The state of South Carolina is suing Purdue Pharma over its alleged contributions to the opioid epidemic.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson announced the lawsuit at a press conference on Tuesday. It accuses the Connecticut-based company of deceptive marketing practices and downplaying the addictive qualities of OxyContin.

In particular, the suit addresses Purdue Pharma’s failure to comply with the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. In 2007, Purdue Pharma signed an agreement with South Carolina and other states, which required the company to correct its marketing practices.

However, according to Wilson, Purdue Pharma continued to encourage doctors to prescribe OxyContin for unapproved uses. Representatives also assured doctors that the users would become only “pseudoaddicted.” Supposedly, they could reverse their symptoms by taking even more drugs.

In reality, OxyContin is a Schedule II controlled substance, which means it is highly addictive.

“Opioid addiction is a public health menace to South Carolina,” Wilson said at the press conference. “We cannot let history record that we stood by while this epidemic rages.” Recovering addicts and family members of overdose victims stood around him.

“While we vigorously deny the allegations,” a Purdue Pharma spokesperson said in a statement, “we share South Carolina officials’ concerns about the opioid crisis and we are committed to working collaboratively to find solutions.”

Over 565 South Carolinians died of opioid overdoses in 2015. Last year, the state had the ninth-highest opioid prescribing rate in the country.

Comparatively, the U.S. as a whole had over 33,000 people die from opioid use in 2015. Experts predict that number will rise.

This is not the first legal action against Purdue Pharma. In January, the city of Everett, Washington. sued the company for negligence and inaction over the city’s OxyContin crisis. Six months later, the state of Ohio sued Purdue Pharma and four other companies over their marketing of OxyContin and other drugs.

Most recently, New Hampshire filed its own lawsuit on August 1. Like South Carolina, the state accuses Purdue Pharma of overstating the benefits of opioids and recommending it for unapproved uses.

In a similar action, the Cherokee Nation sued six pharmaceutical companies in April, accusing them of unjustly profiting from over-prescription of opioids.

Last week, President Trump declared the opioid epidemic a national emergency. Since then, he has not specified any plans or resources to combat the crisis.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South Carolina Sues OxyContin Maker over Opioid Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

The average age of marriage for Americans is creeping up and up–in 2013 it jumped to 27 for women and 29 for men. For perspective, in 1990 it was 23 and 26 for women and men and in 1960 it was 20 and 22 respectively. But while the average age is falling, it doesn’t mean that some people don’t get married much earlier. In fact, almost 60,000 minors aged 15-17 were married as of 2014–and now lawmakers in some states, including New York and New Jersey, are considering making a change to child marriage laws.

In New York, specifically, minors aged 16 and 17 can get married as long as they have parental consent. Minors aged 14 and 15 can get married with parental consent and judicial consent. State legislators, as well as Governor Andrew Cuomo, are working to change the laws, particularly for 14, 15, and 16-year-olds.

The effort has actually been underway for a little while now, although a similar bill last year didn’t end up making much progress, in part because there was pushback from some religious communities. There were about 4,000 legal child marriages in New York last year, and while only about 50 involved teens under 16, there are always concerns that young people–particularly young women–are being pressured into marriage at a young age. A recent New York Times story highlighted the story of one of those women:

Fatima H., an office manager in northern New Jersey, was 15 and thriving in school in Brooklyn in the 1980s when her strict Muslim parents forced her to drop out and arranged a marriage to a first cousin arriving from Kuwait. He was 21 and they had never met. A judge approved the early nuptials and, perhaps not surprisingly, the couple did not live happily ever after.

New Jersey appears to have just become the first state in the U.S. to completely ban marriage for children under 18. While the bill still needs to be signed by Governor Chris Christie, it overwhelmingly passed the state legislature.

Other states are similarly considering restricting child marriage. For example, in New Hampshire, a state representative recently filed a bill to make 16 the minimum age for marriage.

While the number of teens who get married in the U.S. is relatively low, it’s imperative to ensure that children aren’t being forced into coerced marriages. New York, New Jersey, and other states are finally taking efforts to ensure that.

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 States Work to Change Child Marriage Laws appeared first on Law Street.

First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama took to the podium Thursday afternoon to deliver a powerful speech condemning Donald Trump’s “sexually predatory behavior,” admitting that she can’t believe “a candidate for president of the United States has bragged about sexually assaulting women.”

During the speech, which took place at a Hillary Clinton campaign rally in New Hampshire, Obama referenced Trump’s salacious “Access Hollywood” audio recording, calling the Republican nominee’s comments “shocking,” “demeaning,” and lacking “basic standards of human decency.”

Obama, who at times looked emotional, admitted that she couldn’t stop thinking about the tape that has “shaken her to her core.”

FLOTUS said:

This wasn’t just locker room banter. This was a powerful individual speaking freely and openly about sexually predatory behavior. And actually bragging about kissing and groping women using language so obscene that many of us worried about our children hearing it when we turned on the TV. And to make matters worse it now seems very clear that this isn’t an isolated incident. It’s one of countless examples of how he has treated women his whole life.

Obama later rejected Trump’s excuse for his language saying, “to dismiss this as everyday locker room talk is an insult to decent men everywhere.”

Clinton applauded Obama’s comments on Twitter writing, “FLOTUS, I’m in awe. Thanks for putting into words what’s in so many of our hearts.”

.@FLOTUS, I’m in awe. Thanks for putting into words what’s in so many of our hearts. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 13, 2016

Michelle Obama’s speech will definitely be remembered as one of the most powerful this election cycle. Trump’s campaign continues to implode following numerous sexual assault allegations and inappropriate comments toward women, proving voters may have finally had enough when it comes to his scandals.

Watch Part of Michelle Obama’s Speech Below

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 Michelle Obama Condemns Trump’s “Predatory Behavior” in NH Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Eighteen to 20-year-olds everywhere have their attention turned to three states who are may be in the process of lowering the drinking age to 18-years-old. California, Minnesota, and New Hampshire all have legislation in the works that would allow people under the age of 21 to drink in certain circumstances. Though each plan is unique, with its own caveats and rules, it looks like this time next year 18-year-olds may be able to enjoy a drink every once in a while in these states.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s proposed plan, House Bill 1606-FN, was introduced to its legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee Thursday and is sponsored by Republican Max Abramson. The bill’s aim is to try to dampen the binge drinking culture we see so much of in today’s society by allowing people between the ages of 18 and 21 to drink beer and wine in the presence of someone over the age of 21. The bill states that lowering the drinking age in this capacity will make it so that “younger people will no longer be initiated to alcohol consumption in the absence of adult supervision.” Essentially, the state wants to introduce kids to alcohol in a safer, more controlled environment than what a lot of teens are currently experiencing.

Binge drinking is a big problem in our country today, especially among underage drinkers. According to the CDC, “about 90 percent of the alcohol consumed by youth under the age of 21 in the United States is in the form of binge drinks.” The CDC also notes that excessive drinking costs the United States “$249 billion in 2010, or $2.05 a drink, from losses in productivity, health care, crime, and other expenses. Binge drinking was responsible for 77 percent of these costs, or $191 billion.” Many people who talk about lowering the drinking age cite European habits when it comes to alcohol; younger teens can drink beer and wine at a young age and are generally introduced to casual drinking in a family setting. This then leads to lower levels of underage binge drinking, which the United States clearly has a problem with.

Minnesota

Minnesota’s bill is slightly different and would allow people over the age of 18 to drink any kind of alcohol, but only in bars or restaurants. This new bill is an extension of Senator Phyllis Kahn’s proposal from this time last year, which would allow 18-year-olds to drink in bars as long as they are with their parents. This idea comes with the hope that teens will stop drinking to excess at dorm parties in favor of drinking responsible amounts in public. People under the age of 21 still wouldn’t be able to purchase alcohol from liquor stores–they’d only be allowed to drink under the supervision of the general public at restaurants where they can be easily cut off by bartenders or waiters.

Governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, who currently opposes to the bill, said of the bill,

I think we are better off staying where we are. I haven’t talked to any of the legislators about it, I don’t have an etched-in-concrete position, but this debate has been going on appropriately for many years now, and the middle ground comes down to: It should be 21, where it is now.

The governor’s statements are technically correct, and we have some existing legislation like this to judge whether or not letting kids drink with their parents helps reduce binge drinking. For example, in Wisconsin, anyone under the age of 21 can drink alcoholic beverages in licensed establishments if they are with their parents or legal guardians. This law is technically at the discretion of the restaurants, so they can prohibit minors from buying or drinking alcohol even if the underage patrons are supervised. Unfortunately, for those hoping Wisconsin may be a shining example of how our country should lower the drinking age, statistics show that Wisconsin is actually one of the states with the biggest binge drinking problem in America. To be fair, this data was taken from adults ages 21 and over, but, it certainly doesn’t help further the theory that teaching people young will promote healthier drinking habits overall.

California

The final state that is considering lowering its drinking age is California, this time in the form of a ballot initiative. The initiative was drafted and last year by Terrance Lynn, who is now in the process of collecting signatures so the measure can be placed on a ballot this coming April. Lynn will need 365,880 signatures in order to have the general public vote on whether or not they want to lower the drinking age, which may be an entirely separate battle if the initiative makes it that far.

Because this law doesn’t have any financial backing and it would directly allow 18 to 20-year-olds to purchase and consume alcohol legally, California could lose up to $200 million in highway funds. Why? After the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was passed, states that lower their drinking age to below 21-years-old can have their highway funding cut by 10 percent. This act was passed with the support of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), an organization working to prevent the thousands of drunk driving deaths every year, in an attempt to decrease the number these deaths substantially. While the measure would significantly reduce funding from the federal government, an estimate from the state’s Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance said that the measure could increase sales tax revenue by several million dollars per year.

Final Verdict?

People under the age of 21 shouldn’t get too excited just yet, as all of these bills and initiatives still need to be voted on before they can become. Although many people may assume a lower drinking age popular among the general public, a public opinion polling suggests otherwise. According to a Gallup poll from 2014, 74 percent of Americans claim they would oppose legislation to lower the drinking age to 18 while only 25 percent say they would support it. These rates are about the same as they always have been, so these efforts may have an uphill battle when it comes to getting enough public support.

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 Will Some 18-Year-Olds be Able to Drink Alcohol Legally this Year? appeared first on Law Street.

Monday night, Donald Trump was speaking to a crowd of supporters at a rally before New Hampshire’s primary. In response to a statement about his opponent, Senator Ted Cruz, a crowd member yelled, “He’s a pussy!”

Trump responded by repeating the slur, but in the context of a reprimand.

“You’re not allowed to say that…” Trump said. “…I never expect to hear that from you again.”

Then, looking out over his audience of prospective voters, he added, “She said he’s a pussy.”

His statement was met by raucous cheering, and a bit of a “what can you do” attitude from Trump.

Watch the whole charming moment below:

Trump, Trump, Trump…this could have been your moment to rise above the childish antics your campaign has been associated with! Instead, in the guise of taking the high road, you chose to insult your opponent with immature name-calling.

Someone deserves a time out.

Now, let’s talk about the word “pussy” for a moment. When someone uses the word “pussy” they are usually referring to one of three things:

1. a feline,
2. a woman’s vagina, or
3. a person who is weak.

The third definition, and the colloquialism Trump and his supporter used in the video above, is actually meant to be a shortened version of the word “pusillanimous” which does mean “showing a lack of courage or determination.”

Unfortunately, if you were to ask the average person on the street, they would assume the insult is in reference to the second definition: a vagina.

But wait a second! Why would weakness ever be associated with vaginas? Aren’t they super strong?

The answer is, yes! However, the association of female genitalia with weakness is the result of a patriarchal society. It even inserts itself into our day-to-day language. Look no further than the phrase “grow some balls,” which implies the person growing said balls would gain bravery and strength to accomplish a task or goal.

Trevor Noah on why it’s nonsensical that calling someone a ‘pussy’ should be an insult. #gendermatters #gender pic.twitter.com/NXIFr5177W

— Matthias Lehmann (@yongsagisa) December 8, 2015

So, Mr. Trump’s supporter, and Mr. Trump himself, didn’t just use the classic bullying technique of degrading by name-calling. No, they attempted to degrade Senator Cruz with a word that shouldn’t even be used for degradation. (Unless Trump knows the word pusillanimous, which I sincerely doubt.)

Let this be a lesson to us all: the word “pussy” in its iteration as a slur is really an insult to women. Let’s just stop, okay?

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Stop Using the P-Word as an Insult appeared first on Law Street.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has officially announced that he won’t be participating in the Republican Debate tomorrow, due to his (totally not sexist and unreasonable) dislike for moderator Megyn Kelly. Trump’s decision has been confirmed by both his campaign, as well as Fox News. So, given that the big-mouthed millionaire has been dominating the debates thus far, who will step up to fill the vacuum?

Trump not being present for the debate may change the overall flavor of the night by quite a bit. It certainly could have an impact on disappointing not-so-prodigal son Governor Jeb Bush, who has had many of his most memorable and heated campaign moments while taking jabs at Trump. It also could affect Senator Marco Rubio, who is currently coming in third in most polls, and has been pretty critical of Trump in past debates.

But, it seems like most eyes will be on Senator Ted Cruz, who has been coming in second to Trump in most of the recent polls, although those second place results have been by quite a wide margin. In national polls, including CNN/ORC, Fox News, NBC News, and other leading news outlets, Trump has seen a lead over Cruz that ranges from about 13 percent to 22 percent. However, in Iowa, which will be the first state to caucus next Monday, Trump holds a far slimmer lead–ranging from about 2-11 percent. In New Hampshire–the second primary–the gap between Trump and Cruz looks only slightly smaller than national results. Given that the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries are so soon, this may Cruz’s last chance to make up some of that ground.

However, Cruz’s success will depend on whether or not he also shows up tomorrow night. He has now challenged Trump to their own, one-on-one debate. However, it could be a mistake for Cruz to sit this one out, given that everyone will be looking to him to see how he handles a Trump-less stage.

So, Law Street readers, what do you think? Will Cruz dominate tomorrow night’s debate? Or will it be a missed opportunity for the man currently in second in most GOP polls?

Cast your vote in the poll below:

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 With Trump Out of the Debate, Who Will Dominate? appeared first on Law Street.

New Hampshire voters will have a new way to celebrate their civic duty come the state’s primary election in February. On Tuesday, a federal judge struck down the state’s law that banned voters from showing a completed ballot to anyone–including sharing a photo on social media. According to the ruling, ballot box selfies are now a protected form of free speech.

New Hampshire is not the only state with this sort of law, in fact, most states have laws prohibiting voters from showing their marked ballot to the public. Although many of these laws are on the books, most states tend to have lax enforcement policies. Unlike most states, however, the New Hampshire law was recently updated to include digital images and social media–effectively banning ballot selfies. Those changes prompted the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire (ACLU-NH) to file a lawsuit against the state, citing the law as an undue ban on free speech.

State Representative Leon Rideout, Brandon Ross, and Andrew Langlois were the plaintiffs in the ACLU-NH’s lawsuit. All three voted in the primary election last September, took pictures of their ballots, and shared them online. Out of protest, Langlois opted to vote for his recently deceased dog, Akira, instead of the available primary candidates. While voting, Langlois took a picture of his ballot with his phone and later shared it on Facebook. Shortly after posting the photo, he got a call from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office notifying him that he was being investigated for possible election law violations. Before it was stuck down, violating the law was punishable by fines of up to $1,000. Rideout and Ross were also investigated for their posted pictures.

The ACLU-NH argued that the law’s restrictions violate voters’ right to free speech, and the court agreed. On the other hand, Secretary of State William Gardner argued that the law helped stop vote buying and coercion because it prevented someone from proving who they voted for. In a 42-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro ruled that the law was not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest in regulating free speech, the traditional test in First Amendment cases. While the judge noted that coercion and vote buying have historically been important issues, they no longer pose a risk to the election process. In his ruling, the judge noted,

He [the secretary] produced no evidence that either vote buying or voter coercion are current problems in New Hampshire. Plaintiffs, in contrast, have produced undisputed evidence that there have been no vote buying prosecutions and no complaints of vote buying in the state since at least 1976.

While the law was enacted with good intentions–preventing coercion and vote buying–the issues that it aimed to address are generally not that important anymore. Even if such fraud were to occur, other laws still make it illegal and the government can still prosecute misconduct. More to the point, selfies and the ability to share pictures of civic participation online are important forms of free speech. For better or worse, ballot box selfies are a free expression and they are here to stay–at least in New Hampshire.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post New Hampshire Voters: You May Now Take Ballot Selfies appeared first on Law Street.

I hereby award a special prize to Vermont, the first state for which I could find no dumb laws backed up with proper citation. Good for you, Vermont. You are hereby deemed the state with the most common sense.

Nicely done, Vermont!

New Hampshire came close to earning the same honor as its neighbor–but not quite as it still has some of the dumbest laws in the country. The Granite State attempts to keep its residents and visitors as authentic as possible: it is illegal to check into a hotel under an assumed name. Also, no matter how delicious you may find seaweed, you cannot pick up the oceanic goody on the beach to munch on (or use for any purpose, for that matter).

In cemeteries in Claremont, many actions are illegal. No one under the age of ten may enter one at all, and no matter what your age, you may not get drunk or picnic among the graves.

Now for this post’s main event: Maine. Did you like that little play on words, Main and Maine? Me too.

Perhaps the city of Biddeford had issues with airport travelers losing all of their money prior to flights, as that town went ahead and made it illegal to gamble in airports. I wonder if that is restricted to big-time gambling in proper casinos or if it includes playing poker with a $5 buy-in while waiting at your gate?

Biddeford also made it illegal to roller skate on the sidewalk. Maybe there were too many collisions between pedestrians and renegade roller skaters.

This is fine, as long as they keep off the sidewalks!

In Ellsworth, they seem to think their laws are above those at the federal level. There, if any part of the city ordinances are more stringent than federal laws, even though they may be in conflict with them, they will prevail.

Freeport, Maine bans the sale of mercury-containing thermometers, which I find totally logical considering the toxicity of the substance. However, most places these days don’t even sell them anymore in the first place.

Moving on to the city of Waterboro, a place that really redefines being kept on a short leash. There, dog leashes may not be over eight feet long. Not sure how happy PETA would be about that one.

Deer in Wells, Maine better not count on humans to obtain sustenance, as it is illegal for anyone to feed one. Also, the city really wants to ensure respect for the dead, as advertisements may not be placed in cemeteries.

I’ve saved the best for last in my oh-so-humble opinion. In South Berwick, Maine, there is a long list of places where one may not park. Included on that list is a specific Dunkin Donuts. But… how will doughnut lovers everywhere get their fix?! Walking?!

Thank you for joining me for this week’s post, tune in next 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: Vermont, New Hampshire, & Maine appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has agreed to look at an interesting First Amendment question–can those silly vanity license plates that a lot of people have be considered protected free speech? SCOTUS will hear Walker vs. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc in the spring.

The case came from Texas, where an organization called the Sons of Confederate Veterans requested a specialty plate. The license plate included a Confederate flag, as well as text of the group’s name. The Texas DMV considered the request, and eventually decided to reject it because:

A significant portion of the public associate the Confederate flag with organizations advocating expressions of hate directed toward people or groups that is demeaning to those people or groups.

There are two questions here–are license plates a form of free speech? And if so, whose free speech?

The reason those two questions are both so tantamount is because if license plates are a form of free speech, but that speech is the state’s, the state can reject an offensive license plate request because it doesn’t want to be portrayed that way. However, if the license plates can be considered the free speech of the people who are displaying them on their cars, it’s a different matter altogether.

There’s some precedent to suggest that license plates are government speech, not citizens’. After all, a DMV can choose to reject a license plate request if it’s lewd or inappropriate. That being said, there’s some precedent to show the opposite is true as well. In 1976, there was a Supreme Court case called Wooley v. Maynard. If you’ve ever seen a New Hampshire license plate, it prominently features the state’s motto: “Live Free or Die,” a throwback to Revolutionary War times. A man named George Maynard, who was a Jehovah’s Witness, objected to being required to display the motto because it stood contrary to his religious beliefs. He obscured it, despite the fact that was against the law. The case was appealed all the way to SCOTUS, who ruled that New Hampshire couldn’t require citizens to display the motto if it stood contrary to their beliefs.

There’s another case this year dealing with free speech and license plates that’s sort of intertwined. It’s called Berger v. ACLU and it originated in North Carolina. It regarded whether or not North Carolina could issue “Choose Life” license plates, as requested by a pro-life group, without similarly offering a comparable pro-choice plate. That was where the case was left, and while the Supreme Court took no action on it right now, it may be decided along with the Texas case. Either way, whatever the Supreme Court decides could have a big impact on those vanity plates we all see so often–and not necessarily in a good way.

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 Is Your Vanity Plate a Form of Free Speech? appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [Rajiv Patel via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Intellectual Property: #2 University of New Hampshire School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Across the country, about 800,000 government workers hang in limbo. The United States is four days into a partial government shutdown that puts any “non-essential worker” temporarily out of work. The shutdown is responsible for closures in everything from National Parks to after-school programs. One sector that has been experiencing serious shutdown pains is the Department of Justice–particularly the US Attorney division.

US Attorneys represent US interests in district or appeals courts. The 93 men and women appointed to these positions are each supported by Assistant US Attorneys, as well as numerous dedicated paralegals and staff members.

Since the shutdown began on October 1, US Attorney offices throughout the United States have furloughed large chunks of workers. In the Northern District of Ohio , 43% of staff have been sent home without pay. Oregon is reporting 30% of their 120 employees on furlough. New Hampshire has had to get by without 44% of their usual workforce. These are by no means isolated examples. Throughout the nation, US Attorney offices are operating with somewhere between two-thirds and one-half of their regular staff. In addition to the large groups of furloughed workers, many of these offices also report having lost about 15-20% of their staff during sequester cuts.

The type of workers being sent home fall into two categories–support staff, and anyone in the civil division. While civil cases are incredibly important, they are both easier to put on hold than criminal cases, and less likely to involve public safety issues. Most US Attorney’s offices are asking for continuances on any civil cases that have run into the shutdown.

Criminal cases are expected to move forward with delays, despite furloughs being handed to most Criminal Division attorneys’ staff members. These paralegals, administrative aids, IT staffers, and other employees are essential to the attorneys for whom they work. Lorin Reisner, Chief of the Criminal Division at the Manhattan US Attorney’s office provided an interview to Bloomberg Businessweek on Wednesday, stating “From our perspective it’s a mess. We have 10 trials going on in the Criminal Division, and I spent half of yesterday making sure the paralegals who are working on those cases can continue working on those cases, or that we have others who can assist with those trials.”

US Attorneys around the country are voicing their frustration and arguing that the ramifications of the government shutdown are far-reaching. South Dakota US Attorney Brendan Johnson pointed out “When we lose close to half of our staff it affects our ability to recover money for the federal government. So, this is actually a money loser for the federal government.”  US Attorney for the Eastern District of California Benjamin Wagner described the shutdown’s effects on his office, stating, “It’s kind of like fighting with one hand behind our backs.”

The work that US Attorneys, their assistants, and their staffs provide truly is crucial. Already hit hard by the sequester, our US Attorney offices are struggling to stay afloat in a government shutdown that has deemed many of these men and women who work on a large array of crucial cases unimportant. Unless the shutdown comes to a conclusion soon, we will  be facing a government that has declared justice, for lack of a better word, unessential.

[ideastream.org]  [oregonlive.com] [businessweek.com] [kdtl.com] [krca.com]  [charlotteobserver.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [OnceAndFutureLaura via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post US Attorney Offices Slammed by Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.