An 8-year-old girl from Omaha, Nebraska and her soccer team were disqualified from the championship round of a tournament this weekend after officials told her team that “she looks like a boy.”

Milagros “Mili” Hernandez was mistakenly identified as a boy on a Nebraska soccer tournament registration form. Officials then ignored the reality that another form listed her as a girl and that she was on an all-girls team, according to The Washington Post.

Her father, Gerardo Hernandez, then attempted to show tournament officials Mili’s insurance card to prove she was a girl, according to ESPN. The Nebraska soccer officials ignored the pleas and cited Hernandez’s short hair as evidence.

So, despite winning two of their three games on Saturday, which guaranteed them a chance to earn a trophy, the entire Azzurri Achurros team was disqualified just hours before their 2 p.m. kick off, according to The Washington Post. 

Mili burst into tears when she heard the decision.

‘I was mad; I never had that problem before. She’s been playing so long in different tournaments,’ her father told The Washington Post. ‘I don’t want no problems with nobody, but that wasn’t the right way to treat people. Why they want to tell my girl looks like a boy?’

Mili plays on the local 11-year-old team after she dominated the league for her age group. The talented youngster dreams of extending her soccer career into middle and high school before advancing to college and, hopefully, the professional leagues, according to her brother.

She has worn her hair short since she was young, her father said, and as she’s grown older she has decided to keep it that way. That spurred USA soccer star Abby Wambach, who also has short hair, to offer support to Mili in the aftermath.

Dear Mili Hernandez, you are amazing in every way. Thank you for teaching us how to be brave and shining a light on something so hurtful. If you don't know, she is my new hero. Her team was disqualified from a tourney cause they thought she was a boy because of a clerical error that wasn't handled properly. Let's meet soon sister.

A post shared by Mary Wambach (@abbywambach) on Jun 5, 2017 at 8:59pm PDT

While the Nebraska soccer tournament has concluded, organizers told the Hernandez family that they could appeal the decision with the Nebraska State Soccer Association, according to local NBC affiliate WOWT News.

But even if she can’t play in future tournaments like this one, another soccer star is here to help out. Mia Hamm, one of the most notable female American soccer players, also offered support.

Hey Mili, we would love to host you at one of our camps @TeamFirstSA . Be you!

— Mia Hamm (@MiaHamm) June 5, 2017

Josh Schmidt

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

The post Eight-Year-Old Girl Who “Looks Like a Boy” Disqualified from Nebraska Soccer Tournament appeared first on Law Street.

As it becomes almost inevitable that Donald Trump will be the GOP’s nominee (given that every other candidate in the running has dropped out), many people aren’t happy. The “Dump Trump” and “Never Trump” movements are still alive and well. Ben Sasse, a Republican Senator from Nebraska, recently went particularly on the offensive against Trump–and the apparent Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton–calling for a third party candidate in a Facebook open letter that has now gone viral.

Sasse’s letter, while long-winded and in places somewhat thin on real substance and a bit heavy on rhetoric, is unabashedly honest about what his frustrations are with the party system. Some highlights:

I’ve ignored my phone most of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that ‘although Trump is terrible,’ we ‘have to’ support him, ‘because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.’ This open letter aims simply to ask, ‘WHY is that the only choice?’

…

I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln — and I will work to reform and restore the GOP — but let’s tell the plain truth that right now both parties lack vision.

…

In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two ‘leaders.’

…

I think there is room – an appetite – for such a candidate.

Despite the fact that the open letter was very much a call for a third party candidate to run in 2016, Sasse implied that he would not be willing to be that candidate, stating: “Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little kids.” That would, presumably, rule him out, given that he has three children.

Sasse has been very vocal about his opposition to Donald Trump, according to the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake: “Sasse is still the only sitting GOP senator to say he simply won’t vote for Trump under any circumstances.” Sasse also published a series of tweets about his open letter, mostly in the same vein.

Now that it looks like Trump is certain to be the  nominee, the rift in the Republican Party between the “never Trump” adherents and the “Trump, now, I guess” advocates threatens to widen. We’ll have to see if Sasse’s appeal attracts any viable third party candidates.

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 Ben Sasse: Nebraska Senator Calls for 3rd Party Candidate appeared first on Law Street.

Throw out your colanders and get rid of all of your spaghetti, a Nebraska judge ruled that Pastafarianism is not a real religion.

Stephen Cavanaugh, a Nebraska inmate, sued Nebraska prison officials seeking $5 million in 2014, arguing that his religion should be treated like every other religion. He claims that he was mocked and harassed over his belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He also claims that prison staff would not provide accommodations for his religion, as they do with others, by refusing to allow him to meet for worship services, to wear religious clothing and pendants, and to receive communion.

Pastafarianism is the belief that the earth was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), who made it much like it is today. Members of the church say that heaven “has a Beer Volcano and Stripper Factory.” They also dress like pirates. Communion is taken by eating “a large portion of spaghetti and meatballs.”

“Fremont Solstice Parade 2008: Flying Spaghetti Monster” courtesy of Mark Atwood via Flickr

In his ruling, released on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Gerrard wrote, “FSMism” is a “parody intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education,” rather than a religion explicitly outlined by federal law.

Cavanaugh is currently serving a four to eight-year sentence in the Nebraska State Penitentiary for assault and weapons charges.

This is not the first time that members of the FSM church have retaliated for not being treated like practitioners of a legitimate religion. There have been multiple cases of followers fighting for the right to wear the symbolic colander on their heads in driver’s license photos and to have the church’s flag on government property.

At the center of the controversy is the question of whether or not Pastafarianism should be considered a legitimate religion. Some lawmakers have argued that it isn’t, like in the case of Cavanaugh, but some scholars are hard-pressed to deny it that right.

“There’s an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in,” evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in Wired. “If there’s not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it.”

In the age of religious freedom, the dismissal of religion by members of other religions seems contradictory. If the basis of religion is proof, then it is not quite certain how any religion can meet the criteria.

Lindsay Miller of Lowell, Massachusetts was denied the right to wear a pasta strainer on her head in her license photo. Headgear is not approved, unless for specific religious circumstances in Massachusetts, so Miller appealed. She was ultimately allowed to wear her strainer.

Pastafarian, Lindsay Miller allowed to wear strainer on her head in driver’s license photo, citing religious freedom! pic.twitter.com/y6MwWSTv3t

— John Zelaski (@jzelaski) November 18, 2015

“The First Amendment applies to every person and every religion, so I was dismayed to hear that Lindsay had been ridiculed for simply seeking the same freedoms and protections afforded to people who belong to more traditional or theistic religions,” Patty DeJuneas, a member of the Secular Legal Society, said in a statement released by the American Humanist Association.

Ultimately, the state of Nebraska felt, “The essence of this action… is that prison officials believe the Plaintiff is not sincere in his religious beliefs about a flying lump of spaghetti that first created ‘a mountain, trees, and a midget.'”

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 The Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Religious Impasta? appeared first on Law Street.

The Hastings public school district in Nebraska has recently begun following an old law requiring teachers to pledge their beliefs to American ideals. But now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nebraska has gotten involved in the attempt to stop the Hastings public school district from continuing to enforce the law.

The law dates back to 1951, during the height of McCarthyism and the Red Scare. It requires teachers to sign a pledge outlining their loyalty to the United States. The pledge given to the Hastings Public Schools teachers read as follows:

All persons engaged in teaching in the public schools of the State of Nebraska and all other employees paid from public school funds, shall sign the following pledge:

I, ………., do believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; an indissoluble nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I acknowledge it to be my duty to inculcate in the hearts and minds of all pupils in my care, so far as it is in my power to do, (1) an understanding of the United States Constitution and of the Constitution of Nebraska, (2) a knowledge of the history of the nation and of the sacrifices that have been made in order that it might achieve its present greatness, (3) a love and devotion to the policies and institutions that have made America the finest country in the world in which to live, and (4) opposition to all organizations and activities that would destroy our present form of government.

The law is actually still in place in the state of Nebraska, and information about whether or not various school districts follow it appears to be spotty. However, requiring public employees to sign such a pledge has actually been declared unconstitutional multiple times.

Despite the fact that the law has been on the books since 1951, this year appears to be the first time in recent decades that Hastings Public Schools teachers were actually asked to sign it. According to Hastings Public Schools superintendent Craig Kautz, this change is because he was not aware of the law previously, and is now following it based on legal advice. He also points out that if members of the staff choose not to sign it, it will not negatively affect their employment status in the schools.

Regardless, the Nebraska ACLU had a serious problem with the pledge, and sent the letter to warn the Hastings School District about moving forward with its enforcement. In the letter sent to the school district, Amy Miller, legal director for the Nebrasksa branch stated:

You need to know that the statute is a dead letter law which has been clearly overruled by the highest court in the land. Attempting to enforce the state statue is unconstitutional and will expose the school district to liability to a civil rights lawsuit.

Currently, there are discussions in Nebraska about whether or not to change the law, but it seems like there’s plenty of confusion over whether or not it would stand up in court. Rex Schultze, a lawyer who represents some of the Nebraska school districts that require that the law is signed, has stated:

I don’t think the (teacher pledge) law is unconstitutional because it does not require anyone to give up any constitutional rights of free speech or association. All it says is you will, as part of your employment, seek to encourage these things.

Either the Hastings Public Schools will stop requiring teachers to sign the pledge, or this could end up being examined more specifically in court, putting an end to the debate once and for all.

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 Nebraska ACLU: McCarthy-Era Loyalty Pledge for Teachers Must Go appeared first on Law Street.

The hotly anticipated fight between boxers Floyd “Money” Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao was one of the hottest conversation topics last week, and it also sparked the number one article on Law Street, written by Alexis Evans. The number two article, also by Alexis Evans, focused on a lawsuit filed by a Nebraska woman, suing all homosexuals in the United States. Rounding out the top three articles of the week was a piece by Lewis & Clark Law School that takes a look at the meaning of victims’ rights in the U.S. justice system. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Will Pacquaio’s Real “Fight of the Century” Be a Legal Battle?

Ever since Floyd “Money” Mayweather defeated Manny “Pac-Man” Pacquiao in the supposed “Fight of the Century,” boxing’s fans have wondered if Mayweather would squash retirement rumors for a future Pacquiao rematch. However, the Filipino welterweight might be facing perjury charges instead of a rematch, after news broke that he lied about an existing severe shoulder injury on his pre-fight medical questionnaire. Read full article here.

#2 Nebraska Woman Sues “All Homosexuals”

Last week I wrote about the Supreme Court beginning to hear arguments in a historic gay marriage case that could potentially lead to same-sex marriage being approved nationally. And while many rejoiced at the possibility of loving couples across the country finally being able to marry in all 50 states, others adamantly disapproved, turning to their keyboards to share their objections online. However, one Nebraska woman took her opposition to same-sex couples to new heights by deciding to sue all homosexuals. Yes, you read that correctly, the defendant in this case is listed as “Homosexuals.” Read full story here. 

#3 Victims in the Justice System: What Are Their Rights?

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Last week I wrote about the Supreme Court beginning to hear arguments in a historic gay marriage case that could potentially lead to same-sex marriage being approved nationally. And while many rejoiced at the possibility of loving couples across the country finally being able to marry in all 50 states, others adamantly disapproved, turning to their keyboards to share their objections online. However, one Nebraska woman took her opposition to same-sex couples to new heights by deciding to sue all homosexuals. Yes, you read that correctly, the defendant in this case is listed as “Homosexuals.”

According to the Omaha.com, Sylvia Ann Driskell, 66, a self-identified ambassador for God and his son, Jesus Christ, is asking the U.S. District Court of Omaha to decide if homosexuality is a sin or not.

In an apparent seven-page letter sent to the court, Driskell cited Bible passages describing homosexuality as an abomination arguing,

That homosexuality is a sin and that they the homosexuals know it is a sin to live a life of homosexuality. Why else would they have been hiding in the closet(?)

Patheos was able to obtain a copy of the Driskell’s lawsuit, and let me tell you, it is just as bizarre as you would think. Besides being completely handwritten, the letter is written as if Driskell herself believes the true plaintiffs are God and Jesus, and she is merely representing them.

This is a Nebraska woman’s actual (handwritten) petition to sue all “homosexuals.” #LGBT http://t.co/z4iKfv2sBl pic.twitter.com/rJzIGCPcJ6

— Robert Crawford (@jurassicpork59) May 5, 2015

She ends her letter with the following passage (misspellings and all):

I’m sixty six years old, an I never thought that I would see the day in which our Great Nation or Our Great State of Nebraska would become so compliant to the complicity of some peoples lewd behavior.

Why are judges passing laws, so sinners can break religious and moral laws?

Will all the judges of this Nation, judge God to be a lier?

Driskell is said to be representing herself–and apparently, by extension God and Jesus–in the case, which comes as no surprise since no lawyer in their right mind would want to take her case. She is reportedly not answering calls for comments, but I think it’s fair to say both this lawsuit and this woman are a little crazy.

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 Nebraska Woman Sues “All Homosexuals” appeared first on Law Street.

Nebraska may be making changes to its minimum-wage laws that affect a particular portion of the population–minors. A bill to pay minors below the new minimum wage that will be enacted next year is moving forward.

Nebraska voters voted to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour; however, the new bill would set the minimum wage for student workers under the age of 19 at $8 an hour, the same as the current minimum wage for all workers. The bill would, however, prevent a company from hiring only workers under 19 in order to take advantage of the lower wages that would need to be paid to older workers. It would allow businesses to pay the lower wage for only 25 percent of the total hours worked.

State Senator Laura Ebke is the sponsor of the bill, and she claims that it is to help small businesses such as family-owned grocery stores that often hire high school students. State Senator Lydia Brasch said regarding those small businesses, “What they are truly trying to do is to make ends meet and hire one more worker or two more workers.” The measure is supported by the Nebraska Grocery Industry Association.

There are plenty of concerns coming out of Nebraska about the bill, however. First of all, it applies to those under 19, so the vast majority of the people affected are not able to vote. A bill that disproportionately applies to these people seems unfair, and according to State Senator Adam Morfield, takes advantage of those young people. There’s also concern that businesses would want to hire young people they could pay less, to the detriment of older workers. Furthermore, given that the lower wage only applies to those who are in school, students could drop out in order to up their pay to $9 an hour rather than $8, meaning that the measure could end up being counter productive.

Some senators also worry that the bill could create financial hardships for students–after all, the reason that minimum wages are being raised is to keep up with the cost of living, and that cost of living can apply to young people as well. Some may be working to support their families or to save for college. As college costs continue to rise astronomically and many of our students suffer from extremely high levels of debt, the fact that some senators in Nebraska aren’t willing to give students every advantage is concerning. Some do agree–Senator Jeremy Nordquist said about the bill, “It’s an affront to our democracy.” We’ll see if those who feel that way will have enough support to prevent the  bill from passing.

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 Nebraska May Lower Minimum Wage for Young Workers appeared first on Law Street.

When it comes to sports there’s nothing greater than watching a truly talented athlete ascend to fame, but there’s also nothing sadder than watching them fall. Former NFL running back Lawrence Phillips is already well known for his swift descent from stardom, but according to officials he may have reached an all new low. The 39-year-old Cornhusker great is suspected of killing his cellmate in a Central California prison, officials said Monday.

Remember former NFL player Lawrence Phillips? He’s suspected of murdering his cellmate: http://t.co/PmhGdYmaWy pic.twitter.com/83ircfRqL2

— Complex Sports (@Complex_Sports) April 14, 2015

According to USA Today, Kern Valley State Prison’s spokesman, Lieutenant Marshall Denning, said in a statement that Phillips’ cellmate Damion Soward, 37, was found lifeless in his cell early Saturday and pronounced dead. Soward was serving 82-to-life for a first degree murder charge.

In case you’ve forgotten, Phillips, 39, isn’t a particularly standup guy. In the 90s he was one of the nation’s top college football players at Nebraska before taking his talents professionally to the St. Louis Rams as a first round draft pick. But, his aggressive behavior off the field quickly led to his demise. According to Deadspin:

He was arrested three times before being released by the Rams, he was released by the Dolphins after he assaulted a woman in a nightclub, and he was charged with sexual assault while playing in the CFL. Most prominently, he was arrested in 1995 while still at Nebraska for dragging his girlfriend down a flight of stairs by her hair. Somehow, then-Nebraska head coach Tom Osbourne didn’t deem it an offense bad enough to kick Phillips off the team.

Phillips is currently serving a sentence of more than 31 years at the California prison stemming from two separate convictions that he’s serving consecutively. Those convictions resulted from domestic assault on his former girlfriend in 2005 whom he choked on two separate occasions, as well as for an incident later that year where he drove a stolen car onto a field and hit three teenagers after an argument during a pickup football game.

According to USA Today, prison officials said they suspect a second inmate at the prison of killing his cellmate as well, but it’s unclear if the two incidents are related. Prison officials also said that they are currently investigating both deaths along with the Kern County Coroner and the Kern County District Attorney.

As for Phillips, it’s not looking too good for the man who once had it all. If investigators find enough evidence to indict him again he could face possibly spending the rest of his life behind bars.

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 Ex-NFL Star Lawrence Phillips Suspected of Killing Cellmate appeared first on Law Street.

This week’s most popular stories ran the full gamut from the sublimely ridiculously to the deadly serious. The number one article of the week, by Ashley Shaw, follows the story of a Nebraska man who tried to fool cops by labeling his weed “not weed;” the number two article, from Alexis Evans, takes a look into the world of people taking the law into their own hands and patrolling their streets as private cops; and the number three article, from Anneliese Mahoney, recounts Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s divisive speech to Congress.

#1 Man’s ‘Not Weed’ Label Does Not Fool Nebraska Cops

Jordan Meir of Nebraska thought he found the perfect way to disguise his stash–just mark it up as ‘not weed.’ After all, labeling it as weed is a sure fire way to get caught, so the opposite must be the solution, right? Maybe in the rest of the world, but the cops in Nebraska must be extra smart because this ingenious scheme actually did not end up working in their neck of the woods. Read full article here.

#2 Special Conservators of the Peace: Private Police Forces of One

If he looks like a cop, talks like cop, and acts like a cop, he’s probably a cop right? Well, sort of. A growing trend shows civilians are forming private police forces of one to patrol our streets. Armed with a gun and a badge, they can write citations and make arrests. The kicker? The whole thing is completely legal. Read full article here.

#3 Netanyahu’s Speech Shows Israel Isn’t Always a Bipartisan Issue

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United States Congress today. The speech was much anticipated after weeks of political back and forth regarding the invitation extended to Netanyahu by Speaker of the House John Boehner; however, Netanyahu did end up giving his speech as planned, and it focused heavily on Iran and the ongoing American-Iranian talks over nuclear power. That being said, in some ways the speech is less interesting from an international politics standpoint as it is from a domestic policy window. Read full article here.

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

Jordan Meir of Nebraska thought he found the perfect way to disguise his stash–just mark it up as ‘not weed.’ After all, labeling it as weed is a sure fire way to get caught, so the opposite must be the solution, right? Maybe in the rest of the world, but the cops in Nebraska must be extra smart because this ingenious scheme actually did not end up working in their neck of the woods.

Twenty-one-year-old Meir was cruising around town one night when he was pulled over for suspected drunk driving. He was not worried. Sure, he was riding dirty, but in such a way that he knew he could not be caught. So when the officer saw a sour cream container labeled ‘not weed,’ Meir was probably as surprised as everyone reading his story that, in the words of the cop, containers labeled ‘not weed’ are what they in Nebraska call “a clue.”

Courtesy of Giphy.

When the cop opened it up, it turned out that the container had indeed accidently been mislabeled. Inside was 11 ounces of marijuana. (This really could have been an innocent mistake, by the way. If Meir is anything like me, he probably just reuses containers when he is done with them. When this specific container was first labeled, it probably was not stashing weed, and he just forgot to re-label when he was done.)

Courtesy of Giphy.

Meir admitted that it was his–are you surprised that he was so honest? Whatever gave you the impression that he was a liar?–and was fined $100 and arrested on suspicion of drunken driving.

It is a pity that the world has become so dishonest that nobody can trust anybody anymore. I dream of a day when we can see someone’s sour cream tub labeled “not weed,” and just take it for a tub of pot-free sour cream instead of being suspicious and untrusting. I want to live in a world where we can rely on others and take what they tell at face value. I want honesty and trust to be our guiding forces.

But until that day, I probably need to go re-label some sour cream jars…

Ashley Shaw

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

The post Man’s ‘Not Weed’ Label Does Not Fool Nebraska Cops appeared first on Law Street.

As of 2014, legalized marijuana is quickly establishing itself as the fastest growing industry in the United States, according to a new report. ArcView Market Research (AMR) just published its 3rd edition of the State of Legal Marijuana Markets report, and states that the U.S. legal cannabis market grew from $1.5 billion in 2013 to $2.7 billion in 2014, showing an overall growth of 74 percent.

In the report, AMR projects:

Full legalization of marijuana nationwide would result in $36.8 billion in retail sales, larger than the $33.1 billion U.S. organic foods market.

In order to obtain the most current information on existing marijuana markets for calculating potential growth, AMR researchers surveyed hundreds of marijuana dispensaries in key states, ancillary business operators, and independent cultivators.

The report projects that, by 2019, all of the legal marijuana markets combined will make for a potential overall market worth almost $11 billion annually.

Currently four states and Washington D.C. have legalized recreational use of marijuana, and 24 states have legalized the use of medical marijuana. However, Alaska, Oregon, and D.C, the places that passed Adult Use legislation via ballot initiatives during the most recent mid-term elections, have yet to establish markets for marijuana retail. On the other hand, Colorado has seemingly established itself as the nation’s pot headquarters with “$315 million in 2014 Adult Use sales, for $805 million total combined retail (Adult and Medical) and wholesale sales.”

California still currently boasts the most combined retail and wholesale marijuana sales of 2013 and 2014 at over $1.2 billion, but unlike Colorado, California only has laws permitting medical marijuana use. An Adult Use law initiative for the state is in the works, and if it passes in 2016, AMR projects the entire industry could rapidly double in size.

Despite the growth, some setbacks have hindered the industry. Financing has become an issue, with many banks opting not to lend to marijuana-related businesses despite the Department of Justice’s go-ahead. Nebraska and Oklahoma are also attempting to interfere with Colorado state law by suing them. In the suit they claim:

Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining their marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems.

However, some suspect that Attorney Generals Jon Bruning and Scott Pruitt’s intentions in filing the suit aren’t entirely safety motivated. Both politicians have received significant campaign contributions from alcohol companies, which are looking to remain their customers’ primary source of legal inebriation.

The potential for legalized marijuana growth is exponential, but also highly contingent on states continuing to adopt pro-marijuana legislation. As the nation weighs the pros and cons of the weed debate, the impact it has already had on the economy will probably stand out. Eventually, country-wide adoption looks to be inevitable from a financial standpoint, even if that may come as a blow to moral convictions for some.

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 Legal Marijuana: The Fastest Growing Industry in America appeared first on Law Street.

Working out way across the country with our Dumbest Laws in the United States series, we’re now at smack dab in the middle of America’s Heartland. Let’s start with Nebraska, a state in which college football and corn are taken very seriously. Google search “Nebraska” and you’ll likely find that “football” pops up as the first result. Another thing taken very seriously there? Sexually transmitted diseases. In Nebraska, persons with gonorrhea may not marry.

Many truckers and road trippers drive through Nebraska en route to more modern locales. Those who drive through the state often note its flat terrain, which raises the question of why lawmakers there felt it necessary to warn mountain drivers specifically to use caution near the right hand edge of the highway.

Perhaps drunken pilots presented a problem in Nebraska in the past, as there is a law prohibiting flying a plane while drunk.

Many sites listed dumb laws in Nebraska for which they did not provide proper citation. Therefore, it may or may not be factual that sneezing or burping is illegal during a church service, and that barbers are prevented from eating onions after 7:00am. Even if they are not true, they are amusing to read.

Kansas gets off pretty easily here. Due to lack of proper citation, I can’t poke fun at its laws too much; however, the Wheat State doesn’t get off the hook completely as it does have many moronic city-specific laws. For example, in Derby, it is illegal to damage a vending machine or other coin-operated device. Even if a vending machine steals your money, you can’t beat the crap out of it, sorry! That city also enjoys quiet living–it is illegal to make screeching sounds with your tires, and you can’t use your trusty steed to commute because riding any animal down the road is illegal.

Topeka, Kansas is one of the stricter parts of of the state. There, spitting on the sidewalk is illegal. Like Derby, Topeka enjoys peace and quiet: residents may not engage in “yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on the public streets, particularly between the hours of 11:00pm and 7:00am, or at any time or place.”

Moving on to Iowa, another often under-appreciated state in good ol’ middle America. Lawmakers must have been as bored as kids often are driving through the state, as they made a law determining the exact size a box used for picking hops must be. The size of a box used for this purpose must be exactly 36 inches long, 18 inches wide, and 23.25 inches deep.

What’s with the Midwest and gonorrhea? Iowa, like Nebraska, actually has a law pertaining to the STI, saying that doctors who treat a person with gonorrhea must report this to the local board of health and include the disease’s “probable origin.”

Looking to get a closer parking space with a deceased person’s handicapped sticker? Sorry, but doing so in Iowa is strictly forbidden.

Ministers and other religious officials in Iowa are subject to a few more regulations than the average citizen. There, they must obtain a permit to carry liquor across state lines. On the liquor topic, liquor stores in Bettendorf, Iowa may not place advertisements for beer outside the store.

There is a vast number of stupid laws for Oklahoma listed on the Internet, but many, like one saying that dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to congregate in groups of three or more on private property, do not have proper citation; however, one particular outrageous law for which there is citation says that in Oklahoma, “it is illegal for the owner of a bar to allow anyone inside to pretend to have sex with a buffalo.” Strict stuff! Oklahoma lawmakers must be very concerned about animals as there, one may not promote a horse-tripping or bear-wrestling event. PETA would be happy to know that!

Phew, those four states were a doozy!

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: America’s Heartland appeared first on Law Street.

It’s still the holiday season, and during this time of the year it’s easy to forget to check the news. Luckily, Law Street has you covered with this week’s edition of “In Case You Missed It.” Our top story last week covered the ongoing legal battle between Colorado, Nebraska, and Oklahoma over Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana, written by Anneliese Mahoney. Our number two post, by Lexine DeLuc,a should help any Serial fans out there with their withdrawals–it’s a great collection of parodies inspired by the hit podcast. Finally, rounding out the list was a story from blogger Katherine Fabian on how to spot fake handbags during your holiday gift shopping. ICYMI: Check out what you missed on Law Street last week.

#1 Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization

Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and officially started selling it in the beginning of this year. Now, almost a year later, Colorado is experiencing some backlash for its choice to legalize. Two of Colorado’s neighbors–Nebraska and Oklahoma–are suing the state because of the impact of legal marijuana within their borders. Read the full article here.

#2 Five Parodies to Get You Through Serial Withdrawal

Serial‘s first season has ended and if you’re feeling a little separation anxiety, here are the top five parodies to help fill that void. The list includes selections from Saturday Night Live, Funny or Die, SubmissionsOnlyTV, and even a few parodies with multiple episodes. Read the full article here.

#3 Holiday Gift Guide: How to Authenticate a Designer Handbag

It’s almost 2015 and there is now a plethora of consignment sites to get your second-hand designer goods. But as great as sites like Ebay, Amazon, and the new Alibaba are, sometimes sellers aren’t always honest when they claim their items are authentic. So to make sure that you don’t get duped (like my poor brother did when he ordered those fake Nikes from China) I’ve put together a handy guide on how to spot a fake. Read the full article here.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and officially started selling it in the beginning of this year. Now, almost a year later, Colorado is experiencing some backlash for its choice to legalize. Two of Colorado’s neighbors–Nebraska and Oklahoma–are suing the state because of the impact of legal marijuana within their borders.

Nebraska and Oklahoma have filed a lawsuit petitioning the Supreme Court to declare Colorado’s legalization of marijuana unconstitutional. Leading the charge are Nebraska and Oklahoma’s Attorneys General: John Bruning and E. Scott Pruitt.

The reason that they’re bringing it before the court is that marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Nebraska and Oklahoma’s constitutional argument has to do with the supremacy clause, which essentially says that federal law supersedes state law. Still it’s going to be a tough argument to make, given that Nebraska and Oklahoma are trying to make changes to what goes on within another state. Cases that center on disputes between states are pretty rare–although they do definitely fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Since 1960, only 140 such cases have been brought in front of the Supreme Court, and they’ve refused to hear about half of those. The court has not yet said whether or not they’ll consider this one.

While Nebraska and Oklahoma are making a constitutional argument, there are more practical reasons why they don’t want Colorado to have legalized weed anymore. Both states share borders with Colorado, and weed keeps creeping over them. Both states are claiming that this illegal influx is making it difficult to enforce their individual anti-marijuana polices, as well as putting stress on their law enforcement personnel. That’s understandable–there is some evidence to indicate that weed is coming out of Colorado and into other states. As the New York Daily News pointed out:

But the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area wrote in a recent report that the amount of Colorado pot seized on highways increased from an annual average of 2,763 pounds between 2005 and 2008 to a yearly average of 3,690 pounds from 2009 to 2013. The weed was headed for at least 40 different states.

That being said, there’s no evidence to suggest that the increase is directly tied to Colorado’s decision to legalize weed. After all, during the majority of the years included in that report, weed wasn’t even legal in Colorado. As Morgan Fox from the Marijuana Policy Project put it,

Marijuana was widely available in Nebraska and Oklahoma well before Colorado made it legal. It would continue to be available even if Colorado were to all of sudden make it illegal again.

Colorado has every intention of fighting the lawsuit–Attorney General John Suthers has even said that it’s without merit.  While it’s still uncertain whether or not the justices will hear this particular case, it’s an interesting look at the ways in which the ability of different states to make new laws affects their neighbors.

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 Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization appeared first on Law Street.

Don’t get pregnant in Nebraska, ladies. Back in January 2011, Republican State Senator Lydia Brasch introduced legislative bill 690. The bill mandated that if a woman under the age of 18 wanted to abort a pregnancy, she must receive written permission from a parent or guardian. Otherwise, no abortion procedure for you, sweetheart. Good luck with that!

LB 690 was a wild success in the Nebraska legislature. It passed by a landslide in May 2011, and was signed into law the very same day. These kinds of bills are called “parental consent” bills by the anti-abortion lobby. But for those of us who believe in Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose?

This is just a straight-up, anti-abortion bill.

Why? After all, abortion is still legal in Nebraska, even after LB 690’s passage. No big deal, right? Wrong. Anonymous 5, a 16-year-old Nebraskan ward of the state who was denied her right to an abortion this week, can personally tell you that it’s a very, very big deal.

At a hearing back in July, Anonymous 5’s parents were stripped of their parental rights because they had been abusive and neglectful of their three children. Anonymous 5 and her two younger siblings were placed in foster care, under the legal protection of the state. At this same hearing, Anonymous 5 informed the judge that she was 10 weeks pregnant, and wanted to get an abortion.

She was, to put it lightly, in a pickle. She needed written parental consent, but legally, she no longer had any parents. What to do? Her only option was to ask a judge for permission to circumvent LB 690—something young girls are supposed to be allowed to do, in cases of medical emergency or abuse.

But that really didn’t work out for her. This week, the Nebraska court made a final decision on her abortion request, ruling that she had not sufficiently proved that she had been a victim of abuse, and—most importantly—she had not proved herself to be mature enough to decide that she wanted an abortion.

That’s right, folks. The Nebraska court ruled that a 16-year-old girl was not mature enough to have an abortion. But, she’s mature enough to become a mother!

Because that makes a lot of sense.

Especially considering that Anonymous 5 had some really good reasons for not wanting to give birth to a child. Besides the obvious factors—she’s a high school student without the financial or emotional resources to be, in her words, the kind of “mom [she] would like to be right now”—a very religious foster family is currently housing her and her two young siblings. Anonymous 5 expressed concern that she would lose her foster placement if her foster parents found out about the pregnancy.

Meaning that, in this case, adoption is not a viable option. The mere act of carrying this child to term could cause Anonymous 5 and her siblings to wind up homeless. And haven’t they already been through enough, after growing up in an abusive, neglectful household?

You’d think so, but the Nebraska judge didn’t agree. He denied Anonymous 5 the right to make this deeply personal choice by herself, and instead, decided for her, ruling that she would not be allowed to receive an abortion in the state of Nebraska.

So, what does this mean for LB 690, and other parental consent bills like it?

It means that they have the power to deny young women access to abortions. That’s a really big problem. But perhaps more importantly, these bills take the right of bodily decision-making away from young women, and hand it over to someone else.

And that’s just not OK. Every person, regardless of gender, needs to be able to choose what happens to his or her (or zir!) body. How would you like it if someone else had the power to decide what hairstyle you should wear, or how provocative your clothes should be, or what you could eat, or when you could sleep?

You’d hate it. You’d get angry and frustrated. You’d feel powerless. And these feelings would be in response to relatively trivial kinds of control.

I mean, seriously, everyone freaked out when Mayor Bloomberg tried to control how big our sodas could be.

So, can you imagine how powerless you’d feel if someone else forced you to grow a child inside your abdomen for nine months, after which, you’d have to literally tear your body apart trying to expel it? And then, you’d either have to raise it for the next 18 years, or make the heart wrenching decision to hand that responsibility off to someone else?

That’s not trivial. That’s a life-altering kind of control. It’s too important to be placed in someone else’s hands.

Walter White, for the win.

Only the person who’s pregnant can make that call. It’s a deeply personal decision, and one that she’ll have to live with forever. Simply put, women need to be in control of their own bodies.

And the fact that, in 2013, this concept still hasn’t sunken in is horrifying. How far have we really come from the days when women’s bodies were bought and sold by men through marriage—when women were nothing more than property?

Not far, apparently, when a man in Nebraska has the power to decide what’s going to happen inside of Anonymous 5’s body.

So, whaddya say, folks? Can we stop controlling and policing women’s bodies, so that no one else ever has to go through what Anonymous 5 did this week?

I really hope so.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Rudy Eng 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 If You Got Mad About the Big Gulp Ban, Get Mad About This appeared first on Law Street.