Let’s Start Off With Something Political

Lesson learned: don’t let your college roommate and law school professor swap stories about you. pic.twitter.com/lWuEKP0kHE

— Rep. Joe Kennedy III (@RepJoeKennedy) May 18, 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.

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.

Tuesday marked an important day for the Arizona State University community; particularly those associated with ASU’s Law School. Since its inception in 1965, the Sandra Day O’ Connor College of Law has remained where ASU’s main campus is, in Tempe, Arizona. However the construction of the new $129 million law school building in downtown Phoenix has been underway since July 2014. On June 9, the final beam was hoisted atop a six-story building under construction, attesting to the fact that the initial plans for the building’s completion by 2016 are still very alive.

Dozens of residents, council members, community leaders, law school faculty, and many more crowded at the foundation of the structure on Tuesday. One by one they signed their names and the date on a large piece of steel meant to complete the final piece of the foundation. The crowd cheered away as if at a Cardinals vs. Seahawks game as the massive section was hoisted up by crane and carried to its place six stories up.

Located in downtown Phoenix, the new location of the law school could not be more ideal. With more than 12 major law firms located within walking distance of the new campus, students will have even more networking and job opportunities than ever before. In a press release, the school’s president, Michael M. Crow, stated the following:

Having the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law in downtown Phoenix fits perfectly with ASU’s mission of building strong learning and career connections with media, health care, corporate and government organizations for the more than 11,500 students at the downtown campus.

The new location is set to have high-tech equipment and state-of-the-art facilities with the goal of taking teaching and learning to a new level. Amid the 280,000 square foot structure, students can expect a brand new Ross Blakely Law Library, two think tanks, multiple centers with cross-disciplinary focus, and also the new ASU Alumni Law Group, the first teaching law firm associated with a law school. The new law school will also feature one large lecture hall for undergraduate students, as well as cafes and restaurants on the first floor.

Funding for the new law school comes from a combination of donors and alumni, as well as $12 million and land from the city of Phoenix. Local Phoenix attorney Leo Beus and his wife Annette donated $10 million to the effort.

As witnessed Tuesday on site, the majority of the ASU community is thrilled about the new location for the Sandra Day O’ Connor Law School. Despite having established a well known presence and fostered a home within the learning environment for thousands of students throughout its 50 years at Tempe, those affiliated with the school view the construction as a positive change. Many alumni expressed that as long as the College of Law maintains the same standards and ensures that the Armstrong name is honored–the current law school sits in Armstrong Hall– the new location for the law school is a big leap forward.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arizona State’s Sandra Day O’Connor Law School Finds New Home in Phoenix appeared first on Law Street.

To blog about such a controversial topic like the use and possession of guns in the United States is something I want to tread carefully with. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion surrounding the debate, but this week I could not help but question the legality of guns when coming across two particular cases.

On Thursday, Don Spirit killed his six grandchildren, aged from three months to 10 years old, and his daughter before turning the gun on himself. Spirit, whose case has been described as a murder-suicide, was someone who had already been involved in the criminal justice system. According to Fox:

In 2001, Spirit pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, after he fatally shot his 8-year-old son in the head in a hunting accident. Spirit, who also was convicted in 1998 for felony possession of marijuana, was sentenced to three years in prison for the shooting.

The details of the investigation are still in the very early stages, so it is hard to understand the motive — if there was one — the facts surrounding Spirit’s mental health, and his relationship with the victims. Aside from knowing these facts, I cannot help but wonder how Spirit even managed to have a gun after being convicted of a shooting in 2001? Gun accessibility legislation for ex-convicts really needs to be reconsidered in light of this case.

What I feel a lot of people fail to recognize is that the most common method of suicide in the United States is through the use of guns. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2011 there were 39,518 deaths by suicide. An overwhelming amount of these deaths (19,990) were the result of firearms.  If we are a country that aims to protect our citizens and the rights of others, surely we should look out for ourselves just as much? If we have such easy accessibility to the weapons of our choice that could end our lives, should we not reconsider the laws surrounding them? Do not get me wrong, I am more than aware that the black market for firearms is an ever-growing underground business, but if we cannot efficiently manage the legal selling and keeping of licensed handguns, we have no hope to stop the illegal sales and handlings.

My point needs to be extended to the safety of those living with others who have access to guns. On the same day as the tragic deaths resulting from Spirit’s heinous act, a fifth grade boy was arrested in Michigan after being found to have stolen his grandfather’s pistol. Not only was the boy found with the gun, but he had also created a list of names in the back of his homework book of people he allegedly planned to harm. As a result of this discovery, the boy has been suspended from school for ten days, and could face possible expulsion. Again, this could be my criminological thinking coming out, but I cannot help but wonder whether this punishment will actually solve the problem of what the boy intended to do? I certainly do not think he should be given jail time, or any formal sentence, but I do think that he needs to be aware of just how serious his actions were. Why? Because if he is not aware of it, what is to stop him doing it all over again, and just being more careful.

I fear that in a culture where are part of normality, when conflict arises in such intense situations, sometimes the only resolution seems to be in the form of violence via the use of weapons. I personally do not think this reflects on the attitudes and actions of those involved in this violence, I think it is the instinct that they have been taught their entire lives, to protect themselves in an extremely lethal way. In order to enact firmer laws that protect our safety, we have to start working on understanding the reason for such laws. As someone who is British, and not used to the debate on the use of guns, one of the main things I have come to realize is that it is a right for US citizens to own a gun, and by restricting this right through legislation, essentially the country contradicts all it stands for. As hard as it is to stand back from what an entire population believes in, more awareness needs to be raised toward the consequences of guns, not just for now, but for the future.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Auraelius via Flickr]

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 Two More Disturbing Gun Cases Beg the Question When Will We Change? appeared first on Law Street.

Right on the heels of  the Ray Rice domestic violence incident, NFL star Adrian Peterson was charged with negligent injury to a child. Known for being the best running back for the Minnesota Vikings, Peterson allegedly punished his 4-year-old son by whipping him with a tree branch, leaving cuts and bruises on the boy’s legs, backs, buttocks, hand and scrotum.

This subject is something I am really passionate about, and I was in absolute shock when Peterson gave a statement to the police following the incident claiming he felt confident in his actions, and is thankful for what spanking has done to him in his life. Each parent is responsible for choosing the way he or she disciplines his or her child, but if we start to say spanking is acceptable, how will we ever be able to set boundaries and limits? In typical NFL handling of these cases, Peterson was suspended from a game and no further action is being taken until the official police investigation is complete.

Last week I referenced the punishment for the father of a child who died as a result of being left in a hot car. That father was charged with murder. In the case of Adrian Peterson, I ask you what would happen if Peterson gave one more hit as opposed to the 10-15 lashes his poor child received, and that final hit resulted in the child’s death? Would he be let off because he didn’t intend to hurt the child? Would it be accepted like it is now, because that’s the way he grew up and spanking does “good”? I find it appalling that excuses are being made to justify what allows parents to discipline their children in this way.

Legislation is proposed all the time to stop acts of abuse toward children, and yet this incident has the potential to make parents think it’s OK to discipline their children in this way. I do not doubt that Peterson is telling the truth when he claims his intentions were harmless, but I do doubt that he feels any kind of remorse or is aware that his actions were wrong. In 2013, Peterson’s other two-year-old son was killed by his ex-girlfriend’s partner. Although Peterson had only found out about the child three months prior to his tragic death, one would have thought it would make him change his own actions.

All it takes is one hit in the wrong area, or with a certain amount of force, to cause serious harm and fall under the realm of child abuse. NFL players have the responsibility not only to be great athletes but also to be good role models. With the influx of recent incidents involving NFL players and their mistreatment of the law, I worry what effect this will have on the general public. Yes people make mistakes, yes people can change, but we should not be encouraging this behavior by making excuses. Each article I read about Rice and Peterson is drenched in excuse after excuse, each justifying the simple fact that these acts are wrong. In my opinion, if these acts of abuse were done by anyone else not in the public eye, I can guarantee the punishment would be a lot different.

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 There Is No Excuse for Child Abuse, Not Even for Adrian Peterson appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hannah Kaye

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

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

Journalist Mignon McLaughlin once said that “a sense of humor is a major defense against minor troubles.” However, in the legal world, the inverse is often shown to be true: a sense of humor is only a minor defense against major troubles.

When pleading insanity just seems too mundane, creative criminal defendants come up with some unusual defenses to prove their innocence; but, funny as these may be, do they actually work? Maybe sometimes, but let’s look at two such defenses that most likely will never lead to an innocent verdict.

Fat Men Can’t Murder

In 2006, the ironically named Edward Ates was accused of driving from Florida to New Jersey to kill his son-in-law. Even though the prosecution painted Ates as a competent marksman with some military experience, said he had been doing online research on how to kill, submitted a conversation he had with his sister in which they went over the timeline of events, and had his own sister testify that her brother had her lie to the police about where he was at the time of the murder, his attorney said Ates could not possibly be the killer.

But why?

Well, for one, the damning military experience turned out to be a desk job. Also, apparently people with too much time on their hands often pick up hobbies — up to and including researching methods to commit murder. Oh yeah, and did I mention he was really, really fat? Because that’s important.

You, like the defense, might be asking yourself how a man who weighed 300 pounds at only 5’8” could possibly drive for 21 hours straight, walk up four steps, and still manage to hold a gun straight. My guess is that it was just the adrenaline rush you get in exciting situations; instead of suddenly being able to lift a car off a child, perhaps this guy was able to make a short climb in order to get rid of someone who must have been — assuming guilt here — a real nuisance in his life. The defense, on the other hand, apparently wouldn’t have bought my potential solution. According to them, there was no way this man could have successfully completed such a physically taxing feat, and thus he must be innocent.

As it turns out, the jury at this trial didn’t buy the obesity defense and the fat man was convicted of first degree murder.

(This case actually made it on appeal to New Jersey’s highest court in States vs. Ates, 217 N.J. 253 (2014), but it got there on the merits of whether the admitted evidence of the wiretapped call between Ates and his sister was legal in the state of New Jersey — not on whether obesity is a legitimate legal defense. The high court concluded that the evidence was admissible, and the verdict stands.)

Good Jokes Aren’t Illegal

Did you hear the one about the man who “accidentally” poured gasoline on his nag of a wife and then pulled out a lighter and tried to light it — all while winking at his young son? Do you get the punch line? I don’t, but there must be one somewhere in there or otherwise the defense that this all happened “as a joke” just wouldn’t make sense.

I am the type of person who likes to find humor in life. I am always up for a good joke, whether knock-knock or practical. However, Khemraj Samlall’s recent “prank” just seems to have fallen flat.

This all started when Samlall got home really late, or rather really early, one morning and, as is not surprising, when he arrived, he was a little drunk. His wife was not thrilled. She berated him for his actions; he threatened her with a knife in front of her child, went and got a gas can, doused her in gas (not on purpose according to him), and then pulled out a lighter. Basically, tit for tat.

According to him, this was all done as a joke. Are you laughing as hard as he apparently was? As the events mentioned above only happened recently, there has yet to be a trial, though Samlall has been accused of “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill.” And while I normally try to keep my legal opinions to myself, I feel pretty confident that I know how this defense will work out for Samlall if he can find an attorney willing to try it: if nobody laughs at your joke, it probably isn’t funny.

Justice Scalia once said, “I don’t want a competent lawyer. I want a lawyer who’s going to get me off.” United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006). However, if your counsel — or intended defense — is neither competent nor likely to work, maybe you should move on to plan B.

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashs) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured image courtesy of [Divine Harvester via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dubious Defenses: When Humor and the Court Just Don’t Mix appeared first on Law Street.

As the highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court is viewed as having the greatest authority over the interpretation of the law. It is often assumed that when the court issues a decision, the ruling marks the final word on the legal question proposed. However, something that many citizens might not know is that the Supreme Court decisions can be altered after their publication without public notice.

Richard J. Lazarus, professor of law at Harvard University, has written an article set for publication in the December 2014 Harvard Law Review that exposes the Supreme Court’s practice of editing and changing opinions after they are initially published. He states that the Court’s decisions do include a statement in small text that reads, “this opinion is subject to formal revision before publication.” However, in many cases, these changes are not simple edits, and the court does not make a public notification of these additions or deletions from opinions.

This practice of editing court opinions is by no means new: the Supreme Court has been altering the wording of its decisions since the early days of its existence. Indeed, some of the most famous rulings have been edited after they were issued. The 1857 Dred Scott case, for example, received an additional 18 pages written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who wrote the majority opinion for the case. More recently, the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, which significantly struck down a Texas law against sodomy, was altered: a sentence written in Sandra Day O’Connor‘s concurring opinion was struck in which she had stated that Justice Antonin Scalia “apparently agrees that […] Texas’ sodomy law would not pass scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.” In these cases and so many others, justices have changed the wording, added or deleted sentences, and made other edits to their opinions without the notification of these alterations. Something here doesn’t seem right.

3 reasons why these discrete changes are problematic:

1. It can cause discrepancies in understanding the law.

Law professors rely on many court decisions in their instruction. If changes to court decisions are not announced, these professors continue to teach and discuss older versions of court decisions that may have undergone important edits. How can professors properly instruct the next generation of lawyers and lawmakers if they do not have access to the most recently updated copies of case law? Additionally, lawyers also need to have the correct version of court cases at their disposal in order to use Supreme Court decisions as precedents for their current cases.

2. Failing to notify what changes were made in the final draft of a decision does not allow for uniformity of the law.

The fact that the court makes unpublicized changes to the law leads to a number of different versions of court decisions, which can become confusing. Supreme Court decisions are extremely important: as the highest judicial body in the nation, the Supreme Court can, through its rulings, overturn decisions by lower courts and declare laws at the local, state, and national level unconstitutional. After the Supreme Court reaches a decision, government at all levels in the United States must comply with the Court’s ruling and make the necessary changes to the law. However, in order to do so, there needs to be a uniform understanding of what the Supreme Court has ruled.

The fact that the court makes discreet changes to the law without public notification allows for different renditions of their decisions to circulate. Some who pay close attention to the court may realize that a ruling’s wording has changed, but many websites continue to have older versions of court rulings. The copy of O’Connor’s concurring opinion on the Cornell Law website, for example, still contains the sentence that, as previously explained, has been admitted. The fact that even law websites exhibit older versions of cases is troubling.

3. The public deserves to be made aware of any changes to the interpretation of law that could affect them.

The Court not publicly announcing when edits are made to its decisions provides yet another example of the lack of government transparency. Even though the court notes that its decisions are subject to change, it is hard for average citizen to realize when edits are made unless the Court announces them. And while many of these changes constitute simple word changes, it could also be the case that the court could make a substantial addition to a case that could affect the livelihoods of Americans. Even something as simple as the addition or deletion of a few words could change the way a phrase in a decision is interpreted, and this could be crucial in Americans’ understanding of the law.

Unfortunately, there is no law or mechanism that can force the supreme judicial body to publicize these changes. However, the court should still choose to do so, and some justices of recent times such as Harry Blackman realized that the Court “operates on a strange and ‘reverse’ basis, where the professional editing is done after initial public release.” To preserve the credibility of their institution, it is incumbent upon justices to publicize their changes

[NY Times] [Harvard Law] [Cornell Law]

—

Sarah Helden (@sheldren430)

Featured image courtesy of [Kenudigit via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

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

The post 3 Reasons Why the Supreme Court Needs To Publicize Its Edits appeared first on Law Street.

It goes without saying that bullying is a condemnable practice and that it remains a crucial problem to solve in this country. But can we really punish children for bullying with the law?

A bill, which ultimately failed during a final vote held on May 20, would have made bullying a criminal offense in Carson, California. Jim Dear, the mayor of Carson, wanted to designate his city as a bully-free zone. Dear and the city council supported a bill that would have made bullying a misdemeanor for culprits that are 25 and under. The ordinance imposed a fine on those convicted of the misdemeanor. Mayor Dear felt that this measure would help to prevent bullying.

Two reasons why the bill failed:

1. The language used was extremely vague, making the bill hard to interpret. The bill did not define bullying, and it’s lack of specifications as to what actions constitute bullying was worrisome to many. The ambiguous language could have allowed law enforcement officers to determine that bullying had occurred at their own discretion.

2. Many members of the Carson community expressed concerns over the measure’s application to young children, noting that elementary school children are still beginning to develop and cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their actions.

But while the measure failed, the fact that it was close to passing puts great importance on the matter of whether ordinances against bullying should be enacted into law. Moreover, although the Carson bill did not pass, a similar measure in Florida will soon be put to a vote.

Controversy: should bullying be considered a criminal offense?

Susan Porter, author of Bully Nation, thinks not. Porter, a seasoned educator and counselor, debated the issue with Mayor Dear on a public radio station in California. In her book, Ms. Porter expressed that through her experience in schools, she found that increasingly harsh anti-bullying policies in schools did not decrease the amount of bullying in schools but made the situation worse. She claimed that school policies labeled children as bullies or victims, and that these children continued to adhere to those roles in the future.

Many anti-bullying policies treat the situations as black and white, attempting to solve the problem by shielding victims rather than working with both children to resolve their conflict in a less harmful way. By focusing on the punishment rather than the problem, the issue of bullying in American schools has yes to be resolved. Given this view on bullying, Ms. Porter argued against Carson’s proposed law, viewing the measure as another method of focusing on the punishment rather than taking steps to prevent children from bullying in the first place.

For more insight into Susan Porter’s argument against anti-bullying laws, check out this interview with her from Reason TV:

Despite Susan Porter’s reasoned argument, many municipalities and cities are still considering anti-bullying laws on the books. In fact, several cities already have, including Milton, Wisconsin. But while Carson’s potential anti-bullying law was met with a great deal of criticism and media attention, Milton’s law, which has been in place for four years, has not had any issues in its enforcement.

What, then, can cities like Carson learn from Milton’s law in shaping anti-bullying policy?

For one thing, Milton’s policy allows for schools to internally handle the first instances of bullying rather than immediately resorting to law enforcement. This can allow schools a chance to work with students to teach them why bullying is wrong rather than simply stating that it is wrong through formal punishment. While schools still need to improve the ways that they handle bullying, allowing the schools to handle offenses first gives them the opportunity to guide children in the error of their ways before they are convicted of bullying. This practice, if coupled with successful school counseling, could lessen the number of bullies that would be formally charged by the law.

Additionally, the policy gives a clearer definition on the kind of practices that constitute severe bullying. Jim Martin, the Milton school policer officer, noted that he “only engages the most severe cases, and draws a sharp distinction between the kind of behavior that requires intervention and the usual push and pull of the schoolyard.” Ensuring that only serious cases of bullying could be brought to court gives a clearer sense of what actions would violate the law and does not put children who name call and those who beat up others into the same category. 

With a clearer definition of what actions make bullying a crime and allowing schools to work with children to teach them about the harm bullying causes rather than immediately punishing them, the Milton law remains a good example of an anti-bullying policy. If cities feel that enacting an ordinance against bullying will help curb the problem in their schools and communities, careful wording must be put into the law to allow for the proper handling of these situations.

[NPR] [SCPR] [Susan Porter] [Desert News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

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

The post New Anti-Bullying Bill: 2 Reasons Why it Failed appeared first on Law Street.

In a last minute stay, Justice Samuel Alito ordered the immediate halt to a Missouri man’s execution. Russell Bucklew, who was convicted of murder, kidnapping, and rape in 1996, was scheduled to be executed Wednesday evening, but his attorneys had successfully appealed to delay the execution on the grounds that the intended drug cocktail can create the same complications as the one used on an Oklahoma death row inmate earlier this month. That execution caused massive controversy after the inmate ended up seizing and having a heart attack instead of the usual quick death.

The Supreme Court usually keeps its nose out of execution cases, which makes Alito’s action very rare. Opponents of the drug mixtures that are currently used on death row inmates may herald this as a victory. Traditional drugs that used to execute inmates are in short supply, forcing prisons to resort to mixing drugs together from companies that are not very anxious to reveal their sources. In a Georgia, the state Supreme Court ruled against a death row inmate suing to find out where his killer drugs were coming from. With that information, the inmate’s lawyers argued, they can then proceed with investigations into whether the drugs being supplied would constitute cruel and unusual punishment; however, the Georgia Supreme Court decided 5-2 that protection from harassment for the pharmaceutical company was more important than the right to know where drugs came from.

With Alito’s stay, capital punishment is set to become the next legal debate on the national stage. As capital punishment continues, there is greater outcry as to why it is acceptable to use shady drugs supplied by anonymous pharmaceutical companies. After all, isn’t it cruel and unusual that inmates are not being told where their killer drugs are coming from? Maybe the Supreme Court can decide.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Ken Piorkowski via Wiipedia].

Dennis Futoryan

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

The post SCOTUS Steps Up Amid Execution Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler revealed his new ‘net neutrality’ proposals yesterday, which essentially approve a fast lane option for companies that want to charge a higher rate for those wishing for a faster Internet based on content. (See our previous coverage on what recent developments mean for you and for startups.) Facing intense opposition, Wheeler needs to show these opposing groups that his proposed rules are part of the principle of net neutrality in the first place: that all content on the Internet will remain free in value.

The problem? The rules gut that principle entirely.

The very fact that allowing certain companies to fast-track their content violates the principle of a fair, open Internet. Wheeler’s justification for allowing the rules to go forward is that there would be regulations watching out for Internet Service Providers intentionally slowing down traffic. While this is also part of a net neutrality ideology, the rules ignore the rampant discrimination inherent in an “Internet fast lane.”

Yesterday’s FCC vote to open the proposals to public comment went largely along party lines. The three Democratic commissioners voted in favor of public comment, while the Republican commissioners voted for only Congressional comment instead and find no legal basis for the Commission to allow the public to weigh in. July 15 is the deadline for initial public comments, followed by the September 10 deadline for responses to those comments.

While this was a partisan vote down the line, the commissioners expressed hesitation for how the process is moving no matter the decision for public comment. “I believe the process that got us to this rule making today is flawed. I would have preferred a delay. I think we moved too fast, to be fair,” said Jessica Rosenworcel, one of the commissioners who voted in favor. Michael O’Reilly, a commissioner who voted against public comment, said, “I have serious concerns that this ill-advised item will create damaging uncertainty and head the commission down a slippery slope of regulation.”

Nevertheless, the FCC is now open to public comments regarding this new proposal. You can send your comment here: http://www.fcc.gov/comments.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Gerd Altmann via Pixabay].

Dennis Futoryan

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

The post The Last Gasps of Net Neutrality appeared first on Law Street.

How many times do we check online reviews of a product before choosing to buy it? Reviews are important for many consumers to make sure they are spending their money on something that is of good quality. But can companies really sue customers for posting a negative review of a product on an online forum?

After posting a negative Amazon review of a Mediabridge brand router, a Florida man recently received a letter from Mediabridge’s lawyers threatening a lawsuit. The company claimed that the review contained false information intended to hurt its reputation and that the man’s statements could be considered slanderous. The company went on to warn that it would sue the man unless he removed his review, stopped purchasing Mediabridge products, and ceased future discussion of the company on the internet.

Can companies really sue individuals over their negative reviews on the internet?

Legal precedent works in favor of the companies. For example, Virginia courts heard a case in 2012 of a similar issue on Yelp and Angie’s List. A retired military captain living in Fairfax County posted a negative review of a contracting service on Yelp and Angie’s List claiming that not only was the service poor, but also that she was billed for services that weren’t performed, and the contractor may have also stolen jewelry. The contractor, Christopher Dietz, sued her for $750,000 for defamatory remarks on an internet review site. Dietz argued that the reviewer’s statements were false and that her negative review impacted his business and reputation. The court held for the contractor. The case was later overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court.

How could this affect consumers?

Providing real insight into the quality of goods and services is the purpose of consumer reviews. It is helpful to read positive reviews in order to make a wise purchase, but negative reviews are also important to warn others of faulty products and poor service. If consumers realize that they can be sued over their critical comments about products, however, many may not be truthful or even write reviews at all anymore. Consumers have a right to know information about the quality of a good o service before they spend their money, but if people are deterred from sharing this information for fear they may create legal trouble for themselves it will become much harder for consumers to make informed decisions.

Can consumer reviews be protected?

Companies like Amazon need to step up to protect their customers. According to Amazon’s terms of use, product sellers are not allowed to demand consumers remove their reviews. These terms are there for a reason: Amazon wants customers to freely critique the items they have purchased through the site. If companies threaten customers with lawsuits over negative reviews, then Amazon needs to step in.

—

Sarah Helden (@SHelden430)

[National Journal] [TIME] [Amazon]

Featured image courtesy of [Wikipedia]

Sarah Helden

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

The post Reviewers Beware: Negative Product Reviews Might Cost You appeared first on Law Street.

Attention public workers: Due to legal precedent, the Supreme Court may not be willing to protect your job if you’re forced to testify against your employer.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 28 in Lane v. Franks, in which Edward Lane, an Alabama state employee, is suing his employer, who he says fired him after he testified against the agency several years ago. The case poses a serious question: does freedom of speech protect public employees from being fired after exposing harmful practices by their employer?

In 2008 and 2009, Lane was subpoenaed to testify in a public corruption case in which his testimony was key in exposing corrupt practices and spurred a major overhaul of the state’s ethics codes. Despite all of that, Lane ultimately harmed himself with his testimony: he was fired from his position as an employee at Central Alabama Community College.

Precedent set in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) likely won’t help Lane’s case. In Garcetti, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a difference between speaking as a public employee and as a citizen, and that when people issue statements about their duties and roles in a public position they are not speaking as an average citizen and therefore they are not protected by freedom of speech. Because of that distinction, public employees cannot be guarded from the disciplinary procedures of their employers.

The Supreme Court should overturn Garcetti v. Ceballos and protect public workers’ free speech — here are three reasons why:

1. Public institutions must be held accountable for their actions.

During oral arguments in Lane v. Franks, Justice Sotomayor asked, “What are you doing about the truth­ finding functions [in a trial] setting when you’re saying or telling people, employees, don’t go and tell the truth because if the truth hurts your employer, you’re going to be fired?” As the justice points out, ruling that employees are not protected by the first amendment when exposing truthful problems about their employer can lessen the degree to which public institutions can be held accountable for improper actions. If the court rules against Lane, public employees, who have the most knowledge of the inner workings of their organizations will be silenced and will not continue to expose the wrongdoings of public institutions. If public employees cannot speak up and tell the truth about these problems, it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to fix the faults in our public institutions.

2. Public and private employees will be treated differently.

If the Supreme Court’s differentiation between rights of free speech between citizens and public employees is upheld, the U.S. will effectively treat public and private employees differently. Private employees will be treated as ‘citizens’ and will be guaranteed freedom of speech in exposing their employer’s unlawful practices, while public employees will not be given this right. The fact that some, but not all, employees will have freedom of speech is discriminatory and unjust. All American citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech no matter their race, religion, or gender — and this should include type of employment.

3. Subpoenaed public employees have no choice but to testify.

If the court rules against Lane, public employees may have to choose between their jobs and a legal battle. Lane was subpoenaed to testify against Central Alabama Community College. This means it was mandated that he appear before the court to give his testimony, and failing to do so would have put him in serious legal trouble. Additionally, it is against the law to lie under oath, and if Lane had been subpoenaed to testify but issued false statements to protect his employment, he would also face legal charges. This presents a lose-lose situation for public employees. If subpoenas require a citizen’s testimony in court, public employees should not be faulted for following the law. Being forced to testify should not enable one to be fired.

When such important cases can affect the lives of so many Americans, the justices have a duty to make a sound and reasoned decision. But will they be able to do so if some of them can’t recall their own previous decisions? Justice Kennedy, who wrote the Garcetti opinion, couldn’t believe why a subpoenaed testimony wouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment. In order to give justice to Lane and other public employees, the court needs to pay attention to how their earlier decisions can affect later outcomes.

[Washington Post] [ABA Journal] [NPR]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Daderot via Wikimedia Commons]

Sarah Helden

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

The post 3 Reasons Why the Supreme Court Must Protect Public Workers appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

The Court’s Reasoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Atlantic] [POLITICO] [The Guardian]

—

Sarah Helden

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

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

Last week, an uproar over General Mills’ new legal terms caused a great deal of commotion, so much so that the company reversed the changes within a few days. While things have calmed down, it is nevertheless important to examine what could have been a dangerous change to consumer legal rights. 

General Mills, a major company in the food industry, recently underwent a change in its legal terms on Thursday, April 17. The affect the changes had on consumers was extremely unfair.  Under the new legal terms of General Mills, consumers that interact with the company in ways such as downloading a coupon from a website, joining their group on Facebook, enter a sweepstakes, or other such actions would have to give up their right to sue the company. Instead, costumers would be forced to solve their disputes with the company through arbitration or negotiation. Clever, right?

When asked to comment about the new policy, General Mills spokesperson Mike Siemienas noted that buying a General Mills product or ‘liking’ one of the company’s pages on Facebook would not bar an individual from suing. However, he did note that if someone liked a page in order to download a coupon, that action would constitute as ‘joining the General Mills online community’ and the right to sue would be forfeited.

Thankfully, the added language to General Mills’ legal terms evoked a strong response from consumers of the company’s brands. People took to the internet to protest the changes, and their efforts did not go without notice. It only took a few days for General Mills to revert back to their old legal terms and issuing an apology about the changes to consumers‘ rights.

If these changes were so unpopular, what could have prompted the company to issue new legal terms in the first place?

Recently, General Mills had to pay large sums of money for losses in legal suits. For example, the company paid a sum of 8.5 million dollars over a lawsuit involving the Yoplait brand’s product Yoplus. In response, the company tried to prevent other cases by preventing many of its consumers from being able to sue. The tactic here, called ‘forced arbitration,’ aims to minimize the costs of legal action taken against a company. If the General Mills’ legal changes had stayed in place, the policy would have prevented many consumers from filing suit against the company in court. Those who took such actions that would prevent them from suing under the policy would have had to enter into arbitration to settle their claim. Under forced arbitration, the arbitrator’s decision is binding, and so consumers would have also lost any chance of appeal. Moreover, under forced arbitration, individuals are not permitted to sue, enter into a class action law suit, or appeal any decision that has been reached.

It is fortunate that General Mills decided to rescind their new legal changes; however, the example is but one among many actions companies that have taken to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. While it is important to note that the voice of angry consumers can evoke changes in company policies, there are other laws and policies in effect that limit consumer legal rights.

In 2008, a Whataburger in Texas placed a sign on their window saying that once customers entered, they forfeit the right to sue the company. While this is perhaps an extreme example, there are many other companies that contain clauses in their legal terms that prevent customers from suing and entering into class action lawsuits. Public Citizen, a consumer advocate non-profit, lists on their website companies that contain such clauses in their legal terms. Among the many corporations are Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Wells Fargo, American Express, Dell, Toshiba, Starbucks, Netflix, and the list continues.

It is alarming that there are so many companies operating in this country that contain provisions in their legal terms that basically prevent consumers from exercising their rights. When consumers enter into forced arbitration with these companies to settle claims, they are placed into binding agreements with arbitrators who usually take the company’s side.

Non-profits such as Public Citizen can only do so much to counter the tactics of large corporations. That is why it is encouraging that the response from angry consumers forced General Mills to back down on its new legal policy. The fact that so many people were outraged over the changes caused the company to realize that these legal changes could have resulted in a loss of many consumers. This example shows that consumers do have power to fight back against unfair legal policies. If people continue to band together and withhold business from companies with such policies, other changes could be forthcoming.

[New York Times] [The Atlantic] [NACA] [CNN Money] [Public Citizen]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [ GeneralMills via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

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

The post A Worrisome Precendent for Consumer Legal Rights appeared first on Law Street.

In trying to impress at my job, I’ve noticed a shift in priorities. Gone are the days where I have time to do back-to-back classes at my gym and then go for a run. Instead, I spend much of my free time thinking about work or working. #worklifebalance

I still try to eat healthily, but the reality is that when I’m stressed out I become a garbage disposal. It’s not pretty and I’m not proud of it. For years, I’ve relied on my metabolism to get me through these binges. At the ripe age of 27 (almost 28…sheesh), my body is rebelling. My body is a traitor.

The treasonous activity started about two weeks ago, when I walked into my apartment from work. There are lots of mirrors in my place (I’m vain), and as I passed one in the entryway to my bedroom I peripherally noticed that my stomach entered the room before I did.

Okay, so maybe I’ve been “too busy” to go to the gym.  Maybe I’ve discovered a delicious pizza place that delivers to my apartment.  Maybe I thought calories, much like the moon landing, were fictitious.*

Whatever the case, I am getting perilously close to chunky town, and I have worked too hard to go back! Correct: I’ve forgotten where I came from!

I’ve started a new regimen though, so salvation isn’t too far (hopefully).  Once I came to terms with my fledgling obesity, I decided to make Michelle Obama proud and get fit!

I’m back to working out before work, which means waking up before the sun rises. Ugh. I’ve also started a meal delivery plan, which I plan to use for the next three to four months. Double ugh (Yes I recognize that these steps are extreme, but I’m the #ManInMiami, there is pressure here!).

I guess the moral of this story is the pursuit of greatness at work has tipped the work-life balance scales, which resulted in a ten-pound weight gain and the unfortunate protrusion of my stomach.

Please note that I’m going to be a very unhappy camper for the next few months. Why, you ask?

*the moon landing is totally real!

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII

Featured image courtesy of  [Alan Cleaver via Wikipedia]; As always, .gifs from RealityTVgifs

Peter Davidson II

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

The post These Pounds Aren’t Loyal appeared first on Law Street.

Whether its for spring break, summer vacation, or anything in between, Florida remains a top destination for vacationers in the U.S. Miami is perhaps one of the most frequented cities for this reason. Miami is a great city to vacation in for twenty somethings: not only are there beaches, but Miami boasts one of the best night life scenes in the country. It’s no surprise that the city attracts a variety of people. But whether you are planning a trip to Miami or even considering a move to this Florida city, it’s important to know what laws are on the books in order to have a fun but safe time there.

Drinking Laws

When you’re going to Florida to vacation and you’re 21 or older, odds are you would be interested in consuming alcoholic beverages. Here are some things you might want to know about Miami’s alcohol policy:

• There is an open container law on the books. Miami maybe a party town, but it certainly isn’t NOLA. Getting caught with an open container could result in a fine of 50 dollars. According to the Miami News Times, this regulation isn’t very heavily enforced. But unless you want to lose some money, it’s better to finish up that drink inside.
• Purchasing alcohol: In most counties of Florida, the sale of alcohol on Sunday is prohibited. However, in Miami-Dade county, liquor stores are allowed to remain open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You can therefore buy alcohol at any time if you are of age, but stay safe!

The Beach

Miami is famous for its coastline, and a visit to Miami isn’t complete without spending some time relaxing by the ocean. Here are some important things you should know about the use of Miami’s beaches:

• The beach does close. Miami Beach is closed from 12 AM to 5 AM. And this law will be enforced. So if you were planning on taking a dip in the middle of the night, you’d better make other arrangements.
• There are also specific hours when a life guard is on duty. Miami beaches’ hours happen to be from 9:30AM to 6PM. While the beach is open during times when no lifeguard is present, it is highly advised that beach goers swim when a lifeguard is on duty.
• It should also be known that cans of any kind, alcoholic or otherwise, are prohibited on the beach. Styrofoam containers are also unlawful to have with you while on the beach. The Miami News Times noted that individual had been given a fifty dollar fine for the possession of a Diet Coke can and a styrofoam container while on the beach, so this law is enforced. It may seem more economical to bring your own snacks and beverages to the beach, but treat yourself to a lunch in a cafe instead.

Pets

Moving to the area and have a pet or looking to get one? Make sure you don’t violate these rules:

• In Miami Dade County, pets must not be chained or tethered outside without you present. This means you can’t keep your dog tied to a pole while you eat lunch in a restaurant. So if you’re running errands or meeting friends for a meal, keep Fido at home.
• Dogs have to wear tags at all times and must be registered yearly.
• You cannot take your pet on a bus or train without the animal being kept in a cage or carrier.

Florida State-Wide Laws

Miami residents and visitors should also respect state-wide laws. Miami-goers should be considerate of these laws as well, including:

• No texting while driving. A new law took effect in October that outlaws texting while operating a vehicle, making Florida the 41st state with this law on the books.
• Concealed weapons: Florida is a unique state in that it allows concealed weapons to be carried with a license. This isn’t to say that you should go to Florida to carry around a gun for fun, but rather it’s a warning to stay extra careful.

There are many other laws to take note of while traveling or moving to Miami, Florida, but this is a starting guide. Miami is a great city, and knowing the laws of the city and state of Florida can help you to have a fun and risk-free visit.

[Miami News Times] [Legal Beer] [Miami Beach] [Miami Dade] [Miami Herald]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Marc Averette via Wikipedia]

Sarah Helden

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

The post Traveling to Miami: Here Are the Legal Need to Knows appeared first on Law Street.

Thanks to petty politics, your local federal court may be lacking in the positions that it needs most to address citizens’ grievances: trial judges.

When it comes to federal court vacancies, the president has an obligation to respect senatorial courtesy, meaning that the president asks the senior senator of his political party to recommend a nominee for an open seat in the district court of his or her state. While this unwritten precedent usually does not extend to senators of the opposite political party, the president may also wish to consult senators of the other party so that their nomination is not blocked in the Senate, as senators have a de-facto power to veto nominees for a court in their home state.

However, many Republicans and even a few Democrats have begun a trend of failing to recommend nominees for vacancies on district court trial benches. These vacancies have significantly increased during Obama’s Presidency. By leaving seats in federal district courts unfilled, senators are undermining federal authority in the states. They are making a statement that demonstrates they would rather leave seats open than fill them with Obama’s appointees.

According to the Alliance for Justice, there are thirty-seven current vacancies and twenty-one future vacancies in federal courts around the country that currently have no nominees to fill these positions. The majority of these vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. And these seats have been open for quite some time. The most extreme example comes from Texas, where one vacancy has been left unfilled for 1,951 days.

There are so many reasons why this trend is troubling, but I’ll attempt to explain just a few:

It’s giving states less federal oversight, and it undermines the rule of law.

By leaving the positions open, senators are effectively limiting federal jurisdiction over states. A lack of enough judges on the bench means that judges cannot handle the amount of cases brought to the court, which slows down rulings and therefore curtails the extent of federal authority over the presiding cases in these states. And states that are more conservative and have more Republican senators are experiencing more of this restriction on federal oversight than Democratic states.

But this policy goes against the rule of law in the United States. Indeed, there are certain matters that can and should be brought to state courts if there is no federal law involved or at stake. However, there are many cases that require a suit to be brought to federal court, and the fact that senators are intentionally leaving open seats on the benches of federal courts goes against the rule of law. Courts need a certain amount of justices to operate, and withholding nominations unjustly limits the power of the federal judiciary. Additionally, there should not be an uneven balance of federal oversight among states. Red states must experience as much federal oversight as blue states, otherwise the level of independence from the federal government of the different states will be unequal.

It’s a prime example of partisan politics at its worst.

As previously said, the majority of federal court vacancies are in states that have at least one Republican senator. Only eleven out of the total fifty-nine current and future vacancies with no nominees come from states with two Democratic senators. States with one Republican and one Democrat are having trouble coming to a consensus on a nominee. For example, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey (R) and Bob Casey (D) had trouble working together to fill the eight open seats on Pennsylvania’s federal courts. The fact that political differences are now limiting the function of courts is concerning to the operation of government institutions.

Ultimately, it just hurts citizens.

When it comes down to it, the political move of leaving vacancies open hurts citizens and can deprive them of the right to receive speedy justice. Litigants will have wait for long periods of time before their case can be heard and ruled on. And some business is extremely important, such as immigration rulings. It is extremely unfair to keep citizens in limbo over cases that can impact their lives and futures.

While the senators who are neglecting to suggest nominates may feel they are protecting their states from federal judicial oversight, the reality is that they are actually failing to serve their constituents’ needs. They are depriving citizens of their right to court and failing to help them receive justice by blocking appointments. To many residents of the affected states, it doesn’t matter whether judicial appointments came from Bush or Obama; they simply need their cases to be heard. The vast amount of federal court vacancies shows the worst of how partisanship can negatively affect constituents.

Perhaps the most unfortunate part about this problem is that it won’t be solved unless citizens physically take action and rally outside court houses. Senators clearly need a reality check if they feel their methods are helping their constituents.

[The Atlantic] [Alliance for Justice] [Dallas News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

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

The post Sorry, Citizens: Senators Won’t Fill Court Vacancies appeared first on Law Street.

Me, I’m a part of your circle of friends.  And we, notice you don’t come around…

One good thing about working in the legal industry is that you are privy to a lot of information. As legal professionals, we are exposed to a lot through contracts, mergers and acquisitions, and discovery during litigation.

I have been at my job for three months now, and I work a lot. I work hard. I do this for many reasons: (a) I work with hardworking people, and I want them to respect my own work ethic; (b) I love my job; and (c) I want them to know that they can trust me with major projects. I want to have my hand in as much as I can reasonably handle.

I want to be in the circle of trust.

I remember my internships and clerkships in law school, where I’d work really hard for three to four months in hopes of making a good impression on would-be employers. The thing with those positions was that I knew there was an end date. No matter how busy I got, or what project I was on, I knew that my work wouldn’t go further than my last day. That meant that I wasn’t always able to be in the secret meetings. I wasn’t in the circle of trust.

To be honest, I didn’t want to be in the inner circle back then. I didn’t care then as much as I do now. Perhaps it’s because this is my first “real job,” or maybe I’m just growing up, but I’m working on getting in the circle now!

Also, if you’re still wondering, I am still very tired. Weaseling my way into the circle of trust takes a lot of time and work. I’m convincing myself that inner circle membership results in mandatory daily naps. *Fingers crossed*

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII

Peter Davidson II

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

The post Working Up the Ladder & Into the Circle of Trust appeared first on Law Street.

Conservative media personality Glenn Beck has been known to make outrageous statements. But now, one of his assertions could land him on trial.

A 20 year old Saudi Arabian student, Abdulrahman Alharbi, has filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Boston charging Glenn Beck with defamation. The international student was a survivor of the Boston Marathon bombings, and was questioned (along with others) by authorities after the incident and was found to be uninvolved with the violent plan and was released.

However, even after Alharbi’s release and the identification of the Tsarnaev brothers as the true suspects of the terrorist attack, Glenn Beck used his radio show to urge the U.S. government to release information on the supposed third suspect, Alharbi. Beck claimed the student was affiliated with Al Qaeda and ‘the money man’ behind the attacks. He also claimed that Alharbi had been officially deemed a terrorist by the U.S. All of the above accusations are, of course, untrue.

What is the legality of defamation, and can Beck be convicted?

According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell, in order to prove defamation has occurred, four criteria must be met:

1. A false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity.

2. Publication or communication of that statement to a third person.

3. Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence.

4. Some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

With this information in mind, it seems that Abdulrahman Alharbi has a good chance of receiving justice from Glenn Beck’s slanderous comments.

Glenn Beck’s comments about Alharbi were stated as facts. Beck labeled the student as an ‘al Qaeda control agent’ and claimed that Alharbi was the source of money behind the Boston Marathon bombings. He clearly labelled Alharbi as a terrorist, an assertion of a factual statement that in actuality was untruthful. In fact, the FBI had interrogated Alharbi and found him to be completely innocent. Therefore, Beck created a falsely factual statement about Alharbi.

Glenn Beck communicated his statements about Alharbi to a third party: his radio listeners. Beck did not only state the above falsehoods about the muslim student, but he publicly communicated them to the listeners of his radio broadcast. In making his assertions known to others, he caused his listeners to be influenced by his statements, and many of them may have believed him (though why anyone would believe Glenn Beck is a true mystery). The second criterion for the proof of defamation has been met.

Glenn Beck is clearly the one at fault for his statements, whether they were made intentionally or with negligence. Glenn Beck has said a lot of crazy things throughout his career as a media personality. He has espoused ridiculous conspiracy theories, called President Obama both Hitler and a communist, and list continues. Sometimes, it can be difficult to determine whether he says all of these things for entertainment value or whether he truly believes what he states on the radio or television. Nevertheless, whether Glenn Beck intended to target an innocent individual or failed to properly research and establish if there were any merits to his claims, Beck is liable for defamation. Beck has continually failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support his assertion that Alharbi was a terrorist involved in the Boston Marathon bombings. Unless Glenn has miraculously found some evidence that the FBI has overlooked, it’s not looking good for him.

Finally, but most importantly, there has been some harm caused to Abdulrahman Alharbi due to Glenn Beck’s wrongful statements. Alharbi’s lawyers have stated that “Alharbi’s reputation has been substantially and severely damaged” by Beck’s assertions. The student has received many harmful and accusatory messages after Beck publicly and falsely accused him. Beck’s claims have wrongly led others to believe that Alharbi was involved, and although no threats or physical harm have come to fruition, the student has suffered great emotional distress. The fourth criterion in establishing defamation has been met: Beck’s falsehoods have impacted the personal life of Alharbi and changed how others view him.

As all four criteria for establishing defamation can be proven in court, Glenn Beck is clearly liable for the defamation of Abdulrahman Alharbi. The student deserves justice and payment for the damages that Beck’s lies have caused him.

After the news of Alharbi’s filing in court broke, Glenn Beck has been unusually quiet. He has refused to comment in newspapers, and even his twitter account has fallen silent. Perhaps this means that for once, Glenn Beck realizes that he has gone too far.

[Washington Post] [Politico] [Cornell]

Sarah Helden

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

The post Hey, Glenn Beck It’s Time to Pay Up appeared first on Law Street.

Patent trolls have long been a problem in the realm of intellectual property, but companies have yet to devise a solution to successfully combat against them. As the years have gone by, patent trolls have no longer solely affected the technology industry but have begun to target many other businesses as well.

Well, now the government is getting involved in this widespread issue. The Senate is considering a bill, the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act that would force the losers of patent lawsuits to cover the winner’s legal fees in order to minimize patent trolling. The bill is similar to one that passed the House this past December. Diane Feinstein, a Democratic Senator from California, stated, “I think we are united on the troll. The troll must go.” The White House also has said it supports the measure.

Will Congress’ actions, if implemented, help to prevent patent trolling? There is evidence that suggests it will.

Making the losing party pay the other party’s legal fees will discourage patent trolls from pursuing legal action. Engaging in litigation can be a taxing and costly process, especially for small businesses, who lack the funds to engage in huge lawsuits. And in 2011, small businesses encompassed 90 percent of patent troll victims. The cost to defendants in a patent lawsuit can range from two to six million dollars. However, now faced with potential consequences, these companies engaging in patent trolling will have to think twice before filing lawsuit and extract licensing fees.

In addition, the bill would help protect true innovators. The bill’s provisions deter patent trolling companies, which exist solely to make a profit and do not actually contribute real innovation. These companies don’t create anything themselves; instead, they buy old patents and use them to file suits against other companies. Since patent trolling companies make their money off of legal cases, the potential cost not only deters these companies from filing lawsuits but also discourages anyone from forming these ventures in the first place.

Meanwhile, businesses that are actually creating innovative products or services can benefit from the bill. 40 percent of small businesses affected by patent trolls stated that the lawsuits they were forced to undergo hurt their business and ability to innovate. With the decreased threat of patent trolls, businesses will feel freer to create unique and new products without worrying about frivolous lawsuits.

The bill potentially also evens out the bias in the legal system that has long worked in favor of plaintiffs in intellectual property cases. Suing a company or individual over patent rights is relatively simple and inexpensive, but defending them can be extremely complex and costly. The fact is, patent cases are difficult to defend, many businesses are forced to settle out of court, which still costs them. Knowing that losers will have to pay for legal fees will encourage businesses to hold out for court settlement, whereas patent trollers will have a much harder time to defend their bogus claims.

While the bill exhibits many benefits against patent trolling, another question arises in the discussion of the bill: How will it affect legitimate patent litigation?

Some worry that the bill, while working against bogus patent troll lawsuits, could also affect litigation of serious infringements on patent rights. Skeptics of the bill argue that the bill goes too far and it could make it more difficult for inventors to profit from their innovations. Combatting this fear, several senators note that any legislation they support will protect the rights of companies that have legitimate claims to sue. Plus, parties with real claims of patent infringement still have the advantage of being the plaintiff in lawsuit, and can be confident of winning if their claim is truly legitimate. While fears of protecting innovation are not unfounded, those entering lawsuits to protect their legitimate patents need not fear of taking legal action.

If the bill passes in Congress and is signed into law by President Obama, businesses entangled in frivolous lawsuits will gain vital help in protecting their companies from patent trolls.

[Reuters] [Forbes] [Nextgov] [The Hill]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

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

The post S.1720: A Real Solution to Patent Trolling? appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re applying to law school, chances are there may be a smaller number of spots available in your class.

For the past several years, many law schools around the country have decreased the number of students admitted into JD programs, and the downsizing trend is only continuing. The University of Buffalo‘s Law School has recently announced that they will be shrinking the number of incoming 1-L’s from 225-200 to 200-180. The Dean of the school, Makau Mutua, stated that this move is necessary in order to maintain the school’s standards for its admitted students. The University of Buffalo Law School is by no means the only school that has made this decision. Other institutions such as Appalachian Law School, New England Law, and many more have also cut their class sizes. In total, last year 51% of law schools made a decision to downsize.

And it’s not just class sizes that are being cut: many schools are also trying to decrease the size of their faculty. The University of Buffalo’s Law School, for example, is beginning to offer retirement benefits to professors over 55, in order to decrease their faculty without having layoffs.

What is really interesting is that this trend has even reached the top tier schools. Last year, Northwestern University‘s School of Law declared it would decrease their class sizes by ten percent. It’s clear that this trend is affecting law schools in general, not just lower tier schools, which means that the factors that could be causing the downsizing of law schools are more universal in nature.

So what are some possible reasons that explain why law schools are choosing to downsize?

1. The number of individuals applying for Law School is decreasing.

The American Bar Association‘s report on the number of students enrolled in ABA accredited law schools show that the trend of declined enrollment in law school is continuing. 39,675 full and part time students enrolled in law school in the fall of 2013. This number marks an 11% decrease from 2012 and a 24% decrease from 2010, the highest year of enrollment. Data from last October also shows that the number of LSAT takers are also lower than in years past, and in fact the amount of individuals who took the LSAT decreased by 11% from the previous year. The number of LSAT takers has continued to decrease since the peak of administered tests four years ago.

With less overall students taking the LSAT and applying to law school, it is likely that there are less students applying that fit the credentials for specific schools. And with less students choosing to pursue a legal education and smaller class size, law schools do not have enough funding to maintain the amount of professors on their faculty and courses offered as in previous times.

2. There are still too many lawyers on the job market.

With an overcrowded job market for lawyers, less people are enrolling in law school, which contributes to many schools’ decision to downsize. According to the American Bar Association, only around 55% of all 2012 graduates found full-time legal work six months after graduation. There is possibility that more are employed in other kinds of work, but those jobs do not require their JD degree (that they spend so much time and money pursuing).

Adding to the problem of too many lawyers, the number of legal jobs also seems to be decreasing. Wharton professor Richard Shell explains that “Law firms — which have been the traditional employers — are having to revise their compensation and fee practices because clients are demanding more fixed price contracts and less billable hours.” Law firms have been one of the main sources of employment for legal grads, and if law firms are hiring less people, there will be more unemployed lawyers.

3. Schools are choosing quality over quantity.

Law schools don’t want to keep the same class sizes as in previous years if it means having to lower their standards of admission. Schools don’t want to admit applicants that would not have been as qualified in previous years simply to fill all vacant spots in their classes. This could potentially result in the law school receiving a lower rank, which is certainly undesirable.

Not only do law schools want to maintain the quality of their students, but they also strive to keep the quality of education. For example, Appalachian Law School explained that in deciding to downsize, the school wanted to maintain a 12 to 1 student to faculty ratio, something the school considers unique among other institutions.

With decreasing applicants, an overcrowded job market for lawyers, and the aim to maintain quality, it is no wonder that many law schools are making the hard decision to downsize. It will be interesting to see whether and how long this trend continues.

 [Bizjournals] [Wharton] [ABA] [ABA Journal] [Wall Street Journal] [Register-Herald]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

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

The post 3 Reasons Behind Law School Downsizing Trend appeared first on Law Street.

Attorney General Eric Holder shined a spotlight on state voting laws this week when he spoke out against voting bans for felons. The laws vary across states, with the harshest in Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia where felons are banned from voting for life, with the exception of individual permissions granted by the governor. Other states require ex-convicts to abide by a waiting period prior to regaining the vote, and others still have long and complicated re-registration procedures. To prove the severity of these laws, Holder pointed to Florida where anti-felon suffrage regulations ban 10 percent of the citizens from voting.

While a significant portion of the country is barred from voting, even after they finish their time in prison, these laws also disproportionately affect minorities. African-Americans encompass a third of the approximately 5.8 million Americans who are barred from exercising their voting rights. Holder emphasized the large number of minorities affected by these restrictive laws, stating that they are remnants of the discriminatory policies enacted after the Civil War in order to keep minorities from going to the polls. And unfortunately their efforts were successful: 1 in 13 African-Americans are disenfranchised due to anti-felon voting bans.

Due to these, and other, restrictive policies, any attempt to protect minority voting rights is important, especially after key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were declared unconstitutional in a 2013 Supreme Court Ruling. The decision deemed Section 4 unconstitutional, which determined states with histories of voting discrimination would have to submit any changes to their voting laws to be pre-approved by the Attorney General. Without the coverage formula, states are able to pass discriminatory voting laws and the federal government cannot prevent the laws from going into effect.

In this context, the Voting Rights Act’s power is minimized, and any legislation that could help restore some minority voting rights would be welcome. Senator Rand Paul is currently drafting a bill that, if passed by Congress, would give many felons the right to vote in federal elections. However, Paul’s bill still contains restrictions: the proposed legislation restores the vote specifically to non-violent felons, which is a compromise with other legislators who are hesitant to restore these rights in the first place.

Holder also noted that the laws preventing ex-convicts from voting only enhances the stereotype and social stigma surrounding felons. Laws affecting felons, such as these restrictive voting ban, increase the feeling of separation from the rest of the community and increase the likelihood that felons will commit further crimes. Treating ex-convicts as second-class citizens is neither the proper nor the most successful way to reintegrate them into their communities.

These laws teach others that there are no second chances in American justice: once a convict, always a convict. Some may think that this is a good message to send, and that such laws could dissuade citizens from committing crimes in the first place. However, this philosophy mistakenly precludes the possibility that once felons finish their time, they could serve some benefit to the community. If societal attitudes continue to influence felons to go back to jail, states miss out on the potential for these people’s efforts to contribute to the workforce and other communal needs. By getting rid of some of the restrictive laws on felons after they return to normal life, they can better return as contributing citizens.

While Mr. Holder has no authority to enact changes to the laws himself, congressmen and state legislatures should listen up.

[Washington Post] [New York Times] [SCOTUS Blog] [The Hill] [Politico]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Lobo via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

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

The post Holder Speaks Out Against Felon Voting Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday, January 30, 2014 saw a huge victory for the rights of transgender students. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, overturning a decision made by a lower court, held that being transgender does not inhibit the right of equal access to restrooms in public buildings.

Nicole Maines’ rights were violated in the fifth grade, when she was told by school administrators that she must use the staff bathroom instead of the girl’s room at Asa Adams School in Orono, Maine. The case was first brought to Penobscot County Superior Court. Nicole was represented by lawyers of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who argued that the student had been deprived of her rights under the Maine Human Rights Act, which requires equal access of all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation and other identifications, of public accommodations. However, the court held for the school district, claiming that a 1983 law that mandated schools to have separate bathrooms according to sex outweighed the provision in the Human Rights Act.

The state supreme court noted that the old law really was meant to provide access for all people, regardless of gender, to sanitary facilities in public buildings, including schools. With this interpretation, the court found there was a violation of the Human Rights Act: by prohibiting Nicole from using a female restroom though she identified as female, the school district discriminated against Nicole because of her gender identity.

Other cases around the country hint at further progress on the issue of transgender bathroom use. Two individuals in Iowa, both of whom were born as males and identify as females, won the right to use women’s public restrooms. In June, in Colorado, six year old Coy Mathis’ family won their case against the Fountain-Fort Carson School District that had barred Coy’s use of a female restroom. Now, the Maines case can be added to the list of successes in furthering the rights and acceptance of transgender individuals.

This court decision, the first to invoke an amendment to Maine’s Human Rights Act that protected transgender persons in schools, will have great importance for transgender students across the country. Nicole Maines is certainly not the only individual that has faced hardship in schools due to being transgender. Adolescence can be a difficult time for any pupil, and the problem of bullying has grown in visibility throughout the country. Students like Nicole need the support of their teachers and school officials in the face of adversity, and singling Nicole out as different by requiring her to use a unisex bathroom hardly helps. Children don’t just learn from their teachers in the classroom; they set an example for certain behavior. If school officials, through their actions, show students of transgender identity to be different than others, what’s to stop other students of thinking the same?

The seemingly minor issue of which bathroom to use can mean a lot to a transgender individual. The majority opinion of the court addressed this when it stated, “it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity.” The choice of what bathroom to use reaffirms a person’s notion of their sex. Denying someone the ability to use a bathroom associated with the gender they identify with in effect denies acceptance of their chosen gender.

Moreover, requiring a transgender person to use a separate unisex bathroom not only denies him or her the recognition of their sex identity but makes their private issue into a public one. For instance, Nicole Maines was given access to the staff bathroom but was escorted by a teacher whenever she had to use the facility.  This policy was extremely unfair to Nicole as it clearly made visible the fact that she was transgender, something that, like the choices and beliefs of other individuals, is a personal matter. The school district directly interfered with Nicole’s freedom of expression in disallowing her use of a female restroom, though despite the genes she was given, Nicole is a female. The treatment that Nicole Maines was given in her public school should not have to be experienced by any other transgender individual in the future, and her case’s outcome displays progress in how schools can accommodate the needs of all of their students.

It is hopeful to know that, in fighting the school’s policy, Nicole did not only have the support of her family and lawyers, but many of her fellow classmates. Students reportedly cheered in Nicole’s high school when the verdict was declared. Teenagers evidently understood that a policy was discriminatory when adult school officials did not. Activists like Nicole and her like-minded family and peers give hope that similar discriminatory policies across the country may be reversed in the coming years.

[NPR] [Press Herald] [Maine Legislature] [Daily Mail] [USA Today] [CNN]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Susan Sermoneta via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

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

The post The Significance of Restrooms: Transgender Rights Upheld in Maine appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome back to “Life of a Legal Post Grad,” a column which will quite soon be serving its initial purpose: describing the life of a young legal professional navigating his way through this crazy world of the law.

By “quite soon” I mean in a couple of days. I’ve been at my job for two weeks now and I already have (awesome) stories. Stay tuned. This week, though, let’s talk about this crazy-fast transition that I’m going through in my life. Mmmmmk?

To recap: 2013 was dark. Like…Disney dark. (P.S., if you don’t get the dark undertones in most Disney movies, you should set aside a few hours this weekend and rewatch your childhood favorites, because…whoa). The lone highlight of 2013 was seeing Rihanna in concert. I kept saying, “2014 has to be better.”

Well, here we are, and 2014 is covered in light, roses, bunnies, and all other things good and cute.  I may be the happiest that I’ve ever been in my adult life. Why, you ask? Because of all the ch-ch-ch-changes!

First of all, I have a legal job that I love.  It’s only been a week and a half, but everything is coming up roses so far. I work for a really cool company, I do dynamic legal work, and I work with awesome and intelligent people. Every day I’m challenged and pushed to be better, which is what I had in mind when I first entered law school. This job actually makes me want to be a lawyer, which is new and unexpected. BUT ENOUGH ABOUT THAT!

Second, the weather: let’s talk about wearing shorts and flip-flops in January. Or we can discuss reviewing contracts poolside. Entertain the notion of shifting the liability to a third party on the beach, even. All of these are now my options! Two weeks ago I lived in D.C.; the same D.C. that was shut down for two days last week because of the resurgence of the polar vortex (speaking of, that weather pattern really sucks).

The “downside” to life (just kidding! there is none!) is driving everywhere. I’m a walker. I’ve previously lived in Washington, D.C., Boston, and New York: all of these are major cities with wide-ranging public transportation systems and a walkable urban plan that renders ownership of a car unnecessary and burdensome. Friends, Florida is not like that; a car is a necessary part of life. Now I’m a commuter! Every morning I wake up, start my car, drive to Starbucks, and sit in highway traffic on my way to work (if you care, I take 95 to 195). This may seem normal to some, but I have literally never had to be so alert before 9:00 a.m. In fact, for the first few days of commuting, I drove in absolute silence with my hands resolutely placed at the 10:00 and 2:00 positions. Every five minutes I’d say out loud: “Don’t kill yourself or anyone else.” Luckily I’m more comfortable now, and it’s become less of a burden. Sometimes I even get a bit of road rage, and then I’m all:

All in all, I’m having an amazing time. I have a newfound admiration for the law — so much so that I plan on taking the Florida Bar exam this summer. I never thought I would voluntarily sit for the bar exam, but I figure if I want to make a life and career here, it’s the next logical step. More importantly, it’s what my instincts are telling me to do, and I’m still inclined to follow them. It’s worked out so far!

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Tweet him @PeterDavidsonII.

Featured image courtesy of [Sandra Cohen-Rose and Colin Rose via Flickr]

Featured .gifs courtesy of [RealityTVgifs]

Peter Davidson II

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

The post The Times They Are a-Changin’ appeared first on Law Street.

It should first be stated that I personally don’t condone the practice of the death penalty at all; to me, the idea begs the notion of “an eye for an eye,” a facet of the ancient Hammurabi’s code. Nevertheless, regardless of one’s position on the issue, the fact remains that when the death penalty is used, efforts must be made to ensure that the method of capital punishment limits unreasonable pain and suffering.

The Constitution protects against unnecessarily harsh treatment in the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. In United States history, many methods of capital punishment have been swept out of use for being considered inhumane methods of execution. Practices used in the American colonies such as burning at the stake, crushing, and beheading are now determined cruel and unusual. In most states, methods such as hanging, electrocution, death by firing squad and gassing are also considered cruel and unusual, and the most accepted form of execution in recent years has been lethal injection.

However, in the case of Dennis McGuire, the lethal injection that caused his death should also be considered cruel and unusual. McGuire was given a combination of two drugs: midazolam, a sedative, and hydromorphone, a painkiller. McGuire’s lawyer argued that the combination of the drugs could produce the effect of air hunger, an uncomfortable experience that causes a sufferer to gasp for air. Additionally, since McGuire has shown several symptoms of the condition, sleep apnea, the drugs were even more likely to lead to suffocation. David Wasiel, a Harvard Medical School professor, testified to the apparent terror McGuire would be subjected to under the effects of the two drugs. Nevertheless, District Judge Gregory Frost claimed that there was not enough compelling evidence to prove there would be a risk of extreme discomfort and pain.

What is further striking about the decision to allow the injection is the fact that the specific combination of drugs had never been used. Even if the amount of evidence pointing to the likelihood of air hunger was lacking, surely it would seem reasonable to allow for a period of experimenting and testing, since the injection’s exact effects remained unknown.

Despite all warnings and uncertainty about the drugs’ effects, on Thursday, January 16th, Dennis McGuire was administered injections of both midazolam and hydromorphone. After the first five minutes following the injections’ entrance into the blood stream, McGuire’s breath grew irregular and he began to gasp and utter strange noises for about ten minutes. His family members, who were permitted to witness the guilty man’s final moments, grew shocked and horrified as they watched McGuire’s clear discomfort and agony prior to his death. In total, the execution took over twenty minutes, one of the longest in Ohio’s history since it reinstated the death penalty.

Of course, McGuire’s actions that led to his execution certainly offer little cause for sympathy. In 1989, he raped and subsequently killed twenty-two year old Joy Stewart, a pregnant woman, by stabbing her to death. McGuire deserved to be brought to justice for his heinous crime. However, when a state pursues a method of capital punishment that also causes unnecessary suffering, how then is a state’s law above the actions of the perpetrator?

The use of an untested injection to put Dennis McGuire to death is despicable. Why, it must be asked, was the injection involving the combination of drugs allowed to be administered? Other than the judge’s poorly made decision that the lack of evidence to prove there was a great risk of pain and discomfort involved in the use of the injection. Another reason may exist; Ohio was all out of its usual lethal injection cocktail and simply, needed something to fill the void.

Previously, Ohio had been using a sedative called pentobarbital for capital punishment, which typically had caused a shorter and less painful death. However, pentobarbital’s manufacturer recently cut off Ohio’s  access to the drug, barring its use for the death penalty. Without supplies of its usual drug of choice, the state turned to its untried back up method, the combination of midazolam and hydromorphone.

Desiring to carry out the execution of McGuire on schedule, Ohio would not wait for possible testing of the drugs’ effects or research into potential alternatives. Lacking regard for the human dignity of prisoners, Ohio decided to administer the injection despite its uncertain consequences, giving the execution an air of experimentation. The state must now answer to the McGuire family’s cries for legal action and has earned a place in the nation’s spotlight for its blunder. In the situation’s aftermath, other states should learn from Ohio’s misjudgment to prevent similar occurrences from taking place in the future.

 [Cornell Law] [The Guardian] [DailyMail] [National Journal]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Ken Piorskowski via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

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

The post Cruel and Unusual: Never Before Used Injection Prolongs Dennis McGuire’s Execution appeared first on Law Street.

You may think that technological advances ensure a more secure future but think again, as technology evolves, ability to organize cyber attacks evolves in tandem.

This is most notably seen in the Visa & Mastercard Heist  in which people hacked both Visa and Mastercard, stealing 45 million dollars remotely in only hours.This cyber attacked happened around the world, all by the hands of computer criminals manipulating financial information. In turn, this information was used to loot the automated teller machines in major cities such as New York.

But as horrible as this may be, technology offers the ability to ensure security and privacy (If only phone providers could get behind the idea).

It may have not happened to you personally, but over the fiscal year of 2012, over 1.6 million smart phones were stolen. 

District attorney, George Gascón of San Francisco wants to fix this. In fact, phone manufacturers want to solve this problem as well. Unfortunately, cellular providers do not.

Gascón hopes to fix this rampant problem by implementing a kill switch into smart phones. This would be accomplished through a “kill switch” that would terminate smart phones if they were reported as stolen. Gascón is suspicious of the wireless carriers’ motives for rejecting the kill switch, claiming “there were email conversations between Samsung and the kill-switch developer, saying that the carriers were concerned about losing business”.

 Currently, many smart phones enable the option to wipe the memory of the phone if a perpetrator attempts to enter the phone. Unfortunately, without the backing of major cellular providers, these phones are still operable.This brings up the question—should cellular providers offer the option of a kill switch.

Yeah, why not? As technology becomes more penetrable, counter tactics must be implemented to secure the consumers regardless of economic motive. This leads to the follow up question—why don’t cellular companies implement the kill switch?

Although, there has not been an official reason, its pretty obvious why– its a terminate button. What business model would intentional provide consumers an option to terminate their service?  Providers say they will look into it but I wouldn’t get too excited. Either way, I wouldn’t expect a kill switch unless you work for the NSA.

In fact, the kill switch option may generate more revenue for some companies who take the initial step.

Bottom line, as privacy becomes persistently limited, cellular providers eventually should change their policies to appease the consumers.

[Huffingtonpost] [NY Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Stahlkocher via Wikipedia]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Kill the “Kill Switch” appeared first on Law Street.

“Can’t a young [    ] get money anymore?”

Prophetic words indeed from the twenty-first century’s most evocative and provocative lyricist – Kanye West – in case there is anyone out there who doesn’t recognize the quote. A very serious question indeed in a modern world where many of us, Black and non-Black, define our successes based on our material possessions. But the deeper meaning resonates with every Black person who has heard  the news coming from New York relating to one of the preeminent department stores in the country: Barneys New York. Turns out this lovely little mom-and-pop luxury store, which prides itself on drawing fashionistas the world over, had a little problem with some of their darker shoppers.

The story goes, a male shopper by the name of Trayon Christian, 19 of Queens, felt the inexorable urge to splurge on a designer belt, because, ya know, a guy’s gotta treat himself every now and then. So, with his hard-earned money, about $349 of it, Mr. Christian bought a Ferragamo belt. He bought the belt with his debit card, for which he showed identification, and then happily left the store. Upon exiting, it seems two plain-clothes cops handcuffed him and detained him for two hours. The officers apparently could not possibly comprehend how someone his age could buy a belt so expensive. The card had to be stolen. Mr. Christian had to be a thief, because, ya know, young Black people having money just doesn’t add up.

I wonder if the exchange went like this:

Officers: “Excuse me sir, can I ask you a few questions?”

Christian: “Umm, what do you want?”

Officers: “Did you just buy a belt from Barneys?”

Christian: “Yes, I can’t imagine how you’d know that, but why does it. . .”

Officers: “We’ll ask the questions here! I think we’re gonna have to take you in.”

Christian: “Why, I have a receipt?”

Officers: “Silly kid, receipts don’t mean anything when you’re Black and buy things we can’t imagine someone your age and race should buy.”

:: AND SCENE ::

Now, I’ll begin by saying I totally made that up and have no proof whatsoever that that happened. In that way, I am just like the officers who detained Trayon. Obviously they suspected he had stolen the debit card or something of the sort, and they had naturally no proof whatsoever that that was the case. But who needs facts, anyway?

But it didn’t stop there. Turns out another incident happened at Barneys, where apparently Black is the new guilty. Kayla Phillips of Brooklyn, 21, was confronted by officers at a subway station. Her charge: buying a $2,500 Celine purse. Again, I get all my advice on high fashion from Kanye, and he’s the one who told me when you have on the Zara pant and a girl walks in with the Celine version you feel like shit. Well, Kayla didn’t want to feel like shit. So Kayla, with her hard-earned tax refund, bought herself a designer purse, because that frantic purse dig for her keys that pisses off her boyfriend when it’s cold outside and they’re just trying to get to the car because they are already late . . . – I digress – just isn’t the same unless the purse is Celine.

These two intrepid fashionistas were simply trying to buy nice things. All too often the allure of keeping up with the Joneses plagues minority communities. Is it some underlying desire for conformity? Is it some thirst to bedazzle oneself in the trappings of the majority culture? Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Hell yes. But I am more concerned about what this says about our culture.

It goes like this: Black people were brought here as slaves. [Stop me if this sounds unfamiliar at all.] We were emancipated. We essentially languished for 100 years despite like five Constitutional Amendments and men like Dubois, Washington, Garvey, and King. We got some rights: voting, etc. Then we began to enter the middle class. We begin to live how the other half lived for nearly the entire tenure of our race on the North American continent. We began to believe in our hearts that the color of our skin didn’t matter. Then we sorta lost some voting rights. [Still wondering how the Supreme Court did that.] When it came to material things, the only thing we thought mattered was the color of our money. We were wrong. Turns out all that matters is someone in a position of power and his perception of you. Doesn’t matter if your debit card has your name on it and you showed identification. Merely buying something someone else thinks you ought not, or have no reason to buy, is apparently all it takes to stir up enough suspicion to be arrested.

Therein lies the hard truth of modern America. I have often in my time in Washington, D.C. literally stood in the middle of the street with money in my hand hoping to hail a cab. And time and again I have been passed over for the White couple on date night. Or the drunk frat boys. Greater than the inconvenience of just having to take the Metro is the shame associated with someone whom you don’t even know perceiving something negative about you based on no actions of your own.

I have never been followed in a store. In many ways, what happened to these two people is even worse. No one followed them expecting them to shoplift. They waited until after they had purchased their items to imbue them with the suspicion of illegality. So legally entering a store, legally shopping, and legally purchasing something isn’t enough to dispel suspicion? That begs the question, what the hell will?

At this very moment I am looking at my designer, leather jogging pants and wondering when the Feds will come knocking. I guess I could run, but you folks have no idea how impractical it is to actually do physical activity in leather jogging pants.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Alicia Griffin via Flickr]

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thursdays at Barneys appeared first on Law Street.

I would like to go to law school sometime in the relatively near future. Whenever I tell current lawyers or law school students about my career plans, they tell me one of two things. They either tell me to make sure I take a few years off between undergrad and law school, or they tell me to absolutely not go to law school.

It’s true that having a law degree doesn’t really have the prestige that it used to. As the economy continues to slowly rebuild after the recession, young lawyers are having a difficult time finding employment in their field. Above the Law looked at one of the most recent crops of young lawyers—the class of 2012—only 56% are in full-time, long-term legal employment nine months after their graduation. They are doing slightly better than their predecessors: at the same point last year only 55% of the class of 2011 could report such success. Only about 10-12% of these students are in classic “Big Law” jobs. Furthermore, legal educations are expensive. The cost averages at about $50,000 a year. As a result, it is not unusual for students to graduate with exorbitant debt.

Google “is it worth it to go to law school?”,  you’ll get thousands of results. Every news outlet, blogger, and Internet commentator wants the last word on the law school debate. Now a Chicago attorney is putting his money where his mouth is, literally.

Matt Willens, who heads up the Willens Law Offices in downtown Chicago, is offering a $1000 scholarship to students who chose to pursue a graduate degree in anything that is not law. It seems like he plans to make this a repeat offer for at least the next few years. The firm’s website actually has a page for the scholarship where they outline their motivation behind the incentive program:

“Some of you may be wondering, why would a law firm create a scholarship to dissuade students from practicing law? The answer is simple; we currently do not have enough jobs to be able to effectively train the current number of freshly minted lawyers in our profession. To protect the reputation of our profession, Willens Law Offices has created this scholarship to persuade undergraduates to pursue another graduate degree for a limited time.”

Willens himself commented to the Sacramento Bee:  “the situation has become untenable. Too many of our best and brightest are pursuing a career where there just aren’t any more seats at the table.” The offer is nice, but $1000 is obviously much more of a statement than a generous scholarship. That being said, it could be nice help for a student who is pursuing a non-law degree.

While I understand the logic, I take issue with part of Willens’s idea. While law school is very expensive, so are most other types of graduate programs. While this scholarship is open to any student who chooses a different field over law school, it clearly aims for students who were considering law school and then instead chose another subject. For example, I doubt the Willens Law Office will receive any applications from people who are attending medical school. Students who are passing up law school tend to stick to the humanities, and pursue a graduate degree in something like Political Science, Public Policy, or English. None of these fields necessarily have better career prospects than law. For example, according to the National Science Foundation, among Humanities Ph.D recipients, 43% reported “no definite commitment for employment or postdoctoral study.” People with a Ph.D in a humanities field are doing better than new lawyers, but not by much.

I don’t think the question of “whether or not a legal education is worth it in our current economy?” will be answered anytime soon. Legal education and the legal field as a whole are clearly going through changes, but we don’t know what will happen in the long term. As for me, I still pretty much plan on going to law school—but if anyone wants to offer me a bit more than $1000 to do something else? Well, I’d consider it.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Adam Tinworth via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Would You Rather: Law School or $1000? appeared first on Law Street.

The world we live in today makes it hard for any twenty-something to find a decent-paying, full-time job. Although we may search and search, many of us retreat back to school, taking on more debt while seeking higher education.

Even so, we have all accepted unpaid internships with the hope that there is a sliver of a chance that we may be hired as a full-time employee. Despite working for free, we expect to be treated along the same lines as any other employee, entitled to certain rights such as lunch breaks, vacation days, and freedom from sexual harassment, right? WRONG!

David Yamada reported that a New York Federal District Court held that an unpaid intern could not bring a sexual harassment claim against her employer, Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc., under NYC Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, Liuhuan Wang sustained injuries as a result of quid pro quo sexual harassment and sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment created by her supervisor Zhengzhu Liu.

As a 22-year-old student at Syracuse University, Ms. Lihuan claims that during her four weeks at Phoenix Satellite US, Mr. Liu had almost complete supervisory authority in the New York and D.C. bureaus. Ms. Lihuan’s complaint alleges that Mr. Liu had a history of sexual harassment throughout his employment with Phoenix Satellite and he would prey on female employees just starting their career in America and lure them to his hotel room where he would grope and kiss them, and attempt to have sex with them. He is accused of insinuating that in order to have a successful career, female employees and interns at Phoenix would have to submit to his unwanted sexual desires.

Ms. Lihuan claimed that Mr. Liu had similarly invited her back to his hotel after treating her and several co-workers to lunch when he was in town. After asking her to stay behind to “talk about her job performance,” Mr. Liu guided Ms. Lihuan back to his hotel room, under the guise of an work-related issue, and attempted to grope and kiss her, forcing Ms. Lihuan to push him back and leave the room immediately.

Her grievance is due to the fact that she believes her refusal of Mr. Liu’s sexual advances is the reason she was denied full-time employment. The complaint also mentions that a fellow Syracuse student, Qian Chen, worked for Phoenix and was also sexually propositioned by Mr. Liu. Perhaps Mr. Liu and the people over at Phoenix Satellite need a visit from this guy.

The U.S. District Court judge, Judge Kevin P. Castel, ruled that Ms. Lihuan could not bring a valid claim of sexual harassment under New York City Human Rights Law against her employer because her lack of compensation rendered her unable to meet the employee status required by the statute.

Using federal and NY case law, the district court determine that unpaid interns are not employees as defined under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or NYC Human Rights Law. The district court stated that remuneration or the absence of remuneration is an essential element to determining the existence of “the employer-employee relationship.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) supports the U.S. District Court’s position that sexual harassment laws don’t cover interns unless they receive “significant remuneration,” according to an EEOC spokesperson, Joseph Olivares.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Phoenix denies that Ms. Lihuan ever applied for a position and Mr. Liu is no longer with the company. This wasn’t the first case, and it surely will not be the last. Although the workplace dynamic for unpaid interns is already changing, maybe it’s time to take another look at the rights unpaid interns are entitled to while working. Perhaps something slightly more than a video at orientation.

And no live demonstrations are necessary.

And remember, its not just women who suffer from sexual harassment in the workplace.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Melissa Gira via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tragedy of the Unpaid Intern: No Money – No Rights appeared first on Law Street.