Before you get sucked into celebrating today’s total solar eclipse, catch up on some of our top trending stories from last week. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

Hawaii’s First Marijuana Dispensary Has Already Run Out of Weed

Less than a week after opening, Hawaii’s first–and only–medical marijuana dispensary has already been forced to temporarily close due to not enough marijuana on hand. Maui Grown Therapies announced in a press release Sunday that it will close Monday and Tuesday as it awaits action from the Department of Health’s Labs Division to “help unclog a backlog of products.”

Bureau of Prisons to Provide Free Feminine Hygiene Products

The Bureau of Prisons released a memo last week declaring that feminine hygiene products would be provided to inmates for free. While this will only affect female inmates who are currently incarcerated in federal prisons, it’s a notable step forward for inmates who struggle to access basic hygienic products.

Trump’s Bid to Build Sydney’s First Casino Was Denied Over Mafia Links

In 1987, Donald Trump tried to open the first casino in Sydney but was rejected because of his ties to the mafia, according to a cabinet report that was obtained by The Australian. According to the secret report, which now has been declassified because 30 years have passed, the New South Wales police board warned the local government that it could be “dangerous” to allow Trump to open the casino. The public was not informed why at the time. The state government also dismissed two other bidders.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Less than a week after opening, Hawaii’s first–and only–medical marijuana dispensary has already been forced to temporarily close due to not enough marijuana on hand.

Maui Grown Therapies announced in a press release Sunday that it will close Monday and Tuesday as it awaits action from the Department of Health’s Labs Division to “help unclog a backlog of products.”

The Maui-based dispensary officially opened for business on August 8, but it was only permitted to sell flowers to patients. Trouble began after company officials anticipated a recent batch of flowers to clear lab certification by Saturday–but that didn’t happen. As a result, the company says it sold out of its first batch due to “high demand.”

“It’s unfortunate that an administrative hindrance of this magnitude prevents patients from getting the help they need,” said Christopher Cole, director of product management for Maui Grown Therapies. “We had planned to open with a full range of derivative products such as concentrates, oils, capsules and topical products, but at the eleventh hour we discovered that the State Labs Division had failed to certify a lab to conduct testing of manufactured products.”

The supply issues are incredibly disappointing to Hawaiians, who have waited 17 years for a legal way to purchase medical marijuana. Hawaii was among the first states to legalize medical marijuana in 2000, but it wasn’t until 2015 that dispensaries were legalized.

If this shaky launch sounds vaguely similar, that’s because it should. In July, Nevada’s governor declared a marijuana state of emergency to push lawmakers to adopt emergency legislation to fix its supply bottleneck. While Nevada acted quickly to work out some of its supply chain kinks, Hawaii’s state offices were closed over the weekend and so far have not released a statement addressing plans to fix the problem.

“We could serve thousands of patients with the amount of manufactured product we currently have available for final compliance testing,” said Cole. “Even though we were approved by the Department of Health on May 24^th to manufacture cannabis products, the restrictions placed on the only licensed lab have prevented us from offering these products to our patients–and it is entirely unclear to us when this will change.”

Hawaii granted licenses to eight medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the Hawaiian islands last year. While several dispensaries began growing and harvesting the product, they were unable to sell it because until recently the state had not certified a lab.

According to the Cannabist, Honolulu-based dispensary Aloha Green was inspected Tuesday by the Department of Health and later announced it would open for sales Wednesday.

Maui Grown Therapies has also changed its operating hours to accommodate demand and will reopen for business Wednesday.

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 Hawaii’s First Marijuana Dispensary Has Already Run Out of Weed appeared first on Law Street.

Look left, look right…take your eyes off your smartphone. Okay. Now, you can cross the street in Honolulu.

In a 7-2 vote, the city council just passed a law that makes it illegal to stare at a phone screen while crossing “a street or highway.” The “distracted pedestrians law,” which is the first of its kind in the country, also encompasses video games, cameras, tablets, pagers, and other small handheld devices.

“Sometimes I wish there were laws we did not have to pass, that perhaps common sense would prevail,” Mayor Kirk Caldwell said during a bill signing ceremony near one of the city’s busiest intersections. “But sometimes we lack common sense.”

Local law enforcement will have three months to educate people about the new law, but after October 25, so-called “smartphone zombies” will risk incurring fines between $15 and $99, depending on how many times they have gotten caught glancing downwards before.

Pedestrians can still look at their phones on the curb and won’t be penalized if they are listening to music or talking on the phone as they cross the street, as long as their eyes can stay on the road. Dialing 911 is also permitted mid-crossing.

Though many believe this law, much like jaywalking, will be enforced in an arbitrary manner, lawmakers assure they are trying to tackle a serious road fatality problem.

“We hold the unfortunate distinction of being a major city with more pedestrians being hit in crosswalks, particularly our seniors, than almost any other city in the county,” Caldwell told Reuters.

The Governors Highway Safety Association reported that pedestrian fatalities increased 11 percent from the first six months of 2015 to the same period in 2016 and that one possible reason may be the rise in smartphone use.

However critics are saying that this law ought to further regulate drivers instead of punishing pedestrians.

Hawaii already forbids drivers from using their phones or texting while driving, allowing them only to use a hands-free device. However, no law exists preventing them from glancing at their screen. Last year, local police issued over 20,000 distracted driving citations statewide.

“If it’s signed into law,” writes Steven Miller in an opinion piece, “a pedestrian could have the right of way, be struck by a driver, and still receive a ticket for using a cell phone in the crosswalk, even though it’s the driver who should have yielded.”

Others are complaining that this new policy is an overreach of the local government’s authority.

“I don’t know if it should be a law that you can’t use your phone, because it is your phone,” said Sandra Hirooka. “I like the freedom of using my phone whenever I want to.”

“Scrap this intrusive bill, provide more education to citizens about responsible electronics usage, and allow law enforcement to focus on larger issues,” resident Ben Robinson told the city council in written testimony.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Law: No “Crossing and Texting” in Honolulu appeared first on Law Street.

A hearings judge in Hawaii ruled the state could reissue a building permit for a telescope on Mauna Kea, a 14,000-foot dormant volcano that has become a lighting rod over the past few years. While the ruling is sure to fan the flames of a long-simmering conflict between astronomers and Native Hawaiians, the telescope has a ways to go before it can decipher the deepest mysteries of the universe.

The $1.4 billion behemoth, commonly called the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), would be the largest telescope in the Northern Hemisphere. It is one of three mammoth-sized telescopes being considered around the globe–the other two are in Chile. The project is backed by researchers at the California Institute of Technology and the University of California, who say it would be used to observe far-away planets and galaxies. India, China, and Canada have reportedly invested in the project as well.

Would a gigantic observatory despoil Hawaii’s sacred Mauna Kea? A judge says no. https://t.co/APwOLJEZ3y

— NYT Science (@NYTScience) July 28, 2017

But a faction of environmental groups and Native Hawaiians have passionately protested the telescope’s construction on Mauna Kea. The legal battle over Mauna Kea, considered a sacred site by some native groups, began in 2011, two years after the site was selected as the future home of the TMT. The state’s Board of Land and Natural Resources issued a permit for the telescope, which was contested by the project’s opponents to no avail.

In 2015, the Hawaii Supreme Court revoked the building permit, saying the board cut corners in approving the telescope. The application process started over, and retired Judge Riki May Amano was appointed to rule on whether or not the board should be granted the ability to issue a new building permit. On Wednesday, Amano decided that the board should be able to do so, on the condition that workers and astronomers undergo “mandatory cultural and natural resources training.”

“TMT welcomes the recommendation that a state permit be issued, and we respectfully look forward to the next steps,” Ed Stone, executive director of the TMT International Observatory, said in a statement. “We are grateful to all our supporters and friends who have been with us during the hearing process and over the past 10 years, and we remain respectful of the process to ensure the proper stewardship of Mauna Kea.”

Hawaii Gov. David Ige has also expressed support for the project. In a statement released after Amano’s decision, Ige said: “I support the coexistence of astronomy and culture on Mauna Kea along with better management of the mountain.”

Next up, the board will hear arguments on whether or not to accept Amano’s ruling. Regardless of the board’s decision, the case is likely to wind up back at the Hawaii Supreme Court. The telescope’s directors said if the telescope does not get built on Mauna Kea, it will end up in the Canary Islands off the coast of Spain.

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 Judge Says Telescope on Hawaii’s Sacred Mauna Kea Should be Built appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, Governor Chris Christie signed a bill into law raising the smoking age in the state to 21. New Jersey joins Hawaii and California in setting the legal smoking age at 21.

The New Jersey bill raised the smoking age from 19 to 21. Smoking ages vary, with the set age at 18 in most places throughout the country. But campaigns to raise the minimum age have been successful in some places–while New Jersey now joins Hawaii and California at the state level, some cities and counties have chosen to up the age to 21 as well. Perhaps most notably, New York City passed a law in 2013 that raised the smoking age to 21 within city limits. It was applauded as the first big city or state to raise the smoking age. A bill to do the same for all of New York is making its way through the state legislature currently.

A number of studies point to the fact that if people start smoking later in life, they’re less likely to become addicted and become lifelong smokers. New Jersey State Senator Joseph Vitale, one of the sponsors of the bill, explained:

Data surveys show that if individuals aren’t smokers by 21 years of age, they will most likely not start later in their lives. Making it harder to buy cigarettes by raising the age to legally purchase them in New Jersey will help prevent our youth from becoming lifelong smokers and suffering the long-term effects of the habit.

Supporters of the bill also pointed out that nicotine addiction costs New Jersey a ton of money–an estimated $4 billion in health care costs each year. According to state surveys from this year, almost 40,000 high school students in New Jersey smoke traditional cigarettes. But nicotine usage is even higher when you take into account e-cigarettes, which the new law will also restrict to 21 and up.

Raising the minimum age for smoking seems like it has the potential to become a trend in the United States. Other states are considering similar moves as well. A bill raising the minimum smoking age in Maine passed the state legislature, but it’s unclear whether or not Governor Paul LePage will sign it. It seems likely that other states trying to combat teen nicotine usage will follow suit.

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 Jersey Becomes the Third State to Raise Smoking Age to 21 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

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

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:

Trump’s Second Travel Ban Gets Thumbs Down from Federal Judge

President Donald Trump’s new version of the travel ban for six majority-Muslim countries was supposed to go into effect today. But last night, a Hawaiian federal judge temporarily blocked it, citing religious discrimination. Then overnight, a second federal judge in Maryland also ruled against the ban.

As expected, Trump got pretty upset–so upset that he was actually two hours late for a rally in Nashville last night, as his staff tried to improve his mood by showing him some comments from supporters. But at the rally, he still lashed out at Judge Derrick K. Watson. Trump shouted, accused Watson of ruling based on political motivations, and said, “this ruling makes us look weak, which by the way we no longer are, believe me.”

Watson’s decision caused the hashtag #BoycottHawaii to trend on Twitter as some Trump supporters expressed their frustration with the ruling. But for others, this wasn’t a bad thing:

Trump’s travel ban is derailing US tourism but the #BoycottHawaii or promise of a TrumpFreeZone is making it one of the hottest destinations

— Norm Clark #resist (@Normsmusic) March 16, 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: March 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s revised executive order blocking travel from six countries in the Middle East and North Africa faced its first legal challenge on Wednesday. Doug Chin, the attorney general of Hawaii, is suing the Trump Administration. The order, Chin said in his complaint, violates the Constitution and will have deleterious effects on his state’s economy and educational institutions.

A hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, and the travel ban is set to go live on Thursday. While Trump’s first order, issued during his initial days in office, faced a torrent of litigation, the revised order, released on Monday, did not experience any immediate challenges. Lawyers and state attorneys general are taking a more cautious approach to legal action; they are taking time to examine the new order’s legality, while acknowledging that it was more carefully written than its predecessor.

In the State of Hawaii’s brief, which requests a temporary restraining order on the travel ban, the plaintiffs argue the ban “severely damages the State’s schools and universities.” The plaintiffs also said the executive order “detracts from the University of Hawaii’s diversity and impedes the State’s commitment to international scholarship and global exchange—inflicting the very harms Congress’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination was designed to prevent.”

Trump’s new travel ban is different from the initial directive. Residents of six countries–Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and Syria–will not be allowed into the U.S. for at least 90 days. Iraq, which was included in the initial order, has been removed from the list of affected countries. And in what is the new order’s potential bulwark against legal action, green card-holders and people who already have visas from the six countries are allowed entry into the U.S. Like the first executive order, the country’s refugee program will be put on ice for at least 120 days.

Another of Trump’s immigration policies was hit with a legal challenge on Wednesday. Dennis Herrera, the city attorney of San Francisco, asked a federal district court judge to block the president’s January 25 executive order. That order threatens to withhold federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities,” jurisdictions that shield undocumented immigrants from federal immigration authorities. “This court action is designed to protect our residents and provide financial clarity,” Herrera said in a statement.

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 Hawaii AG Files Lawsuit Over Trump’s Revised Travel Ban appeared first on Law Street.

All Cannabis in America coverage is written by Alexis Evans and Alec Siegel and brought to you by Law Street Media.

State of Weed: Watch

Maryland Lawmakers Push For Recreational Marijuana 

During a news conference last week, a trio of Democratic Maryland lawmakers said they would introduce two pieces of legislation: one to tax recreational marijuana sales, and another to regulate a legal market. The bills would regulate and tax marijuana like alcohol: use would be permitted for adults 21 and up, and it would be illegal to consume marijuana in public. Cultivators would pay a $30 per ounce excise tax, and there would be a 9 percent sales tax levied on retail products.

Will Rhode Island Reject Recreational Weed…Again?

After multiple failed attempts, Rhode Island could finally legalize recreational marijuana. State Representatives Scott Slater (D-Providence) and Joshua Miller (D-Providence) have proposed a new measure to legalize recreational marijuana for those 21 years and older. The Cannabis Regulation, Control, and Taxation Act will include mandatory product testing and labeling, restrictions on advertising, funding to law enforcement, limits on THC quantity per product, and mandatory reviews for all sale products.

Hawaii Approves First Two Medical Dispensaries 

After two years of waiting, Maui Wellness Group, d.b.a. Maui Grown Therapies, and Aloha Green Holdings on Oahu have been given the green light from the Hawaii State Department of Health to begin growing medical marijuana. The state legalized dispensaries in 2015, and sales were originally set to begin in July 2016. However, growers were still waiting on a seed-to-sale tracking system to be implemented, which stalled the approval.

All links are to primary sources. For more information on state laws for possessing, selling, and cultivating marijuana, click here to read “The State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State.”

Law Street Cannabis Coverage

Recreational Marijuana is Officially Legal in Maine

By Alec Siegel

After nearly three months of being suspended in legislative limbo, Maine’s recreational marijuana bill officially went into effect on January 30. People 21 and older can now possess up to two and a half ounces of cannabis; they can also grow up to six mature plants, and 12 immature plants. But after Governor Paul LePage signed a moratorium on January 27, retail sales of marijuana will be frozen until February 2018, giving lawmakers time to close any loopholes that appeared in the original legalization measure.

Will New Mexico Legalize Recreational Marijuana Next?

Israeli Government Will Pay $2 Million to Fund Medical Cannabis Research

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 Cannabis in America February 2017: Which State Will Be Next to Legalize? appeared first on Law Street.

Until Wednesday, Republican State Representative Beth Fukumoto was the youngest female caucus leader in the United States, as House minority leader in Hawaii. But after breaking from her party on President Donald Trump, the young Hawaiian Republican may now leave the GOP.

At age 33, Fukumoto represents a younger and more moderate faction of the Republican Party. Trump’s comments about women and minorities did not appeal to her, and she chose to express her concern with the direction her party is heading by joining the Women’s March in Honolulu on January 21.

While giving a speech at the event, she talked about how she tried to explain to her eight-year-old niece why a room full of grown-ups were yelling insults at her, after she said at the Republican convention last summer that she thought Trump was being sexist and racist. She said,

It doesn’t matter to me who you voted for. People cast their votes for a lot of different reasons. But, no matter who your choice was, the fact remains the same. A man won the White House with anger and hate, and our kids watched it happen.

But the same words that generated cheers at the women’s event made her Republican colleagues so upset that they ousted her from her position. Fukumoto said that within 24 hours of her speech, party members were calling her, asking her to resign for speaking out against the president. On Wednesday all but one, State Rep. Cynthia Thielen, voted for her to be removed. “God, I’m sorry to lose our Minority Leader, someone I so deeply deeply respect. She’s the face of Republicanism as it should be, but won’t be anymore,” Thielen said after the vote. Thielen also spoke at the Women’s March in Honolulu.

Fukumoto said the party had told her that if she wanted to stay on, she would have to promise not to criticize Trump for the rest of his time in the White House. “And with what we’ve been seeing in the news with the different executive orders coming out every day, I didn’t believe I could make that commitment,” she said. She believes the Republican Party as it stands doesn’t tolerate people who speak up. “It seems to be punishing dissent, and when you have a political party, you need dialogue,” she said.

Now Fukumoto feels ready to leave the GOP and is considering joining the Democratic Party instead, but wanted to ask her constituents first, as they were the ones who voted for her. In a letter sent this week, she is asking for their opinions before making an official decision. She is not the only young Republican to switch parties. Her predecessor, Rep. Aaron Ling Johanson, left because he felt that the party had become too narrow in its “demands for ideological purity.”

And according to a new study by political scientist Gary C. Jacobson, young Republicans are much less conservative than older ones. Not only do younger Americans tend to be more liberal generally, but Jacobson also found a significant split between young and old Republicans on almost all topics. He also found that fewer young Republicans than ever before are willing to identify as conservative. This could help change the Republican Party and decrease the growing ideological divide between the parties. But on the other hand, many young people who identify as liberal choose to join the Democratic Party instead, meaning it could be harder to actually change the GOP if there is only the older, white, conservative base left.

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 Hawaiian Republican Leader Ousted for Opposing Trump, Now May Leave the GOP appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

Researchers have recently seen a sharp increase in babies–particularly babies born in rural areas–with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS). This means that the babies are essentially born addicted to the drugs that their mothers used when pregnant. This phenomenon is just yet another depressing side effect of the sharp increase in the number of people addicted to opioids in the United States.

According to the study, which was published online earlier this week in JAMA Pediatrics, the increase of babies born with NAS in rural areas rose dramatically between 2004 and 2013. During that time period in rural areas, the incidences of NAS increased from 1.2 cases per 1,000 hospital births to 7.5 cases per 1,000 hospital births. It’s important to note that cases in cities rose as well, just not as sharply. In cities, there were 1.4 cases per 1,000 hospital births in 2004, and 4.8 cases per 1,000 hospital births in 2013. There was also some variability from state to state. Hawaii saw the lowest rate, at .7 cases per 1,000 births. West Virginia saw the highest, with 33.4 cases per 1,000 births. The researchers did acknowledge that the increase in cases could also come from the fact that there’s increased recognition of the symptoms, and better reporting metrics than there used to be.

But these numbers aren’t that surprising if you’ve paid attention to the nationwide opioid crisis. Rural areas have been particularly hard hit. Dr. Joshua Brown, a researcher at the University of Florida College of Pharmacy in Gainesville, told Business Insider:

Substance abuse is generally higher in rural communities, where an inability to afford or access care as well as the stigma associated with addiction may mean fewer mothers get the help they need to stop using heroin or abusing prescription painkillers during pregnancy.

President Barack Obama has recently taken some action to try to ameliorate the opioid crisis. The 21st Century Cures Act was recently passed by Congress and signed by Obama, and designates a significant amount of money specifically to fighting the opioid epidemic. This could be a boon for rural communities struggling with addiction, but as shown by recent evidence, there’s still a lot of work to be done.

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 America’s Drug War: Sharp Increase in Babies Born Addicted to Opioids appeared first on Law Street.

Building on his legacy as Protector in Chief, President Obama will be expanding Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument–a pre-existing protected body of water, shoals, and atolls near Hawaii–by hundreds of thousands of miles. Friday’s Presidential Proclamation said the motivation behind expanding the monument is “to protect and preserve the marine area of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the historic and scientific objects therein.”

Twice the size of Texas, at 582,578 total square miles, the expanded monument is now the largest marine protected area on the planet. Originally granted monument status under President George W. Bush in 2006, Obama’s executive order effectively quadruples the size of the protected waters. The move was heralded by Native Hawaiians–who use those waters for ancient cultural traditions and consider them as sacred in creation stories and myths–and conservationists. And while recreational fishing is allowed (with a permit), the longline, commercial fishing industry will take a hit. The Hawaii Longline Association said they haul two million pounds of fish from the designated area annually, the equivalent of $100 million.

What does the expanded @HawaiiReef look like? Check it out in our video: https://t.co/T6iI181j9v #EarthIsBlue

— Sanctuaries (NOAA) (@sanctuaries) August 26, 2016

“We’re obviously going up against environmental organizations that have billions of dollars,” said Sean Martin, the president of the Hawaii Longline Association. “For somebody to feel good, we’re going to force U.S. fishermen out of waters.”

While it seems the people who use the sea for its bounty of resources might take a hit from Obama’s expansion, the Native Hawaiian community and the species who call the area their home will certainly benefit. According to his Proclamation, the area “supports a dynamic reef ecosystem with more than 7,000 marine species, of which approximately one quarter are unique to the Hawaiian Islands.” In addition, it “has great cultural significance to the Native Hawaiian community and a connection to early Polynesian culture worthy of protection and understanding.”

Obama to quadruple size of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument against wishes of Hawaii’s fishing industryhttps://t.co/ZWPQIaAvEn

— Pacific Biz News (@pacificbiznews) August 26, 2016

The following is a partial list of what is allowed and what is notallowed  within the new protected zone:

• Commercial fishing is not allowed.
• It is illegal to mine for oil, gas, and minerals in the protected area.
• With a permit, recreational fishing is allowed.
• Scientific research is allowed.
• Native Hawaiians are allowed to remove fish for use in cultural practices.

Even before Friday’s announcement, Obama cemented his legacy as the U.S. president who has designated the most land as government protected areas. He has created 26 national monuments covering about 548 million acres of land (or sea), twice as much as any of his predecessors. U.S. presidents were granted the executive authority to designation land as protected regions under the 1906 Antiques Act, which states: “the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.”

Obama’s decision to expand the protected area of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument followed a proposal by Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Native Hawaiian leaders. On Thursday, Obama will travel to the Midway Atoll–a sandy dot within the new protected area, and an important military staging ground in World War II–to give the official announcement regarding the expanded monument.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Obama Announces the Largest Protected Marine Monument on Earth appeared first on Law Street.

As climate change worsens, melting ice from earth’s glacier sheet combined with the expansion of warming sea water has caused the world’s oceans to rise dramatically. There are a number of organizations dedicated to recording the rise in sea levels, including the Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services–a part of the NOAA that collects data on changing sea levels with numerous tide stations–and NASA, which use satellites to gather the same data from a different perspective. Currently, there are about 150 years of data gathered on changes in the Mean Sea Level (MSL) over time and the current scientific consensus is that sea levels have been rising at a rate of 3.42 mm annually over the last 20 years, which will lead to a total rise of between 1-2 meters by 2100.

Rising sea levels pose a very serious threat to many populous cities throughout the world, particularly those that have developed as coastal trade centers. As sea levels continue to rise, many of these coastal cities will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding, especially in the geographically low-lying areas of the earth. Flooding is a unique consequence of climate change in that it affects people both from the richest and the poorest parts of the world, and while everywhere has their own local approach to flood mitigation, there are generally two major ways to address the issue politically. The first and most popular approach is to develop coastal protection systems to prevent rising tides from impacting coastal zones. The second technique is to commit to renewable energy in order to directly address the problem of global warming and rising sea levels. The larger the country, the greater its personal commitment to fossil fuel divestment matters. Unfortunately, many of the largest countries which have the greatest carbon footprint generally make very low levels commitments to renewables, which makes the commitments of many of the smallest, most flood-vulnerable countries less significant.

Read on to learn more about how the different areas of earth are dealing with rising sea levels.

“Flood” courtesy of ddqhu via Flickr

The United States

The United States is an interesting case of flood politics because it’s one of the world’s wealthiest countries and thus most capable of handling flooding. However, there’s very little political consensus on the scientific validity of climate change in Congress and rising sea levels are rarely if ever mentioned in policy debates at the federal level. The government provides disaster relief funds for the areas that have been most severely affected by rising sea levels, but actual policy changes generally must happen at the individual, state, or even city level. Several areas throughout the United States face a high risk of flood inundation, including New York City; Newark, New Jersey; Boston; Miami; New Orleans; and the entire state of Hawaii.

Hawaii 

Hawaii is relatively low-lying compared to the rest of the U.S. mainland and a sea level rise of 1-2 meters would absolutely devastate the state. Furthermore, each island is so small that there’s very little inland area, meaning that few people would be safe from flooding. It’s no coincidence that Hawaii leads the United States in addressing climate change and is the very first state to commit to getting 100 percent of its energy from renewable sources. This also makes sense from a business perspective because it’s very expensive to ship oil and gas to Hawaii and the state is geographically blessed with ample renewable resources. However, the decision to commit to renewables was made largely out of necessity, as Hawaii’s community, as well as its primary source of revenue, the tourism industry, would suffer immensely from the effects of flooding. Of course, Hawaii’s commitment is a drop in the bucket compared to all U.S. emissions. However, its decision allows the state to lead policy by example and proves that 100 percent renewables are an attainable goal. For a real impact to take place, the other states must follow suit, along with many of the world’s countries.

Cities: New Orleans, New York, and Miami 

None of the other states are as universally vulnerable to flooding as the state of Hawaii, but several have been forced to take measures to protect their largest population centers. Cities like New Orleans and New York City are at particularly high risk not only because they are located on high-risk coasts but also because they’re located in areas that are extremely vulnerable to severe weather events, as seen with hurricanes Sandy and Katrina. New York has made its own commitment to 50 percent renewables by 2030 and has also tried to take more immediate action to prevent Sandy-level flooding from happening again. The current plan is to allocate $100 million of Sandy’s relief funds to the construction of a wall to protect the city as well as apply for an additional $500 million dollars of Federal Housing and Urban Development Funds. The project will be very expensive and require a huge amount of resources, but without flood protection, New York’s electric grid and underground subway system could be completely dismantled, crippling an economic center of the nation and costing billions of dollars in restoration funds.

“Coastal Flooding in Washington DC” courtesy of Bruno Sanchez-Andrade Nuño via Flickr

New Orleans suffered an even greater extent of damage from Hurricane Katrina than New York did from Hurricane Sandy and has also bounced back at a considerably slower rate. Unlike New York, New Orleans is a relatively poor city and was largely at the mercy of how the federal government decided to handle the situation. Congress allocated a massive $14.5 billion relief package to construct an upgraded levy system designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The new and improved system will be much better equipped to protect against flooding, but the upgrade has met some serious criticism. Even the Army Corps of Engineers has warned that there’s a limit to what it can do based on New Orleans’ geography. The area is uniquely low-lying and most of the natural marshes that have historically acted as flood barriers have disappeared over the years, stripping the city of its natural protection.

The political context of different vulnerable areas also heavily influences the way decisions are made. Miami, for instance, is also only 4 to 5 feet above sea level and the entire beach may disappear within the century if sea levels continue to rise. While the state has sunk hundreds of millions into flood prevention, Florida has almost no renewable power at all and has made few steps towards achieving its Renewable Portfolio Standard of 20 percent by 2020. The difference between New Orleans, Miami, and New York’s approaches to their vulnerability represents how wealth, political nature, and geographical position strongly influence what is and what can be done to address the risks of flooding. While commitments to renewable energy address the larger problem of global warming and sea level rise, they do little to directly impact an area’s vulnerability to flooding. This generally means that if renewables aren’t cost effective and receive political opposition, then they will rarely be considered as a valid policy option.

The European Union

The areas of Europe that face the highest risk of flooding are the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Northern Germany because of their flat geography and proximity to the rapidly melting Greenland Ice Sheet. Flood prevention has become a serious issue in the European Union, not only because these areas are at high risk from sea level rise but also because Central and Eastern Europe have experienced rising levels of river flooding from severe weather events. In response to these changes, the European Union made one of the European Regional Development Fund’s duties to establish structural funds for flood mitigation and adaptation. Furthermore, every member of the European Union has their own Renewable Energy Target, which varies widely depending on the location.

However, in a parallel that runs somewhat similar to how only a select set of vulnerable U.S. states address flood risk aggressively, only a handful of European states have serious flood policies. While the overarching body of the E.U. provides structural adaptation funds in the same way the U.S. provides federal disaster relief funds, flood control is only a highly salient issue in the northernmost parts of the continent. The most dramatic example of this is the Netherlands, which is an incredibly low-lying nation that also has an extensive canal system that runs a high risk of flooding. The sea surrounding the Netherlands was originally projected to rise about 1.05 meters within the century, but newer models project a 26 percent chance that the sea will actually rise to 1.8 meters, making it the most vulnerable European nation. England is not far behind, with a renewed projection that there’s a 27 percent chance of sea level in the surrounding areas by 1.75 meters. Both countries have extensive coastal protection policies in the form of barriers, dikes and sluice gates, but many scientists fear that this will not be enough to protect them from flash floods in the future.

The World’s Most Vulnerable Areas

As with many serious environmental issues, the developing world faces some of the greatest risks from these problems but has the least resources dedicated to addressing them. While the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is generally (and accurately) characterized as being an incredibly dry and hot region, the coastal areas between the two continents face serious risks from flooding. If sea levels rise between 0.1 and 0.3 meters by 2050 as predicted, the coastal regions of Libya, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Kuwait could be exposed to severe flooding. A temperature rise of 1 to 3 degrees would exacerbate sea level rise to the point where it would critically endanger urban coastal areas, and could expose six to 25 million people in Northern Africa to flooding.

Many of these areas, including Algeria, Morocco, Djibouti, Lebanon, and Yemen have designed Disaster Risk Management Plans to increase resilience in their cities in preparation for oncoming natural disasters. However, many of the MENA countries are actively involved in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) whose economies are heavily dependent on the fossil fuel industry. The leaders of OPEC generally admit that climate change is real but are quick to dismiss efforts to regulate fossil fuels. They view the push against oil in international negotiations as an unfair handicap against their industries and generally fight against any attempt to regulate or shrink the fossil fuel market. Despite the fact that MENA will suffer some of the worst effects of climate change (taking into account desertification as well as flooding), it seems unlikely that the area will diverge from fossil fuels at any point in the foreseeable future.

Many parts of South America, including Venezuela, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil along with almost every country in Southeast Asia, are also at some of the highest risks of flooding in the world. Unlike the MENA region, few of these countries fight with the same vigor to support the fossil fuel industry, with the exception of Venezuela, the only non-MENA member of OPEC. However, many will still fight for their personal rights to use fossil fuel projects in the name of internal development since the majority of the burden of climate change was caused by the developed world. The issue of flooding is further exacerbated by the fact that several of the countries in these regions have resource extraction economies that rely on deforestation, which steadily shrinks their natural riparian protection from rising sea levels.

Perhaps the worst example of a disenfranchised flood-vulnerable country is the Maldives, both one of the poorest and the lowest lying island nations in the world. As sea levels continue to rise, the Maldives will be one of the first countries to become completely inundated, despite the fact that as a developing country it has contributed a very small percentage of the emissions that have contributed to climate change. The Maldives’ first ever democratically elected leader, Mohamed Nasheed, committed his country to achieving 100 percent renewable energy and made the Maldives the very first country to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol. He encouraged a massive reforestation program along the beaches to prevent soil erosion and act as a riparian barrier from flooding. He also initiated litter cleanup programs and special protection for the coastal reefs that protect the nation’s boundaries.

The actions of a small country like the Maldives will help give it better protection but will do little to fight climate change without the commitment of larger nations in North America and the European Union to reduce emissions. While the Maldives’ commitment to clean energy would have had a small impact on global emissions, they stood as an important symbol of forward progress, especially to other vulnerable island states. However, in January, Mohammed Nasheed was overthrown and imprisoned after allegedly ordering the arrest of a judge. The brother of the previous dictator rose to power and has undone all of Nasheed’s efforts, promising to tear up every tree he had planted. The Maldives’ high level of vulnerability combined with its new lack of a flood adaptation policies places it at extreme risk from sea level rise and within 100 years the island is projected to be uninhabitable.

Conclusion

Rising sea levels are a problem that will affect countless areas, both in the developing and the developed world. The exact decisions that governments will make heavily depend upon their political affiliation, what is geographically possible, and how much funding they can reasonably allocate to combating flooding. Much of this means that the poorest areas of the world are disproportionately affected because they neither have the resources nor the political organization needed to address these problems. Furthermore, they may have economies based on resource extraction industries, which further exacerbate their vulnerability.

Globally, considerable resources have been dedicated to flood prevention, but little commitment has been made to abating fossil fuels in the name of halting sea level rise. This is largely because it’s extremely difficult to establish federal and international policy on climate change, so often policy changes happen on a more local level. Because these decisions are made by smaller, more vulnerable entities instead of larger international organizations, these areas will often settle for mitigation policy instead of prevention based, emissions reductions policy. However, as long as climate change continues, then the root of the problem will continue to exist and sea levels will continue to rise. At the current rate, several areas around the world, including the Maldives, will inevitably become uninhabitable and unless large-scale changes in global emissions are made, more and more countries will suffer the same fate.

Resources

The Atlantic: Is Miami Beach Doomed?

BBC: Former President Mohammed Nasheed Allowed Foreign Trip

BBC: Maldives: Paradise Soon to be Lost

Climate Central: New Analysis Shows Global Exposure to Sea Level Rise

Daily News: New York will fund $100M Flood Protection Project to Shield Lower Manhattan from Major Storms

Energy Information Administration: Florida Profile Overview

European Commission: Flood Risk in Europe: Analysis of Exposure in 13 Countries

Floodlist: Thousands Displaced by Flooding Rivers in Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina

Florida State University: Florida’s Renewable Energy Future Depends on Incentives for Renewables

Green Biz: New York’s Plan to Reach 50 percent Renewable Energy

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis: European Flood Risk Could Double by 2050

Karen and Clark Company: Most Vulnerable Cities to Storm Surge Flooding

The Lens: New Orleans Flood Protection System: Stronger than Ever, Weaker than it was Supposed to be

Live Science: The 20 Cities Most Vulnerable to Flooding

Nation of Change: Hawaii Enacts Nation’s First 100 Percent Renewable Energy Standard

NASA: Global Climate Change: Sea Level Rise

Nature World News: Climate Change and Sea Level: England, Europe at Risk of Major Sea Level Rise

NCBI: Floods in Southeast Asia: A Health Priority 

The New Yorker: The Siege of Miami

Niels Bohr Institute: Risk of Major Sea Level Rise in Northern Europe

NOLA: Upgraded Metro New Orleans Levees will Greatly Reduce Flooding, Even in 500-Year Storms

NOAA: Tides and Currents

Renewable Energy Action Coalition of Hawaii: Planning Hawaii’s 100 percent Renewable Energy Future

Tech Insider: Hawaii is Harnessing 100 percent Renewable Energy 0 with Active Volcanoes

Time: Why New York City will Be Flooded More Often

USA Today: One Year After Sandy, 9 Devastating Facts

World Bank: Adaptation to Climate Change in the Middle East and North Africa Region

World Bank: Water in the Arab World: From Droughts to floods: Building Resilience Against Extremes

Yale Environment 360: A Plague of Deforestation Sweeps Across Southeast Asia

ZME Science: New Study Highlights Vulnerability of Low Lying Hawaiian Islands

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Rising Tide of Flood Prevention Politics appeared first on Law Street.

Plastic bags have been demonized by the environmental movement for years. They are considered to be wasteful and unnecessary–why opt for plastic when you could have a reusable grocery bag? Yet within the battle to end the use of plastic bags, there is a camp that often goes unnoticed–animal rights activists. In coastal communities, plastic bags pose a major threat to marine life as animals  can get trapped inside of them and injure themselves. Plastic bags are often mistaken for jellyfish by sea turtles, who harm themselves by eating the bags, and large swaths of plastic bags floating on the ocean’s surface block the sunlight that algae and plankton need to survive.

California and Hawaii have already banned large retail stores from using plastic bags, and activists have now set their sights on Florida. Floridian cities are currently not allowed to control the sale of plastic bags but there are half a dozen online petitions to either ban them entirely or to initiate taxes on plastic bags. Officials from Miami Beach have mentioned several times that they would like to have a bag ban but cannot under Florida law as it stands today. A representative from Miami Beach sponsored a bill to ban plastic bags in certain regions of the state last year, but the bill has yet to get off the ground. Take a look at where plastic bags have been banned and what these laws signify for the potential bag ban in Florida.

Bans in California and Hawaii

In 2015, Hawaii banned the use of plastic bags in grocery stores across the state, encouraging shoppers to choose paper or to bring their own reusable bags from home. Hawaii’s ban came not from the state government but from the county level, as each of the four counties decided separately to enact a ban. Unfortunately, there was a small loophole in the ban that allowed thick plastic bags to be considered “reusable,” which means that the ban is often more theoretical than realistic. There are also exceptions for restaurants, pharmacies, and dry cleaning operations, which are still allowed to use plastic bags for their products. Hawaii’s bag ban, though viewed as well intentioned and unprecedented, has come under fire for not enforcing a drop in plastic use across all sectors of the community.

Meanwhile in California, activists spent years lobbying for a plastic bag ban and thought they had secured a law that would go into effect in the summer of 2016. However, after major pressure from the plastics lobby, the ban has been pushed back–citizens will vote on it during a referendum this coming November. According to NPR, a poll conducted late last year by the University of Southern California and The Los Angeles Times  found that California voters plan to uphold the bag ban by a margin of 59 to 34 percent. Yet in the months before the November referendum, any number of roadblocks could emerge to enacting the ban. Plastic bag manufacturers in other states have a strong interest in retaining the California market and have committed funding to lobbyists looking to further stall the bag ban.

Opposition

It is not only plastics lobbyists who stand against the ban though. San Jose resident Don Williams created the website stopthebagban.com because he considers it an “eco-fad” that inconveniences the public and doesn’t make a substantial contribution to conservation efforts. Although Hawaii and California have led the effort to implement state wide bag bans, their efforts have been stymied to the point that the bans may never have the impact that they were designed to. Plastic bags continue to pile up in landfills–and in the case of these coastal communities, ocean fills. Massive floating islands of garbage have built up in the center of major oceans, leaching toxins into the sea and poisoning sea life. Ocean currents move the plastic bags around the world, spreading pollution and endangering animals across the globe. The British Antarctic Survey reported that it found plastic bags as far south as the Falkland Islands and as far north as Spitzbergen, an island inside the Arctic Circle.

Banning Bags in Florida?

Although individual cities in various states have banned plastic bags, Florida state law prohibits individual cities from doing so. However, as of this January, cities along the Treasure Coast region with less than 100,000 residents are allowed to experiment with plastic bag control. Multiple cities in the region have signed up for a two year pilot program designed to decrease the use of bags, the first such program to emerge in the state. The Florida Retail Association has stated that a bag ban would not be practical. General counsel Samantha Padgett argued that:

‘Millions of visitors come to Florida each year. They are going to purchase items and they have to have some means of carrying those items.’ Reusable bags collect germs. And paper bags ‘can be very inconvenient for consumers on a rainy day.’

Proponents of the bag ban also have latched onto the tourism argument, claiming that when Florida’s famous beaches are covered in litter and the flora and fauna are suffering from being choked by plastic bags, no one will consider Florida to be worth visiting. North Shore Hawaii Turtle Tours is one of a dozen businesses that asks visitors to support the bag ban. The Florida Keys have attempted to get citizens to phase out plastic bags without legislation by launching the “Got Your Bags?” campaign, which asks Florida Keys residents to carry biodegradable and reusable bags with them every time they go shopping. Florida Keys Wildlife Rescue has gone so far as to call plastic bags a “cancer.” According to a study in the Journal of Environmental Research,

About 44 percent of all seabirds eat plastic fragments; 267 marine species (sea turtles, seabirds, marine mammals, and fish) are affected by plastic garbage. From Planet Ark, about 100,000 whales, seals, turtles, and other marine animals are killed by plastic bags each year worldwide. These numbers do not include the land-based victims; even cows have been known to eat plastic bags. Dead and surviving fish and animals, now laced with chemicals from eating plastic, transfer those chemicals to the food chain when other animals (including humans) eat them or their products.

In Cedar Key, volunteers pick up plastic bags off the beach and deposit them in dog curbing stations, so that dog owners can reuse them to pick up after their pets. This practice does not eliminate plastic bags but it does make sure that they are more than single use objects. Creative methods of reusing and recycling are important for communities hoping to limit littering but they do not provide an effective solution to the effects of plastic bags on wildlife. Without a significant reduction in plastic bag use, Floridian animals remain will remain in danger for the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

Although coastal and island communities have the greatest incentive to ban bags because of the potential harm to their wildlife, multiple landlocked states have also expressed interest in a bag ban. In Arizona, Missouri, Idaho, Indiana, Wisconsin and Utah, several Republican lawmakers have moved to block regulation of plastic bags because of the groundswell of support for bag bans. Grassroots movements to decrease or eliminate use of plastic bags operate in all fifty states but coastal communities are particularly crucial battlegrounds. Plastic bags are not simply artifacts of unsightly littering. They also harm sea creatures, block flood control systems and breed mosquitoes. Past bans on plastic bags have been partially successful at best, largely due to the difficulty of monitoring and enforcing the ban on a state-wide level.

Banning plastic bags is a challenging task but that does not mean it is not worthwhile, nor does it mean that there is not a sizable portion of the population that supports the ban. As the United States becomes more aware of its environmental footprint and actively seeks to create useful conservation laws, cities should be granted the autonomy to make their own laws regarding bag bans. Building a consensus on the local and regional level will make it easier to construct bag bans on the state level–perhaps eventually we could even graduate to a national ban. For the moment, states like Florida that prevent communities from cutting down on plastic are only harming themselves, setting up their cities for increased pollution and endangering indigenous wildlife.

Resources

Aljazeera America: Miami’s Plastic Vice: Bagging the Ban on Bag Bans

Huffington Post: Loophole Undermines Hawaii’s Historic Plastic Bag Ban

HuffingtonPost: This Is How Your Plastic Bag Ends Up In Massive Ocean Garbage Patches

Tree Hugger: Hawaii’s Plastic Bag Ban Goes into Effect, But…

NPR: California Plastic Bag Referendum Could Spark Environmental Showdown

TC Palm: Treasure Coast Communities May be Able to Ban Plastic Bags

The Miami Herald: South Florida Officials Seek Help Controlling Plastic Bags

New York Magazine: The Fight Over Plastic Bags Is About a Lot More Than How to Get Groceries Home

Florida Keys Wildlife Rescue: Plastic–A Cancer in Our Environment

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Ban the Bag: Getting Plastic out of Coastal Communities appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no denying the fact that Hillary Clinton is dominating the Democratic primaries. That said, underdog Bernie Sanders hasn’t let the presidential primary race turn into a runaway. On Saturday, Sanders nabbed sweeping victories in the caucus states of Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, giving him a nice bump in electoral delegates.

In response to the wins, CNN credited the Vermont Senator’s success to a tendency to do well in “largely white and rural” states, warning that in order for Sanders’ to win he needs to “replicate this success in other, more ethnically diverse states that hold primaries.”

That description didn’t sit well with some of Sanders’ minority supporters.

Leslie Lee III, a writer in English teacher from Baton Rouge, Louisiana currently living in Yokahama, Japan, responded to the stereotype with some sarcasm. Lee jokes,

.@HillyesRose @MisaelFrancoO @TheBpDShow @cenkuygur Ever since I voted for Bernie, I’ve been bingewatching Friends. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— L. (@tokyovampires) March 27, 2016

And just like that the hashtag #BernieMadeMeWhite was born!

It didn’t take long for other minority Sanders’ supporters to jump on the hashtag’s bandwagon.

.@tokyovampires ever since I voted for Bernie I traded in my Timbs for Vans. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— Benjamin Dixon (@TheBpDShow) March 27, 2016

Then it sort of just spiraled out from there.

Ever since I voted for Bernie I deny racism and wear shorts in February. The media was right. #Berniemademewhite #FeelTheBern

— Aristotle McFly (@hollowman928) March 27, 2016

@TheBpDShow @tokyovampires I stopped seasoning my food. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— C. (@Maxplatypus) March 27, 2016

#MSM But how can Bernie win Hawaii with only young white men supporters? Check out #BernieMadeMeWhite for obvious answer. #FeelTheBern

— Fortitude (@Fortitude_1) March 27, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite Ever since I started to #FeelTheBern, I only dance like this pic.twitter.com/synwO93Xct

— SanBernaDingDong (@noreallyhowcome) March 27, 2016

Check out the #BernieMadeMeWhite tweets. So good. pic.twitter.com/unDPfbNo6z

— laurie allee (@laurieallee) March 27, 2016

Dear CNN, white power???#BernieMadeMeWhite @BernieSanders pic.twitter.com/0MmWWsbWmh

— tᕼe ᒪᑌᑕᗩᔕ ᗷᖇOᔕ (@lucasbros) March 27, 2016

Ever since I started supporting Bernie I suddenly lost my rhythm. #BernieMadeMeWhite

— lyn (@dlynaffor) March 27, 2016

Will someone please show me how to do my hair? It’s all so confusing since #BernieMadeMeWhite pic.twitter.com/rDI5QFoxiQ

— Coco Hops (@coco_hops) March 28, 2016

Ever since I started supporting Bernie, Don’t Stop Believing became my karaoke staple #BernieMadeMeWhite

— Jason Alexander (@soulcreator) March 27, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite My whole black family is losing its taste for hot sauce and spreading mayo on everything

— Chris Hamilton (@dteg32) March 27, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite and now I am looking to move out of this neighborhood, you know, cause of the property values, of course.

— Carolyn Hyppolite (@CKHyppolite) March 27, 2016

Finally I have white privilege.#BernieMadeMeWhite

— WesleyZ3 (@50th_President) March 27, 2016

And just like that #BernieMadeUsWhite #BernieMadeMeWhite #BernieMadeMeMillenial #BernieMadeMeMale pic.twitter.com/maiHJ3VHQc

— Dallas Fowler (@YoDallas) March 28, 2016

If loving him is wrong, i don’t wanna be right #BernieMadeMeWhite #BernBabyBern pic.twitter.com/qt5n4epz2e

— suZee (@BigOlSoulSista) March 28, 2016

I’m so thankful that #BernieMadeMeWhite.

Can we stop worrying about racial profiling and hate crimes now? pic.twitter.com/NqE1zD5bSz

— Simran Jeet Singh (@SikhProf) March 28, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite We are not invisible despite the media propaganda machine would have you believe pic.twitter.com/qGeuBKm2zD

— Nativespirit (@N8tive2spirit) March 28, 2016

#BernieMadeMeWhite & male so I don’t have to worry about maternal healthcare, paid family leave, or gender pay gap. pic.twitter.com/QXO48QiKtB

— Ashlyn Shockley (@ashlynshockley) March 28, 2016

This isn’t a picture of two friends, it’s actually a before and after voting for Bernie pic. #BernieMadeMeWhite pic.twitter.com/lHH9QJvTfB

— Lauren Sandernista (@welknett) March 27, 2016

The moral of the story is that Sanders’ supporters really don’t like being generalized, because white males aren’t the only demographic “feeling the Bern.” Don’t get me wrong, Sanders still has a long way to go. His campaign has struggled to secure the black and latino vote, which has repeatedly propelled Clinton to victory. With three more months still remaining in the primary race, he’ll need to rally more support among all demographics if he hopes to secure the nomination.

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 #BernieMadeMeWhite Calls Out the Media Whitewashing of Sanders’ Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

Governor David Ige has officially declared a state of emergency in Hawaii. The declaration is in response to the state’s homelessness crisis, as Hawaii has the highest rate of homelessness in the country. The state of emergency will allow the state to aid this large population by rapidly channeling money into confronting the problem head-on.

Hawaii’s rate of homelessness is 465 individuals per 100,000 people. All said and done, there are just under 8,000 homeless individuals total. While that might seem like a relatively small number, given Hawaii’s population, it makes for a large per capita total. HOPE Services Hawaii, a non-profit that works with the state’s homeless, estimates that 11 percent of the homeless population are children, 14 percent are veterans, and 32 percent are of Native Hawaiian ethnicity.

One of the most tangible ways in which the state has attempted to combat the homelessness crisis came in the form of a clean out of one of the state’s largest homeless encampments in Kaka’ako. Since August, 54 percent of the homeless population living in Kaka’ako has been moved into shelters or temporary housing. Ige intends that the clearing of Kaka’ako be used as a model for transitioning other encampments.

The emergency declaration will allow that process to be sped up. According to a press release put out by the governor’s office:

State funds of more than $1.3 million were identified this month, paving the way for the emergency proclamation. The monies will serve an additional 1000 homeless individuals between now and July 31, 2016, providing increased funding for homeless services and programs that promote permanent housing for families and the chronically homeless.

The emergency proclamation will also facilitate the construction of a transitional housing facility for homeless families. The facility will be temporary and have a clear sunset date.

Hawaii is also being relatively innovative when it comes to how it will be housing the homeless population. Russ Wozniak, one of the architects for the transitional housing units that are being created, explained that they are being created from old shipping containers, and have plenty of ventilation. They also will be insulated and situated in ways that keep the housing cool.

While it may seem extreme to some to declare a state of emergency in this situation, it makes a lot of sense. It will expedite the solution to a very real, very important problem in Hawaii. As Scott Morishige, who is working for Ige on this issue, stated: “This proclamation will expedite the state’s plans to help these individuals and families to more quickly transition to permanent housing.” The goal is certainly admirable; it will be interesting to see the results.

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 Hawaii Declares State of Emergency Over Homelessness Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Millions of travelers visit Hawaii every year with the hopes of experiencing beautiful beaches, luaus, and other exciting adventures. With a record number of 7,998,815 visitors in a year, Hawaii is one of the most popular vacation spots for tourists. Because this is such a tourist heavy location, the city council in Honolulu has placed a few rules on the city that they believe will make tourists’ visits a bit more pleasurable. Most recently, Honolulu placed a ban that does not allow people to sit or lie down where a tourist can spot them–leading to controversy in the island vacation destination.

The island first placed this ban on the commercial parts of Waikiki, an area located on the southern shore of Honolulu, after receiving complaints about the city’s homelessness rate from the tourism industry. Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s spokesman, Jesse Broder Van Dyke, said at the time that Caldwell frequently received letters from tourists complaining about public drunkenness and urination. The city now wants to expand the sit-lie ban from just commercial areas to areas off sidewalks as well. Caldwell vetoed this bill, fearing that it is unconstitutional and could cost the city pricy legal fees. But the city council voted 6-3 in favor, overriding his veto. There is a huge concern that this ban targets those who are homeless and will put them in a position to get in trouble with the law. Caldwell stated,

If they make an argument that this legislation is based on targeting homeless, and not about commerce and business, then the whole bill is jeopardized.

Two members of the council, Brandon Elefante and Kymberly Marcos Pine, voted against the bill because they feel that it wrongly addressed the issue of homelessness. Councilman Ron Menor, who also voted against the bill, introduced a new proposal that would limit this ban to only commercial areas. Menor’s compromise never got a hearing in committee. A violation of the sit-lie ban ranges from warnings to fines and forced removal if necessary. Hawaii’s homeless population increased to 6,918 last year and citizens of Honolulu believe that the city should be more focused on providing housing and services than criminalizing homelessness. David Cannel, a 62-year-old man who was homeless for eight years, stated,

This is such a crisis. It’s a city of squalor. This isn’t a third world country. … Everyone has to go somewhere to get some sleep, at least. So where do they go?

While many have concerns that this law will hurt the homeless, the director of Hawaii’s Institute for Human Services, Connie Mitchell, believes that it is getting homeless people off the streets and beaches. She stated: “People are coming into the shelter. It’s working the way it’s supposed to.”

Van Dyke has made it known that Honolulu police will enforce this ban among tourists as well by saying, “Police have to enforce the laws equally against everyone. They don’t target homeless in park-closure enforcements.” A tourist that faces these charges can plead guilty by mail, or fight the charges in person. Failure to do so can lead to a criminal warrant for missing court dates. Mayor Caldwell has tried to address the homeless issue with a plan for a $42 million Housing First program which will not begin until later this year. He stated, “We have never promised we are going to solve homelessness, and I don’t think anyone who does is being honest. But I think we can make a dent.” The Honolulu Police Department will enforce the law, which depends on the number and type of complaints they receive about people sitting or lying on the sidewalks. City officials did not say when enforcement of the expanded ban will begin.

This leaves many people questioning if Honolulu really cares about the well being of the homeless, or if the city is more concerned with keeping tourists happy and bringing in their money. With more than 3.5 million people experiencing homelessness every year in America, this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. Citizens want to see the city working hard to bring the homeless into shelter, rather than working hard to reprimand them because they are resting in a commercial area. Although many people seem to be against it, if the ban can truly help those who are homeless then it will become very beneficial for the city.

Taelor Bentley

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

The post Honolulu’s New Law: Helping or Hurting the Homeless? appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to smoking cigarettes, public support for the known cancer-causers has consistently dwindled in recent decades thanks mainly to national “quit smoking” campaigns. In an attempt to help further curtail tobacco consumption, one state is poised to take further action by changing its minimum legal smoking age.

Last Friday, the Hawaii legislature passed a bill, that if signed into law by Governor David Ige, will make it the first state in the nation to raise its minimum legal smoking age from 18 to 21. The bill would ban individuals under the age of 21 from buying tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.

Some communities, counties, and cities, including New York City, have already approved initiatives to raise the smoking age. But if this bill is signed into law, it will make Hawaii the first state to entirely do so.

However, when it comes to enforcing the new legal smoking age, the punishment for underage violators is almost laughable. According to the Associated Press, first-time offenders will be fined a measly $10, which is roughly 50 cents more than the cost of a pack of cigarettes in the state. Any later violations would lead to a $50 fine or mandatory community service.

In a statement from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids commending the bill’s passage, the nonprofit asserts that currently more than 10 percent of Hawaii’s high school students smoke, and tobacco use overall in the state claims 1,400 lives and costs $526 million in health care bills each year. Therefore supporters of the measure say that raising the legal smoking age will help reduce smoking among young people who will probably use tobacco products as adults.

Democratic state Senator Rosalyn Baker who introduced the bill told the AP:

Today we have the opportunity to change the paradigm…

While the industry is not allowed to directly market to children, it is still developing packaging and advertising products in ways that appeal to children,

Some of the advertising she’s referring to are candy flavored e-cigarettes that are increasingly gaining popularity with youths. According to Baker, the favorite flavors among teens who use electronic cigarettes are sweet tart and “unicorn puke”, which has been described by some as a combination of every flavor of Skittle in one.

Interestingly enough, the AP also reports that projections for raising the minimum smoking age to 21, from a report conducted by the Institute of Medicine, predict smoking prevalence would fall an estimated 12 percent.

If signed into law, the new minimum age probably won’t be welcomed by all. Critics may use the old argument that “if you’re old enough to enlist you should be old enough to smoke.” But given that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in America, laws like this may become more common.

The post Hawaii May Raise the Legal Smoking Age to 21 appeared first on Law Street.

The number one article at Law Street this week came from Marisa Mostek, our resident authority on the dumbest laws of the United States. And guess what? Alaska and Hawaii are no exception. The second most popular post of the week, from Alexis Evans, is decidedly more serious as the UVA rape allegations that ran last Fall in Rolling Stone were found baseless by the police. And the number three article of the week, from Ashley Shaw, details the case of a criminal who outed his own hiding spot by Snapchatting it to his friends. ICYMI, check out this week’s best of the week from Law Street.

#1 The Dumbest Laws of the United States: Alaska and Hawaii

The last two additions to the family of United States could not be any more different in some ways, for example their opposing climates. However, Hawaii and Alaska are similar in that both possess a unique set of strange and dumb laws. In Anchorage, Alaska, there is a law specifically banning tying a dog to the roof of a car. Perhaps this brings to mind a certain politician doing so a few years back cough Mitt Romney cough. Read full article here.

#2 Police Find No Evidence to Support UVA Gang Rape Story

Last November, Rolling Stone shocked the nation with its 9,000-word article entitled “A Rape on Campus.” The piece told the horrific story of a University of Virginia freshman known only as “Jackie.” She claimed to have been gang raped by seven Phi Kappa Psi frat members during a frat date party. The article accused UVA of a “cycle of sexual violence” and “institutional indifference” that preferred to silence girls like Jackie who reported rape instead of helping them. The piece started an impressive national dialogue about rape culture, particularly rape culture on college campuses. Now after four months of investigating and roughly 70 interviews, police have concluded that the gang rape that reignited a movement most likely never even happened. Read full article here.

#3 Peek-a-Boo! Cops Find Crook Who Snapchatted His Location

There are a lot of stories about idiots who are wanted for one crime or another who get caught through social media. This might be because the police post their searches on Facebook and people see them and report the fugitives’ whereabouts. It could be the girl who posted a video on YouTube talking about everything she had just stolen. Or the guy who posted a pic of himself siphoning gas from a police car. Basically what this shows us is that many crooks are stupid and arrogant, and the man in this week’s story is no exception. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The last two additions to the family of United States could not be any more different in some ways, for example their opposing climates. However, Hawaii and Alaska are similar in that both possess a unique set of strange and dumb laws.

In Anchorage, Alaska, there is a law specifically banning tying a dog to the roof of a car. Perhaps this brings to mind a certain politician doing so a few years back cough Mitt Romney cough. Speaking of driving, for anyone looking to cause some trouble by acting as a prankster, just know that in Anchorage, it is illegal to string wire across any road. Also, go ahead and live that trailer-trash lifestyle about which you’ve always dreamed, as long as the trailer you decide to call home is parked. It is illegal to live in a trailer while it is being hauled.

In Haines, bartenders must keep their minds sharp while serving clients, as doing so while drunk is prohibited. If you plan to use a slingshot or have one on your person, it’s no problem as long as you have the appropriate license.

If you own a flamingo in Juneau, just be aware of where your bright pink bird ventures off to. There, it is illegal for owners of the exotic bird to enter barbershops. If you are an architect and plan to construct buildings in Juneau, keep in mind that buildings that preserve scenic vistas are awarded “bonus points” by the government. And who doesn’t love having governmental brownie points?

If you’re thinking of wandering around Nome, Alaska with antiquated weaponry or simply plan to take up an archery hobby there, think again. It is illegal to walk around the city of Nome with bow and arrows. Sorry, Legolas.

Finally, in Soldotna, Alaska, people may not permit the existence of “attractive nuisances.” If you know what one is, please enlighten me.

Moving on to Hawaii–a beautiful, relaxing vacation destination for lovers on honeymoon, families, and travelers of every walk of life around the world. Before packing your bags and heading to the island state, you must be aware of a few laws that are out of the ordinary.

For example, there are plenty of safety regulations associated with riding in the back seat of a car versus riding in the bed of a pickup truck. For the former, you are required to wear a seat belt, but in the latter case, you needn’t use any safety equipment at all. Hawaii really redefines pacing yourself.

You may only have one alcoholic beverage in front of you at a time–none of that double fisting it! And some Hawaiian lawmakers must have gotten sick of obnoxious billboards distracting them while driving, as they made them illegal altogether. So don’t worry: thanks to that law, you can take in all of the lovely Hawaiian scenes unimpeded.

Marisa Mostek

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

The post The Dumbest Laws of the United States: Alaska and Hawaii appeared first on Law Street.

If you have bought something from any store that does not sell products made in the United States, be it a local small business or a corporate giant like Walmart, the transportation of products that you bought was likely governed by a law known as the Jones Act. Find out what the Jones Act is and why people are fighting to repeal it.

What does the Jones Act do?

The Jones Act requires that all merchandise transported between two ports within the jurisdiction of the United States be carried by a U.S.-flagged vessel that was built in America, is owned by an American citizen, and crewed by American merchant mariners. This act not only encompasses inland bodies of water, such as the Great Lakes or the Mississippi River, but also extends to areas beyond the continent including the states of Alaska and Hawaii, as well as the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.

Also called the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, it was put into place in the same year and has been updated over the decades with its last update in 2006. The Jones Act supplies the United States with the following:

• $14 billion in annual economic output and 84,000 jobs in U.S. shipyards.
• 70,000 jobs working on or with Jones Act vessels, including shipyards and those who crew the ships.

The S.S. United States. Image courtesy of Stewart Clamen via Flickr.

A merchant marine is a civilian sailor whose ships can be used by the United States in the event of war. A historic example of a ship that was part of the merchant marine is the S.S. United States, pictured above. She was designed that in the event that the Cold War heated up, the United States could be quickly turned into a troopship; however, she never had to be called to serve in this function.

What is the debate over the Jones Act?

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced an amendment to the Keystone XL Pipeline bill on January 13, 2015 that would repeal the Jones Act.

The two camps that are involved are those that wish to see McCain’s amendment to scrap the Jones Act pass and those that wish to see it fail so that the Jones Act remains law. For those who do not support the Jones Act, they see it as an antiquated law that is hindering economic growth in territories that are under United States jurisdiction, as well as the two states that are not part of mainland America. They also state that the United States has too few ships that qualify under the Jones Act to make it cost effective. On the flip side, those who support the Jones Act state that the act promotes economic growth for the shipping industry and that scrapping the act would cost a lot of jobs. Furthermore they state that scrapping the act would allow foreign ships to sail up America’s waterways, which could pose a national security hazard.

Concerns if the Jones Act is Scrapped

There could be a loss of jobs due to the closing of ship building and maintenance. There are also worries that there could be a loss of transportation for armed forces, which would negatively impact future conflicts in which the United States becomes embroiled. To give an example from a previous conflict, during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 90 percent of all needed material was moved to the war zones via water transportation.

Supporters of the Jones Act also worry about the loss of border security, as ships from all nations, even those who are hostile against us, could have access to inland rivers such as the Mississippi.

Arguments for Eliminating the Jones Act

Opponents of the Jones Act highlight the possible decreases in the cost of living in the territories, Alaska, and Hawaii, though this benefit could be offset by increase in prices to foreign shipping companies. It is thought that repealing the Jones Act could benefit the American economy, as it may be cheaper to build ships elsewhere. It additionally will increase competition in the shipping industry, also thought to be a benefit to the economy.

Repealing the Jones Act

Prior Attempts to Repeal

McCain has attempted to repeal the act before. In 2010 with support from co-sponsor and fellow Republican Senator James Risch of Idaho, McCain put forward a bill similar to the current amendment; however, S3525, the Open America’s Waters Act, died in committee, meaning that it never got past a small group of senators who debated its merits. As a result, the 2010 version had no chance to make it to the Senate floor to be debated upon by the whole of the Senate.

Current Fight to Repeal

McCain is the leader of the current charge to repeal the Jones Act, stating when he filed the amendment that he has “long advocated for a full repeal of The Jones Act, an antiquated law that has for too long hindered free trade, made U.S. industry less competitive and raised prices for American consumers.”

Who Else is on Board to Repeal?

The main group in favor of repealing the Jones Act is the Heritage Foundation. Chief among the Heritage Foundation’s touted benefits from repeal is having better access to requisition foreign ships to fill in gaps that United States shipping cannot fill, and the cost savings and economic gain that small islands under United States control would experience. The group also cites a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which found that it costs an estimated $3,063 to ship a 20-foot container of household and commercial goods from the East Coast of the United States to Puerto Rico while the same shipment costs $1,504 to the nearby Dominican Republic city of Santo Domingo and $1,687 to Kingston, Jamaica. While the New York Fed does not go so far as to call for the removal of the Jones Act, it  does point out that the act is often cited as a factor that raises business costs.

Lawmakers from Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and Guam are also major proponents of the Jones Act’s repeal. Their main complaint with the amendment is that repealing it would help to make the cost of living cheaper for the affected states and territories. According to Hawaiian State Senator Sam Slom it costs about $790 to ship a 40-foot container from Los Angeles to Shanghai, but it costs $8,700 to ship the same container from Los Angeles to Honolulu. This means that it costs 11 times more money to ship something to some domestic locations than international ones. They feel that if the Jones Act is repealed, the cost of living would decrease as residents would not have to spend as much money to get goods, be they from mainland America or from a foreign nation.

Support for the Jones Act

While a single leader in support of the Jones Act has not fully been identified at this point–the amendment is still in committee–Representative Duncan Hunter (D-CA) and Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) were strong defenders of the act in the past when it was brought under question in 2014. Their actions helped to enact legislation last December that reaffirmed the Jones Act. The legislation also called a strong commercial shipbuilding industry particularly important as Federal budget cuts may reduce the number of newly constructed military vessels

The American Maritime Partnership (AMP) opposes the amendment on the grounds that it would gut America’s shipbuilding industry and outsource U.S. Naval shipbuilding to foreign builders, which would cost hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs across this country.

The United States Navy and United States Navy League also opposed the amendment on the grounds that:

For decades, U.S. merchant mariners have provided essential support for the U.S. Navy during times of war and national crisis.  Repealing the Jones Act would remove that support at a time when we are fighting two wars and facing a continuing threat from international terrorism.

The Navy League added that repealing the Jones Act would hinder the commercial maritime industry that is vital to the United States of America.

Finally, the Lexington Institute stated in an article that America has always had a special relationship with water. The institute goes on to state that adversaries of the United States recognize the advantage conferred on the United States by its military preeminence on the seas and are working assiduously to deny it access to that domain and that to prevent that the country needs a Navy that is second to none. In order to maintain it, the Lexington Institute asserts that American shipyards are vital.

Conclusion

The Jones Act has been a major part of America’s merchant marine infrastructure for decades. While there are currently many arguments about the efficacy of keeping the Jones Act in place, the fight certainly isn’t over. However, the benefits of keeping this document have been shown to be beneficial to the United States both in terms of economically and national security, and changing the law may be more harmful than good.

Resources

Primary

Department of Transportation Maritime Administration: Maritime Statistics

Additional

AP: Hawaii, Alaska, Territories Team Up on Jones Act 

Heritage Foundation: Sink the Jones Act

American Maritime Partnership: Congress Reaffirms Support for Jones Act

Maritime Executive: US Navy Opposes Congressional Efforts to Repeal Jones Act 

American Maritime Partnership: McCain Amendment to Eliminate U.S. Shipbuilding Would Outsource US Jobs and Security

Marine Link: AMP Opposes Amendment to Eliminate U.S. Shipbuilding

American Maritime Partnership: Jones Act Truth Squad

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Jones Act: Outdated or Vital? appeared first on Law Street.

A Canadian couple decided to go on a nice, warm visit to Hawaii. Jennifer Huculak and her husband Darren Kimmel were three months away from the birth of their daughter when they came to the U.S. on vacation. Unfortunately, a few days after their arrival, Huculak went into labor and gave birth to a baby girl. Because their daughter was born premature, they racked up some expensive hospital bills. Well, actually, expensive is kind of an understatement. To be more precise, they are being charged $950,000 for the medical care they received.

Now, despite being our friendly neighbors to the North, there are many differences between the U.S. and Canada. They have poutine, their milk sometimes comes in bags, and they have free health insurance. As a result of the extreme differences in healthcare provisions, Canadian tourists are required to buy health insurance for their travels here.

That’s exactly what Huculak and Kimmel did. Before going on the trip they not only got permission from her doctor to travel, but also purchased insurance through Blue Cross.

Unfortunately, just a few days into the trip her labor was induced by a bladder infection, which was not only unforeseeable, but even her doctor in Hawaii explained that this kind of thing “just happens.” Huculak’s daughter, Reece, is now healthy, but had a lot of complications due to her premature birth. She spent two months in an intensive care unit, and Huculak spent time in the hospital as well.

Blue Cross is flat out refusing to pay the $950,000 bill, arguing that Huculak had a “pre-existing condition,” which their policy does not cover. She did not have a pre-existing condition or a high-risk pregnancy, both of which her doctor has confirmed and tried to convey to Blue Cross. Kimmel and Huculak even claim that they specifically talked to a Blue Cross Representative who told them that they were covered. Of course, Blue Cross’ response to the media has been pretty unhelpful; a representative said in response to CTV News:

We review each claim carefully and are confident that our decision to decline this claim was done in a considered manner based on the contract terms, the situation which resulted in this emergency medical claim, and a review of recent medical history.

It seems like Kimmel and Huculak are now seriously considering bankruptcy, because they really have no other choice. They simply can’t pay the $950,000 medical bill. Their other option is to continue fighting Blue Cross, but that also is tough given that they’ve been on that path for what would seem to be about a year now and clearly not much progress has been made.

A case like this comes down to the fact that insurance is a fundamentally difficult process to negotiate, particularly health insurance. Even when you think you take all the necessary steps–purchase what you’re supposed to, speak to a representative, and travel after getting advice from a doctor–it’s still possible to basically get screwed by the insurance company. Kimmel and Huculak learned that lesson a very, very hard way.

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 Meet the World’s Most Expensive Baby appeared first on Law Street.

The sky darkened as scalding ash and pumice rained down on the city. In some places, people were trapped in a mixture lacking air and moisture, preserved in time. On the other hand, superheated gases rolled down the mountainside incinerating all organic material in their path. Thousands perished in a matter of a few terrifying hours. Fortunately the scene at the Roman towns of Pompeii and Herculaneum in 79 A.D. does not resemble the situation that residents on the Big Island of Hawaii currently face. Nonetheless, the river of lava emanating from the volcanic Mount Kilauea now threatens nearby homes, particularly in the town of Pahoa.

Kilauea has been erupting nonstop since 1983. While there are a number of active volcanoes across the globe, this is one of the few that is constantly busy. “Active” is a vague term loosely applied to volcanoes that have erupted in the last 10,000 years, or have recently shown signs of life in some form such as seismic activity or emission of gases. A handful of volcanoes have “ongoing” eruptions spanning over a century, being on and off but relatively consistent during that time, but Kilauea is one of only several that falls into the classification of “continuous” eruption.

Residents of the Big Island have lived in the shadow of Kilauea for a long time. In most cases substantial lava flows have meandered south toward the Pacific Ocean and posed no real threat. However over the last two years eruption flows have headed northeast, toward communities. The latest flow, posing problems since June, is moving at 10-15 yards per hour, which is relatively fast. Despite the sense of urgency, there is little panic. Authorities have been making their way through the nearby villages to inform people of the lava’s status. Most residents have places to which they can temporarily relocate, and the need to seek shelter is slim to none. Fortunately, the flow seems to have come to a halt; however residents are still prepared to evacuate because the lava is smoldering and remains dangerous. Furthermore, Kilauea’s active status means that this can resume or occur again at any point in time.

Given the nature of their geography, locals are used to these kinds of situations. The Big Island is not so much an island with a volcano on it, but the whole thing is essentially a series of volcanoes. The Hawaiian Hotspot is a massive breach in the Earth’s crust through which magma has poured for millions of years. The smaller Westernmost islands of Hawaii were once situated directly over this point, forming the islands from cooled lava that eventually sprung vegetation. As the Pacific Plate shifts, they have moved off and slowly eroded while the hotspot composed newer islands such as Molokai, Maui, and the Big Island.

This literally flowing process suggests a smooth gracefulness, prompting much tourism as this calm reaction to the current situation. It is as if to say this is a standard, predictable way of life. However, geologists at the U.S. Geological Survey points out that Kilauea is an explosive volcano. In the past several hundred years it has produced large eruptions including spewing ash columns high into the sky and hurling multi-ton rocks. While there would be tell tale signs that an eruption of this nature is coming, and it seems less and less likely, there is no reason to assume that Kilauea is 100 percent predictable.

Science is not the only factor at play for native Hawaiians when it comes to Kilauea. Many believe that the volcano is the embodiment of Tutu Pele, a Polynesian goddess who is short tempered and possessive of her lands. The ongoing eruptions are her way of trying to reclaim the territory from residents. According to a local, “If she [Pele] feels she needs to clean her house, then let her clean her house.” This statement has been filtered through multiple sources and hence much context has been lost. It is unlikely that the man plans to devoutly stay put and volunteer himself as a sacrifice to the goddess and her wrath of lava, but this sentiment speaks to the interconnectedness of the local culture and the radical environmental situation at play.

Courtesy of Lindley Ashline via Flickr.

The wrath of Pele reminds us that the forces of nature are much more powerful than ourselves; we ought to be careful as to where we build our homes and how we live our lives. Sometimes we must yield as nature runs its own course.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As Hawaii’s Kilauea Erupts, Residents Prepare to Flee appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we’ve written a lot about the steps that some law schools are taking to the buck the trend of lower enrollment that is taking a widespread toll on almost all law schools. One really great way to attract students, especially for schools that aren’t as highly ranked as others, is to offer unique programs. That’s exactly what the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii is doing, and it seems like they’re seeing great success.

Hawaii Law is the only law school in the state, and it has been able to draw on its unique history when creating its programs. One of the most unique offerings it has is a specific focus on indigenous law. The school, which is home to the Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law, offers a Native Hawaiian Law Certificate that can be earned along with a Juris Doctorate. According to the Center, the focus on Native Hawaiian law allows them to connect with the community; Director Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie explains how the center is able to incorporate students’ studies into the law school environment, stating that it “provides our students with the legal principles to advance the rights of indigenous and Pacific peoples, and it also increases knowledge and protection of customary practices and values.” 

The Ka Huli Ao Center for Excellence in Native Hawaiian Law’s ability to offer such a unique joint degree program can definitely be considered a draw for their students. Allowing them the opportunity to study such a unique facet of law makes Hawaii Law stand out. The center goes beyond just offering classes and the joint-degree program, to hosting a number of events and symposia. Given that Hawaii Law is the only law school located in the state, and that 20 percent of Hawaii’s population is made up of people who are at least part Native Hawaiian ancestry, it’s obvious that the Ka Huli Ao Center is a great resource.

According to recent news coming out of the school it seems like offering such a unique program is working, among other things, to increase Hawaii Law’s enrollment. Last week, Hawaii Law had the most students in its history, with 145. The school also saw more applications (639) last year. Hawaii Law was hit by the same drop in applications that many law schools saw a few years ago, but they’re well on their way to recovery now. The fact that they have such a large class this year is certainly an indication of that.

Cost is also an incredibly important facet of the conversation about law school enrollment. Hawaii Law has been able to keep its cost fairly low — just south of $10,000 per semester for in-state students. This pairs well with the Native Hawaiian Law focus. It seems like Hawaii Law has found its appeal — creating a program that allows its students to focus on issues that are important for their community while still remaining a part of that community.

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 Unique Program Creates a Home for Native Hawaiian Law appeared first on Law Street.