Throughout the campaign and the beginning of his presidency, President Donald Trump has criticized a lot of different people. But there is one group that he has consistently attacked with passion and fervor like no other: “The Media”

His attacks are blunt and relentless, he has gone after world-renowned organizations like the New York Times, and has even posted a video meme of himself attacking a CNN icon, calling it the “Fraud News Network.”

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN pic.twitter.com/WYUnHjjUjg

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2017

Wow, the Failing @nytimes said about @foxandfriends “….the most powerful T.V. show in America.”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2017

He contends that these major news corporations are “enemies” to his administration because they consistently post critical stories.

But now Trump seems to have found a solution to counteract “Fake News”… his own “Real News”. On Sunday, the Trump presidential campaign announced a short weekly segment on its Facebook page called “Real News.” The show aims to be a brief two minute recap of news about the Trump Administration, straight from Trump Tower. The show is hosted by Kayleigh McEnany, a Trump-supporting CNN pundit, who resigned from her position at CNN to work on the show as well as become a spokesperson for the GOP.

While the resources to produce the show are not directly coming from Trump himself, investigative reports from The Daily Beast and Mic show that the effort is being spearheaded by Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law. The money is coming from a PAC that is raising money for Trump’s reelection campaign.

Though the show aims to produce so-called “real news,” it seems to focus more on touting Trump’s accomplishments than anything else. In the two minute segment McEnany discussed Trump’s new immigration policy, data that showed global economic confidence at an all-time high, and Trump awarding a medal to a Vietnam veteran.

It’s fair to note that this is not the first time a president has had his own “information” show. Obama’s administration hosted a weekly video series titled “West Wing Week,” which discussed the activities going on in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue during the week. Nevertheless people all over social media couldn’t get enough of the idea of Trump TV and its quest for “real news.”

Donald Trump’s “Real News” seems kinda familiar. pic.twitter.com/TAMDYHGtXq

— Zac Richey (@the_zacsta) August 2, 2017

This is the person reporting the “Real News” from Trump Tower on Trump TV.

In New York.

The End. https://t.co/tgyWJMWk9S

— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 7, 2017

The left must be going crazy knowing #Trump TV is “Real News”
Those who laugh last, laugh best!#MAGA #DrainTheWashingtonSwamp #YesWeWill pic.twitter.com/43erYELDin

— Joel Fischer (@JoelFischerNYC) August 7, 2017

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Trump’s “Real News” Sparks Social Media Reactions appeared first on Law Street.

It has been nearly 10 years since then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin could not name a single newspaper that she read to stay informed in an interview with Katie Couric. But it appears that she has learned to occasionally peruse national publications since then, as the former Alaska governor filed a defamation lawsuit Tuesday against the New York Times in response to an editorial that linked her to the 2011 shooting of Democratic Representative Gabby Giffords.

Palin’s lawyers claim that the connection was published “knowingly, intentionally, willfully, wantonly and maliciously, with the intent to harm Mrs. Palin, or in blatant disregard of the substantial likelihood of causing her harm.” They also added that by keeping the editorial up, the Times “violated the law and its own policies.”

The editorial in question–titled “America’s Lethal Politics”–drew a parallel between the June 14 shooting that injured Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) and several others at a baseball field in Alexandria, and the 2011 shooting in Arizona. The piece said that both attacks were incited by political rhetoric which has become a “sickeningly familiar pattern.”

“Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs,” it read at one point. It also went on to draw connections between that advertisement and the shooter’s motivation to attack Giffords, despite a Times article from earlier this year that rejected that notion. The Times’ opinion section corrected these concerns the next day and later tweeted out an apology.

The $75,000 defamation suit claims the newspaper’s correction and subsequent apology were “devoid of any reference to Mrs. Palin” and were “woefully insufficient.”

Essentially Palin is arguing that the editorial published by the Times was libelous. Because the defamation in question was published as a written work, the suit would have to follow the legal standards of a libel case. Palin is a “public figure”–specifically an “all-purpose public figure”–meaning she is someone whose fame or position regularly puts them in the public eye. The courts decided in the 70s–ironically through a case that also involved the Times–that public figures have to prove “actual malice”–meaning the statements about the person were published with reckless disregard for whether they were false or true. In other words, Palin’s lawyers need to show that the alleged false statements in the editorial were published intentionally, or with total disregard for the truth.

If it seems like this is a high standard that is tough to prove, it’s because it is. Especially given this situation. Most statements made in editorials are defended as opinion. Even if the court does not consider the statements to be opinions, it might be even more difficult to prove her reputation was damaged. When Sarah Palin’s contract with Fox News ended in 2015, FiveThirtyEight found that her favorability rating was at an all time low, even among Republicans. It is difficult to defame the character of someone who is already not viewed too highly, especially when the average Times reader is left-leaning. Some might even argue that this situation has made Palin more sympathetic. While it was expected that conservatives would cheer the lawsuit, even the Washington Post was quick to call out the Times for its mistake.

There is a chance, as there always is, that she could win this case. Palin’s legal team includes one of the lawyers from the famous case in which Hulk Hogan sued Gawker into oblivion for publishing his sex tape. The Columbia Journalism Review referenced this case–among others–as “evidence that the growing unpopularity of media may translate into less-sympathetic jury pools.”

Regardless of how this case turns out, the Times publishing a debunked talking point is far from a good look for the publication. At best, the editorial board lazily tried to remind readers that Sarah Palin did put out an ad with crosshairs of a gun sight over districts with Democrats that voted for the Affordable Care Act with the phrase “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”, and the next day vandals happened to smash in her office’s windows. At worst, the board committed libel against a woman who promoted birtherism and claimed that former president Barack Obama spent $2 million to hide his real birth certificate.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Sarah Palin’s Defamation Suit Against the New York Times Succeed? appeared first on Law Street.

American intelligence officials say that they have concluded that “Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump.”

There’s still a lot that is unclear about the hacks. According to the same senior officials, Russians also hacked into the RNC, in addition to the DNC, but apparently never released any information they found there. The intelligence officials also have said that many of the hacked documents were given to WikiLeaks for dissemination. According to the Washington Post:

The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now ‘quite clear’ that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

This is all concerning news, but what may be most concerning is that President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t seem to care. Trump slammed the CIA over these reports, saying:

These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’

It’s important to note that Trump’s assertion is not exactly true–most of the officials that claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction are long gone. And Trump continues to deny that Russia could have been involved in his win.

Putin got just what he wanted: Trump as POTUS and America turning against itself over this intrusion rather than standing together vs Russia

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) December 10, 2016

Obama ordered an investigation into Russian involvement in the general election, and Russia denies any wrongdoing. Hopefully further investigations will answer some of these questions.

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 U.S. Intelligence Officials Say Russia Worked to Help Trump Win the Election appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, Donald Trump released an infomercial-like video aimed at the American people, describing what he will do when he takes office, on Youtube. He has kept pretty quiet since winning the election two weeks ago; apart from a few appearances in the media he has mainly focused on setting up his new government and has declined holding news conferences. In the video, Trump talks straight into the camera while reading from a script, and seems far more contained than when speaking during his campaign. He didn’t insult anyone, didn’t get fired up, and didn’t even mention the immigration promises he spoke so widely about on the campaign trail.

.@transition2017 update and policy plans for the first 100 days. pic.twitter.com/HTgPXfPWeJ

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2016

Trump did use his slogan, “Make America Great Again,” but he emphasized that he wants to do that for “everyone – and I mean everyone.” He said his main principle is putting America first, whether it is “producing steel, building cars or curing disease, I want the next generation of production and innovation to happen right here, in our great homeland: America–creating wealth and jobs for American workers.”

The one concrete action he mentioned was to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he called a potential disaster for America. About energy he said that he will get rid of restrictions on the production of American energy, like shale energy and clean coal, to create “millions of jobs.” But he didn’t explain how this would be possible or describe what restrictions he meant. He wants to protect America from cyber attacks and “all other forms of attacks.” The only thing he said about immigration was that he will investigate all abuses of visa programs.

That Trump chose to speak to the people through an online video and utilize social media rather than traditional media may be because he always seems to be in a fight with some media outlet. Early Tuesday morning, he tweeted that he had cancelled a scheduled meeting with “the failing” New York Times because they had changed the terms for the appointment. “Not nice,” he wrote.

I cancelled today’s meeting with the failing @nytimes when the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment. Not nice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2016

But only a few hours later the meeting was back on track, after the Times was clear that it hadn’t changed any rules.

The meeting with the @nytimes is back on at 12:30 today. Look forward to it!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 22, 2016

A spokeswoman for the Times, Eileen Murphy, said that they had no idea that Trump was cancelling the meeting as no one contacted the newspaper; the change was only revealed through Trump’s personal tweets. She also said that it was the Trump team that tried to change the terms of the meeting, not them. No one is really sure what’s going on with Team Trump, but having a president that prefers communicating via social media exclusively is certainly a modern phenomenon.

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 Donald Trump Outlines Plan for First 100 Days in Office in Youtube Video 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:

Who is Richard Spencer?

If you hate the fact that “alt-right” is a thing or are just plain confused as to why it is a thing you can blame this guy named Richard Spencer, I guess, who pretty much coined the term.

Spencer gave a chilling speech at a conference in Washington D.C.  last night. The conference was attended by alt-right writers and activists and was meant as a celebration of Donald Trump’s election and to proclaim the “awakening” of white identity.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 22, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

As climate change continues to wreak havoc on the world’s weather patterns, individuals around the globe are taking their respective countries to task for their roles in contributing to the problem. The New York Times reports that several attempts to take governments to court have taken place in countries such as Pakistan, New Zealand, Peru, and even the United States.

Whether or not these lawsuits could have any effect on actually holding these countries accountable is debatable, but it is giving clout to people who traditionally would have little power in such a fight. Children, farmers, and students  have brought cases in various countries, all citing a need for countries to take action to protect current and future generations from a host of devastating effects.

In the U.S., a group of kids in the state of Washington won a lawsuit last month to force the state to be held to a deadline for taking action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The kids were represented by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit that works to help young people fight for their right to a healthy atmosphere. While this particular case was fought at a state level, the organization has been fighting another case at the federal level–it has also filed a suit against the Obama administration on behalf of a group of kids from various states across the country. The suit claims that the Obama administration has “continued their policies and practices of allowing the exploitation of fossil fuels,” targeting in particular the approval of a CO2-emitting export terminal in Oregon.

Pakistan, a country particularly vulnerable to climate change, has recently seen two such cases come to its courts. Last month, a seven-year-old girl filed a lawsuit against the government, saying that the promotion of fossil fuels violates “the Public Trust Doctrine and the youngest generation’s fundamental constitutional rights.” Last year, farmer and law student Asghar Leghari took his case to the Lahore High Court after his crops were threatened by the unpredictable weather. Leghari’s case prompted a judge to order the formation of a “Climate Change Commission” to ensure that the government is implementing policies to combat the problem.

The Times piece highlights other cases that are popping up worldwide. Regardless of whether or not these suits will actually be successful in forcing governments to change their policies, they are bringing attention to the media and the public of the role that governments have played in the climate crisis.

In the end, these lawsuits might be the most effective way that individuals can truly make their voice heard to the entities that truly have the power to create change. While these methods will still be difficult for those without legal resources at their disposal, it may be the best way to force governments to take action.

Editors Note: A previous version of this story stated that the kids represented in the federal case against the Obama administration were from Oregon. This story has been corrected to clarify that many of the youth plaintiffs in this case live in other states apart from Oregon. 

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post People Are Suing Their Governments for Contributing to Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Remember Helga from Hey Arnold!? The blonde-haired tyrannical bully who constantly picked on Arnold? She used to tease him endlessly, calling him names in front of his friends. Meanwhile, she had his photo in her locket, and a shrine of all things Arnold hidden in her room.

That’s a pretty good comparison to Donald Trump’s relationship with the media. He constantly derails the media for “bias” and “lying,” all the while feeding off of the coverage they give him. The latest clash in Trump’s war on free press (it’s like the war on Christmas, but real) concerns a satirical front page published by the Boston Globe. The page is from a future issue, dated April 9th, 2017, featuring the headline “DEPORTATIONS TO BEGIN.” The accompanying article makes mention of Attorney General Chris Christie, and a White House press blacklist including Megyn Kelly. The fake stories were accompanied by a scathing op-ed from the editorial board.

Trump refused to take the incendiary publication lying down, responding in typical stream-of-consciousness fashion:

How about that stupid Boston Globe, it’s worthless, sold for a dollar. Did you see that story? The whole front page — they made up a story, they pretended Trump is the president, and they made up the whole front page, it’s a make-believe story, which is really no different from the whole paper — I mean, the whole thing is made up. And I think they’re having a big backlash on that one.

Doubling down on the Globe’s decision, Kathleen Kingsbury, deputy managing editor of the editorial page, said “we delivered copies of the editorial to his campaign because we wanted to make sure he saw what we wrote.”

According to the New York Times’ fantastic analysis of Donald Trump’s Twitter presence, Trump has insulted just about every news outlet under the sun, from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal to CNN and Huffington Post. He’ll skewer mainstream media, swatting down Vanity Fair, Univision, and The View with derisive tweets. Almost no large news corporation is saved from Trump’s ire.

And yet the press still loves to cover him. CBS CEO Les Moonves (which is a man’s name and title as well as a tongue-twister), told The Hollywood Reporter, “The money’s rolling in and this is fun. I’ve never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

And how could The Donald not love the attention? The New York Times estimated that the news media had given Trump the equivalent of $1.9 billion in free publicity. I doubt that Trump actually has a shrine in one of his many homes with effigies of Megyn Kelly and Anderson Cooper lit by luxury candles, but I’m pretty sure that he secretly appreciates the hateful words being said about him–after all, the Trump family motto is: There’s No Such Thing As Bad Press.

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 The Boston Globe Hates Trump, Trump Hates The Globe appeared first on Law Street.

Mexico City is a bustling metropolis that attracts millions of visitors from across the world every year. The city is home to Frida Kahlo’s restored house, the Floating Gardens of Xochimilco, the prestigious Souymaya Museum, and dozens of other historic cultural sites. It is no wonder that it has has been ranked the number one travel destination for 2016 by The New York Times. Yet, through an American lens, the entire nation of Mexico is synonymous with drugs, murder, and corruption.

Mexico City, just like any other urban center, is not a paragon of virtue and safety, but it is also not the national hub of organized crime and violence many think. Mexico City is not included in the U.S. State Department’s Travel Warning for Mexico and is not considered to be unusually dangerous for tourists either by global standards or by domestic standards. In fact, Acapulco, the famous resort city with idyllic beaches and futuristic high rises, is the most dangerous city in the country.

Mexico City did witness a troubling rise in homicide rates in 2015 but it is still considered an oasis for travelers and natives alike. The Northern areas of Mexico are generally considered to be the most dangerous, as they are home to the trading routes for drug cartels, but tourists are more likely to be robbed than they are to be caught up in the drug war. Metro and buses within Mexico City are generally considered to be safe, although tourist buses traveling to the pyramids of Teotihuacan outside the city have been robbed in the past.

Mexico City has lower homicide rates than a great deal of American cities and is safer than the capital cities of many of its Latin American neighbors. The most common crimes against tourists are petty theft and robbery during taxi rides, but Mexico City hoteliers go out of their way to make sure that visitors are as safe as possible. There are areas in the city which tourists are advised not to enter–Tepito, Lagunilla, Iztapalapa, and Nezahualcoyotl–but the same is true for any large city in America or Europe. Making generalizations about an entire country based on its most violent regions is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. Mexico has rich artistic, musical and culinary traditions that travelers will miss out on if they buy into the fiction that all of Mexico is filled with criminals out to take their lives.

Tourists do not eschew visiting the cultural sites of the United States because of our crime rates, therefore we should not write off an entire nation because of regional violence (especially not when our own State Department has not issued a travel warning for the nation as a whole). Superimposing the violence in Acapulco or Ciudad Juarez over Mexico City is a foolish mistake that trivializes the sheer size of Mexico–these cities are not all adjacent! When we view Mexico City through sensational anecdotal evidence rather than the reality on the ground, we cut ourselves off from incredible destinations within our own hemisphere.

Jillian Sequeira

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

The post Myths of Violence in Mexico City: Is it Safe to Travel There? appeared first on Law Street.

Fashion is meant to be a form of self expression, but if you’re currently a teenage girl in high school that expression might be seriously limited due to strict dress code restrictions. Of course making sure there are no visible butt cracks, nipples, or genitals is a must for school administrators, but when bare shoulders, backs, and thighs are considered just as taboo there’s a serious problem. In the past week alone I’ve read two stories about obscene dress code restrictions and sexist double standards in both the New York Times and Buzzfeed that call for some rant worthy commentary.

Now about 100 years ago it was positively scandalous for a woman to show a bare ankle in public, but it’s not the Victorian era anymore. Unlike the oppressed women back then, we have the right to vote, serve in the military, obtain an education, and take birth control, just for starters. So you’d think that with all of these advancements in women’s rights, women would have the right to decide for themselves what to wear, right? Wrong.

The New York Times wrote a very interesting piece discussing the issue after speaking with high schools girls who were told by administrators that the expensive dresses they’d purchased for prom weren’t acceptable and either needed to be altered or they wouldn’t be permitted to attend. In their piece Kristin Hussey and Marc Santora write:

Girls have been told to cover up shoulders, knees and backs. They have been reprimanded for partially exposed stomachs and thighs and excessive cleavage. They have been ordered to wear jackets, ordered to go home and suspended.

For one girl in the article, that meant a dress and alterations that cost $400 on top of the $90 prom ticket. Some schools have even begun to require girls to take pictures of their gowns and submit them to administrators for approval before they’re even able to buy a ticket to the dance. When asked why the rules are so strict, one superintendent they spoke with said “We want our young ladies to be dressed beautifully; we want them to be dressed with class and dignity. But we are going to draw the line relative to attire that would be deemed overexposing oneself.”

This idea that schools need to protect girls from overexposing themselves isn’t restricted to just the U.S. Take 17-year-old Canadian teen Laura Wiggins, for example. Laura looked in her closet one morning and decided she wanted to wear a full-length halter dress to her high school in New Brunswick. Her legs weren’t showing. Her belly button wasn’t hanging out. Her breasts weren’t on display. The ensemble did, however, showcase her bare arms and a semi-bare back.

A Canadian Teen Wrote The Best Rebuttal After Getting Detention For Wearing A Halter Dress http://t.co/hS4WHTHsf0 pic.twitter.com/hfZSXjghbB

— BuzzFeed Canada (@BuzzFeedCanada) May 13, 2015

That was apparently enough for Laura to receive a detention for being a “sexual distraction” to her male classmates, because if there’s anything that gets a teenage boy all hot and bothered, it’s a back. Isn’t that what Justin Timberlake meant when he said he was “bringing sexy back?”

But it’s the way that Laura dealt with the situation that is truly amazing. Instead of taking the detention quietly, she chose to write a letter to her school’s vice principal and it was very eloquent, impressive, and inspiring. I won’t quote the whole badass letter, but here are two passages that particularly stood out to me:

In today’s society, a woman’s body is constantly discriminated against and hypersexualized to the point where we can no longer wear the clothing that we feel comfortable in without the accusation and/or assumption that we are being provocative.[…]

Then she continues with,

So no, Mr. Sturgeon, I will not search for something to cover up my back and shoulders because I am not showing them off with the intention to gain positive sexual feedback from the teenage boys in my school. I am especially not showing them to receive any comments, positive or negative, from anybody else besides myself because the only person who can make any sort of judgment on my body and the fabrics I place on it is me.

So instead of focusing on what causes boys to be “distracted” my advice to schools would be to try teaching them self control. These young men will need that in the real world, especially with all these empowered girls walking around in yoga pants everywhere.

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 Are Schools Going Too Far with These Dress Code Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

Former CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling was convicted on Monday of charges under the Espionage Act, closing a four-year case in which the government accused him of giving a reporter classified information about covert operations. This information included a plan that gave Iran officials flawed nuclear plans. Sterling allegedly gave author and New York Times reporter James Risen the information for his 2006 book, “State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration.”

Sterling was hired in 1993 and fired in 2001 after suing the CIA for racial discrimination, according to a 2002 New York Times article written by Risen. Prosecutors said that being fired gave him a motive to leak the information to Risen as revenge, according to the Washington Post. Having been interviewed by Risen before, the government argued that Sterling was also the only CIA employee who had a relationship with the reporter in addition to a motive.

Sterling pleaded not guilty in 2011 to 10 counts, including unauthorized retention and disclosure of classified information, mail fraud, and obstruction of justice. His defense attorneys argued that there were other CIA employees who could possibly have leaked the information to Risen.

To establish the connection between Sterling and Risen, prosecutors spent a large chunk of the the four-year ordeal trying to subpoena Risen to testify. Risen, however, vigorously fought back all the way up to the Supreme Court, saying that he’d rather go to jail than give up a source. He lost, but the government eventually let up. Attorney General Eric Holder guaranteed that Risen wouldn’t go to jail for refusing to reveal a source.

So, Risen did walk away from having to submit testimony against his will, but did hold up the case. Ultimately, that didn’t help Sterling, whose jury convicted him in an Alexandria, VA, U.S. District Court after deliberating over the course of three days. He is set to meet the jury again for his sentencing hearing in April and is free until then. Defense attorney Barry Pollack told the Washington Post that they plan to appeal the verdict.

Including the James Risen fiasco, the Sterling’s trial itself was “a daily spectacle worthy of fiction,” as the Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky put it. By choosing to prosecute Sterling, a former CIA employee privy to classified information, the government put itself in the pickle of having to use the classified information against Sterling without revealing too much of it in the process, which would partially defeat the purpose. Several witnesses testified while hidden behind a gray screen in the courtroom and only used their first names and last initials. A Russian scientist involved in the faulty nuclear plans was asked to respond in only “yes” or “no” answers so as not to disclose more information than needed.

Despite the government’s risk of leaking information itself while prosecuting leakers, the Obama Administration has pursued many such cases. However, there is a contradiction between pursuing so many leak cases and Obama’s pledge of a “new era of openness” early in his first term.

Former government employees John Kiriakou and Stephen Kim are serving prison time for leak cases that didn’t go their way. Former NSA official Thomas Drake settled for a minor charge after a four-year court battle for giving Fox News classified information about North Korea. Even former CIA director David Petraeus might get the leak treatment for allegedly giving classified files to his biographer.

Whether or not the Obama Administration ever truly does welcome a “new era of openness,” it doesn’t appear to define a clear line between whistle-blowing and illegal leaking. When a government makes mistakes, citizens of a country with freedom of speech and of the press ought to know whether or not they’re going to be tried under the Espionage Act. Better yet, the government could commit to its own pledge to openness.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former CIA Employee Jeffrey Sterling Found Guilty of Leaking Information appeared first on Law Street.

With the recent attack on Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris, freedom of speech at large was assaulted. To show that freedom of thought has not–and will not–be eliminated, I thought I would illustrate several recent court decisions across the globe that have advocated for freedom of expression.

Joseph Stalin’s Grandson

According to the Russian News Agency, Joseph Stalin’s grandson had his defamation lawsuit complaint dismissed, which claimed that the newspaper Novaya Gazeta defamed his grandfather in a 2009 article. Yevgeny Dzhugashvili filed a lawsuit against the Novaya Gazeta in 2010 for publishing articles about shooting prisoners in 1940 in Katyn, Poland.

In explaining its decision, the European Court of Human Rights claimed that the article “concerned an event of significant historical importance and that both the event and historical figures involved, such as the applicant’s grandfather, inevitably remain open to public scrutiny and criticism.”

South Korean Journalists

Two South Korean journalists were acquitted Friday of charges that they defamed the South Korean president’s brother, Park Ji-man. The journalists, Choo Chin-woo, a reporter for SisaIN, and Kim Ou-joon, a host of a political podcast, stated that Ji-man might have been involved in the murder of Ji-man’s relative, according to The New York Times.

Choo and Kim were originally acquitted in October 2013, but prosecutors appealed the verdict. The prosecutors sought long prison terms, and several free speech organizations protested the second trial, claiming that the prosecutors were causing the journalists to censor themselves.

This win is big for freedom of expression advocates because of South Korea’s perceived lack of tolerance for dissent among critics. In particular, critics point to the burden of proof in defamation cases within South Korea, which is placed on the defendant, rather than on the prosecution.

Super Bowl Prostitution

Earlier this week, Janice Lee, who was the subject of a TMZ article last year entitled, “Super Bowl Prostitution Bust,” sued several media outlets, most notably TMZ and the New York Daily News, for defamation.

Lee’s complaint claims that TMZ’s article contained false statements of fact, such as Lee’s business was a front to funnel profits from pimps, according to Entertainment Law Digest. Lee’s complaint alleges that she sells wigs and has “never touched illegal drugs and has never engaged in prostitution or the operation of a prostitution ring.”

TMZ’s article also stated that Lee was in a “a small army of Asian hookers … who take credit cards.” Moreover, the article included her picture and referred to her as an “arrested prostitute.”

Lee says in her complaint that she has been “humiliated among millions of readers and all of her community as a criminal; as a prostitute; as a gang member and as part of an organized criminal enterprise.” Lee is seeking an injunction that would cause the media outlets in her complaint to clarify and retract any false statements about her.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Recent Defamation Decisions Show Freedom of Speech is Alive and Well appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: July 18, 2014

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) isn’t living up to its responsibilities to the American people. According to an op-ed from the Center for Responsive Politics’ Robert Biersack published today in The New York Times, the FEC no longer does an “adequate job on disclosure” of campaign financial data. He’s right, and the scary thing is that this has the potential to turn into quite a major problem.

It’s ostensibly a simple concept: candidates, campaign committees, and the various other entities that collect and spend money during an election cycle are required to submit cash flow reports to the FEC, and the FEC in turn is required to disclose all that data in a timely manner so that the public is aware of who is financing American elections. But when the Center for Responsive Politics went to go check out the most recent set of disclosures, they weren’t all there. The FEC has promised that they would complete around 95 percent of processing within 30 days of receiving the data, but when asked why this didn’t happen, the FEC essentially just said that it’s running late. Nothing more. And even more concerning, the organization didn’t seem at all worried about this fact, explaining to the Center for Responsive Politics that, “In the current two-year election cycle, the Agency has taken more than 30 days to process 18.8 percent of the new reports filed as of June 20, as compared to 11.4 percent for the same period in the 2011-2012 cycle.” The FEC also referred to the lack of processed data as a “brief” delay. As of press time the FEC has yet to respond to Law Street’s request for comment.

In some ways the reaction from the Center for Responsive Politics and others may seem like making mountains out of molehills. Maybe you think it’s not that big of a deal, or they’ll have the data when they have it, or that government agencies are often unable to meet self-appointed deadlines. It’s easy to think that way, but it’s dead wrong. This is a big deal, one that we all should worry us all.

Although I recognize I’m about to plummet off a huge cliff of political clichés, it’s fair to quote the Gettysburg Address here. We’ve all heard it. We have a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” That principle has held — we elect our officials to represent us, and we expect them to be held accountable to those citizens who voted for them. Recent Supreme Court rulings have made that principle a little more fuzzy — between the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, the way in which politicians are influenced has changed. Super PACs dominate political real estate, and as we saw in the 2012 Presidential election, they have the ability to throw plenty of weight around. I’d put my money — disclosed to whoever would like it, of course — on the fact that in the 2014 and 2016 elections we’ll see even more incredible financial influence. And because of these rulings, we don’t necessarily know where that financial influence will come from — only certain types of donations require that the donor’s name is disclosed to the FEC.

That’s why it is so essential that the FEC does its job. There’s already an uphill battle here for Lincoln’s words, and the FEC not disclosing the data for the 2014 election in a timely manner makes it that much less likely that our elected officials are held accountable to those people who elected them. With the amount of money flowing in and out of campaign coffers, any chance we have to know more about that money is essential. The FEC is a government entity, so it needs to hold true to those principles, too: of, for, and by the people. That means that it provides a resource for the people, that’s its job, and the fact that the FEC can’t complete that job in a timely manner is a huge problem.

This isn’t meant to be an alarmist rant about the state of our elections; that’s not useful. Instead I hope that this piece, as well as the Center for Responsive Politics’ op-ed, serves as a kind of call to action. The FEC needs to pull it together, and without public pressure that’s just not going to happen. Part of democracy is that we all hold each other accountable — here’s the opportunity to do that before this gets out of hand.

UPDATE: July 18, 2014

Judith Ingram, Press Officer at the Federal Election Commission responded to Law Street’s request for comment, and the organization does acknowledge that the backlog is a problem:

“The Commission acknowledges that there were delays in the processing of itemized data in the current election cycle, and the Commission has eliminated the backlog. At this time, the agency’s coding of data is over 99% complete. Moreover, the agency has introduced new procedures to prevent such delays in the future. Our goal for the current reporting period is to process 95 percent of electronically filed reports within 30 days of the July 15 reporting deadline.”

Whether or not these new procedures will help will has yet to be seen.

The problems at the FEC aren’t just an isolated incident or a singular example of the ways in which our democracy is struggling. In fact, they’re representative of a bigger problem. The FEC is supposed to have six commissioners — three Republicans and three Democrats. Each term is supposed to be six years, but if a term expires without some sort of appointment, that seat stays with that commissioner who gets to sit until the Senate approves a new commissioner, or he or she retires or dies.

Currently, only two of the FEC’s six commissioners are serving on active terms — Chair Lee E. Goodman and Vice Chair Ann Ravel. They were both appointed by President Obama last year, after the FEC actually reached the point where all its commissioners were serving on expired terms. It was a struggle to even fill those two seats — the nominee prior to Goodman and Ravel got shot down, and Obama didn’t try to nominate anyone else.

Let’s be clear, the very people whose election races the FEC is supposed to monitor have a hard time filling spots at the FEC. Now the FEC is struggling. I’m not going to blame the backlog in reporting solely on the commissioners serving expired terms, but it’s clear that something isn’t working here, and new blood can sometimes be a very good thing. The FEC will be making changes, and that’s good, but maybe a review of the whole system is needed to prevent this kind of problem in the future.

—

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 [Beverly & Pack 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 The FEC is Failing the American People appeared first on Law Street.

“Don’t call me illegal, because I am not, illegal are your laws, and that’s why I’m not leaving.” A group of thirty undocumented youth chanted this rallying cry in the city of McAllen, Texas, while wondering if they had left behind their families and traveled hundreds of miles for just a fleeting glance of America. Jose Antonio Vargas is a reporter who traveled to McAllen to cover this vigil, and for him, it’s personal. He has had much more than a glance of life in America, calling himself the “most privileged” undocumented immigrant in the country. He has written for the New York Times Magazine and TIME Magazine about his experiences, and directed a recent documentary on the immigration issues facing this nation. He has traveled around the country for over three years, with his seemingly American identity and the media recognition he draws keeping him safe from deportation. But now, in McAllen, he may be no different than the undocumented children whose stories he is reporting.

Vargas went to McAllen to cover the vigil for the undocumented children, and to report on shelters set up by citizens of the town. Shortly after his arrival, he began receiving emails from friends asking him how he planned to get out, considering the checkpoints that were set up outside of the town and the airport. Vargas usually flies on his Filipino passport, but these checkpoints require proof of citizenship to pass. Vargas has now been arrested, and like those undocumented children, what will happen to him remains to be seen.

The crisis in McAllen

There are currently waves of undocumented immigrants flooding into Texas, mainly composed of children. McAllen, one of the cities most hard hit, has responded to this crisis in a way that should make Americans proud. Long before the federal government stepped in to help aid the massive influx of immigrants, the people of McAllen answered the call. Local residents began giving out supplies and aid to immigrants at the local bus station, where the children would often be stranded for hours or even days. Makeshift shelters began operating out of the trunks of cars and the basements of churches. The Rio Grande valley, where McAllen is located, has seen a 178 percent increase in the number of migrant workers the past few months. The federal government was not prepared for this and still is not–shelters remain a poorly met necessity in McAllen. But McAllen has answered the call, with volunteers exceeding the number needed on some days.

But the great work the people of McAllen are doing is not without protest. Outside the shelters housing these children are signs declaring that they should be sent home. It is currently legal for the government to send children to live with relatives, family friends, or a foster family until the children face a deportation hearing, which can sometimes take years. At these hearings the judges will have the authority to allow the children to stay or send them home. But many are saying that Obama has the authority to send these children home and should do so. This crisis has quickly become a frantic flashpoint in American politics, with politicians, pundits, and the media all chiming in.

One politician arguing for deportation is Texas Governor Rick Perry. He says, “allowing them to remain here will only encourage the next group of individuals to undertake this dangerous and life-threatening journey here.” Others have said the children should be allowed to stay, especially considering the dangers they face back home. In a surprise move, conservative pundit Glenn Beck has been a huge advocate for allowing the children to stay. In perhaps the one of the wisest statements Beck has ever made, he said, “I’ve never taken a position more deadly to my career than this — and I have never, ever taken a position that is more right than this.”

A change does need to be made because the current system is far to slow to deal with the influx of child immigrants, but that does not mean the solution is to send them back. These children have left places that are ravished by poverty and gang violence. Sending them back could be akin to authoring their death sentences. It’s clear that the people of McAllen have put politics aside to help these children. It would be nice if politicians would do the same.

Jose Vargas: the “most privileged” undocumented immigrant 

So back to Jose Vargas, the celebrity journalist whose story is now inextricably linked with the children who have arrived at our borders. Jose Vargas is now being detained in the McAllen Border Control Headquarters. He was arrested trying to fly out of a local airport. Vargas, almost better than anyone, knew the risk he was taking, as the Border Control was publicly checking IDs at the airport. He tweeted the incident as seen below:

About to go thru security at McAllen Airport. I don’t know what’s going to happen. For updates follow @DefineAmerican & @MAC_UTPA

— Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting) July 15, 2014

The only IDs I have for security: Philippine passport and my pocketbook US Constitution @DefineAmerican & @MAC_UTPA pic.twitter.com/IFH0Vb4oX7

— Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting) July 15, 2014

Here's a photo of @joseiswriting in handcuffs, because the Border Patrol has nothing more pressing to do apparently pic.twitter.com/dN8KewqeZr

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) July 15, 2014

Considering what Vargas knew, combined with the way he tweeted before going through security, it seems as if he expected to get arrested. It seems that he is trying to prove a point, or perhaps is just trying to draw attention to the situation. If that is the case, he has succeeded–social media and news networks have been all over his arrest. And if he were to be deported, that would be a even bigger story and rallying cry for his supporters.

If this was done on purpose, Vargas has positioned himself to have a huge political impact on the current humanitarian crisis. He may be able to be the voice that these children don’t have. He is showing the world that undocumented immigrants don’t all look the same. It’s an issue that affects all of us. Hopefully his actions have a real world impact–because something needs to be done in Texas.

Update: Jose Antonio Vargas has been released by the Texas Border Control, with an order to appear in front of an immigration judge. There has been no notable progress on the statuses of the thousands of children in McAllen.

—

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 [Otzberg 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 Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Americans eat too much meat. It is a central staple in every meal of the day. This cultural practice, coupled with our economic system, creates a disastrous outcome: factory farming of animals. I have a problem with this system of meat production. However, the purpose of this article is not to talk about how we treat domestic livestock – rather I want to address a faulty argument that we hear quite often as a reason for diminishing meat production. I want to point out the fallacious nature of this argument, in order to prevent people arguing for less meat consumption from looking foolish.

For instance, I have recently come across two articles that both advocate for reduced meat consumption but on different grounds, and I think it’s worth pointing out that the fallacy-laden argument should be dismissed. In their article, A Tax On Meat Would Reduce Methane Emissions From Livestock, ThinkProgress reports that many environmental scientists are advocating for a decrease in meat consumption because it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If we want to avoid the problems that accompany climate change, then this is a good argument for eating less meat.

Compare this with a recent, article in the New York Times titled Meat Makes the Planet Thirsty which advances approximately the following thesis: as we continue to face horrible droughts across the country, a good way to reduce our water footprint would be to eat less meat, as meat production requires much more water than growing fruits, vegetables, and crops. The rationale for this argument is basic math. The author points out that, “beef turns out to have an overall water footprint of roughly four million gallons per ton produced. By contrast, the water footprint for “sugar crops” like sugar beets is about 52,000 gallons per ton; for vegetables it’s 85,000 gallons per ton; and for starchy roots it’s about 102,200 gallons per ton.” I have to say I’m very surprised that this argument has made its way into the New York Times because it is highly fallacious.

There are a couple things we need to understand about comparing the water footprint of domestic livestock to other crops.

First, the numbers that McWilliams, the author of the article, uses come from calculations that measure the water intake of cattle eating a grain-fed diet, as opposed to cattle that were raised on their natural diet of pasture grazing. We ought to observe that it makes them drink more water – and we see this makes a huge difference in the water footprint. According to Lierre Keith, author of the Vegetarian Myth, cattle that are raised on pasture will end up consuming 122 pounds of water per pound of meat (and that only includes the muscle and not the organs). If we convert that to tons, we find that the grass-fed cow consumes 244,000 gallons per ton of meat, which is a staggering difference as compared to the four million gallons per ton in McWilliams calculations.

The second thing we have to realize when we talk about the water footprint of foods, is the varying caloric and nutrient content. When we are purchasing food, we are buying energy in the form of calories. Thus, we should think of comparing the relative energy outputs of these foods, not the relative weights when measuring their respective water foot-prints. When we do this, we find that meat is more cost-effective than foods like vegetables and fruits (in terms of water needed to produce), and comes out almost even with crops like wheat. Keith writes,

If you want to compare pounds of water for calories (energy) produced, wheat and grass-fed beef end up almost even. For wheat, sixty pounds of water produces 1524.45 calories, or 25.7 calories per pound of water. For grass-fed beef, it’s twenty-two calories from a pound of water.

This, in my opinion is the heart of the problem with McWilliams argument. Simply comparing foods water-footprint by pounds of a given food against gallons of water is grossly oversimplifying the issue. We need to recognize that not all foods are the same.

This leads to third problem with the argument.

Not only should we be looking at the caloric content of foods, we should also consider the nutrients residing within the calories. Animal products provide very important nutrients such as proteins and fats, that are not found within foods like vegetables, fruits, and grains. Consider the varying levels of protein and fats found within beef as compared with wheat: “21 g of protein vs. 13.7 g, and 8.55 fat vs. 1.87 g, respectively.” Additionally, the proteins that are found within foods like wheat are lower quality because they do not contain the full spectrum of all thirteen amino acids, “and [wheat proteins are] largely inaccessible because it comes wrapped in indigestible cellulose.” (Keith) We can see from the comparison of caloric and nutritional content that beef is a better option when it comes to the water-footprint.

People who wish to see the end of factory farming and reformed meat consumption should drop the water-footprint argument and appeal to more powerful arguments like methane emissions of livestock.

[NY TIMES] [THINK PROGRESS]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured Image Courtesy [Flickr/USDA]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Correlation or Causation: Less Meat Does Not Equal More Water appeared first on Law Street.

One name has been making headlines around the country since June 2013. There have been many terms used to describe him, whether you see him as a traitor or a patriot, Edward Snowden has become a well known character within the United States. His name continues to circulate the news press this week, as the government privacy board is set to release a report on Thursday January 23rd, saying that the National Security Agency’s wide spread collection of phone records, violates the law and should be shut down.  

Let us go back to the beginning, where this controversy first ignited. In June 2013, Snowden released the operations of the United State’s global surveillance program including the monitoring of both Internet and phone use of US citizens to The Washington Post and The Guardian. Rather than staying in the shadows and remaining anonymous, this whistleblower chose to take responsibility for his actions, saying, “my sole motive is to inform the public, as to which is done in their name.”

This leak of secret NSA documents spurred debate across the country. Just as Snowden had hoped, citizens have become more informed about governmental actions. American’s are now questioning the link between national security and privacy as well as wondering what else the government is going to great lengths to hide.

The NSA claims that they have the right to obtain phone records under section 215 of the Patriot Act, which states that it is within the power of the government to collect records that are relevant to terrorist investigations. However, pressure from the privacy board has caused key governing figures to question the constitutionality of this surveillance program, specifically in regards to phone monitoring.

Last Friday, President Obama announced his plan to change the system of the mass collection of phone records, shifting it from the hands of the government to a private company such as AT&T or Verizon. Along with a possible shift in power, Obama suggested a requirement of approval from the courts in order to obtain records. While the President did explain these future reforms, he maintained the idea that the government should have access to phone records if needed. Not everyone is satisfied with these changes and some would like to see an end put to the phone surveillance program completely.

The New York Times and the Washington Post have obtained the 238 page report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which has not yet been released. The report calls to shut down the mass collection of phone records previously exposed by Edward Snowden. The Privacy and Liberties board in charge of protecting the privacy rights of the citizenry, admits that the program has not prevented any terrorist attacks and instead, has infringed upon the privacy of American citizens. The board further opposes the protection of the program under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which grants the government the power to use phone records in order to obtain relevant information. The privacy board argues that it is not possible to obtain only relevant information when using a tool that allows unlimited access to phone content.

The board further states that the NSA phone program is questionable in regards to both the first and fourth amendments. They turned to the 1979 ruling of the Supreme Court, stating that the police do not need a warrant to search through phone numbers or call durations. However, the board points to the fact that the surveillance being done today is on a mass scale, and is not comparable to the specific cases investigated by police.

Whether the NSA phone program will come to a complete end in the near future is not known at this time. It can be seen that there is current pressure being put on the government, in order, to make the program less intrusive on private citizens. I agree that the program must be altered, as it can be considered harmful to freedom of speech. The conversations that we have over the phone are of our own choice, which should be respected by the government. On the other hand, I do agree that if the security of our nation is being threatened based on a phone call, it is within the best interest of the public for the government to intervene. It seems that the best solution would be for the government to focus on the threatening situations at hand rather than eavesdropping on where my friends and I are meeting for lunch.

[Time] [Nationaljournal] [Theguardian] [Politico]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn13)

Featured image courtesy of [EFF via Wikipedia]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Privacy Board Calls NSA Eavesdropping Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

The New York Times recently wrote about the declining relevance of law reviews, with the main argument being that the primary sources of legal scholarship should not be left in the hands of students.

In fact, in the article, Adam Liptak included quotes from sources like Chief Justice John Roberts maligning the significance of what was once a prestigious honor among law students.

Law Review Membership for Law Students

For those who are unaware, most, if not all, law schools have at least one scholarly publication that is published semi-annually.  These periodicals include musings on the law from among the best and brightest in the legal field, including professors and practitioners.  The topics of the articles can span many legal topics, from as broad an area as Constitutional law to the most niche practice group in a boutique law firm.  These articles are submitted to student-run law reviews for publication.

This sounds elementary, but membership to your school’s law review is among the greatest honors a law student can receive.  In these economic times of more lawyers and fewer legal jobs, a staff editor position continues to set students apart from their contemporaries.  To obtain membership to these publications, schools have competitions between students during their first year, with varying entry-qualifications.  At some schools, students with a certain first-year GPA are automatically offered admission to the review; other schools only permit entry to those who are in a certain percentile of their class.

In the world of legal education, membership to a journal or review can open doors that may otherwise be closed to the general student body.  There are extra receptions, forums, and meet-and-greets with notable people in the law.  In addition, during on-campus interview season, many of the top firms mandate membership on either a journal or moot court for serious consideration to join their ranks.

Law reviews are so important that many schools have other specialized reviews for students to join.  Harvard Law School has 17 scholarly journals; Georgetown University Law Center has 11; Boston College Law, five; Howard Law, two; and UVA has 10.  These secondary publications are also an important tool in establishing one’s legal career.  Often if a student enters law school with the professional goal of working in intellectual property and patents, they are more likely to write on an IP-specific journal as opposed to the main journal.  That way, the student is guaranteed to broaden his or her knowledge in that field of the law and have more networking opportunities with IP professionals.  This is especially important, because networking leads to jobs, jobs leads to success, and success leads to happiness.

Post-law school impressions of Law Reviews

 Liptak’s article is full of lines that would deter students from seeking membership into the elite world of law review membership.  Sentences like, “student editors are mostly bright and work hard, but they are young, part-time amateurs who know little about the law…” are hardly encouraging.  This is especially insulting when you consider the all-important “real world” aspect of law review work.  Unlike doing well in a classroom full of hypotheticals or made-up legal writing scenarios, staff editors of law reviews are fixing the work of real legal scholars, which is an important part of the learning process.

Ask any law student who has ever had to do a source collect, or check the (often incorrect) citations submitted by legal scholars, and they will tell you that the work is tedious but it always gets done on time.  When dealing with matters of import, these “part-time amateurs” always step up to the plate.  Working on a law review gives students an impetus to work harder, because it is a rare time in law school, aside from internships and clinics, where the people involved are not hypothetical characters in a fact pattern.

Additionally, to every full-time attorney who had something disheartening to say to the students editing their work: you were not always an expert. Perhaps you fail to realize that twenty years ago, you were just another “mostly bright” law student editing an article that “no one relies on.”

Interestingly, Tyler Rosenbaum, the Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Law Review, made an astute observation in a New York Times letter to the editor: “…it is not the fault of students or of our law reviews that the grown-ups haven’t made [a solution].” This is especially true because law review membership follows lawyers throughout their careers.  Good luck finding law professors who weren’t members while they were in school.  As for the comment about law professors “[dumping] their lesser work onto their school’s students,” that’s a requirement for tenure-seeking professors.  Publication in varied journals over a span of years is necessary for job security.

Perhaps it is because I am newly out of law school that I’m so incensed by this article’s point of view, or perhaps because I was one of those students who spent hours critiquing the work of professionals.  More than that, though, is the hypocrisy of these legal scholars who are essentially biting the hand that fed them throughout their careers that really grinds my gears. And do not even get me started on talking about incompetence and lack of experience — heads up, you cannot get experience if no one gives you work.

[New York Times] [New York Times Op-Ed]

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Tracie Hall via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

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

The post Law Reviews: Losing Steam, But Who’s to Blame? appeared first on Law Street.