Texas’ revamped voter ID law is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday. The judge, Nelva Gonzales Ramos, issued an injunction, saying it violates the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution. Gonzales Ramos also blocked another Texas voter ID law, which passed in 2011 and took effect in 2013. A number of subsequent legal challenges have largely blocked that law.

The protracted legal battle over Texas and its voter ID laws–among the toughest in the country–represents a larger voter fraud debate, playing out at both at the state and federal levels. Critics of voter ID laws say Republican-controlled states are deliberately stymying minorities from voting, because they are more likely to vote Democratic. Proponents of voter ID laws say voter fraud is rampant and must be kept in check with tougher voting standards.

Gonzales Ramos said Texas’ updated law, which was set to take effect in January, “remains discriminatory because it imposes burdens disproportionately on blacks and Latinos.” She added that the revisions made in the updated law, known as Senate Bill 5, do not “fully relieve minorities of the burden of discriminatory featured” of the 2011 law.

“The court thus issues injunctive relief to prevent ongoing violations of federal law and the recurrence of illegal behavior,” she wrote in the ruling.

Gonzales Ramos tossed the 2011 law, Senate Bill 14, in 2014. A circuit court affirmed the decision, but asked Ramos and the District Court for the Southern District of Texas to reexamine its discriminatory purpose. In April, Gonzales Ramos once again ruled that the law intentionally discriminated against minorities.

The original law required Texas voters to show one of seven forms of government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport. Critics contend minorities are less likely to have any of the seven ID options, and thus would be disproportionately barred from voting. The revamped law offered more options for identification, including utility bills or bank statements. Still, Gonzales Ramos found the law to be too restrictive.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has vigorously fought the legal challenges to the voter ID laws over the past few years. In a statement, he called Wednesday’s ruling “outrageous,” and vowed to appeal the decision. He also cited the Justice Department’s support of the law. Paxton added: “Safeguarding the integrity of elections in Texas is essential to preserving our democracy.”

Voting rights activists, civil rights groups, and a number of Democratic politicians cheered the decision. U.S. Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX), issued a statement saying, “Republican state leaders’ transparent efforts to make it harder and less likely that some Texans will vote are disgraceful.”

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 Judge Blocks Texas Voter ID Laws…Again appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice released an internal memo that instructed the department to look into whether universities are discriminating against white candidates.

While the memo does not specifically mention white students, it pointed to programs that lead to “intentional race-based discrimination,” a clear reference to the policy of affirmative action, which President John F. Kennedy introduced in the 1960s to promote equality in education.

The move is popular among Trump’s conservative base. Roger Clegg, president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, hailed the project as something that has been long overdue:

The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well.

In a way Trump and his team are right: there is a serious discriminatory problem in college admissions. However, the problem has less to do with race and more to do with socioeconomic status. Children whose parents rank toward the top of the income bracket are overly represented at top colleges in the U.S., compared to students whose parents come from the bottom tier.

A study by The Upshot earlier this year shows that since 2002, the share of students from the top one percent (in terms of household income) attending elite universities has steadily increased. But the share of students from the bottom 40th percentile and below has slightly decreased. At 38 colleges in America, including five Ivy League schools, the top one percent had more representation than students from the bottom 60 percent.

Why is this the case when some of the best schools in the country provide full tuition to students who are in the lowest socioeconomic class? The answer is simple: legacy, connections, and resources. Some students are given priority admission to top schools because of family ties, while largely ignoring the merit of their applications.

Take for instance the story of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law. Kushner attended Frisch’s, a well known New Jersey prep school. One college prep counselor said that Jared was “certainly not anywhere near the top of his class.”

However, Daniel Golden, author of “The Price of Admission,” claims Kushner’s father donated $2.5 million right around the time his son applied to Harvard. Unsurprisingly, Kushner was accepted. But according to Golden, Kushner would not have been accepted on his own merits

If the Justice Department truly wants to fight against discrimination, it should focus on preventing those with the financial means from buying their way into a top school.

This is where race plays a factor, as minority groups tend to be the ones who are historically financially disadvantaged in the U.S. The median household income for whites is approximately $30,000 dollars more than black and Hispanic families, according to a 2016 Pew Research Center study.

Universities should accept more students whose household income is in the bottom percentile, and prevent those who are in the from the top percentile from using their financial resources to usurp those who do not have the same financial means.

James Levinson

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

The post The Irony of the Justice Department’s Affirmative Action Probe 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Levinson

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

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

On Tuesday, three officers involved in the shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald were indicted on three felony counts: conspiracy, official misconduct, and obstruction of justice. None of the officers pulled the trigger that killed McDonald on October 20, 2014 in Chicago’s South Side. Instead, they are accused of intentionally shielding the man who is charged with McDonald’s murder, Officer Jason Van Dyke.

According to the indictment, Detective David March and patrol officers Joseph Walsh and Thomas Gaffney provided a misleading report after the shooting. Detailing the events that led Van Dyke to shoot and kill McDonald, the officers said the teenager wielded a knife and was aggressively approaching the officers, slashing his blade in their direction.

Three current or former Chicago police officers indicted in Laquan McDonald case https://t.co/fom5AeCmki pic.twitter.com/NKwFTBzbOu

— CNN (@CNN) June 27, 2017

But about a year after the shooting, in November 2015, the Chicago Police Department released dashcam footage that contradicted the officers’ report. In the video, McDonald appears to be holding a knife, but is clearly staggering away from the officers. Shots ring out and McDonald falls to the pavement, as Van Dyke continues to fire his weapon. In all, 16 shots were fired. The video, which sparked massive protests across Chicago, ultimately led to the dismissal of Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy.

“These defendants lied about what occurred during a police-involved shooting in order to prevent independent criminal investigators from learning the truth,” said Patricia Brown Holmes, the special prosecutor who announced the charges on Tuesday.

The indictment said that the three men were aware that a “public airing” of the shooting and the video “would inexorably lead to a thorough criminal investigation by an independent body and likely criminal charges.” The charges also said March, a detective with over three decades of experience, “failed to locate, identify, and preserve physical evidence” of the crime, “including video and photographic evidence.”

The three officers also allegedly conspired together to avoid interviewing three witnesses that would have conflicted with Van Dyke’s account of his encounter with McDonald. Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder in 2015; he pleaded not guilty, and there is no trial date set at this point. March, Walsh, and Gaffney are scheduled to be arraigned on July 10. If convicted, they could face over ten years in prison and tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

In the Obama Administration’s last months in office, officials conducted an investigation into the CPD. The findings were announced just days before President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The Justice Department found a pattern of racial discrimination within the CPD, and said the department “engages in a pattern or practice of using force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Chicago Officers Indicted on Three Felony Counts in Laquan McDonald Murder 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.

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.

Adding to its recent legal woes, Uber is facing a criminal probe from the Justice Department, according to people familiar with the investigation. The investigation, which concerns the ride sharing service’s controversial Greyball tracking tool, is reportedly in its early stages. A federal inquiry does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing; criminal charges being brought against Uber executives are also not a guarantee.

Since The New York Times uncovered its existence in March, Greyball has been a lightning rod of controversy. Greyball is a technology that allows Uber to present fake versions of its app to people it does not want in its cars–like city officials looking to reign in the company’s illegal practices–and track them using credit card data and other personal information. Uber claims it used the tool to protect its drivers in new markets, some of which the service operated in illegally, like Portland, Oregon.

After the Times’ report in March, an Uber spokesman said Greyball “denies ride requests to users who are violating our terms of service — whether that’s people aiming to physically harm drivers, competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who collude with officials on secret ‘stings’ meant to entrap drivers.”

But officials in cities like Portland, where Uber fought through legal hurdles in late 2014 before it began legally operating in the city in April 2015, say the tool was used for more nefarious reasons. According to Portland transportation officials, Uber intentionally skirted 16 city officials who were looking to shut-down the service because it was operating illegally at the time. Uber’s attorneys say the tool was used “exceedingly sparingly” in Portland; it had not been used since April 2015, they said.

Uber and its embattled chief executive, Travis Kalanick, has been embroiled in controversy for much of the year. From a spate of sexual assault accusations to a video of Kalanick berating an Uber driver, the $70 billion dollar behemoth is facing uncertainty as it enters Silicon Valley’s newest frontier: self-driving vehicles. In fact, Uber’s future in that field is increasingly in doubt. It was also recently hit with a lawsuit from Google’s autonomous car division, Waymo, which accused Uber of stealing its trade secrets.

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 Department of Justice Opens Criminal Investigation into Uber’s Greyball appeared first on Law Street.

Last August, U.S. officials obtained a FISA warrant to wiretap the communications of Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser to President Donald Trump. The FBI suspected Page was working as a spy on behalf of Russia, a U.S. official told the New York Times. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the wiretap was granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, after the Justice Department provided evidence that Page might have been a mole for the Kremlin.

Previously a Moscow-based investment banker, Page is one of Trump’s former advisers many suspect FBI Director James Comey was alluding to when he said in a recent House hearing that the bureau was investigating the “nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.” Comey said the FBI had been probing the matter since July.

Securing a FISA warrant is no easy feat, and requires solid evidence to justify a wiretap. Usually, FISA warrants are used to surveil the communications of foreign agents, such as Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. For Page, the FBI pointed to two pieces of information that vindicated its suspicions about him acting as a Russian agent:

1. In 2013, Page met with a Russian man who U.S. intelligence officials identified as an undercover Russian intelligence officer. During the meeting with Page, the man was posing as a Russian businessman. Page reportedly provided the Russian agent, Victor Podobnyy, with documents pertaining to Page’s New York-based investment firm, Global Energy Capital.
2. In July 2016, after the Republican National Convention and before he left Trump’s campaign, Page traveled to Moscow to give a speech at the New Economic School. Page delivered a scathing harangue of U.S. policies toward Russia, including the sanctions imposed for its annexation of Crimea and its aggression in Ukraine.

According to the government official, the 90-day FISA warrant has been renewed more than once. Obtaining a FISA warrant is an intentionally complicated process. One of three top senior officials at the Justice Department must approve the request before it can go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Along with Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, Page is one of Trump’s former aides whose communications with Russia have caught the attention of U.S. intelligence officials. Page, according to Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks, had an “informal” role, and never had a private meeting with Trump. There has been no criminal charges brought against Page, and even months-long FBI investigations do not necessarily lead to charges.

For his part, Page has denied any wrongdoing. In an email to the Times on Tuesday, he said it “will be interesting to see what comes out when the unjustified basis of those FISA requests are more fully disclosed over time.” And on Wednesday, in an interview with CNN, he said, when asked if he has acted as a Russian agent: “Let’s not jump to any conclusions, and until there’s full evidence and a full investigation has been done, we just don’t know.”

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 FBI Obtained Warrant to Wiretap Former Trump Aide Carter Page 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.

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.

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.

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.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel unwittingly prompted a public battle with President Donald Trump on Monday, when he criticized Trump for focusing on the crowd size at his inauguration. On Tuesday evening, coinciding with an “O’Reilly Factor” segment on violence in Chicago, Trump tweeted a veiled threat aimed at Emanuel. 

“If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible ‘carnage’ going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24 percent from 2016), I will send in the Feds!” Trump tweeted, citing figures that aired on Bill O’Reilly’s show. Official statistics from the Chicago Police Department (CPD) put the numbers a bit lower, at 234 people shot, and 38 killed. In 2016, a department spokesman said, 227 were shot, with 33 deaths. The spokesman said the department’s figures do not factor in “justified” shootings (those in self-defense) or officer-involved shootings.

Emanuel’s verbal spat with Trump stemmed from a bit of criticism he lodged at the president on Monday: “You didn’t get elected to debate the crowd size at your inaugural,” the mayor said, referring to Trump’s insistence that his inauguration ceremony was the most-watched ever. “You got elected to make sure that people have a job, that the economy continues to grow, people have security as it relates to their kids’ education. It wasn’t about your crowd size. It was about their lives and their jobs.”

On Wednesday, Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said his department was “more than willing” to work with the federal government to combat Chicago’s persistent violence. Chicago had a bloody 2016. The death toll was the highest in nearly two decades, at 762 people killed, largely the result of gang violence.

Days before U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch left office, her department released its findings that the CPD “engages in a pattern or practice of using force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.” The Justice Department also found a pattern of racial discrimination practiced by Chicago officers.

On Wednesday, a Chicago Democrat, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, came to Emanuel’s defense. “The president wants publicity and to be seen beating up on Democratic elected officials and appearing hostile to a big city like Chicago in the eyes of his suburban and rural voters,” 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 Trump Threatens to “Send the Feds” to Chicago to Deal with “Horrible Carnage” 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), 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.

In the span of four days–between October 30 and November 2–federal prisons around the country released 6,000 nonviolent prisoners. This marked the largest single prisoner release in the history of the United States. The decision was the result of the government’s growing desire to address the overcrowding within the prison system. An additional 40,000 convicts could also be released in the coming months as new, more lenient sentencing rules can be retroactively applied to them as well. Read on to see what led to the recent release and how it compares to similar releases in the past. Now that the government is starting to deal with an issue that has been building for decades, what will a continued response look like and how will the prison system change in the future?

Releasing Prisoners

In the Past

While the recent release of so many prisoners all at once has drawn a variety of reactions, including warnings of increased crime, this is not the first time that a large number of prisoners has been released. In 2011, the Supreme Court ordered the state of California to release 30,000 inmates due to overcrowding in the state’s prison system.

On top of this are the prisoners that are also released over the course of a year as well–the federal government releases up to 55,000 prisoners each year. However, this is only a small portion of the inmates set free, as many as 10,000 are set free each week.

This Release

The recent release was a long time in the making. The final decision came about following the advice of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The commission lowered maximum sentences for people convicted of drug-related offenses. The change could then be applied retroactively, meaning if a prisoner was already convicted and serving a sentence they could apply for early release. Ultimately, the decision was up to federal judges who reviewed eligible cases and determined whether the person in question would be a threat if released back into society.

Like the process, the release itself was not as straightforward as it may seem either. Of the 6,000 inmates, approximately a third were undocumented immigrants. This group will not be released into the public, but will instead be detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which will begin deportation proceedings. Additionally, many of those who were released were already on parole or in half-way houses. On average, those being released already served nine years of their sentences and were only being released around 18 months earlier than expected. The video below details the recent release:

Current Issues

Overcrowding

One of the major reasons for releasing these prisoners is that the prison population is simply too big for the system to manage effectively. There are 698 prisoners for every 100,000 people in the United States, the second highest rate in the world. A 2014 estimate from the Prison Policy Initiative suggests that there are as many as 2.4 million people in U.S. prisons on any given day, including 1.36 million in state prisons. Perhaps most troubling are the findings of a Department of Justice report, which shows that there are nearly 71,000 children in residential placement facilities in February 2010.

In order to properly put this in perspective, it is necessary to look at the U.S. prison population in an international context. As the NAACP points out, the United States has about 5 percent of the world’s population, but it has 25 percent of the world’s prison population. Not only is the United States’ prison population disproportionately large, its racial makeup is also heavily imbalanced. Although Hispanics and African Americans make up approximately 25 percent of the total population, they make up close to 60 percent of all American prisoners.

While simply having a massive number of prisoners does not necessarily mean that the existing prisons are overcrowded, when you look at the concentration of these prisoners it becomes clear that overcrowding is clearly an issue for many states. In fact, California’s mass prison release in 2011 was due specifically to over-crowding.  There were so many prisoners that inmates were being packed into gymnasiums. The situation became so bad that the Supreme Court forced the prisoner release because it was literally a health crisis. California is not an isolated case. While it may be the most extreme example, as of 2014, 17 states had prison populations far above the capacity of their facilities. While overcrowding recently caused states to reconsider their justice systems, it also led to the rise of controversial for-profit private prisons.

Sentencing

Overcrowding is largely a product of the United States’ historically severe sentencing rules. The idea of being “tough on crime” swept the nation in the 1980s. Tough on crime policies continued through the 1990s and early 2000s and only now is the trend starting to reverse itself. The severity of these laws varied from state to state. California had some of the toughest policies, enacting a three strikes law in 1994 that created mandatory punishments for repeat offenders. In 2012, California voters passed Proposition 36, which amended the state’s constitution to limit the use of its three-strikes law.

These sentences are known as mandatory minimums. As the name suggests, these policies lead to mandatory sentences of a minimum length for particular crimes, removing much of the discretion that judges have in the sentencing process. According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), “Most mandatory minimum sentences apply to drug offenses, but Congress has enacted them for other crimes, including certain gun, pornography, and economic offenses.” A U.S. Sentencing Commission report found that 14.5 percent of all offenders in 2010 were subject to mandatory minimum penalties–a total of 10,605 prisoners.

What’s Next?

While there are some who fear that releasing so many prisoners, especially at the same time, will lead to a surge in crime, the numbers suggest otherwise. In the California mass release, only auto thefts increased after 30,000 of the state’s inmates were released. Furthermore, a Stanford University study, which involved 1,600 prisoners released when California changed its three strikes law, found a remarkably low recidivism rate. Prisoners released after the three-strikes law changed had a recidivism rate of just 1.3 percent compared to 30 percent for regularly released inmates.

Not all laws are created equally–perhaps the most infamous is the differing penalties for crack cocaine offenses compared to the one for cocaine in its powder form. Originally, the sentencing ratio was 100:1–with those sentenced for crack-related offenses facing much longer prison sentences. While that was reduced to 18:1 with the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010, a disparity remains. The troubling part of this issue is that most people arrested for crack-related offenses were black while most of those who were arrested for cocaine possession were white–reinforcing the racial imbalance in American prisons.

Post-Release Questions 

Another major issue is the question of what former prisoners will do once they get out. A notable concern is recidivism–when a prisoner returns to prison for another crime after his or her initial release. This worry seems warranted in light of a 2005 study by conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)–57 percent were re-imprisoned after one year, 68 percent by year three, and 77 percent by year five.

It should be noted that the way the Bureau of Justice Statistics records its numbers may not be the best way to understand recidivism. In a recent study, researchers found that recidivism is actually much lower than what is reported. Rates found in the BJS studies likely overrepresent people who are re-arrested after being released from prison.  However, even if these new findings are taken into account, which emphasize that certain offenders have a higher risk of recidivism, the issue remains a notable problem for American prisons.

Moreover, for those who do avoid re-offending, life can be difficult once they leave prison. While there are certainly a number of programs and organizations in place, it is still hard for someone with a criminal record to find a job. In a 2008 study from the Urban Institute, only 45 percent of ex-cons had jobs eight months after leaving prison. The following video discusses what happens to prisoners if and when they can make it out of prison:

Conclusion

The recent release of so many prisoners has reignited old fears that the reintroduction of prisoners into society will lead to a wave of crime. However, the evidence from past releases calls this line of thinking into question. Too many people, especially those of color, face long prison sentences, putting significant strain on American prisons. The current system is also costing the United States an estimated $39 billion each year.

To effectively reduce the size of the American prison population, changes beyond releasing prisoners need to be made. While recent sentencing reform, which led to this prisoner release, is an important step toward reducing the American prison population, it will not solve the issue. In addition to reducing the number of prisoners, policymakers will also have to deal with helping inmates readjust to society when they are released.

Resources

Vox: The biggest prisoner release in U.S. History, explained

Time: What happened when California released 30,000 inmates?

NPR: What You Should Know About the Federal Inmate Release

Newsweek: The Unconstitutional Horrors of Prison Overcrowding

FAMM: What are Mandatory Minimums?

The Economist: America’s Prison Population

CNN: Roughly 6000 Federal Inmates to be released

ACLU: Fair Sentencing Act

National Institute of Justice: Recidivism

Business Insider: Getting a Job after prison

NAACP: Criminal Justice Fact Sheet

Washington Post: Prisons in These 17 States are Over Capacity

Huffington Post: For-Profit Prisons are Big Winners of California’s Overcrowding Crisis

Slate: Why do so Many Prisoners End up Back in Prison? A New Study Says Maybe They Don’t

Michael Sliwinski

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

The post What A Massive Prisoner Release Means for the Criminal Justice System appeared first on Law Street.

According to a statement released by the Department of Defense on August 27, 2014, United States Army General Officer Michael T. Harrison was forced to retire recently with a reduced rank after being found to have mishandled reports of sexual assault. As I read the article published by The New York Times, I was expecting to find that some form of criminal action had also been taken and that there would be some recognition of sympathy for those victims whose cases had been mishandled. Instead, the consequences of this general’s actions were to retire as a one star general, as opposed to a two star. No criminal action was taken, and no justice to the victims was given.

If you have seen the eye-opening documentary ‘The Invisible War,’ then you know that it raised awareness for the appalling number of victims who are involved in sexual assaults in military settings, but also that it spurred legislation ensuring investigations of abuse were handled efficiently, and justice was given to the victims. As can be seen with Harrison’s case, these incidents are still occurring and as a woman myself, I still do not feel like enough is being done.

Susan Brownmiller, an American journalist, describes sexual assault in military settings as an unfortunate but inevitable by-product of the necessary game called war. Quite frankly, the punishment Harrison received is nothing short of a joke. After the amendment of federal policies regarding sexual assault in the military two years ago, I question Congress as to why this is still happening? This game we call ‘sexual assault in war’ is unacceptable. According to “The Invisible War,”

‘Since 2006, more than 95,000 service members have been sexually assaulted in the U.S. military. More than 86 percent of service members do not report their assault, and less than five percent of all sexual assaults are put forward for prosecution, with less than a third of those cases resulting in imprisonment.’

These figures should be enough to not only change punishment for the mishandling of reports of sexual assault, but to help victims come forward and receive justice for their traumatic experiences. As of 2014, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, federal law now defines Military Sexual Trauma (MST) as one of the most frequent diagnoses given to veterans of warfare. If we know that so many individuals suffer from such traumatic experiences, why isn’t policy being changed? Even more importantly, why aren’t those who are meant to protect us doing their jobs properly?

Each military force dominates the way reports and investigations of assault are handled. This ‘in house’ shambles of a system is essentially allowing officials to get away with their own wrongdoings. We are allowing individuals to commit acts without fear of punishment or consequence. In order to lower the rates of sexual assault in the military, the focus needs to be on controlling the environment, and providing an alternative system for report of misconduct. I am no expert in changing legislation, and I am no intellectual genius on the makings of policy, but I am certainly no fool to being aware that victims are suffering, and legislators need to wake up and realize that this type of consequence is normalizing military sexual assaults.

Our common coping mechanism for crime is imposing laws to regulate punishment to those who inflict pain and suffering. By imposing taking someone’s gold sparkly badge away and giving him or her a silver sparkly one instead because they essentially ignored someone’s suffering, is unacceptable. Sexual assault and abuse is not normal, regardless of the situation, regardless of the setting, and regardless of the perpetrator. In order to enable victims to report their abusers, and in order to protect future men and women from the pain and suffering so many veterans go through, something needs to change!

Now more than ever, I cannot wrap my head around the fact that our same country who is fighting to protect us from terrorism, our country who is fighting for the rights of the thousands of innocent individuals losing their lives in the Middle East, can also be the same country that contains individuals being sexually violated and then silenced by the same exact people who are meant to protect us.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Military Sexual Assault Remains a Major National Embarrassment appeared first on Law Street.

Lois Lerner, former Internal Revenue Service official, was held in contempt of the House of Representatives on Wednesday. In a followup resolution, the House had also called on Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate claims that the IRS had unfairly discriminated against conservative tax groups with audits. But just what is a special prosecutor, and how does appointing one change anything?

During Nixon’s presidency, the Watergate scandal eventually gave birth to 1978 Ethics in Government Act. Within the Act was a statute that explained the creation of the ‘Independent Counsel,’ a special prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General to investigate, well, a special case. While the title of ‘Independent Counsel’ changed to ‘Special Prosecutor’ in 1983, and the Ethics law expired in 1999, the value of the position has stayed the same. This all begs the question, why do special prosecutors even matter?

If there’s a special prosecutor, it usually means things are getting serious. Independent Counsel Leon Jaworski successfully argued against Nixon’s denial to share classified documents through the basis of executive privilege in United States v. Nixon in 1974. Morrison v. Olson had proved the appointment of a special prosecutor was a constitutional one in 1988. Then in 1998, Special Prosecutor Ken Starr would eventually be the one to uncover President Clinton’s questionable behavior with Monica Lewinsky.

So behind the House of Representatives’ action calling on the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS, Congress’ meaning is this: we mean business.

How effective will an investigation by a special prosecutor really be? When this scandal first broke, it was thoughts that conservative groups were the only kind to be unusually audited at an alarming rate. Later news reports show that progressive groups were also targeted, throwing a wrench into the argument that the IRSe was participating in partisan discrimination.

In the end, we must be careful with predictions. The Justice Department has refused requests to set up a special prosecutor against the IRS before, and everyone will be waiting for Eric Holder’s reply to the House now that the request has come from a branch of Congress. On the other hand, maybe this is necessary to finally put the IRS controversy to rest, and the Office of the Special Prosecutor comes to deliver justice once again.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Ray Tsang via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

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

The post Is It Time for a Special Prosecutor for the IRS? appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, Johnson & Johnson had a $2.2 billion settlement, rendering it the third highest pharmaceutical fraud settlement made with the United States government. Will this trend continue, or will Johnson & Johnson learn from their mistakes as well as those of their predecessors?

Although consultant pharmacists purported to provide “independent recommendations based on their clinical judgment, Johnson & Johnson viewed the pharmacists as an ‘extension of [J&J’s] sales force,” the Justice Department claimed. That, more or less, is what Johnson & Johnson was sued for; drug-makers are legally only allowed to promote their product for cures in the way that the FDA has approved of them.

In a class action case, Johnson & Johnson was said to have wrongfully marketed their drugs created to treat schizophrenia, Risperdal and Invega, as dementia medication for elderly patients. Furthermore, the company allegedly lied about Risperdal’s side effects and withheld information that the medication led to diabetes. Although legally settling, the company still denied the allegations. Claiming innocence, Johnson & Johnson stated, “the settlement of the civil allegations is not an admission of any liability or wrongdoing, and the company expressly denies the government’s civil allegations.” In defending their drug, they claimed Risperdal to be “safe and effective for its approved indications”, and “an important treatment option for people with serious mental illness.”

Sure, the government has cracked down on Johnson & Johnson, and now the company is paying $2.2 billion, but does that actually mean anything? Johnson & Johnson has a net worth of $65.03 billion. In preparation for this case, the company set aside money to pay their penalties, rendering the fine insignificant for a company of great wealth and success.

So, will anything change from this settlement? Michael Ullmann, Vice President and General Counsel of Johnson & Johnson reflected, “today we reached closure on complex legal matters spanning almost a decade. This resolution [which] allows us to move forward and continue to focus on delivering innovative solutions that improve and enhance the health and well-being of patients around the world.”

I speculate that the government will tighten the reigns and harshly proctor the company, as well as extend this strict scrutiny to others drug-providers. But as a result of the simple nature of medications, being that they were released to the public shortly after their creation, and the system of pharmaceutical representatives, a heavily corrupted system, long term changes or consequential changes seem extremely unlikely to occur.

Shedding light on the impact of this case, Attorney General Eric Holder said “every time pharmaceutical companies engage in this type of conduct, they corrupt medical decisions by healthcare providers, jeopardize the public health, and take money out of taxpayers’ pockets.” Pharmaceutical representation is a capitalist system that encourages sales people to push drugs onto doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes which economically resonates, and yet morally conflicts with our way of conducting business. People become less important than businesses, as finances dictate our capitalist ways. C’est la vie. Being third in the country sounds significant, but the ranking, like China’s GDP, its just an arbitrary number in this case, meaningless.

[NPR] [NYTimes] [CNN] [J&J]

—

Featured image courtesy of [DraconianRain via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post Our Everyday Drug Dealer appeared first on Law Street.

Do you guys remember the Occupy Wall Street movement?  Do you remember how annoying they were? I’m glad that’s over!

They made (some) salient points, though. Chief among their complaints was the fact that, according to various financial reports, more than one-third of the nation’s wealth was controlled by one percent of the population. “Impossible!” we all screamed, “America is built on the potential of financial success through hard work!”. The OWS movement came and went, but many of the problems remain unresolved. The one percent remains the one percent, and those of us in the 99 percent maintain hope that we’ll invent the next Instagram, Microsoft, or Kardashian-esque empire to join their ranks. We all aspire to one day work for ourselves, join the upper echelon of American wealth, and vacation with Jay-Z and Beyoncè.

The distribution of wealth and prosperity is not just uneven for individuals- the same rules apply for corporations.  A recent Policymic post has exposed a fact about which I was previously unaware: many of the most popular brands in America are actually owned, in some capacity, by ten companies. These ownerships are not outright; many of the business arrangements arise as part of majority stock ownership, distribution deals, and mergers.  The same article shows that there are six companies responsible for the majority of media output in this country, and that four financial institutions control our banks.

That sh-t cray.

It’s an interesting, and even insane, premise to consider: so few people actually control so much.  In theory, there are twenty-ish CEOs that have the American economy under marionette strings. They’re the business illuminati, if you will. This statement is even scarier when you consider how much corporate money controls politics.  Many of the people that we elect to represent our interests are eventually bought and sold by private interests that do not always directly align with the desires of their constituents.  It’s hard to stick to your political promises and not become a Washington insider when your reelection campaign coffers are empty. Money wins elections, after all. NRA, anyone?

The power struggles in this country are real.  There is no problem with capitalism, and for many the drive for financial and professional success is the fuel they need to continue to work hard. That drive is premised on the possibility of one day being the boss.  It’s tougher to become the boss when there are only twenty open positions.  So much money and power in so little hands is scary.

An Antitrust Primer

Antitrust is an area of law that seeks to guarantee competition between businesses for the benefit of the public.  Antitrust law also endeavors to regulate mergers and acquisitions of businesses so that mega-corporations are not formed to unfairly dominate their respective industries.  The premise of antitrust is basically that competition is a good and necessary component of running a business, and attempts to lessen competition in an unapproved manner are illegal.

There are various reasons why a lack of competition is problematic in modern business.

The first goes back to the old phrase of “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Let’s take a moment to remember the history of our dear nation, shall we?  This country was founded by people who were escaping monarchies and a government where the power was vested in one person; they understood what too much power can potentially do to a country. If we subject those who govern our country to these standards, why would our businesses be treated differently?

They’re not.

When it comes to these businesses, the same premise applies.  If one company controls everything, we all lose. How else would their business practices be regulated?  Concerns from consumer prices to employee wages wouldn’t be countered by an industry standard, because the one company is the industry.

Second, competition spurs economic growth. If Samsung didn’t exist, Apple wouldn’t be a powerhouse.  There wouldn’t be a Magic Johnson without a Larry Bird, a Britney without a Christina, and a Starbucks without a Dunkin’ Donuts. You get where I’m going with this, right? Additionally, this country is still experiencing the effects of an economic downturn, and the last thing on the agenda of any political party is the slowing down of financial recovery.

This is especially true because America has been down the mega-corporation road before, and it didn’t end well.

The Lessons of Bell Atlantic

In 1974, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.  In U.S. v. AT&T, 552. F.Supp.131 (D.D.C. 1983), the government sued AT&T to stop what they believed were monopoly-like business practices. The allegations were that the corporate structure created unnecessary barriers to competition, which is in direct contravention of the Sherman Act. The main goal of the Sherman Act is to establish and protect unobstructed competition between businesses as a national standard. Specifically, the complaint stated that 6conspiracies sought to “restrain trade in the manufacture, distribution, sale, and installation of telephones, telephone apparatus, equipment, materials, and supplies…”. The D.C. Circuit found that, at the time, AT&T was the largest corporation in the world. The resolution of the case created twenty-two smaller “operating” companies, mostly allocated by region.  The forming of these operating companies divests and divides the power from one major body, thus creating competition and reinforcing the tenets of the Sherman Act.

Why It Matters

Obviously this situation is significantly different, but it is sure to raise some red flags.  It’s a slippery slope, no?  With U.S. v. AT&T, there was one company dominating an industry.  The same result would not occur in the current scenario.  Here, there are ten companies controlling hundreds of consumer goods, six companies running the entertainment industry, and four banks commanding our financial institutions.  We are a merger away from a mega company stomping away at the competition. In other words, we’re monopoly-adjacent. These companies need to be closely scrutinized.  It’s the same reason that the proposed merger between US Airways and American Airlines has been scrutinized so closely as of late.  A superpower is not beneficial for the expansion of business, and it’s not in the best interests of the country.

[Policy Mic]  [Case Text] [New York Times] [Deal Book]

—

Featured image courtesy of [FamZoo Staff via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Problem of Too Much Power in Too Few Hands appeared first on Law Street.