The Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment Thursday that would block the Department of Justice from using any funds to undermine state medical marijuana legislation.

The effort, led by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT),  specifically prohibits the Justice Department from using federal funds to prevent certain states “from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.”

“The Senate is sending a clear message to Jeff Sessions–keep your hands off states that have reformed their marijuana laws,” said Michael Collins, Deputy Director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs. “Today’s vote is a huge win for the marijuana reform movement, because in the face of real pressure from the Department of Justice, the Senate has opted to block Jeff Sessions from interfering with any medical marijuana law.”

Congress has added the amendment, also known as Rohrabacher-Farr, to federal budgets every year since 2014. In May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a letter to Congressional leadership, personally requesting that Congressional leaders exclude the amendment, signaling a possible federal crackdown on marijuana.

Sessions, who oversees the Drug Enforcement Agency, defended the request, writing in the letter:

I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime. The Department must be in a position to use all laws available to combat the transnational drug organizations and dangerous drug traffickers who threaten American lives.

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have passed laws legalizing various forms of medical marijuana, and there are currently over 2 million registered patients.

Last August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the amendment’s language prevents the federal government from prosecuting state-authorized medical marijuana users, if no state laws have been broken.

The Senate Committee still has to approve the amendment for the final appropriations budget. But Thursday’s vote is a clear rebuke of Sessions, who is expected to unveil a DOJ task force report soon linking marijuana to violent crime.

Alexis Evans

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

The post Senate Committee Approves Medical Marijuana Protections appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief stating that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect against employment discrimination based on sexuality.

The brief was in response to Donald Zarda’s lawsuit against his employer, a skydiving company called Altitude Express. Zarda believed that the company fired him in 2010 after he told a female customer that he was gay. According to trial documents, he did this so that the customer would not be uncomfortable that he was strapped so tightly to her.

Zarda died in 2014 in a skydiving accident. Two executors of his estate continued the lawsuit on his behalf. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is currently hearing the case.

The New York district court originally dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Zarda could not file under Title VII because the act does not cover sexual orientation. The Justice Department’s brief encouraged the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the lower court’s ruling.

“The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination. It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts,” the brief says.

It goes on to add that since Congress never specified anything to do with sexual orientation in the act, the courts cannot act independently to change it.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The legislation does not specify the exact meaning of “sex.” However, “in common ordinary usage, the word means only ‘biologically male or female,'” the brief continues.

But the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April that Title VII does protect sexuality. “It would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation,'” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote.

James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT and HIV Project, said in a statement that he was relieved that the courts could interpret the Civil Rights Act, rather than Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the rest of the Trump Administration.

“We are confident that the courts will side with equality and the people,” he concluded.

The Justice Department filed the brief the same day that President Donald Trump tweeted his ban on transgender service people in the military.

Delaney Cruickshank

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

The post DOJ: Civil Rights Act Does Not Apply to LGBT Discrimination appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has failed to provide adequate treatment to prisoners with mental illnesses, according to a July 12 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General. Among the OIG’s criticisms are the BOP’s failure to properly track and limit the length of time prisoners spend in “restrictive housing,” and prisons’ inadequate documentation of inmates’ mental illness resulting in inappropriate mental health treatment or no treatment at all. The report highlighted issues with multiple facilities for their mistreatment of mentally ill inmates, but singled out the U.S. Penitentiary (USP) in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in particular.

The report said the BOP’s failure to document inmates’ mental health diagnoses leaves many cases of mental illness underreported. According to a DOJ survey that was conducted between February 2011-May 2012–which the recent DOJ report was based on–14 percent of state and federal prisoners and 26 percent of jail inmates reported experiencing serious psychological distress (SPD) in the past 30 days. Thirty-seven percent and 44 percent respectively had been told by a mental health professional they had a mental disorder. However, according to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, only 3 percent of BOP sentenced inmates were being treated regularly for mental illness as of 2015. “Without an accurate count of all inmates with mental illness, the BOP is unable to ensure that it is providing appropriate mental health care for its inmates,” Horowitz said in a video message.

According to the DOJ report, the BOP claimed that “the Bureau does not recognize the term solitary confinement. Therefore, the Bureau does not have a definition or a reference to provide.” The BOP also does not clearly define “restrictive housing” or “extended placement.” However, the OIG found that inmates, including those with mental illness, were confined to single-occupant cells, isolated from other inmates, and had little human contact at multiple facilities. At the U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Security Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, the OIG observed two inmates at the Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU) when they were each confined to single-occupant cells for over 22 hours per day.

Additionally, BOP does not limit how long an inmate can be held in restrictive housing–during individual periods or cumulatively over multiple periods of confinement. The OIG’s sample of inmates with mental illness showed that those inmates had been placed in the ADX for an average of about 69 months. One mentally ill inmate had spent 19 years in an ADX cell before they were transferred to a residential mental health treatment program. That time spent in isolation can be psychologically harmful to prisoners, increase the likelihood of recidivism, and make it more difficult for inmates to re-integrate into society after being released, according to the report.

In May 2014, the BOP adopted a new mental health policy to improve the treatment of inmates with mental illness, including those being held in RHUs. However, after that policy was implemented, the BOP exhibited a 30 percent reduction in the number of inmates receiving regular mental health treatment. Inmates are classified based on Mental Health Care Levels (MHCL) 1-4. MHCL 1, the lowest classification, represents “no significant level of functional impairment associated with a mental illness” and requires no regular mental health intervention. MHCL 4, the highest classification, represents that an “inmate may require inpatient psychiatric care and acute care in a psychiatric hospital.” The policy was meant to increase the number of inmates designated as MHCL 2-4 through proper diagnoses. Due to a lack of staffing and resources, the policy “raised the bar” for determining whether an inmate would receive mental health treatment. Without those upper tier diagnoses, many inmates went without the care they needed, according to the report.

One inmate who arrived at a Special Management Unit (SMU) was diagnosed with three mental disorders and was prescribed medications. The inmate’s psychologist removed him from his medications after claiming the patient was faking his mental illness. “Despite the litany of diagnoses and psychiatric medications [the inmate’s] contacts with psychology staff indicate a clear history of malingering and feigning symptoms to change conditions of his confinement,” the psychologist wrote in their notes. Two of the inmate’s three mental disorders were classified as “no longer current.” One year after arriving at the SMU, the inmate was transferred out for mental health reasons.

The American Correctional Association recommends that single-occupant, restrictive housing cells should be a minimum of 80 square feet with at least 35 square feet of unencumbered space. An unknown number of cells at USP Lewisburg did not meet that standard, according to the report. The BOP said that some cells were only 58.5 square feet. Additionally, the report said USP Lewisburg lacked air conditioning and instead relied on ceiling fans, according to the report. “This is especially troubling since psychotropic medications can hinder the body’s ability to sweat,” the report said. “These conditions can make inmates who take psychotropic medications more prone to heat stroke and heat-related illnesses.”

The DOJ acknowledged that the BOP has taken steps to improve these conditions for mentally ill inmates, such as diverting inmates with serious mental illness from traditional RHUs to residential mental health treatment programs and other alternative programs. However, the DOJ maintained that there are still numerous issues with the BOP system, such as high staffing needs and lack of measurement of programs’ effectiveness.

USP Lewisburg is currently involved in a lawsuit, filed on June 9, in which the prison has been accused of providing poor treatment to mentally ill inmates, such as cutting off medications and swapping crossword puzzles for counseling sessions, according to NPR. One of the plaintiffs in McCreary v. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is Jusamuel Rodriguez McCreary, a Lewisburg inmate who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, mood disorder, psycho-social, and environmental problems, ADHD, and antisocial personality disorder. McCreary attempted suicide on multiple occasions and is now being held in an ADX cell at Lewisburg. He has not left his cell since May 16 and has to yell through his cell door for his weekly, two-minute “therapy” sessions, according to the lawsuit. With the findings from the DOJ’s report, it’s unclear yet exactly how many more cases like McCreary’s there are. But for inmates with mental illness to receive proper health care, big changes must come to the U.S. prison system.

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 DOJ Report Criticizes Prisons’ Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

White House Support

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

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

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

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

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

Growing Opposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Immigration Agenda

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

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

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

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

Marcus Dieterle

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

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

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently reduced the scope of his threat to withhold funding from sanctuary cities, narrowing the focus to a set of grants made by the Justice and Homeland Security departments. This is the latest development in an ongoing dispute that dates back to President Donald Trump’s fifth day in office.

Sessions issued the new guidance in a memo to the grant-making components of the Department of Justice. He outlined what will constitute a sanctuary city for funding purposes and explained which grants these cities could risk losing. This stems from an executive order signed by Donald Trump on January 25 titled, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” which is currently tied up in a legal challenge. The original order threatened to withhold all federal funding, while this most recent memo indicates that it might only affect a relatively small number of grants.

In April, a federal judge blocked a central part of the executive order, prompting President Trump to criticize the ruling and vow to take the issue to the Supreme Court. Judge William Orrick, a district court judge in San Francisco, issued an order in favor of Santa Clara County and the City of San Francisco, both of which challenged the order, arguing that withholding all funding from sanctuary cities was clearly unconstitutional.

The new memo may be a response to this ruling, which referenced past opinions to show that the executive branch does not have unilateral authority to revoke funds or use them to coerce state and local governments. While courts have upheld efforts to attach strings to grant funding, those conditions typically need to be related to the purpose of the grant, and it is usually Congress, not the executive branch, that sets these conditions. For example, courts have said that Congress can condition a portion of highway funding on local drinking age laws because the two are related.

There is no agreed-upon definition for what a sanctuary city is, but the general idea behind the term applies to local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration officials. When it comes to grant funding, the government has chosen a fairly narrow definition. In fact, Attorney General Sessions’ memo specifically says that willful non-compliance with one specific statute is what will be used to determine sanctuary status.

That statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, specifically deals with communication between local governments and federal immigration authorities. It prohibits local governments from blocking or limiting the ability of local officials or agencies from communicating with immigration agents. In April, Sessions notified nine local governments that their laws potentially violate the statute and threatened to withhold Justice Assistance Grant funding if they don’t provide proof of compliance by the end of June.

In the most recent memo, Sessions narrowed his interpretation of the executive order to “be applied solely to federal grants administered by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security, and not to other sources of federal funding.” He also notes that this condition will only apply to grants from the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Policing Services, departments where compliance with Section 1373 is a condition.

In his ruling, Judge Orrick notes that both Santa Clara County and the city of San Francisco get a large portion of their overall funding from the federal government, most of which is unrelated to immigration enforcement. Santa Clara receives $1.7 billion, or about 35 percent of its annual revenue, from the federal government while San Francisco gets $1.2 billion, or about 12.5 percent. That funding comes from a wide range of programs, including entitlement programs, and is used to pay for a number of critical government services. Judge Orrick also concludes that Santa Clara and San Francisco are likely to win the case given the limitations on the executive branch’s control over funding.

While the part of President Trump’s order that seeks to withhold all funding from sanctuary cities is likely unconstitutional, it’s unclear whether a narrower effort–like the one outlined in Sessions’ recent memo–would be successful. As the process continues, we can expect to see additional legal challenges as cities and states fight to maintain both their existing policies and funding.

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 Sessions Narrows Funding Threat to Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Law Street.

Chinese-American Physics professor Xi Xiaoxing has filed a lawsuit, claiming that the FBI agents who accused him of espionage in 2015 knew that the evidence against him was false. The suit is claiming malicious prosecution, due process violations, and unlawful searches and seizures. The FBI alleged that Xi, a professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, was sending advanced technology to China. Xi claims that in reality, he was transmitting a technical invention he had made himself, and sent it to China as part of regular academic collaboration.

“They are paid with taxpayer money to catch spies. And they catch people like me, who have done nothing wrong,” Xi said to the New York Times. His lawyers say that the FBI was ordered to investigate Xi as a potential spy. Agents then stormed into his house and arrested him in May of 2015.

But there was allegedly no evidence of espionage. Instead, the agency charged him with handing over confidential blueprints for a piece of laboratory equipment called a “pocket heater” to Chinese researchers. But during the trial, several months after Xi was arrested and handcuffed in front of his family, leading scientists testified in court that it wasn’t even a pocket heater.

He was wrongly charged with spying for China. Now this professor is accusing the FBI of falsifying evidence https://t.co/YZohzli0et

— Karin Fischer (@karinfischer) May 10, 2017

In fact, it was a device that Xi had designed. The mistake was embarrassing for U.S. law enforcement and raised confusion about why Xi was targeted–including potential racial profiling. According to Xi’s lawyer, Peter Zeidenberg, it seemed like the FBI also never consulted any experts or scientists to see what the device really was.

“If he was Canadian-American or French-American, or he was from the U.K., would this have ever even got on the government’s radar? I don’t think so,” Zeidenberg said at the time. Xi’s lawsuit, which was filed on Wednesday, alleges that the FBI agent who arrested him, Andrew Haugen, knew the evidence was not what it was made out to be.

Prosecutors have never explained the 2015 decision to drop the case, and Xi never received an apology. And unfortunately he is not alone. There have been many cases in recent years of high-profile Americans with Chinese ancestry wrongly accused of espionage. But this is believed to be the first lawsuit by a Chinese-American scientist against the federal government since 2006.

Xi said he would also like an apology. After the arrest, he was suspended from work and lost the chance to become his department’s interim chairman. He could no longer enter campus or talk to students. He said that he and his family live in fear of surveillance and being targeted again. Agents storming his house with guns and handcuffing him in front of his children was also a traumatizing experience. But, he said, “They will probably never apologize.”

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 Professor Accused of Being a Chinese Spy Sues FBI Agents appeared first on Law Street.

UC Berkeley used to provide thousands of free lectures and podcasts to anyone who was interested. But now, the school has decided to bar the public from accessing 20,000 videos and podcasts in response to complaints that the content did not meet the needs of vision or hearing-impaired students. Last August, the Department of Justice found that UC Berkeley had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires public universities to provide equal education access to students with disabilities.

Officials say that their decision to restrict access to the videos will allow them to focus their resources on creating newer and more accessible material. In a statement, the university’s vice chancellor for undergraduate education Cathy Koshland said:

This move will also partially address recent findings by the Department of Justice which suggests that the YouTube and iTunesU content meet higher accessibility standards as a condition of remaining publicly available. Finally, moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from ‘pirates’ who have reused content for personal profit without consent.

The DOJ’s review, prompted by complaints from two Gallaudet University employees and members of the National Association of the Deaf, found incomplete or inaccurate closed captioning on videos that would pose challenges for those with hearing disabilities. Low color contrast in some videos would make them difficult to watch for vision-impaired viewers as well.

Berkeley isn’t the only institution where lectures have presented difficulties for disabled students. Two years ago, Harvard University and M.I.T. both faced discrimination lawsuits from advocates for the deaf for not including closed captioning on their online lectures.

But other universities say that removing content altogether isn’t the answer. Inside Higher Ed reached out to the University of Minnesota, M.I.T., Georgia Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and the University of Texas at Austin, almost all of which replied that their lectures meet accessibility standards and that they have no intentions to keep the public from viewing their content.

But the UC Berkeley videos are not lost forever, thanks to one website’s decision to make them available to the public again starting in April. LBRY, a “digital marketplace” where users can publish their content and set a price for other users to view their content, announced the site would re-publish the lectures and make them viewable for free.

LBRY CEO Jeremy Kauffman wrote that uploading the files would be legal because they are under a Creative Commons license that permits non-commercial redistribution with attribution. This means LBRY will not charge for the access to the material or make a profit, and will give credit to UC Berkeley. He told UC Berkeley’s campus newspaper, The Daily Californian, that he is open to collaborating with someone who could add subtitles to the videos that LBRY will publish.

“What motivated our community is that we saw information disappearing that shouldn’t disappear, and our technology is designed to keep information around,” he told the paper.

Victoria Sheridan

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

The post UC Berkeley Lectures Removed After Disability Discrimination Complaints appeared first on Law Street.

Topic of the day: celebrities getting political. Hollywood is busy during the award season, but many celebrities have taken the opportunity to speak out about their political views. ICYMI, check out the speeches by the “Stranger Things” cast and “Moonlight” star Mahershala Ali from the SAG Awards on Sunday night.

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

President Trump Fires the Acting U.S. Attorney General for Defying Immigration Ban

Last night, President Donald Trump fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for defying his executive order on immigration. Trump and White House spokesman Sean Spicer said that Yates “betrayed the Department of Justice” when she refused to comply with Trump’s order. In a statement, the White House said that Yates is “weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration” and also made sure to point out that she was an Obama Administration appointee.

Yates wrote in a letter on Monday that she is responsible for making sure that the positions the Justice Department takes are right. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful,” she wrote. Republicans harshly condemned Yates, calling her a traitor and saying that the AG’s responsibility is to carry out the president’s orders. But she is a hero to many on the left.

Sally Yates was a career prosecutor for more than 2 decades & prosecuted Olympic bomber prior to being named Deputy AG. She exits DOJ a hero

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) January 31, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 31, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The inspector general for the Department of Justice said Thursday that he will conduct an inquiry into the actions FBI Director James Comey took during his investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. Comey’s actions, especially the letter he sent to Congress 11 days before the election, roiled Clinton and her supporters, and instantly put Comey on the hot seat. Clinton and her aides claim that the letter turned thousands of undecided voters against her, and ultimately cost her the election.

Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, will examine three actions Comey took in the months, weeks, and days leading up to Election Day: the July news conference in which Comey called Clinton “extremely careless,” but decided not to indict her; the letter Comey sent to Congress in late October, which announced the discovery of potentially relevant emails; and the letter Comey sent to Congress on November 5, which said that those emails did not include damaging information.

In a statement, Horowitz said the inquiry is “in response to requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations, and members of the public.” Horowitz has the power to recommend a criminal investigation into Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation.

More likely, he will be determining whether Comey, a Republican appointed by President Barack Obama, violated Justice Department rules or demonstrated poor judgment. It is unclear what sort of punishment, if any, could be dealt if Horowitz finds that Comey acted irresponsibly. An internal memo sent to DOJ officials in 2012 directs employees, including the FBI director, to enforce laws “in a neutral and impartial manner.”

All parties involved in the matter expressed support for the watchdog’s probe. Comey, in a statement, said Horowitz is “professional and independent,” adding: “I hope very much he is able to share his conclusions and observations with the public because everyone will benefit from thoughtful evaluation and transparency.” Brian Fallon, Clinton’s former press secretary who was outraged by Comey’s late-October letter, echoed that support.

“This is highly encouraging and to be expected, given Director Comey’s drastic deviation from Justice Department protocol,” he said. “A probe of this sort, however long it takes to conduct, is utterly necessary in order to take the first step to restore the FBI’s reputation as a nonpartisan institution.” Trump, in a pair of tweets on Friday morning, said based on the information the FBI had regarding Clinton’s emails, she should have never been allowed to run. “She lost because she campaigned in the wrong states – no enthusiasm!” he added.

Alec Siegel

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

The post DOJ Launches Inquiry into Comey’s Handling of the Clinton Investigation appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday the Justice Department announced new guidelines for collecting nationwide data on law enforcement officials’ use of force in encounters with civilians. According to the New York Times, this is the biggest effort of its kind that the federal government has ever made to account for use of force.

“Accurate and comprehensive data on the use of force by law enforcement is essential to an informed and productive discussion about community-police relations,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch in a statement. She said that the purpose of these new steps is increased transparency and a better understanding between law enforcement officials and the communities that they serve.

The FBI is currently developing a national database as part of the Department of Justice’s efforts to gather… https://t.co/9LE1tzKQ7m

— QkTip (@QkTipcom) October 13, 2016

The Death in Custody Reporting Act (DCRA) that was passed in 2014 requires officials to record and report all deaths of civilians that occur either in custody or during interaction with officers. But they are not required to report non-fatal cases. With the new initiative, officers must collect, maintain and report data on all shootings or violent encounters involving an officer, whether fatal or not, and the same goes for people already in custody.

Last year, the FBI started working on developing a National Use of Force Data Collection, an online portal for reporting use-of-force data from all over the country, in collaboration with local law enforcement. Bigger city police departments and the FBI will start reporting data early next year.

The past year has been dramatic and traumatic and seen several fatal encounters between police and civilians, with casualties on both sides and violent protests as a result. If these new procedures could help to resolve the societal tensions, it is a good start.

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 The DOJ Will Start Collecting More Info on Police Officers’ Use of Force appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a settlement with Harley-Davidson Thursday, after filing a lawsuit the same day accusing the motorcycle giant of violating the Clean Air Act.

Harley-Davidson to Stop Sales of Illegal Devices that Increased Air Pollution from the Company’s Motorcycles https://t.co/NFiGtwfJ87

— Justice Department (@TheJusticeDept) August 18, 2016

Harley-Davidson has been ordered to immediately stop selling illegal devices known as “super tuners,” that once installed, cause motorcycles to emit higher amounts of certain air pollutants than what the company certified to EPA. According to the complaint, Harley-Davidson manufactured and sold approximately 340,000 of these illegal devices.

Harley’s Screamin’ Eagle Super Tuner Kit looks like this:

Harley-Davidson Screamin Eagle Super Tuner Pro 321098 1098 2011 fxdwg https://t.co/c6wCMBesgP pic.twitter.com/WBK7wVmrcJ

— exclusive item (@isunzabertrand) August 14, 2016

It currently retails for $459.95 on the Harley-Davidson website and promises to make Electronic Fuel Injection (EFI) tuning faster and easier.

Aside from stopping the sales of the item, Harley-Davidson has been ordered buy back and destroy illegal devices, and “will also pay a $12 million civil penalty and spend $3 million to mitigate air pollution through a project to replace conventional wood stoves with cleaner-burning stoves in local communities,” according to the DOJ.

“Given Harley-Davidson’s prominence in the industry, this is a very significant step toward our goal of stopping the sale of illegal aftermarket defeat devices that cause harmful pollution on our roads and in our communities,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden, head of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “Anyone else who manufactures, sells, or installs these types of illegal products should take heed of Harley-Davidson’s corrective actions and immediately stop violating the law.”

The complaint also claims that Harley made and sold more than 12,000 motorcycles from model years 2006, 2007, and 2008 that did not comply with proper EPA certifications for clean air standards. Instead of recalling the vehicles, Harley-Davidson agreed to ensure that all of its future motorcycle models sold in the U.S. are fully certified by EPA.

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 DOJ Sues, Then Settles With Harley-Davidson Over EPA Violations appeared first on Law Street.

Baltimore police officers routinely engage in unconstitutional searches and arrests, excessive force, and profiling of black people, says a report from the Department of Justice presented on Wednesday morning.

The 163-page report says this pattern exists because of “systemic deficiencies in BPD’s policies, training, supervision, and accountability structures that fail to equip officers with the tools they need to police effectively and within the bounds of the federal law.”

Unconstitutional stops and arrests

The report is not a pleasant read. While people living in the wealthy, predominantly white areas of Baltimore describe the police as responsive and respectful, individuals in the poor, mainly black neighborhoods, on the other hand, describe the police as disrespectful and not responsive to their calls. They are also often targeted for unjustified stops and searches.

The DOJ’s report presents numbers on how many black people were stopped, often without reasonable suspicion. In fact, many were stopped when simply standing or walking on the city’s sidewalks. In the report, an image of a police department permeated with racial bias emerges.

Black people accounted for 95 percent of the 410 people who were stopped 10 times or more in the five and a half year period of data collection. One man, in particular, was stopped 30 times in less than 4 years, without ever being charged with a crime.

.@TheJusticeDept: ‘BPD’s Enforcement Activities Disproportionately Impact African Americans’ https://t.co/c0KeX8WF4X pic.twitter.com/f2Q1I3wXUN

— DOJ Civil Rights (@CivilRights) August 10, 2016

The frequent disregard for the Constitution through mass stops, searches, and arrests seem to be due to the  “zero tolerance” policy from the 1990s, which rewarded officers who make a lot of arrests.

The Baltimore Police also may have been biased against women when handling sexual assault cases. Officers failed to properly and meaningfully investigate cases of sexual assault and also to collect and corroborate evidence supporting the women’s accounts. While the DOJ did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that policing in Baltimore amounted to gender-bias in violation of federal law, some bias appears to have affected officers’ handling of sexual assault cases.

What’s next?

The Department of Justice launched the investigation in the spring of 2015, after the death of Freddie Gray. Reforms to make necessary changes will probably cost tens of millions of dollars and may take several years. The next step in the process is for city and federal officials to negotiate a settlement and present it to a federal judge. The settlement will include a list of requirements that the Baltimore Police Department will need to meet in the coming years.

A positive note is that everyone the DOJ investigators talked to during the investigation agreed that the BPD needs major reforms, even current police officers and city leaders. The DOJ said it will talk to local residents to take their opinions into account during the later stages of negotiation.

“There’s going to be a lot of folks with a lot of ideas about what needs to happen now in the community and in law enforcement, and it’s been really important to us to be able to hear directly from community members,” Vanita Gupta, head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division, said to the Baltimore Sun.

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 Baltimore Police: Racially Biased, Routinely Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama is set to face the gauntlet as the Supreme Court gears up to hear a case that challenges the President’s use of executive power, has the potential to wreck havoc on the 2016 Presidential election, and may go beyond judicial power by granting states more rights and control than the national government on a notoriously federally controlled area of law and politics–immigration. Twenty-six states are challenging the President’s executive actions relating to immigration implementations made in 2014 as an abuse of power and an attempt to circumvent Capitol Hill on policy making.

To date, the case is scheduled to be resolved by the court in June 2016 as the Supreme Court issued that it would review the case, thereby granting the President the authority to execute the programs prior to leaving office, should he be victorious. Read on to learn more about the executive actions in question, the procedural posture and legal history of the case, and what it all could mean for U.S. citizens and aliens in the future.

DAPA and DACA: The Troublesome Two

On November 20, 2014, an executive order was issued expanding the rights of individuals within the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and introduced the creation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).

DACA, a program created in 2012, allows undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children relief from deportation so long as specific criteria are met. These criteria include: 1) must be under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012; 2) must have entered the U.S. under the age of 16; 3) must show continuous residence in the U.S. from June 15, 2007 until the present; 4) entered the U.S. without inspection (EWI) or fell out of a lawful visa status before June 15, 2012; 5) were physically present in the U.S. when applying for consideration of deferred action; 6) are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or armed forces; 7) have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor, or more than three misdemeanors; and 8) do not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Initially, DACA was available for a period of two years at a time–meaning that individuals were only granted temporary relief for two years before they had to re-apply and be approved by the government again. DACA also included a work authorization for those approved, but the executive action of 2014 made it and the work authorization renewable in three-year increments. Additionally, the requirement that the individual be under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012 or now no longer applies. The new DACA provisions do not discriminate against those currently over 31 years old. Further, the eligibility cut-off date was moved from June 15, 2007 to January 1, 2010. Anyone applying must show physical presence in the U.S. prior to January 1, 2010 and during the time of application.

DAPA, unlike DACA, did not have a predecessor. Under DAPA, individuals that have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs) may obtain relief from removal should they meet the following criteria: 1) as of November 20, 2014, have a son or daughter who is a citizen or LPR; 2) have continuously resided in the U.S. since or before January 1, 2010; 3) are physically present in the U.S. as of November 20, 2014 and during their application for consideration; 4) have no lawful status as of November 20, 2014; 5) are not an enforcement priority; and 5) present no additional factors that would deem the granting of their application inappropriate.

Deferred action is an administrative mechanism used by the U.S. government to de-prioritize individual cases for removal for “humanitarian reasons, administrative convenience, or in the interest of the Department’s overall enforcement mission.” It is a way for the government to categorize the urgency with which individuals be removed from the country. Generally speaking, deferred action carries great discretion. It can be terminated at any point should the U.S. Department of Homeland Security deem termination appropriate and necessary. Furthermore, receiving DACA or DAPA does not provide legal status, a pathway to citizenship, or a pathway to obtain a green card, but rather permits for an individual to be legally present within the U.S. for a specified period of time. In order to be a valid permission, deferred action applications must be considered on a case-by-case basis and do not apply as all-inclusive or sweeping legal policies. An application process is required and permission must be granted for an individual to continue to stay within the U.S.

Substantive rights, immigration status, and pathways to citizenship are under the control of Congress. Only Congress can confer such rights and policies upon individuals within the confines of the U.S. However, the Executive Branch has the authority to set forth policies under prosecutorial discretion and deferred action so long as they fall within the framework of existing law.

The 26 states named in the lawsuit are greatly dissatisfied by the way that President Obama has taken to resolving the many pitfalls of current immigration policy and justice. A major point of contention for the states is that the President allegedly worked to circumvent Congressional authority and undermined the importance of the notice-and-comment process pursuant to administrative law. Notice-and-comment is an informal rule-making process, codified in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under § 553. It requires the agency proposing the rule to publish its proposal in the Federal Register and grant opponents or supporters of the proposed rule to comment, amend, present data and evidence for or against, and generally speaking, participate in the development of a newly proposed rule.

Additionally, while immigration is an issue controlled by federal law, the states fear that the changes made to federal immigration laws will place a great burden on the states to change their laws and be forced to provide services they are unable or unwilling to provide to individuals lacking legal status. Specifically, some states worry that the quasi-legal status and work authorizations will require the states to provide “state-subsidized driver’s licenses and unemployment insurance.”

Image Courtesy Of [Nevele Otseog via Flickr]

History of Legal Action: The Procedural Posture

Shortly after President Obama’s executive action on November 20, 2014, the highly publicized Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, challenged the action on behalf of Arizona in a case called Arpaio v. Obama. Arpaio’s lawsuit was dismissed by the Washington, D.C. federal court and upheld unanimously by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on August 14, 2015. That decision has not been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Following in Sheriff Arpaio’s footsteps, 17 states filed a lawsuit, with 9 states joining thereafter, challenging President Obama in Texas v. United States. The President held the support of 15 states and D.C., who filed “friend of the court” briefs on his behalf. Ultimately, the Texas federal court blocked President Obama’s initiatives on a procedural basis on February 16, 2015. U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen found that Texas had standing, or legal capacity and authority, to sue and that the President did not comply with the requirements of the APA, particularly the requisite need for notice-and-comment. It rationalized that the changes enacted by President Obama were substantive rules rather than simple alterations to existing and general policy, which required a specific procedural process.

The Department of Justice subsequently appealed the lower court’s decision and argued the case in front of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 10, 2015. In a split decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling, 2-1. The majority decision, authored by Judge Jerry E. Smith, found that Texas did, in fact, have standing to sue and that the changes to policy would greatly increase state costs and burden the states with additional processes and services as required by the national law. While it recognized that judicial review was unavailable under the APA in matters pertaining to agency discretion, it noted that the changes made to DACA and DAPA required notice-and-comment rule-making, and therefore, were non-discretionary. Further, the court ruled on an issue unaddressed by the district court and found that the President’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was misguided and inaccurate because it vested great authority to the Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This indirectly re-classified the specified classifications of immigrants codified in the INA and those petitioning to enter, all in violation of the Act itself.

Judge Carolyn King of the Fifth Circuit delivered a blunt dissent, ultimately stating, “I have a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.” Further, Judge King argued that the case should have been dismissed as it follows prosecutorial discretion and therefore, not subject to review by federal courts. In criticism of her colleagues, she penned that allowing states to dictate national policy, particularly in areas solely within federal control, would be a great intrusion to the long-standing separations between government and state. Judge King added that the President’s executive actions were matters of general policy not subject to notice-and-comment procedure and that the interpretation of law under the INA actually sought to further the Department of Homeland Security’s mission in “[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.”

Critics of the decision, including Judge King herself, highlighted the fact that the expedited appeal was anything but, as the Fifth Circuit took a very long time to render an opinion, likely in an effort to place the case under review by the Supreme Court after the conclusion of President Obama’s term in office.

The Petition Filed by the Department of Justice

In a writ of certiorari petition filed on November 20, 2015, exactly one year from the President’s executive actions, the Department of Justice sought review of U.S. v. Texas by the Supreme Court. While the Court has yet to make a decision as to whether it will review the case or not, the petition outlined key elements of President Obama’s argument demanding for review of this extremely crucial issue.

The DOJ Claims Valid Authority for Action Over States

The Department of Justice highlighted that the authority to make any and all immigration laws and policies is vested in the federal government, particularly under the control of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who hold authority to establish regulations pertaining to removal and admissibility rules. The Department has broad discretion over enforcement of immigration laws and the ability to prioritize which offenses or conduct deems immediate removal and which groups are not the top priority of government funds allocated for removal and enforcement. While 11 million removable aliens are estimated to live in the United States, the Department can only remove approximately 4 percent of those individuals within a given year. Congress has granted the Department $1.6 billion to remove those convicted of deportable crimes, thereby committing to the Secretary’s discretion in handling these cases in the most efficient manner possible. Therefore, prioritizing is of utmost importance to best allocate funding.

Additionally, the Department emphasized that continued presence through deferred action does not violate any criminal laws, as removal and inadmissibility under immigration laws is civil in nature. Deferred action has been an “exercise in administrative discretion,” that can be revoked at any point in time. It does not offer any legal status to those that fall within its classification. What is offered under deferred action, however, is work authorization protecting such individuals from exploitation under U.S. labor laws, subjecting them to taxation, Social Security, and welfare payments, and providing them with a way to make ends meet so they do not become a burden on U.S. citizens and society. Only “qualified” aliens are entitled to public benefits provided by the state in which they reside, and individuals lawfully allowed to stay within the U.S. under deferred action status are not deemed “qualified,” therefore, they are not entitled to public benefits unless their state specifically provides those under its own laws.

The Sticking Points: Substantive Arguments Against the States

Deferred action has been utilized in a variety of ways to grant individuals lawful presence in the U.S. Examples include individuals who petitioned under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and individuals whose lawful family members were killed on September 11, 2001 or in combat were granted temporary relief from deportation under deferred action. Decisions made based on deferred action have legally and historically been barred from judicial review.

Key elements of the petition included the Secretary’s discretion in enforcing immigration laws under resource constraints, the historical utilization of deferred action and its revocability, the security and economic interests in paying fees and applying for work authorization, and the effect that the divided Court of Appeals decision could have on the States’ ability to “frustrate the federal government’s enforcement of the Nation’s immigration laws.”

The petition discussed the lack of standing or authority by the states to bring the lawsuit, stating that private parties lack any “judicially cognizable interest” in the enforcement of immigration laws that are not threatened by prosecution, nor do collateral consequences of federal immigration policy grant a state standing to bring suit. Further, the Department of Justice noted that even if the states were able to show standing to sue, they would have to identify injury resulting from the specified policy that affects it in an “individual way.” Such an expansive reading of state standing would open a door for many more federal-state disputes in the long run and give states far-reaching and independent authority to challenge federal laws with more regularity.

The government further argued that the states lack a valid claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, as the Act does not allow suit by every individual “suffering an injury in fact,” and strictly limits the scope of judicial review to those who are “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action.” Additionally, the government noted that the agency’s discretion in deferred action is not reviewable by the courts as there is “no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.”

An entire section of the petition offered examples of the Secretary’s authority to implement deferred action without challenge due to the long-standing history and nation of this power. Ultimately, the Department of Justice pointed to the authority vested in the Secretary to implement the executive actions as lawful within the scope of his power. Finally, the petition outlines the reasoning for why the deferred action is not subject to notice-and-comment rule-making as required by the APA because the actions were “general statements of policy” exempt from such procedural requirements.

What Could It All Mean?

Should the Supreme Court uphold the Fifth Circuit’s decision, great authority would be vested onto the states over a historically federal issue, making it inexplicably difficult to pass any immigration laws on a national level. It would force millions of people, subject to removal but not removal priorities, to continue living in the U.S., working off the books or not working at all, potentially creating a burden on society in the long run. Further, it could ultimately punish the individuals that gained temporary lawful relief under the 2012 DACA provisions that have never been challenged by any of the 26 states in question. The decisions spanning over the last year could potentially invalidate the 2012 DACA actions as well.

While the importance of review is undoubtedly clear, from an administrative law aspect, a constitutional law aspect, as well as a separation of powers aspect, it is unclear exactly what the fruit of review will be. If history were any indication, President Obama would be victorious in his challenge. However, the lower courts have addressed key issues that fall squarely within the context of interpretation and interestingly added some of their own issues, which remain undecided by the district court. How the Supreme Court reads and interprets the statutes in question, as well as its analysis of the interworkings of several federal laws will be determinative for its decision. This may ultimately be a case about procedure and the process of implementation rather than power and constitutionality of law.

Resources

Primary

United States of America v. Texas: Writ of Certiorari

 U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion With Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and With Respect to Certain Individuals Who are Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents

Additional

Politico: Obama Administration Takes Immigration Battle to Supreme Court

Politico: SCOTUS Keeps Obama Immigration Case on Track For Ruling by Summer

Cornell University Law School – Legal Information Institute: 5 U.S. Code § 553 – Rule Making

Immigration Equality: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

 The Atlantic: A Ruling Against the Obama Administration on Immigration

 The New York Times: Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Immigration Plans

American Immigration Council: Understanding the Legal Challenges to Executive Action

 National Public Radio (NPR): Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Obama’s Immigration Actions

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 The Federal Government’s Immigration Showdown: SCOTUS Will Decide appeared first on Law Street.

Attention all stoners, occasional smokers, and cannabis curious! South Dakota has announced that it will soon become home to the nation’s first marijuana resort. Owned and operated by the Santee Sioux tribe, this weed lover’s paradise promises to be the ideal spot for vacationers looking to blow off some steam with the help of a few blunts.

But before you begin booking your ganja getaway here are five things you need to know about the nation’s first weed resort.

1. It’s Legal Even in a State Where Weed is Illegal

In 2014 the Justice Department determined that Native American tribes can grow and sell marijuana, even in states where pot is illegal. So far the Santee Sioux tribe seems to be the only reservation taking advantage of the ruling, but others will surely be monitoring their experiment to see if it is economically viable. Something tells me it will be, especially when tribe members are already projecting the project to generate up to $2 million a month in profits.

2. There will be 30 Different Strains

This isn’t amateur hour. The Santee Sioux tribe hired Denver-based cannabis consultants Monarch America to teach them the weed growing basics. According to the Associated Press, workers at the Flandreau indoor marijuana farm are “working to grow more than 30 different strains of the finicky plant, including those with names like ‘Gorilla Glue,’ ‘Shot Glass’ and ‘Big Blue Cheese.'”

3. It Will Have Some Awesome Amenities

“We want it to be an adult playground,” said tribal President Anthony Reider. And from the sounds of it, it definitely will be. This stoner’s paradise will sell weed in a smoking lounge that comes complete with a nightclub, arcade games, bar and food–for when those munchies hit. They also have plans to later add in slot machines and an outdoor music venue.

4. Don’t Plan on Bringing any Weed Home

Even though marijuana will be legally sold at the resort, it cannot leave the reservation. According to AP, leaders of the project plan to ensure that this won’t happen by assigning a bar code to every plant in the Flandreau’s growing facility. AP writes,

After being harvested and processed, it will be sold in sealed 1-gram packages for $12.50 to $15 — about the same price as the illegal market in Sioux Falls, according to law enforcement. Consumers will be allowed to buy only 1 gram — enough for two to four joints — at a time.

5. The Resort’s Future Isn’t Certain

Currently four states and Washington, DC have legalized marijuana, but pot remains illegal on a federal level. The Obama administration has agreed to let Native American tribes legalize the drug without interference, but our nation’s next president may not be so lenient. If one of the current Republican presidential candidates (especially Chris Christie) is elected, we could soon be saying farewell to lawful Mary Jane.

If you’re interested in being one of the first to visit the resort, be prepared for a bit of a wait. The tribe says that joints won’t be going on sale until Dec. 31 at a New Year’s Eve party. But if all goes well, this reservation could soon become the U.S.’s #1 destination for marijuana tourism.

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 5 Things you Need to Know About the Nation’s First Marijuana Resort appeared first on Law Street.

The state of New York and the U.S. Department of Justice are now investing millions in testing backlogged rape kits. The grants will be allotted to local jurisdictions across America in hopes of bringing justice for rape victims. New York was the first state to start this process and is at the forefront of the effort. The grants will not only serve to convict rapists, but will also prevent future crimes by putting criminals behind bars.

Overview

Prevalence of Sexual Assault in the United States

It is commonly known that the number of sexual assault crimes are grossly underestimated. Due to the nature of the crime, victims are often reluctant to report what happened to them. But according to a 2010 report by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, one in five women in the U.S. will be raped in their lifetimes. Statistics show a sexual assault crime occurs every two minutes, but only 39 percent of those crimes are reported.

What is Rape Kit?

When a victim of sexual assault does report the crime, a sexual assault kit (SAK), also known as a rape kit, is used by a doctor or nurse (usually in a hospital) to preserve possible DNA evidence. Then the SAK is turned over to the police. The process is extremely invasive and can last between four and six hours. First, the victim stands on a large paper sheet, while undressing, in order to contain any stray fibers or hairs that could be used as evidence. According to ENDTHEBACKLOG, the examiner collects biological evidence from the victim’s “saliva, blood, semen, urine, skin cells and hair by taking swabs of the victim’s skin, genitalia, anus and mouth, scraping under the victim’s fingernails and combing through the victim’s hair.” The victim is also photographed from head to toe to document any and all injuries. In order to preserve evidence, victims are asked to not eat, drink, or urinate until the exam in over.

Generally, a state SAK will include: Detailed instructions for the examiner, forms for documenting the procedure and evidence collected, tubes and containers for blood and urine samples, paper bags for collecting clothing and other physical evidence, swabs for biological evidence collection, a large sheet of paper, dental floss and wooden sticks for fingernail scrapings, glass slides, sterile water and saline, and envelopes, boxes and labels for each part of the exam.

Some states have highly trained staff to conduct these procedures called Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners (SAFEs) or Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs). Not only are they trained on how to be more specifically sensitive to sexual assault victims, studies show that SAKs conducted by SAFEs or SANEs are more consistent and of higher quality. If examiners aren’t extremely careful, the experience could feel like a re-victimization to the patient or the SAK could be inadmissible in court due to mishandling.

After the SAK is completed and given to local law enforcement, DNA from the kit and alleged rapist is entered into the FBI’s national database CODIS (Combined DNA Index System). CODIS allows authorities to track serial rapists across the United States.

Untested SAKs

There are several different reasons for the large backlog of untested rape kits. They may not have been sent to a public or private crime lab in a timely fashion and remain in storage–including police department evidence rooms, crime labs, hospitals, clinics, rape crisis centers–or the SAKS remain at the lab without being processed. Although the exact number of backlogged SAKs across the country is unknown, the numbers found in specific cities are quite staggering. In 2009, 11,000 forgotten SAKs were found in a Detroit police warehouse. In addition, Los Angeles has almost 12,500 backlogged kits, Houston has approximately 6,500, and Memphis has over 12,000.

SAK backlogs have become a significant issue for local police departments, a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) survey of more than 2,000 law enforcement agencies found:

18 percent of unsolved alleged sexual assaults that occurred from 2002 to 2007 contained forensic evidence that was still in police custody (not submitted to a crime lab for analysis).

The NIJ study noted that some SAKs remain in law enforcement custody when the case is a matter of “consent.” In that case, the suspect admits to sexual intercourse, but maintains that is was consensual. A SAK will not shed light on that matter. Cases could have also been dropped, or a guilty verdict was already rendered.

Other reasons are far more alarming. Forty-three percent of the agencies claimed they did not have a computerized system for tracking forensic evidence, either in their inventory or for after it was sent to the crime lab. Nearly 45 percent of the law enforcement agencies admitted that one of the reasons they kept SAKS was that they didn’t have a suspect. And fifteen percent reasoned that the analysis had not been requested by a prosecutor. Three in 10 officers claimed they did not turn in the SAK because they were unsure of its usefulness. Another 11 percent of the agencies claimed one reason they didn’t submit evidence was due to consistent untimely results of the lab, while another six percent claimed the lab wasn’t accepting more evidence because of a backlog. The NIJ study also argues that biases contribute to the problem. For example, SAKs may have gone untested if the victim was a prostitute, a drug user, or was mentally ill.

There are several explanations for the backlog of SAKS, but one thing is clear–law enforcement agencies across the country are not on the same page whether from a lack of training, funding, or personal prejudices.

New Funding

Earlier this month, Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance announced that $80 million worth of grants would be invested into radically reducing the number of backlogged SAKs across the United States. In the announcement, Vance said that the state of New York is donating $38 million to 32 jurisdictions in 20 states, while Lynch pledged $41 million to investigate the reasons behind the backlog. “I’m saying today to all the women awaiting justice,” Vance stated, “you are not forgotten.” Together, the funds from Department of Justice (DOJ) and state of New York are expected to help test 70,000 untested SAKs in 43 jurisdictions in 27 states.

Vice President Biden praised the effort saying,

When we solve these cases, we get rapists off the streets… For most survivors, seeing their rapists brought to justice, and knowing that they will not return, brings peace of mind and a sense of closure. The grants we’re announcing today to reduce the national rape kit backlog will bring that sense of closure and safety to victims while improving community safety.

The issue hits close to Biden’s heart; he and Senator Barbara Boxer co-authored the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) back in 1994. Biden and Boxer condemned the lethargic response from police and prosecutors as well as the skewed attitudes toward violence against women in general.

History has shown a correlation between testing backlogged SAKs and convictions. New York was the first state to eliminate its backlog, testing 17,000 SAKs between 2000 and 2003. It resulted in 49 indictments. The grants will not only prevent future rapes but will give thousands of women across the country the justice they deserve.

Related Legislation

Over the last five years, Congress has passed several laws to address SAK backlogs across the country. The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to eligible states in regards to SAK backlogs. The grants are specifically aimed toward the collection, analysis, and indexing of DNA samples in CODIS as well as for increasing state and local lab capacitates. To receive such grants, states must adhere to certain provisions, including the timely delivery of tested SAKs.

In 2013, President Obama signed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. It was the third time the act has been reauthorized. Among other things, the reauthorization addressed new provisions to tackle the rape kit backlog across the country. First, it amended the aforementioned Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 by increasing audit requirements for SAK backlogs, increasing grants, and increasing state and local lab capacities. It expanded the focus of VAWA grants to include fortifying law enforcement and forensic response. The act also required states to minimally allocate “20 percent of funds within the STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) program and 25 percent of funds within the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforce Protection Orders program be directed to programs that meaningfully address sexual assault.”

More than ever, states are dedicated to ending their respective SAK backlogs. Colorado, Illinois, and Ohio have all passed legislation to reduce backlogs. Arkansas, Kentucky, Virginia, and Louisiana passed legislation that requires an inventory of untested SAKs. California and Michigan enacted guidelines for processing evidence derived from SAKs. Texas allocated $10.8 million to untested SAKs in its 2014-15 state budget. It is also within a state’s jurisdiction to define statutes of limitation. Some advocates fight for the clock on statutes of limitations to start only once a SAK has been tested, as addressed in this video.

Proponents of this change argue that rapists should never benefit from a SAK that remained untested for so long that the respective crime exceeded a statute of limitation law.

Conclusion

It seems like a number of things need to come together to eradicate the backlog nationwide. For the most effective standards, the United States needs a uniform system of analyzing and indexing evidence in addition to regularly trained teams of trained nurses, doctors, law enforcement, and prosecutors. Funding is also necessary to allow all the different parts of the process to come together effectively. The recent $80 million investment in SAK testing can bring justice and closure to thousands of women.

Resources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: Violence Against Women Act

DOJ: Unanalyzed Evidence in Sexual Assault Cases

Additional

EndtheBacklog: Defining the Rape Kit Backlog

EndtheBacklog: State Respones

EndtheBacklog: What is a Rape Kit and Rape Kit Exam?

EndtheBacklog: Where the Backlog Exists

Govtrack: Summaries for the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000

Huffington Post: Joe Biden, Loretta Lynch Pledge Millions To Resolve Rape Kit Backlog

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control: Statistics about Sexual Violence

NRC on Domestic Violence: The Effectiveness of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs

Time: Authorities Invest $80 Million in Ending the Rape Kit Backlog

Time: Here’s What Happens When You Get a Rape Kit Exam

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rape Kits: New Funding to Bring Victims Justice appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Justice Department levied record-breaking fines against many of the big banks involved in the meltdown, but very few individuals actually served time behind bars. That may finally be changing. According to a memo released on Wednesday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is shifting its priorities to focus on prosecuting specific individuals who are responsible for financial wrongdoing.

“One of the most effective ways to combat corporate misconduct is by seeking accountability from the individuals who perpetrated the wrongdoing,” wrote Deputy Attorny General Sally Q. Yates in a memo to all federal prosecutors. Yates outlined six “key steps” that should guide prosecutors in their handling of corporate misconduct cases. While many of these steps are not necessarily new, the memo seeks to standardize the DOJ’s priorities going forward.

So far, billions of dollars have been collected by the DOJ from fines and civil penalties from major banks for the roles that they played in the financial crisis. However, very few individuals have actually been prosecuted, and even fewer were sentenced to time in prison. This has lead to some harsh criticism of the DOJ and the way that it handles financial crimes.

In an article about the recent DOJ shift, the New York Times notes:

The Justice Department often targets companies themselves and turns its eyes toward individuals only after negotiating a corporate settlement. In many cases, that means the offending employees go unpunished.

While using massive fines allow for record breaking headlines, it also shifts the burden of punishment from the individuals who defrauded the public to a company’s shareholders. Some argue that shareholders should also share in the punishment, as they have a lot of control over a company’s management, but few also argue that the responsible individuals should escape punishment.

The policy shift outlined in Yates’ memo will both prioritize individual prosecution as well as help compel companies to cooperate with investigations, specifically in terms of providing information about responsible individuals. The first point in Yates’ memo instructs prosecutors not to give cooperation credit to a company unless it provides information about all of the people responsible. This cooperation credit can significantly reduce the punishment that companies and individuals receive.

Although the DOJ is not directly admitting that its previous policies were insufficient, Yates does emphasize that her memo marks a significant change. In a speech given at New York University Law School, Yates said:

Now, to the average guy on the street, this might not sound like a big deal.  But those of you active in the white-collar area will recognize it as a substantial shift from our prior practice. While we have long emphasized the importance of identifying culpable individuals, until now, companies could cooperate with the government by voluntarily disclosing improper corporate practices, but then stop short of identifying who engaged in the wrongdoing and what exactly they did.

While this memo is certainly notable, it’s actually bringing some white collar prosecution standards in line with established standards for all criminals. In her speech to NYU Law School, Yates also notes that this is how it works for criminals who give information about their co-conspirators to the authorities. She uses the example of a drug trafficker, who can receive a cooperation agreement for informing on other criminals, but will not get any relief if he or she does not give information about the cartel boss. While ending special treatment for corporations is certainly a popular idea, it’s also a little disheartening to hear that hasn’t already been the norm.

This does mark a sort of reprioritization at the DJO, but the question remains: will it matter? Prosecutors face a wide range of challenges when they try to prosecute corporate crime. Yates acknowledges these challenges in her memo, but it is worth noting that this isn’t the first time people have called on regulators to focus on individuals.

The issue isn’t that the penalties for financial crimes are too weak, rather it is simply very difficult to prosecute people in corporate cases. In order to convict someone, prosecutors must trace misconduct to individuals and show intent behind their actions. This can be particularly challenging for issues at the magnitude of the financial crisis, which can involve wrongdoing at several levels of a company, but be difficult to tie executives to. The DOJ can also have a very hard time getting information about what happened; because many banks operate internationally other countries’ laws can restrict the information that is available to U.S. prosecutors.

The recent shift will hopefully make companies more likely to cooperate and provide useful information about individuals, but the prosecutorial challenges remain. Even after the DOJ’s recent announcement, reform advocates remain skeptical. Dennis Kelleher, the head of financial reform watchdog Better Markets told the Huffington Post, “Based on their past dereliction of duty, no one should believe anything DOJ says until they see actual, concrete and repeated prosecution of supervisors and executives.”

Yates is right to say that prosecuting responsible individuals is the best way to discourage future misconduct, but whether that can and will happen remains to be seen. These changes are a step in the right direction and acknowledge the importance of public confidence in regulators, but don’t expect to see many executives in prison any time soon.

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 The DOJ is Changing the Way it Prosecutes White Collar Crimes appeared first on Law Street.

A relatively minor case in Boise, Idaho may have some significant implications for many cities across the United States. Last week, the Justice Department (DOJ) filed a Statement of Interest in a Boise lawsuit against the city’s ordinances that ban sleeping and camping in public space. According to the Justice Department, rendering it illegal for people to sleep outside when there is not enough room in homeless shelters constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which protects people from cruel and unusual punishment. Not only does the DOJ claim that having these laws when no other option exists is unconstitutional, it also notes that they are largely ineffective–making matters worse for both homeless people and the communities that they live in.

The case that the DOJ is addressing is Bell v. City of Boise, which was filed by several homeless people in 2009 after they were convicted under ordinances that make public camping and sleeping illegal. Ordinances like the one in Boise are actually quite common–a study by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, which surveyed 187 U.S. cities, found that 34 percent of the cities had citywide bans on camping in public and 18 percent ban sleeping in public. The report also notes that there are frequently not enough beds in many cities to provide shelter for all of the city’s homeless. This is the problem that the Department of Justice addresses directly in its Statement of Interest–arguing that when beds are unavailable, homeless people should not be arrested for doing something required for survival.

Shortly after the DOJ filed its Statement of Interest,  Mike Journee, a spokesman for the mayor, fired back claiming, “the premise of the filing is incorrect.” Journee argued that homeless people in the city almost always have resources available to them, and in extreme situations, like severe weather, the city’s ordinances prevent police from issuing tickets.

But Journee’s response largely misses the point of the filing. The DOJ’s statement was not intended to weigh in on the facts of the case, rather it urged the court to evaluate the law using a particular logic. The statement referenced a Los Angeles case from 2006, which called a similar law into question. That case, Jones v. The City of Los Angeles, focused on whether the city’s homeless had alternatives to sleeping in public spaces. The DOJ is not arguing that the ordinance in Bosie is unconstitutional on its face, rather it is saying that it should be considered unconstitutional if people are convicted for sleeping outside when that is the only available option–effectively criminalizing the condition of homelessness.

Beyond recommending the appropriate logic to evaluate the Bell case, the Department of Justice’s statement highlights many of the potential issues related to laws that tend to punish homeless people. Arresting people for sleeping outside, when no alternatives exist, simply serves to further perpetuate the condition of homelessness. Having a criminal record makes it very difficult for someone to get a job or participate in a public housing program. Even more to the point, in many cases criminalizing homelessness actually costs cities more money than simply providing housing. The Statement of Interest concludes,

Thus, criminalizing homelessness is both unconstitutional and misguided public policy, leading to worse outcomes for people who are homeless and for their communities.

Alternatives to punishing homelessness do exist, and in many cases they have been effective. In Utah, the government started providing housing, counseling, and treatment to the homeless population in 2005. Since then, the number of chronically homeless people in the state has decreased by more than 70 percent. Not only has this effort changed a significant number of lives, it also saved the state a considerable amount of money. Between hospitalization, medical treatment, incarceration, and shelters, governments end up spending a lot of money on the homeless each year, but that spending typically does not address the underlying issues. A similar “housing first” program in Seattle, found that providing houses to the homeless saved the city 53 percent per person. In Los Angeles, placing just four homeless people in permanent supportive housing saved the city $80,000 per year.

The Department of Justice’s recent statement may cause governments to question whether policies that punish the homeless are worthwhile. Although the DOJ did not weigh in on the specific facts of the Boise case, it did recommend a better way of evaluating laws that ban camping and sleeping in public. The Statement of Interest argues that criminalizing the condition of homelessness is unconstitutional and a violation of the Eight Amendment and future cases should be evaluated with that logic. In light of this argument and the availability of successful alternatives, governments may want to focus their money and policies on alleviating homelessness, not punishing it.

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 Justice Department Pushes Against Criminalizing Homelessness appeared first on Law Street.

After a lot of speculation and scrutiny, the Comcast/Time Warner Cable deal is officially dead in the water. The proposed acquisition deal, which would have brought 30 million customers into the folds of a single company, had raised concerns for many about the potential of a monopoly. Now, however, those concerns are no longer relevant, as both companies have announced that they won’t be moving forward with the $45.2 billion deal.

The companies appear to have been scared off after moves by the Justice Department (DOJ) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Rumors indicated that DOJ wasn’t too happy with the proposed merger–Attorney General Eric Holder was allowing a lawsuit to move forward that could block the merger. The FCC was also leaning toward holding a hearing on it. Usually FCC hearings aren’t a great sign when it comes to these kinds of deals, after all, it was viewed as the proverbial nail in the coffin to the proposed AT&T and T-Mobile merger a few years ago.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler spoke after the companies announced their intentions to abandon the deal, saying:

Today, an online video market is emerging that offers new business models and greater consumer choice. The proposed merger would have posed an unacceptable risk to competition and innovation, including to the ability of online video providers to reach and serve consumers.

Holder also applauded the decision the companies had made not to move forward.

Individuals and advocacy groups alike argued against the merger, claiming that it would hurt consumers. Advocacy group Common Cause’s President Miles Rapoport stated about the end to the merger:

As we saw in February when the FCC adopted strong rules to protect the free flow of information online, citizen voices can still make a difference in our government’s decision making. More than 800,000 Americans told the FCC that the Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger would be bad for competition and innovation; their arguments were well-founded and have now carried the day. This is their victory.

So what’s next for the cable industry? Those in the know have speculated that Time Warner Cable may seek a merger with Charter Communications instead, under the assumption that two smaller companies combining would set off fewer red flags. That seems like a relatively likely outcome. John Malone who heads up the group that owns Charter Communications said last November, “Hell, yes” he’d buy Time Warner Cable if the Comcast deal fell through. If those two were to combine, Charter would become the second largest cable company in the United States–Comcast would still hold the number one seat. Conversely, others are speculating that Time Warner Cable will acquire a smaller company itself. Regardless of whether or not this particular deal has fallen through, we should probably still expect to see mergers between big cable and internet companies.

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 Comcast, Time Warner Cable Merger is Off appeared first on Law Street.

One of the biggest deterrents for people not to commit murder–besides of course, moral reasons—is knowing that they could potentially get the death penalty. However, a recent review of capital punishment figures by the Department of Justice (DOJ) shows that if you’re convicted of capital murder, the odds are in your favor that you will never be executed.

The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that of the 8,466 prisoners who were sentenced to death between 1973 and 2013, only 1,359 (16 percent) of them were executed. So what’s happening to the other 84 percent of death row inmates? Well, for most, their sentences are being overturned on appeal and amended to lesser penalties.

Here’s a more detailed look into some of the findings:

• Between 1973 and 2013, 8,466 prisoners were sentenced to death.
• However, 3,194 prisoners had their death penalty sentences overturned on appeal. Of those, 523 convictions no longer stood because the law they were based on was declared unconstitutional, 890 had their conviction overturned, and 1,781 were still declared guilty but no longer sentenced to death.
• During those years, 509 died on death row from other causes.
• An additional 392 had their sentences commuted to life in prison by a governor.
• There were 33 who weren’t put to death for other miscellaneous reasons.
• As of December 31, 2013, 2,979 still remain on death row.

According to the Washington Post,

But by far the most likely outcome of a U.S. death sentence is that it will eventually be reversed and the inmate will remain in prison with a different form of death sentence: life without the possibility of parole.

Opinions on capital punishment have long been a divider between people weighing its moral ramifications against the old “eye for an eye” argument. Many find themselves picking a side based on stereotypical party lines: Republicans tend to be in favor of the death penalty and Democrats trend against. However, party allegiance doesn’t seem to be a factor in who is overturning these cases. According to the Washington Post:

Both Republican and Democratic appointees have voted to overturn these convictions because they so often involve such issues as evidence withheld from the defense, improper instructions to the jury, or other serious flaws in the original trials.

As a whole, these findings are good news for anyone in trouble with the law, but slightly unnerving when examining how our justice system works. The BJS review could end up being fuel for death penalty opposers to show its ineffectiveness, as death row inmates are actually three times more likely to see their sentences overturned or lessened on appeal. Regardless, a debate over the death penalty, particularly as states like Utah weigh new methods of execution, certainly needs to take into account the infrequency with which it is actually implemented.

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 DOJ Study: Death Penalty Not a Guaranteed Death Sentence appeared first on Law Street.

After spending the last three months reviewing 35,000 pages of Ferguson police records and other documents, Department of Justice investigators have found that despite the fact that African Americans make up just over 65 percent of the population in Ferguson, they accounted for 93 percent of all arrests between 2012 and 2014. Their findings confirm the public opinion theory that the department responsible for the death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown is plagued with racial bias. The DOJ found that the Ferguson Police Department routinely violated the constitutional rights of black people in the form of racial profiling, excessive force, and unsubstantiated arrests.

I invite you to read the full 102 page report courtesy of Vox here, but for the sake of time here are the more shocking stats regarding Ferguson police practices found in the report:

• 93 percent of the people arrested were black
• 90 percent of citations were given to black people
• 88 percent of cases where police reported using force were against black people
• 85 percent of vehicle stops involved black people
• 94 percent of Failure to Comply charges were given to black people
• 100 percent of police canine biting incidents for which racial information is available, the person bitten was black.

It gets worse. The report also included references to several racist emails by Ferguson officials, all of whom are current employees, sent through their official City of Ferguson email accounts during work hours on the taxpayers’ dime. Here are a few of DOJ officials’ descriptions of the outrageously offensive emails in the report:

A November 2008 email stated that President Barack Obama would not be President for very long because ‘what black man holds a steady job for four years.’

A May 2011 email stated: ‘An African-American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from. The hospital said, ‘Crimestoppers.’’

A June 2011 email described a man seeking to obtain ‘welfare’ for his dogs because they are ‘mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddies are.’

An October 2011 email included a photo of a bare-chested group of dancing women, apparently in Africa, with the caption, ‘Michelle Obama’s High School Reunion.’

According to CNN, the DOJ formally ended its investigation into Officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Brown by choosing not to bring forth criminal charges, determining in another report that:

There is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson’s stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety.

However, the investigative findings may provide little closure for a city still full of civil unrest, but very much in need of healing. Protest leaders are calling for the resignation of Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson and the disbandment of the entire department. Jackson’s resignation may in fact be inevitable, this report serving as a proverbial final nail in the coffin for him and his entire police force.

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 DOJ Finds Racial Bias in the Ferguson Police Department appeared first on Law Street.

Heroin addiction is a scary reality for many Americans. It’s often an ongoing roller coaster involving several rehab stints, withdrawal, and lifelong addiction struggles. And it’s unfortunately becoming a more common phenomenon. Today, the drug is no longer an outlier compared to its competitors.  It has been identified by some as the new drug of the upper-middle class. Is this a fair assessment? Here are the facts.

What is heroin?

Heroin received its name from the “hero-like,” invincible effect the drug provides its user. It is also called by other names on the street including: H, Junk, Smack, Big H, Hell Dust, and countless others. Additives can change the color from white (pure heroin) to rose gray, brown, or black. Heroin can be laced with a variety of poisons and/or other drugs. It is injected, smoked, and snorted.

What is the science behind heroin?

From a scientific perspective:

Heroin is an opiate made from the chemical morphine, which is extracted from the dried latex of the opium poppy. Morphine is extracted from the opium latex, and these chemicals are used to make opiates, such as heroin, diamorphine and methadone. Heroin is the 3,6-diacetyl derivative of morphine (hence diacetylmorphine) and is synthesised from it by acetylation.

So what does that mean? Essentially, heroin is an opiate–a drug created from opium that sedates, tranquilizes, and/or depresses the body. It’s similar to a common base in a variety of pain killers–morphine. Opium comes from the cultivation of poppy seeds.

Effects of Heroin                                                     

Heroin users report several effects that differ based on the individual. Heroin can cause a temporary state of euphoria, safety, warmth, and sexual arousal. It can also create a sense of disconnect from other people, causing a dreamlike state and/or sense of floating. It is a depressant, rather than stimulant like cocaine, and it can be used as a self-medicated pain reliever.

Adversely, users can immediately experience vomiting, coughing, constipation, hypothermia, severe itching, and inability to orgasm. Long-term effects include rotten teeth, cold sweats, weakening of the immune system, respiratory illnesses, depression, loss of appetite, insomnia, and tuberculosis. Although this is not a direct effect, the sharing of needles from intravenous injection can often lead to AIDS, Hepatitis C, and other fatal infections.

After the effects wear off, users will start to feel extreme withdrawal symptoms if another dose is not administered. The symptoms of withdrawal can include “restlessness, aches and pains in the bones, diarrhea, vomiting, and severe discomfort.”

How do Americans get heroin?

Afghanistan is the “world’s largest exporter,” producing over 80 percent of the world’s opium. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Afghan poppy cultivation and opium industry amassed $3 billion in 2013, a 50 percent increase from 2012.

Overall, Mexico is the largest drug supplier to the United States. Specifically, Mexico produces Black Tar Heroin, one of the “most dangerous and addictive forms of heroin to date.” This variety looks more similar to hash than powder and can cause sclerosis and severe bacterial infections.

Colombia is the second largest Latin American supplier to the United States. Colombian cartels historically distribute from New York City and are in “full control of the heroin market in the Eastern United States.”

The “Golden Triangle” includes the countries of Burma, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. Before the escalation of the Afghan opium market, these southeastern Asian countries reigned over the world’s opium production.

Is it true that middle class heroin use is on the rise?

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study in 2014 about the changing demographics of heroin users in the last 50 years. Over 2,800 people entering treatment programs participated in self-surveys and extensive interviews.

The results do seem to indicate that heroin is transitioning to the middle class. It is leaving the big cities and becoming more mainstream in the suburbs. Of course, there has been heroin drug use in suburbia before; however, now there is a marked increase.

In the 1960s, the average heroin user was a young man (average age of 16.5) living in a large urban area. Eighty percent of these men’s first experiences with an opioid was heroine. Today, the average heroin user is either a male or female in their twenties (average age of 23). Now, 75.2 percent of these users live in non-urban areas and 75 percent first experienced an opioid through prescription drugs. Almost 90 percent of first-time heroin users in the last ten years were white.

In New York City, doctors and drug counselors report a significant increase in professionals and college students with heroin addictions, while emergency rooms also report an increase in opiate overdoses. In Washington D.C., there has been a 55 percent increase in overdoses since 2010.

Why Heroin?

With all this information readily available through school systems and the internet, why is the educated, middle class turning to heroin? Factors may include increases in depression, exposure to painkillers, and acceptance. The perception of the heroin junkie has changed. A user can snort heroin (bypassing the track marks from injection) and go undetected by those around. It can be a clandestine affair–an appealing notion if the user does want to keep their drug use secret.

Anxiety disorders are the largest mental illness in the United States today, affecting more than 40 million Americans. In a country that loves to self-medicate, heroin offers a false yet accessible reprieve from anxiety and depression.

Prescription drug users also move to heroin. Prescription drugs are expensive and only legally last for the prescribed amount of time. To name a few, these gateway prescriptions drugs come in the forms of hydrocodone (Vicodin), fentanyl (Duragesic), and oxycodone (OxyContin). From 1999-2008, prescription narcotic sales increased 300 percent in the United States. Unlike these expensive prescriptions, a bag with approximately a quarter-sized amount of heroin can be sold for $10 off the streets. The transition isn’t hard to imagine, especially when the desired effects are similar.

Case Study: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Young upper-middle class adults are generally perceived as being granted every opportunity and foundation for success. Parents can afford a comfortable lifestyle and access to decent education for their children. So the question continues: why are so many from this walk of life turning to heroin? Through the funding of the Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project, the Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy conducted a report Understanding Suburban Heroin Use, to “demonstrate the nuanced nature of risk and protective factors among the heroin interviewees.” A risk factor puts a person in danger of using heroin, while a protective factor reduces the chance of use.

The overriding connection among the interviewees is the “experienced degree of detachment between parent and child and the overall lack of communication.” Contrary to common stereotypes, verbal, physical, and/or earlier drug abuse wasn’t vital in providing a pathway to heroin. A large portion of the answers, proved in these case studies, seem to be the previous emotional health of the users.

Example One

Interviewee one is a 31-year-old male who transitioned from pills to heroin. He is described as athletic, articulate, and candid. He was raised in an upper-middle class Chicago suburb. Although his family was close and intact, he experienced a sense of loneliness. His parents practiced a more hands-off approach to parenting that made him feel like an adult at an early age. His parents didn’t drink or abuse drugs during his childhood. His brother was diagnosed with ADHD, while he was not, although he experienced “restlessness.”

He was caught smoking marijuana at age 14 by his father, quit for a couple months, then resumed. His parents assumed he remained clean because he received good grades and they liked his group of friends. At age 17, he chose to work rather than attend college after graduating high school a semester early. He was earning almost as much income as his father. At 17, he tried his first opioid with a friend whose medical condition allowed easy access to OxyContin. When the prescription ran dry, they turned to heroine. He rationalized the transition thinking if he could handle OxyContin, he could handle heroin. Six months later, he was using approximately $100 worth of heroin daily and eventually moved to violent and illegal actions to sustain his supply. He admitted:

Heroin gave me something. It made me feel the best I have ever felt…Maybe I think love was missing. Like, love. I think. I that, uh, because I always felt like alone. Like even though I had good family, I always felt alone. Different.

Example Two

Interviewee two is a 27-year-old female from the western suburbs of Illinois. She is described as attractive, cheerful, and helpful. She was raised in an educated, wealthy family. She was a cheerleader in high school and earned good grades. There aren’t any psychological or substance abuse problems in her family. She felt disconnected from her siblings as they were much older and felt distant from her parents, as well. Her parents often “bickered” but never had big fights. When she confided in her mother as a child that she might be depressed, her mother seemingly brushed it off.

She started smoking pot in junior high at age 15. Although social, her group of friends was not part of the most popular crowd. This was a constant concern. She maintained a B average and continued with sports, while starting to smoke marijuana every day. An after-school job paid for this habit. When her parents found drug paraphernalia in her room, they didn’t probe the situation and just sent her to her room. Searching for a personal connection, she started dating an older boy. She connected with his parents in a way she could not with her own. During senior year, they both started using cocaine, which became a daily habit. She eventually transitioned to heroin, because as she put it in an answer to one question:

Heroin made me feel real mellow like I had not a care in the world. I had a lot of “what am I doing with my life” and physical pain that I was covering up.

After losing her job, she pawned her belongings with a variety of her parents’ things, and stole from others. She refrained from turning to prostitution, although she heard of other girls going down that road. She finally sought out help after witnessing her boyfriend get pistol-whipped and robbed during a drug exchange.

What does this tell us about heroin use?

There are similarities and differences to all of the case studies in this project. In these two examples, the users come from seemingly sturdy homes and backgrounds. The stereotypes of drug users aren’t present in these cases; however, they both felt distant from the people around them at an early age in life. They also wanted to avoid internal and external pressures. This glimpse into the lives of users offers some potential answers to the question of why relatively well educated, middleclass Americans may turn to heroin.

Fighting Back

In March 2014, the United States Department of Justice and the Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to take action against the “urgent public health crisis” of heroin and prescription opiates. Holder claimed that between 2006-2010, there was a 45 percent increase in heroin overdoses. To start, Holder pushed law enforcement agencies to carry the “overdose-reversal drug” Naloxone and urged the public to watch the educational documentary “The Opiate Effect.” Holder also outlined the DEA plan as follows:

Since 2011, DEA has opened more than 4,500 investigations related to heroin. They’re on track to open many more. And as a result of these aggressive enforcement efforts, the amount of heroin seized along America’s southwest border increased by more than 320 percent between 2008 and 2013…enforcement alone won’t solve the problem. That’s why we are enlisting a variety of partners – including doctors, educators, community leaders, and police officials – to increase our support for education, prevention, and treatment.

Conclusion

Heroin has seen a migration to the middle class. But what can we do to stop it? Many of these new users are already educated on the adverse effects of heroin and know the bottom line. A fear of health concerns isn’t enough. We need to stop it at the source, whether it is gateway prescription drugs or emotional health. Substance abuse is a disease to be cured, not the label of a criminal. The Affordable Care Act and Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act aim to expand behavioral health coverage for 62.5 million people by 2020. Every addict, regardless of demographics, should have the ability and necessary tools to recover.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Justice Department: Attorney General Holder, Calling Rise in Heroin Overdoses ‘Urgent Public Health Crisis,’ Vows Mix of Enforcement, Treatment

JAMA Psychiatry Releases: Demographics of Heroin Users Change in Past 50 Years

Reed Hruby Heroin Prevention Project: Understanding Suburban Heroin Use

Additional

About Health: What Heroin Effects Feel Like

Anxiety and Depression Association of America: Facts & Statistics

The New York Times: The Middle Class Rediscovers Heroin

Original Network of Resources on Heroin: Heroin By Area of Origin

RT: America’s $7.6 Billion War on Afghan Drugs Fails, Opium Production Peaks

Tech Times: Study Profiles New American Heroin Addicts

Foundation For a Drug Free World: The Truth about Heroin

WTOP: Heroin Use Rises in D.C. Among Middle, Upper Class

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Heroin: The New Drug of the Middle Class? appeared first on Law Street.

Here in the United States we imprison a lot of people. Often we imprison them for a long time, and doing so obviously costs taxpayers a lot of money. So, for a long time, there’s been a conversation in this country over whether it’s productive to lock people up so much. Well, now prisons are trying to answer those questions themselves by using psychological assessments to determine whether or not it’s safe to release prisoners.

In an investigative report, Associated Press reporters found that for years, states have been using secretive psychological examinations to try to determine recidivism rates, in an attempt to figure out which prisoners should be released. The tests can also be used to help determine how the prisoner will be treated in prison.

These examinations vary from state to state, but most include a long series of questions about things like family background, education, income, and history. Each answer is given a score, although it’s unclear exactly what the parameters for scoring are. Then, those scores are tallied, and the assessment is used for a variety of things. If this seems vague, that’s because, well, it is very vague. Not only do these evaluations differ from state to state, but sometimes they differ within the state or jurisdiction. They don’t necessarily weight answers the same way–an offender could score differently on different tests, which is exactly what happened to Milton Thomas, an Arkansas inmate. But, most importantly, they’re basically kept secret. Some states never release the results.

There are also a lot of questions over whether the assessments are actually reliable. They do rely heavily on the offenders’ answers to the questions. If an inmate is lying, or does not remember something correctly, his scores could be different. Prisons don’t always check out the answers to make sure that they’re correct.

Furthermore, there are concerns that the tests unfairly discriminate against those offenders who come from lower income backgrounds or have attained lower levels of education than their peers.

There have, unsurprisingly, been incidents where the test results were “wrong,” and someone who was released because of his score ended up committing a new crime. One of the more prominent ones was Darren Vann, a sex offender released in Texas. His assessment labeled him as “low risk to reoffend,” but then a year later he confessed to killing seven women.

There have been some moves to reform these surveys. The Justice Department has been aiding and funding states in developing policies and tests; however, the tests aren’t currently used at the federal level, and there have been statements made by Attorney General Eric Holder that indicate that the use of such tests stands counter to DOJ policies. In August he stated,

Criminal sentences must be based on the facts, the law, the actual crimes committed, the circumstances surrounding each individual case, and the defendant’s history of criminal conduct. They should not be based on unchangeable factors that a person cannot control, or on the possibility of a future crime that has not taken place.

It’s definitely a good thing that prisons are trying to determine whether or not it makes sense to keep prisoners in for longer–we really do incarcerate a scarily large chunk of the population. That being said, there are clearly some big issues with the tests being used, and the total lack of transparency may mean there are even more issues that we don’t even know about yet. These tests may be a step in the right direction, but that doesn’t make them the right step.

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 Prisons Using Secretive Tests to Determine Release Eligibility appeared first on Law Street.

Sexual assault on college campuses has been one of the hottest topics for a couple years now. Many universities are being investigated by the Department of Education for Title IX violations. The recent Rolling Stone article about rape on the campus of the University of Virginia that was partially retracted and has landed the publication in hot water over concerns about its journalistic ethics has seriously reignited the discussion. There are a lot of moving parts to the debate about sexual assault on college campuses, and I think that one of the many, many reasons that the conversation gets so easily muddied is that we don’t all agree on definitions, or statistics.

While this is obviously an extreme example, watch this video of “Princeton Mom” Susan Patton who I’m still a little bit sure must be running the world’s longest satirical performance. She begins the video by talking about how rape is no longer just defined as a woman being held at gunpoint and assaulted, and then spends the next ten minutes pretty much going on about what a shame that is. She also thinks that rape is often women falsely accusing men after “regrettable sex.” Then she talks about how it’s women’s responsibility to protect themselves from rape by not drinking, making good decisions, and choosing better friends. It’s a charming exercise in a game I like to subject myself to called “Holy Shit, People Actually Think This Way.”

Now the Department of Justice (DOJ) has weighed in with statistics from a study it conducted, and it’s probably going to all get even more confusing.

The new DOJ report dealt with not just college students, but college-aged females more generally. The DOJ report included the statistic that six of every 1,000 college females are sexually assaulted, and now everyone who thinks like Patton is using it to prove that sexual assault on college campuses isn’t a thing we should be worried about, and that this talk of “rape-culture” is overblown.

First, what we need to do is remember that anytime this sort of study is undertaken–one that relies on people’s word, memories, and stories, rather than say, hard facts in a laboratory–is that it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

There have been other studies that indicate that the rate of college sexual assault is much higher than what the DOJ reports. A survey at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded that 17 percent of female students and 5 percent of young men were sexually assaulted as students. Then there’s the Campus Sexual Assault Study from 2007 that gave us the now-infamous and oft-cited “one in five” statistic.

There are a few reasons why two studies can have such radically different numbers, and they’re excellently detailed here, by the Marshall Project. The main takeaway is this though: neither is necessarily right and neither is necessarily wrong. They asked different questions, they talked to different people, and at the end of the day, it’s really very much an inexact science. We’re not sure how many students are sexually assaulted; more studies to come might help us pinpoint that number, but probably not.

But we do know that at least some are. Furthermore, the same DOJ report stated that eighty percent of students sexually assaulted don’t report it. And 80 percent were assaulted by someone they know. Both of those statistics are deeply troubling.

No matter how many people are being assaulted on our college campuses–whether it’s one percent, twenty percent, or somewhere in between–it’s too many.

But that “less than one” percent is probably going to get thrown around for a while. Because, unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who, for whatever reason, don’t want to see change. They just got some ammunition, for now.

That’s why we need to keep having conversations about rape culture. Why we need to keep educating our young people, and for that matter, all our people, on consent. Why we need to stand up for rape victims when they’re accused of making up their stories. It doesn’t matter how many–any at all are too damn many.

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 DOJ Stats Show College Sexual Assault Remains Too Prevalent appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Last July a young woman named  Lacey Weld from Tennessee was sentenced to 12 years in prison plus five years of supervised release after being captured on video spending 40 minutes inside of a methamphetamine manufacturing plant by an undercover police officer back in July. Did I mention she was in the last few weeks of her pregnancy at the time? Federal Judge Thomas Varlan determined that “enhanced sentencing” guidelines regarding harm to a child justified six years of the total sentence.

I’ll admit, I had never heard of the enhanced sentencing guidelines so to hear this story was pretty shocking and honestly I have mixed feelings about the whole situation.

A gaggle of reproductive-rights-organizations have taken it upon themselves to call on one-foot-out-the-door Attorney General Eric Holder to come out and publicly condemn Weld’s sentence. I’m curious as to why any of these organizations would want him to do such a thing? His reputation isn’t the best and no matter what he does or says it will not change the facts or the sentencing. In an interview with Vice, Weld’s attorney John Eldridge said that “laws intended to prevent ‘substantial risk of harm to life of a minor or an incompetent’ do not mention harm against a fetus.”

This is where things get sticky. Shouldn’t women be held responsible for their actions even if they are pregnant and especially if they are knowingly doing harm to themselves and their unborn child? Yes, you can argue that abortion would fall under that umbrella point of view, but if a woman has made the conscious decision to give birth to her child and either put it up for adoption or raise it herself, she should be held responsible for her actions.

This case has some serious grey areas and Weld’s lawyers are doing a damn good job of finding ways to interpret the laws in order to benefit her. That’s what lawyers are paid to do. But Weld needs to take a good, hard look in the mirror before she gets out and takes on the responsibility of raising that child. It may be a while but at some point it will be her responsibility again.

Some jurisdictions allow pregnant inmates to raise babies they give birth to in jail for several years before giving them to family members on the outside. This is best exemplified by the Argentinian movie Leonera (Lion’s Den) in which a woman who is convicted of murder finds out she is pregnant and is placed in a special ward of the prison where she is able to give birth and raise her baby for several years before giving him to a family member. It is an interesting concept and it almost seems like a good idea until I realize that our tax dollars would be supporting not only an inmate but also her child. The film in particular explores the pain and struggle of raising a child behind the walls of a prison and the importance of the bond between mother and child.

Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, says that  “this case tells women who are pregnant and cannot overcome their addiction is, really, to get an abortion.” I do not believe that is what this case is telling any woman. The point of punishing a person for her crime is to deter her from doing it again and to make an example out of her. Perhaps there is a girl out there who has a drug problem and just found out she is pregnant. By reading this article and she might realize that if she gets caught doing something illegal and harming her unborn child that she has chosen to keep she might be better off focusing on getting clean and taking care of herself and the baby.

Weld missed that opportunity. Not only did she take that away from herself and her child but she has also done irreparable damage. Even breathing in the fumes through a shirt at a meth lab can do damage to a fetus. According to the Department of Justice there is video footage of Lacey not only working in the meth lab but also smoking the drug. Weld told the court back in July that she wanted to “apologize for all the harm and wrongdoing (she has) done to (her) children. He could have died, and (she) just pray(s) and thank(s) God that (her) sister has him and he’s OK.”  Why is Weld just now realizing that she did something wrong and why is she merely apologizing? Shouldn’t she have been more aware of what she was doing before she got caught?

The baby did test positive for opioids and methamphetamine. I think Lacey got the time she deserved and I don’t think that it was wrong for the judge in the case to “enhance” her sentencing because she actually, knowingly did harm to her baby. If you are willing to do the crime, you should be willing to do the time.

I wish Weld all of the luck in the world and hope that she can kick her habit, but I also hope that her little baby has a fighting chance.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Lobo via Flickr]

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 Woman Gets Six Extra Years in Jail Due to Pregnancy appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter is suing the the United States Department of Justice for violating its First Amendment rights, the company announced on Tuesday. The social media service is arguing that it has the right to disclose to the public how often the government requests data from it for national security purposes.

Currently, the government requests information for such investigations from tech companies like Twitter in the form of national security letters and Foreign Intelligence Security Act court orders. The government does let these companies disclose how many times it requests information, but not down to the exact number. Instead they can report ranges of the requests they’ve received in “bands” of 1,000. For example, a firm can report that it has received between 0 and 999 government information requests, without being any more specific.

Twitter’s complaint is that these restrictions inhibit its freedom of speech. It argues that it should be allowed to disclose to its users a more precise number of government information requests. In particular, if it hasn’t received any requests in a certain category, Twitter wants to say publicly that the number is zero.

Ben Lee, a Twitter Vice President, said in a blog post on Tuesday:

It’s our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users’ concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance – including what types of legal process have not been received.

Twitter tried to accomplish the same thing earlier this year without going to court, by sending a sample transparency report in April to the DOJ, asking which information it could or couldn’t publish. Unfortunately, that attempt wasn’t fruitful. “After many months of discussions, we were unable to convince them to allow us to publish even a redacted version of the report,” Tuesday’s blog post also disclosed.

The current restrictions stem from a January settlement between the DOJ and Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook, and LinkedIn. At that time, the companies were were looking for permission to publish any number at all related to national security requests. That settlement allowed these companies and “similarly situated companies” (that includes Twitter) to use the bands of 1,000 rule to report the number of government requests. Twitter hints in its formal complaint that the number of requests it receives is relatively small, and argues that it  should be allowed to reflect “limited scope” of government surveillance on its accounts in its transparency reports.

In the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks that revealed the vast extent of government surveillance online, tech companies have tried to show their users that they care about privacy. Apple and Google made news last month when they announced that their new generation of mobile operating systems would encrypt user data with the user’s passcode, making it impossible for either the company or the government to access private information without the passcode. Even if the government requests it, the company can’t reach it.

Unlike on most social media platforms, anything the average Twitter user tweets is publicly visible. So, intuitively, the government doesn’t need to request from Twitter too much information; it’s there for the picking. That seems to be what Twitter is hinting at when it says that it would like to be allowed to report that it has received zero national security requests. That being said, it would be nice to know what other information the government is asking to have – information that supposedly isn’t public. Twitter comes off in this story as the noble tech company trying to stay accountable to its 271 million active users. The company can stay even truer to the value of transparency by letting its users know what non-public information the government wants, and this suit will decide whether they get to do just that.

—

Zaid Shoorbajee

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

The post A Tech Company That Has Your Back: Twitter Sues the DOJ appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

We’ve all seen the news coverage about the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Not just the shooting, but also the aftermath that has turned a tiny town into a rioting disaster. Just in case you didn’t hear, Michael Brown was a young black man who was shot several times and killed on August 9 by a white police officer. But did you hear about the young man in Utah who was also shot and killed by a police officer? No? I’m not surprised. Twenty-year-old Dillon Taylor was shot to death by a black police officer two days after Michael Brown.

Where is the outcry filled with blinding rage in Utah that has filled the streets of Ferguson? Why have there been no reports of Dillon Taylor’s death, except a few small pieces found here and there on random news sites? No mention on CNN, MSNBC, or any well known 24-hour news station.

Dillon Taylor, described as white and Hispanic, was shot right outside of a 7-11 on August 11 by a black police officer. I hate to quote Rush Limbaugh because I’m not a huge fan of his, but he said it best on his radio show: “In the current climate in the United States, a black person can never be the oppressor, and a white person can never be a victim.” Truer words have never been spoken. I realize that history has shown that white people oppressed blacks and other races. But the same has happened to whites, obviously not in the same way and not as widely remembered, but everyone has been oppressed in some way at some point in history. Why is the life of this young black man more important the life of a young white and Hispanic man?

The biggest point I want to make is that both of these young men should have the same amount of coverage, but they don’t and it is all based on race double standards. If you take a step back and look at the context of both of these shootings you would realize that there is no real difference except the color of their skin and that of the police officers. When will people stop and think about the bigger picture, not everything should be about color. It is about right and wrong. And for that matter we don’t even know who is right and wrong until all of the facts are released and the police officers who did the shootings have been investigated.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [DonkeyHotey via Flickr]

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 Race Double Standards – It’s the American Way appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has reached an agreement with the mayor of Albuquerque for an independent monitor to oversee the city’s troubled police department. The Albuquerque Police Department (APD) has been under investigation by the DOJ since November 2012 due to mounting concerns that their habitual use of excessive force violates citizens’ constitutional rights.

The investigation was launched following a series of high profile police shootings under questionable circumstances. Iraq war veteran Kenneth Ellis III was shot while holding a gun to his own head, and Alan Gomez was shot at his home while “armed” with a plastic spoon. A graphic video released by the APD showed homeless camper James Boyd being shot four times after he appeared to be surrendering to officers.

Changing the “shoot-first-ask-later” mentality of the department will not be easy, to say the least. According to the Associated Press, the APD has shot 41 people over the past four years, 27 of them fatally. With a population greater than 550,000 people, the city of Albuquerque is ahead of both Chicago and New York in terms of police-related deaths per capita.

The high number of incidents involving alleged police misconduct has eroded community trust in both city officials and the police, spurring a series of protests that have even included an attempted “citizen’s arrest” of Police Chief Gorden Eden. “It has reached a boiling point,” one protester told the Associated Press, “people just can’t take it anymore.”

The agreement comes just three months after the DOJ released a report stating that:

APD officers too frequently use deadly force against people who pose a minimal threat and in situations where the conduct of the officers heightens the danger and contributes to the need to use force.

The report also found systematic deficiencies in the department that contribute to its troubling pattern of excessive force. Failed accountability systems, deficient policies, and a lack of sufficient civilian oversight were all listed as contributing causes.

According to a joint statement, the DOJ and the city will focus on reforming eight areas of concern: use of force policies, interactions with individuals with mental illness and other disabilities, tactical units, training, internal investigations and civilian complaints, management and supervision, recruitment and selection of officers, and community engagement and oversight.

This process will be overseen by an independent monitor appointed by the federal government, and will rely heavily on cooperation from the APD as well as input from community leaders. The agreement, formally known as a consent decree, is legally binding and puts the city of Albuquerque under the oversight of a federal court until the APD is in full compliance with the mandated reforms.

About 20 cities have entered into similar agreements with the DOJ since the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was passed in 1994. Simply put, the act allows the DOJ to effectively sue police agencies that exhibit a “pattern and practice” of using excessive force and violating constitutional rights. The DOJ can then force those departments to implement a series of reforms that are meant to prevent any future abuses.

The success of the agreements depends largely on how resistant the police department in question is to change. There is no set time limit for a consent decree–the Oakland Police Department has been under one for nearly a decade–but some departments push back against the court-mandated reforms, which can prolong the process.

David Correia, a professor at the University of New Mexico and local organizer, doubts that the APD will be able to successfully implement reforms. “If history is any guide then [this process] won’t work,” Correia told Truthout. In 1997, a different report found some of the same exact systematic deficiencies that were listed in the DOJ’s report. As it turns out, reforms were implemented by some of the same people who are still in charge today, and they clearly did lead to the necessary changes in the department. “As a result, six years after those reforms, [the APD] killed more people at a higher rate” Correia explained. “So there can be no day-to-day control of the police department by [Police Chief] Eden, Huntsman, any of the deputy chiefs, or [Mayor Berry], but the DOJ won’t go that far”

Only time will tell if the consent decree will be embraced by police and city leadership in Albuquerque. The community remains weary and distrustful after years of abuse, but feels that the agreement is definitely a step in the right direction. Attorney General Eric Holder is also optimistic that the APD can correct troubling practices and restore public trust. Holder stated:

This agreement marks an important step forward in addressing the unreasonable use of deadly force uncovered in our investigation into the Albuquerque Police Department. The residents of Albuquerque depend on their police department to serve their community with honor and integrity.

Consent decrees and federal monitoring have been able to successfully reform a number of police departments, but departments generally get out what they put in. The APD is being presented with a chance to turn over a new leaf, but whether they will grasp this opportunity or cling to their old ways has yet to be seen. Either way, change is coming to the department, and all that the residents of Albuquerque can hope for is that these changes extend past the moment that federal oversight ends.

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Joseph Morris via Flickr]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Albuquerque Police Department Brought Under Federal Oversight appeared first on Law Street.

When New Orleans Superintendent of Police Ronal Serpas took office four years ago, he was faced with high crime rates, a depressingly low department approval rate, and a long history of police corruption and brutality. While lowering crime rates and rebuilding trust take time, his solution to corruption allegations and brutality has been relatively simple — require patrol officers to wear body cameras.

The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) has been through several scandals, but none as severe as the Danziger Bridge incident, in which police officers shot, killed, and maimed innocent, unarmed citizens then tried to cover it up. The incident took place just six days after Hurricane Katrina and took the lives of a mentally impaired man as well as a 19 year old. It also spurred a Department of Justice investigation that resulted in a long-awaited consent decree, which imposed sweeping reforms on the NOPD.

One product of the consent decree is the requirement of patrol officers to wear body cameras in an effort to regain trust and ensure transparency and accountability in the future. Hailing this as the next step in American policing, Serpas has high hopes that the cameras will be well worth the $1.45 million investment. He believes that they are the best way to eliminate the “he-said-she-said” problem once and for all.

The 420 cameras purchased by the NOPD are required to be used by patrol officers whenever they are attending a “business-related event,” including traffic stops and responding to calls. The officers are encouraged to consult their videos before preparing a report and must attend a three-hour training session to learn how to use the devices.

The New Orleans Police Department is not alone in its use of body cameras; more and more police departments across the nation are beginning to require officers to wear cameras on duty. Police Foundation Executive Fellow Chief Tony Farrar recently completed a year-long study evaluating the effect that body cameras have on police use-of-force. He found the cameras to be associated with “dramatic reductions in use-of-force and complaints against officers.”

These cameras are especially appealing to troubled police departments such as the NOPD, currently facing federal scrutiny. Although Superintendent Serpas claims the cameras are a “win-win” for all parties involved due to the creation of an irrefutable record of what happened, there is the fear that the videos may just be for the benefit for the police.

Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, cautions against the practice of letting officers watch their own videos before writing reports. He argues that if an officer is planning to lie, the videos serve as a “good guide” to what he can get away with.

Another issue is the matter of who gets to view the videos and whether or not they are a matter of public record. While Serpas told NPR that he will hire whatever additional staff is necessary to handle public requests for the videos, he concedes that public record laws have “exceptions to releasing information, and there are directions about which information to release.”

A police department monopoly of the videos does little to curb the problem of false or misleading reports. If the public does not have access to the videos then, short of legal action, they still have little more than blind faith to ensure that officers are being truthful when they state that something was or was not recorded on the tapes.

Conspiracy theories aside, the NOPD seems to genuinely want the public to be aware of the cameras, going as far as having officers demonstrate the technology to random citizens. The point behind installing the cameras is to foster public trust, something that the department can only do by proving to the community that they have turned a new leaf.

The cameras fit over the officers’ ears and therefore allow the viewer to see everything that the police officer sees. This is naturally meant to inspire trust by deterring officers from filing false reports – what is the point of lying if you know that what you have done is caught on film? – but ironically enough it seems that the cameras may be doing more to curb the behavior of the people being filmed rather than the officers themselves.

For example, Lt. Travis St. Pierre told NPR that “they always have this one individual that they would go on calls and service for that likes to be disruptive, curse at the police, fight with the police, and when they got out and turned the camera on and informed her she was being recorded, she immediately said, ‘Ah. OK,’ and was not a problem at all. We’re seeing a lot of that kind of stuff.”

More polite citizens aren’t necessarily a bad thing, but stifling complaints or disagreements is not necessarily good either. As the NOPD’s bleak track record has shown, the police are not always right and they do not always act with citizens’ best interests in mind. Being able to freely voice your opinions and complaints — no matter how disruptive they may be — is just as important as officers not falsifying reports. As the use of cameras continues to expand in New Orleans and several other jurisdictions, it will be interesting to see how effective it is, and who actually benefits from the tactic.

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Thomas Hawk via Flickr]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Orleans Police Attempt to Regain Public Trust by Wearing Patrol Cameras appeared first on Law Street.

Crimes against humanity such as those committed by the Nazis during the Holocaust should never go unpunished. That seems like a completely obvious statement, one that everyone can get behind. But what if the crime was committed 70 years ago by man who is now 89 years old? That’s the question at issue in the case of Johann Breyer.

Since the end of World War II, the world has been on the hunt for members of Hitler’s administration. If a suspected perpetrator was found, he was usually extradited to Germany and put on trial there. This practice has continued all the way into 2014. But should Breyer, an 89-year-old man with signs of dementia, face trial for crimes he is accused of committing at the Auschwitz Death Camp many decades ago?

Johann Breyer has lived in the United States since 1952 when he immigrated here from Czechoslovakia. His mother was born in the United States, which granted him American citizenship. He worked as a toolmaker in Philadelphia, got married and had kids. Then, in 1992, he was accused of having Nazi ties and the Justice Department attempted to deport him.

He was ultimately allowed to stay, as the Justice Department lacked evidence to prove he took an active role in the killings. Breyer claimed he was a guard in the prison section of the camp, and since he was a minor when he served, he could not be held responsible for his actions. Basically, his argument was he took no active role in the killings and was instead forced to be there. This whole debate had little actual impact on Breyer’s life, as his name stayed out of the public eye.

After its failed deportation effort, the Justice Department attempted to persuade the German government to extradite Breyer, but the Germans didn’t act until very recently. After examining camp rosters and newly disclosed documents, the German government now claims that Breyer was not part of the prison guards, but rather a member of the infamous SS battalion, “Death’s Head,” trained to be particularly brutal to prisoners. The German government has charged Breyer with 158 counts of aiding and abetting murder — one for each train that arrived at the Auschwitz Death Camp during the six months Breyer was present. To put that number in perspective, those trains carried approximately 216,000 Jews.

Breyer faced these charges and potential extradition to Germany on Wednesday morning. Though he seemed confused, he told the judge he understood the charges against him, and he is now being held without bail until his extradition hearing on August 21.

The DOJ has charged more than 130 Nazi suspects in the last 35 years, but none were as old as Breyer. This brings us back to my original question — should a man that old, suffering from the onset of dementia, face charges for the crimes he perpetrated more than half a century ago?

My gut reaction to the thought of a nearly 90-year-old man in jail is that no, he shouldn’t be tried at this point; however, it angers me that Breyer got to live a normal, fulfilling life. He is innocent until proven guilty, but if he is proven guilty he does not deserve to die a free man. If guilty, he was complicit in the deaths of more than 200,000 people, yet has gotten to live without consequences. I would imagine that a Holocaust survivor probably feels quite enraged when he hears that a Nazi responsible for such horrific crimes has gotten to live a free life. We owe it to those victims and their families to bring anyone involved in these crimes to justice, regardless of age. Its been 70 years since Breyer committed these crimes, but time hasn’t run out yet.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Greg Heywood via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Accused 89-Year-Old Nazi Facing Extradition to Germany appeared first on Law Street.

Until recently, everyone thought the Obama administration got away with targeting and killing an American citizen without any disclosure of the legal means that allowed this action to unfold. Now, a court ruling could change this, which draws attention to a very important question: How can we keep the President accountable?

In 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen declared a terrorist by US intelligence, was targeted and killed by a drone strike in Yemen. After committing this action, the government declined to reveal any documents detailing the decision and even their legal reasoning that explained why the President was able to authorize the killing of an American without a trial or due process of the law.

A suit was filed against the government by the ACLU and reporters from the New York Times. The case was brought to a US district court and was decided in January 2013. The decision came out in the government’s favor: the court ruled that the government did not have to release any of the requested information. District court judge Colleen McMahon, commenting on the court’s decision, stated that while she personally criticized Obama for failing to disclose the information, she felt that the court had no authority to force the administration to release any documents relevant to the situation.

However, the case was appealed, and on Monday April 21, 2014, the court of appeals for the 2nd circuit issued a ruling that overturned the lower court’s decision. The three judge panel on the bench of the court ruled that the government must release documents created by the Justice Deparment that describe the administration’s legal reasoning behind the authorization to commit the killing of al-Awlaki.

In the wake of the appeals’ court decision, two important question must be answered: How did the court justify this decision, and will this court ruling change the legal nature of presidential action?

The Court’s Reasoning

The appeals court’s main justification for its ruling was that since the Obama administration had publicly commented on the legal justification for killing al-Awlaki, the government can no longer refuse to disclose the official documents. Judge Jon Newman‘s opinion, joined by the other two appellate judges, explained that if the government makes public claims to convince the public that lawful actions were taken, the government has an obligation to prove those statements are true. The judge stated, “whatever protection the legal analysis might once have had has been lost by virtue of public statements of public officials at the highest levels and official disclosure of the DOJ White Paper.”

The decision also addressed the arguments against releasing the information. The government claimed that by being forced to reveal the documents and other information detailing the legal justification for al-Awlaki’s killing, other agencies will be more hesitant to seek the assistance of the Department of Justice, since they may fear the eventual release of private information used to consult with the DOJ. Refuting this argument, the court’s opinion highlighted the fact that smart officials representing agencies should be fully aware of publicly discussing the advice of the DOJ could result in the mandated disclosure of the legal information. Furthermore, as long as the agency makes no public statements about the assurance of the legality of actions taken with help from the DOJ’s legal advice, the information need not be revealed.

What implications will the ruling have on the operations of the President and the US government?

Keeping in mind the court’s rationale for ruling, the effect this decision could have on the future operations of the President and the government must be explored.

The good news is that the case showcases a way for the public to hold the President and the government accountable for his secret decisions. In a matter of killing an American citizen without due process of the law, the American people deserve to understand the reasoning behind the action. By declaring that the government loses its right to secrecy after publicly commenting on the supposed legality of its actions, the public has gained some recourse for finding transparency within government’s decisions.

But while the appellate court decision marks progress in keeping the President and government accountable, the ruling does not mean that the government must now release information on their reasoning behind every decision. It is important to remember that the court came to its decision after the President made public remarks on the legality of al-Awlaki’s killing. Therefore, while we can celebrate the appellate court’s decision, remember that this ruling is only a step in the right direction in providing more ways to keep the government accountable.

[The Atlantic] [POLITICO] [The Guardian]

—

Sarah Helden

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

The post A New Method to Keep the Government Accountable? appeared first on Law Street.

The DOJ has brought new charges against four former Blackwater Security contractors by the names of Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Nick Slatten, and Paul Slough. All four men were previously in various branches of the US military before joining Blackwater, a private military and security company founded in 1997.

These four former Blackwater employees are now being charged with multiple counts of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit manslaughter because of their involvement in the 2007 Nissor Square Massacre. On September 16, 2007, these four men shot at Iraqi civilians in Nissor square, leading to the 17 deaths and 20 injuries. The Blackwater contractors were in the Square to clear a way for American officials coming in a convoy. Exactly what happened that day is still somewhat unknown: Blackwater argues they were provoked, Iraqi police say they were not. A further FBI investigation determined that at least 14 of the deaths were unprovoked and classified the incident as an “unprovoked illegal attack on civilians.”

A year after the incident, the US charged the contractors who were present with various counts of manslaughter and weapons violations, but the charges were dismissed by a US Judge. The explanation given for the dismissal was that the testimony the case was based on was inadmissible. In 2011, three years later, an appeals court disagreed. Last week, four contractors were re-indicted —of the six involved in the incident, one has already pleaded guilty and another had charges against him dropped.

Last time the charges were brought, Heard, Liberty, Slatten, and Slough all pleaded not guilty and alleged that their actions in Nissor Square in 2007 were exclusively acts of self-defense. As of yet, there is no indication what they plan to plead for these new charges or when the case will actually begin. The indictment says that the four men, “unlawfully and intentionally, upon a sudden quarrel and heat of passion, did commit voluntary manslaughter.” The contractors on trial will need to prove that they did in fact act in self defense.

This opportunity to discuss Blackwater comes at a time when Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with their government, partly because of a lack of transparency. The history of Blackwater, which has now changed its name to Academi, sheds an interesting light on US military policies. Blackwater was originally founded in 1997, and was intended to supplement already existing military force. One of the founders, Erik Prince, stated , “We are trying to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did for the Postal Service.”

Blackwater mainly began by helping with training and providing protection services. It was one of a few different private firms hired in the Afghanistan and Iraq war. It is estimated that in 2006, there were 100,000 private contractors working for the Department of Defense. This is a huge departure from previous wars—estimates only place about 10,000 contractors in the Persian Gulf War. This farming-out of war to private militaries has the potential to grow even further in future conflicts. The DOJ is taking an admirable step in forcing accountability for these groups by the indictment of the four contractors involved in Nissor Square Massacre.

[Washington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [jamesdale10 via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post New Charges For Former Blackwater Contractors appeared first on Law Street.

Across the country, about 800,000 government workers hang in limbo. The United States is four days into a partial government shutdown that puts any “non-essential worker” temporarily out of work. The shutdown is responsible for closures in everything from National Parks to after-school programs. One sector that has been experiencing serious shutdown pains is the Department of Justice–particularly the US Attorney division.

US Attorneys represent US interests in district or appeals courts. The 93 men and women appointed to these positions are each supported by Assistant US Attorneys, as well as numerous dedicated paralegals and staff members.

Since the shutdown began on October 1, US Attorney offices throughout the United States have furloughed large chunks of workers. In the Northern District of Ohio , 43% of staff have been sent home without pay. Oregon is reporting 30% of their 120 employees on furlough. New Hampshire has had to get by without 44% of their usual workforce. These are by no means isolated examples. Throughout the nation, US Attorney offices are operating with somewhere between two-thirds and one-half of their regular staff. In addition to the large groups of furloughed workers, many of these offices also report having lost about 15-20% of their staff during sequester cuts.

The type of workers being sent home fall into two categories–support staff, and anyone in the civil division. While civil cases are incredibly important, they are both easier to put on hold than criminal cases, and less likely to involve public safety issues. Most US Attorney’s offices are asking for continuances on any civil cases that have run into the shutdown.

Criminal cases are expected to move forward with delays, despite furloughs being handed to most Criminal Division attorneys’ staff members. These paralegals, administrative aids, IT staffers, and other employees are essential to the attorneys for whom they work. Lorin Reisner, Chief of the Criminal Division at the Manhattan US Attorney’s office provided an interview to Bloomberg Businessweek on Wednesday, stating “From our perspective it’s a mess. We have 10 trials going on in the Criminal Division, and I spent half of yesterday making sure the paralegals who are working on those cases can continue working on those cases, or that we have others who can assist with those trials.”

US Attorneys around the country are voicing their frustration and arguing that the ramifications of the government shutdown are far-reaching. South Dakota US Attorney Brendan Johnson pointed out “When we lose close to half of our staff it affects our ability to recover money for the federal government. So, this is actually a money loser for the federal government.”  US Attorney for the Eastern District of California Benjamin Wagner described the shutdown’s effects on his office, stating, “It’s kind of like fighting with one hand behind our backs.”

The work that US Attorneys, their assistants, and their staffs provide truly is crucial. Already hit hard by the sequester, our US Attorney offices are struggling to stay afloat in a government shutdown that has deemed many of these men and women who work on a large array of crucial cases unimportant. Unless the shutdown comes to a conclusion soon, we will  be facing a government that has declared justice, for lack of a better word, unessential.

[ideastream.org]  [oregonlive.com] [businessweek.com] [kdtl.com] [krca.com]  [charlotteobserver.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [OnceAndFutureLaura 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 US Attorney Offices Slammed by Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.