was found guilty and removed from office. (If the name sounds familiar, it’s because Hastings is now a congressman.)
• In 1989, Walter L. Nixon, a Mississippi judge, was impeached on various charges, including that he lied under oath. He was found guilty and removed from his post.
• In 2009, Samuel B. Kent, a Texas judge, was impeached on a number of charges, including sexual assault. He resigned before the proceedings were completed.
• In 2010, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a Louisiana judge, was impeached on charges that included perjury and accepting bribes. He was found guilty, lost his position, and cannot hold office in the future.

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

President Andrew Johnson assumed office after his predecessor, President Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated in April 1865. However, the Lincoln-Johnson ticket was unusual. While Lincoln was a Republican, Johnson was a Democrat from the South. He had remained in the Senate even after his home state of Tennessee seceded, which endeared him to the Republicans. In 1964, Lincoln chose Johnson for his ticket, which was under the “National Unity Party,” in an attempt to appeal to the entire country in the context of the Civil War.

But when Lincoln was assassinated, and Johnson was left in charge, he disagreed with the Republicans who held the majority in Congress. He famously declared: “This is a country for white men, and as long as I am president, it shall be a government for white men.” He stood against the enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, passed by Congress. In 1867, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, despite Johnson’s veto. This stopped the president from dismissing any government officials without the Senate’s approval.

Regardless of the bill, Johnson dismissed Edwin M. Stanton, his Secretary of War, who supported the Republicans in Congress. In response, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Johnson, 126-47. The charges were that he violated the Tenure of Office Act and brought “disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach” into Congress. As Johnson was being tried by the Senate, he took actions that were seen as concessions to the Republicans in Congress. He ended up being acquitted, by just one vote.

Richard Nixon’s Narrow Miss 

President Richard Nixon resigned after the fallout from the Watergate Scandal and his administration’s subsequent coverup. But had he not resigned, he certainly risked impeachment. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee passed one article of impeachment–had Nixon not resigned, that vote would have made it to the full House of Representatives.

President Bill Clinton’s Impeachment 

While in office, President Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern. Ken Starr, an independent investigator who had been originally tasked with looking into the Whitewater scandal but ended up investigating a wider range of controversies, submitted a report to the House Judiciary Committee. The report alleged that Clinton lied about his affair with Lewinsky during various testimony, including some regarding a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a woman named Paula Jones. The Starr Report contained 11 possible grounds for Clinton’s impeachment.

While the report was controversial, and Starr was accused of attacking Clinton for political motives, on December 19, 1998, the House approved two articles of impeachment against the president–one for obstruction of justice with a vote of 221-212, and one for lying under oath to a grand jury by a vote of 228-206.

On February 12, 1998, the Senate acquitted Clinton on both charges. In order to convict Clinton, the Senate would have needed a two-thirds majority. The obstruction of justice charge only garnered 50 votes, and the perjury charge only had 45 votes.

However, the impeachment, and affair, marred Clinton’s legacy.

Conclusion

Despite calls to impeach President Donald Trump (and previously President Barack Obama), impeachment isn’t as simple as it sounds. It’s a long, controversial, and political process–one that has only ever been even partially started against three presidents. While other figures throughout history have been impeached, those three presidents–President Andrew Johnson, President Richard Nixon, and President Bill Clinton–offer the closest thing we have to a blueprint for how an impeachment of a president would look. Given today’s contentious political landscape, who knows when we’ll see that again.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post How to Impeach a President appeared first on Law Street.

Colorado voters had the choice on November 8 to decide whether or not to abolish a loophole in the state’s constitution that makes slavery legal as punishment for a crime. Lawmakers from both parties unanimously decided to put the question on the ballot and there seemed to be no opposition to the effort, as no one campaigned against it.

That’s why it was such a shocker when it turned out that a majority appears to have voted against the measure. All of the votes have still not been counted, but by late Thursday there were almost 35,000 more “no” votes than “yes” votes, out of 2.3 million ballots cast.

Many were upset after the election:

Colorado votes NOT to remove language of slavery from state constitution. This is even more concerning than other results today.

— Matthew Bentley (@bentleymaja) November 9, 2016

Colorado voted a minimum wage increase while simultaneously voting to keep slavery in the constitution for criminals. Huh?

— John Livingston (@JohnLivy) November 18, 2016

Colorado, I’m confused. You voted for Clinton, to keep slavery legal, to legalize assisted suicide, & made it harder to propose amendments.

— Suzi Q Smith (@suziqpoet) November 9, 2016

It seems unbelievable that over a million people in a state that recently voted to legalize recreational marijuana would also vote against completely getting rid of slavery. And when it dawned on lawmakers why the results turned out as they did, they probably slapped their heads. The question was worded like this:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the removal of the exception to the prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude when used as punishment for persons duly convicted of a crime?

Would you know whether to check the “yes” or “no” box?

“I think people were confused by the language,” Democratic Representative Joe Salazar told the New York Times. “I don’t think this was a pushback at all by individuals saying they wanted slavery in the Constitution. I just think the language was too confusing.”

The exception to the prohibition of slavery, which allowed for the practice as a punishment for a crime, was added in 1876, which was after slavery was abolished nationally in 1865. But since it was not widely known that the language exists in the constitution, activists think that people might have misinterpreted it. In addition to the confusing language on the ballot, some believe that voters could also have been thrown off by a voter guide that was sent to every Colorado voter. The guide is required to contain arguments for and against ballot measures and it said that the proposition could lead to legal ambiguity, although experts were not actually concerned.

Lawmakers are determined to try one more time, but next time with simpler language. “We’re going to do it again,” Mr. Salazar said. “We’re going to make sure we finally rid the Constitution of that language.”

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 Colorado Votes to Keep Slavery in State Constitution (Really) appeared first on Law Street.

Getting your driver’s license revoked for unpaid fees is undoubtedly annoying, but is it actually unconstitutional? A lawsuit against the Virginia DMV is challenging the policy, claiming that it is unfair to those without the ability to pay.

The class action suit alleges that revoking a person’s driver’s license is a violation of the protections in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. The defendants accuse the policy of being an “unconstitutional scheme that unfairly punishes them for being poor.” Without a license, a person would legally be unable to drive to work, school, or fulfill other necessary obligations, making the license revocation more than just an inconvenience.

Drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked due to unpaid court fines face a $145 reinstatement fee from the Virginia DMV. To put that in some perspective, that would be equivalent to about 20 hours of wages for someone working at Virginia’s minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. While wealthier people would have no problem paying off the fine and getting off scot-free, it could be a financial burden to anyone living paycheck-to-paycheck.

The Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC), which filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, also recently released a full report on this issue, highlighting the ways in which the state’s repayment plans for unpaid fines hurt lower-income families. The report’s findings indicated that the Virginia DMV does not take into account a person’s financial situation before making the decision to suspend a license.

The plaintiffs in this suit hope to prove that these fines are one of the many injustices that come with being poor in America. People with lower incomes generally find it harder to obtain loans, build and maintain credit scores, and are charged fines for things such as negative bank balances. Court fees and fines also disproportionately affect lower-income people, as they are more likely to go through the court system. Essentially, those with lower incomes are penalized for being poor, while wealthier people are often able to avoid such fees, despite their ability to pay.

LAJC is trying to advocate that the policy be changed to take into account one’s income level before revoking or suspending a license. The suit claims that currently 940,ooo people in the state have suspended licenses due to unpaid fees (over 10 percent of the state’s population of 8.3 million), meaning that a policy change could have a significant impact on Virginia’s citizens.

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post Is It Unconstitutional to Take Away Someone’s License for Unpaid Fines? appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled Tuesday that part of D.C.’s new gun law, which requires that individuals must show “good reason” to get a concealed-carry permit for firearms, is unconstitutional.

In his ruling, District Judge Richard J. Leon called the requirement “inconsistent” with the Second Amendment and put in place a preliminary injunction to stop its enforcement in the District. In order to hold a concealed-carry firearm in the District, residents need to go through a multi-step application process to obtain a concealed-carry license (open carry is out of the question in the city). A part of this process requires applicants to demonstrate a “good reason” for why they would need to carry. For example, a resident could demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury to a person or property,” such as threats or attacks, or the need to carry a gun for employment purposes.

Judge Leon called the law “overly zealous,” and stated that it “likely places an unconstitutional burden”on the constitutional right to bear arms.

The ruling stems from a case filed late last year by Matthew Grace, a D.C. resident and a member the Pink Pistols, a guns rights group that describes itself as “an international organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for the self-defense of the sexual-minority community.” The group claims that the “good reason” clause is a “travesty of justice” and filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia claiming that the law was unconstitutional.

So what does this mean for D.C. residents? The injunction puts a hold on the “good reason” requirement for the time being, which will make it easier for applicants to receive concealed-carry permits. The law has only granted 74 permits since the law was put into place in 2014, so D.C. will likely have more concealed weapons on its streets.

If and how this ruling has an impact on gun violence in the city remains to be seen, but this is a major development for guns rights activists.

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post Judge Says D.C. Residents Don’t Need “Good Reason” for Concealed-Carry Permits appeared first on Law Street.

The George Mason University School of Law, located just outside of Washington, DC, in Arlington, Virginia, is getting a new name. After a series of donations totaling $30 million, the school will be renamed after the late, great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The new full name of the school will be the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University.

The $30 million total in donations was the largest fundraising haul in the school’s history. An anonymous donor gave a staggering $20 million, and the Charles Koch Foundation donated $10 million. The Board of Visitors approved renaming the law school to honor Antonin Scalia’s recent passing–the $20 million donation was contingent on that name change.  By July, the name change will be complete, including signs and logos.

The money will go to funding three new scholarships at the law school. According to Bloomberg:

One, called the Antonin Scalia Scholarship, will award students with top academic credentials. Another, the A. Linwood Holton, Jr. Leadership Scholarship, will award students who have overcome barriers to academic success, demonstrated outstanding leadership qualities, or who have helped others overcome discrimination in any facet of life. The third, the F.A. Hayek Law, Legislation and Liberty Scholarship, will award students who have demonstrated interest in studying the application of economic principles to the law.

George Mason’s Law School does have a conservative lean, rendering the new Scalia name particularly appropriate–many of its professors are known for being libertarian.

Scalia’s colleague, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lent her support for the renaming, stating:

Justice Scalia was a law teacher, public servant, legal commentator, and jurist nonpareil. As a colleague who held him in highest esteem and great affection, I miss his bright company and the stimulus he provided, his opinions ever challenging me to meet his best efforts with my own. It is a tribute altogether fitting that George Mason University’s law school will bear his name. May the funds for scholarships, faculty growth, and curricular development aid the Antonin Scalia School of Law to achieve the excellence characteristic of Justice Scalia, grand master in life and law.

If George Mason Law is looking to climb up in various law school rankings and attract more students–offering these scholarships is certainly a solid start.

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 George Mason University School of Law to Be Renamed After Justice Antonin Scalia appeared first on Law Street.

Since Colorado became one of the first states to formally legalize recreational marijuana, there have been many attempts to stop legalization in its tracks. But the most interesting, and arguably the most promising attempt, was Nebraska and Oklahoma’s lawsuit against Colorado, which allege that since Colorado legalized weed, both states face an increased burden on their law enforcement due to marijuana coming in from Colorado. The Supreme Court dashed both states’ hopes on Monday when it declined to hear the case, but still this might not be the end of the story.

The lawsuit claims that Colorado’s marijuana legalization is unlawful for a number of reasons, from violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, to going against international treaties adopted by the United States. Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act during Nixon’s presidency, which categorized Marijuana as a Schedule I drug making it illegal and placing some of the strictest restrictions on its use and sale. The Supremacy Clause of Article IV of the Constitution states that federal law is the “supreme law of the land” and supersedes state laws, which effectively makes Colorado’s legalization unconstitutional.

The lawsuit claims:

In passing and enforcing Amendment 64, the State of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system enacted by the United States Congress. Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining Plaintiff States’ own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems.

However, in light of many states’ efforts to legalize marijuana, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance that largely allows states to move forward without federal interference. Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memo highlighting eight enforcement priorities, including things like preventing marijuana distribution to minors and stopping marijuana-related violence. But the memo notes that “Outside of these enforcement priorities, the federal government has traditionally relied on states and local law enforcement agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws.” He further says that if state laws sufficiently regulate marijuana to deal with the DOJ’s enforcement priorities, then the federal government will largely leave states alone. This essentially meant that states would be free to legalize as long as they created a strong enough regulatory system to protect the priorities outlined by the DOJ.

So that explains why the federal government didn’t stop the legalization, but what happens when others challenge the law? That’s how we got here, with Nebraska and Oklahoma suing Colorado after voters passed Amendment 64 back in 2012. The lawsuit was sent directly to the Supreme Court, which has “original jurisdiction” over disputes between states, meaning that such cases begin at the Supreme Court and do not need to go through the traditional appellate process first.

After the Supreme Court declined to hear the lawsuit, Justices Thomas and Alito–both of whom are pretty conservative–dissented primarily because of the nature of the court’s original jurisdiction. In his dissent, Justice Thomas writes, “Federal law is unambiguous: If there is a controversy between two States, this Court—and only this Court—has jurisdiction over it.” He argues that, regardless of his or the other justices’ desired outcomes, the court has a duty to hear the case because it is the only body that can resolve these disputes.

But others have noted that the Nebraska and Oklahoma’s attorneys general still may be able to take the case to a lower court. Robert Mikos, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, told the Cannabist that the two states could pursue their case in a district court. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli filed a brief calling for them to not take up the case. He claimed that doing so would be a “unwarranted expansion of the Court’s original jurisdiction” because it would need to argue that one state’s laws caused the illegal actions of people in bordering states. He also argues that hearing the case would be unwarranted because the dispute could be handled by a circuit court.

Many were not surprised when the court ultimately declined to hear the case. Cases between states are typically pretty rare and the court has often refused to hear them in the past. As the Federal Judicial Center notes, “Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing.” Now it’s up to the Nebraska and Oklahoma to decide whether they want to pursue the case in a different court.

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 Marijuana Remains Legal in Colorado, SCOTUS Declines to Hear Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Normally, eminent domain does not get a lot of discussion in presidential politics. In fact, outside of a relatively small circle of interested parties and intellectuals, it doesn’t get much discussion at all. The last time it got this much attention was a decade ago in the case of “Kelo v. City of New London” where the concept of eminent domain and the Takings Clause got to experience their moment in the sun.

The rise of Donald Trump as the probable if not presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency has brought this issue into the spotlight once again. Generally speaking, conservatives tend to be critical of the concept of eminent domain but Trump has professed the viewpoint that without eminent domain civic projects that we value would be impossible to complete.

But what exactly IS eminent domain? And the more interesting question: what should it include?

Pleading The Fifth: The Takings Clause

Eminent domain is basically the idea that the government can, in a specific set of circumstances, take your property.  The Takings Clause, which is a part of the Fifth Amendment that rarely gets invoked in movies or television prohibits the government from taking property unless certain criteria are met. The clause reads, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” which is not a purely semantic distinction. Even those who support eminent domain would acknowledge that it is a violation of your property rights.

Land use law spends a good chunk of time on the Takings Clause, going through each of these elements. Over the years, the Supreme Court has had to define what private property is (while it seems simple enough, does it include the airspace above your house?), when it has actually been taken (in honor of the late Justice Scalia Google “regulatory takings” and “Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council”), and what is a public use. This is where much of the discussion of eminent domain has focused on recently in the presidential debates. In the video below you can listen to Jeb Bush and Donald Trump discussing the issue of eminent domain in regards to Mr. Trump’s conservative credentials and real estate dealings.

It may take a minute to unpack some of the arguments that are going on in this clip. The first discussion is whether the concept of eminent domain, where the government may take someone’s land for public use, is a good thing. There’s also whether it is consistent with “conservative” principles. Mr. Trump uses the example of a hospital as a public use and states that it would be impossible to build things like hospitals without eminent domain.

That’s probably true. If the government did not have the power to seize property (both the federal government and state governments have this power) then any private citizen who owned property where the government wanted to build a hospital could either refuse to sell and thwart the project or hold out for such an exorbitant price that it would make any new project too expensive to be undertaken. While it certainly wouldn’t be an irrational reaction–who wouldn’t want to sell their home for 100 times what it is worth?–it wouldn’t be a very civic-minded response and ultimately we would have fewer hospitals.

Keep in mind that the government does not just take your house. If it takes your property it does pay you for it, so it isn’t all bad news. Collectively, we have decided that we are willing to have a few of us get forced to sell our property, as abhorrent as that is to the American psyche, in favor of having things like hospitals and roads.

The second argument comes on the tail of the first–once we have decided that for a public use we are going to allow this violation of our property rights–what is a public use?  Hospital, yes fine. But what about parking spaces for your limousine?

Economic Development: “Kelo v. City of New London“

Although neither one references it, Governor Bush and Mr. Trump are having what I presume is a more spirited version of the in camera arguments that the Supreme Court had in “Kelo v. City of New London.” Things like hospitals, roads, and bridges are recognized by the majority of people to be public uses. But in the Kelo Case, the government was arguing that its plan to develop the land for the City of New London’s economic benefit was a public use. The government didn’t need to build an actual public structure, like a bridge, to be a public use, it just needed to be something that was benefitting the public as a whole.

The Supreme Court agreed with the city and ruled in its favor–an economic benefit to the public can be a public use.  And the government can take a piece of property (again, they do have to pay you something!) and then sell or contract with a developer, such as Mr. Trump, to build on the land.

Another dispute over eminent domain occurred in Lakewood, Ohio. As “60 Minutes” notes, the city of Lakewood wanted to take the Saleet family’s house in order to put in condos and a strip mall. While the Saleet family eventually won their dispute, allowing them to keep their home, the questions at the intersection of eminent domain and economic development remain difficult to answer.

This expansion of the understanding of what constitutes a public use has been met with opposition from people of various political stripes. One group, the Institute For Justice, which is a self-described libertarian public interest law firm, has been very active in pushing back against this understanding of “public use” believing that it is an infringement on property rights. In the video below the Institute for Justice explains some of the responses from state governments and individuals to the Kelo decision.

The Supreme Court in Kelo found the comprehensive nature of the city’s plan to develop the area to be a persuasive argument in favor of characterizing it as a public use. It wasn’t just building one hotel on the property and calling it a day, which may distinguish the issue in Kelo from other cases in the future where the government wants to get rid of a single “blighted” property in favor of a “better” economic option. This is what Governor Bush implies that Mr. Trump tried to do. But, in fact, they are having two separate arguments.

Mr. Trump’s attempt to buy property has nothing to do with eminent domain and linking his attempt to get someone to sell him their home so that he can expand on his existing property or build a new one mischaracterizes what eminent domain is. Eminent domain is purely government action. Not action by private citizens. Mr. Trump isn’t using eminent domain when he makes an offer on a property so he can build a hotel. Even if he uses, as is alleged, strong-arm tactics against elderly widows. His actions aren’t a government curtailment of property rights but rather a use of his property rights–any and all elderly widows that he might try to buy land from have the right to refuse his offer if they want to. It is their property to sell or not sell as they see fit. So talking about Trump’s behavior doesn’t really make sense in a discussion about eminent domain and what is or should be legally acceptable for government action.

The real issue is whether the government should be able to forcibly purchase property to promote economic development. Governor Bush’s argument is that position is not consistent with “conservative” principles. In this case, the “conservative” principle being that when the property is privately owned, the government should have to jump through some hoops to get to it. One of those hoops is that the government needs to make a case for why this is a public use. For many, economic development, however noble that goal is, does not meet that burden. Economic development may be a good idea but it isn’t within the scope of what the government is allowed to violate your property rights to achieve.

Others would argue that government is in the business of promoting good ideas, or at least it should be. And taking an area that is economically “blighted” and turning it into a collection of homes or businesses that improve the community is a good use of the government’s time and energy. We can’t let holdouts, whether they are doing so because of an intense love for their particular house or for an incredibly generous pay-day, halt economic progress that would benefit everyone in the community. They argue that the government needs to be able to promote not just the structural necessities of public life (a road or a bridge) but also the broader concerns that affect the quality of life. After all, people probably claimed back in the day that a hospital wasn’t a public use either, since it isn’t a strictly necessary structure. Yet now a hospital would be generally accepted by all but the most dyed-in-the-wool libertarians as a fair use of eminent domain. This is just the modern evolution of the concept of public use.

Conclusion

Eminent domain is sort of like taxes. Nobody necessarily wants to pay them but we all know that we need taxes or there would be potholes everywhere–the government wouldn’t be able to do anything. Even if we think of taxes as state-sanctioned theft, we let it go because “taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.”

There is a sliding scale–from a bridge to a hospital to a strip mall–and most may go along with it to the hospital but no further. Economic development is great and should be encouraged. But allowing a forcible purchase of property by the government to promote positive development is a bell that you can’t un-ring. It may not be the most interesting issue to think about (and certainly it isn’t the most interesting issue where Mr. Trump is concerned) but eminent domain is government power with very real immediate and future consequences that warrant discussion.

Resources

Primary

FindLaw: Kelo v. New London

Additional

Washington State University At St. Louis: A Brief History of The Takings Clause

CBS News: Eminent Domain Being Abused

National Review: Kelo v. City of New London Ten Years Later

IRS.gov: Tax Quotes

Department of Justice: History of the Use of Federal Eminent Domain

Brown Political Review: “Public Needs” Abuse Eminent Domain for Economic Development

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Blighted: What Exactly Is Eminent Domain? appeared first on Law Street.

The world was rocked by the death of 79-year-old Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday, February 13, 2016. Scalia, the longest-serving justice on the current bench, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan on June 17, 1986 following the resignation of Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. His three decades on the Court have proven to be legendary and exceptionally influential in the interpretation of law and the Constitution. Even his passing has, fittingly, sparked a constitutionally-based showdown of governmental powers and the appointment of a new justice. Read on to learn more about Justice Scalia’s influential and legendary service to the Court and the politically fused debate regarding the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice.

Who Was Antonin Scalia?

Justice Antonin Scalia was a conservative originalist powerhouse within the Supreme Court who unapologetically defended the Founding Fathers’ intent and precise wording of the Constitution to his last day. His interpretation was fully vested in originalism, an ideology that deems the Constitution a dead document–one inflexible and unchanging to the environment and developments of the world in which it was created.

Scalia was a master in crafting polarizing opinions which were widely criticized by many and revered by others. His stances on women, abortion, and minorities made him an unfavorable justice among Democrats particularly. His protection for privacy highlighted his commitment to the Constitution. Yet, his ability to artfully and logically decipher complex analyses in a nuanced manner was an undeniable talent; Chief Justice John Roberts dubbed Scalia a “leader of the conservative intellectual renaissance.“

Noteworthy Cases: A Legacy Through Opinion and Text

Here is just a sampling of the many noteworthy cases that define Scalia’s time on the court:

The Second Amendment

Justice Scalia delivered the majority opinion for District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 in a step-by-step breakdown of the operative clause in the Second Amendment, concluding the right to bear arms extended to the people of the United States beyond the context of “militia” as cited in the Second Amendment. Scalia’s opinion further developed the limitations of the right to bear arms, drawing from a historical context and English implementation. He stated,

[T]here seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms…we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

Privacy

Scalia led a crusade for the protection of privacy. Justice Scalia’s 2001 opinion in Kyllo v. United States set a clear limitation on police intrusion. In a 5-4 ruling, police were barred from utilizing thermal-imaging devices to explore the insides of a private home otherwise unknown without physical intrusion as a protection of the Fourth Amendment and unreasonable searches without the requisite warrant. The use of thermal-imaging was deemed to be an “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area.”

The Fourth Amendment

Scalia’s conclusion in Florida v. Jardines further cemented the Fourth Amendment definition of a search by finding that the use of a drug-sniffing dog on private property was considered a search and therefore, required a warrant. In 2013, when the Maryland v. King decision granted police the ability to collect and analyze DNA samples from individuals arrested for but not yet convicted of crimes, Justice Scalia delivered a fierce dissent. He stated:

[N]o matter the degree of invasiveness, suspicionless searches are never allowed if their principal end is ordinary crime-solving. A search incident to arrest either serves other ends (such as officer safety, in a search for weapons) or is not suspicionless (as when there is reason to believe the arrestee possesses evidence relevant to the crime of arrest).

He was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan in his dissent. Most recently, Justice Scalia supported the decision in Rodriguez v. United States, which extended Fourth Amendment protections for motorists detained for an extended period of time to allow police to conduct a dog-sniff without reasonable suspicion. Such police conduct was found to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Gay Marriage and Rights

Justice Scalia was widely criticized for his conservative  stance on a variety of large-scale issues facing a more progressive America. His dissents regarding LGBTQ rights were particularly controversial. These range from his dissent in United States v. Windsor to his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas in which he stated that the Court had “largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct” when the majority invalidated Texas’ same-sex sodomy ban. In his vehement opposition, Justice Scalia compared homosexuals to drug dealers, prostitutes, and animal abusers, garnering him significant criticism.

Abortion

Justice Scalia continuously criticized the bench on abortion jurisprudence, and stated, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, “I continue to dissent from this enterprise of devising an Abortion Code, and from the illusion that we have authority to do so.”

In 1992, his partial dissent in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey reinforced his stance:

That is, quite simply, the issue in this case: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. Of course it is both. The issue is whether it is a liberty protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the ‘concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’ Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected–because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribe.

After three decades of service, one thing remains starkly clear–Justice Scalia remained dedicated to and bound by the words of the Constitution and what he viewed as the intent of its writers. His stances, often argumentative and unforgiving, remained unwaivering.

Has Justice Scalia’s Passing Caused a Constitution Crisis?

Before Justice Scalia’s passing could properly be mourned, the American public was reminded of the extremely high stakes in the 2016 election as Republicans took to the streets in an effort to prevent President Obama from nominating a justice to fill the current vacancy on the bench. Just thirty minutes after the news of Scalia’s death broke, Ted Cruz took to his Twitter and posted to say: “Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.”

A variety of reasons have been stated for the opposition to nominate Justice Scalia’s replacement. Senator Rand Paul weighed in, finding that a conflict of interest would exist if President Obama made a nomination as he has too many of his own policies before the Court. Conn Caroll, communications director for Utah Republican Mike Lee stated, “What is less than zero? The chances of Obama successfully appointing a Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia?” Donald Trump called for the Senate to “delay, delay, delay” and Ted Cruz stated, “the Senate needs to stand strong.” Ohio Governor John Kasich reminded the world, “I just wish we hadn’t run so fast into politics.”

However, Democrats fired back by pointing out that it is written in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”

Hillary Clinton commented: “It is outrageous that Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail have already pledged to block any replacement that President Obama nominates.” Further reminding the public that President Obama remains in office until January 20, 2017 and has a duty to continue filling his obligations as Commander in Chief. Senator Elizabeth Warren demolished naysayers with the following statement that went viral:

The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States. Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes. Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can’t find a clause that says “…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.” Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

President Obama has already pledged that he will fulfill his duty to nominate an individual to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy and the list of potential nominees includes many extremely qualified individuals. The list includes, but is not limited to: Sri Srinivasan of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Patricia Ann Millett of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Paul Watford of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Merrick Garland, the Chief Justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Jane Kelly of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Jacqueline Nguyen of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

While it is unclear how the battle between President Obama and the Senate will play out, it is important to note the Senate has never taken more than 125 days to confirm a Presidential Supreme Court nominee. At the time of Justice Scalia’s passing, President Obama still had 342 days left in his term. Since 1900, eight individuals were nominated during election year, six were confirmed. With that said, there is still plenty of time for President Obama to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and for the Senate to confirm–we will just have to wait and see how this constitutional showdown plays out.

Resources

Primary

Cornell Legal Information Institute: District of Columbia v. Heller

 Cornell Legal Information Institute: Texas v. Johnson

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Kyllo v. United States

Oyez: Florida v. Jardines

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Rodriguez v. United States

Cornell Legal Information Institute: United States v. Windsor

 Cornell Legal Information Institute: Lawrence v. Texas

JUSTIA: Hodgson v. Minnesota

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

Secondary

Slate: Antonin Scalia Will Be Remembered As One of the Greats

Yahoo! News: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead in Texas

Grassfire: Remembering a Titan: The Legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia

 Cornell Legal Information Institute: Bush v. Gore

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Antonin Scalia: 5 of His Most Famous Decisions

Cornell Legal Information Institute: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

 Twitter: Ted Cruz

Charters of Freedom: The United States Constitution

Think Progress: It’s a “Conflict of Interest” for Obama to Nominate a Supreme Court Justice

Slate: Could Justice Antonin Scalia’s Death Lead to a Constitutional Crisis?

NDTV: Trump Calls for ‘Delay, Delay, Delay’ on Scalia Successor”

The New York Times: Hillary Clinton Calls Mitch McConnell’s Stance on Supreme Court Nomination ‘Disappointing’

Slate: Obama’s Supreme Court Shortlist

The New York Times: Supreme Court Nominees Considered in Election Year are Usually Confirmed

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does Antonin Scalia’s Death Mean for the Supreme Court? appeared first on Law Street.

Puerto Rico received a rather unwelcome and tightly wrapped Christmas gift this year from the United States as it was reminded, in a brief filed by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., that it is not a sovereign state regardless of the fact that it has its own Constitution and is much more independent than a colony or territory.

The United States, taking a substantial interest in the outcome of the two cases reaching the Supreme Court in January 2016 regarding Puerto Rico’s political status and future, just planted its feet firmly in the argument that Puerto Rico does not self-govern and is actually a territory with a limited ability and authority to govern over its own interests, disputes, and affairs. The brief has created a media frenzy in Puerto Rico and has even involved the United Nations through an appeal highlighting human rights issues pertaining to self-determination.

Image Courtesy Of [Vxla via Flickr]

Historically speaking, Puerto Rico was ceded to the United States by Spain in 1898 following the conclusion of the Spanish-American War pursuant to the Treaty of Paris signed on December 10, 1898. Following several years of constructing Puerto Rico’s government, legislature, and judiciary, it was finally provided a bill of rights by Congress in 1917, and the people of Puerto Rico were granted U.S. citizenship. In 1950, Congress gave Puerto Rico the right to create its own Constitution to be adopted by its government so long as it “provided a republican form of government” and “include[d] a bill of rights.” Puerto Rico’s Constitution was approved by Congress in 1952 following several changes and revisions. Since then, Puerto Rico has enjoyed a level of autonomy and sovereignty similar to that of the states. Constitutionally speaking however, Congress has directly managed and overseen Puerto Rico’s affairs under the Territory Clause of Article IV of the Constitution.

The cases to be heard by the Supreme Court, while narrow in focus, will directly address the debate over Puerto Rico’s constitutional and political future–a bigger picture effect, if you will. One case addresses whether the United States and Puerto Rico are separate sovereign nations for the purposes of Double Jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Due to the fact that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits individuals from being tried for the same offense twice, Puerto Rico would have to have sovereignty and operate in an autonomous fashion to charge individuals for the same crimes they were convicted of in federal court. While the federal U.S. government and the states are considered separate sovereigns for the purposes of Double Jeopardy, in its brief, the U.S., who is not a party to the case, submitted support for the Respondents in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Luis M. Sanchez Valle, concluding that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign entity and therefore, Puerto Rico’s individual and independent prosecution of the individuals convicted in federal court violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The second case to be heard by the Supreme Court centers around Puerto Rico’s catastrophic public debt of approximately $72 billion, which it wants to be able to control and restructure in the same way each individual state can, but is not able to under the Bankruptcy Code of U.S. law. The debt incorporates $20 billion for public utilities, used by the people of Puerto Rico including 3.5 million Americans, which Puerto Rico is unable to pay. It is urging the Supreme Court to grant Puerto Rico the right to enact laws allowing for restructuring. This desperate measure comes on the heels of a 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that struck down Puerto Rico’s Recovery Act, which allowed for Puerto Rico to fill the gaps of Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code that had excluded any part of Puerto Rico’s government to take part in restructuring. As such, the Recovery Act was found to be in direct opposition to U.S. law and deemed unconstitutional. The financial crisis in Puerto Rico has brought the small island to the brink of an economic meltdown.

Puerto Rico’s Governor, Alejandro García Padilla, issued an impassioned and assertive statement following Verrilli’s brief filing, stating that the Solicitor General’s stance is “contrary to all Supreme Court jurisprudence” and that Verrilli’s position is “at odds with prior postures by his office with regards to the sovereignty of the Commonwealth.” As far as Padilla is concerned, using the term “colony” to describe Puerto Rico’s current political status, well, those were fighting words.

While the upcoming Supreme Court cases both carry the answer to a long-lasting debate about Puerto Rico’s constitutional and political future, it appears that both sides want their cake and to eat it too. Padilla does not support either statehood or independence for Puerto Rico and wants U.S. financial and legal support on his own terms. The U.S. has received many benefits from its relationship with Puerto Rico, yet it fails to address the major pitfalls threatening the territory and is unwilling to be flexible in order to address dire concerns that only it can to date. Nothing is for certain except this–come early 2016, the Supreme Court will tackle the issue as to whether Puerto Rico is separate and sovereign from the United States. Until then, all we can do is wait and hope that Puerto Rico works with the United States to come up with additional solutions to the major problems at hand.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Puerto Rico: A Sovereign State or Still a U.S. Colony? appeared first on Law Street.

As the impact of technology on our lives expands, sometimes the law fails to do so accordingly, creating questionable legal gray areas. Many of us store our entire lives in our cell phones, usually just protected by a short four-digit password. The question of whether or not it’s legal for the government to ask for someone’s phone password was just decided by a Pennsylvania court, at least temporarily solving at least one of those legal gray areas.

The case, SEC vs. Huang, dealt with two former Capital One data analysts who were suspected of insider trading. They were using phones that were provided by Capitol One, but used passwords that the suspects had chosen themselves. They were not required to disclose these passwords to Capitol One. Although they returned the phones to Capitol One when they were fired, they did not turn over the passwords. When the investigators asked the two suspects (both with the last name Huang, although not related) they refused, arguing that the Fifth Amendment, which protects an individual from self-incrimination, allowed them to refuse to hand over that information.

On Wednesday a district court in Pennsylvania decided in favor of the Huangs, meaning that they don’t have to turn over their passwords.

There were a lot of questions particular to the case, including the application of a particular legal doctrine called “foregone conclusion.” Essentially, pieces of information aren’t protected under the Fifth Amendment when the government knows what they contain, and their location. In this particular case, Judge Kearney wrote that the government “has no evidence any documents it seeks are actually located on the work-issued smartphones, or that they exist at all.” However, some legal experts, including the Volokh Conspiracy writer Professor Orrin Kerr, argue that the doctrine was applied incorrectly, pointing out that there’s a difference between asking for records of insider trading and asking for the passwords. If this case is appealed, that may be one of the questions that ends up being dealt with.

But back to that legal gray area–while the court may have ruled that phone passwords can be protected under the Fifth Amendment, other aspects of our mobile security probably aren’t. For example, last year a Virginia Circuit Court ruled that while cops can’t require individuals to unlock their phones using passwords, they can make them unlock them using biometric data–like the TouchID feature popular on most recent iPhone models. While these are obviously very different cases, in different courts, these cases and many others highlight the fact that the conversations over privacy and Fifth Amendment issues in the digital age are far from over.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Federal Judge: Phone Passwords are Protected by the Fifth Amendment appeared first on Law Street.

It may only be Stephen Colbert’s second week in the “Late Show” chair, but that didn’t stop him from seriously quizzing Texas Senator and Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz  Monday night on Ronald Reagan, gay marriage, and the Constitution.

Reagan and his policies have been at the forefront of the Republican race following last week’s second Republican primary debate in the Reagan library. So much so, that candidates have begun comparing themselves in one way or another to the 40th president, despite their actual positions on key topics proving the contrary.

So when Cruz brought Reagan up, Colbert jumped at the chance to weed out another Reagan wannabee.

Here’s a clip from the interview below:

But if you either a. don’t have a pair of headphones handy, b. don’t have four and a half minutes to spare, or c. would prefer to read my attempt at witty commentary, enjoy some of the interview highlights below:

Colbert: “Reagan raised taxes, okay. Reagan actually had an amnesty program for illegal immigrants. Neither of those things would allow Reagan to be nominated today. So to what level can you truly emulate Ronald Reagan?”

Noting that Reagan worked across the aisle with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil to get shit done, he continued:

“Isn’t that what people want more than anything else. Not just principles, but actions.”

Cruz:  Says no voter has told him that they want him to “give in more to Barack Obama.”

Colbert: Continued to press Cruz on whether or not he agrees with Reagan on raising taxes and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Cruz: “No, of course not. But Ronald Reagan also signed the largest tax cut in history. He reduced government regulations from Washington, and economic growth exploded.”

Colbert: Quickly reminds Cruz that “when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his world’s largest tax cut and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations, so it’s a matter of compromising.”

(Did you hear that Cruz? Successful government requires compromise, not forced shutdowns.)

Cruz: Steers the conversation to his platform, telling Colbert that in a nutshell he thinks the country should “live within our means, stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids, and follow the Constitution.”

Colbert: “And no gay marriage?”

Cruz: “Well no , let’s be precise: Under the Constitution, marriage is a question for the states.”

Colbert: “It doesn’t mention marriage in the Constitution.”

(Oh snap.)

Cruz: “The 10th Amendment says that if the Constitution doesn’t mention it, it’s a question for the states. … I don’t think we should entrust governing our society to five unelected lawyers in Washington.”

Colbert: Has to silence the audience’s boos for Cruz.

Cruz: “If you want to win an issue, go to the ballot box and win at the ballot box.”

Touche, Cruz. So how about you get back to me after you win at the ballot box. But right now i’m awarding this political showdown Colbert-1, Cruz-0.

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 Stephen Colbert Owns Ted Cruz on Reagan, Gay Marriage, and the Constitution appeared first on Law Street.

A man who was under terror surveillance in Boston was shot and killed by a police officer and an FBI agent earlier this afternoon. This man was a part of a broader terrorism investigation involving suspected Islamist extremists. This man was identified as Usaama Rahim by a spokesperson for the Council of American-Islamic Relations.

The justification for the officials’ actions resulting in this man’s death focuses on their perceptions that Rahim was a threat to public safety, since he allegedly wielded a large, black knife at the time of the incident. According to CNN, Rahim was asked numerous times to drop his weapon but because he refused to do so both the police officer and FBI agent opened fire.

Police Commissioner William Evans claimed that “he came at the officers and, you know, they do what they were trained to do and, unfortunately, they had to take a life.”

This statement begs the question, both to Evans and to police departments everywhere, what type of situation justifies any police officers actions’ that result in the death of a man who hasn’t been proven guilty? This man was under terror surveillance, but considering the United States’ disputable track record on finding evidence regarding terrorist efforts, these actions could still be unconstitutional.

The Model Penal Code is normally used to guide the actions of police officers in assessing whether or not resorting to deadly force is the appropriate response in dangerous circumstances. According to the code, officers should only use force when the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in the arrest may harm other people. Deadly force is considered acceptable when it is believed to be the only solution to resolving a dangerous situation that could harm innocent bystanders.

In this particular shooting, killing Rahim could be justified by the police because he was wielding a large, black knife, forcing the officers to open fire. But is waving a knife, with no hostages and no bystanders in the immediate vicinity, a valid enough rationale to take someone’s life? Commissioner Evans claimed that Rahim came “within the proximity” for the officers to use deadly force. But what distance is considered within the proximity to kill? These are all questions that demand answers.

In addition to these questionable circumstances, Rahim was a suspected Islamic extremist under terror surveillance. The FBI agent who participated in the shooting was surely aware of this fact, but the same cannot be said for the Boston police officer. Rahim’s identity as a Muslim cannot be ignored when evaluating the police officer and FBI agent’s justifications for their actions. The lethal combination of Rahim’s Muslim faith and questionable terrorist ties could easily work in the police department’s favor. At the time of his death, Rahim had not been convicted of any terrorist actions, so his death at the hands of Boston and federal officials should not be considered constitutional.

Racial or ethnic profiling may have been a factor in this shooting as well. It is also noteworthy that this case occurred just over two years after the Boston Bombing, which has had a lasting (and justified) impact on perceptions of terrorist attacks throughout the U.S. Although news sources have not yet revealed why Rahim was under surveillance, a mere suspicion that he was involved with terrorist activity does not legitimize his death.

One of the most prevalent issues in holding the police officer and FBI agent accountable in this situation is the complex relationship between the police department and judicial court system. In the 1930 Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, a sheriff faced a lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. His defense was that he had used deadly force “to defend himself.” The court ruled in his favor. This case set precedent for lax rulings in favor of police officers, despite the officer’s controversial actions.

This storyline coincides with other court cases of police officers claiming self defense after having killed a subject of an arrest, such as Tamir Rice and Michael Brown. All of these incidents speak to the larger problem of police officers abusing their position of authority and power at the expense of civilians.

Police departments need to undergo reformation, especially regarding their veracious use of deadly force. Regardless of whether or not Rahim was guilty of the things he was suspected of doing, there were presumably ways to detain him without taking his life. Whether it be using a gun, rough rides, or chokeholds, police departments must develop new tactics that put deadly force at the bottom of the totem pole, thereby protecting citizens instead of victimizing them.

Emily Dalgo also contributed to this story.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Boston Police Shooting of Usaama Rahim: Protection or Victimization? appeared first on Law Street.

For some, the term “lobbying” evokes the thought of fat cat plutocrats piping money into Congress to keep their interests and deep pockets protected. But while voting is the most fundamental aspect of a democracy, lobbying–for better or worse–is one of the most direct ways to influence policy making. Read on to learn about the lobbying system in the United States, as well as the benefits and negative effects of this system.

What is lobbying?

Lobbying is a right protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and ultimately allows citizens to shape legislators’ decisions. U.S. citizens have the right to petition, free speech, and freedom of the press, so when citizens want to influence government policy, they are constitutionally protected.

Those who hire lobbyists are usually called special interest groups–groups of people who use advocacy to influence policy and public opinion.

Types of Lobbying

There are two core types of lobbying: inside and outside. Inside lobbying occurs when individuals contact their legislators directly, mostly through phone calls and letters. Outside lobbying is when citizens or interest groups form campaigns or organizations to influence public opinion or to pressure policymakers.

Types of Lobbyists 

While lobbying by businesses that see a particular benefit in swaying our lawmakers is very common, there are other motivations for lobbying as well. Unions, for example, also lobby for issues pertaining to taxes, workers’ rights, and the minimum wage, just to name a few.

Religious lobbying is another good example. The head of a church or religious organization might lobby Congress to denounce a bill that would not fit the view of the congregation. The number of religious lobbying organizations has increased from less than 40 in 1970 to more than 200 in 2012. Catholic organizations lead the way, making up 19 percent of all religious lobbying groups. So, lobbying isn’t just about the money, it can take the form of moral or personal interests as well.

Lobbying is not only popular on the federal level, but also at the state level. A 2006 survey by the Center for Public Integrity reported that there were 40,000 paid lobbyists working with state legislatures, with that number expected to rise. Other lobbying efforts are even more local. Trying to persuade a city council to halt something like a construction project to preserve wildlife is another common example of lobbying.

When is the best time for lobbying efforts?

Lobbying is most common weeks before a bill is set to be voted on, when proponents of the bill gather to discuss how they will go about presenting the initiative. Another common time to see lobbyists is during election season. This time is crucial as lobbyists can put more pressure on members of Congress to please their constituents and recognize the immediate effect of voting against their constituents’ opinions.

Show Me the Money: Lobbyists and Spending

The amount of money spent on lobbying since the late 1990s has increased dramatically, despite fluctuations in the number of lobbyists. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets, in 1998 there were 10,405 individual lobbyists and lobbying spending totaled $1.45 billion. In 2010 there were 12,948 lobbyists, and spending totaled a high of $3.52 billion. This means that there was a 24 percent increase in lobbyists, and a staggering 143 percent increase in total spending. Fewer lobbyists are representing more wealthy interest groups.

While the fundamental practice of lobbying is notifying members of the legislative branch of the positive and/or negative consequences of their decisions, this simple practice is made complicated by companies and organizations that spend millions of dollars per year to convince members of Congress to vote for policies that positively benefit their businesses. The following list, also compiled by Open Secrets, shows the spending of the largest Congressional lobbyists in the U.S. in 2014.

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce: $124,080,000
• National Association of Realtors: $55,057,053
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield: $21,888,774
• American Hospital Association: $20,773,146
• American Medical Association:  $19,650,000
• National Association of Broadcasters: $18,440,000

According to Open Secrets, $3.24 billion dollars was spent on lobbying Congress and federal agencies in 2014. While that’s not quite as high as the peak in 2010, it doesn’t show signs of slowing down significantly anytime soon.

Regulating Lobbying

The U.S. has very tight restrictions on lobbying, with violations of these restrictions punishable by jail time or fines. These punishments can sometimes take very severe and costly forms. For example, the Sacramento Bee reported in 2014 that the California Correctional Peace Officers Association was hit with a $5,500 fine for failing to disclose $24,603.50 in gifts to state representatives. In another case, documented by the Los Angeles Times, a lobbyist was fined $133,500, the highest lobbying fine ever, for making illegal campaign donations to 40 California politicians.

The Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 was a major piece of legislation that attempted to regulate and hold lobbyists accountable. While this law helped bring transparency to lobbyists, there were many loopholes, such as the fact that small grassroots lobbying groups whose “activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in services” were not regulated. Due to the many loopholes in the original law, parts of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 were amended into the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The law gives very specific guidelines for Congressional lobbying, and prohibits activities such as bribery.

Lobbying Disclosure Act 

Here is a portion of Section 6 of the act:

Section 6 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), 2 U.S.C. § 1605, provides that: The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall (1) provide guidance and assistance on the registration and reporting requirements of this Act and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with this Act; [and] (2) review, and, where necessary, verify and inquire to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of registrations and reports.

Essentially, this portion works to guarantee the transparency and accountability of lobbyists and the officials they lobby.

Other provisions of the law include that lobbyists are required to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. In addition, Cabinet Secretaries and other senior executive personnel are prohibited from lobbying the department or agency in which they worked for two years after they leave their position.

Some of the law also regulates interactions between lobbyists and officials. Lobbyists are prohibited from providing gifts, including travel, to members of Congress with the intent of violating House or Senate rules. The law also requires that lobbyist disclosures be filed electronically in both the Senate and House, and mandated the creation of a publicly searchable Internet database of such disclosures. It also prohibits officials from attending parties held in their honor at national party conventions if they have been sponsored by lobbyists, unless the member is the party’s presidential or vice presidential nominee.

How do the American people feel about lobbyists?

While lobbying is an important democratic right, most Americans view lobbyists negatively. A Gallup Poll released in 2013 showed that only six percent of Americans believe lobbyists are honest or have high ethical standards. Further confirming America’s view of lobbyists, seven in ten Americans believe that lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.

Arguments for Lobbying 

Those who support lobbying efforts point out that lobbyists bring to the forefront of the conversation topics that are not in the expertise areas of a politician. For example, a congressman with a background in energy legislation may benefit from more information on foreign affairs topics. Lobbyists also have the opportunity to educate legislators of the opinions of minorities that they may otherwise not learn about. Finally, lobbyists can bring about change directly by influencing the votes of politicians.

Arguments Against Lobbying

Those who disagree with our current lobbying system point to the Citizen’s United Supreme Court case, which allowed unlimited donations to political campaigns. They worry that such a broad decision may give lobbyists more power in negotiating a legislator’s vote. In addition, the pressure of interest groups influences politicians to vote in favor of the interest group, which may not line up with their constituents’ viewpoints. Finally, there’s a consistent fear that lobbyists use bribery and monetary threats to guide government actions.

Conclusion

Lobbying is important to the democratic process as it allows citizens to express their interests and opinions and in turn influence policy making. Second to voting, it may be the most important democratic right. But concerns abound that this right has been used increasingly in recent decades as a way for large corporations and interest groups to pressure politicians into passing legislation that favors their interests. While lobbying remains an important right, popular dissent and distrust means that it often leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many.

Resources

OpenSecrets.org: Lobbying Again on the Downward Slide in 2012

Mother Jones: K Street is Holy Place

Aljazeera America: Lobbying Tapered off in 2014 Amid Congressional Gridlock

Office of the Clerk: Lobbying Disclosure Act Guide

Sacramento Bee: Prison Officers’ Union Accepts Fine for Lobbying Violations

Gallup: Honesty and Ethics Rating of Clergy Slides to New Low

Pew: Lobbying for the Faithful

Center for Public Integrity: State Lobbying Becomes Million-Dollar Business

—

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lobbying: Washington’s Dirty Little Secret? appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

An unfortunate reality of the world in which we live is that new crimes are perpetrated and new victims are created every day. There’s a firmly carved out space in our justice system–and by extension, our society–for offenders. But what about the victims of crimes? What spaces do they occupy in our justice system, and what rights do they have? Read on to learn about the pressing issues in victims’ rights, and what progress is being made to advocate for victims within our justice system.

What are victims’ rights?

The newly developing field of victims’ rights law comes from the theory that there needs to be a place for the victim in the justice system and within the victim’s own legal process. Currently there are two players in our traditional criminal justice system: the prosecutor and the defendant. However, victims’ rights advocates argue that this construction leaves little or no room for the victim of the crime, and that instead the victim is treated as another piece of evidence or as an aside. Victims’ rights advocates work to create a space for victims in the court room, or any other part of the legal process.

Much of victims’ rights theory is focused on the concept of agency: victims are independent people who should be able to play their own roles in the discussion of the crimes perpetrated against them. Often victims don’t have access to lawyers or advocates; victims’ rights law provides appropriate channels for their voices, and can involve appointing legal representation to victims.

Victims’ rights law is broad, amorphous, and serves as an umbrella for different aspects of how victims interact with the legal system. According to the Department of Justice, victims’ rights include:

1. The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
2. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court or parole proceeding involving the crime, or of any release or escape of the accused.
3. The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
4. The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
5. The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the government in the case.
6. The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
7. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
8. The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.

One particularly important aspect of victims’ rights law is enforcement, or the ability of victims to actually assert themselves into a criminal case. The National Crime Victim Law Institute is at the forefront of the push to train lawyers in this discipline and support crime victims in the justice system.

National Crime Victim Law Institute

The National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI), an institute housed within Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, is the foremost authority in victims’ rights law. Founded in 1997, the NCVLI “promotes balance and fairness in the justice system through crime victim centered legal advocacy, education, and resource sharing.” Among a variety of tools and initiatives, the institute trains actors in the justice system, from attorneys and judges to the victims themselves, on the scope and enforceability of victims’ rights. Additionally, the institute’s National Alliance of Victims’ Rights Attorneys provides a network of legal advocates who work for free on behalf of crime victims. The NCVLI also hosts the Crime Victim Law Conference, which is the only national conference of its kind that focuses on training and educating crime victim advocates. Watch the video below for more information on the conference.

Examples of Victims’ Rights

Right to Notice

The right to notice is a “gateway” right that needs to be afforded to victims, meaning that if a victim does not receive the right to notice, he will not be able to participate in the rest of the proceedings. The NCVLI sheds further light on this right. According to the NCVLI, the right to notice is the “right to advisement of the existence of crime victims’ rights and the right to advisement of specific events during the criminal justice process.” The right to notice can include that the victim receives notice for proceedings such as hearings, trials, or the possible release or parole of the person who perpetrated the crime against the victim. As with many of these rights, the ways to invoke the right to notice varies from state to state, and can sometimes require that a victim request notifications.

Right to Be Present

The right to be present, or the right of the victim to stay in the courtroom during the trial of the accused, used to generally be considered a given. According to the NCVLI, however, that changed in 1975 with the adoption of Federal Rule of Evidence 615 (and the adoption by many states in their rules of evidence as well), which allows for the sequestration of all witnesses, save a party representative from each side. If the victim is a witness, he will not be allowed to stay in the courtroom during the trial. While this rule prevents witnesses from having their testimony altered by what they observe in trial, it takes away the right to be present from victims. States have started to backtrack on this; many states now guarantee the right to be present, or leave it up to the states’ discretion, but there are still states where victims are excluded from proceedings.

Right to Be Heard 

The right to be heard deals specifically with victims’ ability to actively participate in the criminal proceedings of those who committed a crime against them. The right to be heard allows the victim to speak to the court at various stages, either verbally or through a written statement, although in many states how exactly this plays out is up to the court’s discretion. Points at which a victim may wish to address the court include release, plea, sentencing, and parole. In federal cases, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) allows the victim to reasonably address the court at proceedings such as parole, release, or plea hearings.

Right to Protection

A right to protection works to ensure that the victim will not be harassed or discriminated against because of his role in the proceedings, or for his status as a victim. This includes keeping the victim updated on the status of the offender, particularly when it comes to things like parole and release status, or if the offender escapes. Victims have the right to feel safe, even if they participate in the legal proceedings against the person(s) who wronged them.

Other Rights

There are significantly more rights that should be afforded to victims–the above list is not exhaustive. Other victims’ rights issues include the rights to due process, fairness, dignity, and respect; the right to information and referral; the right to apply for victim compensation; the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; the right to confer; the right to a copy of the pre-sentence report and transcripts; and the right to standings and remedies.

Victims and Attorneys

In a court case, the defendant is guaranteed access to an attorney, though whether or not he chooses to exercise that right is up to the individual. Victims, however, do not have the same right. Prosecutors are not attorneys for the victim–they are attorneys for the state, or the “people.” They don’t necessarily have to do what is best for the victim; they are required to do their job as sanctioned by the government.

On the other hand, attorneys for victims can advise them of their legal rights, and help them act upon them. These lawyers can advocate for the victims’ rights listed above in states where those rights are not guaranteed, fight for restitution in cases where victims owe medical bills or other related costs, ensure that a victim’s records are not allowed to be exploited, as well as many other ways in which a victim may need assistance.

Challenges in Victims’ Rights Law

Victims’ rights work is currently a rather small field of work. While the recognition of the need of victims’ rights law has grown over the last several decades, there are still very few lawyers, institutions, and funding available for the practice. In addition, victims’ rights law features some unique challenges, some of which are described below.

Changing the Culture

One of the largest problems to overcome for those working in the victims’ rights field is the current culture of our justice system, and the need for balance between victims’ and defendants’ rights. There are plenty of rights afforded by our constitution and other governing legal documents and procedures that protect defendants. For example, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in the Bill of Rights. However, rights for victims aren’t similarly ingrained in our society; moreover, there are concerns that granting rights to victims takes away from the rights of defendants. Countering that culture and finding an appropriate balance is a struggle for those who work in the field of victims’ rights.

Funding and Time

Given that victims’ rights law is a relatively small field and requires a lot of work, those who work in the field do have a problem gaining funding. According to Meg Garvin, Executive Director & Clinical Professor of Law at the NCVLI, there are very few people who work in victims’ rights law particularly, and funding is hard to come by. As NCVLI points out on its website:

Did you know the average amicus curiae brief requires 140 hours of attorney time? Some briefs, including those to the United States Supreme Court, require much more time, and most also require payment of filing costs. The fair market value of just the attorney time on the average brief is $36,400.

Arguments Against Victims’ Rights

Those who work in victims’ rights law also have to deal with the debate over whether or not a move toward more robust and protected victims’ rights is appropriate. Critics of the field of victims’ rights law point to the logistical difficulties of including victims in proceedings, and again cite the need for witness sequestration. There is also concern over how to deal with crimes that have multiple victims, particularly if the victims all want different things or have contrasting views that may further complicate the case.

Furthermore, there are worries about the ethics of advocating for victims before the offenders are actually declared guilty. As Wendy Kaminer of the American Prospect puts it,

The practical problems posed by the victims’ rights amendment are, however, less daunting than its repressive ideology. It attacks the presumption of innocence. When we identify and legally empower a victim before conviction, we assume that a crime has been committed, although that is sometimes disputed at trial (think of an acquaintance rape case); we also assume the veracity and reliability of the self-proclaimed victim.

Conclusion

Victims’ rights law focuses on an important, seemingly often forgotten person in any case–the victim. Victims’ rights encompass almost every aspect of the justice system, from allowing victims the right to notice, to granting them an active role in proceedings. Victims’ rights law isn’t just limited to the courtroom, either, but plays a role in policy discussions and advocacy throughout our legal system. Advocating for the victim to play an active role can ensure that our justice system is as fair, effective, and representative as possible.

Resources

Primary

Office of the United States Attorneys: Crime Victims’ Rights Act

National Archives: Bill of Rights

NCVLI: Fundamentals of Victims’ Rights: A Summary of 12 Common Victims’ Rights

Office of Justice Programs: Office for the Victims of Crimes

NCVLI: Victim Law Library

Additional

American Prospect: Victims Versus Suspects

National Association of Victims’ Rights Attorneys: Pro Bono

ACLU: Factsheet on the Proposed Victims’ Rights Amendment

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Victims in the Justice System: What Are Their Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I try not to spend a whole lot of time paying attention to the local news in Houston because it’s usually about someone getting killed or the meteorologist getting the weather wrong yet again. But I noticed a tweet from my local outlet about Houston’s mayor Annise Parker doing something crazy. That something crazy is subpoenaing pastors over their sermons.

I will be 100 percent honest and let you know that I am not fond of Mayor Parker. She drives me insane. Not because she is a Democrat or a lesbian but because her ideals of how to run this city are just bananas! (Sidenote: I do really hate how every news outlet constantly identifies Mayor Parker as the “first openly lesbian mayor of a major city.” I mean this with all do respect, but who gives a crap at this point!? She’s been mayor of Houston for four years — time to let that go. This is why we can never be seen as more than our gender and sexuality. Stop identifying people by these two labels — she is MAYOR ANNISE PARKER! What does her sexual preference have to do with running this city? Absolutely nothing! Off my soap box.)

The city’s Equal Rights Ordinance was voted on back in May and is now being challenged for various reasons. The ordinance included a “bathroom” clause that was eventually dropped, which regulated which bathrooms a transgender person could use. Over the summer, opponents of the ordinance delivered 50,000 signatures for repeal— nearly triple the minimum necessary number of 17,269. In this case, good ol’ Mayor Parker — champion of the ordinance — has decided to take away the First Amendment rights of pastors in Houston by subpoenaing the sermons and other communications of pastors who opposed the ordinance and collected signatures in church.

The subpoenas sought “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO (Houston Equal Rights Ordinance), the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession,” according to the Houston Chronicle.

Churches and pastors are specifically protected in their speech and religious practice under the First Amendment. So why does Mayor Parker and her cronies think it was okay to subpoena their sermons? Let’s just start to chip away at the constitution a little bit at a time until we have no more rights. Who needs rights or to be protected by the law anyway?

I certainly do love how Mayor Parker and City Attorney Dave Feldman have started to back track on everything since the subpoenas were issued on Monday; they are now claiming that they have realized that the subpoenas were too broad. Too broad? You basically want to see everything that is being said about you and stripping away the rights of fellow Houstonians. It’s like the popular girl in high school finding out someone doesn’t agree with her and then demanding to find out everything that is being said behind her back. Grow up! Not even two days after the subpoenas were issued Mr. Feldman received criticism from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott stating that the subpoenas needed to be withdrawn immediately. Hmmm. City attorney versus Attorney General of the State of Texas. Who do you think has more clout?

Mayor Parker needs to set aside her own personal agenda and do what’s right for the whole city and maybe take into account the reason why she is in the position she is in. Wouldn’t it make sense to know about the laws and the Constitution before trying to get your way? You just made yourself look like a fool, Annise.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Houston Mayor Annise Parker Violating First Amendment Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

This is going to hurt me a lot more than it is going to hurt you: Justice Antonin Scalia might have a point.

I know, I know. His “orthodoxy” and “originalism” are nothing but facades that make a joke out of Constitutional interpretation. His recalcitrance has a deteriorating effect on America. His arrogance knows no limits. But one of his thoughts contains a basic interpretation of the Constitution that is extremely important. A recent Denver Post article quotes Scalia saying, “’There are those who would have us believe that the separation of church and state must mean that God must be driven out of the public forum…That is simply not what our Constitution has ever meant.’”

I’ve already written about why it’s okay — and good — to include religion in the public discourse. So I will simply sum up my argument here: religion is still an integral part of American life, religion is still an integral American social institution, and religion still informs the morals of American public officials. Instead of dismissing that out of fear of a too-close relationship between church and state, let’s have it out in the open for our discussions. Now this one is hard for me to swallow, but it behooves me to agree with a basic component of Scalia’s belief. The separation of church and state, vital as it is, does not necessitate the eradication of religiosity from American life, public or private.

Despite feeling empty inside for supporting something that Justice Scalia said, I’ll press on. The topic is of utmost importance right now as more Americans are unhappy about perceived lack of religiosity, according to Pew Research. As 72 percent of Americans believe that religion has lost influence in the country, “a growing share of the American public wants religion to play a role in U.S. politics,” Pew’s Religion & Public Life Project claims. Scalia and I are on to something: religious presence in American public life is not only Constitutionally acceptable, but desired by an increasing number of people in the country.

What does this mean for political alignments in America? On one hand Pew notes that more “of the general public sees the Republican Party as friendly toward religion (47%) than sees the Democratic Party that way (29%).” On the other hand, there are “some signs of discontent within the GOP among its supporters, including evangelicals.” While Christians still dominate the American religious atmosphere, their political spread is complicated. Black Protestants overwhelmingly support the Democratic party as opposed to their White Republican counterparts. Meanwhile, the Catholic demographic is split between Republican Whites and Democratic Hispanics.

These spreads indicate how differentiated all religious Americans — even Christian Americans — are politically. Therefore, the growing number of Americans looking to see more religiosity in the U.S. political sphere is comprised of a variety of political interests. Neither liberals nor conservatives, then, should be too optimistic or pessimistic because of these demographics. Only those who oppose Scalia’s conception of church and state should be concerned. While religion may be less prevalent in public life right now, those who oppose religion in public life also have waning clout.

Scalia’s statement is consistent with the growing public sentiment, but how should the Supreme Court interpret this opinion? Of course, according to Scalia, the Supreme Court should completely ignore the current public dynamic and focus only on the “original” meaning of the Constitution. And in Scalia’s eyes, the “original” meaning of the First Amendment “explicitly favors religion” over non-religion, as he mentions in a recent Court opinion. Will the Supreme Court, and Scalia, look to the recent sentiments of the public to validate a preference of the religious over the non-religious? Or will some members of the Court defend agnostic and atheistic rights when applicable? With the Court slated to hear a few cases on religion in the near future, these questions should be mainstream.

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 Justice Scalia Gets It Right: There is a Political Demand for Religion appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama stirred up an old debate recently by becoming the first sitting president to endorse statehood for the District of Columbia. Obama expressed his full support: “I’m in DC, so I’m for it…Folks in DC pay taxes like everybody else. They contribute to the overall well being of the country like everybody else. There has been a long movement to get DC statehood, and I’ve been for it for quite some time.”

Here’s what you need to know about Washington DC’s contentious battle for statehood, what it would mean for District residents, and what impact it would have on the country.

Why was the District of Columbia created?

To understand the arguments for statehood, you have to understand the history of Washington, DC. The District of Columbia was specifically created to house the federal government. The authors of the Constitution wanted to house the federal government in its own jurisdiction after witnessing the problems of having the nation’s temporary capital in Philadelphia. The decision was made in 1787 following an incident in which the governor of Pennsylvania refused to disperse rioters threatening Congress in Philadelphia. The framers did not want the federal government to be subject to any decisions of a specific state or governor. So, the delegates wrote Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to outline Congress’ control over the district:

“[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.”

Congress moved to a new federal capital in 1800, and the District still stands today on land ceded by Maryland. Residents of the District face a number of unique circumstances because it is not a state.

Originally, DC residents were barred from voting for president. It was not until 1961 that the passage of the 23rd Amendment finally secured three electoral votes for the District. DC residents also elect one non-voting member to the House of Representatives.

The District of Columbia has operated under a system of Home Rule since 1973 as a way to better govern local affairs. Home rule means that DC is allowed a local government, including a directly elected mayor and city council. Still, Congress has the ultimate authority and the power to overturn any laws passed by the local government.

Why do people push for DC statehood?

Right to Vote

Residents of DC express outrage that they pay federal and local taxes, are subject to the same laws as everyone else, fight in wars, and serve on juries, yet they lack the same Congressional representation. The argument is also made that this disenfranchisement comes from a legacy of racism aimed at the District’s majority African-American population. Those in favor of statehood want the full rights of being an American citizen, which includes full representation in Congress as well as full control over local affairs. In addition to lacking voting power, DC’s representative in Congress is denied a federal salary and an office. License plates in DC decry residents’ lack of status with the slogan “Taxation without Representation.” Watch President Obama’s remarks on DC statehood below:

Local Control

Many citizens are fed up with the limitations of DC’s Home Rule. Since Congress can overturn any law, it has exerted its power on a number of issues passed by DC residents. Congress has intervened to restrict abortions, to prevent restrictions on firearm ownership, and even to control marijuana issues. Congress has also barred DC from using local tax dollars on specific things, such as statehood advocacy and needle exchange programs.

Taxes

Citizens claim they do not have enough financial resources to pay for high-quality public services. Although DC is not a state, it has all the financial burdens of one. It provides local services, like public schools and a police force, but it also provides services typically dealt with at the state level, like mental health and Medicaid. DC has limited taxing powers. The District cannot tax income earned within its borders by non-residents, even though all other states have that power. Two-thirds of income in the District is made by people who do not live in the District, yet they pay no income tax.  Additionally, the federal government, embassies, and non-profits that occupy most of DC pay no property, sales, or income taxes. The small size of the city and disproportionate number of low-income workers with higher needs for public services strain the District financially. Still, DC residents pay the highest federal taxes per capita.

Growing Population

Washington DC’s fast-growing population of approximately 650,000 — larger than Wyoming or Vermont — is large enough to make it a state. According to the Washington Peace Center, DC as a state could bring in more than $2 billion a year in additional revenue. This would allow the local government to cut taxes and better fund schools and services. Freeing itself from Congressional oversight would also make the district more efficient. Watch more about the DC statehood movement below.

Shutdowns

The 16-day federal government shutdown during Fall 2013 illustrated issues with DC dependency on federal funds and approval. DC Mayor Grey did not shut down local services but suspended some payments so the city could remain operational. Mayor Grey warned that vital city services were dangerously close to ending as the city’s emergency funds were depleted. Allowing DC the autonomy of statehood would prevent these issues in the event of a federal government shutdown.

Legally, how would statehood be achieved?

Despite President Obama’s supportive statement, making DC a state is unfortunately not within his power. There are a couple of avenues that the District of Columbia could take to obtain statehood.

Constitutional Amendment

There is some debate as to whether an amendment could make DC an official state, but it could definitely give DC’s residents much greater rights and further define the area of the federal district. Two-thirds of Congress would have to approve a matching constitutional amendment. Alternately, two-thirds of state legislatures could call a Constitutional Convention. The amendment would then be sent to the states for ratification by three-fourths. Naturally this process would be very difficult. A proposed amendment in 1985 to give DC more voting power was only ratified by 16 states in the allotted seven-year span. Further, critics point out that any constitutional amendment could later be repealed.

Law

Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution outlines the creation of new states.

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

Under this section, an act of Congress could make DC its own state with a simple majority vote and signature from the President. This was the same process followed by Hawaii and Alaska as recently as 1959. There is some question as to whether Maryland would need to approve statehood, since DC was formed on land from Maryland. Still, bills are introduced to Congress nearly every year, but none has been brought to a vote since 1993. Most Congressional leaders like the idea of admitting states as pairs, so there is a good chance any vote to make DC a state would also include a bid of statehood for Puerto Rico.

Proposals for giving DC Congressional representation are much more common than bills for complete statehood. These bills have not been met with success. Some contend that giving District residents the right to vote may not even be within Congress’ power.

What are the current proposals?

Previous campaigns for statehood have referred to the new state as “New Columbia,” and the name is still associated with the movement today. The New Columbia Admissions Act was introduced in 2013 before failing to make it out of committee. The Act closely follows the proposed constitution ratified by DC voters in 1982. The plan would create a new state while still keeping a much smaller area of DC a federal district. The area of the federal district would shrink substantially, but would include all important federal buildings like the Capitol, White House, and Supreme Court. The Constitution sets an upper limit on the size of the District at 10 square miles, but no lower limit is set. All of the other residential land currently in DC would then become the 51st state. New Columbia would be granted the same rights as any other state in the Union.

To advance its agenda, the District of Columbia still selects members to a shadow congressional delegation that lobbies Congress to grant statehood and voting rights. The positions were authorized by a “state” constitution in 1982 authorized by voters, but this delegation is still not recognized by Congress. Numerous groups in DC continue to lobby for statehood. Watch DC Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton speak on statehood below.

What are the arguments against statehood?

In Federalist No. 43, James Madison argued that the District of Columbia needed to be independent for maintenance and safety concerns. Madison wrote,

“A dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

Arguments against statehood today follow similar lines. Americans are concerned that the federal government would be dependent on a single state to cover its security and general operations. With such great power, a state could restrict the federal government in ways that would not be beneficial to the rest of the nation. However, the plan to keep important governmental buildings as a federal district largely mitigates these concerns.

The uniqueness of the DC area makes statehood very difficult politically. Some of the arguments opponents have:

• Similar to all states with relatively small populations, DC’s small size and population would give it an unfair influence in politics.
• The liberal area would be a stronghold for Democrats, and DC would always send Democrats to Congress.
• The interests of the District would be dominated by the federal government, since it would be the state’s largest employer by far.
• The state would be the only one without rural residents. This means the representatives would share none of the interests held by non-urban areas.
• A state could enact a commuter tax on non-residents who come to the state to work. Such a tax is currently banned under Home Rule.
• The constitutional question of whether the state of Maryland would have to consent to the new state, since the district was formed on land granted by Maryland.
• Some people flat out do not want to witness a strange-looking flag with 51 stars. But not to worry, numerous 51-star flags have already been designed, and they don’t look too bad.

Courtesy of jacobolus via Wikipedia

Are there any other alternatives to statehood?

Most citizens in favor of DC statehood oppose settling for anything less. Some propose bills to grant voting representation to members of DC, such as simply allowing DC’s representative in the House of Representatives the power to vote. Others worry these laws could be undone by the next Congress — and Congress may not even have the authority to make such a law.

Others propose some sort of tie with Maryland. This could mean parts of DC being given back to Maryland. However, neither Maryland nor DC really want to merge. A less drastic solution is Congress restoring the voting rights of District residents by allowing them to vote as a part of Maryland while maintaining the integrity of the District. Still, residents want voting as well as increased autonomy over local affairs.

Issues over DC statehood will not soon be resolved unless residents can be better provided some method of true representation. Most recently in the never-ending saga of DC residents, issues arose with DC driver’s licenses not being considered a valid form of ID by uninformed TSA agents. The good news is DC statehood would likely make the lives of TSA agents much easier.

Resources

Primary

Senate: New Columbia Admission Act

The District of Columbia: Statehood

Additional

Week: Obama Endorses Statehood for Washington, DC

Daily Caller: Obama Endorses DC Statehood

Huffington Post: Let’s Settle This Once and for All: DC Statehood is Constitutional

New Columbia: Vision

Brookings: If the District of Columbia Becomes a State: Fiscal Implications

Neighbors United for DC Statehood: FAQs

Mother Jones: DC: The 51st State?

Washington Post: Budget Deal Reminds DC That Congress is Still in Charge

Washington Peace Center: DC Statehood: A Primer

Brookings: A Sound Fiscal Footing for the Nation’s Capital

Hill: Denying DC Statehood Continues Federal Overreach

Smithsonian Magazine: Designing a 51-State Flag

Hill: DC Delegate to Meet with TSA

Leadership Coalition: Why DC Voting Rights Matter

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The 51st State: What DC Statehood Would Mean for the Country appeared first on Law Street.

Gather ‘round, Constant Reader (if I may be so presumptuous with my very first blog post). Let’s wax nostalgic for a tick.

There we go. That should set the mood.

It’s 1987. Hollywood’s been treating the world to some gems: Adventures in Babysitting; The Lost Boys; Nightmare on Elm Street III. On the politics front, the sun is setting on Reagan’s presidency and the Cold War. Most importantly, though, the Washington football team (which shall remain nameless) has made it to Super Bowl XXII. It’s halftime and they’ve just hung 35 second-quarter points on the Broncos — a Super Bowl record. By game’s end, the Washington football team’s quarterback, Doug Williams, would be become the first black quarterback to win the Super Bowl.

Despite Williams’ achievement, the idea persisted that black quarterbacks aren’t as smart as their white counterparts. Years later, this refrain played out to major controversy when Rush Limbaugh called Donovan McNabb, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, overrated, explaining that the liberal, mainstream media with its PC bromides just wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.

Fast forward to this year. And thank you, by the way, for allowing me a momentary walk down memory lane. It does indeed warm my very gay heart cockles to talk football (usually 49ers). But, with that jaunt I have a point: the NFL appeared to have progressed by leaps and bounds when the St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam earlier this year, the first openly gay football player in the NFL.

Courtesy of PopWrapped

To boot, the cameras then panned to him planting an Al-and-Tipper-level kiss on his boyfriend.

Yeah, that disaster

Even more, Michael Sam is black and in an interracial relationship. Boom! Check, check, and check. Who’da thunk the NFL could be so forward? So au currant?

I tried to place the Michael Sam moment into the larger context of recent progress generally. In President Obama’s purportedly transcendent America, same-sex marriage has rapidly swept across the country. Just earlier this year, for instance, Judge John E. Jones III of Pennsylvania’s Middle District struck down Pennsylvania’s same-sex marriage ban, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses. Pennsylvania thus became the nineteenth state to effectively legalize same-sex marriage. Last year, the Supreme Court issued favorable rulings in the California Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.

Then I remembered that I’ve only ever lived really in the most liberal of hotbeds, Los Angeles and New York City, and I slowed my roll. In fact, I think we all ought to slow our rolls. While the LGBTQ community continues to march toward full equality, other minority communities are seeing their gains erode. Just look at the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities. (As an aside though, yay for Justice Sotomayor’s blistering, two-snaps-and-an-around-the-world smack down dissent!)

The LGBTQ community is rightfully and deservedly celebrating its recent electoral and legal victories. As a member of the community I have tempered my elation, though, because I feel deeply that the fortunes of “discrete and insular minorities” are intertwined. No doubt, the Michael Sam moment was indeed big; a watershed moment totally deserving of celebration. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. The NFL still makes its bones playing to the hyper-heteronormative crowd. Just sit through those Go-Daddy commercials during the Super Bowl. We aren’t yet living in the post-racial, post-gender, post-et-cetera world promised with the election of Barack Obama. Bigotry accumulated over time tends to pervade everything from society’s institutions to even its more subtle, discursive acts of culture. I’ll more fully celebrate the Michael-Sam-type moments when progress begins to happen on all fronts, not just one.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [VJnet via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBT Community Makes Great Strides, Other Minority Groups’ Rights Eroding appeared first on Law Street.

By most accounts, the rollout of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been incredibly rocky. Even as problems with Healthcare.gov have stabilized and enrollment numbers have increased across the nation, the law, alternatively called ‘Obamacare,’ is being hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its various provisions. One such notable lawsuit is Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and it has arrived at the Supreme Court.

The case pits Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius against arts and crafts giant Hobby Lobby, and it underscores the fierce resistance by some companies to the 2010 law. The heart of the case lies in the issue of whether or not the ACA’s provision forcing employers to cover contraception as a part of employee-based health care is an attack on religious freedom. Hobby Lobby Stores filed a suit against the United States in September 2012 citing the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993.

The Free Exercise Clause, if anyone needs reminding, states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” As for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the gist of the bill is that it prevents the government from passing legislation that would make it extremely hard for someone to exercise their religion. In this case, Hobby Lobby claims that the ACA  makes it too difficult for the family of ownership (the Greens) to exercise their religion due to the provision of contraceptive medication in employee’s healthcare premiums. It is important to note here that there is no explicit mention of contraception coverage in the wording of the healthcare bill.

The arts and crafts chain store only took their case to the next level after the Supreme Court refused to grant an injunction excusing Hobby Lobby from providing contraception coverage, saying simply, “Applicants do not satisfy the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief they seek.” Then, in July 2013, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton provided the Green family an exemption from the “contraceptive mandate.” In his ruling, Judge Heaton said:

Given the importance of the interests at stake in this case, the fact that the ACA’s requirements raise new and substantial questions of law and public policy, and that substantial litigation as to the mandate at issue here is ongoing around the country, the court concludes there is an overriding public interest in the resolution of the legal issues raised by the mandate before Hobby Lobby and Mardel are exposed to the substantial penalties that are potentially applicable. The public interest therefore lies in preserving the status quo until the issues raised by plaintiffs’ claims are resolved.

The tables were turned on Hobby Lobby when the Center for Inquiry filed its own amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in January 2014. In the brief, the Center cited the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the same basis of argument used by Hobby Lobby, stating that the government cannot make an exception on religious grounds for one company. With the Supreme Court granting certiorari since November 2013, many are eager to see the result of this massively influential case, and the next arguments are scheduled for March 25.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [DangApricot via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Craft of Contraception Rights: SCOTUS to Hear Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby appeared first on Law Street.

Advisory opinions are essentially pieces of advice offered by courts as a way to provide guidance on a particular law or issue. Since its inception, the United States Supreme Court, and federal courts in general, have not been allowed to issue advisory opinions, even though some onlookers have speculated that they may help cut down work flow and clear up ambiguities in the law. Read on to learn about the history of advisory opinions, the Supreme Court’s ban on releasing them, and how that has affected our American jurisprudence system.

What Exactly is an Advisory Opinion?

An advisory opinion is a non-binding explanation of the legal implications of a situation that has not arisen in actual litigation. An advisory opinion allows the legislature, the executive branch, or a lower court to gain insight into the prevailing judicial interpretation of a law, regulation, or constitutional amendment. This reduces the likelihood that a governmental act will be invalidated for conflicting with the Constitution, so it could save time or money. Advisory opinions are not binding precedent but are often treated as persuasive if no other precedent exists.

Why Can’t the Supreme Court Issue Advisory Opinions?

In the United States, federal courts are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Article III designates that any legal opinion promulgated by federal courts must pertain to an issue that is “mature for judicial resolution” and the parties must have a palpable interest in the case. Put more simply, the Supreme Court, or any lower federal courts, can only rule in a real case, not just when someone brings a topic to the court to ask for an opinion.

Partly at issue is the separation of powers. The job of the legislative branch is to make the laws, the executive branch is supposed to enforce them, and the judicial branch is supposed to interpret them. By allowing the judicial branch to interpret them earlier than is unnecessary, that separation becomes blurred. That’s the argument made by John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, when he refused to offer judicial advice to President George Washington or Alexander Hamilton. Later, Justice William R. Day reinvigorated the argument against Supreme Court advisory opinions in Muskrat v. United States. He stated as a reason to not offer advisory opinions that:

The result will be that this court, instead of keeping within the limits of judicial power and deciding cases or controversies arising between opposing parties, as the Constitution intended it should, will be required to give opinions in the nature of advice concerning legislative action, a function never conferred upon it by the Constitution.

Are There Alternatives to Advisory Opinions?

Certain state courts allow federal courts and courts of other states to ask them certified questions about actual controversies involving the state’s law. The U.S. Supreme Court also accepts certified questions about actual controversies from lower federal courts; however, this is a rare occurrence. A certified question is a request from one court to another court for clarification of a question of law. For example, if a cause of action under a state statute is brought in federal court, the federal court may send a certified question to the state court in order to gain clarification about how to interpret the state statute in accordance with the state’s jurisprudence.

Federal courts are able to employ preventative adjudication in the form of declaratory judgments due to the passage of the Declaratory Judgment Act. A declaratory judgment is a legal finding of a party’s actual legal rights in an actual case or controversy (or lack thereof) against another party. These judgments are binding though they can be appealed. The act allows a party to seek a declaration of his or her rights against another party even if no specific legal relief is sought in the case. If the proven facts show that there is a possibility that relief may be warranted in the future, then the act gives federal courts the discretion to issue declaratory judgments that define parties’ rights.

Federal courts maintain artful legal doctrines in order to ensure that Declaratory Judgments do not amount to de-facto Advisory Opinions. These doctrines are codified in the case of Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority.  In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court promulgated specific guidelines for the use of Judicial Review:

1. The Court will not determine the constitutionality of legislation in nonadversary proceedings.
2. It will not anticipate a question of constitutional law.
3. It will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than needed.
4. It will not rule on constitutionality if there is another ground for deciding the case.
5. It will not determine a statute’s validity unless the person complaining has been injured by it.
6. It will not invalidate a statute at the instance of persons who have taken advantage of its benefits.
7. It will always ascertain whether any reasonable interpretation of a statute will allow it to avoid the constitutional issue.

These guidelines are designed to prevent courts from promulgating interpretations of the Constitution outside of a ruling in an actual case or controversy.

What is the Argument for Changing the Laws to Allow Federal Courts to Issue Advisory Opinions?

Proponents of granting the Supreme Court the power to issue advisory opinions argue that judicial economy will be improved by the ability to issue opinions more quickly about pervasive legal issues. They also argue that the government can avoid wasting time and resources investing in programs and policies only to have it all be for naught if the government’s action is held to be unconstitutional. Ten states allow their highest courts to issue advisory opinions and the mechanism is an effective legal procedure in those states.

What is the Argument for Maintaining the Status Quo?

Opponents of granting the Supreme Court the power to issue advisory opinions argue that

Every tendency to deal with constitutional questions abstractly, to formulate them in terms of barren legal questions, leads to … sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.

There are more expeditious and expedient means that government actors have for gaining necessary legal interpretations and findings from the courts, such as certified questions. Furthermore, there are procedural mechanisms that allow the legal status of a situation to be determined without the expense and difficulty of a full trial, such as declaratory judgments.

 Resources

Primary

U.S. Archives: U.S. Constitution

Founders Constitution: John Jay to George Washington

Documents in Early American History: John Jay Letter

Additional

Fire Dog Lake: Why Can’t Congress Just Ask the Supreme Court Ahead of Time?

Indiana Law Journal: The Advisory Opinion-An Analysis

Fordham Law Review: The Advisory Opinion and the United States
Supreme Court

Fordham Law Review: The State Advisory Opinion in Perspective

Ohio Northern University Law Review: The Early Supreme Court Justices’ Most Significant Opinion

VIllanova Law Review:Advisory Opinions as a Problem Solving Process

Mel A. Topf: A Doubtful and Perilous Experiment: Advisory Opinions, State Constitutions, and Judicial Supremacy

Cornell Law: Advisory Opinion

UMKC School of Law: Constitutional Limitations on the Judicial Power:

UMKC School of Law: Standing, Advisory Opinions, Mootness, and Ripeness

Roger Williams University Law Review: The Jurisprudence of the Advisory Opinion Process in Rhode Island

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Advisory Opinions in Federal Courts: Forbidden Territory appeared first on Law Street.

The newest trend among small town sheriffs is a refusal to follow the laws of the land. What laws have caused such a visceral reaction from our law enforcement? One of the hottest topics in the American political sphere, of course. These sheriffs are refusing to follow newly enacted gun control laws.

The movement is especially popular in Colorado, although there have been issues in Florida, California, New York, and multiple other states as well. After the horrifying Aurora, Colo. and Newtown, Conn. shootings last year, state and federal leaders have attempted to put more gun control measures in place, but success has been varied.

Since the first whispers of proposed new gun laws began, there has been opposition among local sheriffs. One group, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, also known as CSPOA, has already announced that they would not enforce local, state, or federal gun control laws if they believe that the laws are unconstitutional. As of today, the CSPOA website lists 18 state sheriff organizations and many individual sheriffs. The founder, Richard Mack, is the former sheriff of Graham County, AZ. It also contains a section entitled “The Red Coat List,” presumably a Revolutionary War throwback reference to British soldiers who fought the newly formed United States armies. According to CSPOA, Red Coats are any individuals who try to undermine the the power of the sheriffs of CSPOA.

In March of this year, Colorado’s Governor John Hickenlooper signed new gun laws; they went into effect in July. They include universal background checks on gun purchases and a limit on the size of ammunition magazines, among other measures. The laws incited an incredibly reactionary response throughout the state. Two state senators who supported the laws were actually recalled just a few months later, and a third resigned to avoid a third vicious and expensive recall battle. So far, 55 of the 62 sheriffs in Colorado have stated that they will not follow these laws.

Reasons for refusal vary somewhat, but for the most part, these sheriffs claim that the laws are both unconstitutional and vague to the point of being ineffective. The sheriffs are almost all from rural areas–the few urban sheriffs who are following the news laws claim that they are absolutely enforceable. There are also some sheriffs who disagree with the law, but realize that it is part of their job description to comply, regardless of personal beliefs. These two types of officials are part of a minuscule minority in Colorado.

Acts of defiance are not the first steps that these Colorado sheriffs have taken. In May, a group filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of the laws in the State Court. US District Judge Martha Kreiger turned them down, stating that they didn’t have the legal authority or standing to file the case as sheriffs, although they could as a group of private citizens. There are other suits moving forward, and some of the sheriffs have signed on.

The problem with what’s happening in Colorado is that whether or not these laws are actually constitutional is a separate issue from the job for which these sheriffs have been elected. It is not a sheriff’s duty to make laws–that falls on the Legislature. Similarly, it is not a sheriff’s job to interpret a law–that falls on the Judicial system. A sheriff’s job is to enforce the laws that are enacted.

Now, what many sheriffs are doing is not focusing on the enforcement of these provisions and characterizing them as a very low priority, which is fine, and not entirely unexpected. Not all laws are enforced on the same level anywhere. I know for a fact that I have jaywalked dozens of times. Or, for a sillier example, let’s remember that in my home state of Connecticut, it’s technically illegal to dispose of a used razor. I can assure you, I have done so many times, and I’ve never had the police burst into my bathroom to arrest me. And if all these sheriffs were doing was characterizing these laws as a low priority, it would be bothersome, but in the grand scheme of things, alright.

But the sheriffs who have taken their crusade further worry me. They will face very few consequences–in some states, Governors can investigate sheriffs that don’t follow laws, but that provision is rarely enacted. Mostly, any challenge to these sheriffs will come from voters, but given that these sheriffs are almost exclusively in conservative rural areas, that’s unlikely.

Gun laws in this country will continue to be a grand debate, there’s no doubt about it. But when sheriffs, or former sheriffs, such as Mack, make statements such as, “every one of the sheriffs is going to follow the Constitution, not follow the president or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already ruled twice for the Second Amendment. The federal government has no right to tell me how many magazines I can have, how many guns I can have and how much ammunition I can have,” we have a problem. Sheriffs should be focusing on counteracting the epidemic of gun violence in this country. If they don’t agree with the laws that are passed, that’s a well-deserved personal belief, but it’s still their job to enforce them. In order to make this country a safer place, we need to get on the same page. But right now, we’re not even reading the same book.

—

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 [Inventorchris 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 Colorado Sheriffs Say “No Way” to New Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s assume that you, our beloved reader, are of a common variety these days—you’re in the market for a new job. You’ve followed the posts of some of my colleagues at Law Street who have written extensively about The Search, and now you’re faced with a most enticing proposition, say… an interview! And more enticing still is the letter of intent now sitting on your table after having passed that interview (with flying colors, no less). You quickly sign your LOI and all the other forms handed to you as part of the initiation process. But, in your haste to ascend into the promised land of full-time employment, you’ve accidentally just ceded one of your constitutional rights. At least, that’s what say the opponents of E-Verify, the online protocol used by employers to determine worker eligibility.

Originally created for federal employers under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, there are now 5 states that have mandated the use of E-Verify across both public and private sectors. They are Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah. In addition to information on I-9 forms, the system also asks for an applicant’s social security number and photo ID. The information is then run through a Department of Homeland Security database to make sure it checks out.

Like most states, Arizona legislators implemented mandatory E-Verify as part of an effort to curb illegal immigrants in the work place. But their efforts did not go unchallenged. Shortly thereafter, myriad plaintiffs across the business and civil rights sectors sued the state officials responsible for Legal Arizona Workers Act, alleging that the law should be preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, and, as a result, null. The case eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court in 2011 in The Chamber of Commerce of The United States of America vs Whiting. However, in a 5-3 decision, the Court upheld the decision of the lower courts. They affirmed that, in this case, the Supremacy Clause did not apply. According to the court opinion, states are allowed to mandate the use of the electronic verification system as they see fit.

But as Congress duels over how to reform our national immigration system, the role of government enforcement in the workplace has once again come under review. The most successful piece of legislation thus far, the Border Security and Responsibility Act of 2013, now awaits House approval. If it becomes law (an unlikely feat given current political clout), it would bump from 5 to 50, the number of states that currently use the system.

Jim Harper, writing in response to a New York Times op-ed for the CATO institute, calls the questions raised by opponents of E-verify, “the natural consequence of dragooning the productive into enforcing maladjusted laws against free movement of people from a particular ethnic category to where their labor is most productive.”

Harper has come out against the program in the past; he famously referred to it as “Frank Kafka’s solution to illegal immigration.” Mind you, long before the 2013 global surveillance disclosures, Harper said that the expansion of the system “would cause law-abiding American citizens to lose more of their privacy as government records about them grew and were converted to untold new purposes.”

Furthermore, some say that instituting mandatory electronic verification would eschew the presumption of innocence which is so fundamental to 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. By asking all prospective employees, who are mostly US citizens, to provide evidence to the effect that they are not guilty of illegal immigration is to incriminate a swath of people never before accused of wrongdoing.

If we are to allow DHS security checks in the workplace, where will it stop? And perhaps more alarming: where will it lead? The supermarket? The movies? Your home?

But alas, to the newly employed, and, more importantly, eligible US worker, these concerns are irrelevant. So congratulations on the new job! But don’t forget, next week are mandatory drug tests… hope you don’t mind.

[Oyez]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Bram Cymet via Flickr]

Jimmy Hoover

Jimmy Hoover is a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Jimmy at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Would a Nationally Imposed E-Verify System Infringe on Your Constitutional Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

Most people have seen the popular I <3 Boobies bracelets in recent years. They come in a variety of bright colors, they’re made of stretchy rubber, are about as thick as a watch, and in very large letters, say “I <3 Boobies.” They are produced by a company called Keep-A-Breast, a fundraising and educational company. In their mission statement, they state that, “The Keep A Breast Foundation is the leading youth-focused, global, nonprofit breast cancer organization. Our mission is to eradicate breast cancer for future generations. We provide support programs for young people impacted by cancer and educate people about prevention, early detection, and cancer-causing toxins in our everyday environment.” Depending on whether the bracelets are sold by an outside retailer, or through the company itself, Keep-A-Breast earns somewhere between $1.50-$4.00 to go to research and prevention for each bracelet sold. Unfortunately, these bracelets have been banned in many schools across the country because of claims that the message “I <3 Boobies” is too sexual in nature and too likely to be abused.

In 2010, two young women, Brianna Hawk and Kayla Martinez, wore the bracelets to school as part of their middle school’s Breast Cancer Awareness Day. The girls attended school in the Easton Area School District of Pennsylvania, about an hour and a half northwest of Philadelphia. The school district had previously dictated that these bracelets were forbidden from school because they were lewd in nature. The school cited creating a hyper-sexualized environment for its middle school students as a concern. Hawk and Martinez, then 12 and 13, were suspended from school.

The Hawk and Martinez families immediately took action. The ACLU helped the girls file a suit, and they won. The school board continued to appeal the case, but on each appeal they lost. Most recently, in August 2013, the 3^rd U.S. Circuit Court of appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the girls. Put simply, the two arguments at issue are that the School District believed that the bracelets were disruptive, but the girls claimed they were just trying to raise awareness of the disease and the stigma behind it. Martinez had actually had an aunt die of breast cancer when she was younger. She explained her motivation behind fighting for the bracelets. “In our generation, all the teenagers ask me about the bracelet. So it shows the bracelets teach a lot to kids.” The Courts agreed with the argument made by the girls.

On Tuesday, October 19, the School Board voted 7-1 to bring the case to the Supreme Court.  The school is claiming that this is not just about the bracelets, but rather about the overall ability of a school district to deem what is and what is not appropriate for its students. The one board member who voted against bringing the case forward, Frank Pintabone, expressed exhaustion with the legal battle, stating, “I think we should be done with it. Let it go. We lost 20, 30 times, I don’t even know anymore.”

Whether or not students have the right to wear whatever they want to school has always been contentious. From Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, probably the most well-known precedent in regards to students’ constitutional rights, to upcoming the Easton School District Case, students’ rights are a hotly debated set of issues. Whether this case will limit freedoms, or extend the ones granted in Tinker will be interesting to observe.

—

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 [Krystal Pritchett 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 Can You Heart Boobies in Public School? appeared first on Law Street.

 Since the implementation of the “silent filibuster” (allows Senators to fiat the idea that they would speak for ever), filibusters have become a juggernaut tactic to halt legislation. Now, filibusters are used as jokes.

The reasoning is simple: Filibusters no longer serve as a means of discussing legislation.

 What the hell is our politics coming to when Senators feel it is acceptable to read a child’s book on the floor of the Senate?  The filibuster was once a strategic tool to discuss legislation and improve a proposed bill. Now, we have senators akin to Ted Cruz who find it appropriate to recite Green Eggs and Ham. I am positive Doctor Seuss would be as disgraced with our politicians as many of us our today.

 It is no mystery that the filibuster has lost its intended purpose. From the “Silent Filibuster” to Ted Cruz’s story time readings, the western model of government is losing credibility—it is a joke. But who are we to complain? After all, WE elected them into office (great job, Texas).

 All of the mockery put aside, how is it possible that  something as corrupt as the filibuster is constitutional? This brings up a particular question; is the filibuster even in the constitution?

 Nowhere in the constitution does it explicitly state anything about the filibuster, nor the act of filibustering. So does that mean it is unconstitutional? Aaron Burr, Vice President to John Adams, can be blamed for this confusion. As President of the Senate, Burr removed cloture, deeming it unnecessary, leaving an open spot for the filibuster in the “unwritten constitution”. Although it is not written verbatim in the Constitution, it has been adapted into our structure of government. This can also be seen in the emergence of a two party system as well as the cabinet.

If I recall, the Constitution does not directly include an Air Force, so does that mean the United States Air force is unconstitutional as well? The Founding Fathers were aware of issues like this, which is why Article I, § 8, establishes that Congress has the power to “raise and support Armies”. So the answer is, yeah, the filibuster is constitutional; it’s just being exploited.

And if you think it couldn’t get any more corrupt, it does. In fact, this process was too strenuous; hence the birth of the Silent filibuster. Now, Senators simply fiat the idea of talking for infinity.  The way I see it, they should be required to put in some effort. The notion that one can halt an entire bill because they say they will talk forever is absurd.

Not only is Cruz giving a bad name for himself, he is tarnishing diplomacy, moreover the democratic process our nation prides itself upon. His political stunt is parallel to celebrity Miley Cyrus’s unwarranted gestures—a nation utterly embarrassed.

[ RawStory] [Newsdailynews]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Zennie Abraham via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Filibusters: Political Twerking appeared first on Law Street.