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. You’ll notice some differences this year, as we return to the categories we first ranked in 2014. This year, we’ve changed the way we do our methodology slightly, to reflect feedback from our readers and the law school community. We’ve also redesigned our look, to make it easier to navigate and compare various schools. But as always, Law Street Specialty Rankings are built to blend the quantitative and qualitative in a way that accurately highlights the top law schools based on specialty programs.

This year’s law school specialty rankings were compiled by Anneliese Mahoney, Alexis Evans, Celia Heudebourg, Gabe Fernandez, James Levinson, Josh Schmidt, and Marcus Dieterle.

1. Harvard Law School: 95 Points

Jobs: 19/20

Harvard Law offers some of the best job prospects for its students in the country. Students can gain experience while still in school by getting involved in the Sports Law Clinic. Harvard Law also offers other hands-on opportunities that touch on entertainment law, including the Recording Artist Project, an in-house student practice organization.

Classes: 25/25

Harvard offers plenty of classes for students interested in entertainment law. Some of the distinctive listings include “Fashion Law Lab,” “Sports and the Law: Examining the Legal History and Evolution of America’s Three ‘Major League’ Sports: MLB, NFL, and NBA,” and “Music and Digital Media.”

Networking: 14/15

Students at Harvard Law can attend an annual sports and entertainment law symposium to network with professionals in their field. Harvard Law also publishes a biannual magazine to keep alumni and other community members engaged.

Extracurriculars: 14/15

The school has a student-run organization called the Committee on Sports and Entertainment Law, which brings students with similar interests together. Students interested in writing about the topic can work with the student-run Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law. 

Location: 13/15

Harvard received a high score in the Location category because of its proximity to Boston, a city that offers great opportunities for aspiring entertainment lawyers.

Other Rankings: 10/10

Harvard’s law school earned a perfect score in this category because of its consistent placement at the top of other organizations’ entertainment law rankings.

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 Top 10 Schools for Entertainment Law appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best!

Darkness

What friends and family generally tell law students after a year or two in law school. pic.twitter.com/wguaikqaUL

— florin hilbay (@fthilbay) August 7, 2017

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

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. You’ll notice some differences this year, as we return to the categories we first ranked in 2014. This year, we’ve changed the way we do our methodology slightly, to reflect feedback from our readers and the law school community. We’ve also redesigned our look, to make it easier to navigate and compare various schools. But as always, Law Street Specialty Rankings are built to blend the quantitative and qualitative in a way that accurately highlights the top law schools based on specialty programs.

This year’s law school specialty rankings were compiled by Anneliese Mahoney, Alexis Evans, Celia Heudebourg, Gabe Fernandez, James Levinson, Josh Schmidt, and Marcus Dieterle.

1. University of California, Berkeley, School of Law: 93 Points

Jobs: 17/20

Berkeley has a strong record of providing its students with post-graduation job placements. Additionally, the school is home to an environmental law clinic, allowing students to practice while furthering their studies.

Classes: 23/25

Berkeley offers students interested in environmental law the opportunity to choose from a large selection of courses and seminars, which include “Water Law” and “The Law of Hazardous Waste.” Students can also gain practical research and professional experience through the law school’s Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment.

Networking: 15/15

UC Berkeley offers a number of seminars and events for students to take advantage of, including a discussion about racial and economic disparities in environmental law and a panel about environmental law careers at the state and local level.

Extracurriculars: 15/15

Berkeley Law offers multiple organizations for students interested in environmental or energy law. In addition to the Environmental Law Society, students interested in advocacy or social justice can join the Students for Environmental and Economic Justice group. Those interested in journal opportunities can submit articles to the Ecology Law Quarterly.

Location: 13/15

Berkeley received a favorable score in the Location category because of its proximity to cities like Oakland and San Francisco, which offer great opportunities for aspiring lawyers.

Other Rankings: 10/10

UC Berkeley’s law school earned a perfect score in this category because of its consistent placement at the top of other organizations’ environmental law rankings.

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 Top 10 Schools for Environmental and Energy Law appeared first on Law Street.

Sometimes dubbed “the most hated man in America,” Martin Shkreli has officially been found guilty of fraud. Specifically he was found guilty of two counts of securities fraud, and one count of conspiring to commit securities fraud. But he was also acquitted on a number of other charges. He now faces up to 20 years in prison, although his lawyers plan to appeal.

He doesn’t appear particularly bothered by the “guilty” verdict though. In a press conference he held right after the announcement, he claimed:

This was a witch hunt of epic proportions. Maybe they found one or two broomsticks, but at the end of the day we’ve been acquitted of the most important charges in this case, and I’m delighted to report that.

He also streamed a 10 minute, combative interview with a Boston Herald reporter on Saturday, in which he claimed he wasn’t scared of prison because he was in New York City during 9/11. He said:

I grew up on the mean streets of Brooklyn. I was across the street from 9/11; I’ve built businesses from zero to hero, many times over. A few months in jail does not scare me.

Shkreli vaulted into national infamy when his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, jacked up the price of a drug used for treating HIV and cancer. His callous attitude garnered significant amounts of criticism.

Then, he made the news again when he purchased the only copy of a Wu-Tang Clan album for $2 million, and claimed he had no plans to release it.

Shkreli’s disgusting behavior doesn’t stop there, though. He was also suspended from Twitter for harassing journalist Lauren Duca–the same writer who is a consistent focus of Tucker Carlson’s ire. Recently, when asked by a journalist about what he would do if he was acquitted, he listed “f*cking” Lauren Duca as one of his top priorities. She responded, and pointed out the human price of his consistent harassment:

Here’s my statement on Martin Shkreli: I would (still) rather eat my own organs. So much as touch me, and I’ll gladly chop off one of yours. pic.twitter.com/4jHNWGWanQ

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) July 28, 2017

On a serious note, the most suffocating part of this experience has been people acting as if I have no right to respond to this harassment.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) August 4, 2017

I’m not looking for sympathy, but all of you petty motherfuckers would do well to remember this: Hatred is empowered by silence.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) August 4, 2017

Shkreli’s status as a permanent troll may need to take a little break, depending on how his sentence shakes out. And for many, that will be a welcome silence.

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 “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli Found Guilty of Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump endorsed a bill, introduced by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AK) and David Perdue (R-GA) in February, which would halve the number of legal immigrants coming to the U.S.

The RAISE Act would cap the number of green cards the U.S. issues at 50,000 over the next 10 years. Currently, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services awards about one million green cards each year; about six million individuals and employers apply for a green card each year.

Green cards grant legal immigrants the right to permanently reside and work in the country, instead of having to apply and constantly renew work visas.

Inspired by the Canadian and Australian immigration policies, the proposed legislation would establish a competitive “merit-based system,” through which applicants would be awarded points based on a slew of factors. Some of the factors would include an applicant’s financial stability, ability to pay for healthcare, earning prospects, and, most controversially, English language skills.

The RAISE ACT “puts great downward pressure on people who work with their hands and work on their feet,” Cotton said. “Now, for some people, they may think that that’s a symbol of America’s virtue and generosity. I think it’s a symbol that we’re not committed to working-class Americans. And we need to change that.”

The bill also removes the diversity visa program and “chain migration,” the current practice of prioritizing family unity in the immigration process.

I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers & taxpayers. Watch: https://t.co/lv3ScSKnF6 #RAISEAct pic.twitter.com/zCFK5OfYnB

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 2, 2017

“American First” 

This announcement comes on the heels of the Senate’s failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. Many equate this push for legal immigration reform to the administration trying to turn the page on healthcare and secure its first legislative win.

Trump campaigned on reforming immigration, legal and illegal, but several of his initiatives have either run into road-blocks or devolved into large-scale media disasters. Trump’s promised wall along the Mexican border remains unbuilt, and the attempted Muslim ban was stopped in court a number of times earlier this year.

However, Trump’s “America first” message remains at the forefront of his policies and his endorsement of this bill further highlights this.

“The RAISE Act prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare, and protects U.S. workers from being displaced,” Trump said. “And that’s a very big thing. They’re not going to come in and just immediately go and collect welfare. That doesn’t happen under the RAISE Act. They can’t do that.”

Uphill Battle in Congress 

The bill is very unlikely to pass Congress, as it would need unified Republican support as well as some Democratic votes. Some Republicans have already said they would not support the bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released a statement on Wednesday, saying that he agrees with the ideas expressed in the bill, but he would not vote in favor of the legislation.

“South Carolina’s number one industry is agriculture and tourism is number two,” Graham said. “If this proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our state’s economy, which relies on this immigrant workforce.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also cast doubt on his colleagues’ bill. “I think you have to consider that we do want high-tech people, but we also need low-skilled people who will do work that Americans won’t do,” he said. “I wouldn’t do it. Even in my misspent youth, I wouldn’t do it.”

Strong Reactions 

While many Trump advocates support the policy proposal, the bill is drawing significant criticism from economists, citizens, and immigrants.

“Dramatically reducing overall immigration levels won’t raise the standard of living for Americans,” said Randy Johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration, and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “In fact, it will likely accomplish the opposite, making it harder for businesses, communities, and our overall economy to grow, prosper, and create jobs for American workers.”

Some see the RAISE Act as focusing too much on making sure Americans in low-wage jobs don’t face competition from immigrants, instead of investing in those same Americans so that they may obtain higher paying jobs.

It's interesting that outside of immigration policy, nobody ever proposes giving strict priority to the interests of high school dropouts.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) August 3, 2017

Others object to the limits the bill would place on bringing in grandparents or extended family members to the U.S. Under the bill, people like First Lady Melania Trump, a non-native English speaker, would have a tough time getting permanent residency.

“What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration,” CNN’s Jim Acosta said during a White House press conference. “The Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’ It doesn’t say anything about speaking English or being a computer programmer.”

In his response to Acosta’s question, Stephen Miller, Trump’s policy adviser, said: “The poem that you’re referring to was added later, [and] is not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty.”

Celia Heudebourg

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

The post Trump Backs Bill to Slash Legal Immigration, Introduce “Merit-Based” System appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celia Heudebourg

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

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

The California Supreme Court has decided that it’s time to change the state’s notoriously difficult bar exam after observing very low passage rates for the past few years compared to other states.

The state’s passing score, referred to as the “cut score,” has been set at 144. California has the second highest score to pass nationwide behind only Delaware. Last year 62 percent of applicants passed. Other states, like New York, saw a rate around 80 percent, according to the New York Times.

The changes, which will take effect in January, will give the California Supreme Court the ability to change the “cut score,” according to the ABA Journal. The court will have the authority to appoint 10 of the 19 members of the committee of bar examiners. The court amended the California Rules of Court to expand its power, dictating that it “must set the passing score of the examination.” The Supreme Court justices could make the decision soon and retroactively apply them to last month’s exams, according to the New York Times.

Some businesses that prepare law students for the bar exam called the move “unprecedented.” But according to Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, this action isn’t out of the ordinary. Instead, it will bring California in line with other states. “Virtually all state supreme courts exercise their inherent authority to regulate the admission of lawyers more closely than has appeared to be the case in California,” she said.

In February the state bar received a letter from 20 California law school deans advocating a scoring change, which prompted the group to launch the study.

The court was further compelled to act after the University of California Hastings College of the Law Dean complained to the California Committee of Bar Examiners. Dean David Faigman called the steep standard “outrageous and constitutes unconscionable conduct on the part of a trade association that masquerades as a state agency” after only 51 percent of his school’s graduates qualified.

Robert Anderson, a professor of corporate law at Pepperdine School of Law, who studied the 10 most difficult state bar exams in 2013, concluded that California had the most difficult exam even if its score standard was lower than Delaware’s, according to the New York Times. Anderson recommended lowering the score to 133, the same as New York. That change would mean that 87 percent of test-takers would pass, according to ABA Journal.

There are still people who advocate for the high standard when certifying lawyers. Supporters believe that the high cut score protects citizens from unprepared lawyers and continues a tradition of accepting only very qualified candidates.

California is home to plenty of prestigious law schools–ranging from Stanford in the northern part of the state to UCLA in the southern part–so it trains many law students. If California feels as though young law students are fleeing the state to get easily certified elsewhere, a change makes sense. The strict standards have been part of the California Bar Association’s reputation for a while now but for a state that is home to economic hubs for entertainment and technology, it’s important to retain talent.

Josh Schmidt

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

The post Is the California Bar Exam About to Get Easier? appeared first on Law Street.

On July 23, Washington will become the first state in the country to establish a system that notifies domestic abuse victims when their abuser illegally attempts to buy a gun.

The law orders the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) to establish a grant program to “create and operate a statewide system to automatically notify a registered person when a respondent subject to a court order has been denied the purchase of a firearm based on ineligibility.”

The grant program would also allow local agencies to “conduct criminal investigations of persons who illegally attempted to purchase or transfer a firearm within their jurisdictions.”

The law’s two-pronged approach is meant to close existing legal loopholes, which critics say allow potentially dangerous individuals to attempt to buy guns, lie on background checks, and get away with it.

“This will not just keep guns out of the hands of those who are not eligible to have them, but keep the public and our law enforcement officers safe,” Washington Governor Jay Inslee said when he signed the bill in May.

Tamaso Johnson, the Public Policy Director for the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence told Law Street Media that the group worked closely with legislators and other stakeholders on this bill.

“Giving survivors of domestic violence the option to be notified if an abuser attempts to illegally purchase a gun allows them to more accurately plan for their own safety and the safety of those closest to them,” Johnson said.

How the system works

When an individual who is convicted of a misdemeanor for domestic violence or subject to a restraining order for domestic abuse fails the background check required to purchase a gun, the vendor will have five days to report the incident to the WASPC.

The WASPC will then report the incident to the Washington State Patrol, which will officially record it in a database, allowing for local authorities to investigate. Meanwhile, under the bill, the WASPC will also have to send out an alert to victims and loved ones associated with the individual.

The bill states that a person needs to easily be able “to register or update his or her registration information by calling a toll-free phone number or by accessing a public website.” People who choose to be alerted can elect to receive a notification by email or by phone.

A landmark bill

This bill received a lot of support from both Democrats and Republicans as it seeks to address a wide-spread issue in Washington. According to a local investigation by KING5TV Seattle, 3,000 “lie and try” attempts occurred in 2016 and were never investigated.

“If you’re a criminal and you walk into a firearms store, you knowingly violate the law by illegally trying to purchase a firearm, you should be arrested, you should be prosecuted and in an appropriate case you should spend some time in prison,” said Democrat Drew Hansen, the primary sponsor of the bill.

The National Rifle Association isn’t necessarily opposed to the effort, although it remains wary of the potential for erroneous entries into the database, as can occur when identities are mistaken and a background check is run.

Though it is limited to the state, this bill also represents a big step toward addressing the huge problem of domestic violence in the United States. A study conducted by the Center for American Progress concluded that between 2001 and 2012, 6,410 women were “murdered in the U.S. by an intimate partner using a gun—more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”

Paula Harwood testified in support of the bill before it was passed. She shared the fear she felt when she learned that her abusive ex-husband had attempted to buy a gun, despite the fact that she had obtained a protection order against him. She said she only found out about the incident through a reporter who had been investigating the background check law.

Celia Heudebourg

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

The post Washington Will Notify Victims When Domestic Abusers Try to Buy Guns appeared first on Law Street.

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. You’ll notice some differences this year, as we return to the categories we first ranked in 2014. This year, we’ve changed the way we do our methodology slightly, to reflect feedback from our readers and the law school community. We’ve also redesigned our look, to make it easier to navigate and compare various schools. But as always, Law Street Specialty Rankings are built to blend the quantitative and qualitative in a way that accurately highlights the top law schools based on specialty programs.

This year’s law school specialty rankings were compiled by Anneliese Mahoney, Alexis Evans, Celia Heudebourg, Gabe Fernandez, James Levinson, Josh Schmidt, and Marcus Dieterle.

1. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law: 95 Points

Jobs: 20/20

Employment prospects for students at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law are excellent, particularly for students interested in intellectual property. To prepare students for life after graduation, it has an IP clinic where students are able to work with attorneys from K&L Gates LLP.

Classes: 25/25

The curriculum at Chicago-Kent offers dozens of IP-related courses per year. Beyond the foundational courses, interested students can take one of the many science and technology-focused classes such as “Computer and Network Privacy and Security: Ethical, Legal, and Technical Considerations.”

Networking: 15/15

From an annual Supreme Court IP review conference to colloquia and book talks with IP-focused speakers, Chicago-Kent provides numerous networking opportunities for students interested in IP.

Extracurriculars: 15/15

The school offers an Intellectual Property society as well as the student-run Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property. The journal is dedicated to discussions on the fundamental elements of IP law and changes in the industry as new technology emerges.

Location: 14/15

The private university located in Chicago, Illinois provides numerous opportunities for students interested in pursuing IP law outside of the classroom.

Other Rankings: 6/10

Chicago-Kent received modest recognition from other rankings, giving it six points.

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Intellectual Property Law appeared first on Law Street.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law on Thursday that would fine state law enforcement agencies up to $1,000 a day for not reporting officer-involved shootings in a timely manner.

The law, which will officially be enacted in September, was created with the intention of strengthening a current Texas law–passed in 2015–that requires departments to report to the attorney general’s office any time an officer firing their gun results in injury or death.

Gathering data on police shootings has been an issue for the state, whether it’s been through misrepresentation or refusal to comply. A Texas Tribune investigation was only able to gather data on police shootings between 2010 and 2015 from 36 cities that had 100,000 or more residents, totaling less than half of the state’s population. While some precincts were more than willing to put the information on their website, others fought public information requests, gave heavily redacted records, or said they did not keep track of police shootings. Corpus Christi and Pasadena, for example, did not specifically track officer-involved shootings.

Even after the 2015 law was enacted, some departments decided to take their time in filing their reports and reported their data to the state months after the incident had actually occurred. The late responders typically only filed their reports after state publications pointed out that which departments had been slacking.

State Rep. Eric Johnson, the author of the new bill, said that this law will help curtail the inconsistent reporting and provide the state with the data it needs to analyze the issue of police shootings.

“I’m glad that he signed the bill, and I believe that we’re well on our way to leading the nation in getting to the bottom of what causes these fatal encounters between police and citizens, because we’re going to have the data,” Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, said Thursday to the Texas Tribune.

The new law gives departments a 30-day window to file a report after the shooting. Once that window has closed, the attorney general’s office can investigate and notify the department it has seven days to clear up any unreported shootings. After that, the state will be able to fine departments $1,000 a day. All of the money collected from these fines will be going to Texas’ Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund.

The bill did not contain everything that the authors originally wanted. State Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat, was unable to add a requirement for the attorney general’s office to build and maintain an online portal that would collect and analyze police shooting reports to the bill. The addition was struck down on the Senate floor.

Texas legislators might want to revisit that provision at some point. As of this article’s publication, 37 people have been shot and killed by Texas police officers this year, which is on pace to eventually match the total number police killed in the state last year.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Texas Law Will Fine Police for Not Reporting Shootings appeared first on Law Street.

Two weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 1761, a bill aimed at punishing child pornographers. At first glance, this legislation seems like a common-sense child protection law, but the text’s language is so vague that it could include minors who are caught sexting each other and subject them to a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison.

Freshman congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA), introduced the bill last March to close alleged loopholes in existing child pornography laws.

Johnson’s move is largely a response to a botched legal case involving a man accused of the sexual abuse of his seven-year-old neighbor. The man couldn’t be convicted by federal prosecutors because the only available evidence was a single photo of the abuse, which was deemed insufficient by the court.

The bill, which will soon make its way to the Senate, seeks to “criminalize the knowing consent of the visual depiction, or live transmission, of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” While this would prevent additional cases of digital sexual exploitation of minors, the definitions used also criminalize explicit photos being shared among consenting teenagers in a relationship, for example.

A 2014 Drexel University study found that 54 percent of its respondents sexted as minors, with 28 percent of those saying the sexts were photographic. The study also showed that most of these kids were not aware of the legal ramifications their sexts could bring about. If this bill passes, millions of teens across the country could inadvertently slip into criminality.

Though the legislation passed the House with a comfortable and bipartisan 368-51 margin, Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) called the measure “deadly and counterproductive,” according to Reason. A letter signed by Jackson Lee and six other House dissenters concluded that “no child pornography offense should go unpunished. HR 1761, however, would subject more individuals to mandatory minimum penalties at a time when the federal criminal justice system should be moving away from such sentencing schemes. While well-intentioned, the bill would exacerbate a problem that is clearly unfair and unnecessary.”

The ACLU took to Twitter to object to the bill’s passing, once again emphasizing its good intentionality but poor anticipation of real-life application.

The purpose of child pornography laws is to prevent minors from being abused, not criminalize young people for sexual experimentation. https://t.co/2Nvbhs3u3N

— ACLU National (@ACLU) June 1, 2017

Director of federal legislative affairs at Families Against Mandatory Minimums Molly Gill told Broadly: “You’re talking about 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds—young people who are being certainly reckless, but do they need to spend 15 years in prison? At that young age, their brains are not even done developing yet. They have all the potential in the world ahead of them and a 15-year prison sentence is the fastest way to kill their future.”

After the bill was debated, two amendments were proposed to make the language more specific regarding who the bill is targeting. The first would have removed the possibility for teens to be punished as sex offenders for sexting. The second eliminated the mandatory minimum penalties. Neither amendment passed.

In response to his colleagues’ concerns, Johnson said that “in Scripture, Romans 13 refers to the governing authorities as ‘God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.’ I, for one, believe we have a moral obligation, as any just government should, to defend the defenseless.”

Celia Heudebourg

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

The post Bill Aimed at Pornographers Could Subject Teens to Jail Time for Sexting appeared first on Law Street.

When people ask me what I do for a living, I usually give the simple response: “I’m a lawyer.” Which usually ends the conversation. But sometimes people will ask, “what kind of law?” My response: “marijuana.” This is when people suddenly perk up, “so what do you actually do?” No, it doesn’t mean that I smoke a joint while drafting documents. And while that sounds like fun, THC and asset purchase agreements don’t play well together.

The answer varies for each marijuana lawyer as there are several different types. But all marijuana lawyers share one thing in common–we represent marijuana businesses for a living. And that means their problems become our problems. From banking, to dealing with 280E (which is the section of the federal tax code that prevents marijuana businesses from deducting certain expenses from their income–resulting in far higher tax bills than non-marijuana businesses), to residency requirements for ownership, to the inability to access federal bankruptcy courts, there are major difficulties that marijuana businesses face. And while the underlying legal work that a marijuana lawyer does might be very similar to that done by a non-marijuana lawyer, these unique challenges often define our jobs.

Marijuana lawyers these days tend to come in two varieties: old school types who often have strong criminal law or activist backgrounds and newer arrivals who frequently come from more corporate backgrounds. I’m very much of the latter variety, having spent the six years prior to joining the marijuana industry working at large firms in New York, but I work for a law firm founded and run by lawyers with impeccable activist credentials (if you have ever benefitted from legalized marijuana you owe them a debt of gratitude–they helped write and pass Amendment 64 in Colorado, which created the first legal and regulated recreational marijuana market in the world).

I specialize in corporate and securities law, which is to say that I help marijuana businesses and investors raise capital, buy and sell assets and businesses, navigate the patchwork of ownership requirements across the US, and generally assist with any business law issue that arises. A lot of what I do is almost identical to the work of a startup lawyer in Silicon Valley–drafting contracts and negotiating deals is very similar across industries. But there are key differences. In my previous life, it was extraordinary rare for a client to lose a bank account, or have trouble opening one, and now this is a daily occurrence. And that’s just one of many unique challenges that marijuana businesses and their lawyers face.

But no matter how transactional your focus, being a marijuana lawyer necessarily implies some level of political engagement. Our clients’ businesses are subject to heavy regulation (in addition to currently being federally illegal) and that means marijuana lawyers must both stay on top of the ever-changing regulations governing our clients and continue being activists for our industry. Following cannabis news is effectively a second job for a dedicated marijuana lawyer and my colleagues and I all have a long list of podcasts, daily and weekly newsletters, and websites that we attempt to follow regularly.

Like any other lawyer focused on an industry, we need also to learn the underlying business. In this way marijuana lawyers are far more like oil and gas lawyers than, say, employee benefits or tax lawyers (examples of legal specialties where lawyers are generally agnostic as to the underlying industry–a stock incentive plan can pretty much be the same for a software, machine tools, or widgets company). Unfortunately, this means more than burning one down after work. It means being able to talk intelligently to a grower, extractor, or dispensary manager about their job and it also means keeping up to date on the latest industry trends and news. Good marijuana lawyers understand not only the laws that impact the industry, but also how marijuana is grown, how it is sold, who buys it, and what keep marijuana business owners up at night.

This is the first of a series of articles I’ll be writing for Cannabis in America alongside my colleague Kelly Rosenberg. Together we will explore the frontlines of marijuana law and policy, business, and the day to day challenges and rewards of representing cannabis businesses.

Charlie Alovisetti

Charles Alovisetti is a senior associate and co-chair of the corporate department at Vicente Sederberg LLC. Prior to joining Vicente Sederberg, Charlie worked as an associate in the New York offices of Latham & Watkins and Goodwin where he focused on representing private equity sponsors and their portfolio companies, as well as public companies, in a range of corporate transactions, including mergers, stock and asset acquisitions and divestitures, growth equity investments, venture capital investments, and debt financings. He is a graduate of McGill University and Columbia Law School. Charlie is admitted to practice in Colorado and New York.

The post What is a Marijuana Lawyer? appeared first on Law Street.

Feel like you missed out on some of the top news this Memorial Day Weekend? Here’s what trended last week:

Mississippi Sued, Accused of Not Providing Equal Education to Black Students

A federal lawsuit has been filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the state of Mississippi, arguing that the state is violating a 150-year-old law that requires it to provide a “uniform system of free public schools” for all students. The SPLC lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the parents of four minor children, claims that Mississippi has deprived black students of the “school rights and privileges” guaranteed in its 1868 constitution.

PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement

PayPal is suing music streaming service Pandora, accusing it of copying its signature “P” logo, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The digital payment company alleges that Pandora’s new logo intentionally confuses customers into mistakenly opening the wrong app on their phones.

Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

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

Check out the best legal tweets of the week!

Fun Party Guest!

My party trick is pointing out everything the hosts could be liable for. #lawyerlife

— Bad Legal LLP (@BadLegalLLP) May 24, 2017

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best of this week!

Everyone Probably Needs That

Dear #barexam preppers, #twitter has decided to go offline so you can study. You’re welcome. –Twitter Tech Support pic.twitter.com/WkCrWz3o3k

— lawprofblawg (@lawprofblawg) May 19, 2017

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best.

That is the Question

If Shakespeare was a law student during final exams:
To sleep or not to sleep? @YourLawyerSays

— Bong Pagara (@BongofZamboanga) April 20, 2017

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The Oxford comma: an age-old debate for grammar nerds. (Editor’s note: the editorial team at Law Street insists on using the Oxford comma. We know it’s not AP Style. We’re okay with that.) But those of us in favor of the Oxford comma got a little validation this week, in the form of a court ruling in a Maine labor dispute.

In 2014, a company called Oakhurst Dairy was sued by three of its truck drivers. They claim that they were not given sufficient overtime pay. Maine’s rules state that overtime pay doesn’t apply to:

The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:

(1) Agricultural produce;

(2) Meat and fish products; and

(3) Perishable foods.

Notice that the first sentence doesn’t include an Oxford comma. If it did, the sentence would read “the canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment, or distribution of” and would clearly designate “packing for shipment” and “distribution” as two different activities. But as it reads, without the Oxford comma, it only designates packing the items for shipping or distribution as an exempt activity, not the actual distribution itself. This matters because the truck drivers were responsible for distribution. According to Nick McCrea, of the Bangor Daily News:

The drivers read the passage to say that people who take part in packing for either shipment or distribution are exempt. Distribution wasn’t its own category as written, and because drivers don’t do any packing for either of those purposes, the law doesn’t apply to them, the drivers argued. Also, if ‘distribution’ was meant to be its own exempt activity, why isn’t it written as a gerund (word ending in ‘-ing’) like all the other activities in the list?

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit released a 30-page decision about the matter that began with: “For want of a comma, we have this case.” The Circuit court ruled in favor of the drivers, overturning an earlier district court ruling in favor of Oakhurst.

This comma kerfuffle may have just been a matter of time, because the guidelines Maine has for drafting its legislation specifically recommends avoiding the Oxford comma, stating: “don’t use a comma between the penultimate and last item in a series.” But just because Maine doesn’t recommend an Oxford comma, it doesn’t make up for the fact that the law was ambiguous, which was what led the court to rule in the drivers’ favor.

It’s unclear on whether or not Oakhurst plans on pursuing any further appeals. But fellow lovers of the Oxford comma, rejoice–we should feel vindicated, joyful, and content today.

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 Court Ruling Shows How the Oxford Comma is Correct, Useful, and Wonderful appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best tweets from the legal sphere!

Oh no!

When you start the day with a client in custody and a wardrobe malfunction you know it’s going to be an interesting one. #lawyerlife

— Maria K. Powell (@mapleandspice) March 10, 2017

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best!

Creative Metaphors

The LSAT is like eating an oatmeal raisin cookie or chugging a bottle of vodka thinking its water or making out in a Taco Bell parking lot

— Shannan M. Brown (@ShaN___B) February 25, 2017

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best legal tweets of this week!

What’s That?

Prof to class: “Do yall even know what a typewriter IS?” #notthatyoung #lawschoolproblems

— Katie Grosskopf (@KatieGrosskopf) February 15, 2017

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Do you read every article you can find about the Tidal lawsuits? Are you fascinated by the legal effort to recover art stolen by the Nazis during World War II? Do you have strong feelings about the legal side of “Deflategate?” Do you want a legal career that’s dynamic, fast-paced, and challenging? If you answered yes to any or all of those questions, a career in Entertainment, Arts, or Sports law may be something to consider.

These specialties incorporate a wide range of legal disciplines, including IP and Copyright law, Contract law, and Labor law. And without the behind-the-scenes work of the lawyers who specialize in these fields, our favorite music, TV shows, movies, sports, and art would be unrecognizable. So, how do you get started? The University of Miami School of Law, home to the unique Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law LL.M program, has the answer. Read on to learn more.

A Primer on Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law

First things first: what are we talking about here? These fields, while distinct, are certainly related. But it’s still important to understand some of the nuances.

What is Entertainment Law? 

There’s no set-in-stone definition of exactly what Entertainment law constitutes, but in many ways it involves the application of legal concepts to real world problems. Entertainment lawyers deal with a myriad of legal issues arising from the entertainment and performing arts industry, including TV, movies, radio, theater, and publishing. It can include anything from working on contracts for performers or employers, to filing trademarks, confronting First Amendment issues, and dealing with lawsuits involving those in the entertainment industry. According to Miami Law:

Although entertainment lawyers might represent ‘talent,’ such as directors, actors or musicians, they more often advise companies that produce and distribute entertainment content, license celebrity brands, purchase and sell motion picture or music publishing catalogues, raise or invest debt and equity capital, and purchase and sell companies engaged in one or more of such activities.

Entertainment law is fast-paced and multi-dimensional, and can incorporate many legal questions that a lot of us probably don’t even think about on a daily basis. For example, imagine some of the legal issues that go into creating a movie:

• Actors, writers, and workers on the movie will need contracts to be negotiated. The presence of unions–for example the Screen Actors Guild–may also mean that labor law considerations are in the mix.
• Music used in the movie will need to be properly licensed.
• Marketing materials for the movie, including catchphrases, may need to be trademarked.
• Say the movie involves a “real life story” or biography–an attorney may be needed to deal with any defamation lawsuits that arise.

This list is by no means dispositive, but it goes to show that there are a lot of moving parts that go into what we see as final products in entertainment–and many of them require lawyers.

What is Arts Law?

Like Entertainment law, Arts law exists at a large intersection of legal issues, largely focused on the creation, ownership, and business of art. Intellectual Property law plays a large part–as art depends on the creation of unique work–but Estate and Property law, Contract law, Torts, and other areas factor in as well.

According to Miami Law:

Today, art lawyers work in law firms, museums, auction houses, and financial institutions. Works of art are bought and sold, implicating issues of good title and authenticity; loaned from museums to galleries and other museums, implicating insurance and contract matters; travel internationally for both commercial and private purposes, implicating international treaties and customs laws and regulations; and are often important assets in decedents’ estates, implicating tax and estate planning concerns. An art lawyer must be able to navigate this complex terrain of legal concepts and practical strategies.

Let’s look at an example, like we did with Entertainment law. What might you need to consider if you’re providing legal counsel to an artist?

• Contract law comes into play if the artist wants to be represented in any galleries.
• The artist may be able to receive royalties if their art is used for commercial purposes, or if someone uses the artist’s art without their permission, intellectual property rights could protect them.
• Artists sometimes become involved in performance art as public protests–First Amendment considerations may be at issue.

If any of those hypothetical issues piqued your interest, maybe Arts law is a discipline that you would want to consider.

What is Sports Law?

Sports law, like its Entertainment and Arts law counterparts, also sees a mix of legal principles and factors. Sports lawyers can represent players in the sports industry, including professional and amateur athletes, venues, organizations and teams, and companies that work with athletes or teams.

According to Miami Law:

Sports lawyers usually require knowledge of various areas of law including: contracts, labor, antitrust, tax, intellectual property and media law. To represent sports industry clients, a lawyer also needs strong contract negotiation and drafting skills in addition to an understanding of the arbitration process. Other areas of law, like immigration, can also come into play for foreign athletes and international leagues or clubs.

Let’s try our “day in the life” exercise with Sports law. Let’s say that you represent a team. Here are some questions that could come up:

• You’ll be needed to draft contracts for the athletes who join the team.
• In the cases of international athletes, you may need to deal with Immigration law to ensure that they are able to work in the United States.
• If an athlete gets injured in the course of a game, he may sue the organization he’s playing for.
• A team’s logo and mascot can be trademarked, and you may need to deal with infringing uses on unlicensed merchandise.

Needless to say, there’s no guarantee that any given sports lawyer will deal with those exact issues. But it’s important to note that Sports law, just like Entertainment law and Arts law, requires lawyers who enjoy working in an unpredictable and quickly evolving field.

You’ve Convinced Me–I want to be an Entertainment, Arts, or Sports Lawyer. Where do I start?

Miami Law’s LL.M in Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law can help you make that dream a reality. The program is designed for working lawyers who want to narrow their focus on one of these specialties or students who have already received their law degrees abroad. An LL.M can provide the leg up you need in a competitive environment. The clients you’ll represent–whether it’s an actor, artist, athlete, venue, or company–need to know that you have the wide breadth of legal knowledge to help confront whatever problem they run into. A focused LL.M could make it clear that you have that expertise.

Why Miami Law?

Miami Law’s LL.M program offers some unparalleled perks to get you on the right track.

Location, Location, Location 

Miami is a vibrant, bustling city that serves as an epicenter for entertainment, art, and sports. Miami is home to a number of entertainment production companies, including Telemundo, Univision, HBO Latin America, Viacom International, Sony, and BBC Latin America. The art scene in Miami features many galleries and museums; the city has traditionally been known for its art deco flair. And don’t forget–Miami is home to the Miami Heat, the Miami Dolphins, and the Miami Marlins, in addition to countless amateur and college teams.

Connections are Key 

Who are some Miami alums in the fields of Entertainment, Arts, or Sports law? Take, for example, Horacio Gutierrez, class of ’98. He now serves as General Counsel for Spotify, one of the fastest-growing music streaming services in the world. In the field of Sports law, Dennis Curran is a Miami Law alum, class of ’75. He currently serves as the Senior Vice-President and General Counsel for the NFL Management Council, which represents the 32 teams in the NFL. And Professor Stephen K. Urice, the Director of the Arts law track, comes from a background in arts and museum law–at one point he directed the national culture program at The Pew Charitable Trusts. Miami Law’s faculty, staff, and alumni can help you bridge the gap between your education and getting involved in the job of your dreams.

Hands-On Experience

Miami Law provides its LL.M students with unparalleled hands-on experience. Each of the three tracks–Entertainment law, Art law, and Sports law–requires a practicum component that will give them experience in the field. For example, Maria Jose Rivera, a student in the LL.M program, is completing her practicum requirement at the NBC Universal Telemundo. She describes her work as a fall legal intern to the Telemundo Network with Music Affairs, saying:

I want to get to counsel and represent television and motion picture productions in all legal aspects. Whenever I walk into a studio set, I get thrills by seeing it and hearing in all in real life. I see the drafting of agreements as creating the safeguards to making those audiovisual productions come strong from a legal standpoint.

And she described her experience with the LL.M program as a whole, saying:

The program has helped me get there by not only placing me into the real practice but by granting me the privilege to work with and learn from these role models I look up to professionally. I’m drafting and negotiating agreements for the first time while being challenged to develop the skills that are in demand when becoming an effective lawyer in the entertainment industries.

So, are you ready to make a change, and work on something you’re truly passionate about? Consider Entertainment, Arts, or Sports Law. It’s a growing and exciting field, and it’s time for you to take the plunge.

Resources

Primary

Miami Law: LL.M. in Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law

Miami Law: Entertainment Track

Miami Law: Art Track

Miami Law: Sports Track 

Additional

LexisNexis: Researching Entertainment Law

ABA: What Is Sports Law and Who Is a Sports Lawyer?

Lawyers for the Creative Arts: Legal Issues in Film Production

University of Miami School of Law

The University of Miami School of Law’s mission is to foster the intellectual discipline, creativity, and critical skills that will prepare its graduates for the highest standards of professional competence in the practice of law in a global environment subject to continual–and not always predictable–transformation; to cultivate a broad range of legal and interdisciplinary scholarship that, working at the cutting edge of its field, enhances the development of law and legal doctrine, and deepens society’s understanding of law and its role in society; and to fulfill the legal profession’s historic duty to promote the interests of justice. Visit www.law.miami.edu for more information. The University of Miami School of Law is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post What Does it Take to Become an Entertainment, Arts, or Sports Lawyer? appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month Israeli authorities convicted 20-year-old Israel Defense Force (IDF) soldier Elor Azaria of manslaughter over the killing of Palestinian Abdel Fattah al-Sharif. The January 4 ruling has since triggered an outpouring of nationwide support for Azaria, with an estimated 70 percent of Israelis asking for a full pardon.

The incident began last March when al-Sharif stabbed an Israeli soldier in the West Bank city of Hebron. After al-Sharif was shot and neutralized, cellphone footage showing Azaria shooting the incapacitated assailant in the head went viral. Originally Azaria was going to be tried for murder, but his charges were reduced to manslaughter for violating protocol, essentially shooting at a non-perceived threat.

While the decision to press charges against Azaria may indicate that Israel is holding its soldiers accountable after decades of contentious military engagement in Palestine, others consider Azaria to be innocent of any wrongdoing, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This past weekend, protests were held across Israel in support of Azaria. In Jerusalem one group assembled outside of President Reuven Rivlin’s home to demand the charges be dropped. Seven demonstrators were reportedly arrested after failing to follow police order and disrupting traffic. Following this event, two individuals were also arrested for ¨inciting violence¨ over social media against court officials in Azaria’s case.

Among Azaria’s supporters, some believe that the manslaughter charges could set a poor precedent for future military operations. For example, on January 8 a deadly truck attack occurred in Jerusalem when an Arab-Israeli citizen ran over a group of soldiers, killing four and injuring 15. Until service members realized that this wasn’t merely a car accident (made apparent when the truck went into reverse) the Jerusalem Post reports that some soldiers hesitated to fire knowing they could face similar charges as Azaria.

There are also some speculations that the Israeli army originally wanted to ignore the Azaria trial altogether to avoid ¨airing the military’s dirty secrets¨ to the world. According to Aida Touma-Suleiman, a Palestinian member of Israeli Parliament, Israel is particularly concerned about attracting more attention from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its inquiries into war crimes.

“In a clear-cut case like this, it is important for Israel to look as though it is taking war crimes seriously, otherwise the ICC might itself decide to investigate,” said Touma-Suleiman. “But the case has caused problems because it has upset right-wing politicians and much of the Israeli public, who expect absolute impunity for soldiers.”

This is the first high-profile manslaughter indictment since 2005 when Taysir Heib killed a British photographer and pro-Palestinian rights activist, Tom Hurndall. Oftentimes cases involving military wrongdoings against Palestinians are simply dropped. According to MPCID (Investigations into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Palestinians Convictions and Sentencing) 120 out of 186  investigations into Israeli soldiers committing crimes against Palestinians were closed and only seven prompted disciplinary action.

Based on this lack of accountability for Palestinian lives, some Palestinian advocates consider the incriminating evidence caught on video to be the only reason Israeli officials are even pushing charges.

“The only difference between this case and others is this was caught on camera,” said Palestinian Knesset member Hanin Zoabi. “Hundreds of Palestinians are murdered every year and nobody pays attention to it, and only because this was on camera did it go viral in the media here and internationally and made big news —  but really it is something that happens every single day.”

Azaria could face up to 20 years in prison, which is the maximum sentence for manslaughter charges.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Israelis Want Elor Azaria to be Pardoned After Manslaughter Conviction appeared first on Law Street.

Good Advertising

I just slipped and fell upon this sign #lawyerlife #lawyer #accidentshappen #accident #signs #funnysigns pic.twitter.com/1V6KMpcQGA

— SignYourName (@signyournamenet) January 12, 2017

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Should there be a special keyboard just for lawyers? One company–Pro-Boards LLC–thinks so, and has developed its own legal keyboard, the LegalBoard. The new invention is debuting this week at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

Are lawyers interested in a lawyer-specific keyboard? @legalkeyboard is proposing one. https://t.co/BV6Q3N9Yy2 pic.twitter.com/snOdUexhe6

— LawPay (@LawPay) January 7, 2017

The LegalBoard would include a lot of the specific symbols that lawyers often use, like the paragraph symbol and copyright symbol. And while it’s possible to make those symbols on normal keyboards, it often requires a series of shortcuts or clicks to render them. The LegalBoard would also create shortcuts for common features like bullets, or the words “plaintiff” and “defendant.”

The LegalBoard was invented by Brian Potts, a lawyer who noticed how annoying it was to have to stop working in order to insert certain symbols, and was inspired. He told Law Sites Blog:

I was furiously writing a brief when I went to insert a section symbol. As was my custom, I had to stop what I was doing, use the mouse, go to insert a symbol, find the section symbol and hit insert. This process stopped my train of thought, took up my precious time, and more than anything else, was incredibly annoying.

Potts’ invention sells for $65, which seems reasonable for lawyers who want to save some time on keystrokes. And it makes a lot of sense–so many professions have specific technological tools that help them, but keyboards have remained standard for many professions for years. While you can get some specialized keyboards for different languages, there aren’t a lot of other specific keyboards.  Potts also recognizes that lawyers aren’t the only people who may want these kinds of special keyboards, including doctors and journalists. In professions like the law and medicine, every moment can make a difference, so keyboards that save a few strokes could very well be worth it.

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 Do Lawyers Need Their Own Special Keyboard? appeared first on Law Street.

Revenge porn–the non-consensual posting of someone’s explicit photos or videos, usually by an ex–is deeply problematic. And as our technology evolves, we need lawyers willing to help out those, often women, who fall victim to this kind of online harassment. Brooklyn attorney Carrie Goldberg specializes in sexual privacy and focuses on fighting revenge porn, and recently made headlines after being featured in a New Yorker profile. She was once the victim of online sexual harassment, and basically had to start her own law firm in order to become the kind of lawyer that was needed. She mainly represents young women who are trying to get photos off the internet, are being extorted, or have endured sexual abuse.

ACTIVIST SPOTLIGHT (USA): Carrie Goldberg is a Brooklyn attorney with a practice specialising in sexual privacy,… https://t.co/jNGmstSmH2

— The Pixel Project (@PixelProject) December 12, 2016

Many of her clients feel shame, even though they didn’t do anything wrong. One of the youngest is an African-American girl who is only 15 years old. When she was 13, she was raped by a classmate who filmed it and spread the video around the school. Instead of punishing the boy, the school sent the girl home and later transferred her to another school. She was in effect punished for being raped and harassed. Most other clients are women in their twenties who have ex-boyfriends or husbands who have spread or threatened to spread photos or videos online.

Goldberg has, sadly, seen a steady uptick in the number of clients seeking her help since the emergence of Donald Trump as a serious political contender. By this summer she had 35 active clients and had to hire a colleague. She said that many people seem to believe that a Trump presidency might mean a “license to be cruel.” And it’s not all revenge porn–for example she represents a family whose kids’ pictures were used in memes about the Pizzagate conspiracy.

Abuse on the internet flourishes easily, as it is hard to punish. In the case where someone just sends verbal threats it’s basically impossible to find the perpetrator. But we’re making progress. According to the New York Daily News, Goldberg has already done a lot:

She estimates she’s removed more than 900 pieces of revenge porn from the internet, protecting 72 victims. She’s also lobbied for legislation across the country and 34 states now have it — though not New York.

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 How One Lawyer is Fighting Revenge Porn and Why that Fight Matters Now appeared first on Law Street.

Legal Battles over the Mirena IUD: What’s Next?

Image courtesy of Daniel Lobo; License: (CC BY 2.0)

In 2011, a personal injury complaint was filed in regards to Mirena, an intrauterine device (IUD) manufactured by Bayer Healthcare, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies worldwide. Since then, over a thousand lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturers of Mirena. Some Mirena users have suffered from uterine perforation, inflammation, organ damage, and a host of other medical complications. The Mirena IUD is Bayer’s most popular model worldwide, and the company markets the product as safe and efficient. Yet as the number of lawsuits continues to rise, Mirena’s reputation may take a hit. Read the full issue brief here.

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 ICYMI: Top 10 Issue Briefs of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best legal tweets of the week. They’re in the slideshow below:

A Complicated Game

Explaining white elephant game y’all. It’s more complicated than preserving error for appeal. #lawyerlife #christmas #whiteelephant

— Chow Wilde (@ChowWilde) December 10, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving, but tomorrow is back to the grind. Check out the best legal tweets of the week to laugh your way there.

This Week’s Meme Entry

me: “damn, I really should work harder if i wanna get into law school”

me to me: “who needs a degree when u schoolin’ life” pic.twitter.com/1ik4S5KSFu

— petty pablo (@guayabapapi) November 21, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Worst Wishes

You have not suffered enough in life if you have not studied labour and insurance law. #lawyerproblems

— Aleksandra Wachholz (@worn_out_face) November 15, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday President Obama signed the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights; the most comprehensive sexual assault legislation to date. The new bill is a combination of existing laws from different states and will help make sure that rape survivors always know where their evidence is located, whether it has been tested, and the results. Previously, the legislation around rape and the handling of rape kits–the kit with materials and instructions for gathering evidence following a rape–has been unclear and repeatedly criticized.

Rape victims are sometimes even charged for their exam following a sexual assault, which is not supposed to happen. According to federal law, rape victims should not be billed for a forensic exam and necessary medical care. However, sometimes the medical guidelines go beyond what the law covers, and who pays for that part varies between different states. This will be resolved by the new law.

Thank you @glamourmag for reporting this historic day!https://t.co/vSsZpraYcF

— Amanda (@nguyen_amanda) October 7, 2016

.@POTUS just signed the sexual assault survivor bill of rights. Congrats @risenowus & all who work to end sexual assault every day! #ItsOnUs

— Valerie Jarrett (@vj44) October 7, 2016

The driving force behind the new law was 24-year-old Amanda Nguyen, who is a rape survivor herself and took action after her own rape kit was about to be destroyed. After being raped in 2013, she submitted a rape kit to the state of Massachusetts. According to the law she had 15 years to decide whether she wanted to pursue legal action, but the state threatened to destroy her evidence after only six months unless she filed a request for an extension. To ask this of a rape victim so that existing evidence is not destroyed sounds pretty bizarre.

“A global movement is happening & our most powerful tool is our voice.” Amanda Nguyen on Sexual Assault Survivor’s Bill of Rights #2030NOW

— FAWCO (@FAWCO) September 19, 2016

“The system essentially makes me live my life by date of rape,” Nguyen said to the Guardian. It was also impossible to get a straight answer when she tried to find out where her evidence was located. On top of it all, she had to physically return to Massachusetts every six months to make sure the kit wasn’t destroyed.

In a press release on the bill, Nguyen said:

We want to thank President Obama for signing the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights into law today. This historic piece of legislation codifies the federal rights of the 25 million rape survivors in America and serves as a model for Statehouses to adopt.

Here are some of the rights that victims will be guaranteed under the new law:

• The right to have a sexual assault evidence collection kit preserved for duration of the statute of limitations;
• The right to be notified in writing 60 days before the destruction of a sexual assault evidence collection kit;
• The right to request further preservation of a sexual assault evidence collection kit;
• The right to be informed of important results of a sexual assault forensic examination;
• A grant for attorneys general to provide survivors with written notice of what rights and policies they have in that state.

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 President Obama Signs Historic Sexual Assault Bill into Law appeared first on Law Street.

Friday marked the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment’s enactment, the provision that blocks federal money from being used for abortions for women who are covered by Medicaid. The provision, named after Republican Henry Hyde, makes it financially impossible for many low-income women to have an abortion. This leaves them with the options of having an illegal, dangerous procedure, using money that was meant for something else such as rent or food, or carrying on with an unwanted pregnancy.

According to pro-life activists, the policy has saved the lives of “millions of Americans.” The director of National Right to Life, Douglas Johnson, has said it “has proven itself to be the greatest domestic abortion reduction law ever enacted by Congress.”

On Friday social media was filled with conservative opinions saying the Hyde Amendment saved American lives.

Because of the #HydeAmendment, over 2 million people did not lose their lives to abortion. #HelloHyde #HydeSavesLives

— Liberty Pike (@Liberty_Pike) September 30, 2016

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence wants to make the Hyde Amendment a permanent law.

40 years ago, the #HydeAmendment was enacted—a milestone in the fight for life. We need a leader who will protect the rights of the unborn.

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) September 30, 2016

But recently more support for abandoning the policy has developed. Hillary Clinton–who also received Planned Parenthood’s first-ever presidential primary endorsement–has spoken out against the provision and made repealing it part of her campaign, saying that abortion is a fundamental human right.

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment. @HillaryClinton agrees – it’s time to #BeBoldEndHyde: https://t.co/R9Jh68Xdz5 pic.twitter.com/GMtrBeBMEy

— Madam President (@Madam_President) September 30, 2016

Planned Parenthood released a statement Friday calling for an end to the provision.

Every woman—no matter how much money she makes or who provides her insurance—should be able to access the full-range of reproductive health care, including abortion. Every woman should be able to make her own decisions about pregnancy based on her own unique circumstances, and have the resources she needs to exercise that decision with autonomy and dignity.

And many opinions were voiced on Twitter.

Thank you @RepDianaDeGette for sponsoring the EACH Woman Act to repeal the Hyde Amendment. #copolitics #BeBoldEndHyde pic.twitter.com/HF5Dt4J6KN

— Gena Ozols (@genaozols) September 30, 2016

Learning how Hyde amendment hurts low-income communities #WeWontWait2016 @fullfrontalfem @KierraDC @jgonzalez_rojas pic.twitter.com/LPp3MjCDTP

— Luna Ranjit (@LunaRanjit) September 20, 2016

The women affected by the Hyde Amendment are also the ones who are most likely to experience an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. Ending it would mean increased equality and access to reproductive care for all women.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post The Hyde Amendment Turns 40–Is it Time to Let it Go? appeared first on Law Street.

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation ending the state’s 10-year statute of limitations on rape.

Senate Bill 813, filed by State Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) amended the penal code so that some sex crimes, including rape, forcible sodomy, and molestation of a child, can be be prosecuted, regardless of how long ago the crime occurred.

Leyva praised Brown’s decision, saying it told every rape and sexual assault victim in the state “that they matter.” “It shows victims and survivors that California stands behind them, that we see rape as a serious crime, that victims can come forward and that justice now has no time limit,” she said.

The sexual assault allegations against scandal-plagued comedian Bill Cosby inspired the bill. Cosby’s accusers testified before the California Legislature to support the bill, dubbed the Justice for Victims Act, before it made its way to Brown’s desk. Dozens of women have accused the comedian of sexual assault dating from the 1960s to the 1990s.

“The Cosby Show” star has denied the accusations, saying his sexual encounters were consensual.

Attorney Gloria Allred, who represents some of the accusers, stated that this was a positive step. “It puts sexual predators on notice that the passage of time may no longer protect them from serious criminal consequences for their acts of sexual violence,” she said.

The new law will not work retroactively, or help those who accuse Cosby of crimes committed more than 10 years ago. It will go into effect January 1, 2017.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Ends Statute of Limitations on Rape with Senate Bill 813 appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday, Law Street readers! Check out our best tweets of the week:

Weird Requests

Just settled a divorce over Parrot custody/visitation. Neither may teach it negative phrases abt the other.

I went to law school for this.

— Lady Lawya (@Parkerlawyer) September 15, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

An attempted robbery led to a fatal shooting in a Walmart parking lot in Kansas on Sunday, and one shopper’s initial reaction was to film a video with her cellphone and publish it on Facebook, calling the shooting “interesting.”

When Wendy Russell Macrorie came back out to the parking lot after buying lightbulbs, the shooting had just happened. In the video she is seen smiling and chewing gum while saying, “So this is interesting, I’m at Walmart, which I hate going to, and this is happening in front of my car.” She then filmed two men with gunshot wounds on the ground while medical professionals tended to them. She ended the video by saying, “Gross, gross, don’t come to Walmart.”

Mom Posts Bizarre Live Video Of ‘Interesting’ Fatal Shooting Outside Walmart https://t.co/hNlKvUQWhj pic.twitter.com/HilKQwVPH9

— Elite Daily (@EliteDaily) September 12, 2016

Her under-reaction to people being severely injured was criticized on Facebook and Twitter.

Between this video by #WendyRussellMacrorie and the Bs heckling #Solange I’m so upset. We need to do better #whitegirls #getittogether

— Amelia Merritt (@oneinamelia) September 12, 2016

The shooting happened around 1:30 PM on Sunday, according to KMBC. A woman was putting her infant in the car outside of Walmart when two men approached her and hit her in the head. A man got out of his car to help the woman but one of the robbers shot him multiple times. Then another man stepped out from his car, and shot one of the assailants. He was identified as John W. Simmons III.

On Tuesday the second suspect, named Arthur Fred Wyatt III, was arrested. He was released from the Kansas Department of Corrections in July after serving a sentence for a 2009 involuntary manslaughter conviction. The man who first tried to help the woman and was shot as a result was a 33-year-old Iraq war veteran who is still in critical condition. The woman that the men tried to rob has been released from the hospital.

Since the dramatic Kansas shooting, bizarrely, two more Walmart shootings have happened. On Tuesday, a non-fatal shooting occurred in St. Paul, Minnesota. Early Wednesday morning, a Walmart employee fatally shot a man who tried to rob him in Sunrise, Florida.

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 Woman Posts Bizarre Video From Fatal Kansas Walmart Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

The 2013 documentary “Blackfish” portrayed the chilling reality of orcas in captivity, including the tragic death of one orca trainer who was pulled underwater by a stressed and depressed whale. Now California has become the first state in the country to ban breeding and performances by captive orcas.

State Assemblyman Richard Bloom from Santa Monica first introduced the bill in 2014 and expressed his joy on Twitter on Tuesday.

Very pleased to announce that my law protecting #orca from captive breeding in California was signed by @JerryBrownGov today

— Richard Bloom (@RichardBloom) September 13, 2016

The “Blackflish” documentary opened many people’s eyes. SeaWorld faced massive protests after it aired. The company voluntarily announced in March 2016 that it would stop captive breeding and “repackage” orca entertainment into featuring only the “natural behavior of the whales.”

PETA had worked on behalf of the orcas for a long time and was delighted by the news:

Considering what we know now about orca intelligence and sensitivity, there’s no justification for letting businesses breed more of these animals to endure chronic deprivation in tiny concrete tanks.

BREAKING VICTORY: #California has just become the first state to ban captive orca breeding! https://t.co/LoBCdqPwgz pic.twitter.com/NpVaOrOddX

— PETA (@peta) September 14, 2016

The new bill was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on Tuesday and will ensure that SeaWorld and other parks will never begin the captive breeding practices again. But a loophole in the bill allows parks to still use whales for “educational orca encounters,” which means they could technically keep doing what they’ve been doing until now.

Former orca trainer John Hargrove, who participated in the Blackfish documentary, celebrated the new law.

California Governor Signs Bill Banning SeaWorld Orca Shows- This feels WONDERFUL! https://t.co/WO1lEWEcvS

— John Hargrove (@johnjhargrove) September 14, 2016

The law will prohibit keeping genetic material for the purpose of breeding and selling orcas to other states or countries. Facilities that keep orcas captive can only keep them for scientific, educational, or rescue purposes. Breaking the new law could result in a fine of $100,000.

Dr. Toni Frohoff from In Defense of Animals told the Dodo:

This is a momentous decision that reflects established science on orca well-being, and also public opinion that increasingly demands that these majestic, highly intelligent beings should not be held captive.

Considering the massive criticism that SeaWorld has faced, and that the new bill is the first of its kind to protect orcas, it seems like it can only get better for the whales from here.

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 California First State to Ban Orca Breeding and Performances appeared first on Law Street.

Forty-one Nigerian students have sued Alabama State University for misusing their government’s scholarship money, overcharging the students, and treating them “like animals.” Though it is one of America’s historically black colleges, the students think discrimination was a contributory factor. “I’m a black man and I’m proud to be black, but I felt discriminated against,” said former student Jimmy Iwezu to The Daily Beast. He also said the school called him and his fellow Nigerian schoolmates “cash cows”.

Students Godsgift Moses, Promise Owei, Thankgod Harold, Success Jumbo, Savior Samuel and others, came to America thanks to generous scholarships for four years of college from the Nigerian government. The government paid around $30,000–$35,000 per student per year—to cover tuition, books, room and board and any other expenses. But instead of forwarding excess money to the students’ accounts, the University held on to the money.

Nigerian students sue Alabama University for treating them ‘like animals’ https://t.co/eQNpI9WW4g via @todayng pic.twitter.com/JHpbbCWuP6

— Nigeria Newsdesk (@NigeriaNewsdesk) September 12, 2016

According to the students’ lawyer Julian McPhillips, who first filed a lawsuit in April that was dismissed, these students were treated differently from other attendees. The scholarship money that is supposed to go to the students was instead used to help solve the school’s “bond issues,” pay for a new stadium, and create a new civil rights awareness center.

The Nigerian students were not allowed to eat anywhere other than the school cafeteria and their scholarship funds were charged for living in the school’s dorms even if they didn’t live there. The cost for living on campus was also allegedly raised specifically for the Nigerian students, who had to pay $3,000 per semester. One student named Success Jumbo was married and lived off campus, but the school took money from his scholarship for dorm expenses anyway, instead of transferring the money to his personal account to use for his actual rent. Jumbo told the Montgomery Advertiser:

I got married May 2014. I’ve approached ASU on several occasions, I even took my wife and my baby to them and said, ‘Look, I no longer live on campus. I believe you guys understand the importance of being married. I need to get this money so I can use it to pay for my housing elsewhere.’

“The school compelled us to buy books from the book store and eat only at the cafeteria,” said Iwezu. “I tried to make them understand, ‘Hey, we don’t want to live in the dorms anymore, and we don’t want to eat our entire meals at the dorms.”

After complaining and demanding a refund for the students, McPhillips received an answer from the school–its officials said: “there is no financial agreement between the University and the individual Nigerian students,”–and the request was denied. Another student was charged for summer school after he graduated that he never attended or even applied to.

“They had me as if I was going to school this summer. I asked them, ‘I graduated in May, so where is the scholarship money my government gives to you?’” said Kehinde Batife.

But the students won’t give up–on the other hand, they’re more determined than ever to fight for their cause. Batife said: “I cannot forget about this and I’m ready to fight the school, even if it means 10 years from now I’m still fighting to get justice.”

“I want justice to prevail, and the remaining money should go to [Nigeria’s] Treasury and make a better life for other Nigerians,” concluded Iwezu.

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 Nigerian Students Sue Alabama University For Using Up Their Money appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ordered that sex offenders stay away from Pokémon Go. The immensely popular game that has taken the world by storm for the past month leads its players on a real life search for digital Pokémon, using your phone’s map function.

Last week NY State Senators Jeffrey Klein and Diane Savino discovered that using the app actually might take you to the homes of convicted sex offenders. Now they are trying to pass legislation that will keep players a minimum of 100 feet away from such locations. It is also possible to pay real life money to get a rare Pokémon, in order to lure other players to your location–a tactic that some businesses are using to get customers to come to their stores.

Governor Cuomo previously worked to prohibit or limit Internet access for convicted sex offenders and pedophiles. This new directive will ban all registered sex offenders from downloading and playing interactive online games such as Pokémon Go. This will immediately affect around 3,000 individuals on parole.

We directed @NYSDOCCS to restrict sex offenders on parole from playing Pokémon GO and similar games: https://t.co/WpL19oEswq

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) August 1, 2016

Cuomo also sent a letter to Niantic, Inc., the American software company behind Pokémon Go, asking for cooperation on the issue by technologically barring sex offenders from even using the app. He said in a statement:

Protecting New York’s children is priority number one and, as technology evolves, we must ensure these advances don’t become new avenues for dangerous predators to prey on new victims. These actions will provide safeguards for the players of these augmented reality games and help take one more tool away from those seeking to do harm to our children.

In the same statement, Jeffrey Klein said that pedophiles constantly seek new ways to approach and lure victims and that this is an important first step to limit the technological ways they can do it.

Diane Savino pointed out that Pokémon Go is an entertaining game for children, but the real world can be dangerous and it is important to remember the risks. However, there is no evidence that anyone has been sexually abused because of the Pokémon Go app.

It is great that an online game manages to get kids out and moving in their search for Pokémon, but there are several risks involved when walking around with your eyes on a screen–such as robbery, various physical injuries, and in one case, even finding a dead body. Hopefully the new directives regarding sex offenders will protect kids from one of those potential dangers.

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 Registered Sex Offenders Prohibited from Catching Pokémon in New York appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #1 Northwestern University School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #2 Harvard Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #3 University of Chicago Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

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 Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #5 Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University appeared first on Law Street.

If you watch a lot of “Law and Order” you might be under the impression that courtroom stunts are common–that pulling out props or making grand gestures are the norm. But in reality, stunts are relatively rare, and successful stunts are rarer, which makes the fact that attorney Nick Rowley dressed up in a chicken suit during a closing argument and won a lawsuit brought against the Kern County School District in California, all the more impressive.

The case was Mitchell Carter v. Kern County School District and focused on the events that transpired at Bakersfield High School in 2010. According to Courtroom View Network, Mitchell Carter, a student at the time, dressed up in a chicken suit at a football rally to make fun of their rival Clovis West High School, which has a golden eagle mascot. He was encouraged to do so by the administration. When Carter went out in the suit the first time, he was attacked by students from Bakersfield. Carter tried to back out of entering the rally a second time, but says that he was compelled to go back out by the administration. Carter claims that a school administrator warned that he may have to pay the chicken suit’s rental fee if he didn’t go back out.

When Carter, dressed in the chicken suit, entered the rally the second time he was rushed by Bakersfield High School students and suffered a traumatic brain injury. He now suffers from psychological problems, has a hard time keeping up with college classes, and will need to pay for growth hormone therapy for the rest of his life because his pituitary gland was damaged. In addition to accusing the school of pushing him to do the stunt, Carter also claimed that the school didn’t break up the fight that caused his brain trauma in a timely fashion.

Rowley said: “He was put in the most hated, personified figure at that time: the opposing team’s mascot…They dressed him up and had him play the fool.” Here’s a video of Rowley explaining the situation, chicken suit and all, courtesy of Courtroom View Network:

While the school district’s attorneys tried to argue that Carter picked fights with members of the team, the jury sided with Carter, finding the school district “100 percent liable for the student’s injuries.” The school district’s settlement with Carter totals $10.5 million.

Rowley donned the chicken costume about 20 minutes into his closing argument, to make a point about why Carter put his suit on in the first place. Rowley pointed out it wasn’t for personal glory, or attention, but because of his school spirit–Carter went through the humiliating act of wearing a chicken suit because his school asked him to. While the defense objected to Rowley’s use of the chicken suit, its rhetorical heft was undoubtable. While props in the courtroom don’t always work, Rowley’s calculated risk clearly paid off. After all, it’s not every day you see an attorney put on a chicken suit in the middle of a courtroom…at least not outside of a TV show.

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 No Clucks Given: Attorney Dresses up in Chicken Suit During Closing Argument appeared first on Law Street.

Not one but two transgender women, both named Misty, won Democratic Primaries held on Tuesday. This is a big step forward for the LGBT community and is well timed since June is National LGBT Pride Month.

In Utah, Misty Snow won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, while in Colorado, Misty Plowright won a House primary.

JoDee Winterhof, from the Human Rights Campaign, said to NBC:

It is historic that this November, the top Utah Democrat on the ballot in that state will be a transgender woman. Regardless of the outcome in the fall, both of these candidates have demonstrated to transgender people across the country that our politics are stronger when diverse voices are not only heard, but also included.

Neither of the women have much experience in politics, but want to offer voters an alternative to the other candidates that are running.

Misty K. Snow & Misty Plowright made history yesterday, and also they are my favorite political figures in ages https://t.co/7OoxouQ61Z

— J. Escobedo Shepherd (@jawnita) June 29, 2016

Misty Snow, from Utah, is the first transgender person to run for a Senate seat from a major party. Her day job is at a grocery store and she doesn’t have a college degree, but she beat marriage therapist Jonathan Swinton by a big margin. She is challenging Utah Senator Mike Lee, who is very conservative, with Bernie Sanders-inspired ideas such as $15 minimum wage, paid parental leave, and free college tuition.

Misty Plowright works in tech in Colorado and described herself as “the anti-politician” and an IT nerd. She also beat her opponent, an Iraq war veteran, easily and wants to get private money out of politics and for the whole country to have access to high speed Internet.

Neither of the candidates focused on the fact that they’re transgender women in their campaign, but rather on progressive Democratic ideas. However, winning in November might be harder to do considering how relatively conservative both of their states are. However, after the recent bathroom debate in North Carolina, and the shooting in Orlando, Snow and Plowright provide some positive news for the LGBT community, no matter the outcome of these elections.

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 Two Transgender Women Historically Won Democratic Primaries on Tuesday appeared first on Law Street.

Californians will have the opportunity to vote to legalize recreational marijuana in November now that the proposed ballot measure officially meets the state’s signature requirement. California was the first state in the country to legalize medical use of the drug in 1996. If Californians vote to allow recreational use it could have a big impact on the rest of the country, considering the size of the state and the existing momentum behind legalization.

Six years ago, Californians voted against Proposition 19, a similar initiative that would have made California the first state to legalize recreation marijuana use. But since then, more states have opened up to marijuana use and California recently enacted new rules to regulate medicinal marijuana. This time around, the campaign to legalize has several prominent backers such as Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, billionaire Sean Parker, the California Democratic Party, and the California Medical Association.

To put the issue on the November ballot, pro-Marijuana groups needed over 365,000 signatures, but the campaign collected over 606,000.

Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, voiced her support for the measure on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/748202943170682884

What Would This Mean?

If the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is passed, it would basically mean that anyone over 21 would be allowed to buy, use, and possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants.

It would also entail huge savings for the state considering all the marijuana related offenses and incarceration of users that no longer would have to be enforced. The savings could be as big as over $100 million per year according to a statement from California Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

Jason Kinney, a spokesperson for the campaign behind the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, said in a statement:

Today marks a fresh start for California, as we prepare to replace the costly, harmful and ineffective system of prohibition with a safe, legal and responsible adult-use marijuana system that gets it right and completely pays for itself.

The anti-Marijuana bloc consists of the California Republican Party and representatives from police and hospitals. Opponents argue that legalization would not change the black market or criminal activity, such as driving under the influence.

But if the ballot measure passes, marijuana businesses would have to be 600 feet away from any school. Related advertising would not be allowed to target kids and marijuana products could not be easily confused with candy or other products that to not contain the dr.

The ballot measure currently has a broad base of support. A recent poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 60 percent of California voters favor of legalization.

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 Californians to Vote on Recreational Marijuana in November appeared first on Law Street.

Tens of thousands of chemicals are used to create our everyday products, and the legislation that regulates them hasn’t been updated for nearly half a decade–but that all changed today. President Obama signed into law Wednesday new regulations that will overhaul toxic chemical use and garnered unexpected bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats and environmentalists and the chemical industry.

It has been a long journey but today @POTUS has officially signed #TSCA into law! pic.twitter.com/jCNuVVH4Ll

— Senator Tom Carper (@SenatorCarper) June 22, 2016

The new law is an update of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and will now allow the Environmental Protection agency to collect more information about a chemical before it can be used in the United States. Also under the new law, the EPA must conduct a review of all the chemicals currently on the market and make the results public. The EPA will also have to consider the chemical effects on certain demographics like infants, pregnant women, and the elderly.

“This is a big deal. This is a good law. It’s an important law,” Obama said at the bill-signing ceremony at the White House. “Here in America, folks should have the confidence to know the laundry detergent we buy isn’t going to make us sick, [or] the mattress that our babies sleep on aren’t going to harm them.”

The law will also streamline the different states’ rules on regulating the $800 billion industry. Three years of negotiating between lawmakers went into creating this law which aims to “bring chemical regulation into the 21st century,” according to the American Chemistry Council, who backed the bill.

“I want the American people to know that this is proof that even in the current polarized political climate here in Washington, things can work — it’s possible,” Obama said. “If we can get this bill done it means that somewhere out there on the horizon, we can make our politics less toxic as well.”

In recent years, Republicans have been critical of Obama’s efforts to strengthen environmental and climate protections, claiming regulations create unnecessary burdens and stifles business. However, all parties were on board for this bill–it passed in the House with a 403-12 vote.

“That doesn’t happen very often these days,” Obama said. “So this is a really significant piece of business.”

The Environmental Defense Fund called it “the most important new environmental law in decades.” However, as with any law, there are some downsides. The law restricts how and when a state can regulate certain chemicals and limits the EPA’s ability to monitor some imported chemicals. The Environmental Working Group, another organization that supported the bill, criticized that the EPA may not have enough resources or legal authority to review and/or ban chemicals, citing that House Republicans slashed the EPA’s funding and staff in an appropriations bill for next year.

But, on the bright side, the approximate 700 new chemicals that come on the market each year will now have to clear a safety bar first and companies can no longer classify health studies of those chemicals as “confidential business information.” Those studies now must be made available to the public.

The law was named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, after the late New Jersey Democrat who spent years trying to fix the law. His wife attended the signing at the White House.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Signs Law that Will Overhaul Toxic Chemical Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

Over 40 years after he reportedly sexually abused young athletes he coached, former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert reported to prison in a wheelchair. He wasn’t convicted on charges of abuse, but rather his recent violation of banking laws when he payed a victim to keep quiet.

Hastert is one of the most recognizable politicians in U.S. history to serve jail time. And he might never have been caught, had the FBI not noticed how he withdrew large amounts of money from several different banks three years ago. According to the Washington Post, he initially claimed he was being blackmailed, but officials soon realized he was lying.

Read Law Street’s previous take about the charges against Hastert here.

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert to report to prison today https://t.co/NVGLCLKV9n pic.twitter.com/iiwqiTOobi

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) June 22, 2016

The Background

Dennis Hastert was a wrestling coach and high school teacher in the 1970s and molested five teenagers that he coached. In court in April he stood face to face with his victims and admitted that he “mistreated some of my athletes that I coached.” The judge called him a “serial child molester.”

Jolene Reinboldt testified about Hastert’s four year sexual abuse of her brother Steve when he was in high school. She told ABC:

He took his belief in himself and his kind of right to be a normal person. Here was the mentor, the man who was, you know, basically his friend and stepped into that parental role, who was the one who was abusing him… He damaged Steve I think more than any of us will ever know.

Steve Reinbolt told his sister about Hastert in 1979. He died from AIDS eleven years ago.

John Lewis holds a congressional sit-in for gun control while Dennis Hastert reports to prison for serial child molestation. #ProudToBeADem

— Dusty Huskey (@huskydusty) June 22, 2016

The sentence

The court couldn’t charge Hastert with sexual abuse since the statute of limitations had run out. He was instead charged with breaking federal banking laws by withdrawing money from several different banks in amounts small enough to not have to report them. He also lied to the FBI about his banking activity.

Hastert was sentenced to 15 months in a medical federal prison in Minnesota. But since he is now old and in poor health he is likely to get out after 12.5 months. He will not stay in a locked cell, his guards are not armed, and he will have access to recreational activities. It seems like a lenient sentence for someone who allegedly destroyed the lives of at least five young boys. But a man who was once so well-respected in U.S. politics will never be looked at in the same light again.

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 First Day in Prison for Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert appeared first on Law Street.

Check out this week’s best legal tweets, courtesy of Law Street’s careful curation:

Some Fatalism

But really…#LawSchoolProblemspic.twitter.com/EyMVD5iASB

— City Girl (@imthecitygirl) June 10, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Legal counsel is expensive, but your Twitter feed is free. Check out our round-up of some of the best tweets from #BestAdviceFromMyLawyer.

Well to Start Off…

#BestAdviceFromMyLawyer
When he finally tells you the truth:
Stop Breaking the Law! pic.twitter.com/FU0OhiDPU6

— R.E.Marsh (@eREM1600) June 9, 2016

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Ten Funniest #BestAdviceFromMyLawyer Tweets appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter, as always, is full of the musings of law school students, lawyers, and legal minds. Check out the best legal tweets of the week in the slideshow below:

Productive Sleeping

Studying criminal law, day 5:I still have nightmares about murders and abduction, but I can already classify them asleep.#lawschoolproblems

— Barbora Obračajová (@Baru_Obracajova) May 26, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

listen buddy if you want to throw away $200K just go to law school like a normal person https://t.co/hHOLQQvtp5

— actioncookbook (@actioncookbook) May 10, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Check out Law Street Media’s roundup of the best legal tweets of the week.

Truth

Mom: “When are you going to start applying for law school?”
Me: “When I’ve given up on actually being happy.”

— Samantha Haack (@SamanthaRae49) May 6, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

TGIF, Law Street readers! Check out the top legal tweets of the week in the slideshow below:

Good Life Choices

“Why’d you fail out of law school?”
“I was too busy looking at pictures of puppies.”

— Sid (@sid_bark) April 15, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

At an event hosted by the New York City Bar last week, around a dozen attorneys and interested professionals gathered at 42 West 44th Street in New York to talk about something not a lot of people in today’s society like to acknowledge: stress in the legal profession.

The workshop–titled Resilience for Lawyers: Practical Skills to Decrease Stress and Avoid Burnout–was run specifically by the Mindfulness in Law program, a group that meets monthly at the New York City Bar to discuss using meditative practices in the legal profession. The group is headed by Robert Chender, an attorney who started the program several years ago with the goal of seeing how mindfulness practices could potentially help lawyers. Law Street’s Social Media Marketing Assistant, Fatima Sarassoro, covered the event and had some interesting information to share about exactly why lawyers are so stressed and how they can better deal with that stress. After a conversation with her, a phone interview with Robert Chender, and an email exchange with Bjorn Sorenson–a presenter at the event–it became clear that there are important steps attorneys can take in their everyday life to de-stress and become more productive.

Stress is a funny thing; no two people experience it the same way. What might be stressful for one person, could be a normal daily occurrence for another. In addition, people cope with stressors differently depending on which coping mechanisms work best for them. One thing we do know about stress is that pretty much everyone experiences it. The workplace and money are some of the highest stress causing factors in America today. According to an annual stress survey done by the American Psychological Association, “Many adults say that money (37 percent) and work (31 percent) are a very significant source of stress in their life,” with only 13 percent of adults claiming that money is not at all a significant source of stress and only 12 percent claiming the same about work. In the field of law, specifically, people cite burnout as more common than in other fields because of pessimistic work environments and large amounts of debt from law school. The American Bar Association acknowledges that stress in the legal profession is well-documented, “Lawyers often have demanding schedules and heavy workloads, which may contribute to increased stress levels.”

In addition, part of the reason lawyers experience more stress than people in other professions is because of the high level of emotional involvement involved in their jobs. The practice of law attracts people who are very passionate, which then leads them to experience heightened emotions, like stress and anger, in response to their jobs–more so than many other professions.

According to Bjorn Sorenson–a consultant to mission-driven leaders, entrepreneurs, and businesses who gave a presentation at the event–law is a stressful profession, which then leads to a lot of stressed out lawyers not taking care of themselves and burning out early. At the event, he explained that life is on a spectrum; people fluctuate on that spectrum from stages of suffering and stress to stages of resiliency, sustainability, and flourishing throughout their life.

Because lawyers are taught in law school that they have to “think like a lawyer,” they have the skills to think analytically but not necessarily the skills to deal with the issues and stress that come along with that type of thinking. In addition to that law mentality, Robert Chender noted in a phone interview about mindfulness in law that,

Legal practitioners tend to be subject to certain qualities of mind that are more pronounced in lawyers than in other fields. For example, lawyers tend to be more pessimistic and lawyers tend to be more perfectionistic, which are adaptable or adaptive qualities at work but not so adaptive outside of work.

What’s the main stressor that comes from law? An inability for lawyers to focus, according to Sorenson. Apparently “47 percent of people are unhappy because they’re focusing on things other than what they are supposed to be focusing on.” Sorenson’s presentation explained how, even though in today’s day and age everyone assumes multitasking is the norm, our brains are actually incapable of multitasking. Instead, when people try to multitask they end up trying to do multiple things at once but doing neither one effectively. Trying to multitask leads to a lack of focus and productivity–perpetuating the problem. While this lack of focus is a challenge in all fields, it is especially prevalent among lawyers because of heavy workloads and heightened emotional responses to their work.

The question that comes from this is whether or not there is a place for awareness techniques like mindfulness to modulate the tendency toward negativity among lawyers. If stress is so prevalent, how can lawyers work to cope with the stress they face so they can be as effective in their careers and lives as possible? That’s exactly the question Sorenson hoped to answer when he spoke at the Resilience for Lawyers workshop.

At the root of the problem, Sorenson claims, it is imperative for the health of legal professionals that they sit back and realize one simple thing: before you are a lawyer you are a human being. As a human being, you have the power to control your own thoughts and reactions to situations. Unfortunately, Sorenson says, negative emotions are more contagious than positive ones.  Sorenson notes that to get out of this negative rut, people have to choose to be positive, both with themselves and with others. While choosing to be positive can be difficult, there are some tips and tricks to use every day to keep a positive attitude in potentially negative situations.

One of the methods Sorenson talked about in detail is the SPA method–Situation, Posture, and Attitude. Before diving into the inevitably negative grumbling when something doesn’t go right, it is important to analyze the situation you’re in. After you assess what exactly the situation is, take a second to breathe and adjust your posture. Then you can decide exactly what attitude you are going to choose to have when it comes to dealing with your situation. Taking a moment to breathe, assess your situation and readjust your posture and attitude can be instrumental in maintaining a happy work environment and perpetuating a positive stress-free lifestyle.

The good news about these techniques is that they are applicable in all fields. When asked in an email interview how flexible these strategies are in other jobs, Sorenson said,

All of the techniques discussed in my workshop are applicable in other fields and other areas of life. In fact, my primary approach to these workshops is to share human skills, not legal skills. Resilience, emotional intelligence, social connection, a meaningful life…these are not the exclusive domain of lawyers.

In a phone interview, Robert Chender explained how he teaches mindfulness techniques to all kinds of businesses and investment professionals. In light of all this information, what is the main takeaway from the Resilience for Lawyers presentation?

Fatima, my fellow Law Streeter who covered the event, says she walked away from the hour and a half presentation with a better understanding of exactly how stressful law and the workplace can be. There seems to be a lack of comprehension among most people about just how energy-draining a lack of focus can be every day.

Sorenson commented in the interview that the main take away from this presentation should be:

We have the power to make our lives better. In-between every stressful emotional trigger in our lives and our habitual reactions, we can insert a space for our values-driven appropriate response. We have tremendous agency in our lives—even if we can’t always control the circumstances, we can control our attitude toward those circumstances.

Finally, Chender finished off our phone interview by putting the main point of the event pretty succinctly:

If there’s only one thing you can come out of this event remembering it should be that you can actually take a breath before you react to a situation that’s emotionally fraught. You don’t have to follow your habit or follow you impulse, but you can actually take a breath, stop, and then decide what you want to do not because of how you feel, but, perhaps, even in spite of how you feel.

When it comes to any job, especially being a lawyer, you have to help yourself before you can begin to help other people. So, remember to take a break, step back from stressful situations, and choose to tackle them head on with positivity to make your life as efficient and positive as possible.

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to correct the spelling of one presenter’s name. 

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Why Lawyers are so Stressed Out and How to Prevent it appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to Law Street’s latest entry of “Best Legal Tweets of the Week.” Check them out in the slideshow below:

New Name Commentary

The new Scalia law school was ASSOL (Antonin Scalia School of Law) until they changed it, which is a shame since that’s what he was.

— Imani Gandy (@AngryBlackLady) April 6, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Are you mission-driven? Motivated by your devotion to a cause? Ready to make an impact on the world? Fueled by a desire to help others? There’s a field of law that needs your passion.

Public interest lawyers provide voices to the members of our society who are so often overlooked, help to save the environment, take on oppressive laws, and fight for fairness. If you are a changer-of-the world looking for meaningful work that will feed your desire to make real change, public interest law is a path you should consider.

Lewis & Clark Law School, located in Portland, Oregon, has one of the leading Public Interest Law programs in the country, making it a great place for aspiring public interest lawyers to get their start.

So…what exactly is Public Interest Law?

Public interest work is not confined to any one political ideology or legal practice area. It is work undertaken to advance justice, fairness, and protection of the public, rather than for commercial or personal gain.

Put simply, public interest law is more than just a job–it’s a calling. As Tracy Sullivan, Executive Director of Public Interest Law at Lewis & Clark says, public interest law is mission-driven, meaning that lawyers who go down the public interest path aim to accomplish some sort of goal that benefits the greater public rather than an individual, corporation, or private entity seeking commercial gain. Public interest law certainly isn’t confined to any one specialty or practice. Here are just a few examples of public interest law passions:

• Criminal Justice Reform: The criminal justice system in the U.S. has its flaws–from wrongful convictions to the lack of resources available for offenders once they reenter society. Public interest lawyers working on criminal justice reform aim to fix these and other problems to make sure that the system is actually just.
• Environmental Law: We need to protect the environment for future generations, and some of the best ways to do so are through the law. Some public interest lawyers work on crafting legislation to protect the environment; work to enforce existing environmental laws; and bring to justice those who harm the environment.
• Victim Advocacy Law: Victims’ rights law aims to carve out a space for victims in the criminal justice system. Advocates work to ensure that victims’ rights, such as the right to be protected from the accused and the right to have their say in court, are upheld.

Why do Students Focus on Public Interest Law?

Here’s what some Lewis & Clark Law students say about why they were drawn to public interest law.

Chelsea Sandbloom, a 2L from Washington, told me about how volunteering and working at nonprofits while in college drove her obtain “a graduate degree where I could better advocate for those who are underrepresented or marginalized in society.”

Zachary Winston, a 3L from New York, won last year’s Oregon New Lawyers Division Pro Bono Challenge Award for completing the most pro bono hours at Lewis & Clark Law School. He has a deeply personal reason for his desire to work in the field of public interest. While an undergraduate student, Winston made a bad decision one night and was arrested on felony charges. “After taking responsibility for my actions and pleading guilty, I was incarcerated for seven months,” he says. “While incarcerated, I witnessed many injustices in the criminal justice system. After being released, I knew I had to give back to underrepresented communities by trying to reform it.”

Laura Russell, a 3L at Lewis & Clark Law School who focuses on public interest, with a concentration in health law, told me about her journey, stating:

I knew from an early age that I wanted to be a public servant, I just wasn’t sure in what capacity. Then, just out of college, I got a job working in health care. My job was, essentially, to educate people about state and federal health care coverage options. It was at that job where I started to really understand issues of health justice. I knew I wanted to have a career that would allow me to advocate for, and with, vulnerable populations on both an individual and systemic level. There are an abundance of lawyers in this country, but what we really lack, are public interest lawyers. Public interest law is not lucrative, and it often feels like it’s a perpetual uphill battle but I can’t imagine any more gratifying work. It’s the kind of work that can change lives and communities.

At the end of the day, while each public interest law school student’s story is going to be different, there’s a consistency that rings true–a drive to help others and seek justice.

Why You Should Consider the Public Interest Law Program at Lewis & Clark Law

First and foremost, the results speak for themselves. Lewis & Clark’s Public Interest Law program is one of the best in the country, and it feeds more graduates into careers within the realm of public interest law than the national average among law schools.

Support from the School

Tracy Sullivan, the executive director of the program, talked about the wealth of resources that the school offers to its students. The school offers a certificate program specifically focused on public interest law, which emphasizes pro bono work from day one. According to Sullivan, Lewis & Clark Law students have completed roughly 22,000 hours of pro bono work this year–a huge service to the Oregon and national communities.

To help students support themselves while taking on pro bono work, Lewis & Clark Law offers a number of stipends. Additionally, Lewis & Clark Law helps graduates connect with the loan repayment assistant program, and one of its student organizations helps contribute to the funds used for that program.

Support from Fellow Students 

One of the most active student groups on Lewis & Clark Law’s campus is the Public Interest Law Project (PILP). Its mission is to “help fill the justice gap between those who need attorneys and those who can afford attorneys. PILP helps fill this gap by providing students ways to afford to take on this work both as students and as lawyers.” PILP provides Lewis & Clark Law students with a robust community of students also interested in public interest law, as well as events and resources.

Experience Combined With Classes 

Lewis & Clark Law has a fantastic externship program, providing work opportunities to students while they’re still completing their studies. This emphasis on work experience while in law school helps students get jobs. Sullivan explained that employers in the public interest sphere love to see a continued commitment from students throughout their time in school. Lewis & Clark Law also helps students find those placements after graduation, with services like the NW Public Service Career Fair.

What’s Next?

The practice of law is all what you make of it. Public consciousness seems to be at an all time high–from the inception of the Black Lives Matter movement, to increased emphasis on environmental law, to discussions about wrongful convictions sparked by cultural phenomena like “Serial” and “Making a Murderer”–we’ve been hearing a lot about the need for justice for all. If you’re interested in making a difference, public interest law could be the way to go, and Lewis & Clark Law is looking for passionate students to join the next generation of public interest lawyers. Learn more about the program here.

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to clarify the number of pro bono hours worked by Lewis & Clark Law Students. 

Lewis & Clark Law School

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

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Advocating with a Passion: Why a Career in Public Interest Law is Worth Considering appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court ruled this week that states can continue drawing election districts based on the idea of one person, one vote. The lawsuit, brought by a conservative activist group in Texas, sought to challenge the practice of drawing districts using total population numbers that include people who are ineligible to vote, notably illegal immigrants, but would also include children under the age of 18. While the court unanimously upheld the existing practice, it did not directly take up the question of whether states can change their redistricting processes to only include eligible voters.

Had the court ruled against the current practice, a massive shift in the way states draw their election districts would have ensued. The challenge would have had the most significant effect on areas with high immigrant populations like Texas, where the lawsuit originated. The appellants’ intended change would have shifted a lot of political influence from populated urban areas–which tend to have more ineligible voters like immigrants without citizenship, illegal immigrants, and children–to rural areas. That shift would also help Republicans at the expense of Democrats, whose voters tend to cluster in cities.

The challenge was brought by the Project for Fair Representation, an activist group that is also responsible for a pending challenge to the University of Texas at Austin’s use of affirmative action and recently mounted a successful legal battle against the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The group’s argument focuses largely on the idea of voter equality, claiming that counting ineligible voters when drawing districts inflates the importance of eligible voters in the district.

Texas, like all other states with some slight exceptions, uses total population numbers from the decennial census as the basis for its redistricting plans. The Constitution requires districts to have about the same number of people in them. The standard for Congressional districts is particularly strict, requiring each district to be equal in population “as nearly as is practicable.” If any Congressional district is smaller than the average district, also known as the ideal district size, then its size must be explicitly justified.

The rules are looser for state legislatures like the Texas Senate that the case targeted specifically. Court precedent requires state districts to be “substantially” equal. In practice, this means that if the size of a state’s largest district is within 10 percent of the size of the smallest district they are generally acceptable to the Constitution’s standards. There are some cases where district sizes deviate from that norm, notably to make exceptions for districts that meet minority representation requirements in accordance with the voting rights act.

Justice Ginsburg wrote the court’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts as well as Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justices Alito and Thomas wrote concurring opinions. In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg concludes,

Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 States and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries. Appellants have shown no reason for the Court to disturb this longstanding use of total population.

She also notes the fact that non-voters have legitimate interests in public policy as they often receive government services.

The opinion largely focuses on the fact that based on historical precedent, states should not be forced to change the ways in which they draw districts. However, in the opinion Ginsburg acknowledges that she is not ruling on whether a state could switch its redistricting process to a system that only looks at eligible voters–leaving that question open for a future legal challenge. While states will not be forced to change the way they draw districts, they could conceivably change to a system that only counts people who can vote.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post The Supreme Court Upholds “One Person, One Vote” appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday, everyone. Grab a cup of coffee, kick back, and relax with the best legal tweets of the week.

Happy April Fools

At Lawprofblawg #Lawschool, we have a strict no #AprilFools joke policy. We feel you paying our exorbitant tuition was sufficient.

— lawprofblawg (@lawprofblawg) April 1, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

At a news conference on Monday, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal (R) announced his intention to veto a controversial bill that would provide certain protections to opponents of same-sex marriage. House Bill 757 would allow religious leaders, faith-based organizations, and businesses to exercise their freedom of religion and refuse to provide services to the LGBT community, as well as deny employment to LGBT individuals.

The bill was passed by Georgia Legislature earlier this month, but was rejected by the Governor, who stated Monday:

In light of our history, I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask the government to confer upon them certain rights and protections. If indeed our religious liberty is conferred by God and not by man-made government, we should heed the ‘hands-off’ admonition of the First Amendment to our Constitution. When legislative bodies attempt to do otherwise, the inclusions and omissions in their statutes can lead to discrimination, even though it may be unintentional. That is too great a risk to take.

This decision comes after pressures from the business community to veto the bill, including many film and television studios who threatened to boycott the state for filming if the law was passed. Among the companies that threatened to withdraw were Walt Disney Co., Marvel Studios, CBS, AMC, and many others. Additionally, the NFL stated that it would pull Atlanta out of consideration to host Super Bowl LIII in 2019, an event that would surely bring revenue to the state.

Despite this, Deal stated that he did “not respond well to insults and threats,”and cited Constitutional and moral principles for his decision to veto.

If this legislation sounds familiar, it may be because many similar “religious liberty” bills have been popping up recently in states such as Louisiana, Arkansas, and Indiana. It also comes in the wake of the passing of a contentious new law in North Carolina that has been widely criticized for being “anti-LGBT.” The next state to keep an eye on is Mississippi, whose House just passed a bill that supposedly protects religious liberty by prohibiting discrimination against anyone who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Governor Deal’s veto shows a break away from the positions of many of the other conservative governors faced with similar legislation. Whether or not this was a decision based on economic interests or if it was truly about the “character of Georgia,” as the Governor claimed, can be debated;  it was, however, ultimately a win for LGBT rights in the state.

This fight isn’t over yet, however; while the case in Georgia has ben settled, those who believe that their “religious liberties” are in conflict with same-sex marriage will continue to wage their battles in state capitals all over the country.

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post Georgia Governor Strikes Down Religious Liberty Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Anna Alaburda sued her law alma mater, Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, California, alleging that the school misled her and enticed her to enroll. Alaburda sued for about $125,000 in lost wages and tuition reimbursement, given that she claimed she hasn’t been able to find a full salaried legal job since graduating from the law school in 2008. However, this week Alaburda received bad news–the jury voted nine to three in favor of the school, and she won’t be receiving any money.

Alaburda claimed that Thomas Jefferson Law misrepresented the employment data of its graduates. For example, the 2003 report from Thomas Jefferson Law showed that around 80 percent of its graduates were employed nine months after graduation. Alaburda claims that she relied upon that data when she came to the conclusion to attend Thomas Jefferson Law. She claims that the data was misleading because the school didn’t report that not all of those jobs were in the legal field–according to Gary Wrath of the Los Angeles Times:

Alaburda’s attorney during the trial said the school didn’t disclose that some of those graduates were working in book stores, restaurants, hair salons and even selling tractors.

Alaburda’s attorneys also argued that Thomas Jefferson Law reported some unemployed students as employed and disposed of other employment surveys that would accurately report the school’s true alumni employment outlook.

Law schools were hit hard by the late 2000s recession, mostly because legal jobs became harder to come by. Enrollment is down, and other students have accused their schools of using duplicitous conduct to attract students. There are believed to have been 15 similar suits filed around the country. For example, Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco and the University of San Francisco School of Law have been on the receiving end of similar lawsuits. The suit against Golden Gate University was settled, and five graduates were awarded approximately $8,000 each. However, legal experts believe that Alaburda’s case is actually the first to make it to a jury trial.

While this case ended in a victory for Thomas Jefferson Law, the calls for more transparency and answers from law schools will likely continue for years to come.

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 Thomas Jefferson School of Law Graduate Loses Lawsuit Against School appeared first on Law Street.

Happy weekend, Law Streeters! Check out the top legal tweets of the week below:

Similar Career Options

I’m studying politics to go to law school but my honest to god true career goal is a video girl for drake

— petty petunia (@_nylaj) March 25, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

Pleading The Fifth: The Takings Clause

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Resources

Primary

FindLaw: Kelo v. New London

Additional

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

CBS News: Eminent Domain Being Abused

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

IRS.gov: Tax Quotes

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

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

Mary Kate Leahy

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

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

Happy weekend, readers! Check out the top legal tweets of this week from Law Street Media:

Thinking Ahead

Law school cost approximately $6 a minute I’m going to start invoicing people for wasting my time #lawschoolproblems

— ThatGurl16 (@_ThatGurl16) March 3, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Emojis are a fun way to let your friends know exactly how you feel while you’re texting them, but, can they be harmful? In some cases, interpreting the meaning behind emojis is more difficult than you may think. What one person sends as a funny joke with a smiley face could be interpreted differently by the person receiving the message. In a world full of  miscommunications because of the lack of tone in a text message, it can be hard to tell just what an emoji means.

In this week’s emoji news, a 12-year-old girl has been charged with threatening her school on Instagram due to a post from this past December. According to the Washington Post, the girl posted an ambiguous message under a different student’s name involving several emojis, including the gun, knife, and bomb emojis. The message also had the word “killing” in it, although it is unclear what the full Instagram post actually said. Though the post was not under her name, the girl did admit that she was the one who had posted it when questioned by the authorities.

After the school received word of this potential threat, it notified the police. Police officers got a search warrant and managed to identify the girl through the IP address used to post the image. Once they determined that the threat was not credible, the authorities still charged the girl who posted the image with threatening a school and computer harassment. Her mom claims she was confused as to why her daughter would have posted something like this, but suspects that it may be in response to bullying. One of the biggest questions in the investigation was about what exactly the gun, knife, and bomb emojis really meant and whether or not they could be considered threatening.

Deciphering the meaning of emojis is becoming a growing concern as their popularity grows. This Virginia pre-teen isn’t the first person to get in trouble for posting seemingly threatening emojis online, and she most likely won’t be the last. Almost a year ago, a 17-year-old named Osiris Aristy was arrested after using a gun emoji pointed at a police officer emoji–which the police considered a threat against local officers. During the Silk Road Trial, the judge ruled that punctuation and emoticons were necessary to understanding the evidence presented to a jury, so all texts read on to the record had to include descriptions of the emoticons used. In a case last year, Jesse Enjaian claimed that messages sent to a girl he was allegedly harassing online lacked context when emojis were redacted from the messages. Enjaian argues that with the emojis, the messages took a very different tone.

The problem with emoji interpretation is that their meaning is extremely subjective. While one person might think that adding a winky face to the end of a text makes it fun and light-hearted, the person receiving the text might not feel the same way. The same issue pops up in court cases–does the addition of emojis make a statement more or less threatening? In addition to the question of how emojis can be interpreted, there is also the question of how our First Amendment Rights apply to the internet. Can we really say whatever we want? And where do we draw the line when it comes to threatening or violent speech?

There’s not a whole lot of answers to these questions yet since the age of cyberbullying and emoji use is basically brand new. What everyone should take into careful consideration when texting, tweeting, or posting anything online is the fact that, no matter how funny you may think you’re being, the meaning of your words can be twisted or lost in translation when communicating on the internet.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Emojis: More Serious Than You May Think appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine waking up one morning to find a picture of yourself all over the internet atop a negative, satirical article with thousands of comments. You probably wouldn’t be too thrilled. This nightmare became a reality for 22-year-old mom Karena Bennett, who stumbled across a photo of her with her family after her first son was born featured in an article about a made-up mom, named Anita Sullivan, who supposedly had 14 kids with 14 different men.

Bennett encountered the article after she was tagged in a Facebook post by someone she used to work with. Confused as to why she was being tagged, Bennett clicked on the link and was shocked to see her photo at the top of the page.

The article–which, just to be clear, is a satirical piece posted on a satirical website–quickly went viral. People all over the internet shared, retweeted, and posted the story, which is how Bennett found it so quickly. She was horrified to find out that this story had people all over the world thinking that she had 14 children with fourteen different men.

Even though they didn’t use her real name, Bennett is still worried that people on the street might recognize her and call her out for being the made-up mother from the article. In an interview with the Detroit Free Press, Bennet said that this story has tainted the picture of one of her fondest moments:

It was definitely a big shock. I guess it is what it is. Sometimes I feel like it isn’t such a big deal…It just stinks. I feel like I’ll never officially get everything down … It’s just hard. … It’s just still out there, and people are still commenting.

To the writers at World News Daily Report (WNDR) who put up this article, Bennett has this to say:

It’s unfortunate because some people could think this is harmless, but it isn’t. It can just keep circulating and circulating. I’m sorry, but someone has to take action.

In an attempt to hold someone accountable for disregard of her privacy and personal photos, Bennett reached out to several of her friends and family members who are attorneys to see if there was any kind of legal action she could take–she’d like to sue the website for defaming her character. Unfortunately, none of the people whom she spoke to have the skills to manage a case like this. Internet-related offenses are difficult to resolve and they often require a lot of time and money, which victims rarely have. Not to mention that issues like these are relatively new, with little precedent to help clarify new legal questions.

World Daily News Report also has a legal disclaimer on its site about its content:

WNDR shall not be responsible for any incorrect or inaccurate information, whether caused by website users or by any of the equipment or programming associated with or utilized in this website or by any technical or human error which may occur.

WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people –  are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle.

Given the nature of the website, it seems unlikely that Bennett will receive any kind of compensation from WNDR. The real bummer here is that the emotional damage will never really be resolved. One of the worst consequences of the story going viral is all the nasty comments from those who thought the story was real. Several people also took to social media to share their opinion of her:

Anita Sullivan Jones broke a World Record by giving birth to her 14th child. https://t.co/3gAxvHzMNJ Record breaker indeed, or prostitution?

— Comrade. (@Nensoo_vission) February 19, 2016

https://twitter.com/BrownieLove75/status/700688057926717440

Bennett hopes all the chatter will die down soon and this whole nightmare won’t come back to haunt her later in life. She hopes that people will realize that the article featuring her photo is satirical (not to mention that it’s not actually about her) and will stop making ridiculous accusations about her family and moral judgment.

In the age of fast-spreading information and anonymity on the internet, it’s easy for people to be targeted without even knowing it. This story should teach all of us a lesson about protecting personal information, photos, and videos as much as possible online–otherwise, you never know where it might end up.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Woman’s Reputation Ruined After Her Photo is Misrepresented Online appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Boston University School of Law has an important message for law students: it’s time to get ahead of the pack with some new skills. If you’re a law student wondering how you could possibly add new skills to your already packed resume, busy work schedule, and mounting course load, that’s ok, because BU Law has the answer to that question–an innovative new summer program that makes it easy for law students to gain essential practice experience through two summer course offerings: Contract Drafting and Negotiation. If you’re a student pursuing an MBA, medical degree, or other applicable graduate degree, the Negotiation class is open to you too.

So, what’s so special about these two classes? Practicality is key, from start to finish, as BU Law attempts to provide more accessible and relevant legal education not only to its own students, but the legal community as a whole.

Experts in their Field

BU Law’s faculty draws from some of the best and brightest legal minds in Boston for its exemplary transactional law program. The two instructors teaching the summer courses are no exception.

The “Contract Drafting” course will be taught by Thomas P. Harrison, who has been teaching the course at Boston University School of Law during the regular academic year since 2012. Mr. Harrison is Of Counsel at WaltersLacey LLP. His practice focuses on sales and acquisitions of real estate and businesses, commercial loan transactions and leasing, and general business matters. He is an alum of BU Law, having received a LLM from the School in Banking and Commercial Law. He holds a JD from Suffolk University School of Law.

Mark E. Bamford will teach “Negotiation,” another practical course aimed at teaching students essential tactics, skills, and strategies that can be applied to virtually any career path. Mr. Bamford has taught at BU Law since 2010 and has taught Negotiation during the regular academic year since 2012. He is an alum of both BU Law and the MIT Sloan School of Management.

Skills-Based Learning

Boston University School of Law

Boston University School of Law is a top-tier law school with a faculty recognized nationally for exceptional teaching and preeminent scholarship. At BU Law, you can explore virtually any area of the law in 200+ classes and seminars, 21 clinics, externships, and practicums, 21 foreign study opportunities, and 17 dual degrees. You’ll also be part of a supportive, collegial law school community while experiencing the professional, social, and cultural opportunities that the city of Boston has to offer. Boston University School of Law is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post Boston University School of Law Wants to Help You Step it Up This Summer appeared first on Law Street.

Legal gripes, jokes, and thoughts could all be found on Twitter this week. Check out the best legal tweets of the week in the slideshow below:

Also My Meals

When you have coffee for breakfast, lunch and dinner #coffeeaddict#lawschoollife#iactuallyeatnow

— Jazz (@jghag01) February 17, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Most people don’t really like jury duty. Turns out that Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, is not most people. The senior U.S. Senator from Missouri and lawyer took to Twitter today to live tweet her jury duty experiences, and proclaimed that serving on a jury is on her “bucket list.”

McCaskill’s Twitter feed included tips for potential jurors, including seat choice, lunch recommendations, and fashion advice:

As usual Callow has succinct advice. “@publiceyestl Sit near an outlet.” Check. pic.twitter.com/QnfertUqZZ

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

I recommend dark casual slacks and gray cardigan. #whatimwearinghttps://t.co/6cZEOvQrCv

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

I brought some salad and hard boiled eggs from home. #preparedhttps://t.co/8AxnEkMCfK

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

McCaskill also shared an amusing series of tweets about the control of the TV in the waiting area for the jurors:

This is gonna get https://t.co/AGxJhnqDyc in the room where we’re waiting.Someone for the remote. Now what channel? #pleasegodnotfoxnews

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

Are you crazy? No way I want the remote. I work for these people… https://t.co/3j8X28gLbV — Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

Remote person settled on Comedy Central. Not bad, kinda safe choice. But noticed one woman grimacing over off color jokes. #juryroomdrama — Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

Eventually, McCaskill did get called into the back for a voir dire–essentially both sides questioning her to determine if she’ll be on the jury–but it’s unclear whether or not she’ll actually make it on to the jury itself. Given that she’s a lawyer in addition to being a U.S. Senator, it’s unlikely.   

A lawyer I know just walked by me in hallway, did double take, said hello and “they don’t want lawyers”

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 25, 2016

After receiving her JD from the University of Missouri, McCaskill worked as a prosecutor in Kansas City, as well as in private practice, and she clerked for a judge on the Missouri Court of Appeals. Lawyers often exclude those with legal backgrounds for their juries however, due to perceived biases that could sway the juror’s view of the case, whether consciously or not, or that other jurors could defer to them because of their legal background.

We’ll have to stay tuned to McCaskill’s Twitter feed to see if she ended up being selected, but either way, she found a fun way to pass the time while she waited.

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 Senator Claire McCaskill Live Tweets Jury Duty appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter is a great place for law school students, lawyers, and those interested in the legal field to vent their feelings. Check out the top legal tweets of the week in the slideshow below:

A 2-Part Paper Saga

I’ve been out of the office all week, but got dozens of emails that ended with ‘I’ll leave it on your desk’. I am afraid. #lawyerproblems

— Alison Craig (@lawandchocolate) January 16, 2016

If you’re wondering where all the world’s paper went, it’s on my desk. #lawyerproblems — Alison Craig (@lawandchocolate) January 16, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Update: We Have Winners

The three winning tickets announced so far were sold in California, Tennessee, and Florida. In these states, the winners will be asked to reveal their name to the public, meaning they are most likely planning out how to escape the country and ensuing media blitz. All three winners will have the luxury of paying no additional state taxes on their jackpot, so they’ll have more money to put towards their great escape.

The Powerball lottery has worked the country’s ‘temporarily embarrassed millionaires‘ into a frenzy with an unprecedented jackpot that estimates put at around $1.5 billion. The next closest jackpot, from a Mega Millions lottery in 2013, lags behind at a measly $590 million.

So how did we reach this astronomical number? It turns out to be more than just pure luck: Powerball actually reduced the already minuscule chance of winning by about 40 percent last summer (from 1 in 175 million to 1 in 292 million). By lowering the chance of a winner in each individual drawing, the jackpot rolls over to the next drawing leading to unprecedented windfalls.

Han Solo won’t let the Powerball changes stop him from his chance at fortune

1. #NotAllStates

Still, even if you refuse to be daunted by how slim the chance of a win is, you’re not going to have the same Powerball experience in every state or even all states–six states do not participate in the national lottery. In many states such as Utah, gambling is illegal, which bars stores from even selling tickets. For others, like Nevada and Mississippi, the lottery is seen as competition for the states’ well-established casinos. Residents of those states, plus Alabama, must visit neighboring states to purchase their tickets. For the remaining residents without access to Powerball–Hawaiians and Alaskans–a visit to another state isn’t an easy option.

So, if you’re in one of the remaining 47 states and territories (including D.C. and the Virgin Islands) you’re able to buy a ticket. The trouble is, even then you’ll have a different lottery experience depending on where you purchase your ticket.

2. Staying Anonymous

One much-heralded piece of advice from former winners is “Don’t tell anyone you’ve won. Anyone.” While a brief moment of celebrity may seem appealing, the intense media scrutiny as well as relatives, friends, and acquaintances coming out of the woodwork for their piece of the pie are enough to drive any winner crazy. Only six of the participating states and territories allow winners to remain anonymous: Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Carolina. For other states, winners’ names and hometowns are a matter of public record.

Importantly, these rules apply to the place where you purchase your ticket, not your state of residence. That means that if you really do believe in your lucky numbers, it may be worth visiting another state to buy your tickets, lest you become an unwitting overnight sensation.

3. The Money

A representation of the winner’s first day with their money, even after taxes.

Lottery winners have the choice between a lump-sum payment, or an annuity paid out over 30 years. The lump-sum is cut down from the advertised billion-plus to $930 million, and that’s before taxes. Factor in the two taxes you’ll have to pay on this total–a federal tax of 25 percent and additional state taxes.

Your winnings will also look a lot different depending on where you live because state tax laws on lottery winnings vary widely. Your lump-sum total could wind up anywhere from $615,474,000 in New York to $697,500,000 in California (New York taxes 8.82 percent while California has no tax on lottery winnings). If you decide to take the annuity a ticket purchased in a high-tax area like Washington, D.C. would net you a yearly payment of $33,250,000, while a ticket from a tax-free lottery haven like Texas earns you $37,500,000 each year. California and Texas are joined by Wyoming, Washington, Tennessee, South Dakota, Puerto Rico, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, and Delaware.

This means that if you’re looking to maximize profits while staying anonymous, buying your lottery tickets in Delaware is your best bet. However, if you’re really looking to be smart about it, the best option is to not buy a lottery ticket in the first place.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Billion Dollar Powerball? It Depends On Your State appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best legal tweets of the week in the slideshow below:

Good Literature

Battling my way through an “article” which is longer than Of Mice and Men #LawStudentProblems

— Marco Ubaldi (@Marcoubaldi19) January 4, 2016

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the top legal tweets of the week below–featuring law students, young lawyers, and the legal industry.

Good Social Media Game, BU Law

Is it just us, or does this manhole cover outside Mugar & the Law School sound like it’s from #StarWars? pic.twitter.com/3XYVUlGE7B

— BU Dean of Students (@BU_FYI) December 18, 2015

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Portland, Oregon, has long been heralded as one of the hottest cities for millennials. Home to Lewis & Clark Law School, it’s also a great city for young lawyers, as well as young aspiring lawyers. If you fit into one of those categories, and are considering a move, check out some of the top reasons to give Portland a look.

The Economy

Things are looking relatively good for Portland’s economy. It’s been dubbed a hub of entrepreneurship, with a hot startup scene. In addition, major corporations including Nike, Wieden+Kennedy, and Intel have their largest campuses in the Portland metro area. Portland’s major industries–software, athletic and outdoor products, advanced manufacturing, and green building and technology–promise to be consistently strong fields in the years to come.

Portland also boasts a lower unemployment rate than the rest of the United States, a higher median household income, and a very well-educated population.

Food Scene

Portland’s food scene is consistently ranked as one of the best in the U.S. The city has also been ranked as one of the most affordable U.S. cities when it comes to good cuisines–great news for any aspiring foodies who are in law school or pre-law and don’t want to break the bank. There’s lots of great niche food there too–from great local craft brews to vegetarian and vegan selections.

Check out this feature below on Portland’s innovative food carts for a snapshot of the city’s food scene:

The Population

Portland has seen a huge increase in population growth over the last few years. Portland had the 15th largest metro-area population growth in 2013-2014 (out of the top 50 largest metro areas.) With a population now at 2.35 million, Portland saw 33,500 new residents move into its metro area borders from 2013-2014 alone. Nearly half of those new residents came from different areas of the country, and another 15 percent are international transplants. That kind of wide breadth of transplants is sure to lead to a mix of cultures and voices.

Ted Reid, who works on Metro Planning in the area, explained:

This population growth speaks to the attractiveness of our region’s communities as places to live and work. With two-thirds of the growth coming from people moving here from elsewhere, this is right in line with our long-term forecast. The challenge that we have is to improve people’s quality of life as the population grows. More than ever, there’s a need to plan ahead.

Sustainability and Focus on the Environment

Portland is all about sustainability. Take, for example, the commuting scene in Portland. Portland has a fantastic public transit system, and it’s one of the most bike-friendly cities in the nation. From 2000-2014, the number of workers in Portland who commute by bike jumped from 1.8 percent to 6.1 percent. According to the League of American Bicyclists, Portland was the city with the highest number of bike commuters in 2013.

Portland also extends its focus on sustainability to the food scene, which in addition to being fantastic (see above) has a big commitment to using locally-sourced ingredients. Portland has standout green policies and follow-through: the city’s recycling rate is almost 60 percent, which is pretty impressive compared to the nationwide rate of 34.1 percent. The city-wide composting program is also unique and shows commitment to environmental responsibility.

And if you’re rolling your eyes about the fact that you already knew about Portland’s sustainability track record from the show “Portlandia,” that’s alright, because Portland’s sustainability chief Susan Anderson admits that the show draws some inspiration from real life. She said about Portlandia:

I always say it’s less of a parody and more of a biography. Our [former] mayor is the mayor’s assistant [on the show]. What’s interesting are the parts that [make] people in other cities think, ‘Aw, I wish we were that place.’ It’s not the over-the-top, goofy parts, but the human-scale part of Portland. It’s really walkable and there are restaurants on the corners and there are food carts everywhere. The air and water are generally very clean. You can recycle everything. Portlandia is a parody but a lot of those things are actually normal here.

The Legal Field

Portland’s legal scene will see new challenges in coming years–including an attempt to regulate the burgeoning marijuana market, now that Oregon has legalized it. While the legal market in Portland isn’t necessarily as robust as other parts of the U.S., a large pool of practical training opportunities are available for law school students while they’re still studying. For example, there’s the Oregon Justice Resource Center, which worked to start a new branch of the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project works to free those who have been wrongfully convicted. The OJRC allows law students to provide attorneys with research and assistance on death penalty cases.

Portland is also a center of change and growth in business that may be reflected in the legal field in years to come. There’s been a rise in IP and patent work, probably tied to the fact that Portland is a leading tech hub–its tech talent growth has outpaced Silicon Valley’s. Other of Portland niches, such as sustainability and food ethics, have also found a way to shine within Portland’s legal market. For example, Lewis & Clark Law recently hosted a forum to discuss food law. It’s a revolutionary and developing facet of law that promises to grow as Americans become concerned about the ethics of eating. Another field being pioneered in Portland is Animal Law, as the Center for Animal Law Studies is located there. Its annual Animal Law Conference  tasks itself to take on “cutting-edge global animal law issues including protecting animals in their native countries; international marine mammal challenges; animal testing outside the US; factory farming worldwide; animals in constitutions; litigation and legislation updates; and much more.”

So, if you’re thinking about a change, why not check out Portland? There’s a lot it can offer.

Lewis & Clark Law School

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

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Top Five Reasons Young Law and Policy Minds Should Check Out Portland, Oregon appeared first on Law Street.

Women have, for centuries, been fighting a battle to obtain equal rights and autonomy within the patriarchal society in which we live. From voting rights, equal pay, gender equality, and financial independence to stigmatized domestic violence ideologies and highly controversial contraceptive and reproductive rights, women continue to strive toward a gender equilibrium.

While their history is bountiful, reproductive rights–specifically those focused on abortion–have morphed from a religious, hot-button voting issue and politically polarizing topic of interest into a women’s rights and equality war zone, which has mixed reviews even from within. For years, various states have been testing the limitations of abortion laws by trying to implement restrictions to access, mandatory and burdensome requirements, and regulations upon women and healthcare providers. Most have not passed muster, however, in early November 2015, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a major and consequential abortion rights case for the first time since 2007. Read on to learn more about the history of abortion rights, the important facts of Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, and what it could mean for future generations of women.

A “Brief” History of Abortion Rights

Laws pertaining to contraception came to the Supreme Court in 1965 with Griswold v. Connecticut, where the court found that a state statute forbidding the use of contraceptives, punishable by fine and imprisonment, was unconstitutional. Justice William O. Douglas crafted the “penumbra” argument, stating that, “…the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion,” finding that “the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms” is not a place that is subject to government control and infringement. Marital privacy was to remain private. The curtain would remained closed on the intimacies of married life.

Image Courtesy Of [Kate Ausburn via Flickr]

In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade. Justice Harry Blackmun, a conservative father to three daughters who served as resident counsel in the Mayo Clinic (1950-1959), authored the weighty opinion. The importance of the right to privacy and a woman’s autonomy over her pregnancy led him and the Court to find the restrictive Texas statute unconstitutional and abortion a private legal matter encompassing a woman’s right to choose. The Court quoted the Texas District Court below, agreeing that the “fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment.” However, the opinion explained vested interests in abortion proceedings and outlined different levels of state interests in regulating abortion procedures in the second and third trimester.

While 1992 brought United States citizens “Aladdin,” Windows 3.1, and the birth of Miley Cyrus, it also bestowed upon us the sequel to Roe v. Wade in the form of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey—a complex multi-part decision that ultimately addressed what regulations were and were not acceptable by the states regarding abortion procedures under a undue burden/substantial obstacle analysis. The Court reaffirmed its Roe holding by adhering to the three major principles in Roe: 

1. That a woman has the right to abort prior to viability “without undue interference from the State:”
2. That the State has the right to restrict abortions after fetal viability so long as its laws contain exceptions for any pregnancy that endangers the life or health of a woman; and
3. That the State has a “legitimate interest” in the pregnancy to protect the life of the woman and fetus.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey challenged five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982. One required women, prior to getting an abortion, to obtain informed consent. Informed consent is a process in which a woman is provided with the risks of abortion, fetal development, gestational age of the fetus, whether the fetus can feel pain during the procedure, and that personhood begins at conception, etc. The act also require women to wait a mandatory 24 hours following signed consent to proceed with the procedure, obtain parental consent for minors with the allowance of a judicial bypass, and obtain signed spousal consent. Additionally, the act defined a “medical emergency” within the context of abortion procedures and set out specific reporting requirements by the facilities performing abortion services. The Court, in a plurality decision, upheld the central holding in Roe, but did however, overturn Roe’s trimester analysis framework and only found one provision–requiring spousal consent–burdensome and an unconstitutional regulation on a woman’s right to choose. The rest of the provisions were upheld.

Legal discourse pertaining to abortion did not end there.  In 2000, Stenberg v. Carhart surfaced to challenge a Nebraska statute prohibiting and criminalizing “partial birth abortions,” also known as “dilation and extraction” in the medical community. The court’s scientifically detailed opinion ultimately held that the Nebraska statute was unconstitutional and therefore could not be enforced as it did not carve out an exception for the “preservation of the health of the mother.” Additionally, the statute, with its ambiguous wording and terminology, unduly burdened the mother’s ability to choose an abortion, noting that in certain situations and in the presence of specific circumstances, partial birth abortions were “safer” than alternative procedures and methods.

In 2003, Congress and President George W. Bush signed into law the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act which expressively banned the “dilation and extraction” abortion method cited in Stenberg. Advocates that challenged the federal statute in lower courts had the statute struck down, but the challenge to the federal statute did not reach the Supreme Court until 2007 in Gonzales v. Carhart.

The court in Gonzales v. Carhart addressed the issue of whether the federal statute imposed a substantial obstacle for late-term pre-viability abortions and found it to be constitutional. The act directly outlined the procedure prohibited–the delivery of a viable/living fetus to an anatomical landmark which required an additional “overt act,” an act separate from the delivery usually involving piercing or crushing the fetal skull, to be taken in order to kill the partially delivered fetus, hence countering any argument that the statute was “vague.” Further, the court addressed the possibility of other legal abortion options and stated that, “if intact [dilation and extraction] is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of ‘a living fetus.'” Here, Congress sought, and the court agreed, to create a hard line between abortion and infanticide.

Since Gonzales, states have taken to further testing the limitations of abortion regulation, introducing “fetal pain” laws. Fetal pain laws proceed to assert that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks of gestation and therefore abortion should be prohibited after 20 weeks of pregnancy, but no challenges pertaining to these laws have reached the Supreme Court yet. In fact, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole will be the first major abortion case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court since 2007.

Sifting Through Whole Women’s Health v. Cole

In 2013, the state of Texas passed into law House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), in an effort to “raise the standard and quality of care for women seeking abortions.” The statute, which contained four primary provisions pertaining to abortion regulation, is currently being challenged for two of its provisions. The first is a requirement of physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital located within a radius of 30 miles from where the abortion is being performed. The second provision being challenged requires abortion clinics to comply with the same set of standards applicable to ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) along with compliance to standards set for abortion clinics.

The challenger? Whole Woman’s Health, a privately-owned women’s healthcare facility that offers comprehensive gynecology services, including abortion, and provides a holistic approach for the care of their patients. The organization was founded in 2003 by Amy Hagstrom Miller who saw a need in the communities of women to address pregnancy and reproductive choice not only as a medical matter, but also as something that requires a woman to evaluate her identity, goals, and future plans–an emotional and weighty process.  Whole Woman’s Health has seven offices within the United States and assists over 30,000 women per year for a variety of reproductive healthcare reasons.

Image Courtesy Of [Ann Harkness via Flickr]

At the time of trial, seven ASCs, located in five major Texas cities, were licensed to perform abortion services and would be able to comply with H.B. 2. Although Texas had over 40 abortion clinics prior to the law taking effect, it was stipulated that, at most, eight abortion-providing centers would be able to comply with the ASCs provision of H.B. 2, subjecting women exercising their right to choose to increased travel and transportation costs. During trial, the State offered expert testimony to suggest that the regulation would be “medically beneficial,” but did not prove necessity, and as such, the District Court found that the ASC requirement, in its entirety, was overly burdensome. Furthermore, the District Court also found that the physician privilege requirement “was not medically justifiable and that the burdens it imposed were not outweighed by any potential health benefits.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that res judicata barred any facial challenge and as-applied challenge (under a different analysis) on the admitting privilege and ASC compliance provisions of H.B. 2 and that the District Court erred in rejecting the State’s res judicata defense during the motion to dismiss stage of proceedings. Essentially, due to a previous lawsuit that was still pending a decision when Whole Women’s Health challenged H.B. 2 but was shortly thereafter decided, the Plaintiffs could not challenge the bill again as any injury arose out of the same claim and the parties had a legal relationship with one another.

The Court did, however, provide an analysis on the merits as well concluding that:

1. The Plaintiffs failed to prove that H.B. 2 was enacted with an “improper purpose,” mainly to close a majority of abortion clinics in Texas;
2. That the District Court incorrectly analyzed legislative factfinding of information that led to the passage of the Texas law under the “rational basis review,” which solely calls for the court to presume the law in question is valid and inquire whether that law is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest;”
3. The District Court’s analysis and the Plaintiff’s evidence did not satisfy the “large fraction test,” requiring a showing that the law imposes a substantial obstacle on a large fraction of women in Texas;
4. That the abortion services offered at the McAllen Whole Woman’s Health location, a clinic not complying with ASC standards, and lack of a “qualified” clinic for 235 miles created a substantial obstacle for a woman to obtain an abortion and therefore was granted injunctive relief until a licensed facility opened closer to the Rio Grand Valley;
5. That the Plaintiffs offered a considerable amount of evidence showing that the physicians at the McAllen location were denied privileges at the local hospital for reasons “other than their competence,” and were therefore granted injunctive relief enjoining the State of Texas from enforcing the privilege requirement; and
6. That the El Paso clinic was not granted injunctive relief based on an undue burden of women to travel over 550 miles to the nearest Texas abortion clinic in San Antonio because they could travel across state lines to Santa Teresa, New Mexico, which shares a metropolitan area with El Paso to obtain the procedure.

The Fifth Circuit largely upheld the challenged provisions of H.B. 2.

So…What Could That Mean for the Rest of Us?

H.B. 2 showed the level of impact that such abortion regulation could have on the availability of abortion services, bringing down the 40+ available abortion clinics in Texas to a mere 8-10 as outlined in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision. Such legislation could create a large and costly barrier, not only to the 5.4 million women in Texas, the second largest female populated state in the country, but to all women in the United States.

In four states–Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming–only one abortion clinic remains and it is unclear whether or not those clinics would be able to survive with the Texas-based legislation.

If such regulation passed muster in the Supreme Court, there could be an increase in self-attempted abortion and risky abortion procedures, which was noted, by the Plaintiffs in Whole Women’s Health, as a growing trend after H.B. 2 was passed in Texas. Additionally, costs would increase in travel, transportation, lodging, and in the procedure itself, potentially costing women their actual right to choose. Qualified abortion clinics would be overwhelmed, appointments would be scarce and harder to coordinate with travel and work schedules, and ultimately, those most impacted would be individuals in poverty and those with transitioning immigration status. Such legislation would force an unhealthy psychological effect on woman already making a difficult decision and consequently impose a great burden on a major woman’s right without proof that the abortion clinics functioning today are doing so at a sub-par or dangerous level.

So, one question remains–what’s next for abortion regulations in the United States?

RESOURCES

Primary

FindLaw: Whole Women’s Health v. Cole

JUSTIA: Griswold v. Connecticut

JUSTIA: Roe v. Wade

JUSTIA: Stenberg v. Carhart

JUSTIA: Gonzales v. Carhart

Legal Information Institute: 18 U.S. Code § 1531

State of Texas Legislature: House Bill 2

Additional

The New York Times: Supreme Court to Hear Texas Abortion Law Case

Planned Parenthood: Federal and State Bans and Restrictions on Abortion

Linda Greenhouse: Becoming Justice Blackmun

Guttmacher Institute: State Policies in Brief – Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion

USA Today: Idaho First State to have Fetal Pain Law Rejected

National Public Radio (NPR): High Court’s Pass on ‘Fetal Pain’ Abortion Case Unlikely to Cool Debate

Whole Woman’s Health

Bloomberg: The Vanishing U.S. Abortion Clinic

Ajla Glavasevic

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

The post Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole: What’s Next for Abortion Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

On November 18, 2015, the House voted 289-137 in favor of the the newly proposed “American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act,” or “SAFE Act,” with a larger than expected number of Democrats (47) joining the Republicans in passing the legislation. The major issue it seeks to address is national security in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks and the Syrian refugee crisis that has been plaguing Europe for the last few months.

The act itself calls for a more in-depth screening process for “covered aliens,” granting the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) the power to “take all actions necessary” in order to ensure a squeaky clean security clearance prior to admission as a refugee. What this means for the general population and the citizens of the United States is nothing more than a little security blanket we can drag around made out of taxpayer dollars. What this means for Syrian and Iraqi refugees, a group that already endures the most stringent admission into the United States lasting from 18-24 months, is more time in hell as we idly stand by bureaucratic red tape and paperwork that, statistically speaking, is not likely to affect us. Particularly insulting to this irrational and illogical spread of institutionalized fear and propaganda is that the Paris terrorists that have thus been identified are of French and Belgian nationalities. So naturally, Syrian refugees bear the weight of consequence.

Image courtesy Of [Dominic Chavez/World Bank via Flickr]

What most catches the eye in the “SAFE” Act is the use of “covered alien,” which is defined as “any alien applying for admission to the United States as a refugee who A) is a national or resident of Iraq or Syria; B) has no nationality and whose last habitual residence was Iraq or Syria; or C) has been present in Iraq or Syria at any time on or after March 1, 2011.” While the ironic use of “covered alien” is unmistakable, the inclusion of Iraqi refugees in a discussion about national security pertaining to the admission of Syrian refugees into the United States is questionable.

American interests in Iraq have been evident long before President George W. Bush invaded the country on March 19, 2003. Following that date, the United States embarked on the longest invasion since the Vietnam War, costing an upward of $815.8 billion, claiming the lives of 149,053 civilians, as well as 4,637 military members, a majority of whom were United States soldiers, and resulting in a large migration of Iraqi people to find peace and refuge. While there is no question that many innocent Iraqi people were displaced during the invasion of Iraq for which U.S. decision-makers are responsible and have an obligation to, it appears that policy and lawmakers are, in part, trying to circumvent that obligation by lumping Iraqi refugees into a national security issue that has only been applied to Syrian refugees in an effort to cut some weight off of dues owed.

Iraqi refugees, who are not at the forefront of discussion in the Syrian refugee crisis, have now not only been displaced as a collateral consequence to the U.S. invasion, but are being further unjustly treated through cunning deceit by the hands of the very people that displaced them from their homes.

What is the political agenda here? United States citizens need to recognize the misguided policy-making taking place. The Syrian and Iraqi people are individuals trying desperately to survive. These are human beings that the United States has the capability to keep alive and an obligation to do so. Refugees are not the enemy and should not be treated as such, particularly through sloppy policy. While the focus stays on the “covered aliens,” citizens needs to be prudent and work to uncover policy truths.

While it is imprudent to say with certainty what is in store for the “SAFE” Act, speculation can be made on the basis of what has occurred. It remains unclear whether the Senate will indulge in any legislative discourse or action pertaining to the act, but if the bill were to pass Congress, President Obama has made clear that he would use his veto power to stop the act from becoming law. The problem with President Obama’s pledge is that the House only needs 290 votes, only one more than the last time it voted on the act, to override the president’s veto (with the Senate’s help too, of course). Only one thing is certain–this could lead to a power showdown between Congress and the Commander-in-Chief.

Ajla Glavasevic

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

The post The “Covered Alien?”: House Votes for the SAFE Act appeared first on Law Street.

Happy weekend everyone. If you’re in the legal profession and need a laugh, check out the best legal tweets of the week below.

Expenses are Rough

“@LawSchoolHumor: Law school is the most expensive book club.”

— Legal Hermit (@The_LegalHermit) November 17, 2015

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 Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

There’re a lot of pointless and strange national “holidays.” For example, March 30 is National Pencil Day. June 17th is National Flip Flop Day. My birthday, August 23rd, also happens to be National Sponge Cake Day. Pretty much every day is National _____ Day–and today just so happens to be “Love Your Lawyer Day.”

Today has officially been designated “Love your Lawyer Day” by the American Bar Association. In a resolution passed last month, the ABA stated that today:

Lawyers throughout the nation are urged to celebrate ‘Love Your Lawyer Day’ to help promote a positive and more respected image of lawyers and their contributions to society.

The inception of Love your Lawyer Day is credited to the Fort Lauderdale-based American Lawyers Public Image Association, specifically an attorney named Nader Anise. He said he hopes that lawyers celebrate it by taking on pro bono work or donating to charities, and the general public can celebrate it with a moratorium on making fun of lawyers for the day. After all, only 21 percent of the general public thinks that lawyers are ethical; although to be fair, that’s the highest public opinion has been in two decades.

On Twitter, #LoveYourLawyer started trending, with a wide variety of reactions. Some are thankful about the day and others think it’s silly. Brian Tannebaum, a well-known criminal defense attorney and author told The Wall Street Journal:

I think it’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen ‘Love Your Doctor Day’ or ‘Love Your Accountant Day.’ It’s making lawyers what they already are: an open target for criticism.

Others thought it was nice, taking to Twitter to celebrate with the hashtag #LoveYourLawyer:

It’s #LoveYourLawyer Day! Call your lawyer and say how much you appreciate them! Unless they bill by the hour, then just send good thoughts.

— Attorneys Online (@AttorneysOnline) November 6, 2015

Today is #LoveYourLawyer day. Unfortunately, our professional code of conduct really prohibits loving your lawyer. High five, instead? — Melissa Carleton (@MCarletonOhio) November 6, 2015

It’s #loveyourlawyer day and #nationalnachoday. Please feel free to show me your love through nachos. — Catarina Gonzales (@thecatarina) November 6, 2015

So, happy Love Your Lawyer Day. Make sure to pass some adoration around to all the lawyers in your life.

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 Happy #LoveYourLawyer Day appeared first on Law Street.

Last week in Kansas City, Missouri Tyrone C. Brown went into a community auditorium expecting to hear a presentation from law enforcement officials to help end violence in his community. Instead, to his surprise, he watched a slide show of mug shots of people the police were cracking down on. Brown then saw a familiar face pop up on the screen–his own–linking him to a criminal group that had been implicated in a homicide. Brown, who relayed this story to the New York Times, described feeling “disturbed,” acknowledging that he has been involved in crime but has never been involved in a killing. But Brown’s reaction to this accusation is just what the authorities desired. Brown’s situation is an example of an experiment taking place in police departments around the country, in which authorities have started to use complex computer algorithms to try and pinpoint people most likely to be involved in violent crimes in the future. Unfortunately, this tool might end up being more harmful than helpful.

This strategy combines aspects of both traditional policing, like paying attention to “hot spot” areas or communities or close monitoring of parolees, and more technological data like social media activity and drug use statistics. The program applied to Brown’s case is referred to as the Kansas City No Violence Alliance, assuring Brown and others that “the next time they, or anyone in their crews, commit a violent act, the police will come after everyone in the group for whatever offense they can make stick, no matter how petty.”

Although the goal of this program, and similar programs, is to do everything possible to prevent crimes from happening and may be benevolent, this is not the way to achieve that goal. This program only perpetuates the enormity of our racial profiling problem. The nature of these programs are essentially spitting in the face of the Black Lives Matter movement and other related groups. These programs say they are using a “complex computer algorithms” to try and predict crime, meaning authorities will be relying on the very skewed and racist demographics of those who are charged with crime. The nature of these programs could forever put a halt to building more positive relationships between the police and those who are too often targeted and subsequently charged with crimes–people of color.

How can reform of the system and those involved in crime be possible when programs like Kansas City No Violence Alliance are spreading across the nation? This vicious cycle will only continue with police “pinpointing” individuals who live in poorer areas or who are people of color. Over the last few years, in the midst of infuriating tragedies like the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, there has been important outcry and work toward reforming flawed institutions. Sadly, programs like the one implemented in Kansas City and across the country are working against this positive progression. There is a way to both combat crime and to stop racial profiling, and these programs are not the answer. 

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post To Serve and Protect? New Police Program May Perpetuate Racial Profiling appeared first on Law Street.

While many media outlets and health officials alike are hailing the end of the outbreak of Legionnaires’ desire in the South Bronx, many more are celebrating the Mayor’s signing of a new bill to prevent future outbreaks of such diseases. The piece of legislation requires (not will require: it was effective immediately) landlords to “register, inspect and clean air-conditioning cooling towers on a regular basis, as well as to certify those towers.”

However, this legislation–while important–is very late in coming. The New York Times reported that,

The city’s Health Department was slow off the mark this time. And it had advance warning. Last January, eight cases were reported at Co-op City, a housing complex in the Bronx, and traced to a cooling tower. In May, nine cases in Flushing, Queens, were tied to a cooling tower and a water system in a senior citizens’ center. Although the equipment involved in these small clusters was quickly disinfected, no concerted effort was made by the city to inspect or monitor cooling towers more broadly.

Significantly, the bacteria behind the potentially lethal disease is inhaled far and wide across the city (the bacteria itself is often not lethal) often spewed from the cooling towers usually located on the roofs of buildings that provide water for air-conditioning units. Yet, the lack of concern that the Health Department showed for the outbreaks in the Bronx last January–those in Queens were quickly addressed–mirrors the cause of the most recent outbreak that killed 12 people: environmental racism. This form of racism led to a very slow response to this latest outbreak, which spurred resistance from South Bronx residents.

The generally abysmal health conditions in the South Bronx caused by environmentally racist policies and practices created the perfect storm in the bodies of those who died in the outbreak: pre-existing health conditions such as asthma and heart disease killed these twelve people just as much as the bacteria.

So all this emphasis on the cooling towers is important. It is important that policies are changed so that these towers do not literally spew poison.

But poison is not only being spewed by cooling towers in the South Bronx. It is being spewed by corporate policies that produce obscene amounts of pollution; it is being spewed by power plants that are concentrated in the area so as not to infect predominately white neighborhoods; it is being spewed by the industrial sites that cause asthma and generally make the air unbreatheable.

Until these kinds of poison are addressed–the kinds of poison that the government and corporations directly and deliberately channel into neighborhoods of color–then the new law to “protect” people from Legionnaires’ disease will simply draw attention away from the overall failure to protect South Bronx residents from even worse, chronic epidemics.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Real Causes of the Legionnaires’ Outbreak Stem From Environmental Racism appeared first on Law Street.

Columbia University made history last week when it became the first U.S. university to divest its endowment from the private prison industry. A student-led activist campaign has put pressure on the Board of Trustees to divest since early 2014 when a small group of Columbia students discovered that the school was investing in G4S, the world’s largest private security firm, and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison company in the United States. After a vote last week, Columbia’s $9 billion endowment will now be void of its shares in CCA and its estimated 220,000 shares in G4S. Divesting from an industry that makes its money by breeding human suffering is a move that should be loudly applauded.

The divestment vote occurred within the larger discussion of mass incarceration and the tribulations that stem from the systemic injustices that American prisons propagate. While local jails and state and federal prisons all seem to value a punitive rather than rehabilitative approach, private prisons are by far the cruelest. There is an inherent conflict between the supposed goal of the criminal justice system–rehabilitation–and companies’ profit motives. For-profit, private prisons make up a multibillion-dollar per year industry. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that as of 2013, there were 133,000 prisoners in private prisons, or 8.4 percent of the U.S. prison population. These numbers break down to 19.1 percent of the federal prison population being detained in privately owned prisons, and 6.8 percent of the state prison population.

Since 1990, violent crime in America has dropped 51 percent, property crime has fallen 43 percent, and homicides are down 54 percent. But incarceration rates since 1990 have increased by 50 percent. If crime is down, why do we have so many more people in prison? Due to the war on drugs and the increase of harsher sentencing laws, more low-level and non-violent offenders are sent to prison. Almost half of state prisoners are serving time for non-violent crimes, and more than half of federal inmates are imprisoned for drug offenses. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote, “This prodigious rate of incarceration is not only inhumane, it is economic folly.” The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of the world’s prison population. We incarcerate a greater percentage of our population than any other country on Earth, and our compulsion to incarcerate costs taxpayers $63.4 billon per year.

The overcrowding of jails and prisons across the country and a reluctance to adequately finance these correctional facilities precipitated the movement toward private prisons, which proponents claimed could result in overall prison cost reductions of 20 percent. However, allowing the facilities to be operated by the private sector has resulted in a meager 1 percent cost decrease. With crime rates on the decline, private prisons began doing everything they could to increase imprisonment rates so that they could stay in business and continue to make money. From 2002 to 2012, CCA, GEO Group, and Management & Training Corporation (MTC), a contractor that manages private prisons, spent around 45 million dollars lobbying state and federal governments, arguing for harsher laws and more arrests. These corporations also poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the election campaigns of governors, state legislators, and judges in order to ensure that their plans become laws that guarantee more people will be incarcerated, so they can continue to make money.

Some people try to justify this system with the thought that people who are in prison are there for a reason. But this wishful thinking is untrue. About 50 percent of immigrants who are in prison are detained in privately owned prisons, and the majority of these people are simply being detained while waiting for their cases to be decided in court. In other words, immigrants who have not been convicted of any crime are being housed in violent, corrupt, dangerous private prisons while they wait for months for courts—that are often illegally being paid off by corrupt companies like CCA to keep people in prison—to decide their fate. The private prison industry has an incentive to keep people in jail. If their business plans included imprisoning to rehabilitate and treating people for mental health or drug addiction issues that may have contributed to their arrests, the industry would collapse. Instead, private prisons are rampant with abuse, neglect, and misconduct; private prisons understaff their facilities to save money, ignore pleas for help and prisoner-on-prisoner violence within the prison, and even refuse healthcare to inmates. In order to make the most profit, the private prison industry wants harsher drug laws, longer sentencing, and wants to increase recidivism rates.

In New York, about $60,000 of government money is spent per year to keep just one inmate imprisoned, while just under $20,000 is spent to educate an elementary or secondary school student. This trend extends nationally: no state in the country invests more—or even an equal amount—on educating an individual student than on housing a prisoner. Maybe if we relaxed drug laws and unreasonable sentencing, focused more on rehabilitation than punishment, did not allow prejudiced and ill-intentioned companies like CCA to spend millions on lobbyists, and we invested more on education than on our corrupt criminal justice system, the United States would be a happier, healthier place.

Columbia University’s divestment from the private prison industry will not solve the issue of mass incarceration. It will not redesign the broken system that we call criminal “justice” in America. It won’t even put CCA or G4S out of business or make a sizeable dent in their net worth. But what divestment will do is beyond economic comprehension. Refusing to reap benefits from companies founded upon violence forced on people by virtue of their race, class, or citizenship status is a social stance that proves a complete rejection of everything private prisons stand for. When you stop investing in something, you’ve stopped believing in it. And no one should believe in the private prison industry.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia University Backs Away From Private Prisons: We Should Follow Its Lead appeared first on Law Street.

Bernard “Bernie” Sanders, self-described Democratic Socialist, is a 73-year-old senator from Vermont, the longest serving independent in Congressional history, and a Presidential candidate. He’s been described as “one of the few elected officials who is fundamentally devoted to dealing with the plight of poor and working people” and he’s gaining ground in the polls on the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sanders polled within 8 percentage points of Clinton in New Hampshire last week, a pretty big deal since the New Hampshire primary comes first in the series of nationwide party primary elections. From social justice and climate change to trade agreements and health care, Bernie’s got some all-inclusive views that I can definitely get on board with. Here are 10 reasons why you’ll want to #FeelTheBern in 2016.

1. #SocialistBern: Bernie wants to provide a free college education for everyone.

Rather than cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, Bernie wants to cut military spending and put that money towards education. That means that public colleges and universities in the country would be tuition-free.

 Say goodbye to college debt with #TheBern.

2. #ProgressiveBern: He wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Disposable income FTW.

3. #CivilRightsBern: He marched with MLK.

Bernie Sanders is one of two sitting senators to have attended the March on Washington in 1963 to hear MLK’s I Have A Dream Speech.

If only The Bern could still move like this…

4. #HappyBern: He’s never run a negative advertisement in over 30 years.

He has stated, “I’ve never run a negative political ad in my life…I believe in serious debates on serious issues.”

 He who hath not bitched on my TV hath mine vote.

5. #DemocracyBern: He wants to make Election Day a national holiday.

“In America, we should be celebrating our democracy and doing everything possible to make it easier for people to participate in the political process. Election Day should be a national holiday so that everyone has the time and opportunity to vote. While this would not be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment to create a more vibrant democracy.”

Get ready for your new favorite holiday.

6. #FlowerBern: Bernie loves the environment.

The Bern serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he’s focused on global warming. He introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies that immorally get huge tax breaks.

Peace, Love, and Bernie Sanders for President.

7. #PeacefulBern: He opposed entering the war in Iraq.

No further commentary needed.

8. #99PercentBern: He wants to reform the campaign finance system that allows “billionaires” to “buy elections and candidates.”

GOP better take its money and run.

9. #EqualityBern: He’s a feminist.

Bernie believes birth control should be provided through all health care plans. He’s also stated that all women who rely on the military healthcare system should have access to contraception coverage and family planning counseling.

Finally, a man who speaks to my uterus’s needs.

10. #TheRealBern: He released a folk album.

In 1987, as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, The Bern recorded a folk album.

He’s a cool Mayor.

Feel the Bern in 2016…

And move it like Bernie to the Democratic Primaries…

So we can #BernTheHouseDown.

Jennie Burger also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ten Reasons to #FeelTheBern This Election Season appeared first on Law Street.

In the current economic climate, it is incredibly hard for young people to get proper experience in their desired fields. For law students, there are little-to-no options when it comes to receiving training and being mentored by professionals in their chosen specialties. On the other end of the spectrum, many Americans cannot afford costly legal services for even basic civil court proceedings. In an effort to innovate and grow their programs, law schools across the country are attacking both these problems by running legal incubators to better train law students and provide low-cost services to low-income Americans.

Incubators: Training Law Students

The Incubator for Justice, created at the City University of New York, has been successful in preparing recent graduates to enter the work force. Over 40 law schools throughout the United States have now begun offering select students the opportunity to participate in one of these prestigious programs, including major schools such as Rutgers School of Law, the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, and the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona. Schools create incubators usually by implementing small law firms on their campuses or in nearby cities in which the students take on a large amount of cases for very little pay.

Most other professions offer graduates a chance to hone their skills under the guidance of experienced professionals. Medical students do internships and residencies, and dentists participate in a similar training program, as do most workers of the medical field. These incubator programs give new lawyers the chance to work under and be led by experienced lawyers and retired judges in certain programs. These programs provide recent law school graduates with many of the tools they need to join a prominent law firm upon completion, continue working toward a legal aid career, or possibly begin their own firm in the future.

Law students often are able to participate in clinics and externships offered through their schools, but this is still not enough training. Incubators are similar to the aforementioned opportunities, although they allow participants to take on a much more extensive caseload. Once law students graduate, they are expected to dive right into the field, although this is very difficult to do when they have not first been given the proper instruction and tools.

Incubators: Bringing Legal Services to the Masses

These programs help not only law school graduates, but also the public. One of the biggest problems in the United States is the lack of affordable legal services, which is needed by many Americans. People of lower incomes often cannot afford legal services due to the prohibitive hourly cost of a lawyer’s time. An incubator program charges $75 or less an hour in most cases, and sometimes they offer their services pro bono.

Millions of Americans lack proper legal representation, especially in cases that could completely change their lives. This is due to the high price of lawyers, how most are concentrated only in highly populated areas, and few can or want to take on work that isn’t very profitable. Many people also end up not being represented because they are rejected when they apply for civil legal aid. It was found that in 70 to 98 percent of the cases brought to civil court in the United States, one or both parties did not have a lawyer present to represent them. There are many programs already established throughout the country that are dedicated to providing free or low-cost legal services to people of low income, although most have very few resources available and few lawyers willing to take on the extra–sometimes menial–work. Given how many law school graduates are unable to find work in the field, more should be encouraged to do this type of work.

One of the most difficult aspects of starting and running an incubator program is finding the proper funds to support it. Many of the schools allocate funds for them, although this is not always enough to run them. The Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University has been running a program that is financed by multiple sources, such as alumni donations and private funds. Michigan State University offers an innovative approach to its program by partnering with government organizations, nonprofits, and other university departments so that participants can engage and practice in a wide variety of subjects. These programs, as well as many others, seem to be thriving, as they have given students genuine experience and have provided legal aid to those who need it most.

It is widely said that it is easier to get into law school these days due to far fewer people applying and enrolling. The current job market for lawyers is abysmal, and so these programs could be instrumental in helping graduates begin prosperous careers. Only 40 percent of law school graduates are employees at law firms, and 20 percent hold jobs that don’t even require a law degree. Considering how astronomically high the average debt of most law school graduates is, it is imperative that they start their careers off on the right foot so that they can pay off this debt and achieve success.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Incubators Are Attacking These Two Major Problems in America appeared first on Law Street.

Post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is often the subject of daily life experiences and intense internet debates on topics such as trigger warnings or the United States’ use of drones. Rates of PTSD are known to be dramatically affected by racism, sexism, queerphobia, and other forms of oppression.

But what about people who witness extreme traumas without necessarily experiencing the trauma themselves? Lawyers, doctors, social workers, and teachers all are at a high risk of experiencing something variously called vicarious trauma, secondary trauma, or compassion fatigue.

How might legal office cultures leave people from law students to defense attorneys extremely susceptible to vicarious trauma? And, significantly, what impact does this have on clients?

When Trauma is Contagious

Vicarious trauma is often popularly defined in terms of professionals, like lawyers, who work with people who have been traumatized. A form of PTSD in its own right, people enduring vicarious trauma experience symptoms similar to more widely recognized PTSD. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network refers to vicarious trauma as “secondary traumatic stress,” and defines it in this way:

Secondary traumatic stress is the emotional duress that results when an individual hears about the firsthand trauma experiences of another. Its symptoms mimic those of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Accordingly, individuals affected by secondary stress may find themselves re-experiencing personal trauma or notice an increase in arousal and avoidance reactions related to the indirect trauma exposure. They may also experience changes in memory and perception; alterations in their sense of self-efficacy; a depletion of personal resources; and disruption in their perceptions of safety, trust, and independence.

All of these trauma responses often lead to more commonly known experiences, such as anxiety, depression, sleeping problems, substance abuse, procrastination, and low self-esteem. The Vicarious Trauma Institute highlights, crucially, one of the key differences between vicarious trauma and directly experienced trauma: the intensity of vicarious trauma is dictated by being exposed, first-hand, “to traumatic stories day after day or respond to traumatic situations while having to control your reaction.” Not only are people being exposed to stories or direct experiences of violence, then, but lawyers, social workers, school counselors, teachers, etc. are trained or otherwise expected to keep a straight face and remain a bastion of calm for their clients and/or students. Commonly referred to as “burnout,” many professionals who chronically endure these feelings of vicarious trauma are forced to stop working, leave their field of specialization, or switch professions entirely.

Many who identify as working in a “helping profession”–doctors, lawyers, social workers, etc.–are affected deeply by vicarious trauma. At the Annual Convening of Crisis Intervention in Chicago in 1996, social worker Terri Spahn Nelson contributed the following perspective on vicarious trauma:

Many of us, especially those of us in a helping profession, are secondary witnesses to trauma almost everyday. As we listen to our clients tell about their trauma of incest, rape, domestic violence, alcoholic families or memories of childhood abuse, we bear witness to their victimization. We listen, we support and we validate their feelings and their experience. We offer them the opportunity to let go of some of their burden. As witnesses and healers, we can’t help but to take in some of the emotional pain they have left with us. As the client releases some of their pain, we take it in. By the end of the day, we’ve collected bits and pieces of accounts of trauma. We may have pictures in our mind or intense feelings running through our body. We’ve become a witness to rape, child abuse, domestic violence and death… In simple terms, this vicarious trauma as experienced by professionals and volunteers in the helping field.

By positioning oneself as being a “helping” professional, the burden of “taking in” clients’ trauma becomes a nearly unavoidable expectation. The sense of responsibility for clients–and attendant guilt for not having endured what clients did, especially when client outcomes are not positive–often prove overwhelming for professionals who enter fields expecting to “help” or “fix” clients’ lives.

Legal Burnout

This form of trauma is particularly prevalent in lawyers, who often witness clients’ trauma on a daily basis. Especially when responsibility is placed on lawyers to alleviate that trauma somehow–whether through their efforts to win a criminal or civil case–vicarious trauma can set in.

The lack of control associated with many cases deeply contributes to lawyers’ experiences of vicarious trauma: as Abby Anna Batko-Taylor and Melissa L. Shearer of the Voice of the Defense Online highlight, “In addition to dealing with interpersonal relationships with challenging clients, lawyers also experience personal and institutional pressure to produce results that many times are outside of their control.” Given the relationship between loss of control and trauma in general–traumatic events generally involve survivors losing control of some enormous aspect of life, and can result in a need to control as much as possible in order to feel safe–the feeling of not having control over the outcome of a case can deeply aggravate feelings of vicarious trauma for lawyers.

While issues of vicarious traumatization are not exclusive to lawyers, legal professionals often experience higher rates of vicarious trauma than professionals with similarly traumatized clients. In a study of criminal defense attorneys, defense lawyers were found to experience even higher rates of vicarious traumatization than mental health providers and social workers. Bigger caseloads and lack of supervision around trauma were offered as possible explanations for these higher rates.

According to a Science Alert report on a Macquarie University study on vicarious trauma among those who work in the field of criminal law, these attorneys experience disproportionately higher impacts and intensities of trauma from client interactions. The report goes on:

While often presenting an image of toughness and emotional detachment, it would seem that criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors are significantly more vulnerable to developing depression, stress and vicarious trauma than their non-criminal law colleagues.

These vulnerabilities have tremendous negative impacts on not only legal professionals, but on their clients. In an article for Canadian Lawyer Magazine, which includes clips from lawyers who experience vicarious trauma, cover story author donalee Moulton reports that:

Withdrawal is one of the common symptoms of vicarious trauma. Other symptoms include difficulties solving problems, a sense of being disconnected from work and home, and feelings of powerlessness. In response, lawyers and judges may take on greater responsibility, work longer hours, and attempt to exert greater control over others. They may also become more distant and withdrawn, more cynical, and even more accident prone. It is not unusual for victims of vicarious trauma to develop chronic health problems.

Withdrawal, difficulty solving problems, and issues with control all carry enormous risk of negatively impacting clients both on a case and an interpersonal level.

Despite the fact that unaddressed vicarious trauma is known to negatively affect clients, not to mention its chronic health impacts on lawyers themselves, many legal professionals do not seek or have access to affirmative work environments that can both assist with and help prevent vicarious traumatization.

What does office culture have to do with it?

Not only do many lawyers lack access to assistance and preventive care, but many legal cultures are such that vicarious trauma can take hold. Lack of trauma-related supervision and extremely high case loads as a measure of a lawyers’ skill contribute to a masculinized culture in which addressing and preventing vicarious trauma is perceived as taking time away from the ‘real work.’ In a similar way that the macho, product-oriented culture of journalism is often cited as a cause of vicarious trauma among journalists, lawyers–especially women and people of color–are often actively discouraged from emotional expression in the workplace. This emotional suppression alone has negative impacts on lawyers’ health, and also facilitates a masculinized culture that makes it nearly impossible to treat, let alone prevent, vicarious trauma.

While many workshops and presentations on vicarious trauma focus on individualized healing plans, it is more rare that action plans to ease vicarious trauma focus on organizational cultures. However, research shows that the most effective way to assist professionals who are likely to experience vicarious trauma is through structural changes to office and professional cultures, such as reduced and/or more diverse case loads, comprehensive healthcare provisions, holistic approaches to work and clients, effective supervision, explicit group support, and education.

So, What Can Be Done?

It is clear, then, that vicarious trauma impacts a vast array of people, particularly lawyer–most often defense attorneys and those who specialize in domestic violence, immigration, or family court. Emphasizing the importance of self-care is an important move toward providing healthy, effective, and sustainable services to clients, but it seems that structural changes to office and professional cultures, which are often very cut-throat, can go the longest way toward reducing the negative impacts that vicarious trauma has on both lawyers and clients.

Resources

Primary

Legal Profession Assistance Conference: A Desk Manual on Vicarious Trauma

University of Washington Center for Public Service Law: Secondary Trauma and Compassion Fatigue When Working With Clients in Crisis

National Child Traumatic Stress Network: Secondary Traumatic Stress

Vicarious Trauma Institute: What is Vicarious Trauma?

Additional

Voice for the Defense Online: Representing the Traumatized Client: The Case, the Client, and You

Pyscholawlogy: Lessons About Emotion Suppression for Lawyers

Science Alert: Crime Can Traumatize Lawyers

Huffington Post: A Mental-Health Epidemic in the Newsroom

Good Men Project: Escape the “Act Like a Man” Box

I

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vicarious Trauma: What is it and How Can Legal Culture Make it Worse? appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

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

What are victims’ rights?

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

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

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

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

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

National Crime Victim Law Institute

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

Examples of Victims’ Rights

Right to Notice

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

Right to Be Present

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

Right to Be Heard 

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

Right to Protection

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

Other Rights

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

Victims and Attorneys

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

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

Challenges in Victims’ Rights Law

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

Changing the Culture

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

Funding and Time

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

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

Arguments Against Victims’ Rights

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Resources

Primary

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

National Archives: Bill of Rights

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

Office of Justice Programs: Office for the Victims of Crimes

NCVLI: Victim Law Library

Additional

American Prospect: Victims Versus Suspects

National Association of Victims’ Rights Attorneys: Pro Bono

ACLU: Factsheet on the Proposed Victims’ Rights Amendment

Lewis & Clark Law School

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

https://law.lclark.edu/

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

Across the United States, it is estimated that more than 61,000 youth are incarcerated each night, and more than 65 percent of these young people are youth of color. The overwhelming majority, 75 percent, are incarcerated for non-violent offenses.

The U.S. incarcerates youth at vastly higher rates than any other country in a world. Given that these incarcerated youth die from suicide at a rate of two to three times higher than the non-incarcerated youth population, there is no shortage of controversies surrounding the jailing of youth.

Read on to learn about the different controversies surrounding the incarceration of juveniles in the American justice system.

Death in Prison Without a Jury: An Overview of Youth Incarceration

Though all 50 states and the District of Columbia have defined legal differences between adults and youth who are accused of committing crimes, different states have different standards and definitions for what age someone has to be in order to be prosecuted as a juvenile. Additionally, there are many provisions that allow for certain juveniles to be prosecuted as adults, even if they are technically considered to be juveniles.

For some youth, this can be seen as an initial advantage: juveniles accused of crimes are not entitled to a trial by jury in light of a 1971 Supreme Court decision. Instead, youth are sentenced at the discretion of judges. But this exposes youth to tremendous vulnerability at the hands of judges who are accused of making decisions on the basis of race, even if it’s unconsciously. As Judge LaDoris Cordell argues, regarding the grossly disproportionate number of youth of color in the juvenile justice system:

What is hard is that if you go up to your average juvenile court judge, and that judge is the one who sends these kids off–we’re the ones ultimately responsible for these statistics–that judge will look you dead in the eye and say, “I’m not unfair, I’m not racist, I’m not prejudiced. I do the best I can.” And that judge is telling you the truth. . . . But what is at play here in most cases? I’m not saying there aren’t those judges who are so prejudiced and so racist; there are those. But I think, in the main, most are not. But I think what happens is that stereotypes are so embedded in the psyche of human beings, that those stereotypes come to play. So that when a young black kid comes into court before a white male judge, who perhaps doesn’t have any experience dealing with young black males… a mindset comes up in that judge’s head… Assumptions get made. . . . I think, in the main, that’s what happens, and I think that’s what accounts for those statistics. . . .

However, the risks of being tried in adult courts are also astronomical: approximately 2,500 youth are currently enduring life in prison without parole for crimes committed when they were children. In addition, youth are likely to experience extreme abuse in adult prisons. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, “Children are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted in adult prisons than in juvenile facilities and face increased risk of suicide.”

Additionally, according to Human Rights Watch, while one out of every eight black youths who are convicted of killing someone are sentenced to life in prison, only one out of every 13 white youths convicted of killing someone are sentenced to life in prison.

In New York and North Carolina, this fate is particularly dangerous for youth: these are the only two states that try 16 and 17-year-old young people as adults. In both of these states, the age of adult criminal responsibility is 16, so judges must automatically treat these youth as adults. The prosecution of 16 year olds as adults–and their subsequent processing through the adult, rather than juvenile, system of incarceration–occurs in New York automatically, regardless of the severity of the accused crime. This means that every year, over 200,000 youth under the age of 18 in the U.S. are tried, prosecuted, and incarcerated as adults.

Even young people who are incarcerated as juveniles, however, experience tremendous hardship within the system. In addition to some debilitating and abusive conditions, youth in the juvenile justice system, whether currently incarcerated or on probation, are required to pay money to the courts for their own incarceration and probation. Youth on probation are responsible for payments such as supervisory fees, as well as fees for staying in juvenile hall while awaiting placement in group homes.

The School-to-Prison Pipeline

As schools are militarized across the country–with increased police presence and military training for the police placed in some of our schools–the number of students being funneled from schools into the juvenile justice system is correspondingly increasing. Overall, a 38 percent increase in law enforcement presence in schools between 1997 and 2007 is intimately related to 5 times more students being arrested in schools.

Most of these youths–even those who are not incarcerated extensively after their arrest–lose out on further educational opportunities due to schools’ zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies in schools, which mandate harsh punishments for first-time (and often minor) offenses, emerged from zero tolerance approaches to President George H.W. Bush’s “war on drugs.” According to Professor Nancy A. Heitzeg, sociology instructor and the Program Director of the Critical Studies of Race/Ethnicity program at St. Catherine University, zero tolerance policies in schools are directly related to the funneling of students from schools into prisons:

While the school to prison pipeline is facilitated by a number of trends in education, it is most directly attributable to the expansion of zero tolerance policies. These policies have no measurable impact on school safety, but are associated with a number of negative effects‖ racially disproportionality, increased suspensions and expulsions, elevated drop-out rates, and multiple legal issues related to due process.

By criminalizing “bad behavior” among children in schools instead of supporting students who are in need, zero tolerance policies have, according to Washington Times reporter Nikki Krug, “produced unnecessary student suspensions for even the slightest violations of conduct, leading to higher risk of failing, dropping out and criminal prosecution for minors.” These higher drop-out rates make recidivism and further involvement in both the juvenile and adult justice systems much more likely, with 70 precent of students who become involved with the juvenile justice system dropping out of school entirely.

Young People in Solitary Confinement

Once involved in the juvenile justice system, many youths find themselves devastated by the impacts of solitary confinement. While New York has recently stated that it will end the solitary confinement of youth and those who are pregnant, the punishment is still a reality for many incarcerated youth elsewhere.

Locked in total isolation in small cells for 23 hours a day, children under the age of 18 are locked in solitary for days, weeks, and months on end across the United States every day. The mental health consequences of youth being locked in solitary are even more extreme than they are for adults. The Attorney General’s office has reported, for example, that half of youths who kill themselves while incarcerated do so while they are in solitary. Of those who are not in solitary at the time of their death, 62 percent had endured solitary confinement before.

The youths who do survive solitary are often plagued by the trauma they endure for years to come. In fact, Juan E. Méndez, a United Nations expert on torture, has argued that solitary confinement, especially when practiced on children under 18, amounts to torture.

Juvenile Justice and Racial Justice

According to the National Juvenile Justice Network, youth of color are disproportionately targeted by the juvenile justice system: “In every juvenile offense category—person, property, drug, and public order—youth of color receive harsher sentences and fewer services than white youth who have committed the same category of offenses.” This means that even though white youth commit the same crimes as youth of color, youth of color are criminalized and receive harsher sentences while white youth are more likely to get community service rather than incarceration.

Among these youth of color who are targeted by the juvenile justice system, a great number identify as LGBT. According to the Center for American Progress, around 300,000 LGBT youth are arrested and detained each year in the U.S., and approximately 60 percent of these youth are black and Latina. These youth are much more likely than non-LGBT peers to be targeted for abuse once incarcerated.

Juvenile Injustice?

Though issues abound in the juvenile justice system, many individuals and organizations are committed to making changes to the system. While efforts to reform and overhaul the juvenile justice system are underway, it is clear that youth who have gone through the juvenile justice system are taking the lead in efforts to ensure that justice, rather than injustice, is served. Until these problems are solved, the youth justice system may continue to be unjust.

Resources

Annie E. Casey Foundation: A Collection of Juvenile Justice Resources

Human Rights Watch: The Rest of Their Lives

Human Rights Watch: Growing Up Locked Down

American Civil Liberties Union: Stop Solitary

Center for American Progress: The Unfair Criminalization of Gay and Transgender Youth

PBS: Is the System Racially Biased?

Equal Justice Initiative: Children in Prison

Colorlines: Paying to Get Locked Up

Colorlines: More Police in Schools Means More Students Arrested

Advancement Project: Momentum Grows Against Zero Tolerance Discipline and High-Stakes Testing

NOLO: Do Juveniles Have a Right to Trial by Jury?

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Juvenile Justice System: Inequality and Unjust Treatment appeared first on Law Street.

Amid sustained calls to “fix this now” and the trending Twitter hashtag #boycottindiana, Indiana’s Republican leadership has quietly been maneuvering to maintain the increased discrimination against LGBT residents that Governor Mike Pence‘s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (RFRA) enabled. The Indiana legislature voted this week to deny protective provisions that would have ensured that religious protections cannot be used to discriminate against LGBT people. According to Think Progress editor Zack Ford, due to recent legal developments, “outside of the few municipalities with local protections, anti-LGBT discrimination is still legal throughout most of the state.”

And although #boycottindiana is trending hard on Twitter, the RFRA is hardly the only devastating bill to come out of Indiana recently.

But it’s the only one causing majors trends.

Why? One of the big reasons: mainstream (read: overwhelmingly white) LGBT advocates, organizations, and issues have largely gained the support of big businesses and corporations. (Yes, I know that the pizzeria that supported the RFRA made an absurd amount of money from the controversy. But that’s not the systemic trend, which favors corporations making profit off of and cooperating with upper- and middle-class, white LGB people and organizations.)

Whiteness must be decentralized from the LGBT movement. I’m sick of hearing about Leelah Alcorn and not Blake Brockington #HisNameWasBlake

— Ryan Mishler (@storyofryguy) April 9, 2015

So what could be trending under the hashtag #boycottindiana, but is not?

An incredibly scary amendment to Senate Bill 465, which addresses the operations of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, was passed in the Indiana House this week. Though much ire and rage have been focused on the Indiana Republican leadership that was responsible for the RFRA, it was Democratic Representative Terry Goodin who proposed adding the drug testing requirement to the bill.

Drug testing requirements in order to receive welfare fundamentally introduce even greater racism into welfare programs: even though white people tend to use illegal drugs at comparable or even higher rates than people of color, people of color are arrested and imprisoned at disproportionately higher rates for drug related “crimes” than white people. This means that people of color who are welfare recipients are going to be disproportionately targeted by the new provision’s requirement that recipients with histories of drug-related “crimes” be required to undergo testing. These folks will be stripped of their welfare benefits if they fail two tests.

So… Why is the #boycottindiana hashtag not blowing up with rage over this new twist to already-racist policies? Do my fellow white queers think racist laws are alright while homophobic laws are not?

Racial justice is LGBT justice.

So… Where are the trending boycotts against all kinds of racist laws across the country, like the resurgence of Jim Crow-esque laws that suppress the votes of Black and Latina people by mandating ID requirements for voting?

Where is the #boycottwhitenessinLGBTorganizations hashtag? The #boycottmassincarceration hashtag, or the #boycottracism hashtag? The #boycottwhitesupremacy hashtag?

Oh, yes. We can’t boycott those things. They’re too integrated into what makes this country operate.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There’s Something Scarier Than Religious Freedom Going on in Indiana appeared first on Law Street.

Much ado has been made about the potential impacts of gay marriage on immigrants, and the potential impacts of comprehensive immigration reform on LGBTQ people. But what does all that mean? How do laws aimed at immigrants and laws aimed at LGBTQ people impact those who are both immigrants and LGBTQ? Read on to learn about the different difficulties of LGBTQ immigration, what progress is being made, and what problems still exist.

“Don’t Separate my Family”: Marriage and Immigration

When people hear about immigration and gay rights together in mainstream media sources, chances are that the conversation is about the impacts of gay marriage on immigration policy and individual couples in which one partner is an immigrant and the other is a citizen.

In the build up to the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, which provided full federal recognition of legally married same-sex couples by striking down a critical component of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), many couples in which one partner was not a citizen were featured in efforts of advocacy for gay marriage. A perfect example is the couple featured in the YouTube clip above. In the aftermath of federal recognition of same-sex marriage, a good deal of media coverage focused on long-term lesbian and gay relationships in which one of the partners was granted legal immigration status through marriage to a citizen partner. This New York Daily News article, for example, frames the triumph of gay marriage advocates in New York through the lens of immigration, discussing same-sex marriage as a win for a binational couple’s ability to obtain a green card for one of the partners.

Legal recognition for same-sex marriage has somewhat been a boon for proponents of more accessible immigration. LGBTQ couples no longer need to live in fear that they will not be able to live together in the U.S. because their marriage isn’t recognized: after the DOMA decision, same-sex couples have the right–as straight couples do–to have an immigrant partner obtain a green card through their marriage to a citizen spouse. Prior to the DOMA decision, no federal rights of marriage, including federal taxes and federal benefits, were afforded to same-sex couples, even if they were married in a state where it was legal. There was a lack of ability to obtain a green card for an immigrant partner in a binational couple; these rights are now assured. Transgender immigrants in a binational marriage, rest assured–whether you’re in a straight or  gay/lesbian relationship, the DOMA decision ensures that you or your partner can qualify for a green card.

New Concerns After the DOMA Decision

After the DOMA decision, however, concerns remain for LGBTQ immigrant couples. For example, investigative reporter Seth Freed Wessler writes for Colorlines.com that,

The parts of the marriage-based visa process that include investigation by federal immigration officers into the validity of a marriage… [can pose a problem for] LGBT couples who may not be out to their families, communities, neighbors or bosses, the prospect of a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer showing up at their apartment building or calling their mother to ask about the relationship poses a pretty serious risk.

This is indeed something to be concerned about, and it may well bar access to green cards for many LGBTQ immigrants. Yet it is precisely this articulation of the U.S. as a liberal bastion and safe-haven for LGBTQ people–juxtaposed against “homophobic” countries–that causes many LGBTQ people to critique the entire framing of same-sex marriage as a vehicle for positive immigration policy.

Many LGBTQ people argue that fighting for marriage takes away attention, energy, and resources (millions and millions of dollars worth) from addressing the underlying issues of structural racism, state oppression and heteronormativity that shape anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ attitudes to begin with. Queercents writer Yasmin argues that marriage “being presented as THE immigration cause for LGBT people” detracts crucial attention away from comprehensive immigration reform, which she and many others assert should be the focal point of immigration efforts. Responding to American Apparel’s same-sex marriage-inspired “Legalize Gay” shirts Yasmin writes that:

Do people wearing this t-shirt have a clue what it really means to be illegal? To be, for instance, an ‘illegal alien’ who gets swept up in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid and be deported soon thereafter? To not be able to travel freely because they lack the proper documentation? To pay for their school tuition and rent in cash because they lack social security numbers? [And i]t’s not just the undocumented whose lives are effectively erased by this t-shirt, but the millions who are being funneled into the prison industrial complex in order to increase its profits.

Even if an undocumented immigrant who is LGBTQ is familiar with the fears and oppressions discussed here, they may not have marriage available to them–or may not desire marriage–if they want a green card.

Executive Action and Legal Challenges

President Obama’s executive action in November 2014 that attempted to grant relief from deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants is being legally challenged by 26 states. These legal challenges have left millions of people in limbo, without knowing their status or rights, because the parents of U.S. citizens and families who were protected from deportation under his executive orders now must wait to learn what courts will decide about the legal challenges.

The impacts of Obama’s exercise of executive power (and, then, the impacts of the legal challenges to this power) for LGBTQ people have been much debated in LGBTQ communities. Staff correspondents Rachel Roubein and Lauren Fox argue in the National Journal that Obama’s actions on immigration were a tremendous help to LGBTQ people. They cite, among other things, the life-saving potential of prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases, which can prevent many LGBTQ people from being deported.

Other critics are less optimistic about the potential of Obama’s executive action to serve as the immigration overhaul that many desire, even if the cases against it are unsuccessful. Colorlines.com reporter Julianne Hung reminds her readers that:

The terms [of the action] are stringent: It will apply only to those who have been in the U.S. for five years or more; those who came to the country as young teens; and parents of U.S. citizen children and green-card holders. People with various criminal violations on their records will be barred from relief.

While these familial provisions were portrayed as being meant to keep families together, they do not grant access to many of the 267,000 undocumented LGBTQ adults who will not qualify for relief under Obama’s action because they lack these kinds of familial connections. These stringent terms may be particularly prohibitive for many of the 20,000-50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants in the country, for whom accessing potential relief will likely be particularly difficult due to virulent institutional transphobia that trans immigrants face.

“Mass Incarceration of Immigrants”

Currently, there’s a “mass incarceration of immigrants” in which the state and prison corporations generate many billions of dollars of profit from privately run and revenue-generating facilities that lock up people who are immigrants. In light of that, many LGBTQ immigrants are concerned about prisons generally, and the ways transgender people are targeted for especially horrific treatment in prisons and immigration detention centers. When the Department of Homeland Security came out with new immigration detention policies in 2014 that were aimed at preventing sexual abuse in immigration detention facilities, many lauded the changes as a victory. LGBTQ immigrants in these centers often experience much higher rates of abuse than their non-LGBTQ peers, so the changes were often welcomed by LGBTQ immigration advocates.

However, transgender immigrants did not receive adequate protections under the new guidelines. National Center for Transgender Equality director of policy Harper Jean Tobin referred to the new policies in the following way:

A tremendous missed opportunity which adds urgency to ending our multibillion-dollar mass incarceration of immigrants… The lack of adequate protections for transgender immigrants in particular makes it clear that these vulnerable individuals are not safe in detention facilities and should no longer be detained.

Many transgender asylum seekers are detained in the wrong facilities, particularly women being placed in all-male facilities, making those women targets of extreme sexual violence in immigration detention facilities.

This kind of abuse is experienced at higher rates by transgender immigrants, but LGB immigrants also are sexually abused at 15 percent higher rates than their non-LGB peers in detention facilities.

Organizations like the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and the Sylvia Rivera Project’s Immigrant Rights Project work at the intersections between immigration and LGBTQ justice. They operate in ways that attempt to make detention safer for LGBTQ immigrants specifically while also working to make detention and deportation non-existent for all immigrants.

Conclusion

For immigrants who are LGBTQ, obstacles to obtaining a green card and safety from deportation can be much greater than for immigrants who are not LGBTQ, though the obstacles and the stakes are quite high for all immigrants. Same-sex marriage may chip away at these obstacles for some LGBTQ immigrants in binational, married relationships, but more overarching reform of the system of detention and deportation of immigrants may be a more holistic way forward for LGBTQ immigrants.

Resources

Primary

Oyez: United States v. Windsor

Additional

National Immigrant Justice Center: Stop Abuse of Detained LGBT Immigrants

Sylvia Rivera Law Project: Immigrant Rights Project

National Center for Transgender Equality: Our Moment For Reform

ABC News: DOMA Ruling Could Mean Green Cards for Gay Immigrants

Colorlines: LGBT Immigrants Could Face Hard Road Applying for Green Cards

Washington Post: Gay Marriage Fight Will Cost Tens of Millions

MakeZine: Is Gay Marriage Racist?

Queercents: Legalize Gay: Or, So You Think You’re Illegal?

Queercents: Uniting American Families Act: Fact, Fiction, Money, and Emotions

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to the Immigration Accountability Executive Action

AlJazeera: 26 States Sue Obama Over Immigration Plan

National Journal: In Immigration Action, the LGBT Community Once Again Feels Left Behind

Feministing: Is Mass Incarceration and Detention of Women Becoming the New Normal?

Center for American Progress: Dignity Denied: LGBT Immigrants in U.S. Immigration Detention

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBTQ Immigration: Not Just About Marriage appeared first on Law Street.

There are a lot of factors that go into choosing the right law school. When considering where to apply, we look at things like prestige, specialty areas, and affordability to help us guide our decisions. But according to a study done at the University of Minnesota, another thing that we should be considering is a law school’s proximity to major law firms.

Researchers at the University of Minnesota found that a law school’s proximity to major law firms can affect its students’ future employment prospects. They found that students who are earning their law degrees in areas with many major legal firms are entering communities with better retention for young lawyers. This longevity is something uniquely found in these areas, as many of the firms are looking to hire students from the nearby law schools.

The study explored 33,000 law partners from the biggest and top-earning 115 law firms across the country. They then determined what law school each of those partners attended, and ranked the law schools. The official report with all of the numerical findings and rankings is set to be published this May. So, if working for a big firm after graduation is your goal, it may be a good idea to check out that report and aim for a law school in one of those locations.

Maggie Gloyeske, the director of lawyer and consultant recruiting at Faegre Baker Daniels, has stressed that her firm likes to hire from local law schools in Minnesota. She said: “lawyers who come to work for us, who have a connection to our community, tend to stay longer and think of this as a career move versus just a job.”

While this finding isn’t anything new or shocking, it is often something that is overlooked by students when they are considering where to apply. Many students rely heavily on the rankings put out each year by the U.S. News and World Report or other outlets. While these rankings are certainly a useful tool when first starting the law school search, as they give a broad overview of the law schools on the list, they omit several important factors like the number of graduates that go on to work in local law firms.

This may be because those rankings put significant weight on surveys completed by lawyers, law professors, and judges. According to Samuel Engel, one of the co-authors of the study, these professionals are likely to give law schools the same ranking each year, regardless of any changes that the schools may make. Engel stated that “it’s hard for [USNWR] to get these trends because they’re asking people who haven’t been in law school for a generation to rank law schools.”

While the USNWR rankings focused on a school’s reputation, immediate employment placement, and LSAT scores, the study done by the University of Minnesota based its evaluations on the school sizes and the number of graduates who went on to work at major law firms in their area. As a result, that list looked quite different.

This is not the first time that someone has taken a different approach to ranking  law schools. This past summer, we at Law Street Media put out a set of law school rankings by speciality area. These rankings took into account things such as class offerings, alumni relations, and extracurricular programs. Additionally, like the University of Minnersota’s rankings, our rankings included law school proximity to major law firms. The goal of these rankings was to offer a qualitative and more comprehnsive approach to something that is often quantitative.

While each of these sets of rankings has something unique to offer, none of them are exhaustive. When considering what law schools to apply to, my advice would be to do as much research as possible while using the rankings as a starting point. While law school rankings are a useful tool, law schools have so much more to offer than just a place on a list.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Choosing a Law School? Location Matters appeared first on Law Street.

Lawyers, law students, and even a baby who will absolutely be a litigator some day had the very best week ever. Check out this week’s slideshow of the best legal tweets of the week.

[SlideDeck2 id=36459 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

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

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s best legal tweets were pretty much all downers and I chalked it up to the incessantly terrible weather and rampant SAD. But luckily this week, not only is the weather starting to perk up but so are the lawyers and law students! OK not everyone–1Ls are still miserable–but some lawyers are actually having some fun in their professions. Check out the slideshow below for this week’s best legal tweets of the week.

[SlideDeck2 id=36048 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

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

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a big, often unrecognized problem for our nation’s poor. Many do not have access to the legal resources they need to complete processes like divorce or custody battles. Legal help is extremely expensive, and unlike in criminal cases, anyone who is a party to a lawsuit is not automatically granted an attorney. So, Washington is trying to help with that, by introducing a Limited License Legal Technicians (LLLT) rule.

The LLLT program will allow candidates to take a year-long series of courses at community and state schools. Those classes particularly focus on things like legal research, civil procedure, and contracts. Then they’ll complete a sort of apprenticeship with a practicing attorney. After those steps are completed, the students can become licensed to advise on certain aspects of law, particularly family law issues. Right now, the Washington LLLT program focuses on family law, but if successful, it could probably end up being expanded. The biggest new power granted to these LLLTs is the ability to give legal advice, which is currently prohibited for paralegals or legal assistants.

As Steve Crossman, who heads up the LLLT board, stated:

One of the unique things about this is they can practice on their own; (unlike paralegals) they don’t need to practice under the supervision of lawyers. They can practice in conjunction with practicing lawyers so they work out of the same office. We’re thinking they also could work for a government-funded or volunteer legal-services agency.

The program has its beginnings in 2012, when the Washington Supreme Court adopted a rule allowing LLLTs. Since then, the program has been developed and refined a few times, and the first class of future LLLTs began in 2014.

Overall, the LLLT program is focused on cost on a few different levels. First of all, the program is much cheaper for students. It’s no secret that law degrees are incredibly expensive. In 2013, private law schools cost an average of nearly $42,000 a year, public law schools for residents cost nearly $25,000, and public law schools for non-residents cost almost $37,000. In comparison, an LLLT program costs only about $10,000.

These lower costs will translate to the clients. An extensive 2009 study from the Legal Services Corporation showed that somewhere between 80-90 percent of low-income Americans don’t have access to legal aid for their civil legal issues. The cost is pretty prohibitive, and because law school is so expensive, new lawyers can’t always lower their prices to provide low-cost aid. Empowering LLLTs will allow low-cost services. While there are legal aid programs, many are underfunded and understaffed.

Some have been comparing the work of LLLTs to nurse practitioners, or other medical professionals who aren’t doctors but can still perform some medical services. Given that the first group of LLLTs began classes last year, some will be ready to work as early as this Spring.

This is an innovative program that may solve a lot of problems, both for aspiring legal professionals and those who require legal help. If it’s successful, hopefully other states will create similar programs.

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 Paralegals Will Soon Be Able to Give Legal Advice in Washington appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the slideshow below for some of the best legal tweets of the week that you might have missed.

[SlideDeck2 id=34841 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

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

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Professor Jon Hanson of Harvard Law School has set out to change the way law is taught. This spring, the professor welcomed roughly 50 students into the inaugural Systemic Justice class at Harvard Law. The class will teach students to examine the common causes of injustice in history and explore ways to use law and activism to make positive changes.

From the first day of the term, it became clear to students that the new class was unique. Referring to the students in the class as a “community,” Professor Hanson came across lighthearted and funny, cracking jokes and even asking the class to come up with a name for said “community.” He said to students on the first day of class: “None of us really knows what ‘systemic justice’ is—yet you’re all here.”

Traditionally, law students enter law school expecting to master existing law and to learn how to apply those laws to jobs as attorneys. However, a survey revealed that students are actually most concerned with big, unsolved social issues–which is where this class comes in. Students believe that law is part of the issue when looking at social problems such as climate change, income inequality, and racial bias in policing. The goal of this class is to introduce a new approach to examining and dealing with these issues.

This class is just one facet of a new Systemic Justice Project at Harvard, which is led by Professor Hanson and recent law school graduate Jacob Lipton. The project arose out of a growing recognition that law students need to be trained to be problem solvers and policy makers. Another part of the program is a class called the Justice Lab, which is a think tank style class designed to ask students to analyze systemic societal problems and propose solutions from a legal perspective. In April, students from both classes will attend a conference alongside experts to discuss their findings.

In some ways, this project is part of a widespread effort to introduce a greater policy focus into law schools. For example, Stanford Law School recently launched a Law and Policy Lab that tasks students with finding policy solutions to real-world problems. After graduation, many former law students will go on to become policy makers, judges, politicians, and organizational leaders. According to Sergio Campos, a law professor at the University of Miami and a visiting professor at Harvard, those lawyers could be in trouble if they do not develop a background on policy during their time in law school. He worries that for those students,  “when you get to a position where you can change the law, you don’t have a background on policy and what it should be.”

The program has already gained popularity with students at Harvard who are, or desire to be, active in fighting for social causes. However, not all law students are interested in learning about policy–some just want to learn about existing law, and that’s fine too. This project is designed to be a way to extend a traditional legal education, not replace it. Even so, participating in a class such as the Systemic Justice class can give law students a new and valuable perspective that will strengthen their overall legal education.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard Law School Launches New Systemic Justice Project appeared first on Law Street.

The term “squatter” connotes preconceived images of homeless people taking shelter in decrepit abandoned buildings; however, the reality is that the face of squatting has changed. When the real estate market collapsed due to the most recent recession, millions of homeowners found themselves being foreclosed upon. Some moved out leaving their empty homes vulnerable for potential squatters, while others became the squatters themselves remaining in their homes for months or even years without paying the mortgage. According to a UMass Law Review report on squatting by Shannon Dunn McCarthy, there are currently more than one billion squatters across the globe, so understanding their legal rights is even more important.

Squatters differ from trespassers, because they’ve actually moved into the property, often changing the locks, setting up bills in their name, and even receiving mail. It would make sense that if you’re not paying for the house that you would be removed from the property, but the process of evicting squatters can be easier said than done. It can fall into a legal gray area pertaining to squatter’s rights where there’s little that law enforcement can do.

History

Squatting in the United States can be traced all the way back to the Pilgrims who arrived here on the Mayflower. According to a Santa Clara Law report by Kenneth A. Manaster, it has primarily been seen as a rural issue, with the majority of cases involving  people claiming land that’s not theirs on the western frontier. Squatters often took possession of land to which they had no title. Through a process of preemption, they were given the opportunity to purchase that land at a low price before it was put up for auction and sold.

Today squatting is seen primarily as a civil issue rather than a criminal one in many countries. In Europe, anyone with unopposed occupation of a piece of land for more than 12 years can gain a title to it. In order to get rid of squatters, owners must take them to court in lengthy and costly legal battles to prove that they are unlawfully occupying their property.

What are squatters rights?

For starters, the term “squatters rights” has no precise or fixed legal meaning, varying contextually speaking based on jurisdiction. In the United States it is most commonly associated with being a specific form of adverse possession, which is an ancient legal doctrine that has been called the “law of the landless.” Adverse possession is defined as:

A method of gaining legal title to real property by the actual, open, hostile, and continuous possession of it to the exclusion of its true owner for the period prescribed by state law. Personal property may also be acquired by adverse possession.

In these cases the disseisor–the party in a case of adverse possession who has taken actual possession of the property, thus dispossessing the true owner–holds no title to any properties adjoining the property under dispute. This is similar to homesteading, where a homesteader can gain a title to a property by using the land and fulfilling other conditions, but unlike adverse possessing the homesteader’s acquisition of the land isn’t hostile. If you’re thinking “Awesome, there’s a way to get free rent,” don’t get too excited. Most would-be squatters in the U.S. don’t meet the legal requirements to claim adverse possession.

Qualifying for Adverse Possession

The concept of squatting has been highly popularized in recent years, which is evident in the form of simplistic how to guides on the subject surfacing on the internet. For those looking to squat for the long run and eventually own the property being seized, understanding how to qualify for adverse possession is essential to any successful land occupation. In order to qualify, the squatters occupation of the land must be:

1. Continuous: Must have daily uninterrupted control of the land, usually for a certain number of years.
2. Hostile: The trespasser must occupy the land in opposition to the owner’s true rights.
3. Open and notorious: Must possess the land openly for all to see.
4. Actual: Must actually possess the land.
5. Exclusive: Sole physical occupancy.

Most successful squatting hinges on the squatter going unnoticed for a good amount of time by the owners of the property, neighbors, and local law enforcement. Avoiding detection is essential since most loitering and trespassing laws actually make it easy for deed holders to evict trespassers from their property.

For a more lengthy explanation watch the video below.

Types of Squatters

Not all squatting cases are the same. In order to understand the proper actions to take, you must first recognize that there are different types of squatters. Here are a few examples:

• Owner Squatter: has ownership to the physical structure housing the person, but not the land.
• Commercial Squatter: occupying land used for a business without paying rent or taxes for it.
• Squatter Tennant: a squatter paying rent to the original squatter.
• Survival Squatter: someone without housing who resorts to occupying a property as a means of survival.

Squatters are not to be to be confused with holdover tenants, which are tenants who remain in the leased property after the termination of the tenancy.

Legal Gray Area

For homeowners who find themselves with a squatter living in their homes, the whole ordeal can be long and stressful. Squatter’s claims get traction when law enforcement can’t necessarily prove that they do not have a legal right to be on the property. There have been situations where people have presented keys to the property, utility bills with their names on the them, and sometimes even falsified leases or deeds. It then becomes an arduous task for officers to prove that the person living there is doing so illegally. During that time, squatters are permitted to stay at the residence until the matter is solved in court.

The video below provides a perfect example of just how much damage squatters can impose while staying in someone else’s property. In it a man begins squatting at a woman’s vacant residence and then proceeds to list the apartment for rent online. Several people then find themselves roped into his con leaving down payments and signing leases for a property that was never his.

How to Get Rid of a Squatter

Historically speaking, removing squatters by force was the only option for disgruntled owners to get their property back; however, now it is considered illegal in most states. Current eviction procedures vary state to state, but the most common quick and efficient way to get rid of squatters when police are unwilling to remove them is to undergo summary eviction proceedings. The results of these proceedings differ in criminal and civil cases. In a criminal case the judge makes her ruling keeping in mind the vested interest of both the disgruntled party and the occupant. McCarthy explains the process stating:

Summary eviction proceedings combine the dual concerns of property owners and the occupant. Summary proceedings balance homeowner’s temporal concerns with a squatter’s need for habitable housing. Notably, summary eviction proceedings and its requirements are “strictly enforced in favor of squatters” even though this comes with denial of justice to homeowners.

That being said, taking the matter to civil court is usually the best option. In civil court the burden of proof is put on the property owner in order to prove the squatter has no legal right to the property. Even though the process is designed to be quick, it can take weeks and become very costly to the property owner. For squatter victims with foreclosed homes this can become a financial nightmare.

Ultimately the best way to get rid of a squatter is by protecting yourself from them in the first place. Owners should put up clearly visible no trespassing signs on their empty properties, as well make sure the property is properly boarded up and secure. Periodic checks on its condition are also essential, for those owners who live out of town, enlisting the help of neighbors can significantly lessen the likelihood of strangers targeting their residence.

Squatting Examples

Airbnb Renter From Hell

Think twice before trying to supplement your rent on Airbnb, the popular home rental app. In the case of Cory Tschogl, she rented out her vacation condo using the app and then the tenant stopped paying and refused to leave. What makes matters worse is that since the tenant had been there for over a month he was protected under California tenant law, which requires a landlord to pay a relocation fee to tenants they wish to evict. She then had to go about the process of formally evicting the tenant, which could take anywhere from three to six months and cost thousands of dollars in legal fees. The squatter eventually left the property after two months, but the whole ordeal had her thinking twice about ever using the app as a host again.

Career Criminals Steal $300,000 House

Some people make a career out of squatting properties. One couple allegedly broke into an abandoned Atlanta home and moved in. After squatting in other properties, the experienced couple used online software to fabricate receipts and a lease, as well as changed the locks on the door. The property was owned by RBC Bank, which refused to press charges on the couple hoping the matter would sort itself out.

Conclusion

Squatters are getting smarter. With the help of books, online “how to’s,” and basic office tools, they’re finding hostile ways to commandeer properties on legal technicalities. The majority of the cases eventually sort themselves out since few squatters actually qualify for an adverse possession, but at a financial and emotional cost to the true owners. In order to not become a victim to squatters and their “rights,”, owners of empty properties must be proactive and vigilant.

Resources

Primary 

Santa Clara Law: Squatters and the Law: The Relevance of the United States Experience to Current Problems in Developing Countries

UMass Law Review: Squatting: Lifting the Heavy Burden to Evict Unwanted Company

Additional

WikiHow: How to Squat in Abandoned Property

Guardian: Squatters Are Not Home Stealers 

NOLO: Adverse Possession: When Trespassers Become Property Owners

AlterNet: Facing Foreclosure? Don’t Leave. Squat.

Guardian: What to do if Squatters Take Over Your Property

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 Squatters: What Are Their Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a new year, and I for one am excited to see what it will bring. No matter what, there will definitely be a lot of legal issues to discuss, debate, and bring changes to all of our lives. The five cases below are the top five to watch in 2015; some have already appeared before SCOTUS and await decisions in 2015, while others will be heard throughout the year. Here are five fascinating Supreme Court cases to watch in 2015.

Anthony Elonis v. United States

Law Street has actually been covering this interesting case for a while–check out our coverage of the case, the University of Virginia law clinic that’s gotten involved, and the all the legalese behind it. The reason we’ve followed it so closely is because it really is fascinating. Anthony Elonis was convicted of threatening multiple people, including his wife, an FBI agent, the police, and a kindergarten class. But these weren’t threats in the classical sense. They were written on his Facebook page in the form of rap lyrics. He claims the posts are art, protected under the First Amendment, and that he never intended to hurt anyone. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if such intent needs to be shown when convicting someone of making threats. The case was heard on December 1, 2014, but the court has yet to rule.

King v. Burwell

In King v. Burwell, SCOTUS will yet again be asked to weigh the Affordable Care Act. This time, it’s all about the tax subsidies, and weirdly, the central question in really depends on one word: “state.” The way that the ACA reads, in order for an individual to qualify for a tax subsidy, he needs to be receiving healthcare “through an exchange established by the state.” So, can people residing in states that haven’t set up their own exchanges, but instead rely on the federal program, get those tax subsidies? The IRS certainly thinks so and has been granting the subsidies. It’s an argument based pretty much on semantics, but it could have a huge effect on the ACA itself. This case will be heard in March.

Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service 

This case will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on how pregnant employees are treated. Peggy Young, formerly a delivery driver for UPS, is arguing that the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA says that pregnant workers should be treated the same as any other worker who is “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young and her lawyers argue that other employees who sustain temporary injuries or something of the like are moved to other positions, while she was forced to take unpaid leave. UPS claims that those other workers are given different jobs based on policies that don’t apply to Young, and she was treated the same as she would have been had she sustained an injury out of work. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who’s in the right here. The case was just heard in December 2014; an opinion is forthcoming.

Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs will require the justices to look into prison procedures that prevent inmates from growing a beard in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Gregory Holt, wants to be able to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. The state is arguing that it could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband. SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not those prison procedures violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The question that the justices will consider is whether or not there’s a compelling enough government interest to prevent Holt from expressing his religion. The case was heard in October 2014; the opinion will be issued this year.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

This case centers on the practice of gerrymandering. The justices will have to decide whether or not it was illegal for Alabama to redraw the districts in 2012 after the Census in a way that packed black voters into particular districts. The Alabama Black Caucus says that it relied too much on race when drawing those districts. While partisan gerrymandering is usually legal, racial gerrymandering is not–so the justices will have to decide which actually happened here. This case was heard in November 2014; the opinion is expected in the coming months.

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 SCOTUS Cases to Watch in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

You made it to the weekend! Congratulations. Have a cup of coffee, scroll through Twitter, and…OK, probably you should get back to work and studying. But before that, check out the best legal tweets of the week and follow these handles for some comic relief.

[SlideDeck2 id=29292 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

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

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I hope everyone had an awesome Halloween weekend! I spent the weekend in Chicago where I was surprised to see many homeless people sitting in front of some of the most expensive shops on Michigan Avenue. Houston certainly has homeless people too, but nothing like what I saw in Chicago, where I felt like we were pretty much stepping over people who were at their rock bottom. My boyfriend has a kind heart and on several occasions this weekend gave food to the homeless, and I thought that was really sweet. So I found it really ironic when I read the news that two pastors and a 90-year-old man were charged with feeding the homeless in Ft. Lauderdale.

Arnold Abbott has been feeding homeless people in Ft. Lauderdale for nearly 20 years! He heads a group called Love Thy Neighbor and was only able to get out three or four meals of the 300 that he had prepared for the day before the cops shut him down. Abbott, Rev. Mark Sims of St. Mary Magdalene Episcopal Church in Coral Springs, and Rev. Dwayne Black, pastor of the Sanctuary Church in Ft. Lauderdale, were each cited for willfully violating a city ordinance. Police issued them notices to appear in court where they could be asked to explain their actions. Explain their actions. Why do good people have to all of a sudden explain the actions of giving a helping hand to the less fortunate? Is this the kind of world we want to live in? I know I don’t!

Everyone gets down on their luck at some point and some have it worse than others, but what’s wrong with these people wanting to help the homeless? There is a large number of homeless in the Ft. Lauderdale area, which is why something should be done about that issue. Perhaps the city council should consider creating more shelters instead of taking everything away from them, including the ordinance it passed last Spring banning homeless people from having any possessions in public. They are homeless, where are they suppose to have the few things that they own? I get that the homeless population may be growing in that city, but punishing people who are already hard on their luck is just counterproductive.

Cleaning up your city shouldn’t involve punishing those who are down on their luck and then punishing other people for trying to help.

Allison Dawson

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

The post Pastors and Elderly Man Cited for Feeding Homeless in Ft. Lauderdale appeared first on Law Street.

The ability to filibuster has long been an important tool for the United States Senate and some state legislative bodies. But some worry that it leads to unnecessary delay and a stop to productivity. Read on to learn about the development of the filibuster, its uses, and its abuses.

What is a filibuster?

In the Senate the general rule is that a Senator may speak for literally as long as he or she is physically able to do so.  When a Senator realizes that his or her position regarding a potential act of Congress is a minority one, the filibuster allows prolonging that debate indefinitely or using other dilatory tactics in order to prevent Congress from voting against that position.  Any bill can be subject to two potential filibusters. A filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill’s consideration, and a filibuster on the bill itself. The typical practical effect of this tactic is that Congress will usually move on to other business for expediency’s sake if a filibuster is threatened on a controversial bill. Filibustering is generally very difficult if the proposed action is not controversial.

However, a filibuster in the U.S. Senate can be defeated by a procedure called cloture. Cloture allows the Senate to end a debate about a proposed action if three-fifths of available Senators concur.  After cloture has been initiated, debate on that bill continues for an additional thirty hours with the following restrictions:

• No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.
• No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
• No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
• All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
• No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of.

This process prevents filibustering from being used by a minimal number of Senators to obstruct bills that the vast majority of Congress wants to pass. However, cloture has drawbacks. It is difficult to implement because it often requires bipartisan support in order to get three-fifths of Senators to vote for it. It also takes time to implement because it must be ignored for a full day after it is presented. Finally, it requires a quorum call before voting so a large enough group of Senators can further delay voting by being absent so that a quorum is no longer present.

One of the most recent filibusters in the US Senate was conducted by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY):

Paul filibustered for nearly 13 hours, which is impressive. The longest Senate filibuster ever recorded was by Strom Thurmond, who filibustered for 24 hours and eighteen minutes.

What’s the argument for getting rid of filibusters?

Proponents of eliminating the Senate’s ability to filibuster argue that filibustering is childish and prevents proper resolution of disagreements about proposed bills. Filibustering allows belligerent legislators to seek acquiescence rather than compromise. When a filibuster is threatened, proponents of a bill may accept amendments to the bill that they do not favor in order to end debate. Even worse, double filibusters can make passing some bills much more time consuming. Moreover, filibusters can create dire consequences for bills that are proposed in time-sensitive circumstances e.g. when the fiscal budget is near expiration and voting is obstructed in order to advance policy interests.

What’s the argument for keeping the ability to filibuster?

Opponents of ending filibustering argue that the maneuver is necessary to preserve the fair representation and consideration of minority views. Without it, a simple majority could pass oppressive restrictions and hardship onto the minority and there would be no recourse against a duly passed law. The filibuster has been used to protect the rights of minorities in this country for a long time. The Senate was designed to ensure that the public’s representation in the decisionmaking process is not entirely controlled by the whims of the majority so that the power dynamic between majority and minority interests did not render the minority intrinsically powerless.

Recent Developments in Filibusters

In 2013, the power of the filibuster hit a road bump. The Senate voted to eliminate the possibility of using the filibuster on federal executive and judicial nominees (excluding Supreme Court nominees). This move was called the “nuclear option,” and it meant that it would just require a simple majority of Senators in order to move forward on confirmation votes. There were many Obama administration appointees stuck in a limbo because they could not get Senate approval.

168 filibusters of nominees in our history. HALF of them have occurred during Obama years! pic.twitter.com/xbQfsftLGm

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) November 21, 2013

While the nuclear option was an unprecedented change that will have real effect on the confirmation process for a long time to come, it only affects cloture and filibuster situations in that particular context.

Conclusion

The filibuster has, for many years, played an important role in the American legislative process. But in the United States’ current condition of hyper-partisanship, it may no longer make sense for the filibuster to hold such a strong pull. Filibustering was created to allow the minority to be able to speak on issues that they feel strongly about — but when does the minority abuse that power to take the majority hostage? The Democrats’ 2013 choice to invoke the “nuclear option” may end up being the first in many changes we see to the filibuster moving forward.

Resources

Primary 

Federalist Papers: No. 62

Additional

Fire Dog Lake: The Filibuster Should be Traded for Eliminating Lifetime Judicial Appointments

Moyers and Company: Larry Cohen on Eliminating the Filibuster

Think Progress: The Filibuster is Bad

Salon: 5 Reasons to Kill the Filibuster

American Prospect: Let’s Shutdown the Filibuster

American Prospect: Don’t Eliminate the Filibuster, Restore It

Real Clear Politics: The Filibuster is a Good Thing

Campaign for Liberty: Filibusters: Good For Restraining Government

Harvard Political Review: In Defense of the Filibuster

Washington Post: Talking Filibusters Are Good For Democracy

How Stuff Works: How a Filibuster Works

Daily Banter: Our Guide to the Filibuster: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Atlantic: If You’d Like a Good, Clean Explanation of the Filibuster Disaster

John Gomis

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

The post The Senate Filibuster: On Its Way Out? appeared first on Law Street.

In an ideal world elections would be determined by a competition of ideas. But in today’s world, politics in the United States is determined by fundraising, wealth, and access. Regulations stipulating how campaigns can be financed determine who can donate how much in elections and what the money can be used for. Some argue campaign donations should be protected as a form a free speech while others see these donations as giving the wealthy undue political influence. Read on for the history, controversy, and future for campaign finance reforms.

What is campaign finance?

Campaign finance refers to all money raised to support political candidates, organizations, parties, or initiatives in elections. Any successful political campaign typically costs a significant amount of money. Money is needed to cover travel expenses, pay for political consulting, and to communicate with voters. Advertising costs are by far the most significant expense in heated political campaigns.

This fundraising takes a new turn with corporations and wealthy individuals interested in spending as much as possible to support their candidate. At the federal level, campaign finance is regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). At lower levels, it is governed by state and local law. Most campaign spending comes from private groups, but qualifying presidential candidates can opt to use public money.  Regulation typically takes the form of disclosure, contribution limits, and the limits that come with public financing. The strange array of political terms surrounding campaign finance often makes it hard for people to follow the actual debate.

• Political Action Committees (PACs) – the private groups that fundraise from individual contributors to spend money for political purposes. PACs are necessary since corporations and unions cannot directly donate money to a candidate or national party committee.
• Super PACs – emerged more recently due to Supreme Court decisions. These organizations have no legal limit on the amount they can spend so long as they are politically independent of the actual campaign.
• Hard money – includes donations regulated by the FEC that are made directly to political candidates by individuals and corporations. The names of those who contribute and how much they contribute are publicly available.
• Soft money – known as an indirect donation, it is often given to a political party rather than a candidate and thus can avoid certain legal limitations.
• 527 organizations – refers to advocacy groups like traditional PACs and political parties, named after their IRS code and tax-exempt status.

Watch below for more on how campaign finance works:

What is the history of campaign finance?

Numerous laws and Supreme Court cases have attempted to regulate campaign finance. Typically it is not until a political scandal that there is a push for more stringent regulation in financing.

Tillman Act

In 1907 the Tillman Act became the first ever campaign finance law after Theodore Roosevelt faced questions about which corporations funded his campaign in 1904. The Act banned corporate contributions to national campaigns; however, the law lacked any real method of enforcement.

Federal Election Commission Act (FECA)

In 1971 modern campaign finance rules were born. FECA instituted disclosure requirements for federal candidates. The Act was rewritten in 1974 after it surfaced that Richard Nixon used corrupt funds in his re-election campaign. These amendments established a system of regulation and enforcement through the Federal Election Commission. FECA also created new public financing for presidential elections to limit the influence of money. The new law put limits on individual contributions to candidates, contributions to PACs, total campaign expenditures, and spending by individuals or groups to a specific candidate.

The constitutionality of FECA was challenged in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court upheld the limits on individual donations and disclosure requirements, citing the compelling state interest to prevent corruption. However, the Court stated that the limits on what campaigns and individuals could spend was a violation of the First Amendment. Further, disclosure could only apply to communications expressly advocating for a candidate. There are three key takeaways from the case:

1. Free speech allows individuals to spend unlimited political money.
2. TV or radio ads that expressly advocate for or against a specific candidate, by using words like “elect” or “defeat,” must be financed with regulated money.
3. Corporations, unions, and individuals can contribute unlimited “soft money” to political parties in an effort to influence campaigns. This encouraged many companies to set up PACs to donate.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or McCain-Feingold Act, was passed after it came out that wealthy Democratic donors were given special privileges and the Party had illegally accepted foreign money. The Act prohibited corporations and unions from donating directly to candidates. However, it did not regulate 527 organizations. Because of this many soft money activities previously funded by parties were now done by 527 groups.

Watch a musical overview of the history of campaign finance below:

How is campaign finance regulated today?

Rules regarding campaign finance continue to change, making many things fair game that were once illegal.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

In a January 2010 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot prohibit corporations and unions from spending money for political purposes. Essentially this allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on campaigns.

In the March 2010 case of Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously ruled there should be no contribution limit to groups that only make independent, uncoordinated expenditures to a campaign.

These rulings led to the rise of super PACs. Super PACs are known formally as “independent-expenditure only committees” because they cannot make contributions directly to candidates but instead spend on political advocacy independently of campaigns. Unlike regular PACs, these super PACs have no legal limit to the funds they can raise from various groups, provided they are operated correctly.

Watch the story of Citizens United v. FEC below:

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

In April 2014, a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court struck down caps on what individuals can contribute to federal candidates in any two-year election cycle because they restrict the democratic process and violate the First Amendment.

Public Funding

At the federal level, public funding is available for presidential campaigns. If a candidate agrees to limit his spending according to a formula, the candidate will receive a matching payment for the first $250 of each individual contribution in the primary campaign. Additionally, the candidate receives financing for the national nominating convention and general election campaign. Candidates have to qualify for funding by privately raising $5,000 in at least 20 states. If a candidate refuses matching funds, she is free to spend as much money as she raises privately. In the 2012 election no major candidate opted to take public funds since candidates can typically raise and spend more on their own. The price of a winning election today has made public funding near obsolete.

What are the arguments surrounding campaign finance reform?

Many of the Supreme Court justices who ruled on recent campaign finance cases decided that spending money for political purposes is equivalent to free speech and should be protected by the First Amendment. The same reasoning extends to corporations, in citing that corporations are made up of individuals and should enjoy the same political rights as individuals. Those who argue for fewer donation restrictions cite their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Opponents argue the lack of restrictions gives the wealthiest unfair influence over the government. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) told Retro Report, “If money is free speech, then the wealthiest people in America are those that get to speak the most freely.”

For example, a study by the Sunlight Foundation found that just one percent of the top one percent of the United States population accounted for 28 percent of all disclosed contributions in the 2012 elections. In a statement Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) echoed these findings: “The American people are angry that a billionaire can dole out $3.6 million to influence an election — meanwhile, it would take a full-time minimum wage worker 239 years to make that much money.”

Most take issue with the rapid expansion of dark money to organizations under a 501(c)(4) designation by the IRS. 501(c)(4)s are defined as social welfare organizations and are tax-exempt. However, these organizations are allowed to participate in political campaigns so long as their primary purpose is promoting social welfare. Examples of these organizations include the Sierra Club, NAACP, and National Rifle Association.

These organizations do not have to disclose spending on political activity nor the names of donors unless they donate expressly for political advocacy. The use of these organizations for political advocacy has contributed to a sharp rise in outside spending without disclosure. A 2011 report by the Center for Responsive Politics found that since the 2006 midterms, spending from groups that do not disclose donors rose from one percent to 47 percent. Many cite large donations by these groups as a form of legal bribery, with the expectation of political favors following each donation.

Are there new developments in campaign finance?

Many Democrats in Congress have called for an amendment to undo the Citizens United ruling, but that seems very unlikely to happen. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) proposed an amendment to undo the Citizens United case and instead allow Congress to regulate political money. Numerous Senate Democrats signed on. Harry Reid vowed to bring the measure to the floor, but most agree it has little chance of passing.

Democrats introduced a DISCLOSE Act in 2010, 2012, and again in 2014, which would require organizations that spend $10,000 or more in an election cycle to disclose their expenditures and major donors. Republicans have opposed such bills from the standpoint that they give an unfair advantage to their Democratic opponents. Learn more about the DISCLOSE Act below:

The amount of money spent in elections continues to grow at an alarming rate. The Center for Responsive Politics predicts almost $4 billion will be spent in the 2014 midterm elections, making it the most expensive midterm ever. While the 2010 midterm cost $3.6 billion, 2014 will run an estimated $333 million beyond that. Candidates and parties will spend roughly $2.7 billion, but the explosion of outside money continues to significantly influence the races. Outside groups like super PACs and 527s are expected to spend $900 million on their own. Overall, conservative candidates and groups are projected to outspend liberal candidates and groups by $1.92 billion to $1.76 billion. Expect even more money, especially from outside groups, to come flowing in to the 2016 presidential election.

While there may not be action at the national level, 16 states and more than 500 municipalities have called for a constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform. Yet both sides agree getting rid of dark money and enacting reform will not happen any time soon. Little change will happen without a large, Watergate-esque scandal to bring true reform to campaign finance.

Resources

Primary

FEC: Campaign Finance Reports and Data

SCOTUS: Buckley v Valeo

SCOTUS: McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

FEC: Public Funding of Presidential Elections

Additional

The New York Times: The Cost of Campaigns

Politico: Waiting for the Next Watergate

NCSL: Campaign Finance Reform: An Overview

NPR: A Century of U.S. Campaign Finance Law

Washington Post: Campaign Finance: Special Report

Atlantic: Making Sense of McCain-Feingold and Campaign Finance Reform

Washington Times: No Major Takers for Federal Campaign Funds

Open Secrets: Super PACs

Sunlight Foundation: The Political 1% of the 1% in 2012

The New York Times: Milking the Money Machine

Open Secrets: Citizens United Decision Profoundly Affects Political Landscape

Mass Live: Senate Democrats Pushing Campaign Finance Transparency

Alexandra Stembaugh

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

The post Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence? appeared first on Law Street.

A lawyer in Atlanta recently got first-hand experience with a pretty intense double standard. Stacy Ehrisman-Mickle, an immigration attorney in Atlanta, was publicly humiliated by a judge for having to bring her child to court.

Ehrisman-Mickle recently gave birth to an infant. She was entitled to six weeks of maternity leave, despite the fact that she did have a busy schedule of hearings and court proceedings. After her child was born, she tried to move some of the hearings scheduled during her maternity leave, using a doctor’s note to show why. All the judges and opposing attorneys complied with her motions to continue, with the exception of one — Judge J. Dan Pelletier Sr. He denied her request to move the hearing, saying she had no good cause.

So, Ehrisman-Mickle was put in an incredibly tough situation. She had a one-month-old baby, her husband was out of town for work, she had no family in the area, the child was too young for daycare, and she had just moved to town so she hadn’t found a babysitter yet. Essentially, she was left with a horrible choice — do her job or take care of her kid.

Luckily Ehrisman-Mickle was able to talk to her pediatrician who said that as long as she took appropriate precautions, she could show up that day with her baby strapped to her chest. All went relatively well, until the child started to cry, and Ehrisman-Mickle had to calm her down. At this point, Pelletier started scolding her for bringing her child to court. According to Ehrisman-Mickle,

When the [immigration judge] saw me with my daughter, he was outraged. He then questioned my mothering skills, as he commented how my pediatrician must be appalled that I am exposing my daughter to so many germs in court.

Ehrisman-Mickle was humiliated, and understandably so. There are a lot of serious problems with what happened to her — let’s start at the beginning.

The fact that she was not allowed the motion to continue. Motions to continue are very routine, as long as you can show that you have a good reason to file it. Most judges view having a child as a good reason, along with family emergencies and the like. Another requirement is that it’s rescheduled so that only a reasonable amount of time passes. Given that Ehrisman-Mickle only had six weeks of maternity leave to begin with, it’s clear that she could probably could have easily rescheduled the hearing to a different date that fell within the reasonable amount of time requirement.

Pelletier was unreasonable to deny the request, to be sure. But his public shaming of Ehrisman-Mickle is even worse — it’s ridiculous and unprofessional. There were other lawyers in the room with her when she was embarrassed who backed up her story. One of them talked to the Guardian confirming her story, but asked to not be named in hopes that Pelletier wouldn’t find out that it was him.

What happened to Ehrisman-Mickle was disgusting, but it shouldn’t be considered particularly surprising or even unusual. Maternity leave polices in the United States are pretty much accepted as being awful and outdated. We’re one of only a few countries that don’t have paid maternity leave, and the amount of time we give is almost laughably unproductive. That means that women are often put in situations like Ehrisman-Mickle’s, and sometimes they don’t even have the ability to consider taking their child to their job, or the access to a pediatrician to make sure that it would be ok to do so.

Ehrisman-Mickle has filed a complaint against Pelletier, and as of the time this story broke onto the national news scene, had not heard anything further.

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 Lawyer Admonished by Judge After Bringing Baby to Court appeared first on Law Street.

On September 13 2014, 18-year-old University of Virginia student Hannah Graham went missing, and recently authorities arrested and charged 32-year-old Jesse L. Matthew Jr. in relation to the incident. His current charge is described as abduction with intent to defile in the case of Graham. (Intent to defile meaning he intended to sexually assault the victim.) Matthew is currently being held without bond and is scheduled for a hearing in early December. Unfortunately, after two weeks of searching, Graham has still not been found, but authorities are doing all they can to locate her.

This case is a tragedy and my heart goes out to Graham’s family and friends. One of the hardest things to understand in this case is recently surfaced reports alleging that Matthew has a history of sexual assault accusations, none of which ended in conviction. According to The Washington Post,

The alleged assaults occurred within an 11-month span from 2002 to 2003 as Jesse L. “LJ” Matthew Jr. moved from Liberty University in Lynchburg to Christopher Newport University in Newport News. Police investigated each report, but neither resulted in a criminal case, according to the Lynchburg prosecutor and a review of online court records in Newport News.

If the allegations of these cases from over a decade ago are true, and with minimal knowledge of the reasoning surrounding the dropped charges, it is hard not to wonder why Matthew got away with such crimes not once, but twice before harming another innocent young girl? These alleged incidents occurred while Matthew was a student attending university, and although legislation and public discourse surrounding campus sexual assault has been under the miscroscope in recent months, I cannot help but wonder how we can act to prevent this loophole?

This case is reminiscent of another sexual assault case with similar characteristics.  In 1996 Amie Zyla, an 8-year-old girl, was sexually molested and victimized by family friend Joshua Wade who was 14 years old at the time. Wade was adjudicated for a misdemeanor in juvenile court. Nine years later, Wade was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for a series of sexual molestation cases involving the abuse of young children. This case caused huge controversy, and was the driving force behind expansions in the definition of sexual assault.

These two cases indicate the importance of people’s histories and backgrounds. We all make mistakes, and sometimes it is wrong for our privacy to be intruded upon, but with something like sexual assault cases — regardless of whether there has been a conviction — something about this needs to be mentioned. It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to understand how hard it can be to convict a perpetrator of sexual assault. There is often a lack of witnesses on top of fear and upset from the victim; with a case dependent on DNA testing, the odds are very slim. Just because cases may not be tried in court — like Matthew’s two alleged college incidents — it does not mean that they didn’t happen and are not warning signs for things to come.

The media has spent its energy publicizing Matthew’s past. This runs a risk of setting off stricter registration laws for sexual offenders, which have proven to do more harm than good. By broadcasting the background of a perpetrator who was in society seemingly living normally until his arrest for the disappearance of a young girl, I question whether the media is supporting the need to find Graham and bring her home safely, or whether it is striking the ‘stranger danger’ rape myth back into society?

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 The Case of Hannah Graham and the Myth of Stranger Danger appeared first on Law Street.