Learning to code can be an incredibly lucrative skill in today’s technical age, but is it a potential “threat to order and security?”

Ohio and Michigan prisons ban books that aim to teach computer programming skills, according to MuckRock, a non-profit site aimed at sharing public information via the Freedom of Information Act. The organization recently obtained a list of banned books in state prisons.

“Their decisions to ban educational texts related to programming, alongside erotica and literature published by neo-nazi groups, are in stark contrast with practices in other states and countries, where prisons include coding in educational programs,” writes MuckRock.

Ohio’s list of banned books contained titles like “Beginning Linux Programming 4th Edition,” “The Linux Professional Institute Certification Guide,” and “Operating Systems Demystified.” The state gave no explanation as to why the books were banned.

Ohio prisons ban books on learning @Linux alongside erotica and neo-Nazi literature https://t.co/kYNt6Qfb6E pic.twitter.com/9sUeg204Zw

— MuckRock (@MuckRock) August 18, 2017

In Michigan, prisoners were specifically banned from reading books the Department of Corrections believes “contains information about computer programs and applications.” Texts like “Windows 98 6 in 1” and “Windows Game Programming for Dummies” were banned because they represent a “threat to the order and security of the institution.”

According to MuckRock, 15 books are banned for including information about computer programming, including guides to web design and a book aimed at teaching the elderly how to use computers.

Stark Contrast to Silicon Valley

The decision to ban these kinds of books is a stark contrast from rehabilitation efforts in San Quentin, California. At the San Quentin State Prison, Chris Redlitz of The Last Mile helps to prepare inmates for successful reentry into society through web education and career training opportunities. In 2014, he launched Code.7370 San Quentin, the first computer programming curriculum in a U.S. prison.

Inmates in the program help build apps and other software for startups and established companies like Airbnb. Because they can’t use the internet, the development shop’s coders work on a closed network. The men in the program make $16.77 an hour.

In April, CNBC reported that none of the prisoners who had gone through the program had returned to prison. That is likely due to the fact that the program is exceptionally beneficial to inmates, because it provides prisoners with an entrepreneurial skillset that enables them to start a career for themselves upon release, rather than relying on limited job opportunities available to felons.

The Code.7370 curriculum has since expanded to five more prisons in California, including two women’s prisons, and Redlitz has hopes to create a national program within the next five years.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why are Some Prisons Banning Inmates From Teaching Themselves to Code? appeared first on Law Street.

Detroit city officials have shuttered over 150 medical marijuana dispensaries since last year, with dozens of additional closings expected in the coming months. The closings reflect the ever-shifting regulatory framework surrounding pot legalization, and how businesses that are slow to respond to new rules could find their doors padlocked.

Melvin Butch Hollowell, the Detroit corporation counsel, told the Detroit Free Press that the city has closed 167 dispensaries around the city since last year.

“None of them were operating lawfully,” he said. “At the time I sent a letter to each one of them indicating that unless you have a fully licensed facility, you are operating at your own risk.” Hollowell also indicated that another 51 closings are in the offing. Detroit is rife with unlicensed or otherwise illegal marijuana establishments; Hollowell said 283 total have been identified, and as of last week, a mere five marijuana facilities in Detroit are fully licensed.

According to the city’s medical marijuana ordinances, which took effect on March 1, 2016 (Michigan voters legalized pot for medical use in 2008), dispensaries have to abide by a number of zoning and other regulations in order to qualify for a license. For instance, marijuana businesses must be more than 1,000 feet away from the following areas: churches, schools, parks, liquor stores (and other places where alcohol is sold), libraries, and child care centers. Marijuana businesses are also required to close by 8 p.m.

Hollowell told the Free Press that city officials go through the courts when seeking an order to shutter an illegal marijuana business. Because the public pushed legalization in 2008, he said, his team pursues the closings “in a way that is consistent with keeping our neighborhoods respected and at the same time, allowing for those dispensaries to operate in their specific areas that we’ve identified as being lawful.”

And according to Winfred Blackmon, the chairman of the Metropolitan Detroit Community Action Coalition, complaints from Detroit residents helped propel the recent surge in dispensary closings. He told the Free Press: “People started getting frustrated with the marijuana shops that kept popping up around their houses and schools.”

Michigan is also weighing a ballot measure for next November that, if voted through, would legalize marijuana for recreational use as well. Language for the measure was submitted to the Board of State Canvassers earlier this month; it is currently under review.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Detroit’s Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are Closing by the Hundreds appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, a Muslim man in Dearborn, Michigan filed a class-action lawsuit for $100 million against Little Caesars Pizza which, he claims, sold him a pork pepperoni-covered pizza falsely labeled “halal.” The lawsuit, filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court by Mohamad Bazzi, alleges breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and fraud.

“It’s really upsetting,” Bazzi’s attorney, Majed Moughni, told the Detroit Free Press. “My clients want the public to know. Especially during Ramadan,” he added, referring to the month-long Muslim holiday that began on Friday, “it would be a travesty if Muslims…in Dearborn bought pizza from Little Caesars and discovered they were eating pork.”

The lawsuit describes the incident: On March 20, Bazzi says he was halfway through eating a Little Caesars pizza with his wife when they realized it was topped with pork pepperoni, not halal pepperoni. They were sure of the pepperoni’s nature, he said, because he used to work at a pizza shop, and his wife is a former Catholic who used to eat pork and can recognize its flavor.

Islamic dietary laws stipulate how certain foods are prepared and, in some cases, some foods, like pork, are banned outright. Much like the kosher meat of Jewish dietary law, halal meat is often prepared and butchered under the blessing of a religious leader. Dearborn, with its dense and thriving Muslim population, is home to a number of halal establishments. Many non-halal restaurants, like Little Caesars, offer halal options.

Jill Proctor, a spokeswoman for Little Caesars, said in a statement that Bazzi’s claim “is without merit.” She added: “Little Caesars cherishes our customers from all religions and cultures, and the communities we serve are very important to us. While we can’t comment on pending litigation, we take this claim very seriously.”

Moughni, who is representing Bazzi in the case, has a history of slightly bizarre legal claims. In 2011, when Moughni was running in the Republican U.S. House race for Michigan’s 12th District, he sued Facebook because it flagged his Facebook page in the run-up to the primary election. And in 2010, in a prescient lawsuit in the age of President Donald Trump’s “America First” platform, Moughni sued former Democratic congressman Rep. John Dingell for allegedly plagiarizing his “Make it in America” campaign slogan.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Man Sues Little Caesars for $100 Million Claiming it Mislabeled a Pizza “Halal” appeared first on Law Street.

Pro-marijuana groups in Michigan submitted language to the Board of State Canvassers on Friday for a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana. If the measure makes it to the November 2018 ballot, Michigan would become the ninth state to fully legalize cannabis for adult use. Spearheaded by the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the legalization push follows a failed attempt to get a similar measure on the November 2016 ballot.

“Our country’s marijuana prohibition laws have failed miserably. About 20,000 nonviolent offenders are arrested annually for marijuana possession and cultivation, causing an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars and choking our already overburdened court system,” John Truscott, a spokesman for the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, said in a press release.

“This initiative would make Michigan a leader in responsible adult-use marijuana laws, while also creating an entirely new industry and generating badly needed tax revenue for our state,” he added. The Coalition is bolstered by a national marijuana advocacy group, the D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, which is expected to bring experience and cash to the 2018 campaign.

The group backed some of the campaigns that wound up on ballots last November, when California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada passed measures that legalized adult use. In total, eight states and D.C. have legalized recreational pot. Dozens more have legalized medical marijuana. Michigan voters passed a medical marijuana measure in 2008.

Over 250,000 voter signatures are required–within a 180-day period–before the measure can be placed on the ballot. Before the signatory search can begin, however, the Board of State Canvassers must review and approve the ballot’s language. A meeting has not yet been scheduled. In the 2016 legalization campaign, the Coalition secured enough signatures–over 300,000–but not within 180 days of the Board’s approval.

The measure submitted on Friday would legalize the possession and sale of up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana for people who are 21 and up. A ten percent excise tax would be added to marijuana sales, on top of Michigan’s current six percent sales tax. Five groups would be subject to regulations according to the ballot initiative: cultivators (in classes of 100 plants, 500 plants, and 2,000 plants), processors, testing facilities, transporters, and retailers.

Tax revenues from marijuana sales would be split down the middle, with half going to educational institutions, and the other half to Michigan cities and counties that allow marijuana businesses to operate. The proposed ballot measure would also legalize the cultivation of industrial hemp. Though Michigan’s attorney general has yet to stake out a position on legalization, the state’s law enforcement agencies have expressed opposition to the effort.

“There’s no good that I can see that will come out of this,” Blaine Koops, executive director of the Michigan Sheriff’s Association, recently told the Detroit Free Press. “One of the problems we have is that there’s no way to measure the level of intoxication from this drug. And an increase in criminal behavior in all likelihood will occur.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Michigan May Have a Marijuana Legalization Measure on the 2018 Ballot appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Outrage After Flint Residents Receive Foreclosure Warnings

In Flint, Michigan, thousands of residents have received letters warning them that they could lose their houses unless they pay outstanding water bills. But the city has just begun to recover from the water crisis and has only recently started replacing the water lines. The letters were sent out in April, just a few weeks after the state stopped paying the majority of residents’ water bills due to the contamination that was discovered in 2014. Many people in the city still don’t trust that their water taps provide clean water, even though the city says that lead levels are now low enough for the water to be safe to drink.

You didn’t read that wrong: 8000 people in Flint are being threatened with foreclosure of their homes for not paying for lead-poisoned water

— Profit-à-Proletariat (@EmmaCaterine) May 3, 2017

The city says the unpaid water and sewage bills amount to more than $5.8 million. Flint spokeswoman Kristin Moore said the letters are routine and that the households will have until next February to pay them. But now residents worry about being able to pay for water that they don’t feel comfortable drinking and some are scared of losing their homes. “Flint families should not have to pay for water that they still cannot drink,” said Democratic Rep. Daniel Kildee.

Imagine losing your home because you didn’t pay for water you couldn’t drink. https://t.co/ezchbwwkFG

— Arthur Delaney (@ArthurDelaneyHP) May 3, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

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

STATE OF WEED: WATCH

Marijuana Possibly Coming “Very, Very Soon” to Michigan

A Michigan coalition is expected to have another go at legalizing recreational marijuana in the state in the next few weeks. “We’re right on the precipice of being ready to launch this thing. It’s going to be very, very soon,” former state Rep. Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor) the political director for the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol told the Detroit Free Press. The state-wide coalition also includes MI Legalize, a group that failed to get the issue on the ballot in 2016, and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or Norml. The coalition is gearing up to submit petitions for the 2018 ballot initiative soon, but does not have a formal date set.

Federal Bill Would Allow “SAFE” Banking for Marijuana Businesses

A new bill introduced last week aims to grant marijuana business owners full access to the banking industry. The Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act, also known as HR 2215, would allow state-licensed marijuana-related businesses the freedom to interact openly with banks without fear of repercussions from the federal government. Currently, hundreds of licensed organizations are unable to accept credit cards, deposit revenue, write checks for payroll, or claim tax deductions. Similar bills were introduced in 2013 and again in 2015. We’ll have to wait and see if the third time is a charm.

Jane Search Engine Launches to Help Cannabis Customers

A new online search engine launched this week that allows users to search for cannabis products with real-time inventory information. Jane cleverly taps into dispensaries’ POS systems to find out which locations have products available, and provides verified reviews of products for customers–including a THC rating. The company has already signed up eight stores in Santa Cruz, California, and has plans to add more dispensaries in the near future.

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

LAW STREET CANNABIS COVERAGE

Spiritual High: A Cannabis Church Opened Last Week in Denver

By Alec Siegel

From the outside, it looks like any other nondescript, brick-built church. But its stained glass panels, instead of biblical images, are adorned with a colorful array of planets–with wide, cartoonish grins–and stars. Welcome to Denver’s International Church of Cannabis, which had its grand opening last Thursday, on the unofficial weed holiday known as “4/20.” In a city where smoking marijuana in public is illegal, despite Colorado’s legalization of the drug in 2012, the church offers a holy refuge to those looking for a more spiritual kind of high.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly: Marijuana “Not a Factor” in Drug War

THREE QUESTIONS: EXCLUSIVE Q&A

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

In mid-April, Oregon’s legislature passed a bill that protects cannabis consumers’ private information from being stored by dispensaries and other marijuana businesses. As co-sponsor of the bill, State Rep. Carl Wilson (R-3rd District) said the bill is also meant to protect marijuana consumers against any potential crackdowns by the Trump Administration, which has toyed with the idea of enforcing the federal marijuana ban. Wilson spoke with Law Street’s Alec Siegel recently about the bill–which Gov. Kate Brown signed on April 19–and more.

AS: What was the primary goal of the bill?

CW: The goal of much of what we have done with cannabis is to try to normalize the product, and that is to make the purchase of it much like the alcohol side of things. We find that it is a fairly tall job to try to normalize [cannabis], but a substantial side benefit was to shield the names of cannabis purchasers should there be a [federal] crackdown.

AS:  What are some other changes you’d like to see in regards to Oregon’s marijuana legalization framework?

CW: One of the biggest battles we face right now is the collision between the medical program, which has been long established, and the recently established recreational program. Since the passage of Measure 91 [which legalized recreational marijuana], there has been constant pressure to fold the medical program in with the recreational program. I come from an area of the state where marijuana growing has been a time-honored tradition. I do believe that program should be retained, and should remain autonomous [from recreational regulations].

AS: Do your constituents express concern about how the Trump Administration will enforce the federal ban? Do you have concerns?

CW: It would be wrong for me to say I have no concerns. But I feel they have bigger fish to fry at this point, and I feel they’ll stick to those fish. This hasn’t been a highly charged subject for my constituents. The people I have heard from are in the growing community who are somewhat concerned and I think our [Joint Committee on Marijuana Regulation] saw to that.

CANNABIS CULTURE

Welcome to Tumbleweed Express: America’s First Marijuana Drive-Thru

By Alec Siegel

When Mark Smith realized that the residents of Parachute, Colorado craved a late-night marijuana fix, after his dispensary had closed for the day, he had an idea. Smith, 58, decided to re-brand the Valley Car Wash across the street from his dispensary as Tumbleweed Express, the nation’s first marijuana drive-thru business. Find out more here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cannabis in America May 2017: Learn How Legislators Are Aiming to Protect Cannabis Customers appeared first on Law Street.

The city of Flint will finally replace aging water lines for 18,000 homes, after the state of Michigan agreed to pay the cost of the project as part of a legal settlement. A federal judge approved the deal on Tuesday and said that the job will have to be completed by 2020. Around 700 homes have already had their pipes replaced.

The costs will be covered by a combination of state and federal funds. Michigan will pay $87 million, and put $10 million aside for unforeseen costs. Part of the project will also be funded by the $100 million that Flint was granted by Congress at the end of last year, but some of that money will also be used to update Flint’s water treatment plant.

Residents and activists that brought the lawsuit are relieved to finally see some action. “The greatest lesson I’ve learned from Flint’s water crisis is that change only happens when you get up and make your voice heard,” said Melissa Mays, one of the plaintiffs and one of the first people who alerted officials after realizing that something was wrong with the city’s water.

Progress!!! The fight isn’t over yet but this a HUGE win for us #FlintWaterCrisis https://t.co/8PNHMPluDX

— Little Miss Flint (@LittleMissFlint) March 27, 2017

In 2014 it was discovered that tap water in Flint was contaminated, after the city stopped extracting its water from Lake Huron and, in an effort to save money, started taking it from the Flint River. It turned out that the water was so corrosive that it quickly eroded the city’s water pipes, collecting iron, lead, and other metals on its way to residents’ homes. Lead is dangerous and can cause long-term physical and mental damage. A dozen people have died from Legionnaires’ disease in the city.

In December 2016, Michigan’s attorney general announced felony charges against two former Flint emergency managers and two other former city officials, saying, “All too prevalent in this Flint Water Investigation was a priority on balance sheets and finances rather than health and safety of the citizens of Flint.” The politicians’ decision to switch water sources to save $5 million resulted in a loss of over $1.5 billion, according to estimates.

A) it only took 3 years to get the ruling
B) 2020?!?!?! Wtf https://t.co/pPqSHOuhX7

— Tatiana Torres (@princessdeleon) March 27, 2017

As part of the agreement the state must also keep providing residents with free bottled water and conduct inspections to ensure that residents have proper filters installed on their taps–and provide such filters for free. Other aspects of the settlement include new water monitoring requirements and that the state maintains current Medicaid funding levels.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post Flint to Replace 18,000 Water Lines, Michigan Agrees to Pay $97 Million appeared first on Law Street.

The current political climate has resulted in reminders of celebrities that none of us have thought about in a while. First, there was Scott Baio. Then, there was Aaron Carter. Next, it was Three Doors Down.

The latest celebrity who, through the power of conservative politics, has come out of the woodwork is none other than Robert Ritchie, also known as Kid Rock. You know, the guy who sings “All Summer Long.”

According to a report from Roll Call, Kid Rock’s name was brought up at a Michigan Republican Party convention as a potential candidate to run for Debbie Stabenow’s Senate seat. Stabenow, a Democrat, has served in the Senate since 2000. She is one of 25 Democratic senators on the ballot in 2018.

While Kid Rock has not commented on the possibility nor has he been officially asked, a Michigan GOP spokesperson told Fox News that she “wouldn’t be surprised if there was a movement for him to run.”

If Kid Rock does decide to run, he might face some competition from none other than Ted Nugent, the hardcore conservative rock musician who was an outspoken Trump supporter during the campaign and appeared at a couple of his Michigan rallies. One such appearance resulted in Nugent grabbing his crotch on stage while he said, “I’ve got your blue state right here. Black and blue. Each and every one of you have only 24 hours to convince the numb nuts that you know, that you can’t vote for criminals, you can’t vote for liars, you can’t vote for scam artists.” Note that this is also nowhere near the most vulgar thing Nugent has done or said.

Speaking to The Daily Caller about a possible Senate run, Nugent said that he “is always interested in making [his] country and the great state of Michigan great again” and that “there is nothing I wouldn’t do to help in any way I possibly can.”

Kid Rock has proven to be less conservative than Nugent, once telling Rolling Stone in 2013 that he considers himself, politically, to be a “lone wolf” and “more Libertarian,” although he tends to vote Republican. In a 2015 interview with Rolling Stone, Kid Rock spoke about his belief in gun ownership as a “sacred right.”

This past election, Kid Rock supported Trump, telling Rolling Stone that he would like to see America run like a business because: “it’s not really working too well running it not like a business.” Early in the 2016 campaign, he spoke of his interest in Dr. Ben Carson as a candidate. Kid Rock’s website also began selling pro-Trump merchandise during the election. A sample of this merch: a shirt with America’s electoral map on the chest, with the states in blue labeled “Dumbf*ckistan.” The shirt sold for $24.99 plus shipping costs.

Kid Rock has been touting his political beliefs for years. During the 2000s, Kid Rock would perform with a Confederate flag behind him, which came back to haunt him in 2011 when he accepted an award from the NAACP’s Detroit branch. He was also an outspoken supporter of Mitt Romney during the 2012 election. Romney called his song “Be Free” his campaign theme song and Kid Rock performed it for him at a campaign event. He also appeared at multiple Romney rallies throughout the country.

While he has been an outspoken conservative, Kid Rock did perform at an Obama inauguration event in 2009, telling The Guardian that, despite not voting for Obama, “there was an exciting sense of change in the air.” However, Kid Rock has said that Obama helped to create a country that was “more divided than ever.” He was, of course, referring to the tension that is rising among people living in red states and those living in “Dumbf*ckistan.”

If this past year has taught us anything, it’s that we should never say never. This 2018 senatorial race could be one to pay attention to.

VOTE KID ROCK pic.twitter.com/SwTMgckKbd

— Kid Rock (@KidRock) November 8, 2016

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Is Kid Rock Michigan’s Next Senate Candidate? appeared first on Law Street.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a lawsuit on Friday to stop the recount of election ballots that Green Party leader Jill Stein has initiated. His argument is that it is expensive and could cost taxpayers millions of dollars. The recount in Michigan has not started yet, and Schuette asked the Michigan Board of Canvassers to reject Stein’s request, claiming that she doesn’t have any evidence of fraud or errors. Since it is pretty urgent, he also filed an emergency motion with the Michigan Supreme Court to look at the issue immediately. “We have asked the court to end the recount which Stein is pursuing in violation of Michigan laws that protect the integrity of our elections,” he said.

It is inexcusable for Stein to put MI votes at risk of paying millions and potentially losing their voice in the Elec College.

— A.G. Bill Schuette (@SchuetteOnDuty) December 2, 2016

The lawsuit says that Stein received only about 50,000 votes of the 4.7 million votes cast in Michigan, and yet she wants a recount to make sure that was the right result. It claims that it will cost taxpayers millions of dollars and criticizes the fact that she waited until three weeks after the election and then requested a recount by hand, which will take a very long time.

But Stein’s campaign paid the fee for filing the request in full, almost $1 million, and has also raised more than $6 million in just a few days to cover the recounts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Her argument for doing so has nothing to do with believing she could win the election; rather it is about transparency and fairness. She wrote in an op-ed in USA Today on Thursday:

In the age of computerized voting machines and unprecedented corporate influence in our elections, our electoral system is under increasing threat. How can every citizen’s voice be heard if we do not know if every citizen’s vote is counted correctly?

Also on Friday, the Board of State Canvassers in Michigan failed to reach an agreement on another objection to the recount effort, this time by Trump’s lawyers. Since the vote was 2-2, the requested recount could theoretically start as early as the beginning of next week. But it all depends on what happens with Schuette’s lawsuit.

The recounts Americans are calling for will help restore trust in our democracy. They’ll also point us to reforms that safeguard that trust.

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) December 2, 2016

Stein bashed the lawsuit, calling it a politically motivated attempt to side with Trump, and said: “Our democracy allows for recounts to ensure the accuracy and security of elections, and today’s move by the Attorney General is yet another frivolous attempt to obstruct this legal process.”

She pointed out that a miscount doesn’t need to have been made on purpose, but as with anything that has to do with machines, glitches do happen. In 2004, 90,000 votes remained uncounted because of calibration problems with the machines in a county in Ohio. Who knows if anything else could be wrong?

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post Michigan Attorney General Files Lawsuit to Stop Election Recount appeared first on Law Street.

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein took on a pretty big project over Thanksgiving weekend–a Wisconsin recount effort. Trump won a narrow, upset victory in Wisconsin. But Stein raised money to look into that victory–citing concerns of election tampering, perhaps from Russian nationals. Now, the Clinton campaign has lent its support–although officials from the campaign don’t seem particularly optimistic.

Stein went after Wisconsin first, given that the deadline to file for a recount was on Friday. She now promises to file in Pennsylvania and Michigan, two other swing states that narrowly went for Trump. In order to support her efforts, Stein has raised more than $5 million (more, CNBC ironically points out, than she raised for her entire presidential campaign).

The margins were indeed thin in those states. According to the New York Times:

In Wisconsin, Mr. Trump leads by 22,177 votes. In Michigan, he has a lead of 10,704 votes, and in Pennsylvania his advantage is 70,638 votes.

But, those are still larger margins than have ever been overcome in a recount. Marc Elias, a lawyer for the Clinton camp explained the campaign’s reasoning for participating, but the statement was decidedly somewhat pessimistic that the recount would change anything:

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount.

President-elect Donald Trump was (unsurprisingly) quite unimpressed with Stein’s effort. He called it a “scam” and said “the results of this election should be respected instead of being challenged and abused, which is exactly what Jill Stein is doing.” But as Elias said: “now that a recount is underway, we believe we have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported.” We’ll have to see if Stein’s efforts unearth any new news.

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 Recount Effort Underway in Wisconsin, Clinton Camp Now Participating appeared first on Law Street.

More and more people are now mixing heroin and other street drugs with an extremely potent drug normally used for tranquilizing elephants. The drug, carfentanil, is reportedly 10,000 times stronger than morphine and 100 times stronger than fentanyl. At least 19 deaths have been linked to this lethal cocktail in the Detroit area only since July, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. What’s even worse is that the drug has no antidote. District Judge Linda B. Davis told the Detroit Free Press to Detroit Free Press:

This is really scary. We know there have been some instances in Port Huron and New Haven where this has been suspected […] It makes it more deadly than heroin already is… This is really deadly. It is devastating communities.

Carfentanil was first created in 1974 for veterinary use and has not been approved for human use. As it is sometimes sold in pill form, users face great risk of accidental overdose. And the effects start only minutes after taking it–disorientation, coughing, sedation, respiratory distress, or cardiac arrest and death. “This stuff is so deadly, you could die before you can get high,” said Lloyd Jackson, spokesman for the Wayne County medical examiner’s office.

The Associated Press found that it is particularly easy to buy carfentanil online from producers in China, even though the U.S. government is urging the country to blacklist the drug. Over there, it is legal and out in the open, though its qualities have been compared to nerve gas. A Chinese worker at a lab that makes carfentanil told the AP that she thinks it should be controlled in China, but that there are so many labs and so much of the product, that she doesn’t know how the government could ever control it.

Apart from tranquilizing animals, it has also been studied for use as a chemical weapon by the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, and a few other countries. The drug’s potency can be demonstrated by the time when Chechen rebels held over 800 people hostage at a theater in Moscow in 2002. Russian forces used a related drug, fentanyl, to get the rebels to surrender by spraying it into the theater. It worked–but the effects also killed 120 of the hostages.

“Countries that we are concerned about were interested in using it for offensive purposes. We are also concerned that groups like ISIS could order it commercially,” said Andrew Weber, former assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs, to the AP.

According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the amount of fentanyl seized by authorities has increased from 8.1 pounds in 2014 to 295 pounds only from July 2016 until today. But DEA officials have said that they have experienced an unexpectedly high level of cooperation rate from Chinese officials in their efforts to stop the production and smuggling of carfentanil, noting that both countries are looking at it very closely.

“Shining sunlight on this black market activity should encourage Chinese authorities to shut it down,” Weber told the AP.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post 19 Dead In Michigan From Mixing Drugs With Elephant Tranquilizer appeared first on Law Street.

The Uber driver who claimed responsibility for the shooting rampage in Kalamazoo, Michigan that left six people dead and two wounded is now blaming the app for his murderous spree.

Man charged with killing six in Kalamazoo shootings says Uber app made him do it https://t.co/DznSXCIMhD pic.twitter.com/MeNYgetOUd

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 14, 2016

Jason Dalton told investigators that he felt as if the app took him over “like artificial intelligence that can tap into you body,” according to police documents.

Dalton was working as an Uber driver when he allegedly began his shooting rampage. For hours, the married father of two is said to have fired upon pedestrians at random, stopping intermittently to pick up unsuspecting fares.

According to the arresting officer’s report, Dalton told investigators during a video interview shortly after the shootings that the Uber app made him “feel like a puppet”  and would “literally take over” his whole body.

At first he was reluctant to explain what had happened because he “[didn’t] want to come across as a crazy person.”

Dalton explained to investigators that all of his problems started after he opened the driver app. According to the report, when he would log into the app a symbol that resembled an Eastern Star would appear and a horned devil would pop up on his screen. When the symbol was black, the devil take over his body and give him assignments, but when the symbol turned from black to red he would regain control.

The report reads,

Dalton explained how you can drive over 100mph and go through stop signs and you can just get places.

[…]

It starts out that you have to follow the navigation, but it gets to the point where you don’t have to drive at all, the car just goes.

Dalton also told investigators that he was seeing himself from outside of his body.

Police have stated that Dalton has no prior history of mental illness. However, earlier this month he was ordered to undergo a mental competency exam to determine whether or not he is fit to stand trial.

If found competent he faces charges for murder and attempted murder in the multiple shootings that occurred outside of an apartment complex, a restaurant, and at a car lot.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kalamazoo Shooter Claims Uber App Possessed Him to Shoot People appeared first on Law Street.

The city of Kalamazoo, Michigan was terrorized Saturday night when a man, believed to be 45-year-old Jason Brian Dalton, went on a shooting spree for hours that left six people dead, and two wounded. Police have yet to pinpoint a motive that would explain why a married father of two would shoot people of different ages, genders, and ethnicities at random.

Jason Brian Dalton had no criminal record. Police are baffled as to why he may have killed: https://t.co/K8NypwUHJn pic.twitter.com/AgufCvcyDK

— CNN (@CNN) February 22, 2016

We do know that Dalton was operating as an Uber driver during the time of the murders, and even picked up fares in between shootings. In fact so much attention has been placed on Dalton’s profession that “Uber” is currently the main identifier being used in the media to describe him. Now the popular ride sharing app is facing scrutiny, as people question how its hiring practices failed to pinpoint Dalton as a possible liability.

But is Uber really to blame?

Uber regularly runs background checks on all prospective new drivers before allowing them to join its driver fleet. Third parties run each candidate’s name through databases and then flag anything suspicious. However, some say this system is less thorough than ones used by taxi and limo companies, which require candidates have their fingerprints taken to be submitted to law enforcement.

But even with fingerprint analysis, Dalton would have passed. According to Uber, Dalton passed all of his background checks and police said he had no criminal history. Another surprising fact is that Dalton had a 4.7 out of 5 rating on the app, and received mostly positive feedback from people he picked up.

However, Uber did admit that it failed to act on a report that claimed Dalton was driving erratically and endangering passengers, about an hour before cops say he went on his shooting rampage.

According to the New York Post, a passenger by the name of Matt Mellen called the police and complained to Uber that he was forced to jump out Dalton’s car around 4:30pm because Dalton was “speeding, driving on lawns and medians, and running stop signs.”

Uber said it only takes action over allegations of “bad driving” after first speaking with the driver. Therefore Mellen’s complaint was filed away into a pile of similar ones, instead of indicating a possible imminent threat.

So to answer our question “is Uber to blame?” the answer is not exactly.

Uber followed its typical hiring procedures and background checks, and had no reason to suspect Dalton would carry out such horrific crimes. Uber also relied on feedback from more than 100 riders that were picked up by Dalton during his time with the company, most of which were positive. It did, however, drop the ball when it came to the complaint submitted the day of the shooting. But even if Uber had disciplined Dalton, we can’t say that would have prevented his violent attacks.

Uber definitely has room for improvement, but continuing to refer to Dalton as the “Uber driver that shot people,” will only continue to draw negative attention to the company that ultimately isn’t responsible for this man’s crimes.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Attention on Uber After Kalamazoo, Michigan Shooting Rampage appeared first on Law Street.

By now everyone has heard about the current water crisis in Flint, Michigan. The city’s drinking water has been contaminated with lead, making it harmful and potentially life-threatening to drink, and almost everyone is pointing fingers in an attempt to find someone to blame for this catastrophic event. All across the country, people have taken to social media to protest what they feel has been a complete failure on the part of Flint’s government. But it’s kind of hard to tell whether or not the situation is actually getting any better.

#FLINT: “a staggering level of ineptitude, if not criminal negligence.”

— Bette Midler (@BetteMidler) January 23, 2016

It’s a shame that one of the recent hostages is a Flint resident, and he had better water when he was captive than when he got home #TeamDl

— DL Hughley (@RealDLHughley) January 23, 2016

Photos of a local poster began circling the internet after being taken down by the State of Michigan due to backlash from the community. The poster–which featured two adorable babies bathing, along with messages confirming it was okay to wash your children in Flint water just as long as they didn’t accidentally drink it–is a shining example of just why everyone is so riled up. The situation is horrifying and negatively affecting some of the most helpless residents in Flint. Even the Girl Scouts of America have voiced their concerns, proving that this water crisis is an issue affecting everyone.

The government in Flint has been working to raise money and support for its city, even reaching out to President Obama in an attempt to have the Flint crisis declared a federal disaster so they can receive federal funding to try to remedy the situation. The President denied federal disaster status, but did give the city emergency funds of $5 million dollars. Unfortunately for Flint, that money boils down to almost nothing in the grand scheme of things, so Governor Rick Snyder has appealed his case to President Obama, hoping to have the status of the Flint emergency reconsidered. Some have estimated the city is going to need as much as $1 billion dollars in the upcoming year after looking at just how deep this lead-filled water problem goes.

The good news is people are stepping up to help the residents of Flint. Celebrities are reaching out and using their star power to donate money and water to the cause.

Pearl Jam donate $300,000 to city of Flint, Michigan amid water crisis: https://t.co/uNddI1WDsC pic.twitter.com/tWGeReyaAQ

— Consequence of Sound (@coslive) January 23, 2016

Big Sean Is Donating $10,000 To The Kids Of Flint — And You Can Help, Too https://t.co/gtMRv3wTDN

— MTV (@MTV) January 23, 2016

Jimmy Fallon donates $10,000 to Flint charity during city’s ongoing water crisis https://t.co/brHFjUKAJBpic.twitter.com/Jpe1Y57IbL

— TIME.com (@TIME) January 25, 2016

A firefighter in Chicago, who was horrified to hear about the water conditions in Flint, decided to start asking for water bottle donations, and has collected over 130 cases of water; he plans to drive them to Flint at the end of the week. Residents of Western Michigan have banded together to gather water testing kits, water filters, bottled water, and money to donate to the city in addition to sending over 200 volunteers to help hand out supplies to local Flint citizens with no access to clean drinking water. Even people outside of the Midwest have been helping out by starting dozens of GoFundMe pages to raise money for the city–and the results have been staggering.

It really is heartwarming to see how many people nation-wide are helping Flint without any reservations, which will be instrumental in sustaining the people of Flint until this crippling problem is resolved. Hopefully, with some hard work, financial support, and a new plan for handling the water supply, Flint residents will soon have the clean water they deserve. Until then, it’s time to keep the altruistic spirit of volunteerism alive and help out our friends in need.

Alexandra Simone

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

The post How Has the Nation Responded to Flint’s Cries for Help? appeared first on Law Street.

Would you drink this water?

Here’s what Flint, Michigan’s poison lead water looks like. pic.twitter.com/s2g2ml8UL4

— (´・ω・｀) (@_icze4r) January 15, 2016

Many citizens of Flint, Michigan are refusing to–and for good reason. The water supplied by the city of Flint to many residents has been contaminated with poisonous amounts of lead and other toxins for over two years. The safe level for lead content in drinking water, according to the CDC, is absolutely none. That’s why the EPA’s goal for public drinking water is zero parts per billion (ppb), and why 15 ppb is listed as their action level (the concentration at which water authorities are federally required to lower contamination).

So with these regulations from the Safe Drinking Water Act, why are some families reporting 25, 100, and even 200 ppb of lead detected in the tap water from their homes? The answer is shrouded in the intricacies of municipal water supply agreements and water main construction, which are enough to make anyone’s eyes glaze over. So let’s break down just how this ‘man-made disaster‘ began: with a corner-cutting move designed to save money.

It Began With a Plan

Flint, Michigan had been getting its tap water from Detroit for over 50 years. But in 2013, the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA) began constructing a new pipeline to connect water from Lake Huron to Genessee County, which contains the Flint metropolitan area. This new project would provide water to Genessee and neighboring counties no longer rely on water piped in from Detroit.

A project like this is great news for towns like Flint, which could reduce their public water costs by procuring it locally while also creating jobs to construct and maintain the new system. So construction began on the KWA, and at this point in the story, no public officials or agencies have done anything wrong. That changes.

A Temporary Switch

You see, when this happened, Flint planned to switch to the new KWA pipelines when they finished construction in three years. But in the meantime, they still needed water, and rather than continuing to buy the Detroit water–a pre-treated and sanitary supply from Lake Huron–they switched sources to the Flint River. This switch was estimated to save about $5 million over less than two years.

The trouble was that the water sourced from the Flint River was 19 times more corrosive than the Lake Huron supply. Even after being treated and deemed acceptable, the water eroded the city’s pipes and water lines and accumulated iron, lead, and other metals from the material of the pipes.

By the time the water arrives at neighborhoods, businesses, and schools, the once-drinkable water is tinged brown from the iron, and carrying harmful levels of toxic chemicals. The most dangerous of which is lead.

Flint, Michigan, is suffering a major water crisis. Here’s how you can help. https://t.co/Z01vWiG8JLpic.twitter.com/ecJyIhEtkF

— CNN (@CNN) January 14, 2016

Permanent Health Effects

The presence of lead in drinking water is known to cause kidney problems and related issues in adults, but infants and children are subjected to the worst effects. Lead interferes with development such that children exposed to lead exhibit delays in mental and physical development are often severely impaired by the contaminant’s effects. In September 2015, according to a study performed by the Hurley Medical Center, the proportion of infants and children with above-average levels of lead in their blood nearly doubled since Flint switched its water source.

Given the extent of the problem, residents in Flint have very few options to stay safe. Many homeowners took to boiling large batches of water before bathing their children or giving them water to drink. While that process can help remove some impurities, it actually makes the issue of lead contamination worse. The city issued a ‘Boil Advisory‘ detailing how boiling water just increases the concentration of lead in the tap water.

The only choice left for thousands of residents is to purchase bottled water. The FDA regulates that a bottle of water can have no more than 5 ppb of lead, so bottled water is a safer option for concerned homeowners. For many, this cost is in addition to their water bill, which still may need to use for bathing, and washing dishes. Considering that Flint is often recognized for its poverty (in addition to being among the most dangerous cities in the United States), this burden is especially debilitating.

A Failed Response

After denying that the water in Flint presented a danger to its citizens for nearly two years while residents continuously complained about their water quality, Flint officials finally recognized the contamination problem. When trying to contain a public health epidemic such as this one, it’s important to know the scale of the problem. That seems like a pretty simple task– figure out which homes receive water from pipes made of lead, as those pipes are now corroded and cannot safely transmit water– but as with all things bureaucratic, it wasn’t nearly that simple.

The city government’s data on which houses are serviced by lead water lines was written down on 45,000 index cards stored in a filing cabinet in the city’s public utility building. In October of 2015, transferring this information into a digital spreadsheet was, according to Department of Public Works Director Howard Croft, “on our to-do list,” but only a quarter of the cards had been processed at that time.

Remember that $5 million number? That was the amount Flint expected to save with their water-source switch. The ultimate cost of that “money-saving” maneuver has been estimated at over $1.5 billion dollars by some, as officials evaluate the cost of completely renovating the Flint waterlines with lead-free pipes. That figure also doesn’t take into account any compensation for families and children affected by the contaminated water. The Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder has now officially appealed to President Obama for a declaration of disaster and federal aid.

Whether Snyder and the state of Michigan receive the declaration and money they are hoping for, the damage to the people of Flint has already been done. Even as the water source is relocated, the lead pipes servicing Flint will still be compromised. A careless decision by local officials snowballed into a public health crisis of unprecedented scale in the area, and the youngest residents of Flint will pay the highest price.

Sean Simon

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

The post A Call for Help in Flint’s Toxic Water Emergency appeared first on Law Street.

This week, over sixty schools in Detroit were closed due to teacher absences as teachers went on strike against horrific conditions in the city’s schools. Teachers are outraged by both the physical conditions of the schools (mold, rot, etc…) and by the enormous class sizes that the school district was forced to adopt after major budget cuts. The school district is hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, and the state legislature has seemingly preoccupied itself with the bottom line rather than the conditions within the school district. So, teachers called in sick this week to protest their working conditions, effectively shutting down the school system for days.

The Detroit Federation of Teachers, the city’s primary teachers’ union, has not called for an official strike. However, its former President Steve Conn, who was ousted from the presidency in 2014, does take credit for organizing the “sickout.” This week’s empty classrooms frustrated many parents and lawmakers but the sickout did strike a chord with city leadership. Mayor Mike Duggan conducted an inspection of several schools this week and has announced plans for further health and safety inspections across the school district.

Some view the sickouts as a step in the wrong direction, arguing that the teachers’ actions will only further isolate decision-makers in the state legislature. Yet the sickout can also been hailed as a genius move to sidestep the bureaucracy and effectively protest non-violently. Organizing a strike through formal channels takes a great deal of time and formal procedures but the sickout was pulled together quickly and effectively because it required relatively little formal protest organization. By using their sick days, teachers were simultaneously protesting and using the personal time legally allotted to them, which may protect them from harsh retributions from anti-reform sympathizers. Every teacher is entitled to a set number of personal days and they can use them however they see fit.

Teacher strikes are devastating to any school district as they deny students crucial time in the classroom, but they are also a critical tool for reforming our nation’s schools. Detroit has now captured national attention, placing significant pressure on state and city officials to act quickly. As the teachers return to their hazardous classrooms, the city leadership and the state legislature have the responsibility to make health and safety a priority for the school district. Meetings have already been arranged (although no date has been set) to discuss health and safety reform. The sickout only lasted a few short days, and time will tell if it achieved the desired results, but it did shine a spotlight on conditions that few outside of the Detroit school system were aware of before this week. The sickout is an unconventional tool but it may be exactly what many organizations are looking for: a peaceful way to protest that does not impose on the quality of life of the protesters. Taking a sick day is an inconvenience, but for many it is preferable to going on a formal strike and forgoing wages and health benefits. The average teacher only has a handful of sick days every year so spending even one is a sacrifice, but the publicity that Detroit teachers have garnered may inspire other suffering school districts to follow in their footsteps.

Jillian Sequeira

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

The post What Does Detroit’s “Sickout” Mean for the Future? appeared first on Law Street.

While perusing my Twitter feed the other day, I came across a ridiculous tweet from Cosmopolitan magazine that got me thinking about weight in the workplace:

Ashley Benson Responds to Hollywood Saying She's "Too Fat" https://t.co/eODHBO3ikX pic.twitter.com/LIDUjPdwLL

— Cosmopolitan (@Cosmopolitan) January 4, 2016

A little background—Ashley Benson is one of the four stars of the hit ABC Family show “Pretty Little Liars”—and believe me, she is nowhere near fat. In fact, she even admits that she’s a size 2 in both the short Cosmo piece and the longer article that it is based on, which appeared in Ocean Drive.

This all begs the question—since when was a size 2 too fat?

Well, Hollywood is a terrible and subjective sort of beast. Benson is not the first young woman in show business to make a comment about someone saying she is too fat. Jennifer Lawrence, for instance, has always been outspoken about her love for food, and she has said on more than one occasion that she is considered a “fat actress.” As with Benson, Lawrence is definitely not fat. She is, however, curvy in that effortless way that makes her a bombshell.

So is Hollywood saying that skinny (i.e. without curves) is perfect and curvy is fat? What about the average woman in the United States, who is 5’ 4” and weighs 166 pounds?

It caused me to take a step back and think about the fact that Ashley Benson’s and Jennifer Lawrence’s workplaces are Hollywood. Their sources of livelihood are their acting chops and their appearances. So, when thought of in that way, wouldn’t being turned down for a part because you are “too fat” be considered workplace discrimination?

Surprisingly, no. There is really only one state in the United States–Michigan–that has any sort of law about weight discrimination in the workplace, and even then, it’s really difficult to prove in a courtroom. In 2013, a large number of cocktail waitresses tried to sue a casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey for forcing them to do weigh-ins and lose weight on a regular basis, and they lost. Overweight and obese people–and those are subjective terms, since everyone who isn’t a medical doctor has a different opinion on what constitutes an obese person–are not a protected class. This means that, legally, workplaces can discriminate against obese job applicants and employees.

Think about that for a minute.

While “overweight” people probably can’t be fired from a job they already have–there has to be a reason for firing someone, since unlawful termination is easier to prove than other types of workplace discrimination–there have been studies that have shown that hiring managers are significantly less likely to hire an “overweight” person than a skinny person. In addition, skinny or otherwise attractive employees are more likely to get promoted and receive pay raises, whereas heavier employees are more often passed over or forced to work extra hours to get the same benefits, promotions, or compensation.

When all of this is put together, the conclusion is a dreary one. Yes, weight does matter in the workplace, even if you aren’t an actress or a model. Being considered fat or overweight may keep you from getting a job, and if you already have a job, it may keep you from advancing in your career. You’ll likely have to work harder to earn what you believe you deserve. It’s a troubling world that we live in, where people’s subjective opinions about what others should look like affect their employment opportunities, even when they aren’t famous actresses. Reality, unfortunately, isn’t known for being nice to people.

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does Weight Matter in the Workplace? appeared first on Law Street.

Zach Anderson is the 19-year-old young man whose harsh sentence received national backlash after he had sex with a 14-year-old girl who told him she was 17. His sentence was just vacated by a judge, and a new sentence will be given. But while Anderson may now be getting a gentler sentence, his plight still says a lot about the state of the sex offender laws in our country.

Anderson, who is a native of Indiana, met the unnamed 14-year-old girl through a hookup app called “Hot or Not.” Much like other, perhaps more widely known hookup apps like “Tinder” it allows users to represent themselves in really however they see fit–there’s no age verification involved. So, Anderson, who was 19 at the time, met a girl who portrayed herself as 17. She lived just 20 miles away across state lines in Michigan. They met, and had “consensual” sex, despite the fact that she was under the age of consent.

It was at this point that Anderson was arrested and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor criminal sexual conduct. But the sentence he received was exceedingly harsh. Anderson was sentenced to 90 days in jail, as well as five years on probation. He also would be on the Indiana and Michigan sex offender registries for 25 years–a command that comes with a sentence of its own. According to CBS News,

Anderson also faces 61 conditions including restrictions that bar him from going online, dining at restaurants that serve alcohol and even living at home, because he has a 15-year-old brother.

As a result of his sentence, he also had to withdraw from Ivy University, where he was planning on majoring in computer science. The sex offender registry rules have prohibitions on using computers that would have made it impossible for him to complete his studies.

The harshness of these conditions resulted in a public outcry. Many onlookers viewed Anderson’s plight as unfortunate–after all, he wasn’t the one who lied about his age. In fact, both the girl he had sex with, as well as her mother, asked the judge for leniency.

But the judge in his case, Dennis Wiley, claimed that Anderson should have been able to tell that the girl was younger than she said she was. He wrote in his sentencing about how his decision was based in part on “the Court’s observation of the victim at sentencing, who appeared to be extremely young in development and maturity…It should have been apparent to a casual observer that she was clearly underage and vulnerable.” He also appeared to take issue with the fact that the two met online, and offered what can be viewed as an overall indictment of so-called “hookup culture.” Judge Wiley stated during the hearing: “That seems to be part of our culture now. Meet, have sex, hook up, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever.” But regardless of Judge Wiley’s personal feelings, “our culture” wasn’t on trial–Anderson was, and he clearly paid a hefty price for what the judge believed.

However, that sentence was just vacated by Judge Wiley, although not because of its harshness. Instead, it was based on a procedural issue with the prosecutor, Assistant Prosecutor Gerald Vigansky, and the comments he made at Anderson’s sentencing about the sentences Wiley gave in similar cases. As a result, a new judge will re-sentence Anderson. While there’s no guarantee that the new sentence will be less harsh, Anderson’s family sees it a step in the right direction. After all, given Anderson’s lack of history as a sex offender, and the other particulars of the case, it’s hard to imagine that such a stringent sentence will be replicated.

Regardless of what happens in Anderson’s case, sex offender laws in the United States are beginning to fall under increasing scrutiny. The idea that a young man could be placed on the sex offender registry for 25 years, because of an act of consensual sex during which he was lied to, is hard to justify. But it’s certainly not the only case in which these laws have been applied unjustly. As former Judge William Buhl, who presided in a town near Anderson’s told CNN:

If we caught every teenager that violated our current law we’d lock up 30 or 40 percent of the high school. We’re kidding ourselves.

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 Young Man Sentenced to Years on the Sex Offender List May Get a Second Chance appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine being told you have a potentially fatal disease and going through weeks of expensive treatments and stress. Then you find out you were intentionally misdiagnosed. This is the nightmare that 553 patients are experiencing after Michigan-based Dr. Farid Fata purposely misdiagnosed them with various types of cancer so that he could make more money. The unnecessary treatments they received amounted to 9,000 injections and infusions that cost the insurance companies and patients millions.

One by one, patients confront doctor who falsely diagnosed them with cancer http://t.co/lgC88qbYai pic.twitter.com/EInUjqYHe1

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 8, 2015

For example, Robert Sobieray, a 62-year-old disabled autoworker, was diagnosed with a rare blood cancer by Fata in 2010. Sobieray claims the treatments he endured caused his body to uncontrollably twitch and his teeth to fall out. When Fata was arrested in 2013 for healthcare fraud Sobieray went to another doctor who told him he actually never had the disease. Sobieray stated:

I have so much hatred towards Fata. His name causes an instant headache. He gets my stomach turning. It is hard to explain…the things I want to do to that guy I couldn’t say in public. I hope he gets life.

It’s easy to imagine that the other patients feel as similarly betrayed as Sobieray. As his patients were fearing death, the 50-year-old doctor was running seven upscale clinics and then going home to rest in his comfy Michigan mansion. After undergoing countless aggressive and unnecessary treatments many of his patients now do have health issues. Victims said the cancer treatments Fata gave them caused problems such as hair loss, depression, and high blood pressure, among others.

this doctor lied an told healthy people they had cancer so he could make money….this is the world we live in.

— tayrn. (@_annakae) July 7, 2015

This doctor who lied to his patients saying they had cancer just so he can get more money from treatments, appts, etc makes me sick

— Briana Lafontaine (@brilafontaine) July 7, 2015

In addition to misdiagnosing people, Fata also never told those who were terminally ill that they were dying. This led patients who were close to death to continue buying treatments–making him more money. They thought that their health was improving while it simply was not. “Some of these terminal patients never knew they were dying because of Fata’s lies,” prosecutors stated in a sentencing memo. Cheryl Blades said when her mother Nancy LaFrance had a recurrence of lung cancer, the surgeon told her that chemo would not help. However, Dr. Fata had different beliefs. Blades claims

He told my mother he was going to cure her. He promised her. He said you will see your youngest granddaughter graduate from high school. And none of that happened.

In September Dr. Fata pleaded guilty to health care fraud, money laundering, and conspiring to pay and receive kickbacks. Federal prosecutors are asking that he gets a 175 year sentence, while his attorney is trying to lower it to only 25 years. His hearing began Monday, and may last all week. Several of Fata’s victims have been giving statements in court this week on their changed lives–hopefully Fata’s sentencing will ultimately provide some closure and peace to his victims.

Taelor Bentley

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

The post Michigan Doctor Misdiagnoses Patients to Make Extra Cash appeared first on Law Street.

Michigan is a lovely state, arguably most famous as the home of the Great Lakes. It is also a state with many strange laws, especially a specific few pertaining to transportation. In Michigan, it is illegal to be drunk while on a train, and cars may not be sold on Sunday. Speaking of Sundays, the last one in June of every year is officially deemed “log cabin day.”

There are myriad laws in Michigan pertaining to the conduct of men and women. For one, adultery is illegal but only punishable if the affected husband or wife files a complaint. Also, men are banned from “seducing and corrupting unmarried girls.” If they do so, they face up to five years in prison.

Not if you’re an unmarried woman, missy!

Animal rights activists will be happy to know that in Michigan it is illegal to kill a dog using a decompression chamber. They would also be happy to know that a law that would have previously angered them has been repealed; at one point, there was a bounty on starlings and crows killed in any “village, township or city” in Michigan. Granted, a three cent bounty (for starlings) and a ten cent bounty (for crows) probably wouldn’t lead many to make them hunting targets, but you never know.

I know you’ve all been anxiously waiting to discover what the dumb laws in Ohio are. Well, the wait is over! Until 2005, breastfeeding was not allowed in public, no matter the state of hunger of the baby. Ohio lawmakers also decided at one point to create a nice and obscure law to make it illegal to “mistreat anything of great importance.” That is quite a subjective term, considering we all generally think of different things as greatly important.

Criminals in Ohio can basically go wild on Sundays and on the Fourth of July. On those days, no civil arrests may be made in the state.

These days, the appearance of food is grossly misrepresented in advertisements and other images. Akron decided to put an end to this by enacting a law banning the display of colored chickens. The city also takes sports safety a bit too seriously and bans skateboarding after dark.

Last but not least in this edition of Dumb Laws in the United States: Indiana. Mathematicians must have argued substantially over when to stop reciting the digits in Pi, as there is a law officially deeming its value as three.

If an Indiana man wants to impress a lady by showing off his macho nature skills, he cannot do so by catching a fish with his bare hands. He also had better not walk around looking aroused–another no-no according to Indiana law.

Lawmakers must really believe into the power of prayer as those who pray for their dependents don’t have to pay for their medical care. And liquor laws in Indiana redefine ridiculous. Looking for a one-stop shop for White Russian ingredients? You won’t find everything you need in Indiana, where liquor stores may not sell milk. You’ll also have to go elsewhere for cold soda as a mixer, since liquor stores there cannot sell that either.

Not if you’re an Indiana liquor store, you don’t!

Marisa Mostek

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

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Michigan, Ohio, & Indiana appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve written before about how great I think John Dingell is on Twitter. (And I really, really hope it’s actually him. I’ll just keep telling myself it is, anyway.) The now-former Congressman from Michigan retired at the end of the year, but much to my delight he shows no signs of letting up on his constant Twitter brilliance–even through a rough patch that saw the Congressman in the hospital with a fractured hip. I wish him well in his retirement and fully expect that we’ll hear plenty more out of Michigan’s finest son. Check out some of the statesman’s latest gems from this winter.

[SlideDeck2 id=30996 ress=1]

Chelsey D. Goff

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

The post Former Rep. John Dingell is Still the King of Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

For the second year in a row, Detroit, Michigan and Irvine, California are the Most Dangerous and Safest cities in the America, respectively. Law Street’s comprehensive analysis of the FBI’s latest Uniform Crime Report allowed us to rank the safest and the most dangerous big cities in the United States.

Click here to see the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities with populations over 200,000.

Click here to see the Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities with populations under 200,000.

Click here to see the Top 10 Safest Cities with populations over 200,000.

Detroit has a violent crime rate of 2,072 per 100,000 people; Irvine has a violent crime rate of 48 per 100,000 people. Looking at those statistics alone begs the question: how could two sizable cities in the same country be so radically different?

At the end of the day it comes down to pretty much one thing: the economy. While there are significantly more factors that need to be taken into consideration when trying to figure out why one city is so crime-ridden and another so relatively safe, a lot of it boils down to the economy.

Detroit currently has an unemployment rate of 14.9 percent; Irvine’s is about 4 percent. Keep in mind that the national unemployment rate has dropped to 5.8 percent, which means that while Irvine is doing pretty well, Detroit is doing very, very poorly. In Detroit, 38.1 percent of the population is below the poverty line, in Irvine it’s just 11.4 percent.

In some ways, it seems that the two cities are from two different times in American history. Detroit was once a booming manufacturing city, home of the auto industry. But the problem is that it was really only the home of the auto industry. And when it first took on that characteristic, the process required way more people to make a car than it does now. There’s also the issue of foreign automakers surpassing American brands, and the 2008 financial collapse. Long, sad story short, Detroit has not been able to subsist on just one industry for a very long time, and it shows.

Compare that to Irvine, which in many ways is the epitome of the way our economy looks now. It’s smack dab in the middle of Southern California’s answer to Silicon Valley, with a heavy concentration on technology and startup culture. Irvine is a city that has taken advantage of the new industries providing jobs in the American market, much like Detroit did, but half a century later.

Detroit’s downfall is more troubling than just the economic woes–when the city started to decline and see mass unemployment, many of those who had the resources to do so got out. Over the last decade, Detroit’s population has fallen by approximately a quarter. It’s turned into a vicious cycle–people who have the resources to leave Detroit do so because of its poor economic condition and crime. Those with financial resources leaving make the city’s economy and budget problems worse, and they can’t pay for the kind of revitalization Detroit would need, or a police force to get the crime under control. So more people leave, and the cycle continues.

Put very simply,  Irvine is safer because it has the money coming in to be that way. In addition to its regular police force, the multiple universities located within city limits have their own police forces, leading to even more of a focus on safety. There are a lot of things that separate Detroit and Irvine, and makes one clock in as the most dangerous city in the country and the other the safest. At the end of the day one of the most convincing is the economy.

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 Detroit is the Most Dangerous City in America, Irvine the Safest appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve been following Law Street’s Crime in America 2015 city crime rankings you might have one big question: where are Flint and Chicago? Flint, Michigan was the #1 Most Dangerous City with a population under 200,000 last year, and preliminary data from the FBI indicated that it would remain so this time around, and reporting on Chicago’s violent crime pervades American media. So where are Flint and Chicago on these lists?

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 MOST DANGEROUS CITIES WITH POPULATIONS UNDER 200,000.

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TOP 10 SAFEST CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 200,000.

First let’s look at Flint. It’s not because it isn’t still really dangerous–it very much is. It comes down to its population, though, and if the city had just 59 more residents it would have easily maintained its #1 Most Dangerous City ranking over Little Rock, Arkansas. According to the FBI, Flint’s population decreased by 1,691 last year, putting the city just 59 residents shy of the 100,000-person threshold that Law Street uses to rank the most dangerous mid-sized cities.

Flint has a violent crime rate of 1,908 per 100,000 people, which far exceeds Little Rock’s violent crime rate of 1,407. Flint’s murder rate clocks in at 48 per 100,000, while Little Rock is only at 18 per 100,000. Flint’s population statistics speak for themselves as well: the median household income is just $26,339, and almost 40 percent of the population lives below the poverty line.

If Flint had those 59 additional people it would definitely be the #1 Most Dangerous City in America–but that does not mean things aren’t getting better there. They absolutely are; this year’s crime statistics saw a dramatic decrease in violent crime in the city. Last year, Flint had a violent crime rate of 2,729 per 100,000 people, which means that its overall rate has dropped 30 percent. The murder rate dropped by quite a bit too, from about 62 per 100,000 people to 48 per 100,000 people. So while Flint is still incredibly dangerous, things are getting better there, just slowly.

Now to Chicago–another notable exception from the list of Most Dangerous Cities. The answer here is fairly simple. Chicago isn’t included in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report from which our data is curated. According to the FBI, Chicago under-reports its crime data, so the numbers are simply missing from the FBI report, making it impossible to rank the Windy City in a uniform way with its like-size counterparts.

While Law Street’s statistics are definitive and it’s interesting to look at what cities make the list, it’s also very interesting to see which cities are missing. Flint and Chicago are two notable examples for two very different reasons.

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 Flint and Chicago Are Still Dangerous Despite Absence From Rankings appeared first on Law Street.

In an effort to boost enrollment and make tuition more affordable, Wayne State University’s Law School, located in Detroit, Michigan, will freeze their tuition and offer every incoming student a scholarship. In total, the tuition freeze and the additional scholarships will create about a 14 percent tuition cut for all incoming students. The tuition cut will keep the price tag at about $28,138 through at least the 2015-2016 school year.

Law school Dean Jocelyn Benson told the Free Press in an exclusive interview:

For us, it is really important to ensure that everyone has access to quality legal education. Not only do we want to make sure everyone has access to legal education, but also help with the rising student debt.

In addition to the tuition freeze, the school will offer about $1 million a year in new scholarships for current students, as well as a minimum scholarship of $4,000 a year to all incoming students. These scholarships will be awarded both by merit and by need. According to Benson, the scholarships are being funded by private donations from alumni and other supporters.

Along with increasing affordability, this tuition cut is also in response to Wayne State Law’s declining enrollment, a fate that many law schools are facing these days. This year, they saw their enrollment drop from 484 students down to 419. Hopefully this strategy will work in the way it has for law schools such as the University of Arizona Law and Penn State Law. These institutions were set to boost their first-year class sizes by 22% to 52% this fall compared with 2013 according to an analysis done by The Wall Street Journal.

Benson has also shared that the goals for lowering tuition go beyond simply increasing enrollment and affordability. She said:

Creating value for students goes beyond affordability. Our location in the heart of Detroit during such a transformative time offers students access to hands-on legal experience in areas ranging from corporate law and entrepreneurship to public interest and civil rights that you cannot get at any other law school.

The goal is that with prices lower, students will not need to work full time while completing law school. This will give them the opportunity to do more internships and gain valuable hands-on experience in the legal field without the worry of a huge debt they need to pay off. Benson has stated: “we want them to make these decisions (about where to work after graduation) without concerns about how much they have to pay back”.

Eric Lloyd, a current junior in Wayne State’s undergraduate business program, likes the idea of a tuition freeze. While studying on campus last week, he said, “It’s so expensive to go to law school and if you go, you almost have to get a corporate job to pay off all that debt anything to hold down cost is good.” He is considering going to Wayne State Law after he graduates.

If this drastic change in cost is successful, Wayne State Law will likely see major enrollment increases in the coming years.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wayne State Law Freezes Tuition and Offers New Scholarships 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.

In case you missed our first post about Rep. John Dingell’s breakout summer on Twitter, you’re in luck! He was just as funny and smart during the August recess, too. It’s been clear for years that all of those congressional reps who haven’t served 30 terms should probably take some cues from the Dean of the House. Who would’ve guessed one of those cues would be on social media?

Looking forward to finding out the next moves of a House that could easily screw up a one car funeral. The inmates are running the asylum.

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 1, 2014

For those playing along at home via @cspan, drink every time GOP member references children & “self-deportation” and keeps a straight face. — John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 1, 2014

Just took a “selfie” at the W. Wayne Family Health fair. Glad our young folks are embracing a DIY attitude. #NHCW2014 pic.twitter.com/mBrcTc5kW9

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 14, 2014

My commitment to making sure young people stay interested & active in their government? Flawless. pic.twitter.com/zNN4p7Dfg4 — John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 21, 2014

I see no problem with the suit. pic.twitter.com/ZFFt75FedU

— John Dingell (@john_dingell) August 28, 2014

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [John Dingell via Twitter]

Chelsey D. Goff

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

The post August Recess is No Match for Rep. John Dingell on Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has ruled college athletics in a manner that would make dictators green with envy, and each decade under its rule seemed to indicate the increased power they’ve gained. In 1976 the association was entrusted with the authority to penalize schools directly. In 1988, the Supreme Court held that despite its quasi-governmental makeup, the NCAA was not a state actor and therefore need not provide procedural due process. Throughout the nineties and into the present day, the NCAA brokered broadcasting deals for more and more money, resulting in a body that generated more than $750 million as of 2013.  But as any powerful politician knows, you can’t stay on top forever.

On August 8, 2014, Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California held in O’Bannon vs. NCAA that the NCAA’s current structure violates federal antitrust law. Specifically, Judge Wilken found that the NCAA can’t forbid schools from providing marginal compensation to their student athletes. For now, the ruling only approves of a $5,000 yearly allowance to an eligible NCAA basketball or football player’s trust fund. But the old guard should be nervous, as this decision is just one of several recent (and well-designed) attempts to wrestle power away from the NCAA. Earlier this year, Northwestern University football players successfully petitioned the NLRB to form a players union. Around the same time, famed labor lawyer Jeffrey Kessler filed suit against the NCAA, which essentially seeks to remove all caps on a college athlete’s earning capacity. Some journalists have indicated this is the beginning of the endfor the NCAA, but if that’s so, what lies ahead?

The good news is that courts are unlikely to reverse the advances made by the students. The NCAA has already indicated its plan to appeal O’Bannon, but since the Ninth Circuit is generally labor friendly, it’s unlikely the decision will be overturned at the next stage.

A reversal at the Supreme Court isn’t likely either. Despite a recent trend of being generally unfriendly to labor (e.g., this and this), SCOTUS is unlikely to decide O’Bannon purely on employment/labor law grounds. O’Bannon is an antitrust case, and plaintiffs in antitrust cases generally argue to oust a singular bully and restore free market principles. This is a notion most friends-of-management favor, perhaps especially in the Supreme Court’s case considering they’ve restored free market principles against the NCAA in the past.

The bad news for the student-athlete revolution is that their respective schools may have conflicting interests, and they may continue to thwart any effort to provide meaningful pay to students. Not too long ago the NCAA attempted to pass a resolution whereby student-athletes would get a stipend in addition to their scholarships. The schools, not the NCAA, pushed back against the idea.  Essentially, the schools that generated less sports-related revenue believed they would be unfairly burdened if they were forced to offer stipends in equal proportion to money makers like Texas and Wisconsin, especially after considering Title IX funding requirements.

Okay, so tax-paying Americans live with a progressive income tax rather than a flat tax, why can’t NCAA schools construct something similar with regard to student-athlete trust funds? Because the aforementioned money makers in college sports are already positioning themselves to avoid it. The day before the O’Bannon decision came down, the NCAA voted to allow the richest schools in D-I sports to have more autonomy. The autonomy could enable big schools to provide their students with more financial aid and could allow students to receive money through other pursuits (something former Colorado receiver Jeremy Bloom would have enjoyed).

The possible downside to the autonomy is that it becomes less likely the richest schools would be forced to comply with a graduated trust fund plan akin to a progressive tax. The richest schools would pay their recruits what they wanted, while the less-flush schools would be forced to pay the same amount, or risk losing even more recruits to bigger schools. This dichotomy could widen the income gap between large and small schools.

So why would the NCAA do this? Because the NCAA was a puppet government all along, man. Unlike sports oligarch FIFA, the NCAA doesn’t have a lot of disposable income. Ninety-six percent of its annual revenue is returned to charter schools, which is disproportionately given to the moneymakers of football and basketball. This money, AKA leverage, forced the hands of the NCAA and smaller schools to vote for the power-five conference autonomy, because they were scared the big schools would split off and create their own league.

In sum, the students won the day on August 8, but the real war could pit wealthy schools against not-so-wealthy schools. And in the end, the tyranny felt under the NCAA may not compare to the misery that the students and administrators of less fortunate schools feel when they try to compete against the power brokers of college sports. But ya know, viva la revolution.

Andrew Blancato

The post Watch the Throne: Who Succeeds if the NCAA Loses Power? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Just last week a fellow Law Streeter, Ashley Shaw, wrote a really great piece about animal rights in our judicial system. It was fun and informative so you all should definitely go check it out! Just a few days ago I came across an article about abused pit bulls in Delaware getting second chance thanks to a recent law signed by Governor Jack Markell.

I am a serious animal lover. I have four dogs and a fifth has stolen my heart (the boyfriend’s dog). One of my four dogs is a Pit Bull and Border Collie mix named Melou. She is a happy-go-lucky dog that likes to play in the yard and bark at everything that walks past our house. She can also be very territorial but in a good way, just like any other dog she is protecting her home. She has the aggressiveness of a Pit Bull and the herding skills of a Border Collie. Though she may have the not-so-great characteristics of both breeds, she also has a mixture of the great things. She is extremely playful and loving, and she can be overly aggressive when it comes to play time with other larger dogs, but it’s just because she loves to play. I have a friend who has a Pit Bull and Weimaraner mix, Dexter, that is massive and several years younger than Melou but they play well together.

It was heartwarming to read that Governor Jack Markell (D) signed Senate Bill 245 into law last week. This new law will allow seized dogs from fighting situations, mostly Pit Bulls, to be individually evaluated to see if they have a chance at being adoptable pets. Before Senate Bill 245 was enacted all dogs that were seized from fighting situations were deemed dangerous and immediately euthanized, including puppies and pregnant females.

It is unfair to classify all Pit Bulls as scary, aggressive dogs. Did you know it is actually illegal to own a Pit Bull in Miami-Dade County? Miami-Dade can actually fine the owner and forcibly remove the dog from his home. How unfair is that? I understand that Pit Bulls have a reputation of being overly aggressive and all-around scary, but anyone who has ever encountered or owned a Pit Bull knows that it is simply not universally true. Yes, these dogs can be trained to kill one another and to attack anyone but so can any other dog. Mind you it would be hard for a Chihuahua to kill a person because of how tiny it is, but any dog can be trained to do harm. It all depends on how it is raised.

Pit Bulls are very loyal, friendly, and full of energy — the best kind of family dog to have! Melou is sweeter to people who come over to my house than my little Chihuahua who gets overly aggressive, barks, and growls at everyone except certain family members.

There are only 13 states left that still support euthanizing all fighting dogs without really taking a look at them. The state of Michigan recently introduced Senate Bill 990, which calls for a change similar to the one made in Delaware. Even in 2011 the American Bar Association called for legislative and governmental bodies to “ensure the humane treatment and disposition of seized dogs.”

Thanks to Michael Vick and his pals, the American people were able to get a better understanding of the horrific side of dog fighting and take a stand against something so heinous. Vick’s situation also opened the door of rehabilitating used and abused dogs, which showed the world that even damaged Pit Bulls can become loving animals.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Dru Kelly via Flickr].

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Abused Pit Bulls in Delaware Get a Second Chance Thanks to Governor Markell appeared first on Law Street.

Remember when F-Word blogger Hannah R. Winsten reported back in December that Michigan lawmakers were debating a bill that would prevent health insurance plans from covering abortion, essentially requiring women to purchase what came to be known as rape insurance? Well, that revolting bill is now a revolting law thanks to the Michigan GOP and (I am disappointed to say) three Democrats. Yep, rape insurance is real, people.

However, the real doozy is that abortion riders don’t exist. (Straight swindle!)

As the Detroit News explains, “the state “opt-out” rider law clashes with provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which outlaws both separate riders and any government subsidy of abortion. Under federal law insurers cannot offer a rider to a standard, inclusive policy. And new state law bars insurers from including elective abortion coverage in any policy, on or off the exchange.”

What this means: Michigan women who purchase their health insurance as an individual and not part of a group plan don’t have the ‘promised’ option to purchase the abortion rider. Because the bill passed violates the Affordable Care Act’s provisions of outlawing separate riders and government subsidies on a standard policy. This makes it impossible for any insurer to give the option of selling a separate rider to individual women.

That, my friends, is what we call a grade-A cluster fuck.

It is hard to say whether the politicians knew and just didn’t care that the bill clashes with the federal healthcare law; however, it is easy to confirm who pays the price. Michigan women have only one option: pay that abortion fee.

—

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Click here to read the original post published December 5, 2013.

Happy almost Friday, folks! This week is almost over. THANK GOODNESS. Coming back after a holiday is rough, am I right?

If you have a uterus and you live in Michigan, your week has been especially rough. Shit is getting REAL over there in the Mid-West. Lawmakers in the Great Lakes State are currently debating a bill that would require women to buy rape insurance.

That’s right. Rape insurance.

I tell you, this shit just gets more ridiculous every week I write about it. It’s actually insane.

Here’s how it’s going down. Lawmakers in Michigan don’t want health insurance to cover abortion. Why? They’re not fans of a woman’s right to choose, and so, while they can’t completely outlaw abortion, they can use insurance technicalities to restrict women’s options.

What happens when insurance doesn’t cover abortions? Women either have babies that they don’t want or are unable to carry, or they pay a hefty price to terminate. Obviously, not ideal. So! While Wolverine legislators were batting around this nifty little bill, the same question came up that always comes up when we start talking about restricting women’s access to abortions.

“But what about cases of rape and incest?!” Because, empathy. For like, five seconds.

The legislators of Michigan had an answer ready and waiting. Make women buy additional insurance to cover the possibility of needing an abortion in the future.

This little tidbit prompted Republican Gov. Rick Snyder to veto the bill last year when it was first introduced. He wasn’t too keen on legislation that required women to pay for abortions out of pocket, unless of course, they had paid extra for that separate insurance rider. “I don’t believe it is appropriate to tell a woman who becomes pregnant due to a rape that she needed to select elective insurance coverage,” Snyder said when he rejected the bill last winter.

Well, duh. Obviously.

That would be like telling a man who had a heart attack that he couldn’t have life-saving surgery, because he didn’t plan ahead and book an operating room beforehand. Or like telling a cancer patient that she can’t receive treatment because she hadn’t reserved a chemo supply ahead of time. Plan ahead, people, be prepared! For all of the possible things that could happen to you ever! (Because that’s possible.)

Folks, let’s get one thing straight. No one plans to get an abortion. Needing one is definitely not a desirable situation to be in. Really, abortions are a last resort. An emergency measure, taken after something has unintentionally gone wrong. Maybe she got raped. Maybe the condom broke. Maybe she forgot to take her birth control pill that day. Maybe she just discovered that the baby won’t survive the pregnancy or infanthood.

Whatever the situation, abortions are last ditch efforts to rectify a bad situation that wasn’t planned for. So asking women to plan for unplanned emergencies — and be monetarily penalized either way — makes absolutely no sense.

It’s about as logical as this guy.

But, alas, the anti-choicers think it does make sense, and they’ve got a rage-inducing argument as to why that is. One prominent advocate of the bill claimed that rape is like a car accident, and it was totally fine to make women pay for extra insurance in order to prepare for it.

This is so incredibly gross on so many levels.

First of all, we’re comparing women’s bodies to cars right now. To cars. Inanimate objects that can be damaged, fixed, or replaced. One car is much like another—it gets you from A to B. Women’s bodies are not like cars. They are not replaceable. Their value doesn’t depreciate after a traumatic event. They are not interchangeable. They are not for you to use.

Actually, women’s bodies are attached to living, breathing, human beings. They happen to have vaginas. But they also have lives, passions, emotions, and agency. And when you liken their bodies being raped to a car being crashed, you ignore the human involved in the trauma. You assume she’s an object, instead of a subject.

Stop that right now.

Second of all, expecting women to prepare themselves for rape is absurd and cruel.

Preparation assumes the inevitable. You prepare for a car accident—if we’re going to follow through with this terrible example—because being involved in one, someday, is more or less inevitable. People are stupid. Let a bunch of idiots operate heavy machinery near each other, and things are bound to go wrong eventually. Better prepare yourself for the asshole who forgot to use his blinker and caused a pileup on the freeway.

But rape? That shouldn’t be inevitable. Rape doesn’t happen because of human error. Rape isn’t something that idiots do. Rape happens when one person makes a conscious decision to violate another person. Consent isn’t given. Accidents aren’t made. This isn’t an “oops I didn’t mean to get sexually violent with you, my bad,” kind of situation.

Not at all.

When we treat rape like it is inevitable, we give rapists a free pass. We’re sending them the message that, hey, you’re only human! People make mistakes. No big deal. But it is a big deal. And it wasn’t a mistake. This isn’t like forgetting to use your blinker, or running a red light. This is violence and coercion. And there’s always another option.

So, to all the anti-choicers of Michigan, I have a question for you: If a man was shot, and he had to pay out of pocket to have the bullet removed because he hadn’t planned ahead with elective murder insurance, how would you feel about that?

Probably like this kid.

Not so good, I’m guessing. Because it’s ridiculous to ask a man to prepare himself for the possibility that one day, he might be a homicide victim. No one expects to be on the receiving end of that kind of violence.

So stop asking women to do the same. We don’t need to prepare for our impending rape. We shouldn’t be waiting expectantly, insurance policy in hand, to be the victims of sexual violence. And we sure as hell aren’t cool with legislators putting a price tag on our uteruses.

So, stop it, OK? Just stop it.

Stop restricting our access to safe abortions. Stop legislating our bodies. Stop objectifying us. And stop being so cavalier when it comes to rape.

Do you think the GOP can handle that, folks? Discuss!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [ProgressOhio via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fail of the Week: Michigan’s Rape Insurance Law appeared first on Law Street.

Since the Supreme Court released its ruling on affirmative action in Michigan earlier this week (which we covered back when it was argued in October), there has been a lot of controversy surrounding it. Some say the justices ignored very real problems of race in America, turning a blind eye to such a serious topic, while others say the court left it to the hands of the voters. But what many people are failing to overlook is that this decision does not speak to the merits or disadvantages of affirmative action: it looks at what a state’s rights are when deciding how to apply affirmative action.

Before we get into the semantics of the ruling, it’s important to go over some background of affirmative action cases.

Way back in 1978, the Supreme Court decided setting racial quotas was unconstitutional in Regents v. Bakke. Basically, a college could not decide to admit X percent of students of a certain race based on their race alone. The court upheld, however, the larger idea of affirmative action- saying schools could consider race as one of many factors in admissions. That holds true to this day.

Fast forward to 2003, when the University of Michigan was sued in Gratz v. Bollinger because it has applied an admissions policy in which minority students are awarded certain “points” based on their race. The Court held that this was unconstitutional because it did not allow the school to look at applicants as individuals, rather, assigned preferential treatment based on race alone.

But that is not all- also in 2003, the University of Michigan Law School was sued in Grutter v. Bollinger, under similar claims, that the University’s consideration of race in admissions was unconstitutional. But the Law School’s admissions policies regarding race (which were seemingly less stringent than the undergrad ones) were upheld and Constitutional.

So what’s a state to do after its premier educational institutions keep getting sued?

Outlaw affirmative action, of course. And Michigan did just that in 2006, when 58 percent of the state voted in favor of outlawing it. Needless to say, this caused a lot of controversy among people who hold that affirmative action is a helpful and necessary way of ensuring equality in schools. So people sued the state, a lower court upheld the ban as legal, the ruling was appealed, and the appellate court determined it was unconstitutional. And that brings us to the Supreme Court hearing the case.

The most important thing to remember about this case is that it does not decide anything about affirmative action on its own- since 1978, we have known that it is legal to consider race in admissions. This case, as stated in the opinion, deals with “whether, and in what manner, voters in the states may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions.”

Basically, the Court had to look at whether voters in a state could decide that they do not want to take affirmative action policies into account at their state colleges – not whether or not affirmative action is good or bad, or even constitutional in its own right. Michigan is not the only state to have outlawed affirmative action, it joins seven others: California, Arizona, Florida, Washington, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire. The only thing this ruling has done is say that citizens have the ability to enact laws in their states that make affirmative action illegal. Those laws may not be agreeable, and many people may take exception to them; but the Court has ruled that states are able to decide on policies like these for themselves.

But when the 6-2 decision affirming Michigan’s right to outlaw affirmative action came out, there was an uproar from people who claimed the courts were refusing to take minority rights into consideration. But that’s not what the Court was doing. It was not commenting on whether or not affirmative action should be implemented- that is up to the members of each state. Furthermore, the Court’s ruling also has no bearing on the affirmative action policies of private universities within these states.

When the Supreme Court makes decisions, it is important to keep in mind their decisions are based off of legal statutes, not emotions or what “feels right.” It is easy to want to Supreme Court to rule a certain way, especially for programs like affirmative action which have been lauded by many as a step in the right direction for racial equality. But it is not right to expect them to do so, if there is a legal precedent behind an opposite outcome.

[Michigan Ruling] [Regents v. Bakke] [Gratz v. Bollinger] [Grutter v. Bollinger] [USA Today]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Marty Hogan via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Breakdown: States Can Ban Affirmative Action appeared first on Law Street.

Happy almost Friday, folks! This week is almost over. THANK GOODNESS. Coming back after a holiday is rough, am I right?

If you have a uterus and you live in Michigan, your week has been especially rough. Shit is getting REAL over there in the Mid-West. Lawmakers in the Great Lakes State are currently debating a bill that would require women to buy rape insurance.

That’s right. Rape insurance.

I tell you, this shit just gets more ridiculous every week I write about it. It’s actually insane.

Here’s how it’s going down. Lawmakers in Michigan don’t want health insurance to cover abortion. Why? They’re not fans of a woman’s right to choose, and so, while they can’t completely outlaw abortion, they can use insurance technicalities to restrict women’s options.

What happens when insurance doesn’t cover abortions? Women either have babies that they don’t want or are unable to carry, or they pay a hefty price to terminate. Obviously, not ideal. So! While Wolverine legislators were batting around this nifty little bill, the same question came up that always comes up when we start talking about restricting women’s access to abortions.

“But what about cases of rape and incest?!” Because, empathy. For like, five seconds.

The legislators of Michigan had an answer ready and waiting. Make women buy additional insurance to cover the possibility of needing an abortion in the future.

This little tidbit prompted Republican Gov. Rick Snyder to veto the bill last year when it was first introduced. He wasn’t too keen on legislation that required women to pay for abortions out of pocket, unless of course, they had paid extra for that separate insurance rider. “I don’t believe it is appropriate to tell a woman who becomes pregnant due to a rape that she needed to select elective insurance coverage,” Snyder said when he rejected the bill last winter.

Well, duh. Obviously.

That would be like telling a man who had a heart attack that he couldn’t have life-saving surgery, because he didn’t plan ahead and book an operating room beforehand. Or like telling a cancer patient that she can’t receive treatment because she hadn’t reserved a chemo supply ahead of time. Plan ahead, people, be prepared! For all of the possible things that could happen to you ever! (Because that’s possible.)

Folks, let’s get one thing straight. No one plans to get an abortion. Needing one is definitely not a desirable situation to be in. Really, abortions are a last resort. An emergency measure, taken after something has unintentionally gone wrong. Maybe she got raped. Maybe the condom broke. Maybe she forgot to take her birth control pill that day. Maybe she just discovered that the baby won’t survive the pregnancy or infanthood.

Whatever the situation, abortions are last ditch efforts to rectify a bad situation that wasn’t planned for. So asking women to plan for unplanned emergencies — and be monetarily penalized either way — makes absolutely no sense.

It’s about as logical as this guy.

But, alas, the anti-choicers think it does make sense, and they’ve got a rage-inducing argument as to why that is. One prominent advocate of the bill claimed that rape is like a car accident, and it was totally fine to make women pay for extra insurance in order to prepare for it.

This is so incredibly gross on so many levels.

First of all, we’re comparing women’s bodies to cars right now. To cars. Inanimate objects that can be damaged, fixed, or replaced. One car is much like another—it gets you from A to B. Women’s bodies are not like cars. They are not replaceable. Their value doesn’t depreciate after a traumatic event. They are not interchangeable. They are not for you to use.

Actually, women’s bodies are attached to living, breathing, human beings. They happen to have vaginas. But they also have lives, passions, emotions, and agency. And when you liken their bodies being raped to a car being crashed, you ignore the human involved in the trauma. You assume she’s an object, instead of a subject.

Stop that right now.

Second of all, expecting women to prepare themselves for rape is absurd and cruel.

Preparation assumes the inevitable. You prepare for a car accident—if we’re going to follow through with this terrible example—because being involved in one, someday, is more or less inevitable. People are stupid. Let a bunch of idiots operate heavy machinery near each other, and things are bound to go wrong eventually. Better prepare yourself for the asshole who forgot to use his blinker and caused a pileup on the freeway.

But rape? That shouldn’t be inevitable. Rape doesn’t happen because of human error. Rape isn’t something that idiots do. Rape happens when one person makes a conscious decision to violate another person. Consent isn’t given. Accidents aren’t made. This isn’t an “oops I didn’t mean to get sexually violent with you, my bad,” kind of situation.

Not at all.

When we treat rape like it is inevitable, we give rapists a free pass. We’re sending them the message that, hey, you’re only human! People make mistakes. No big deal. But it is a big deal. And it wasn’t a mistake. This isn’t like forgetting to use your blinker, or running a red light. This is violence and coercion. And there’s always another option.

So, to all the anti-choicers of Michigan, I have a question for you: If a man was shot, and he had to pay out of pocket to have the bullet removed because he hadn’t planned ahead with elective murder insurance, how would you feel about that?

Probably like this kid.

Not so good, I’m guessing. Because it’s ridiculous to ask a man to prepare himself for the possibility that one day, he might be a homicide victim. No one expects to be on the receiving end of that kind of violence.

So stop asking women to do the same. We don’t need to prepare for our impending rape. We shouldn’t be waiting expectantly, insurance policy in hand, to be the victims of sexual violence. And we sure as hell aren’t cool with legislators putting a price tag on our uteruses.

So, stop it, OK? Just stop it.

Stop restricting our access to safe abortions. Stop legislating our bodies. Stop objectifying us. And stop being so cavalier when it comes to rape.

Do you think the GOP can handle that, folks? Discuss!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [American Life League via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LADIES: Michigan Says You Need Rape Insurance appeared first on Law Street.

In my search for a news story today, I came across what looked like an interesting topic. A trial is set to begin in Fort Hood, TX, regarding a prostitution ring that was supposedly set up by a Fort Hood sergeant who has yet to be charged. On trial is Master Sergeant Brad Grimes, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is accused of participating in the prostitution ring.

Conspiring to pay for sex is without a doubt a crime, and if Grimes did so, he deserves to be punished as the court sees fit. But what sparked my interest, and a bit of surprise, was that Grimes was also charged with adultery.

That got me thinking: am I woefully ignorant of current laws, or do I just not see adultery charges that often?

So, I looked it up, and what I found was an incredibly wide-ranging set of laws, and a number of strange cases. Let’s start with the most extreme derivations. In Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, adultery is a felony. Technically speaking, in Michigan, you could be sentenced to life in prison for cheating on your spouse, as Judge William Murphy in the Michigan Court of Appeals noted in 2007.

Then there are states that are not nearly as harsh. Of the 23 states that still have adultery laws on the books (Colorado abolished theirs earlier this year), most classify it as some type of misdemeanor. This means that in most of these states, an adultery conviction would result in a fine.

A slim majority of states don’t have any adultery laws on the books at all. And it’s important to note that in those that do, actual trials or charges rarely develop. In Massachusetts, one of the states that does classify adultery as a felony, no one has been convicted of it since 1983. Even in that case, the punishment was only two $50 fines, one for the woman who committing adultery and one for the man with whom she was sleeping. If anything, adultery comes up during custody or divorce battles.

In the military, adultery laws are taken more seriously. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not specifically contain adultery as a crime, but does have Article 134, which “prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline”. The Manual for Court Martial expands Article 134 to include examples of specific offenses, and does contain adultery. The penalty for adultery can include up to a year in confinement, and/or dishonorable discharge.

According to this Slate article, standalone charges for adultery are rare. They’re usually piled on with other misconduct charges, such as lying to a superior. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be damaging—in 1997, Lt. Kelly Flynn made headlines when she was dishonorably discharged after lying about sleeping with the husband of one of her coworkers.

That brings us back to Grimes. He was charged with adultery in conjunction with other charges, and really, my point here is not to diminish the conspiracy to pay for sex charges he is also facing. My point is that I was shocked to see an adultery charge listed at all. Off the top of my head, I don’t think I can think of a popular prime-time drama in which adultery does not incur. In fact, there have been entire shows that pretty much revolve around it—Desperate Housewives, anyone? Maybe I’m just cynical, but I’ve always seen adultery as a personal act in which a decent proportion of our population engages—not a potential felony. Now I’m not trying to say that adultery is an ok thing to do, or morally acceptable. But the truth of the matter is that it happens. The percentage of married women reporting affairs in the last two decades was around 15% in 2013, for men it was around 21%. Grimes probably deserves the sentence he will receive. But our archaic adultery laws also deserve a look.

—

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 [Harsh Agrawal/www.chromoz.com 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 Adultery in the US: Do You Know the Laws? appeared first on Law Street.

This week, the Supreme Court is dealing with the second case to challenge affirmative action in two years—Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Last session, Fisher v. University of Texas made headlines when the Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of the case, but rather determined that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny that the precedents of Grutter v. Bollinger and Regents of the Univ of Cal. v. Bakke required. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit, and in doing so, chose not to take up the constitutionality of using race as a factor in admissions. Affirmative action remained constitutional.

This new case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action also deals with affirmative action, but from a completely different angle. In 2006, Michigan voters passed a ballot initiative that banned state-funded schools from using affirmative action policies. They argued that affirmative action policies are discriminatory because they treat people of different races differently, and that striking down such a policy removed that potential for discrimination. They are not the only state to make this choice—Washington, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, California, and Florida also ban racial preferences in admissions. The US Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit struck down this ballot initiative, basing their precedents on other cases in which changes to a political process were deemed discriminatory.

There are a few obvious questions that arise from this case. First, what effect has this ban on affirmative action yielded? Does the Supreme-Court-approved constitutionality of affirmative action make it an option or a requirement for states? And finally, what will the justices decide?

Let’s start with the easiest of those three questions: what effect can we see in Michigan from the affirmative action ban? The answer: African-American and Latino enrollment at the University of Michigan has dropped since the 2006 ban. But something significantly more interesting is occurring in some of the other states that have banned affirmative action. Richard D. Kahlenberg found that many of these states adopted race-neutral policies, such as banning legacies, admitting students at the top of their high school class all across a given state, and programs for better financial aid. These states with race neutral strategies had the same levels, or higher, of minority enrollment as they did before banning affirmative action. Proponents of these policies argue that we need to focus on differences in socioeconomic class disparity, not just race. They cite the fact that poor white students only score marginally better on SATs than poor minority students as proof.

Next, does the Supreme-Court-approved constitutionality of affirmative action make it an option or a requirement? There’s no easy answer to this question, because any argument becomes somewhat cyclical. In the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, also focused on Michigan, the Supreme Court stated that certain affirmative action policies that aimed to promote class diversity and evaluated numerous factors for every candidate were not unconstitutional as they did not take the form of a quota system outlawed by Regents of the Univ. of Cal. Vs. Bakke. However that does not mean that states must allow affirmative action, just that they may.

Affirmative action is a good thing. It allows greater opportunities, greater diversity, and helps thousands of students each year get into great schools where they are able to thrive. And we do know it is constitutional—the Supreme Court has affirmed as much. But will the Supreme Court strike down Michigan’s ban? Probably not. Despite recent liberal wins, this is still a conservative Court. The plaintiff, Attorney General of Michigan Bill Schuette is arguing that Michigan is being nondiscriminatory by banning policies that do not treat all races the same. The defense, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is proposing that affirmative action is a mechanism in which to further equal protection and equal treatment. For this court, particularly for constant swing justice Anthony Kennedy, that argument probably won’t hold up.

There’s more work to be done in ensuring that every child, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic class, or any other criteria that has been marginalized in our society can receive the higher education that they deserve. Whether it is accomplished through affirmative action, race-neutral policies, or something else entirely, that is a laudable goal that will take time and effort, but will ultimately benefit us all.

[Slate]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Adam Fagen 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 Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action To Spar With A Conservative Court appeared first on Law Street.