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

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

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

PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

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

According to the lawsuit, evidence of the unfair treatment of African-American students in the state can be seen in the ratings that the schools receive. The SPLC points out that of the state’s 19 worst-performing school districts, thirteen have more than 95 percent black students. The other six have somewhere between 81-91 percent black students. In contrast, the state’s top five highest-performing school districts mostly have white students.

The plaintiffs’ children go to two schools that are among the worst in the state–Webster Elementary and Raines Elementary. The plaintiffs described horrible conditions at those schools, including a lack of basic necessities like toilet paper. Raines Elementary serves lunches with spoiled fruit and rotten milk.

To understand what’s going in Mississippi, a little history is necessary. In order to be brought back into the United States following the Civil War, terms were set by Congress that included that the state ratify a constitution that provided equal education to its citizens. Specifically it required the “uniform system of free public schools” regardless of pupils’ races. But in the years that followed and the onset of the Jim Crow era, those requirements were watered down. At one point, Mississippi fought against the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

And the state’s education woes don’t stop with this recent lawsuit–another lawsuit is currently underway, brought by two state legislators. It claims that the governor should not be able to make mid-year budget cuts, because it infringes on the legislative branch’s power. Some of the cuts that are being contested include serious blows to education funding in the state. And currently, Mississippi’s schools are struggling as a whole–the state ranks 50th in national rankings of the 50 states and Washington D.C.

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 Mississippi Sued, Accused of Not Providing Equal Education to Black Students appeared first on Law Street.

Mississippi Representative Tom Weathersby proposed a bill last week that would prohibit sagging pants in the state. Anyone who commits the offense would be subject to fines up to $100 and psychological and social counseling.

According to Mississippi Today, the GOP lawmaker filed House Bill 1353 in response to a constituent’s encounter with a group of young men who “wore their pants too low” and became belligerent after they were asked to pull their pants up.

“Personally, I like to see people dressed when they’re in public and I like to see people with their pants up,” Weathersby told Mississippi Today.

“Anti-sagging” provisions have gained some traction over the past couple years. As the Huffington Post points out, communities like Opa-Locka, Florida and Wildwood, New Jersey have adopted bans on sagging pants, and two high school students in Tennessee, both black, were jailed for “indecent exposure” because of their low-riding clothing.

Hinds County, Mississippi made an effort to outlaw sagging by proposing a $10 fine on those who violated the ordinance. In that 2012 case, local government officials equated sagging pants with the Jackson area’s youths’ inability to get jobs.

The Mississippi chapter of the ACLU pushed back, warning that the ordinance may–as ACLU representative Bear Atwood told ABC News–“end up targeting black neighborhoods and, for kids who have done nothing other than wear their pants too low, brings them into contact with the police unnecessarily.” The ordinance was eventually voted down.

Mississippi state’s most recent anti-sagging bill invites a multitude of questions. How low do pants have to be to be considered “indecent and vulgar”? What will psychological and social counseling actually do to prevent this low-hanging atrocity from persisting?

Perhaps, a more prudent question is why do legislatures and local municipalities think it’s okay to legitimize respectability politics in black communities?

To start to define “respectability politics,” we can look to the statement that the Mississippi chapter of the ACLU shared in its response to the Hinds County proposed ordinance:

We all want to see our young people grow into productive, engaged citizens, but this is not the way. Saggy pants bans will have long lasting harm in our communities. Such bans will divert precious resources from law enforcement. Let’s spend those resources on education, after school activities or new text books. Rather than open doors for youth, saggy pants bans will close doors of opportunity.

The Mississippi ACLU statement begins an argument that helps to pinpoint the nucleus of what is wrong with the respectability politics argument: Why should forcing black communities to adapt to standards of “respectability” be a focus for legislation when the culture of poverty is created and exacerbated by discriminatory policies that result in the lack of resources afforded to these communities?

Politics of respectability seek to blame the condition of black lives in America solely on black people–as if their agency is not limited by institutions and structures that are the result of years of discriminatory policies. This presents a flawed reality in which equality for African-American can be achieved if only young black men pulled up their pants and if young black women dressed better.

It also puts the onus on marginalized people to aspire to standards set in the interest of maintaining hierarchy in order to gain some semblance of equality and respect. Respectability politics defines racism as something black Americans will just have to overcome. As Mychal Denzel Smith writes in his book “Invisible Man Got the Whole World Watching,” “It’s only when [black people] live up to the stereotypes that we limit our opportunities.”

Mississippi is a state where African-Americans, who make up almost 40 percent of the state’s population, still suffer from the residual effects of the state’s “Black Codes” and brutal implementation of Jim Crow. It is a state whose flag waves proudly while containing a tribute to the Confederate flag and has school districts that, even 62 years after Brown v. Board of Education, only recently “officially” desegregated. It is also home to one of the nation’s highest poverty rates and worst public school systems.

In HB1353, we see Mississippi’s desire to focus its energy not on actions that will make any attempt to alleviate its many problems, but on bills that criminalize certain choices and create a measurement of a human being’s deservedness of fair and equal treatment based on how many inches one’s pants falls below one’s butt.

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 Mississippi’s Proposed Sagging Ban is Legitimizing Respectability Politics appeared first on Law Street.

Sometime last week, a mysterious billboard showed up in Pearl, Mississippi, and residents couldn’t figure out whether to be upset or not. The message could be interpreted as either racist or anti-racist. Along Highway 80, Donald Trump’s message “Make America Great Again” is printed on a famous photo of civil rights protesters the moment before they clashed with police in Selma in 1965.

“I don’t really know what to think,” Pearl resident Madeline Nixon said. “It’s definitely offensive, but it’s their right at the same time. And that’s what we as people need to understand: That everyone is entitled to their First Amendment.” On social media, some seemed to think it was posted by Trump himself and is symbolic of how he wants to crack down on minorities.

In case the billboard’s message isn’t clear – Trump picked Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. h/t @Prof_WCByrd https://t.co/1nMsLDHNY6

— Dorothy Roberts (@DorothyERoberts) November 19, 2016

‘Make America Great Again’? Or ‘Empower Racism Again’?

https://t.co/zqPMGSy5IQ

— monroe (@tdotmonroe) November 20, 2016

But it was actually an arts group called For Freedoms, co-founded by Eric Gottesman, that put the billboard up. The group wants to inspire political discussion and dialogue through controversial projects. Gottesman said there is no specific intent behind the picture, and it is neither pro-Trump nor pro-Clinton. It was rather an effort to get people talking; when was America great? He said to CNN:

What we hear today in some political rhetoric is that making America great means enforcing a single vision on America. What we’re trying to do is use art to provoke people to talk about these things and bring them to a different kind of conversation, one that goes beyond symbolic gestures of what America is supposed to stand for.

Mayor Brad Rogers told local media, “I don’t like the ad, but there’s a lot of things in life I don’t like and sometimes there’s nothing I can do about it. This is one of these cases.” Originally he said it didn’t violate any laws and therefore could stay. But on Friday he asked For Freedoms to take it down, which they agreed to do sometime this week. Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant called the artwork reprehensible and divisive, but residents seemed to view it positively, once they found out about the origins of it.

SEE: This is what I’m talking about. Artists forcing the question. Big love to @forfreedomspac.https://t.co/KwcelQsrEp

— Jeff Chang (@zentronix) November 19, 2016

“I don’t see anything wrong with it. That’s true that there have been too many killings that’s senseless to me,” said resident Lizzy Brackett. “So yeah, we need to get back to where we can trust the police again, where we feel safe.”

According to Gottesman, they wanted to put the artwork up in Selma, but there were no billboard spaces available. So they looked at other places with a historic connection to race relations, and picked Pearl. And they feel that if people are talking about the billboard, then they completed their mission.

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 Mississippians Confused by Weird “Make America Great Again” Billboard appeared first on Law Street.

In a last minute save, a U.S. District Judge struck down Mississippi House Bill 1523 late Thursday night to prevent it from going into effect on the first of July. After Mississippi residents spent several months in shock over discriminatory policies disguised as religious liberty bills, it’s a little surprising that there hasn’t been more buzz surrounding this act.

The Mississippi Bill, known as the Religious Accommodation Act, allows businesses to deny service to members of the LGBT community because of religious beliefs. Essentially, the bill would have given members of the community who do not support homosexuality the right to discriminate against those people if they believe serving them violates their religious beliefs. It would allow business people in foster care, counseling, school administration, facility rentals, and wedding services to act based on their religious beliefs without repercussions for denying service to customers based on sexuality.

Judge Carlton W. Reeves, the presider in the case against this bill by the Mississippi Center for Justice and Campaign for Southern Equality, ruled in a 60-page decision that this specific religious law was not permissible under the Constitution. While there are some laws that protect religion in the state of Mississippi, Judge Reeves acknowledged that other laws protect the practice of all religions. This specific bill would only be protecting certain beliefs of certain citizens of a religion. He wrote:

If three specific beliefs are ‘protected by this act,’ it follows that every other religious belief a citizen holds is not protected by the act.

Not to mention that, if the bill were to go into effect, it would be discriminatory against members of the community:

A broad-based system by which L.G.B.T. persons and unmarried persons can be subjected to differential treatment based solely on their status.

At the end of the day, protecting one religion over all others is not constitutionally sound.

The pro-LGBT groups that have been supporting the repeal of this bill celebrated this morning as the decision was announced.

.@HRC commends Federal Judge’s decision to block implementation of Mississippi’s harmful HB 1523 #RepealHB1523 pic.twitter.com/c4b9kSVr5N

— HumanRightsCampaign (@HRC) July 1, 2016

BREAKING: We won! 60-page order from Judge Reeves stops enforcement of #HB1523 in Mississippi.

— Southern Equality (@CSElive) July 1, 2016

BREAKING: Federal Judge Blocks Implementation of HB1523 in Mississippi #RepealHB1523 https://t.co/nvZnrVvP6m pic.twitter.com/ppHJHqWgjR

— HumanRightsCampaign (@HRC) July 1, 2016

Robert McDuff, one of the attorneys working against the bill, summed it up quite nicely:

The federal court’s decision recognizes that religious freedom can be preserved along with equal rights for all people regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Being hateful and discriminatory toward others is not a right guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution, no matter what their race, sexual orientation, gender, or religion is. Judge Reeves putting the kibosh on the Mississippi Religious Accommodation Act recognizes that fact and moves the state one step forward in the fight for equality.

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 Mississippi Religious Accommodation Act Struck Down 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:

Samantha Bee Lets Her Rage Rip After The #OrlandoShooting

Last night, Samantha Bee took on the Orlando mass shooting. And let me tell you, she is pissed, as we all should be, about how easy it is to purchase incredibly deadly assault rifles and the new normal of mass shootings. No matter what you feel or think about the shootings and gun laws, Bee’s blistering, yet lucid rant will most definitely make you feel something:

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 14, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

This year on Flag Day people all over the country are gathering to protest a state flag instead of celebrating our national flag. Why are they protesting? For over half a century, the state flag in Mississippi has featured an homage to the confederate flag in its upper left corner and people are not happy about it.

“State Flag” Courtesy of Social_Stratification via Flickr

So, in celebration of Flag Day, Mississippians are joining forces to try to bring change to their flag’s design.

At the head of this new flag movement is Aunjanue Ellis, a famous actress from “The Help” and the ABC show “Quantico.” As a young actress, Ellis grew up in Mississippi. She recognizes the dark history surrounding the confederate flag and wants more people to realize that the state shouldn’t be pouring tax dollars into the funding of a flag that commemorates groups like the Ku Klux Klan. As a speaker at the Flag Day rally in Washington, D.C., Ellis wants to spread the message that:

This country presents itself as this beacon of hope and opportunity and equality and race-transcendence to the world. We can’t say that and, ‘Well, with the exception of Mississippi.’

The actress even wore a dress asking President Obama to make a change to the Mississippi flag on a red carpet a few weeks ago in furtherance of her cause.

In red carpet fashion @aunjanuejlt beseeches Obama to remove Mississippi flag https://t.co/oalw67AUJd @CunningSylv pic.twitter.com/Po7fWmOxhC

— NBC BLK (@NBCBLK) May 26, 2016

There are a lot of people behind this cause in addition to celebrities. Mississippi has a higher population of black residents than any other state and is the only state that continues to have confederate symbols on the state flag. Twitter users have taken to social media to promote the rally.

It’s time to X the X! Join us 11a #CapHill #DC to change #Mississippi flag #TakeItDownAmerica #FlagDay #flagday2016 pic.twitter.com/BnsXwXUksy

— Tenisha Taylor Bell (@TenishaTBell) June 14, 2016

Organizers planning Flag Day protest at U. S. Capitol against Mississippi flag with confederate emblem. pic.twitter.com/YCcuJuo21R

— Ross Adams (@radamsWAPT) May 26, 2016

But, of course, wherever there are supporters of one belief there are also critics. Just last week, Congress blocked a measure made by House Democrat Bennie Thompson to ban Confederate symbols from the Capitol. Sons of Confederate Veterans claim that the Confederate flag represents their history, which is why it’s so important that it remains on the Mississippi flag.

As Congressman Thompson put it, as long people in the US and, more specifically, members of the House of Representatives continue to use symbols of the confederacy, they “will continue to sanction and glorify relics of bondage, bigotry and oppression.” It’s time to find something new to represent history. It’s time to let go of celebrating historically racist flags and symbols under the guise of pride in our past. It’s time for Mississippi to finally get a new flag to unify the state under symbols that all Mississippians can be proud of.

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 Mississippi Wants to Rid State Flag of Confederate Ties appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the Mississippi Senate voted not to make domestic abuse a valid reason for getting a divorce. Senate Bill 2418, passed in the house but died in the senate after additional amendments were added.

The state currently has 12 grounds for divorce, and domestic abuse would have been the 13th. Some of the established grounds that warrant divorce are impotency, adultery, habitual drunkenness, and mental illness.

In addition, one of the grounds is “Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.” This seems as if it would satisfy concerns of domestic violence because it is cruel and inhumane treatment. However, as vague as it is, it may not have been effective enough, which is a reason why legislators introduced the amendment.

It is the word “habitual” that raised concerns for legislators like state Sen. Sally Doty, a Republican representing Brookhaven, Mississippi.

“I said it in committee, and I won’t back down from it. I think one instance of domestic violence is enough for me,” Doty told the Jackson Free Press. She added, “I don’t think you should have to say, ‘Oh no, he beat [me] up again,’ and then we’ll see if it doesn’t work out.”

The state senate initially passed the bill, but when the house added a provision to allow divorce after separation for at least two years, it failed to make its way to the governor’s desk. Mississippi is only one of a few states that require fault for a divorce.

One interesting issue with the proposed legislation is that it only discusses physical domestic violence. In instances of emotional, financial, or mental abuse, the amendment would not have been able to have helped.

“I’m in favor of anything that helps our women and children, make life easier, and help them get through the process faster,” Lorine Cady, Founder and Executive Director of House of Grace, said to WREG.

Domestic abuse is a significant issue for many Americans. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV):

• 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of [some form of] physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime.
• 1 in 5 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

In addition, NCADV also notes, “1 in 7 women and 1 in 18 men have been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime to the point in which they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.”

Women and men who find themselves in the position of an abusive and/or violent relationship have a difficult time getting away from their partner. Streamlining the divorce process and making it clearer would be a small step to addressing the issue, giving an individual the tools they need to legally get away from an abusive marriage.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mississippi Bill Aimed to Help Domestic Abuse Victims Seek Divorce Fails appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a sad time for LGBTQ rights in North Carolina and Mississippi, where discriminatory legislators have recently passed horrifyingly intolerant laws that specifically target members of the LGBT community. In response to these laws, companies, celebrities, and communities have begun to speak out for the rights of LGBTQ people and stand up for the repeal of hateful policies.

The North Carolina bill, which requires transgender people to use bathrooms that match the sex listed on their birth certificate, was signed into law last month by Governor Pat McCrory. The Governor claims that this law is a matter of protecting the safety and privacy of women and children in North Carolina. The new law in Mississippi allows churches, religious groups, and private businesses to deny service to people based on their gender or marriage status if they conflict with the businesses’ religious beliefs. Not only are these laws draconian, but they are also getting both North Carolina and Mississippi into some serious trouble.

For starters, these laws are probably going to be challenged constitutionally in court. While it is most likely that these bills are being driven by unwarranted fear and misunderstandings about gender identity, rather than a pure hatred for the LGBTQ community, there is a question of the constitutionality of blatantly discriminatory laws.

North Carolina’s law, specifically, could lose the state $4.5 billion in federal education funding from Title IX because of its violation of the Title’s provisions:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

This law discriminates against transgender students in the school system, and, therefore, could call into question whether or not the state should still earn Title IX funding.

On the topic of financial hits the two states will be taking, North Carolina is expected to lose millions after PayPal pulled out of its planned expansion in Charlotte. The expansion was going to bring around 400 new jobs to the state, each with estimated yearly salaries of around fifty-one thousand dollars. On top of these tangible losses, large companies, and tech businesses are voicing their opposition to discriminatory laws like the ones in Mississippi and North Carolina. Some of Mississippi’s largest employers, like Nissan and Toyota, have spoken out about how the law will hurt tourism and harm the state’s economy. Funny or Die released a parody tourism commercial for Mississippi, tastefully highlighting exactly how these laws will drive away tourists.

In addition to decreases in tourism, entire cities and states are banning business travel to Mississippi and North Carolina because of these recently enacted laws. Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington are four states who have prohibited employee travel to these two states, with many more sure to join in soon. Several cities including Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Portland, and San Francisco  have also placed travel bans to both states. While travel bans are, for the most part, symbolic, they have the potential to affect local economies and reinforce the overwhelming lack of support for these two states.

If all of the economic hits and the national shame weren’t enough to convince you of how terrible these laws are, big names from all across the country are also lashing out, including, but certainly not limited to, Joel McHale, Ellen Degeneres, and The Boss himself–Bruce Springsteen.

Springsteen canceled his tour stops in North Carolina in response to the bill, claiming that:

Some things are more important than a rock show, and this fight against prejudice and bigotry, which is happening as I write, is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.

“Bruce Springsteen joins North Carolina backlash”https://t.co/NBiQWZJxkf

— Bruce Springsteen (@springsteen) April 9, 2016

Ellen, who is an avid supporter of the LGBTQ community, tweeted support for the people who are being targeted in North Carolina and Mississippi.

The people of #NorthCarolina and #Mississippi deserve better. We won't stop fighting until they get it.

— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) April 5, 2016

And finally, in perhaps what is the best response to this law, Joel McHale decided to perform in Durham, North Carolina and then donate all of his profits to the LGBTQ center of Durham. After reasonably pointing out that “this [law] is fucking crazy,” he announced this decision and promptly received an uproarious cheer from the audience.

Honestly, these laws are downright embarrassing and a great reminder of exactly why we need to keep fighting for all kinds of equality in this country. It is asinine that in 2016 we are still having to tell elected representatives that banning people from using a bathroom and refusing to serve customers because of their sexuality or gender identity is blatant discrimination. So, to Pat McCrory (the governor of my home state), Phil Bryant (Mississippi’s Governor), and the rest of state representatives who have voted in favor of or spoken in favor of laws that are taking our country back centuries in terms of civil rights, I say pull it together. Stop making myself and countless other American citizens feel ashamed of our hometowns because of your antiquated, evil, discriminatory laws. Stop being so hateful towards people who are literally just being themselves. Stop making your states the laughing stock of the entire country and do your actual job: stand up for your people and their rights instead of tearing us all down.

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 North Carolina and Mississippi: States Face Consequences for Discriminatory Laws appeared first on Law Street.

A new bill moving through the legislature in Mississippi would require teachers in certain school districts to not only grade their students, but the parents of the students as well. House Bill 4, more formally known as “Parent Involvement and Accountability Act,” just passed the Mississippi House and the bill is now heading to the state Senate for consideration.

If the bill becomes law, it would add another section to students’ report cards that measures parental involvement in their children’s education. It would only apply to teachers and parents in school districts that have been rated as a “C” or lower by the Mississippi Department of Education–as of right now 88 of the 151 school districts in Mississippi fall below this marker. The teachers would rate the parents’ involvement as “satisfactory,” “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory.” How the teachers decide what grade to give the parents will be based on a number of factors–as Alex Holloway of The Dispatch sums up, it would measure:

Parental response to requests for conferences or communication, the student’s completion of homework and preparation for tests, the frequency of the student’s absence and tardiness, and the student’s overall grade per a nine-week assessment

There are of course, both critics and supporters of the bill. Those who support it say that in schools that are successful (both in Mississippi and in other states) there’s a high level of parental involvement. The bill would increase communication between parents and teachers to help up that level of involvement, and ensure that parents are working to prepare their children as best they can.

Critics claim that it’s not about parents “trying harder” it’s about cyclical poverty, and that placing additional pressure on the parents won’t necessarily help. Some critics also worry it will lead to strange social dynamics as students compare their parents’ grades, or read too much into what grade their parents received.

The bill doesn’t just add a provision about grading parents to the Mississippi education system. According to MississippiWatchdog.org it also will:

Assign each child mandatory homework; require all children be taught proper manuscript and cursive handwriting; require all children to have a daily reading and a separate writing assignment; require all children to read at least one book per month and write a book report on it; mandate participation for parents in at least one supportive function for the school, such as assisting at the bus stop, working a concession stand at an athletic event or serving in the Parent Teacher Association; establish dress codes for teachers; mandate school uniforms; initiate two parent-teacher conferences per nine-week term for students not performing up to grade level requirements at mid-term.

Mississippi’s public education system has not ranked well when compared to other states–for example, Education Week ranked Mississippi 51st in the nation last year (below the other 49 states and the District of Columbia). While it’s unclear whether or not House Bill 4 will pass, Mississippi is trying to take some steps to remedy that issue–it’s just unclear right now if these are the right steps.

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 Mississippi Might Start Grading Parents on Report Cards appeared first on Law Street.

The Mississippi Alcohol Beverage Control board has a strict rule about liquor and adult entertainment: they don’t mix. This means no jägerbombs at a strip club, and no vodka sodas at any event they deem “sexual in nature.” The Mississippi ABC is very clear about its policy: in summary, no fun allowed.

This is a pretty hardline rule, intended to prevent sexual entertainment from becoming the booze-soaked mess it should by all rights be. The rule is being called into question after being invoked to cancel a twerk-centric concert by bounce star Big Freedia. The Mississippi ABC threatened The Dollar Box Showroom with fines and revocation of its liquor license if it featured Freedia’s show, due to “potential gyrating.”

Before we address the craziness of this law and its application, there are some questions to answer. Like who is Big Freedia and what is bounce?

Big Freedia, born Freddie Ross, is a hip hop artist hailing from New Orleans. Freedia is the biggest name in bounce music, and has helped bring the genre’s music and dance style to the masses. Rolling Stone even raved over her performance at SXSW in 2013, and that same year Big Freedia also set the Guinness World Record for most amount of people twerking simultaneously.

As for bounce music, the simplest way to describe it is that it’s really, really fun. Check out this video for an example of the dancing associated with bounce, and you’ll see that it’s high-energy, fast-paced, and a far cry from the feeble shakes of Miley Cyrus and the like. The dance is a long-standing element of New Orleans hip hop culture, and has been traced back to dance traditions from sources as varied as Haiti’s gouyad, Jamaica’s whine, and the Ivory Coast’s mapouka–all part of the African diaspora.

The reason that the Mississippi ABC interfered with Freedia’s show at The Dollar Box Showroom in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, is that her performance is considered to be “adult entertainment,” and sexual in nature. In one of the most hilarious interviews in recent memory, Mississippi ABC’s Chief of Enforcement Rusty Hanna explained, “You can’t wear a thong. You must keep the cleft of your buttocks covered, and you cannot simulate a sex act.”

This is bogus for two reasons. Not only because the law is a pretty dumb one, but, moreover, that it’s unevenly enforced. The ABC hasn’t taken this kind of stand against a Beyoncé, Miley Cyrus, or Rihanna concert, all of which feature a heavy dose of hip gyrations and sexually charged dancing. Plus, Freedia’s twerking isn’t designed to titillate a passive viewer like stripping or lap dances. At a Freedia concert, the audience is all twerking along, and attendees are invited to join Freedia on the stage. It’s celebratory and appreciative in a way that a strip performance is not.

I’ll admit a degree of bias towards the free enjoyment of bounce music and the associated dance. I had the pleasure of attending a Big Freedia concert in Washington, D.C., and it took me hours to wipe the smile off of my face after Freedia had left the stage. Not once was I disturbed by a buttock cleft or a sex simulation. So why have the good people of Mississippi been deprived of that joy? Freedia’s not sure why:

“I’ve been there numerous amounts of times already, so I’m not sure who’s pulling this cord or what’s going on up there. But my legal team will be taking action. It’s sad that the fans in Mississippi could not get to see me and indulge and have fun like we normally do. I just played at the Mississippi Coliseum with Lil Wayne and Young Jeezy.”

Many suspect, however, that Freedia’s recent involvement with the Beyoncé song “Formation” may have made her a target for law enforcement officers. Freedia offers backing vocals on Beyoncé’s song about her proud southern black female identity, contributing with her unabashed celebration of southern food. Freedia raps,

I did not come to play with you hoes, haha
I came to slay, bitch
I like cornbreads and collard greens, bitch
Oh, yes, you besta believe it

It’s hard to believe that Freedia’s contribution to Beyoncé’s song could be taken as a criticism of the police, but Beyoncé’s music video and subsequent Super Bowl performance caused a political stir among some groups. Freedia’s association with that Beyoncé song could be the reason she’s under further scrutiny.

If Mississippi is going to stand by a law that prevents someone from drinking liquor while they watch a person strip, they should at least recognize the difference between “adult entertainment” and a dance with strong cultural ties designed to celebrate heritage and inspire bodacious fun.

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 You Can’t Drink and Watch Someone Twerk in Mississippi appeared first on Law Street.

Florida has so many moronic laws that it could almost take up an entire post by itself.

The popular college spring break destination features some rather entertaining laws, for example one prohibiting committing “unnatural acts” with another person. Gotta love those vague terms! Furthermore, unmarried couples may not commit “lewd” acts and live together in the same residence.

Lewd acts? Define, please.

If you wish to get around via a swamp buggy, a very popular mode of transportation in Florida, be aware that they are not included in the state’s definition of “motor vehicle,” and are thus not regulated.

Some lawmaker must have gotten sick of the lack of consistency regarding the direction that doors open, as they decided to make it a law that all doors open outward. I’m not sure if this law applies to airport bathrooms, but I always thought that it was irritating that they open inward when you are trying to close it around your suitcase once inside.

Even parents who are driven to the brink of insanity by their children’s actions may not sell their kiddos in Florida. Pigs can be confined in cages in Florida unless they are pregnant, in which case the law requires them to roam free.

Watch your mouth in Mississippi, where you could be fined up to $100 for using “profane language” in public places. And if someone is disturbing your spiritual experience in church, go ahead and arrest him or her. There, private citizens may personally arrest any person who disturbs a church service.

There are tons of laws relating to sexual relations, illegitimate children, and other similar topics in Mississippi. For starters, if someone is a parent to two illegitimate children, that person can go to jail for at least one month. Living together while not married or having sex with someone who is not your spouse results in a fine of $500 and/or six months in prison. Unnatural intercourse (whatever that even means), if both parties voluntarily participate, results in a maximum sentence of ten years and $10,000. Lastly on the sex topic, it is not legal to teach others what polygamy is.

Phew, those two states were a doozy, and we still have two more to go! Moving on to Alabama….

It’s a bit sad that this law had to be created, since it seems like a pretty commonsense thing to never do, but Alabama officially banned incestuous marriages. Another one that confuses me as to why it needs to actually be written into law is that driving blindfolded is illegal.

If you plan to attend a bear-wrestling match in Alabama you’ll have to change your plans as they are strictly prohibited. Also, beware that impersonating a person of the clergy is against the law, as is maiming yourself to get out of duty or to obtain alms. People whose preferred pastime is playing Dominoes will have to come up with an alternative game for Sundays as playing that particular game on that particular day is illegal.

As is the case with Florida, Georgia has almost enough dumb laws to warrant an entirely separate post, so I’ll try to keep it concise. Do you have a life goal to live on a boat in Georgia? Too bad. You cannot live on a boat for more than 30 days during the year. No getting kinky on boats there either, as sex toys are banned.

Not for 30 days in Georgia, you’re not

In Acworth, Georgia there must be mass amounts of leaves covering the ground during the Fall months, as residents there are required by law to own a rake. Athens-Clarke County takes the cake for the strangest laws in the state, though. There, adult bookstores may not sell alcohol. Didn’t think that was generally a place people flock to for booze, but what do I know. I also wasn’t aware of anyone venturing to a massage business for his liquor, but Athens-Clarke County felt the need to ban that as well so who knows. Yeah, lots of weird stuff with alcohol. It is also illegal to sell two beers for a single price as a deal. For example, “a bar can’t run a two Bud Lights for $5 special.”

There are some bizarre curfew laws in Athens-Clarke, where one may not read a book out loud in public after 2:45 AM and persons under 16 may not play pinball after 11:00 PM. Bummer for them, because 11:00 PM is prime pinball time.

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 Dumbest Laws of the United States: Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia & Florida appeared first on Law Street.

With the long weekend coming up, you’ll have some extra time to laugh about the weird, stupid, and ill-advised things that people try to do that end with a trip to the police station. To get you started, check out the slideshow below of the five weirdest arrests this week:

[SlideDeck2 id=26400 ress=1]

—

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 [Socrate76 via Wikimedia]

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 Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Update: August 5, 2014

Last night, in an incredibly heated runoff election, Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran narrowly defeated his Tea Party challenger, Chris McDaniel, by 6,600 votes. This was a come-from-behind victory for Cochran and practically guarantees him a seventh term that many never thought he would see. This is a win for Republican establishment figures, who are still reeling from the defeat of Eric Cantor just two weeks ago. Cochran’s victory will be finalized as soon as McDaniel decides to concede, but that could take a while given he is considering legal action.

In order to understand why a legal challenge may be fair here, it’s important to understand what exactly happened in the primary. McDaniel is upset because of the methods Cochran employed to win the race. Cochran knew he was trailing among the Republican voters, so he turned to Independents and Democrats for support. In Mississippi, that essentially meant appealing to the African American population. Cochran courted African American voters by playing up his credentials as a veteran senator who knows how to bring money into the state. At the same time, he showed them how he would be a better option overall than McDaniel. You can watch this video to see some African American voters explain their decision to support Cochran.

His strategy worked fantastically, with African American turnout up almost 40 percent in the 24 counties with an African American majority. So, the question now becomes, why does this increased African American turnout have McDaniel considering legal action?

Under Mississippi Law, any registered voter may vote in a primary election, but they must have the intention of voting for the winner of that primary in the general election. The law reads, “no person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.” Looking beyond the glaring naiveté of this law, it is easy to see McDaniel’s complaint. It is improbable that the African American voters who voted for Cochran would vote Republican in the general election.  In his “anti-concession” speech McDaniel declared, “today the conservative movement took a backseat to liberal Democrats in Mississippi.” Ray Nicholson, the founder of the Mississippi Tea Party, claimed, “this is such a perverting of a fair election system that we are outraged the secretary of State has not stepped in.”

McDaniel was concerned enough about the African American vote to have supporters watch the polls to make sure fraud did not ensue, which caused the NAACP to install their own poll watchers. Thankfully, this had little effect on voter turnout for the election, but the whole ordeal felt like a battle to keep African Americans from voting. Some McDaniel supporters have called Cochran’s move dirty politics, but McDaniel’s move to limit free voting is even dirtier.

Looking at Mississippi’s primary law, it is possible to see where McDaniel could present a legal challenge, but it is very hard to imagine any way in which he could win it. McDaniel would obviously claim that many of the African Americans who voted for Cochran would not vote for any Republican in the general election, meaning that they should not have been able to vote in the party’s primary. But this is a nearly impossible law to enforce without seriously infringing on a person’s right to vote. For one, the general election is four months away. It would be easy for a voter to say they do not know who they would support for that election or to just pretend they intend to vote for the winner. There is no plausible way to enforce this law on a mass scale. Therefore, McDaniel, if he insists on blaming someone for his loss, should blame the Mississippi primary system. And then he should stop being a sore loser and just concede.

Update: A week after his loss, McDaniel still has not conceded. He is currently fundraising for a legal challenge, asserting that Cochran stole the election. In his fundraising pitch, McDaniel wrote, “last week’s runoff election was a sham, plain and simple.” A representative for the Cochran campaign brushed off the legal challenge, saying this is most likely an effort to pay off campaign debts. The representative called McDaniel’s efforts “pure sore loserism.”

Update: It’s been well over a month, but Chris McDaniel has still not let his loss to Thad Cochran go. Yesterday, McDaniel announced that he will formally challenge the results of the runoff election. McDaniel is demanding that the Central Committee of the Mississippi GOP–a sort of governing body made up of 52 members–vote at a public hearing to declare him the winner. If this does not happen, he will consider a challenge in court. McDaniel is claiming that there were 15,000 ballots cast by ineligible voters, meaning voters who did not intend to vote for the winner of the Republican primary in the general election. Voting in a primary but not intending to vote for the winner of the primary in the general election is against the law in Mississippi. McDaniel lost by 7,667 votes, so if he those 15,000 votes are dismissed, he will win.

While it is easy to understand the logic of McDaniel’s anger, it is still misplaced anger. Most of these 15,000 “ineligible votes” were cast by Democrats who did not vote in the Democratic primary. So while these Democratic voters might have no plans to vote for Thad Cochran, there is no way to prove it. In fact, many voters from both political parties may not vote in the general election, including McDaniel supporters, because Thad Cochran is going to win easily. So unless McDaniel can also prove every single person who voted for him will vote for Cochran in the general election, I suggest he focus his efforts on election reform. He should have a lot of time to do so, because its highly unlikely he is going to be a United State’s Senator.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Shlabotnik via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sore Loser: McDaniel Challenges Weird Mississippi Primary Laws appeared first on Law Street.

For 7 years, Rennie Gibbs was charged with the murder of her stillborn child. But last week, a Mississippi judge threw out the case. This wasn’t a “normal” murder charge- it involved the concept of fetal harm.

In this case, Rennie gave birth to a stillborn daughter, whose umbilical cord was wrapped around her neck. While tragic, cases like this do happen, and mothers are never charged with a crime, much less murder.

But the twist is that Rennie’s daughter tested positive for traces of a byproduct of cocaine- which is different than the drug itself- at the time of her death. When the medical examiner found this out, he ruled the death a homicide. Shortly after, charges were filed against Rennie, and only now, seven years later, was the case thrown out.

The charges of second-degree murder brought against Rennie are known as “depraved heart murder” in Mississippi. This is constituted by actions “eminently dangerous to others” and “regardless of human life” even if unintentional.

No one thinks taking drugs while pregnant is healthy, but is it enough to result in a murder charge? Not according to one Mississippi judge. The case was recently thrown out on the grounds that there was no conclusive proof that the drug usage during Rennie’s pregnancy caused the baby’s death. Furthermore, taking the drugs was not so egregious of an act that it constituted murder. At most, the judge ruled that charges of manslaughter could be re-filed.

And while Rennie’s case is a tragedy in itself, it isn’t an anomaly. Over the past few decades, there have been a number of these “fetal harm” cases that target mothers who either lose children during pregnancy, or have stillborn children.

One woman in Iowa was jailed for two days after she fell down the stairs and suffered a miscarriage. She was going to be charged with “feticide” which, in Iowa, is when someone “intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person, after the end of the second trimester.” In this instance, the woman had to purposefully fall down the stairs with the intention of killing the fetus. Sound crazy? There’s more.

One woman in Indiana found herself in jail for over a year after she tried to kill herself while pregnant. Though she survived, the child did not. And three months after her suicide attempt in 2010, she was arrested. Though she was supposed to originally be charged with murder, in 2013 she plead to a lesser count of misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

But something is missing from all three of these cases: intent.

There was no proof in any of these cases, and certainly not enough to convict, that the women intended for their children to die- and in most murder cases, that’s a necessary element. So why did the prosecutors move forward with these charges in the first place? Mississippi, Iowa, and Indiana are all very conservative states when it comes to the rights of unborn children. And there are certainly merits to the points brought up regarding if a fetus deserves rights like those of humans. But there is something inherently wrong about making examples out of women who clearly made accidents, or acted negligently, but without a clear disregard for human life.

These cases aren’t even about abortion. They are about people who don’t know how the law works, or don’t care about how the law works, trying to take advantage of loopholes and inconsistencies to advance their agendas. No one- not mothers, not children, or the judicial system, can be helped from people like medical examiners who ignore scientific evidence to prove a point.

This debate goes beyond the rights of fetuses and mothers; it expands into personal vendettas and ideologies getting in the way of practicing good law. By targeting women with unfairly applied laws, no one wins in the end.

 [Mississippi Bill] [Pro Publica] [RH Reality Check] [Huffington Post] [Iowa Law]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

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 Fetal Harm: A New Kind of Crime? appeared first on Law Street.