ICYMI, start your Monday off with some of Law Street’s trending stories from last week!

Top 10 Schools for Environmental and Energy Law

In 2014, Law Street Media released its first set of law school rankings, in response to the changing legal education industry. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Check out our top 10 law school picks for environmental and energy law.

Cannabis in America August 2017: Sessions’ Pot Task Force Recommends Status Quo

Check out our August Cannabis in America Newsletter for an exclusive interview with Erik Altieri, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), where he discusses NORML’s legalization efforts, when he expects we’ll see federal legalization, and more.

The Path to Cannabis in Canada: Eight Crucial Events

While the United States remains locked in an impasse between state and federal law, Canada looks to pass nationwide marijuana legalization this year and begin recreational sales in 2018. How did Canada get to this point? The path to legalization in Canada has been a haphazard one, driven largely by legal decisions. To make the recent Canadian cannabis developments easier to understand, check out these eight key court cases and regulations that shaped the current landscape.

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.

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

Sessions Lacks Ammo for Marijuana Crackdown

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety has released its recommendations for dealing with marijuana in states that have legalized it, concluding that the current policy is probably best. According to the Associated Press, the report “encourages officials to keep studying whether to change or rescind the Obama Administration’s more hands-off approach to enforcement.” While the task force failed to advance Sessions’ anti-marijuana efforts, some experts believe the AG could still invoke federal law to push his agenda.

Marijuana Company Buys Ghost Town, Anticipating Green Rush

One of America’s largest marijuana companies, American Green Inc., bought an entire town in California in anticipation of the expanding pot industry. American Green purchased 120 acres of Nipton, California for $5 million, in hopes of turning the nearly-uninhabited town into a pot paradise. The company said it hopes to make Nipton the country’s “first energy-independent, cannabis-friendly hospitality destination,” in a statement according to the Associated Press.

Pollution, Pesticides, and Pot…Oh My!

Pollution from illegal marijuana farms in California has turned thousands of acres into toxic waste dumps, according to Reuters. The use of illegal pesticides and fertilizers has contributed to a list of environmental problems and sent several law enforcement officials to the hospital. The state has amassed a backlog of illegal sites to clean up, but the problem extends to the legal industry as well. According to the Cannabist, many states are just beginning to check for pesticides, or have no testing programs at all. This disconnect is because the EPA is barred from evaluating the safe use of marijuana pesticides as the drug is still illegal at the federal level.

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

Cory Booker Proposes Bill to Legalize Marijuana at the Federal Level

THREE QUESTIONS: EXCLUSIVE Q&A

Each month, the Cannabis in America team interviews influencers in the cannabis industry and gives you an exclusive look into their work, motivations, and predictions for the marijuana marketplace.

As the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Erik Altieri understands the challenges marijuana legalization faces. NORML’s team of pro-marijuana activists are spread out around 150 chapters in the U.S., France, New Zealand, and elsewhere around the world. Law Street’s Alec Siegel spoke with Altieri about NORML’s legalization efforts, when he expects we’ll see federal legalization, and more.

AS: What is the greatest impediment to federal marijuana legalization?

EA: I think the impediment is still a lack of political will among some of the more entrenched and senior officials in Congress. They are starting to realize [marijuana] is something they need to address. We are starting to see that pay dividends in the bipartisan support coming together in Congress. It’s been four decades plus since [marijuana] prohibition, and it will take some time to unwind that problematic policy.

AS:  Has NORML shifted its focus after the new administration came into office?

EA: [The administration] really lit a fire under many of our activists across the country. For the first time, [an administration] represents a real major threat to progress. It would be immensely unpopular if [AG Jeff Sessions] issued a crackdown. We did not take a “wait-and-see approach,” hoping for the best. We wanted to make sure the backlash was clear and evident from the beginning to show this is exactly why we need to reform marijuana laws. If we change the law, Sessions’ hands would be tied.

AS: Where do you see legalization going over the next decade? When do you predict we’ll see full legalization?

EA: It’s not going anywhere any time soon. Unfortunately for people like Jeff Sessions, public opinion is behind us. Movement at the state level is the driving force over the next five years, and pressure from the bottom up will continue pushing us toward the tipping point. The more states we move, the more natural allies we’ll bring on board. For the next couple of years, fights at the federal level will be over budget amendments.

CANNABIS CULTURE

Maine Dispensary Trades Weed for Trash in Community Clean Up Effort

By Josh Schmidt

As part of an effort to engage the Gardiner, Maine, community and clean up the town of roughly 5,000, a nearby marijuana dispensary is rolling out an innovative new program. Essentially, citizens who bring in a bag of collected trash can exchange it for some weed.

Find out more here.

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 August 2017: Sessions’ Pot Task Force Recommends Status Quo appeared first on Law Street.

The Justice Department sent letters to a handful of so-called “sanctuary cities” on Thursday, denying them crime-fighting resources until they increase compliance with federal immigration authorities. The letters were in response to requests to take part in the DOJ’s Public Safety Partnerships (PSP) initiative, which would provide additional federal resources to jurisdictions with higher than average crime rates.

The letters, sent to the police chiefs of Baltimore, Albuquerque, and Stockton and San Bernardino in California, said:

Your jurisdiction has expressed interest in receiving assistance through the PSP program. Based on our review, we have concluded that your jurisdiction has levels of violence that exceed the national average, that your jurisdiction is ready to receive the intensive assistance the Department is prepared to provide, and that your jurisdiction is taking steps to reduce its violent crime.

But those four jurisdictions are all sanctuary cities, meaning their officers do not fully cooperate with federal authorities to enforce national immigration laws. So before those cities can participate in the PSP program, they must give federal authorities access to jails. They also must “honor a written request from [Department of Homeland Security] to hold a foreign national for up to 48 hours beyond the scheduled release date,” according to the letters. The cities must show proof of compliance by August 18.

The letters mark the second time in a week that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has threatened to withhold funds from sanctuary cities. Last week, he said cities must comply with federal authorities seeking detainees held on immigration violations–or else they would not receive federal grants. But federal judges have recently ruled that withholding grants from cities that limit compliance on immigration matters is illegal.

Announced in June, the PSP is a “training and technical assistance program designed to enhance the capacity of local jurisdictions to address violent crime in their communities,” according to a statement from Sessions that accompanied the letters. Twelve locations have been selected for the program so far.

Sessions, in a statement on Thursday, said sanctuary cities “make all of us less safe.” He added: “The Department of Justice is committed to supporting our law enforcement at every level, and that’s why we’re asking ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions to stop making their jobs harder.”

Of the requests to the sanctuary cities looking to take part in the PSP initiative, Sessions said: “By taking simple, common-sense considerations into account, we are encouraging every jurisdiction in this country to cooperate with federal law enforcement.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post DOJ Denies More Crime-Fighting Resources for Four Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made it clear on Thursday what would happen if President Donald Trump fires his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. “If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay,” he told CNN. Graham also said he is looking to introduce legislation next week that would block the firing of special counsels without a judicial review.

Rumors have been swirling around Capitol Hill this week that Trump is looking to dispose of Sessions and Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russia’s election interference, and any potential links between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

“This effort to basically marginalize and humiliate the attorney general is not going over well in the Senate,” Graham told CNN. “If you believe Jeff Sessions should be fired, use the power you have and accept the consequences.”

On Monday, Trump fired off a tweet calling Sessions “beleaguered,” asking why he has not looked into “Crooked Hillarys [sic] crimes & Russia relations.” Trump is reportedly upset that Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, which left an opening filled by Mueller, a widely respected prosecutor who Trump is also unhappy with.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

Sessions was one of Trump’s earliest advocates, and the first senator to embrace his candidacy. The attorney general has also faithfully pursued Trump’s campaign vision–perhaps more than any other cabinet appointee–adopting a hard-line immigration stance and a law and order philosophy on crime.

Republican senators rushed to Sessions’ defense following Trump’s Twitter barrage. They were joined by some Democrats, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who warned that firing Sessions could provoke a “constitutional crisis.” Others said it would further prove that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the investigations involving Russia and his campaign.

Sessions had been largely mum on the topic of his potential firing until Thursday afternoon. In an interview with Fox, he called Trump’s attacks “hurtful,” but said that Trump “is determined to move this country in the direction he believes it needs to go to make us great again.” He added that Trump “wants all of us to do our jobs and that’s what I intend to do.”

Graham’s legislation would essentially make it more difficult for Trump, and future presidents, to fire a special counsel, which includes Mueller. Dismissing a special counsel would require a judicial review to determine if reasons behind the firing “meet the statutory definitions,” Graham said.

The effort is likely to be a bi-partisan endeavor. Graham’s Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have said they are working on the bill. Blumenthal said it “might be a committee effort,” adding that firing Mueller “would precipitate a firestorm that would be unprecedented in proportions.”

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 Lindsey Graham: If Trump Fires Sessions, “There Will be Holy Hell to Pay” appeared first on Law Street.

A House committee on Tuesday blocked an amendment in a VA spending bill that would have expanded access to medical marijuana for veterans. Because marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, it is banned by the federal government. Even as states legalize cannabis for medical and recreational purposes, veterans have struggled to gain access to medical marijuana through the VA.

Sponsored by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), the Veterans Equal Access amendment would bar federal funds from blocking veterans’ access to medical marijuana in states that have legalized it. The amendment, proposed as part of the 2018 Military Construction bill, would have permitted VA doctors to “make appropriate recommendations, fill out forms, or take steps to comply” with medical marijuana programs in states that have legalized it.

In the 29 states–plus D.C.–that have legalized medical marijuana, VA doctors cannot prescribe or recommend medical marijuana to their patients, because the VA is a federal agency. For veterans afflicted with psychiatric conditions, like PTSD, medical marijuana can be an effective tool–and is much less dangerous than opiates. The American Legion and other veterans groups support greater access to medical marijuana for veterans.

“Given that veterans are more likely to commit suicide or die from opiate overdoses than civilians, our fight to provide them safer alternatives won’t stop here,” Blumenauer, a founding member of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, said in a statement. “We have stronger support in the House and Senate than ever before, and we will keep advocating for a more rational approach.”

For the last several years, a growing group of lawmakers from both parties have tried to tie the equal access amendment to the VA spending bill. Last year, both the House and the Senate passed the amendment, but it was dropped during conference discussions on the final bill. This year’s effort is not entirely dead. Earlier this month, the Senate Appropriations Committee easily passed a similar amendment, so when both chambers meet to hash out the final VA bill, it could still make the cut.

“All we want is equal treatment for our wounded warriors,” Blumenauer added. “This provision overwhelmingly passed on the House floor last year – and bipartisan support has only grown. It’s outrageous that the Rules Committee won’t even allow a vote for our veterans. They deserve better. They deserve compassion.”

Despite the federal government’s reluctance to reform marijuana laws, or to reclassify marijuana, a bipartisan chorus is growing in support of legalization–Blumenauer’s amendment was co-sponsored by nine Democrats and nine Republicans. And though the House committee did not pass the amendment, at least one Republican member publicly supported it.

“I’ve seen firsthand the benefit people can derive from medical marijuana,” Representative Dan Newhouse (R-WA) said. “It seems to me if it’s available and it works, we should make that available to our veterans as well.”

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 House Committee Blocks Medical Marijuana Access for Veterans appeared first on Law Street.

From a Pennsylvania prison’s mistreatment of mentally ill prisoners to prisons in Tennessee offering inmates 30 days off their sentences in exchange for undergoing birth control procedures, the United States prison system has a demonstrated history of subjecting inmates to substandard conditions. With a criminal justice system that has touted the “tough on crime” mantra, U.S. prisons have largely failed to rehabilitate inmates and prepare them for re-entry into society.

The U.S. has one of the highest recidivism rates in the world with 76.6 percent of prisoners rearrested within five years of their release. At 20 percent, Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world. In an effort to curb some of the issues within their state’s criminal justice system, prison officials in North Dakota took a page out of Norway’s book to make prisons more humane. Leann Bertsch, director of North Dakota’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and one of her deputies, Karianne Jackson, ventured to Norway’s Halden and Bastøy prisons in 2015 to study how the inmates are treated.

Halden Prison is a maximum-security facility about 60 miles south of Oslo, Norway’s capital. Yet Halden stands in stark contrast to the high-security prisons found in the U.S. Halden, which Time named “The World’s Most Humane Prison,” houses its prisoners in private rooms that look more like college dorm rooms than the stereotypical prison cell or common sleeping area. The prison is outfitted with colorful interior decor, athletic facilities, a recording studio, and outdoor trails and seating areas, according to Time.

The Halden and Bastøy prisons were both featured in Michael Moore’s 2015 documentary film “Where to Invade Next.” At Bastøy, prisoners dress in regular clothes, stay in private rooms with their own key, and even work in a kitchen which–as Moore points out–is equipped with sharp knives. Yet it’s this culture of compassion, trust, and humanity that keeps Bastøy running. And if you weren’t yet convinced that Halden is about as close to paradise as prisons get, its orientation video features the prison guards singing a rendition of “We Are The World.”

After returning from Norway, Bertsch and Jackson took the lessons they learned at Halden and Bastøy and began implementing them at North Dakota’s Missouri River Correctional Center, nicknamed “The Farm.” At The Farm, prisoners are now housed in communal rooms with eight to 16 men, according to Mother Jones. They’re not the “interior design magazine” level of stylish that Bertsch and Jackson visited in the Norway prisons, but they’re certainly an improvement on traditional prison sleeping quarters. Plus, if an inmate is close to his release date and has proven good behavior, he can obtain a private room which shares a bathroom with only one other room.

Before Bertsch and Jackson’s trip, the state penitentiary’s administrative segregation unit was rampant with rules that placed prisoners in solitary confinement instead of addressing their behavior in a constructive manner. Now, only inmates who endanger somebody will end up in solitary, and the maximum time they can be held there has been shortened. Prisoners who have been isolated for long periods of time undergo behavioral therapy before they re-join the general prison population, giving them time to acclimate, according to Mother Jones. Another change was an effort to foster stronger relationships among guards and prisoners. Guards in the segregation unit are required to have at least two conversations with each inmate under their supervision per shift. Prisoners gather in sweat lodges and play handball outside on the court to build their relationships with one another, and seek on-site and off-site jobs to further their employment prospects once they are released.

If North Dakota, as a red state, can start taking steps to reform its prison system in a way that is actually beneficial to its inmates, then surely the rest of the country can too, right? Well, it might not be so easy. Shortly after being confirmed as Attorney General, Jeff Sessions doubled down on the use of private prisons despite several officials’ statements that private prisons put profits before the lives of inmates.

Likewise, the U.S. prison system has become increasingly overcrowded which is, in part, the result of convictions for nonviolent drug offenders instead of providing those individuals with treatment. That “tough on drugs” stance is likely to continue under Sessions. Sessions praised the anti-drug campaign Drug Abuse Resistance Education, more often referred to as DARE, at a DARE training conference in Texas on July 11, despite an abundance of research that has shown the program has been ineffective and may have even had a negative impact on substance abuse.

Providing substance abuse treatment instead of prison sentences to drug offenders would be in line with similar programs in Norway and could be a step toward reducing prison overcrowding, but it’s certainly not a magic bullet. The U.S. prison system also needs to focus on ways of rehabilitating violent offenders, reducing exorbitant sentences, and address the racial biases within the criminal justice system that disproportionately and negatively impact people of color.

Marcus Dieterle

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

The post North Dakota Looks to Norway for Inspiration to Make Prisons More Humane appeared first on Law Street.

Federal officials visited Denver and Colorado Springs this week, holding a number of private meetings with local representatives about Colorado’s legal marijuana system and its sizable black market. The federal fact-finding mission comes as pro-marijuana advocates across the country worry about a fresh crack-down on marijuana users and sellers by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The first meeting took place in Denver on Tuesday. According to Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper’s marijuana adviser Mark Bolton, representatives from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Domestic Policy Control, and the State Department attended the closed-door session.

“Our purpose was to convey to them the strength of our regulatory system and our enforcement system and our policies and practices,” Bolton, who was also present at the meeting, told The Cannabist. He added that the federal officials saw the meeting “as an educational opportunity.”

Colorado’s attorney general, Cynthia Coffman, also met with the federal officials. Coffman and Hickenlooper, in a joint statement, said the meeting “focused on sharing Colorado’s experience creating and executing a robust and effective regulatory and enforcement system, and our continuing efforts to protect public health and public safety.”

In April, Hickenlooper joined three other governors from states that have legalized marijuana in asking Sessions and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to consult them “before embarking on any changes to regulatory and enforcement systems.”

Thus far, Sessions has expressed a personal animus for marijuana, but has not taken any drastic measures to enforce federal law over state law. Marijuana is banned at the federal level, while eight states and D.C. have fully legalized cannabis.

In the second meeting, on Wednesday in Colorado Springs, federal officials, including representatives from the DEA, met with the city’s mayor, John Suthers. Local officials were criticized for holding the meeting in private, which they did because the meetings “include sensitive investigative information,” according to a statement from Suthers.

“The folks that came out didn’t want it public; there’s no reason for it to be public,” Suthers told KKTV 11, a local news station that reported the meetings. Suthers added he believes the officials visited Colorado, which legalized marijuana in 2012 “to find out what law enforcement and other regulatory agencies’ view is toward marijuana regulation in Colorado.”

Both meetings come the week before the Justice Department is set to release a report on violent crime, immigration, and drug trafficking. It is unclear if the meetings, which also featured discussions about Colorado’s black marijuana market, are related to that report.

Meanwhile, a Denver-based research company reported this week that Colorado has collected over $500 million from marijuana taxes since legal sales began in January 2014.

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 Federal Officials Visit Colorado to Learn About Legal Marijuana 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:

DOJ Revives Policy that Allows Federal Law Enforcement to Seize Property

Yesterday, the Department of Justice revived a policy that allows federal law enforcement officers to seize people’s property and assets if they are suspected of a crime, but not yet charged. This is generally referred to as civil asset forfeiture. Probable cause is the only threshold needed to trigger it. Critics say that the policy, which was eliminated at the federal level in 2015, has been misused and has negatively affected innocent people. Some state governments have done away with similar policies as well, although it’s important to note that even in states that don’t allow civil asset forfeiture, federal officials may still be able to seize assets under the new policy change. The Washington Post reports that in 2014, federal law enforcement officers took more money from citizens than burglars did.

JUST IN: DOJ new asset forfeiture policy – police can seize property from people not charged w/crime even in states where it’s been banned. pic.twitter.com/P8K0g80m4E

— Paula Reid (@PaulaReidCBS) July 19, 2017

But AG Jeff Sessions said that reinstating this policy will help weaken criminal organizations by taking away their money. “This is not about taking assets from innocent people,” said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein yesterday. “It’s about taking assets that are the proceeds of, or the tools of, criminal activity, and primarily drug dealing.” But still, many conservatives spoke out against the policy.

Asset forfeiture is an unconstitutional taking of property without trial. It’s wrong and I call on the AG and the Adminsitraion to stop.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 20, 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: July 20, 2017 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:

Congressman Steve Scalise Shot at GOP Baseball Practice

This morning, a gunman armed with a rifle opened fire at a baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia, where the Republican congressional baseball team was practicing. The House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and at least four others were injured–including one congressional aide and two law enforcement officers. Reportedly, the gunman, who has been identified as James T. Hodgkinson, was standing outside the fence and aimed at the only exit. He fired multiple shots, at least 50, according to eyewitnesses. Bullets also hit a nearby YMCA.

Active shooter situation during this mornings trip to the Y. Terrifying. Am ok. Sheltered in place & under lockdown. pic.twitter.com/iJs6fZpjiK

— Joseph Miscavige (@JoeMiscavige) June 14, 2017

Scalise was shot in the hip and is in stable condition. Capitol police officers were right there and shot the gunman, who was wounded and taken to the hospital. “Nobody would have survived without the Capitol Hill police. It would have been a massacre without them,” said Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

Congressional baseball field shooting went on for 10 minutes. @SenRandPauI says w/out police presence would be “killing field” “a massacre”

— Valerie (@valonfox) June 14, 2017

According to a press conference held by President Donald Trump, the shooter has died as a result of his injuries.

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: June 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It is accepted wisdom at this point that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is no fan of marijuana, including in its medicinal capacity. He is adamant that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” He recently compared medical marijuana, which has never led to an overdose death, to opioids, which kill nearly a hundred Americans each day.

Now, Sessions is pushing congressional leaders to allow the Justice Department to use its funds to prosecute medical marijuana-related crimes, even in states that have legalized medical marijuana. In a letter sent last month to top-ranking representatives and senators, obtained by MassRoots on Monday, Sessions shows his opposition to a budget provision that would prohibit the Justice Department from spending federal cash to crack down on states with legal medical marijuana laws. He wrote:

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

Sessions is referring to the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, a budget rider, introduced in 2014, that prevents the Justice Department from allocating funds to press cases against medical marijuana actors in states that have legalized cannabis for medicinal purposes. The amendment was included in the Fiscal Year 2017 omnibus spending bill, which passed early last month, states:

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used […] to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Though the spending bill, which will fund the government until October 1, included the amendment, it is unclear whether it will make the next one. In the letter, which was provided to MassRoots by a congressional staffer, Sessions argues that the amendment prevents the DOJ from cracking down on gangs that operate in states where medical marijuana is lawful.

“Drug traffickers already cultivate and distribute marijuana inside the United States under the guise of state medical marijuana laws,” he wrote. “In particular, Cuban, Asian, Caucasian, and Eurasian criminal organizations have established marijuana operations in state-approved marijuana markets.”

The Obama Administration was no fan of the amendment either. For one, the Justice Department lobbied Congress to strike down the provision in 2014, arguing that it might “limit or possibly eliminate the Department’s ability to enforce federal law in recreational marijuana cases as well.” And even after the amendment passed, the administration still managed to prosecute individuals and organizations in states where medical marijuana had been legalized.

Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Sam Farr (D-CA) responded by writing a letter to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, saying the administration’s interpretation of the amendment “clearly is a stretch.” They added:

The implementation of state law is carried out by individuals and businesses as the state authorizes them to do. For DOJ to argue otherwise is a tortuous twisting of the text of [the provision] and common sense and the use of federal funds to prevent these individuals and businesses from acting in accordance with state law is clearly in violation of Rohrabacher-Farr.

If the Sessions-led Justice Department takes a similar tactic as the previous administration, it will certainly be hearing from Rohrabacher and Farr.

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 Sessions Asked Congress to Remove Marijuana Protections from Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.

A day before former FBI Director James Comey is set to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, President Donald Trump, who fired Comey in May, nominated his successor. The nominee is Christopher Wray, a former Justice Department official with years of experience in the private sector. Trump made the announcement on Twitter early Wednesday morning:

I will be nominating Christopher A. Wray, a man of impeccable credentials, to be the new Director of the FBI. Details to follow.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2017

Wray served with the DOJ in various capacities. From 1997 to 2001 he was a U.S. attorney in Georgia. In 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Wray as the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Crimes Division, where he led a number of investigations.

Donald Trump chooses Christopher Wray to head the FBI https://t.co/Kp6ladW3qg

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 7, 2017

Wray “was also integral to the DOJ’s response to the 9/11 attacks and played a key role in the oversight of legal and operational actions in the continuing war on terrorism,” according to his bio on the King & Spaulding website, where he has been a partner since 2005. Specializing in white-collar crime, he has represented a wide array of clients, including: “The Governor of New Jersey in connection with investigations relating to the George Washington Bridge toll lane closings.”

Translation: Wray was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s attorney in the infamous “Bridgegate” trial, in which Christie was accused of orchestrating–or willfully ignoring–a plot to close traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge in the fall of 2013. The lane closures were allegedly a response to the actions of the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, who refused to back Christie’s re-election bid.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former colleague of Wray’s at the Justice Department, called him “smart, serious, and professional” in a blog post. He said Wray has “deep experience with federal criminal law and the FBI,” and is “a good choice, a much better choice than any of the politicians I previously saw floated, and a much better choice than I expected Trump to make.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement a few hours after Trump’s announcement, calling Wray an “extraordinary person, possessing all the gifts necessary to be a great Director of the FBI.” Sessions added: “The President asked us to look for an FBI Director who has integrity, who understands and is committed to the rule of law, and who is dedicated to protecting the American people from crime, gangs, and terrorists. We have found our man in Chris Wray.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Trump’s FBI Director Nominee is Christopher Wray: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Rizzo

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

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

A years-long, largely bi-partisan effort to reform the criminal justice system in the U.S., the world’s preeminent jailer, is being undermined by Jeff Sessions. On Friday, the attorney general issued a memo directing federal prosecutors to “charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense,” with the “goal of achieving just and consistent results in federal cases.”

Sessions’ memo, issued after weeks of harsh-on-crime rhetoric, effectively reverses a 2013 memo issued by then-attorney general Eric Holder, which directed prosecutors to take a case-by-case approach, and to seek the toughest sentences only for violent offenders. The memo returns the Justice Department to a sentencing approach similar to the one taken by the George W. Bush Administration.

“This is a key part of President Trump’s promise to keep America safe,” Sessions said on Friday, after releasing the short memo to the public. “We know that drugs and crime go hand in hand,” he said. “Drug trafficking is an inherently violent business.” Sessions, who spent the height of the 1980s crack epidemic as a prosecutor, added U.S. attorneys “deserve to be un-handcuffed and not micromanaged from Washington.”

According to the Coalition for Public Safety, an organization that partners with both progressive and conservative groups to push criminal justice reform, there are upwards of two million people incarcerated in the U.S., a 500 percent increase over the past 30 years. One quarter of the world’s entire prisoner population is in the U.S. In a statement in response to Sessions’ memo, the group’s president Steve Hawkins, along with U.S. Justice Action Network’s Holly Harris, said:

Research has shown, time and again, that lengthy prison terms for lower-level offenders do not increase public safety. Federal prosecutors have a responsibility to enforce the law firmly, but need the flexibility to do so in ways that will best serve their communities and protect public safety. That’s why we have and continue to support congressional efforts to reform sentencing.

“Locking up people who don’t pose a threat to public safety is a waste of taxpayer money and law enforcement resources, and it doesn’t deter crime,” they added. Congress failed to pass a bipartisan reform bill last year, despite widespread support, and now, with the Justice Department’s shift in tone and official policy, a federal effort is less likely. States, even Republican bastions with high prison populations, are now leading the charge to reform how non-violent drug offenders are punished and treated.

While there are some Republicans who oppose a more lenient approach to incarceration, many prominent Republican senators–and activists like the Koch brothers–back reform. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), a prominent conservative advocate for criminal justice reform, wrote on Twitter on Friday: “To be tough on crime we have to be smart on crime. That is why criminal justice reform is a conservative issue”

Sessions’ memo does allow for “circumstances in which good judgement would lead a prosecutor to conclude that a strict application” of the new policy is “not warranted.” Holder, who was the attorney general from 2009 to 2015, responded to Sessions’ directive in a statement. “This absurd reversal is driven by voices who have not only been discredited but until now have been relegated to the fringes of this debate,” he said.

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 Sessions Undermines Bipartisan Push for Criminal Justice Reform appeared first on Law Street.

Astounding Democrats and Republicans alike, President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday evening. The abrupt firing ignited widespread calls for a special, independent inquiry into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. 

Comey was leading a probe into Trump’s and his campaign associates’ ties to Russian actors during the 2016 campaign; Russian hackers delivered Democratic operatives’ emails to WikiLeaks, which in turn made the emails public through an online database. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI, concluded that the cyber-meddling was intended to assist Trump.

Comey lost the confidence of almost everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. When things calm down, they will be thanking me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

Lawmakers expressed worry immediately after the Comey firing that the FBI’s inquiry into the Trump-Russia ties could be compromised. “If there was ever a time when circumstances warranted a special prosecutor, it is right now,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Wednesday morning. And Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said in a statement posted to his Twitter account that the timing of this firing is “very troubling,” and that it represents “the loss of an honorable public servant” and “a loss for the nation.”

According to people familiar with the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to Comey’s ouster, Trump was upset with Comey on two accounts: the ongoing Russia investigation, and his public rebuttal of  Trump’s claims that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. The White House is also saying that Comey’s dismissal was a result of his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” read Trump’s letter to Comey.

The Democrats have said some of the worst things about James Comey, including the fact that he should be fired, but now they play so sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

On Wednesday, before Trump was set to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he told reporters he fired Comey “because he was not doing a good job.” Trump dispatched his aides, including counselor Kellyanne Conway and Vice President Mike Pence, to defend the decision. People familiar with Trump’s deliberations said he was surprised at the torrent of negative reactions–from Democrats, Republicans, and the press–that have followed Comey’s dismissal.

Meanwhile, current and former FBI officials, including Comey himself, were reportedly flabbergasted at the news of Comey’s ouster. “We just have no idea why this happened. No idea,” one recently retired top FBI official told Politico. “No one knew this was coming. Everyone is just shocked that this happened.”

There were conflicting reports over who exactly took the lead in the decision to fire Comey. Some said Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein led the charge. Rosenstein wrote a letter released Tuesday that pointed to Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation as the grounds for his dismissal, saying “I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgement that he was mistaken.” Other White House officials told reporters that this was a unilateral decision by Trump, who directed the Justice Department to fish out a reason to fire the director.

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 Did Trump Fire FBI Director James Comey? 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:

Woman on Trial for Laughing During Jeff Sessions’ Confirmation Hearing

A female activist who was arrested back in January during Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing will stand trial. Desiree Fairooz laughed at one point during the hearing and was subsequently arrested. Prosecutors decided to pursue charges this week. Officer Katherine Coronado arrested Fairooz, 61, for laughing when Senator Richard Shelby said that Sessions’ record of treating all Americans equally is well-documented. According to Coronado, the laughter was loud enough to disrupt the hearing.

Another protester escorted out of Sessions hearing. Her original offense appeared to be simply laughing. pic.twitter.com/p6lWzBVFRW

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) January 10, 2017

Fairooz said her laughter was an involuntary reflex to what she heard. And many people expressed their support of Fairooz, saying it was understandable to laugh, as Shelby’s statement was not particularly accurate. In fact, Sessions was rejected as a federal judge in 1980 over his views on race. Fairooz is charged with “disorderly and disruptive conduct” and faces up to a $500 fine and six months in prison if convicted.

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: May 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A provision that directs the Justice Department to respect states’ medical marijuana laws is included in the new spending bill, which Congress is expected to pass this week. The provision, known as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, should soothe concerns that Attorney General Jeff Sessions will increase enforcement of the federal marijuana ban–at least regarding medical marijuana. The amendment does not explicitly protect recreational marijuana laws, which are in place in eight states and D.C.

Initially introduced in 2014–and included in every budget since then–by Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Sam Farr (D-CA), the amendment bars the Justice Department from allocating funds to enforcing the federal ban on medical marijuana activities in states where use, distribution, and cultivation is legal in some capacity. Twenty-nine states and D.C. have legalized marijuana for medical use. More than a dozen others have legalized cannabidiol (CBD)–a non-psychoactive element of marijuana that has therapeutic effects–for limited use.

“None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used […] to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana,” the amendment states.

After weeks of uncertainty about what the budget would include, Congress reached an agreement on how to fund the government last weekend. President Donald Trump’s promised border wall with Mexico will not receive government money, according to the agreement, which the House is scheduled to take up on Wednesday. Democrats were largely happy with the spending bill, which will fund the government through September.

The budget placates Democrats who were worried about deep cuts to the EPA’s budget, or funds allocated to hard-line immigration programs, like a deportation force. And the renewal of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment should, at least in regards to medical marijuana, alleviate concerns that the Trump Administration will initiate a war on marijuana.

Sessions has made comments–before he was attorney general and when he was an Alabama Senator–that have given pro-marijuana advocates, and a growing number of Republican and Democratic lawmakers, cause for concern. He once said, “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” He has equated the dangers of medical marijuana and heroin. And he recently affirmed that it is illegal to use or distribute marijuana, “whether a state legalizes it or not.” But the inclusion of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment should, at least in part, temper concerns that Sessions is gunning for a major enforcement campaign.

Rohrabacher, a member of the recently established Congressional Cannabis Caucus, wrote a letter in April to members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, asking them to renew his eponymous amendment. “We believe such a policy is not only consistent with the wishes of a bipartisan majority of the members of the House, but also with the wishes of the American people,” he wrote. 

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 Provision in Spending Bill Protects States’ Medical Marijuana Laws appeared first on Law Street.

As Congress returns from a two-week recess–the Senate returns on Monday, the House Tuesday–its legislative to-do list is stuffed to the brim. President Donald Trump is expected to propose a tax plan on Wednesday. He has suggested a revamped version of the Republican health care plan, which failed to hit the House floor for a vote last month, could be introduced this week. But foremost on Congress’ agenda: passing a government spending bill and staving off a government shutdown, a prospect that would be deeply embarrassing for an administration that will see its 100th day in office on Saturday.

Funding for the government, absent a spending agreement, is set to run out on Friday. To avoid a shutdown–which last occurred in 2013 when congressional Republicans and former President Barack Obama were deeply divided–the White House will have to come to an agreement with Congress. Many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill differ with the administration in their spending priorities, especially when it comes to Trump’s long-promised border wall between the United States and Mexico.

Many GOP lawmakers, and most, if not all, Democrats oppose paying for the wall with funds from the government’s coffers. Trump is adamant on following through on a promise that he sees as central to his election victory, however. On Sunday morning, the president reiterated his promise that Mexico will pay for the wall but asked for funding in the meantime:

Eventually, but at a later date so we can get started early, Mexico will be paying, in some form, for the badly needed border wall.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a security hawk who is generally seen as a hard-liner on immigration, recently said the wall will get funded “one way or another.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, said: “We expect money for border security in this bill.” Priebus added: “And it ought to be. Because the president won overwhelmingly. And everyone understands the border wall was part of it.”

Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director, also insists the administration will push hard for the border wall to be included in a final budget agreement. “We want our priorities funded and one of the biggest priorities during the campaign was border security, keeping Americans safe and part of that was a border wall,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” Mulvaney did add, however, that Trump would sign a bill that did not include funding for the wall. “I don’t think anybody is trying to get to a shutdown. Shutdown is not a desired end. It’s not a tool. It’s not something that we want to have,” he said.

On Friday, the administration floated a proposal to bridge the divide with Democrats–whose support for a final budget deal is vital to keeping the government afloat–on the border wall issue. For each dollar spent on the wall, according to the administration’s offer, the government would spend a dollar on Obamacare subsidies. Through a spokesman, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the minority leader, said the trade-off idea was a “complete non-starter.”

Trump, who is still hoping to secure a legislative achievement by his 100-day mark, sent a tweet on Sunday morning that encapsulated his lack of leverage heading into the budget battle with Democrats:

ObamaCare is in serious trouble. The Dems need big money to keep it going – otherwise it dies far sooner than anyone would have thought.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2017

Alec Siegel

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

The post Trump’s Border Wall: the Issue That Could Shut Down the Government appeared first on Law Street.

In an interview on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, John Kelly, the Secretary of Homeland Security, said that marijuana “is not a factor in the drug war,” contradicting the hard-line stance of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. While Kelly does not have the same authority as Sessions in enforcing the country’s drug laws, his department does deal directly with cross-border issues like marijuana trafficking.

Kelly does not seem to see marijuana as the same community-wrecking terror that Sessions does. In March, Sessions compared marijuana to heroin, which is ravaging communities across America. Referencing the proposal that medical marijuana could be used to treat opioid addictions, Sessions said he was “astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana–so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another that’s only slightly less awful.”

Marijuana and heroin are both classified by the Drug Enforcement Administration as Schedule I substances. But while there were more than 50,000 heroin overdoses in the U.S. in 2016, “no death from overdose of marijuana has been reported,” according to the DEA. Kelly’s assessment of the dangers of marijuana run more in line with the DEA’s findings than Sessions’ does.

Kelly expanded on his comments, saying if the U.S. seeks to staunch the flow of drugs into the country, it should focus on three things: “It’s three things. Methamphetamine. Almost all produced in Mexico. Heroin. Virtually all produced in Mexico. And cocaine that comes up from further south.” And although Kelly, unlike Sessions, does not have the authority to determine how the country’s drug laws are enforced, and how punishment is doled out, he weighed in:

“The solution is not arresting a lot of users,” he said. “The solution is a comprehensive drug demand reduction program in the United States that involves every man and woman of goodwill. And then rehabilitation. And then law enforcement. And then getting at the poppy fields and the coca fields in the south.”

Sessions has a tougher stance on drug users; he once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” Though he said the Cole Memo, an Obama-era directive that prioritizes state drug laws over federal laws, is “valid,” the Trump Administration has signaled that a crack-down could be forthcoming. Twenty-eight states have legalized medical marijuana, while eight states and D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana.

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 Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly: Marijuana “Not a Factor” in Drug War appeared first on Law Street.

State lawmakers in Oregon passed a bill on Monday that would increase protections for the personal information of marijuana consumers. Oregon is the latest state to propose legislation intended to defend against stricter enforcement of the federal marijuana ban by the Trump Administration, something Attorney General Jeff Sessions has indicated is a possibility. The bill attracted bipartisan support, passing by a vote of 53-5.

If Democratic Gov. Kate Brown signs the proposal, which she is expected to do, marijuana shops would no longer be able to collect consumers’ personal information–names, birthdates, home addresses, and so on. Unlike Alaska, Colorado, and Washington State–the other three states where recreational marijuana is actively being sold–cannabis shops in Oregon can collect this information in a database without the customer’s consent. Businesses use the information largely for marketing purposes.

According to the bill, shops would have 30 days to destroy the information they have on record; they would be barred from collecting information in the future. States that have legalized marijuana in some form have taken steps in recent weeks to protect against any forthcoming crackdown by the Trump Administration. Last week, California–which legalized recreational marijuana last November–introduced a bill that would prohibit local law enforcement authorities from collaborating with federal drug agents.

Last week, the governors of Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington sent a letter to Sessions and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, asking for clarity on the administration’s enforcement stance. Sessions responded that marijuana will be included in a broad Justice Department crime-reduction initiative. While his past is littered with anti-marijuana comments, Sessions has not explicitly stated how he will enforce the federal ban. He recently said marijuana is “only slightly less awful” than heroin.

In addition to protecting consumers against an invasive business practice, the proposal is meant to curtail requests by federal authorities, who, if unleashed by Sessions, could penalize distributors as well as consumers, even in states where the drug is perfectly legal. “Given the immediate privacy issues … this is a good bill protecting the privacy of Oregonians choosing to purchase marijuana,” said state Rep. Carl Wilson, a Republican sponsor of the bill.

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 Oregon Passes Bill to Protect Marijuana Consumers’ Personal Information appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday morning, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes announced he was stepping aside from the investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. This announcement isn’t too surprising, given his questionable actions two weeks ago when he decided to brief President Donald Trump about the ongoing investigation into his campaign, and then called a spontaneous press briefing without notifying his colleagues on the committee first.

Also on Thursday morning, the House Committee on Ethics revealed that Nunes is being investigated because of suspicions that he “may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information,” according to the New York Times.

The main criticism against Nunes is that he doesn’t seem capable of conducting an impartial investigation into President Trump; many have claimed that he is too close to Trump and the White House. Nunes said that “left-wing activist groups” had filed “entirely false and politically motivated” accusations against him and that he made the decision to step down from the investigation into the Russia ties because that would be the best for the committee.

Devin Nunes to be investigated for disclosing classified information while heading Russia probe https://t.co/xg9AY0mLuT pic.twitter.com/bWi0jF9Gmq

— The Hill (@thehill) April 6, 2017

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said in a statement that he still trusts Nunes but also supports his decision to step down. Texas Rep. Mike Conaway will replace him on the investigation. Nunes will remain the House Intelligence Committee Chairman, but just won’t participate in the Russia investigation. Conaway announced that he hopes to work with the Democrats on the committee to get the investigation going but that he needs their cooperation.

The investigation has already had one high-profile recusal, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself in the beginning of March. That time it was over questions about his meetings with the Russian ambassador last year, which were revealed after he denied having any contact with “the Russians” at his confirmation hearing. Trump then accused the Democrats of carrying out “a total witch hunt.”

However, many people had positive reactions to Nunes’s recusal.

Devin Nunes has recused himself from the Russia probe. Soon there won’t be Trump allies anywhere but in the crosshairs of this scandal.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) April 6, 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 Devin Nunes Steps Away from House Investigation into Russia appeared first on Law Street.

A bill introduced last month in California would bar state agencies from cooperating with federal law enforcement in cracking down on marijuana in the state. Marijuana is legal, both medically and recreationally, in the Golden State. That legalization is at odds with the federal marijuana ban and its classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance. If the bill passes, California could become a sort of sanctuary state for marijuana growers, much like certain cities are sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants.

Introduced by Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Democrat, the bill states:

This bill would prohibit a state or local agency, as defined, from taking certain actions without a court order signed by a judge, including using agency money, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to assist a federal agency to investigate, detain, detect, report, or arrest a person for commercial or noncommercial marijuana or medical cannabis activity that is authorized by law in the State of California and transferring an individual to federal law enforcement authorities for purposes of marijuana enforcement.

Many marijuana advocates, users, and distributors are worried that the new administration, and a Justice Department led by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, will harshly enforce the federal ban. Sessions has made incendiary remarks about marijuana–“good people don’t smoke marijuana,” he once said–but he also signaled enforcement won’t radically change under his watch. He recently said that the Cole Memo, an Obama-era directive to prioritize state marijuana laws over the federal prohibition, was still “valid.” But a handful of California lawmakers are not taking their chances; the proposed bill is a pre-emptive defense mechanism in case Sessions does step up enforcement.

To Donny Youngblood, the president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the bill is “quite offensive.” In an interview with the LA Times, Youngblood, the sheriff of Kern County, said growing and selling pot “is still a federal felony and we are still in the United States of America, and the state of California cannot take over the United States.”

The contradictory marijuana laws in the U.S. have sowed confusion in states that have legalized the drug in some form. Archaic practices, like marijuana businesses operating on a cash-only basis, are also a result of the tension between state-level and federal laws. Twenty-eight states and Washington D.C. have medical marijuana laws in place; eight states and D.C. have passed some sort of recreational marijuana legislation. Last November, California passed Prop 64, which legalized recreational use.

For Hezekiah Allen, the executive director of the California Growers Association, the bill is meant to provide a sense of security for California’s marijuana businesses. Allen, in an interview with the LA Times, said that due to the election of President Donald Trump, and the new anti-marijuana attorney general, businesses “will need to feel confident that the state will protect them from the federal government.”

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 Could California Become a Sanctuary State for Marijuana Businesses? appeared first on Law Street.

In Sunday’s episode of “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,” the comedian delved into the twisted, backward world of America’s marijuana laws, a topic that is “genuinely worth worrying about,” he said. Over the course of 16 minutes, Oliver gave a brief marijuana history lesson–featuring Richard Nixon in rare form–and plucked some present-day examples of people whom the country’s contradictory laws affect.

Oliver began with a brief historical overview of how marijuana laws have evolved since the War on Drugs, launched in the 1970s by Nixon, or “the Mozart of racially motivated lawmaking,” as Oliver calls him. The comedian pulled up an audio recording of Nixon talking about the perpetrators behind the marijuana legalization effort:

You know it’s a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews… I suppose it’s because most of them are psychiatrists, you know, there’s so many, all the greatest psychiatrists are Jewish. By God we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss.

After skewering Nixon (and the uncanny similarities between his word choice and our current president’s), John Oliver delved deep into the issue. “If you have marijuana right now, even if you are acting completely legally according to your state, you may still be in serious jeopardy,” Oliver said, mentioning that 44 states have legalized medical marijuana in some form, and eight states and D.C. have legalized the drug for recreational use. But, he stressed, because of the federal ban on marijuana, unjust criminal penalties are common, and some perfectly legal businesses are forced to operate on a cash-only basis.

Read More: The State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State

Due to the tension between state and the federal law when it comes to marijuana, dispensaries can sometimes be arbitrarily raided and minor infractions can result in jail time. Legal businesses like dispensaries are also handcuffed by the federal ban. Many banks won’t allow them to open accounts, which can force marijuana businesses to solely accept cash from patrons, pay their employees with cash-stuffed envelopes, and stash their profits in safes, a dangerous practice for any type of business. In addition, as Oliver noted, many marijuana business-owners are barred from taking federal tax deductions.

Oliver brought up the story of a man who had a legal medical marijuana card for his paralysis but was fired by his employer because he failed a drug test. Oliver compared the absurdity of the man’s story to “driving exactly the speed limit, and getting pulled over by a cop who tells you, ‘sorry, the federal speed limit is three, and the legal age to drive is 62, and also you have to be drunk.'”

A large chunk of the segment was dedicated to medical marijuana laws. Oliver took aim at the federal classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance, which puts it on par with heroin and LSD. He also mentioned Danny Belcher, a veteran in Kentucky who was denied marijuana to treat his PTSD by the VA. Medical marijuana is legal in Kentucky, but because Belcher’s health care was administered by the VA, a federal department, doctors were unable to prescribe him marijuana.

“A doctor shouldn’t be ignored because he recommends marijuana,” Oliver quipped, pulling up pictures of Dr. Phil and Dr. OZ, “a doctor should only be ignored because he is televised.” Oliver also expressed concern over how Attorney General Jeff Sessions (“the concept of golf expressed in man form”) will enforce the federal ban. Sessions has stated “good people don’t smoke marijuana,” though he has said he will uphold the Cole Memo, which directs the Justice Department to prioritize state law over federal law in regard to marijuana.

Oliver concluded by calling for “sensible” reforms: “I’m not saying there shouldn’t be laws that place sensible restrictions on marijuana as there are with other substances, but our federal laws desperately need to be brought up to date.”

Here’s the full video:

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 John Oliver Blasts America’s Marijuana Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Two Oregon lawmakers introduced an ambitious trio of bills in the U.S. Senate and House Thursday that would drastically revolutionize marijuana reform and help legitimize the cannabis industry. Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, both Democrats, are calling the project the “Path to Marijuana Reform,” and it almost seems too good to be true.

The marijuana reform plan is comprised of the following three bills:

Small Business Tax Equity Act

This bipartisan piece of legislation would “allow businesses operating in compliance with state law to claim deductions and credits associated with the sale of marijuana like any other legal business.”

Currently, under Internal Revenue Code section 280E, individuals and businesses cannot claim deductions and tax credits on Schedule I or Schedule II substances. Therefore, many of these legitimate business are forced to pay exorbitant taxes.

Responsibly Addressing the Marijuana Policy Gap Act

This multi-faceted bill aims to help reduce the gap between Federal and State law by removing federal criminal penalties for marijuana sale and possession in states that have legalized pot. Notably, this would include an expungement process for certain marijuana violations, potentially wiping away thousands of pot-related convictions.

It would also reduce advertising restrictions, provide banking services and bankruptcy protection, make sure veterans have access to state-legal medical marijuana, and protect Native American tribes from punishment under federal marijuana laws.

Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act

Lastly, this piece of legislation would work to de-schedule, tax, and regulate marijuana similar to alcohol and tobacco. This would involve removing marijuana’s Schedule I substance designation and imposing a federal excise tax on marijuana products.

“’This could be a no-brainer for the federal government to get some of the revenue flowing’ to states with legal recreational pot,” Blumenauer said, according to the Huffington Post.

The federal government must respect the decision Oregonians made at the polls and allow law-abiding marijuana businesses to go to the bank just like any other legal business. This three-step approach will spur job growth and boost our economy all while ensuring the industry is being held to a fair standard.

This detailed marijuana reform plan doesn’t come as much of a surprise. Marijuana advocates have speculated for months over whether or not Attorney General Jeff Sessions will crackdown on state marijuana programs. Wyden and Blumenauer have introduced similar legislation before to no avail, but they think this time could be different because of their plan’s “more comprehensive” approach and revenue focus.

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 Oregon Lawmakers Introduce Ambitious Marijuana Reform Bills appeared first on Law Street.

Seattle sued the Trump Administration on Wednesday over its strict immigration policies, and its threats to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. Arguing that the administration’s warnings are unconstitutional, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said federal authorities “cannot force our local police officials to be involved in federal immigration activities.”

“Once again, this new administration has decided to bully,” he added. With Wednesday’s lawsuit, Seattle joins San Francisco in bringing legal action against the administration for its January 25 executive order that called for a freeze in federal funding to sanctuary cities–cities that direct their law enforcement officers to withhold the legal status of immigrants who are arrested. On Monday, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a fresh warning to sanctuary cities at the White House, echoing the policy sketched out in the executive order.

“I strongly urge our nation’s states and cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws and to rethink these policies,” Sessions said. “Such policies make their cities and states less safe — public safety as well as national security are at stake — and put them at risk of losing federal dollars.”

The total amount, Sessions suggested, that sanctuary cities could stand to lose—mainly in federal grants for local law enforcement agencies—is $4.1 billion. The administration’s policy has not gone into effect yet. But Murray argues the administration’s threats and coercive tactics amount to a breach of the 10th Amendment, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

On Monday, after Sessions’s missive, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio also pledged to fight the administration, tweeting:

The Trump Administration is pushing an unrealistic and mean spirited executive order. If they want a fight, we’ll see them in court.

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) March 27, 2017

The Trump Administration’s executive order, issued five days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, spelled out its hard-line stance on illegal immigration, in a policy that includes stiff penalties for cities that resist cooperating with federal authorities.

“Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States,” the order read, directing that “jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds.”

But Murray said federal funds are not necessarily linked to his city’s immigration policies, and argued that other grant-dependent programs could take a hit if the administration withholds grants. “Things like grants helping us with child sex trafficking are not connected to immigration,” Murray said. “It is time for cities to stand up and ask the courts to put an end to the anxiety in our cities and the chaos in our system.”

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 Seattle Joins the Sanctuary Cities Fight 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:

Sessions Threatens Sanctuary Cities

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said yesterday that the White House will follow through on the executive order to withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, meaning cities where local law enforcement officials limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Sessions made this announcement during the daily press briefing at the White House yesterday, which some saw as a sign that Trump wants to move on and divert attention from the failed health care bill. “They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets,” he said.

Democratic officials in states like California and New York forcefully spoke out against the AG’s comments, with California State Senator Kevin de Leon saying that he uses “unconstitutional threats and blackmail to prey on anxieties.” There are also worries that a crackdown on undocumented immigrants will make immigrants less likely to report crimes to police, for fear of retaliation. The total amount of money withheld could be more than $4.1 billion. In New York, a lot of that federal money is used to prevent terrorist attacks, so the order could make cities less secure.

#JeffSessions and @WhiteHouse continue #AlternativeFacts streak. Truth is sanctuary cities are less dangerous than nonsanctuary cities.

— Kevin de Leόn (@kdeleon) March 27, 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 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As soon as Jeff Sessions was nominated by President Donald Trump for the position of Attorney General, pro-medical marijuana advocates had reason to feel uneasy. Sessions has long been anti-marijuana, and while he has previously indicated that federal enforcement of marijuana law wouldn’t change too much, there are still concerns that under his tenure, the DOJ will decide to crack down. Sessions addressed law enforcement officials in Richmond, Virginia, earlier today, and his comments about marijuana should only heighten those concerns. But was Sessions right?

Let’s check out what he said:

He stated, “I think medical marijuana has been hyped, maybe too much.” He went on to say:

I realize this may be an unfashionable belief in a time of growing tolerance of drug use. But too many lives are at stake to worry about being fashionable. I reject the idea that America will be a better place if marijuana is sold in every corner store. And I am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana–so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another that’s only slightly less awful. Our nation needs to say clearly once again that using drugs will destroy your life.

That’s a lot to unpack. Here are the three biggest issues with Sessions’s comments:

“Marijuana Sold in Every Corner Store”

That would be unfortunate, but no one is proposing anything like that. Every state that has legalized marijuana also puts in place a way to regulate sales–the only exception perhaps being the very grey area of D.C.’s sort-of legal marijuana laws that are still being blocked by Congress. Medical marijuana is similarly strictly regulated. And it’s also worth pointing out that two things that are arguably just as dangerous as weed, and certainly more addictive–alcohol and cigarettes–are available at corner stores. Sessions’s comment about “marijuana sold in every corner store” is clear fear-mongering. It paints pro-legalization efforts as extreme and impractical, and ignores the serious regulatory work that goes hand-in-hand with legalization.

Legalizing recreational marijuana and extending medical marijuana efforts are not to be taken lightly. Many considerations are paramount–for example, how marijuana affects young people, and how our DUI laws need to be altered. Those concerns are not to be downplayed. But they’re not to be fabricated either, and the idea that marijuana will suddenly be as easy to get as groceries is a falsehood.

“One Life-wrecking Dependency for Another That’s Only Slightly Less Awful” and “Using Drugs Will Destroy Your Life”

Heroin is absolutely a life-wrecking dependency. And given the huge rise in overdoses, particularly in rural areas of the United States, it’s heartening to hear a politician talk seriously about combatting it. But claiming that marijuana is a “life-wrecking dependency” is, once again, clear fear-mongering on Sessions’s part.

Marijuana dependence is certainly possible. Studies indicate that less than 10 percent of people who use marijuana become dependent on it, although that number rises to 17 percent if you look exclusively at people who begin using marijuana in their teens. Heroin, however, is one of the most addictive drugs out there. (And perhaps we should tell AG Sessions that alcohol and tobacco, available at your friendly neighborhood corner store, also rank in the top 10 most addictive drugs.)

Again, this is not to say that marijuana shouldn’t be strictly regulated, or that it’s impossible to become addicted to it. But to compare heroin addiction to marijuana does a serious disservice to the millions of Americans who have been affected by heroin. Fighting against marijuana–whether that be medical marijuana or recreational marijuana–is not going to do much to combat heroin addiction. Other factors, like prescription drug use, are significantly more pressing. Almost 80 percent of heroin addicts report having misused prescription drugs prior to getting hooked on heroin. While people who are addicted to marijuana are three times more likely to become addicted to heroin than non-addicts, people who abuse prescription opioid painkillers are a staggering 40 times more likely to become addicted to heroin.

“Medical Marijuana Has Been Hyped, Maybe Too Much”

Generally speaking, Sessions’s remarks today were confusing. While he said “medical marijuana has been hyped, maybe too much,” it’s unclear that he was speaking just about medical marijuana. His rhetoric–“legalizing marijuana” and “sold in every corner store” seemed to track more with arguments against recreational marijuana. And if he was talking about medical marijuana, that’s equally confusing, given that there’s evidence to suggest that opioid use does decrease in states that legalize medical marijuana. Given the deadliness of opioid overdoses compared to marijuana (note: there were zero overdoses on marijuana in 2015) that possibility seems at the very least worth exploring.

Sessions did roll back his comments during a question and answer segment after his remarks. He said that the Obama-era Cole Memo, which de-prioritizes the enforcement of federal anti-marijuana law in states where it has been legalized, was “valid.” But the fact that Sessions made the remarks in the first place indicate that pro-medical and recreational marijuana advocates have every reason to remain concerned.

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 Fact-Checking Jeff Sessions’s Claim that “Medical Marijuana Has Been Hyped, Maybe Too Much” appeared first on Law Street.

The marijuana industry and the Trump Administration seem to be locked in a battle of chicken. Known Russian affiliate Attorney General Jeff Sessions and active Venmo user Press Secretary Sean Spicer have drawn battle lines, but we’ve been waiting to see who will make the first move. Until now.

In an attempt to circumvent the inevitable nationwide crackdown on legal marijuana, a group of bipartisan Oregon lawmakers are leading the charge with direct state actions.

According to CBS News, the committee responsible for crafting Oregon’s pot policies has proposed legislation that requires marijuana businesses to destroy customers’ personal information (such as names, addresses and birth dates, gathered for marketing purposes) within 48 hours.

via GIPHY

The measure is scheduled for its first hearing Tuesday. Before it can take effect, it must first pass the full legislature, before finally being approved by the state’s governor, who has vowed to protect Oregon’s pot market.

“I could see where the federal government would come in and try to gather this information from businesses that have stockpiled it and retained it in their records,” said Democratic State Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a bill sponsor who is also a prosecutor. “I think we as legislators have a duty to protect our citizens.”

Even though marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana. However, only four of those states have established legal dispensaries. These shops are required to check the driver’s licenses of customers to verify they are at least 21. But some take it a step further, logging driver’s license numbers, birthdays, addresses, and other personal information into their systems.

“The reason we keep that information is to reach out to them–it’s marketing, just like any retailer,” said Donald Morse, executive director of the Oregon Cannabis Business Council.

Lawmakers fear that this same information could one day be used by the feds to build legal cases against individuals who have purchased marijuana, albeit legally. While the Justice Department doesn’t typically go after individuals, this could be a serious violation of privacy.

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 The Trump Effect?: Oregon Lawmakers Push to Protect Pot Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration’s connections to Russia have worried both Democrats and Republicans, with lawmakers from both parties calling for special prosecutors, committee investigations, and intelligence probes into the matter. Late Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, had met with Russia’s U.S. ambassador twice before–in July and September–despite denying any contacts with Russian officials in his confirmation hearing in January.

A bi-partisan chorus has been building over the past few weeks for the Justice Department to investigate the administration’s ties to Russian officials. Lawmakers’ concerns were amplified when former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned last month after misleading the vice president about his contacts with the same ambassador Sessions met with, Sergey Kislyak. Sessions, the man who would lead a Justice Department investigation into Trump’s Russian contacts, might be embroiled in the investigation himself. Now lawmakers are calling on him to recuse himself or, like Flynn, step down completely.

A handful of prominent Republicans on Wednesday and early Thursday said a special prosecutor should investigate the Trump Administration’s contacts with Russia, instead of Sessions. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, said Sessions should recuse himself:

AG Sessions should clarify his testimony and recuse himself

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) March 2, 2017

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) initially echoed that sentiment, but hours later said he is “not calling on [Sessions] to recuse himself.” Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it “would be best for [Sessions] and for the country” to recuse himself. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), during a CNN town hall Wednesday evening, also seemed to embrace the idea of a special prosecutor in lieu of Sessions. Graham said that “if there’s something there that the FBI thinks is criminal in nature, then for sure you need a special prosecutor.” 

Of course, a senator is allowed to meet with Russian officials, and at the time Sessions met with Kislyak, he was a senator from Alabama. But Sessions denied having any contact with the Russians during the campaign (“I have no idea what this allegation is about,” he said in a statement), and during his hearing he swore under oath that he did not have contact with Russian officials. At worst, Sessions committed perjury, in which case he would certainly be forced to step down. And at best, he misled Congress, which many Democrats see as reason enough to resign.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Sessions “is not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country and must resign.” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said Sessions should “resign immediately, and there is no longer any question that we need a truly independent commission to investigate this issue.” And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a vocal critic of Sessions when he was nominated as attorney general, said Sessions “should have never been confirmed in the first place,” and that he should resign. “We need it now,” she added.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Should Jeff Sessions Recuse Himself from the Russia-Trump Investigation? 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:

Jeff Sessions: Introduce Us to Your Russian Friends!

Yesterday it came to light that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had two meetings with the same Russian diplomat that Michael Flynn had talked to during the transition period. ICYMI, those meetings led to Flynn’s firing from the Trump Administration.

Sessions did not mention these meetings at his confirmation hearing–in fact, he said that he didn’t know anything about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. Now Democrats are calling for Sessions’ resignation, but Republicans say he didn’t do anything wrong, as he was only asked about the Trump campaign’s alleged communications with Russia, not his own communication. The Russian ambassador in question, Sergey Kislyak, is considered to be one of Russia’s top spies and spy-recruiters. Sessions reportedly met with him on two occasions; once in July during the Republican convention and then again in September. Sessions was on the Senate Armed Services Committee during both of these time periods.

Jeff Sessions lied under oath about his contacts with a country that’s actively trying to undermine our democracy. So yes, he should resign.

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) March 2, 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 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In a memo sent to the acting director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons on Thursday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the federal government will continue to contract private prisons to help house federal inmates. In doing so, Sessions is reversing a directive the Obama Administration gave in August 2013 to begin phasing out the government’s reliance on for-profit prisons.

“The memorandum changed long-standing policy and practice, and impaired the Bureau’s ability to meet the future needs of the federal corrections system,” Sessions wrote, referring to the 2013 memo that was written by then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. “Therefore, I direct the Bureau to return to its previous approach.” A Justice Department spokesman later clarified that private prisons give the Bureau increased “flexibility” in housing federal inmates.

For a little over a decade, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been contracting private prisons to house a portion of federal inmates. As the prison population began to swell over the past few decades, hitting record levels under the Obama Administration, the federal government decided to outsource its imprisonment activities. By 2013, private prisons held 15 percent of the federal inmate population, or about 30,000 total prisoners. The prisoner population began to drop in 2013, and the Obama Administration decided private prisons, with their high costs and safety concerns, were no longer necessary.

“They do not save substantially on costs, and as noted in a recent report by the Department’s Office of Inspector General, they do not maintain the same level of safety and security,” Yates wrote in her August 2013 memo. President Donald Trump fired Yates last month, when as acting attorney general she refused to enforce his ban on refugees and travelers from seven largely Muslim countries.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons website, most of the private prisons the federal government contracts hold “criminal aliens who may be deported upon completion of their sentence.” Of the more than 189,000 federal prisoners in the U.S. today, 12 percent, or about 21,500, are housed in private facilities. The rest are distributed among the 122 federal prisons spread across the country or in “other types of facilities.”

In a scathing series of tweets on Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) called out the Trump Administration’s decision to continue using private prisons as a “reward” for the “hundreds of thousands of dollars” private prisons donated to Trump’s presidential campaign. Sanders added:

We must end private prisons in America. Corporations should not be profiting by incarcerating our fellow Americans.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 23, 2017

And Cory Booker, the Democratic Senator from New Jersey, said for-profit prisons undermine “the cause of justice and fairness” by adding a “profit motive to imprisonment.” He added, referring to the Sessions memo: “This damaging decision cuts against our deeply held values of justice and liberty, while creating vast wealth for private prison operators.”

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 Jeff Sessions: Justice Department Will Continue Using Private Prisons appeared first on Law Street.

In a press conference on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer suggested the Justice Department will increase its enforcement of federal marijuana laws. Marijuana is banned at the federal level, but is legal, recreationally or medically, in 28 states and D.C. However Spicer did say the president sees a “big difference” between recreational and medical marijuana.

“I do believe you will see greater enforcement of it,” Spicer said, referring to the federal marijuana ban. “When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people,” he added. “There is still a federal law that we need to abide by when it comes to recreational marijuana and drugs of that nature.”

Spicer’s remarks seem to contradict comments Trump made during the campaign. At a rally in October 2015, Trump said marijuana policy is a “state-by-state” issue. Trump hardly has fixed positions on certain issues, however, and his views on marijuana enforcement might have evolved since late 2015. Spicer’s comments also implied that marijuana use can lead to more dangerous drug use, like opioids. There is limited, if any, evidence to support the so-called “gateway drug” theory.

Marijuana advocates have been wary about the new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, because of anti-marijuana comments he made when he was a senator from Alabama. But during his hearing last month, Sessions said he “won’t commit to never enforcing federal law” but added that doing so is “a problem of resources for the federal government.” That there are more pressing issues than marijuana enforcement on the Justice Department’s agenda–narcotics trafficking and criminal justice, for example–might be the best buffer against a clamp down on marijuana use in states where the practice is legal.

The Congressional Cannabis Caucus, created last week and co-chaired by a bi-partisan group of congressman, released a statement in response to Spicer’s comments. “We hope today’s comments do not reflect the views of the President and his administration,” said the group, which consists of Reps. Earl Blumenauer (R-OR), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), and Don Young (R-AK). “We stand ready to educate this administration on the need for more sensible marijuana policies and share the many experiences states have had with the legalization of cannabis.”

In 2013, the Deputy Attorney James Cole, responding to the recent recreational marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado, issued a memo that directed the federal government to consider state laws when enforcing the federal marijuana ban. The Cole Memo reiterated that marijuana trafficking and related criminal activity–such as selling to minors–should be aggressively enforced. Indeed, the Obama Administration conducted raids on growing facilities in states that legalized the drug. But the Cole Memo instructed deference to state law when it comes to possessing or selling small amounts of marijuana.

For all of the uncertainty Spicer’s comments cast on marijuana enforcement, he made clear that the president respects and understands the medical utilization of marijuana. “The president understands the pain and suffering that many people go through who are facing, especially terminal diseases,” Spicer said, “and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana, can bring to them.

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 Will the Trump Administration Crack Down on Marijuana? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— jackie evancho (@jackieevancho) February 23, 2017

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

The post Trump Administration Reverses Federal Transgender Protection Rules appeared first on Law Street.

A group of pro-pot federal lawmakers has teamed up to announce the formation of the first-ever Congressional Cannabis Caucus. The bipartisan effort will work on legislation related to marijuana legalization and regulation, proving that perhaps Congress is taking the issue of marijuana legalization seriously.

During a press conference last Thursday afternoon, Representatives Earl Blumenauer (R-Oregon), Dana Rohrabacher (R-California), Don Young (R-Alaska), and Jared Polis (D-Colorado) joyfully announced the creation of the coalition. Unsurprisingly, all four of the representatives hail from states where recreational marijuana is legal.

“We’re stepping forward together to say we’ve got to make major changes in our country’s attitude toward cannabis,” Rep. Rohrabacher said at the start of the press conference. “And if we do, many people are going to live better lives, it’s going to be better for our country, better for people, and it makes economic sense at a time when every penny must count for government.”

Rohrabacher and company discussed the importance of protecting the rights of individuals who reside in states where recreational marijuana is legal. Earlier this month Rohrabacher introduced HR 975, otherwise known as the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2017, which would allow state law to supersede federal law when it comes to the Controlled Substance Act.

The appointment of Sen. Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney General, a staunch marijuana critic, left many marijuana advocates wary of whether there will be any legislative change under the Trump Administration. In the past Sessions has called the drug “dangerous” and has joked that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” However, Sessions said during his confirmation hearing that he would need to use “good judgment” when deciding how to enforce federal marijuana laws.

“Because of the conflicts between Federal and State law, marijuana-related issues are no longer theoretical–they are real, and they are affecting real people in Alaska and across the country,” Young said in a written statement. “I look forward to working with the Congressional Cannabis Caucus to educate my colleagues in the House on the issues we are facing in Alaska, and hopefully to also develop solutions to these problems.”

According to Salon, several of the marijuana industry’s top leading lobbying groups and associations–including NORML, the Marijuana Policy Project, and the Drug Policy Alliance, among others–issued a joint statement on Thursday thanking the lawmakers leading the charge on cannabis policy.

“The establishment of a Cannabis Caucus will allow members from both parties, who represent diverse constituencies from around the country, to join together for the purpose of advancing sensible cannabis policy reform,” the statement read.

With marijuana legalization approval ratings at an all time high, we’ll have to wait and see if the bipartisan efforts of these state representatives can make some more headway with updating current legislation.

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 Congress Now Has a Bipartisan Cannabis Caucus appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Presidents Day! For those of you lucky enough to have the day off from school or work, grab a coffee, put your feet up, and catch up on Law Street’s best of the week below.

Jeff Sessions Signals Marijuana Enforcement Will Remain the Same

Marijuana advocates have been worried for months about the recently confirmed Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana,” and he has joked that he thought the Ku Klux Klan “were OK until I found out they smoked pot.” But last week, Sessions spoke with Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, and may have finally hinted at how he might enforce the federal marijuana ban as attorney general.

Oroville Dam Overflow: The Environment and Failing Infrastructure

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.

Transgender students across the country are fighting for the right to use restrooms that correspond to their gender identities. And an injunction that has thwarted their efforts will officially not be challenged by President Donald Trump’s team.

The Justice Department filed a legal brief on February 10 withdrawing the government’s objections to the injunction, a move that could impact an upcoming Supreme Court case. In August, a Texas federal judge issued the injunction to prevent President Barack Obama’s administration from enforcing a directive which mandates that public schools allow transgender students to choose restrooms based on their gender identities. Non-compliance, according to the previous administration, would violate Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in public schools.

Judge Reed O’Connor wrote in the injunction that the government didn’t follow proper rule-making procedures–also known as “notice and comment”–and couldn’t implement requirements based on “the interpretation that the definition of sex includes gender identity.” 

Trump’s latest move could affect the outcome of a case involving Gavin Grimm, a transgender student who sued the Gloucester County, Virginia school board after his high school refused to let him use the boy’s bathroom. Grimm–who recently received a shout-out from “Orange is the New Black” actress and trans activist Laverne Cox at the Grammys–is scheduled to go to the Supreme Court in March. But the Washington Post reported that because his case is partially based on Obama’s directive, it may not move forward.

While on the campaign trail in April, Trump said he believed that transgender people should be able to “use the bathroom they feel is appropriate.” At the time, he also criticized HB2, a bill signed by North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory that requires people to use only the restrooms corresponding to their biological sex–although Trump primarily addressed the economic impact of the bill on the state’s businesses.

But after the Obama Administration directive came out in May, Trump said he believed the matter should be left up to the states, not the federal government. He used the same argument when he later contradicted himself and announced his support for HB2.   

The DOJ dropped its opposition to the injunction one day after Jeff Sessions was sworn in as Attorney General. Sessions has a history of voting against the expansion of rights for Americans in the LGBTQ community: he has opposed marriage equality, workplace protections for LGBTQ employees, and the inclusion of sexual orientation under the definition of hate crimes. The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group which scores politicians on their civil rights records, rates him at 0 percent.

Although Trump has promised to protect LGBTQ Americans (specifically from “the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology”) Vice President Mike Pence’s record on LGBTQ rights is similar to Sessions’. And over the summer, the Republican Party updated its platform to support the idea that parents should be free to make medical decisions for their children. Some saw that move as approval of conversion therapy–the use of psychological and sometimes physical discipline, including electroshock treatment, as a means of changing someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Victoria Sheridan

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

The post Trump Administration Pulls Support for Transgender Bathroom Protections appeared first on Law Street.

Marijuana advocates have been worried for months about the recently confirmed Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana,” and he has joked that he thought the Ku Klux Klan “were OK until I found out they smoked pot.” But last week, Sessions spoke with Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, and may have finally hinted at how he might enforce the federal marijuana ban as attorney general.

“Regarding the prioritization of federal resources to combat marijuana, he didn’t see the federal government getting involved in marijuana use or low-level state, what are traditionally state and local crimes, but, I don’t think he ruled out the possibility of the federal government getting involved in larger-scale operations,” Jones said.

If what Jones said is to be taken as Sessions’ stance on enforcing marijuana laws at the state-level, then not much would change. President Barack Obama routinely cracked down on medical marijuana dispensaries and growers, even ones in states that legalized the drug. During Obama’s first three years in office, the Justice Department conducted over 100 raids.

Despite a history of anti-marijuana comments, Sessions has stayed consistent when asked about how he will enforce the federal marijuana ban as attorney general. In his hearing last month, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Sessions how he would handle marijuana enforcement. “I won’t commit to never enforcing federal law,” he responded, “but absolutely it’s a problem of resources for the federal government.”

As more and more states legalize pot in some form–28 states and D.C. have already done so–enforcing the federal ban will become increasingly difficult. Nearly one quarter of Americans now live in a state with some form of legal marijuana, either medical or recreational. And according to a recent Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans favor marijuana legalization, the highest rate in 47 years.

The attorney general is meant to enforce the law based on the law, not his or her own opinions. And in his hearing, Sessions swore under oath to ditch his personal viewpoints when enforcing U.S. law. “It’s not so much the attorney general’s job to decide what laws to enforce. We should do our jobs and enforce laws effectively as we’re able,” Sessions said during his hearing. “The U.S. Congress made the possession of marijuana in every state — and the distribution — an illegal act. If that’s something that’s not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to change the rule.”

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 Jeff Sessions Signals Marijuana Enforcement Will Remain the Same appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is apparently fed up with the outspoken and plucky Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. Tuesday evening, McConnell invoked an obscure, and rarely-used rule which effectively silenced Warren. Here’s what happened:

In a Senate debate about Wednesday’s confirmation vote for Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions, Warren began to read a letter written by Coretta Scott King in 1986. Warren quoted King, whose letter addressed Sessions’ record on civil rights as a U.S. attorney, saying that Sessions used “the awesome power of his office to chill the pre-exercise of the vote by black citizens.” King was writing to oppose Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship in Alabama, a position he was ultimately denied.

A US Senator isn’t allowed to read a letter by a civil rights icon but our President is allowed to attack one. #LetLizSpeak. #StopSessions pic.twitter.com/Up4H4NWDII

— Tracy Wehringer (@twehringer) February 8, 2017

McConnell, the Senate majority leader, responded to Warren’s letter reading by citing Rule 19, saying: “The senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama, as warned by the chair.” Voting along party lines, the Senate agreed with McConnell 49 to 43. So, what exactly is Rule 19, and where does it come from?

It’s an old one: in February 1902, a quarrel broke out between two Democratic Senators from Alabama, Benjamin Tillman and John McLaurin. Tillman was angry that McLaurin seemed to be swayed by the Republicans on certain issues, namely on the question of annexing the Philippines. Tillman accused McLaurin of treachery and corruption, and what happened next is what led directly to the creation of Rule 19.

“The 54-year-old Tillman jumped from his place and physically attacked McLaurin, who was 41, with a series of stinging blows,” according to Senate history. “Efforts to separate the two combatants resulted in misdirected punches landing on other members.” A few months later, the Senate enacted Rule 19, with the goal of tidying up decorum on the Senate floor.

Now, had Warren continued, it’s unlikely she and McConnell would have had a physical altercation. But Rule 19’s language is not just about deterring physical conflict. The rule states: “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” Basically, don’t undermine a fellow senator by questioning his or her ability to govern.

The last time the Senate even came close to using Rule 19 to silence a senator was in 1979, when a heated debate between Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-CT) and Sen. John Heinz (R-PA) became heated. Heinz reportedly showed Weicker Rule 19, the two shook hands, and the situation was resolved. Last year, McConnell might have had cause to invoke Rule 19 against a fellow Republican, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz accused McConnell of lying “over and over and over again.”

According to McConnell, Warren has repeatedly brushed with breaking Rule 19. Reading a letter written by King, it seems, was the final straw. “Sen. Warren was giving a lengthy speech,” McConnell told reporters after the incident. “She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation,” He added: “Nevertheless, she persisted.” Later Tuesday evening, Warren read the letter in full on Facebook. Two million people watched–and listened.

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 Mitch McConnell vs. Elizabeth Warren: What is Rule 19? appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Wednesday–it’s the middle of the week! 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:

Republicans Silence Elizabeth Warren for Reading Letter by Coretta Scott King

Last night, Senator Elizabeth Warren protested Senator Jeff Sessions, who is expected to be confirmed as the U.S. Attorney General today. When she started reading a letter written by Martin Luther King Jr.’s wife, Coretta Scott King, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell abruptly interrupted her and said that it “impugned the motives and conduct” of Sessions. McConnell invoked rule XIX, which prohibits senators from implying that another senator could be unworthy of his post. The incident ended with 49 Republican senators voting to prohibit Warren from talking about Sessions until his nomination process is done.

.@SenWarren cut off as @SenateMajLdr says she “impugned the motives” of Jeff Sessions by quoting Coretta Scott King https://t.co/UHcNv2eia8 pic.twitter.com/tntBWZ4oxc

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 8, 2017

King wrote the letter opposing Sessions when he was nominated for a federal judgeship in the 1980s. Part of it reads, “Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters.” But McConnell’s silencing of Warren seems to have inspired many–the hashtag #ShePersisted began trending to praise Warren.

Attention Women! Please Share! #RESIST #PERSIST #ShePersisted pic.twitter.com/OzO5o2D6LB

— Liz Thurmond (@countmystars) February 8, 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: February 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump fired Sally Yates, the acting attorney general, late Monday night, after she said she would not defend an executive order the president signed last Friday. Dana Boente, a U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, will serve as the acting attorney general for the time being. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a confirmation vote on Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for attorney general, as early as Tuesday.

The controversy that culminated in the firing of Yates began last Friday, when Trump signed an executive order, barring citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from coming to the U.S. for at least 90 days. Syrians are blocked indefinitely, and refugees from all countries will not be admitted to the U.S. for at least 120 days. Widespread dissent followed Trump’s order: thousands of protesters hit major airports and city streets around the country; Democrats, and many Republicans spoke out; and many religious and business leaders decried the order.

Late Monday afternoon, Yates sent a letter to Justice Department lawyers:

I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

According to Justice Department officials, Yates had been struggling with how to respond to Trump’s divisive order, and had even considered resigning. Trump responded to Yates’ defiance in a Twitter post last night, a few hours before she was fired:

The Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons. They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 31, 2017

Monday evening, at about 9:15 p.m., Yates received a hand-written letter from the White House, stating: “the president has removed you from the office of Deputy Attorney General of the United States.” Soon after, a statement by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Yates “is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.”

Spicer defended Trump’s executive order, which was approved by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel “with respect to form and legality.” Spicer said: “Calling for tougher vetting for individuals traveling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.”

Attorneys general have resigned from their posts over the past few decades, but it is quite rare for one to be fired. In fact, the last time this happened was in 1973, during the so-called Saturday Night Massacre, when President Richard Nixon fired his attorney general and deputy attorney general. They were fired because they refused to dismiss the special prosecutor in the Watergate case.

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 Who is Sally Yates and Why Did President Trump Fire Her? appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, last week we taught you how to fight revenge porn, a woman sued Chipotle after the company used her photo, and Sen. Jeff Sessions faced a pro-marijuana group during his confirmation hearing. Learn more about these trending stories below!

How Can We Fight Revenge Porn?

Online sexual harassment and revenge porn have become relatively commonplace. Here at Law Street, we’ve written a number of articles on the topic in the last couple of weeks alone. From the lawyer fighting revenge porn to the online harassment of journalist Lauren Duca, there are concerns that this kind of behavior has become the norm in America. In fact, in September, President-elect Donald Trump was accused of something revenge-porn-like himself, when he encouraged his Twitter followers to look for Alicia Machado’s sex tape. This is clearly something that we’re going to have to deal with in coming years. But what exactly is revenge porn? And what do you do if it happens to you?

California Woman Files $2 Billion Lawsuit Against Chipotle After Company Uses her Photo

A California woman is suing the popular fast-casual burrito chain Chipotle, alleging that the company used a photo of her in its advertisements, but that she never gave it permission to do so. Leah Caldwell, the plaintiff, is asking for over $2 billion, specifically $2,237,633,000, arguing that the company has made that much money off of the use of her photo that was taken in 2006.

Pro-Marijuana Group Gives Jeff Sessions an Earful Before Confirmation Hearing

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, will face the Senate in a confirmation hearing on Tuesday. In an effort spearheaded by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), pro-marijuana groups are asking supporters to call their senators on Monday, and let them know that they will not stand for any aggressive enforcement actions taken by Sessions, who once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

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.

On Thursday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch–a week or so before she leaves her post–announced reforms for the Baltimore Police Department, agreed to by the city and the DOJ. The reforms include increased community oversight, and improved recruitment and training policies. In a statement, Lynch said the reforms will help “ensure effective and constitutional policing, restore the community’s trust in law enforcement, and advance public and officer safety.”

The consent decree follows a Department of Justice report on policing in Baltimore that was released last August, the culmination of a year-long investigation spurred by the death of Freddie Gray in 2015. The report, which was based on data from 2010 to 2016, found that the Baltimore Police Department has “systemic deficiencies” in training, and policies that “failed to equip officers with the tools they need to police effectively.” There was widespread racial bias in the department, the report found; police officers were also found to have used excessive force.

Lynch also said that a pending investigation into the Chicago Police Department will be released shortly, perhaps as early as Friday. According to a Chicago Tribune report, the Justice Department found that Chicago police violated the U.S. Constitution with some of their practices. The Chicago investigation began in December 2015, after a video was released that showed a Chicago police officer shooting and killing a black teenager, Laquan McDonald.

“Change is painful. Growth is painful. But nothing is as painful as being stuck in a place that we do not belong,” Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis said at the time of the DOJ report. Under President Barack Obama, the Justice Department has investigated 25 law enforcement agencies across the country; 14 ended in consent decrees. 

These reforms come during a transitional period for the Justice Department. President-elect Donald Trump’s attorney general nominee, Jeff Sessions, has raised concerns that the Justice Department will shield police departments rather than investigate possible reforms. During his two-day confirmation hearing that concluded on Wednesday, Sessions was prodded about how he would enforce consent decrees, and if he would pursue the issue of police reform as attorney general.

“I think there is concern that good police officers and good departments can be sued by the Department of Justice when you just have individuals within a department that have done wrong,” Sessions said. “These lawsuits undermine the respect for police officers and create an impression that the entire department is not doing their work consistent with fidelity to law and fairness, and we need to be careful before we do that.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post DOJ Announces Reforms for Baltimore Police Department appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) faced the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and Wednesday for a confirmation hearing, kicking off a week of hearings for President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees. In the hearing, Sessions, Trump’s selection for attorney general, denied allegations of racism, and highlighted a career spent defending civil rights and combating crime. Protesters, some of whom were dressed in the white-hooded garb of the Ku Klux Klan, repeatedly interrupted the hearing.

The hearing opened with prepared remarks from Sessions, 70, who highlighted his 14-year record arguing criminal cases as an attorney. He also lamented the recent rise in violent crime in America, and marked it as an issue he would tackle as attorney general. “Protecting the people of this country from crime, and especially from violent crime, is the high calling of the men and women of the Department of Justice,” he said. “Today, I am afraid, that has become more important than ever.”

Diverging Beliefs or Duty?

During the hearing, Sessions was adamant about the role of the Justice Department in upholding the nation’s laws, even when they diverged with his, or Trump’s, personal ideology. For example, as a senator, Sessions opposed same-sex marriage, but on Tuesday he said he would acknowledge the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that essentially legalized gay marriage. He also firmly opposed the idea of a Muslim immigration ban, but did say, as Trump has, that immigrants from countries with a history of terrorism could be barred from entering the country.

Weed Watch

In recent weeks, marijuana activists have vocally opposed Trump’s nomination of Sessions, who once said, “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” On Tuesday afternoon, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Sessions if he would enforce the federal marijuana ban at the state level. “I won’t commit to never enforcing federal law but, absolutely, it’s a problem of resources for the federal government,” Sessions replied. He didn’t offer many specifics on how he’d address the issue, aside from saying he would use “good judgment.”

Allegations of Racism

Sessions, an early, ardent supporter of Trump, also sought to correct the “caricature” of him as a Southern racist. “You have a Southern name; you come from South Alabama, that sounds worse to some people,” he said. Since he was nominated as the nation’s top prosecutor in November, Sessions has come under fire for comments he has made over the years. As a federal attorney in the 1980s, Sessions said the KKK “were OK until I found out they smoked pot.” He also reportedly referred to Thomas Figures, an assistant federal attorney at the time, and a black man, as “boy.”

But Sessions denied harboring any sympathy for the Klan. “I abhor the Klan and what it represents and its hateful ideology,” he said in his opening remarks. He added: “I deeply understand the history of civil rights and the horrendous impact that relentless and systemic discrimination and the denial of voting rights has had on our African-American brothers and sisters. I have witnessed it.”

What About Hillary?

On Hillary Clinton, who he vociferously denounced during the campaign, Sessions said he would not personally oversee any further investigations into her email server or foundation. Instead, he said, he would appoint a special prosecutor if the department decided to pursue her further. “We can never have a political dispute turn into a criminal dispute,” he said. “This country does not punish its political enemies but this country ensures that no one is above the law.”

Historic Dissension

And in an unprecedented move, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), along with Representative John Lewis (D-GA) and Representative Cedric Richmond (D-LA), testified against Sessions. “I do not take lightly the decision to testify against a Senate colleague,” said Booker, who some suspect will run for president in 2020. “But the immense powers of the Attorney General combined with the deeply troubling views of this nominee is a call to conscience.”

Among other views, Booker opposes  Sessions as the next attorney general for his “failure to defend the civil rights of women, minorities and LGBT Americans to his opposition to common sense, bipartisan immigration reform.” In February 2016, Booker said he was “blessed and honored” to partner with Sessions during a ceremony commemorating the 1965 Selma march.

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 What Happened at Senator Jeff Sessions’ Confirmation Hearing? appeared first on Law Street.

Senator vs. Senator: Cory Booker Slams Jeff Sessions

Popular New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker made history yesterday, when he became the first sitting U.S. senator to testify against the nomination of another sitting U.S. senator: Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sessions is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for AG. Yesterday, Booker said Sessions has “not demonstrated a commitment to a central requisite of the job: to aggressively pursue the congressional mandate of civil rights, equal rights, and justice for all of our citizens.”

.@CoryBooker testifies against Jeff Sessions: “our country demands a more courageous empathy” pic.twitter.com/Tnr3t9OyPM

— Sen. Cory Booker (@SenBookerOffice) January 11, 2017

Booker’s move drew criticism from Republicans. Representative Chris Collins (R-NY) said that Booker just wanted some time in the spotlight. Others saw it as a sign that Booker may throw his hat into the ring for 2020.

can we just fast-forward to whenever I get to vote for Cory Booker for president?

— Daniel Kanter (@Danielkanter) January 11, 2017

Civil rights icon Representative John Lewis and NAACP President Cornell William Brooks also testified against Sessions. Brooks said that Sessions has shown “disrespect, and even disdain for the civil and human rights of racial and ethnic minorities, women, the disabled, and others who suffer from discrimination in this country.”

But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham responded to those claims, saying that the NAACP is biased and favors Democrats in its Civil Rights Federal Legislative Scorecards. In short: Sessions’ confirmation has turned into a bit of a melee.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, Obama gave his last speech as POTUS, and today, Trump held his first news conference in 167 days. Read on to find out what they said! 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:

Obama’s Moving Farewell Speech

Last night, President Barack Obama gave his last speech before leaving the White House, and it’s safe to say that there was not a dry eye in the place. Though he admitted that his job hasn’t been easy, and that he’s seen a lot of setbacks, he hasn’t lost hope. Obama urged his supporters to not give in to fear, guard their values, and be open-minded. The crowd cheered loudly enough to drown out his words, and when he paid tribute to Michelle, many people stood up. “You took on a role you didn’t ask for and made it your own with grace and grit and style and good humor,” he said, wiping his eyes. And of course he mentioned his BFF, VP Joe Biden, and said, “You were the first decision I made as a nominee, and it was the best, not just because you have been a great Vice President, but because in the bargain I gained a brother.”

But where was his youngest daughter, Sasha, during all of this? It turns out that she missed the speech because it was a school night and she had a test in the morning. Now that’s discipline!

#WhereIsSasha Hopefully blocking the driveway to the White House pic.twitter.com/NodjX8x4tB

— Sabra Berger (@SabraBerger) January 11, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, will face the Senate in a confirmation hearing on Tuesday. In an effort spearheaded by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), pro-marijuana groups are asking supporters to call their senators on Monday, and let them know that they will not stand for any aggressive enforcement actions taken by Sessions, who once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

“Senator Sessions’ views are out of step with mainstream America and they are in conflict with laws throughout a majority of states,” said NORML Executive Director Erik Altieri in a statement. “We must demand that Senators on the Judiciary Committee ask this nominee whether he intends to respect the will of the voters in these states and whether he truly believes that no ‘good people’ have ever smoked pot.” The “Day of Action” included the Twitter campaign #JustSayNoToSessions:

.@SenBobCasey @SenToomey you guys gotta #JustSayNoToSessions! Please, do not let this guy gain any more power, lest our country suffer more

— Derek Rosenzweig (@ozzyogkush) January 9, 2017

Since Trump’s announcement in November, Sessions has come under fire for disparaging comments he has made in the past in regard to marijuana. In the 1980s, while serving as a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Sessions said he thought the Ku Klux Klan “were OK until I found out they smoked pot.” He later said those remarks were a joke. Sessions has also called marijuana reform “a tragic mistake.”

Marijuana laws around the country are loosening: more than a quarter of all Americans live in a state with either recreational or medical marijuana legalized. Most recently, on Election Day, eight states passed ballot measures to legalize recreational or medical marijuana. But at the federal level, marijuana remains an illegal substance, classified in the same group as heroin and LSD.

@NORML I called Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington State. Put down your bongs, pick up your phones, and speak up

— DonSativa (@MrPandejo) January 9, 2017

Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, the attorney general under President Barack Obama, did not aggressively enforce the federal marijuana ban at the state level. But now, as Sessions prepares to lead the Justice Department, marijuana proponents worry that he could order raids on growing facilities, and arrest dispensary owners in the name of the federal ban. While he has not made any mention of how he might enforce the federal law in regard to marijuana, Sessions will have power to clamp down if he wishes.

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 Pro-Marijuana Group Gives Jeff Sessions an Earful Before Confirmation Hearing appeared first on Law Street.

For the thousands of people planning to flood the National Mall on Inauguration Day, to cheer or to jeer, a D.C.-based group has an idea to ease the potentially tense atmosphere: free marijuana joints. The D.C. Cannabis Coalition, an activist organization in a city where recreational marijuana is (mostly) legal, will be handing out thousands of joints on the morning of January 20. On the west side of Dupont Circle, the group will hand out coffee and tea, and at 10 a.m., begin to march south toward the National Mall, handing out joints along the way.

The group has a cache of 4,200 joints, and at 4 minutes and 20 seconds into Trump’s speech, marchers are encouraged to light their joints.”The main message is it’s time to legalize cannabis at the federal level,” said Adam Eidinger, the founder of DCMJ, a DC Cannabis Coalition partner and the group that drafted the initiative that legalized recreational pot in the capital.

Eidinger acknowledged that protesters would be breaking the law if they smoked in public, and on federal land, but he encouraged it as “a form of civil disobedience.” He said: “I think it’s a good protest. If someone wants to do it, they are risking arrest, but it’s a protest and you know what, the National Mall is a place for protest.”

Eidinger said the protest was welcome to Trump supporters and opponents alike, and is aimed more at pushing to recognize marijuana as a legal substance at the federal level than anything else. Cannabis, though legal in some form in a majority of states and D.C., is banned by the federal government. And DCMJ is no fan of Trump’s appointee for attorney general, Jeff Sessions.

In late November, when Trump announced Sessions as his choice for attorney general, DCMJ called the former Alabama senator “one of the biggest prohibitionists in Congress.” The group added: “We can’t idly sit by and watch all the hard work we’ve done to legalize cannabis in DC be eroded by an out of touch prohibitionist!” But the joint giveaway is not all about protesting Sessions, or Trump, or the federal marijuana ban. “This is really a gift for people who come to Washington, D.C.,” Eidinger said.

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 Cannabis Group to Hand Out Thousands of Free Joints on Inauguration Day appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI, last week we covered child marriage, marijuana bans, and suspicious chorizo burritos. Check out Law Street’s top trending stories below!

1. Public Uproar: Turkey Moves Ahead With Child Marriage Law

It is hard to believe that in 2016 in a European country, a government could propose a new law that would make child marriage legal, and also protect rapists from being punished by the law as long as they marry their victim. But that is exactly what is happening in Turkey. The new bill was approved on Thursday and is scheduled to undergo a final vote on Tuesday. If it passes, it will take away the punishment for sexual assault if there is no force or if the victim and perpetrator are married. This would include girls under the age of 18. So how could sexual assault without force be criminalized, and how could sexual violence in marriages be punished? Put simply: they likely couldn’t be. Read the full article here.

2. Will Trump’s Attorney General Pick Enforce the Federal Ban on Marijuana?

Days after eight states voted to legalize marijuana in some form or to expand existing laws, President-elect Donald Trump picked Sen. Jeff Sessions, a vocal critic of legalization, to head the Justice Department as the new attorney general. With the disparate marijuana laws between the federal government and states, marijuana and criminal justice advocacy groups, not to mention users and regulated sellers, are expressing concerns about how the Trump Administration would affect the state-level legal market. Read the full article here.

3. Duped by ‘300-Calorie’ Burrito, Chipotle Customers File Lawsuit

Three Chipotle customers in Los Angeles got more than they were hoping for when trying out the chain’s new Chorizo Burrito–well, more calories that is. In a class action lawsuit filed last week, the diners allege that they were “lulled into a false belief” that Chipotle’s new burrito is much healthier than it really is, due to misleading nutritional information. Read the full article here.

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.

Days after eight states voted to legalize marijuana in some form or to expand existing laws, President-elect Donald Trump picked Sen. Jeff Sessions, a vocal critic of legalization, to head the Justice Department as the new attorney general. With the disparate marijuana laws between the federal government and states, marijuana and criminal justice advocacy groups, not to mention users and regulated sellers, are expressing concerns about how the Trump Administration would affect the state-level legal market.

During a Senate hearing in April, Sessions offered a glimpse of his views on marijuana, attitudes that might shape his approach as attorney general. “We need grown-ups in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought not to be minimized, that it is in fact a very real danger,” he said. He added that marijuana “is dangerous, you cannot play with it, it is not funny,” and “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

As attorney general, Sessions would oversee federal prosecutors as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration. It’s unclear how he would enforce the federal ban at the state level, if he would at all, but it’s the ambiguity and the unknown, with a noted marijuana critic at the helm, that is worrying to advocacy groups and other actors in states where the industry is regulated. 

Trump, who has expressed his support for states’ rights to legalize pot, would have the ability to block any crackdowns administered by Sessions. But another unknown is how hands-on Trump will be with the Justice Department, especially concerning marijuana law. John Hudak, a marijuana policy expert with the Brookings Institution, spoke with The New York Times recently about what Sessions would have the reign to do. He said:

As attorney general, Sessions would have the ability to rescind two Justice Department directives–known as the Cole and Ogden memos–that called for stepping back from marijuana prosecutions. He could also use federal law enforcement power against operators and sue state regulators to block state systems.

As it currently stands, marijuana is designated a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, and is illegal at the federal level. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized weed in some form, however, and the majority of Americans, around 60 percent, live in one of these places. How Trump might deal with reconciling federal and state marijuana laws, and how his newly appointed attorney general might steer the Justice Department in such matters, is an open question that will take at least a few months to answer.

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 Will Trump’s Attorney General Pick Enforce the Federal Ban on Marijuana? appeared first on Law Street.

New Kids in Town?

Today, Donald Trump is expected to announce many of his picks for high-ranking positions in his new government. According to the rumors, he will name Michael Flynn as national security adviser, Representative Mike Pompeo as CIA director, and Senator Jeff Sessions as attorney general. The pick of Sessions is controversial, as he is known for his hard-line and very conservative views on immigration, same-sex marriage, and marijuana legislation. He was denied a position as a lifetime tenured federal judge in the 1980’s because of his views on race, an inappropriate joke about the KKK, and a series of other incidents.

Trump: I’ll make KKK supporter Jeff Sessions attorney general!!

Trump Supporters: I don’t get why minorities make everything about race.

— America’s Henchman (@TheDailySchmuck) November 18, 2016

Trump voters wanted change, well, you got it. With the appointment of “Jeff Sessions” we’ve changed back the 1950’s, Jim Crow South.

— Kilgore Trout (@CohibaSmkr) November 18, 2016

Pompeo is a former Army officer and was a sharp critic of Hillary Clinton when the whole Benghazi saga was going on. Flynn is a registered Democrat, but he likes Russia a lot and does not like Islam at all. In February he tweeted that it is RATIONAL to be afraid of Muslims.

Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL: please forward this to others: the truth fears no questions… https://t.co/NLIfKFD9lU

— General Flynn (@GenFlynn) February 27, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 18, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.