The U.S. imposed direct sanctions against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Monday, freezing his U.S. assets and barring Americans from conducting business with him. The sanctions came a day after a vote that expanded his powers, giving the international community fresh concerns that Venezuela is creeping from democracy to dictatorship.

“By sanctioning Maduro the United States makes clear our opposition to the policies of his regime and our support for the people of Venezuela,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said during a press briefing at the White House on Monday. “As we continue to monitor this situation we will continue to review all of our options.”

U.S. officials reportedly considered enacting additional measures against Maduro, including banning imports of Venezuelan oil. But in the end, officials worried that halting imports of Venezuelan crude, which makes up about 10 percent of all U.S. oil imports, would unfairly punish regular Venezuelans. Maduro joins three other heads of state directly under U.S. sanctions: North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Robert Mugabe, the 93-year-old president of Zimbabwe.

On Sunday, Venezuelans voted in a referendum on whether or not to dissolve the country’s legislative body, the National Assembly, for a new, 545-member Constituent Assembly, entirely composed of Maduro loyalists. Maduro’s opponents–not to mention Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Chile, and Panama–saw the vote as illegitimate. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, slammed the vote on Twitter:

Maduro’s sham election is another step toward dictatorship. We won’t accept an illegit govt. The Venezuelan ppl & democracy will prevail.

— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) July 30, 2017

Opposition leaders in Venezuela, and millions of citizens, fear that the Constituent Assembly will be a vehicle for Maduro to re-write the constitution, giving him broader, incontestable powers.

Those powers are already bearing fruit. Early Tuesday morning, two prominent Maduro critics, Leopoldo Lopez and Antonio Ledezma, were reportedly taken from their homes by SEBIN, Venezuela’s intelligence service. The opposition leaders’ families posted on social media detailing their arrests.

Lopez’s wife, Lilian Tintori, tweeted early Tuesday: “They just took Leopoldo from the house. We do not know where he is or where he is being taken. Maduro is responsible if something happens to him.”

And in a video statement, Ledezma’s daughter said: “He was in pajamas. We don’t know where he was taken. A group of men came with their faces concealed and in camouflage and they took him. They have kidnapped him once again. We hold the regime responsible for his life and physical integrity.”

Lopez and Ledezma are among Maduro’s most vocal and influential critics. Lopez was detained in early 2014 for allegedly inciting anti-government protests. He was released from military prison to house arrest last month. Ledezma, the former mayor of Caracas, Venezuela’s capital and the center of political unrest in recent months, is also a leading opposition figure.

As Maduro looks to cement his power, Venezuelans are growing increasingly desperate, struggling to obtain basic necessities like food and water. Since protests ratcheted up in April, at least 125 people have died; 10 people were reportedly killed during protests on Sunday. Maduro seems unfazed by the mounting unrest, the plight of his people, and the condemnation of the international community.

“If the empire’s threats and sanctions don’t intimidate me, nothing scares me,” Maduro said on state television after Sunday’s vote. “Issue all the sanctions you want, but the Venezuelan people have decided to be free and I have decided to be the president of a free people.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Venezuelan President: What You Need to Know 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:

America’s First Female Muslim Judge Found Dead in the Hudson River

Yesterday, police found the body of Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam, the first female Muslim judge in U.S. history, floating in the Hudson River. Abdus-Salaam was 65 years old and had been reported missing earlier that day. Authorities said there were no signs of foul play so far, but the investigation is ongoing. Abdus-Salaam made history as the first black woman on the New York Court of Appeals–she was nominated in 2013 as part of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s effort to diversify the court. Many described her as a professional and intelligent but above all a warm and empathetic judge who often sided with vulnerable parties. Many high-profile New Yorkers expressed their condolences on social media.

Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam was a trailblazing jurist and a force for good.

On behalf of all New Yorkers, I extend my deepest sympathies. https://t.co/hnic07Shp1

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) April 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A chemical attack in Syria on Tuesday, thought to be carried out by government forces, killed as many as 100 people and wounded hundreds more, according to some witnesses. Hours after the attack, at a press conference at the White House, Press Secretary Sean Spicer blamed the Obama Administration’s “weakness and irresolution” for the gruesome attack, the deadliest chemical attack in Syria since August 2013.

“Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world,” Spicer said. “These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution.” He added: “The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable act.”

According to monitoring groups, medics, and rescue workers, chemical weapons were dropped from jet planes in Idlib, a rebel-held area in the north. Witnesses described victims choking, with some foaming at the mouth, telltale signs of a chemical attack. A government source told Reuters sarin gas was likely used in the attack, which was “almost certainly” carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

These children can’t breathe. This is the aftermath of a suspectedchemical attack in Syria. pic.twitter.com/6CHTocDaeV

— Alberto Hugo Rojas (@albertohrojas) April 4, 2017

In a statement soon after the attack, the Syrian army denied responsibility: “We deny completely the use of any chemical or toxic material in Khan Sheikhoun town today and the army has not used nor will use in any place or time neither in past or in future,” the statement said, referring to the town in Idlib province where the attack took place. The United Nations Security Council called an emergency meeting for Wednesday to discuss the attack.

The White House response echoed a familiar sentiment that critics often repeat about the Obama Administration’s policy in Syria. President Barack Obama’s inaction, critics say, has allowed the Syrian government, along with its allies Russia and Iran, to continue committing grievous acts against its citizens. Many Republicans, along with some Democrats, thought Obama did not do enough to help the rebel forces, a fractured and largely undefined amalgamation with some extremist elements.

In 2012, in a briefing at the White House, Obama said: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” In August 2013, the Syrian government killed scores of citizens in a sarin gas attack near Damascus. Despite crossing Obama’s stated “red line,” the administration took no military action.

It did, however, reach an agreement with the Syrian government to dispose of its chemical weapons stockpile. Assisted by the Russians, the effort was thought to be successful. But soon after, despite its claims and promises, the Assad regime launched chlorine gas attacks. And although the White House pointed fingers at Obama for Tuesday’s attack, President Donald Trump’s past statements seemed to be against military action as well. In September 2013, he tweeted:

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013

It is unclear how, if at all, Trump will change the current strategy in Syria as a result of the attack. While he will be sending up to 1,000 more ground troops to bolster the fight against Islamic State, which holds splotches of territory in the north of Syria, Trump’s strategy has not strayed much from the Obama Administration’s. And while Obama’s strategy in Syria focused on defeating ISIS, rather than unseating Assad, he still hoped Assad would be toppled. That is something that the new administration has signaled is not a top priority.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently said the “longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.” And Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, suggested ousting Assad is not a primary focus of the Syrian strategy. “Do we think he’s a hindrance? Yes,” she said. “Are we going to sit there and focus on getting him out? No.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post White House: Chemical Attack in Syria is Obama’s Fault appeared first on Law Street.

In a passing-of-the-torch meeting weeks after the election, President Barack Obama warned then-President-elect Donald Trump of the gravest threat facing America today: North Korea. Not a belligerent China. Not an adventurous Russia. Not terrorism. But North Korea, a tiny, starved nation led by a portly 33-year-old who launches ballistic missiles every now and then. 

A few months after Obama and Trump met, the North Korean threat remains as stark as ever: Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, claims his country will soon have the capacity to strike the U.S. with a nuclear weapon; on Monday, North Korea tested four ballistic missiles simultaneously; and China, North Korea’s longtime security blanket, is wavering in its support. As North Korea continues to pursue nuclear weapons capable of striking the U.S., South Korea, and Japan, a dark cloud is slowly expanding over the Korean Peninsula, and the looming threat of potential conflict grows with each passing day.

Missile Tests

For the past year or so, North Korea has been flaunting its military capabilities for all the world to see. It tested a nuclear missile last January, and again in September. It has unleashed a flurry of medium and intermediate-range missile over the past few months. And on Monday, the North sent four missiles east toward Japan; they fell into the Sea of Japan, three of them dropping within the boundaries of Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called Monday’s test a “new stage of threat.” According to Abe, he spoke with Trump for 25 minutes to discuss a response to the threat. Last week, the North warned a test was on the horizon: “New strategic weapons of our own style will soar into the sky,” read a piece in the North’s state-run newspaper. Monday’s missile launch was a response to the annual joint-exercise between U.S. and South Korean military forces, a show of force that often draws an aggressive response from the North.

America’s Response

On Wednesday, Nikki Haley, the U.S ambassador to the U.N., said Kim Jong-un is “not a rational person.” Speaking after an emergency U.N. meeting on North Korea, Haley hinted the U.S. might be considering a military response to the North’s latest missives. “All the options are on the table,” she said. Sanctions imposed by the international community, while crippling for North Korea’s economy, have not had much success in reigning in its nuclear program.

The U.S. has already responded more forcefully to the North’s threat, deploying its Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (Thaad) system to South Korea months ahead of schedule. Mounted on the back of a truck, Thaad detects incoming missiles and intercepts them mid-air. While the move might placate South Korea’s and Japan’s fears, it has heightened tensions with China, who sees Thaad as a check on its own missile launches.

China’s Response

China, for decades, has been the linchpin to North Korea’s survival. Beijing’s support for Pyongyang could be wavering, however, as it recently announced a year-long freeze on imports of North Korean coal. But while China traditionally responds to North Korean missile launches with a gentle “don’t do that again,” it has yet to show the appetite for anything stronger. On Wednesday, China issued its sternest warning to date, advising the North to cease its missile and nuclear launches in order to “defuse a looming crisis.”

In exchange, however, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi suggested the U.S. and South Korea could end their joint-exercises. Both sides have balked at that suggestion, citing past failures in trying to engage North Korea diplomatically. What happens next is anyone’s guess–will China retaliate for the Thaad deployment? Will South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. preemptively strike North Korea’s nuclear facilities? What Obama told Trump in that private meeting in January may be slowly shifting from prophesy to a concrete global reality.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Is the U.S. Considering a Military Response to North Korea? appeared first on Law Street.

As recently as October, she expressed her distaste for President-elect Donald Trump, saying she would vote for him, but is “not a fan.” But on Wednesday, Trump announced Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) will serve in his cabinet as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, succeeding President Obama’s appointee, Samantha Power. The daughter of immigrants from India’s Punjab region, Haley is the first Indian-American to serve in a presidential cabinet.

Though Haley, 44, and Trump often sparred during the primary season, the two will now be working together. In a statement on Wednesday morning, Trump said his new cabinet appointment has “a proven track record of bringing people together regardless of background or party affiliation to move critical policies forward for the betterment of her state and our country.” However, Haley has less of a track record in regard to foreign policy.

As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Haley will have a heavy influence in shaping and resolving international decrees and disputes. Though she has little foreign policy experience, Haley did travel abroad as governor several times to attract foreign businesses to her state.

Despite her lack of a deep resume in the foreign policy realm, and the vitriol she often expressed for Trump during the campaign, Haley cited a “sense of duty” in a statement on her new assignment. She added: “When the president believes you have a major contribution to make to the welfare of our nation, and to our nation’s standing in the world, that is a calling that is important to heed.”

Haley became the first female, and minority, governor of South Carolina when she was elected in 2010. She made national headlines in 2015, when she called on the statehouse to remove the Confederate flag from its premises after a white gunman killed nine people at a historic black church in Charleston and used the flag as a motif of his twisted ideology. The flag was removed.

Haley, whose birth name is Nimrata Randhawa (her parents sometimes called her “Nikki,” meaning “small one” in Hindi), and Trump consistently expressed mutual dislike during the primary campaign, in which Haley supported Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. During her Republican rebuttal to President Obama’s State of the Union address in January, Haley dismissed Trump’s fiery rhetoric.

“Some people think that you have to be the loudest voice in the room to make a difference,” she said. “That is just not true. Often, the best thing we can do is turn down the volume.” Trump responded by saying Haley is “very, very weak on illegal immigration.” All that is in the past now, apparently, and both Trump and Haley seem ready to move on from past barbs and into a new era of cooperation.

While awaiting the Senate’s confirmation of her appointment, Haley will continue serving out her second term as governor. Lt. Gov. Henry McMaster, an early Trump supporter, will take over as governor should Haley be confirmed.

Alec Siegel

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

The post The Trump Cabinet: Who is Nikki Haley? 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:

Don’t Shoot The Messenger?

Yesterday, CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin interviewed author Charles Kaiser, who is a Trump critic. But when he used the n-word when quoting Steve Bannon, Trump’s pick for White House strategist, she cut him off. “The fact that somebody used the N-word on this show–it is not OK. It is not OK, Charles Kaiser,” she said. She seemed to be close to tears when she interrupted the show and called for a break. Kaiser later wrote to CNN apologizing and also saying he mistook Bannon for Jeff Sessions. Yes, the n-word shouldn’t be normalized, but Kaiser quoted someone else, so didn’t Baldwin miss the point when she cut short the interview?

@BrookeBCNN by being scared of that word you give it power. The context was completely appropriate, esp. in regards to a cabinet member.

— Skyler Acord (@Skyduck64) November 22, 2016

You’re more upset over someone quoting a bigot than you are over that bigot. Don’t act holier than thou. YOU’RE the problem! @BrookeBCNN

— Nnenna..aaaaa (@Live_Beautiful) November 22, 2016

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 23, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Good news, everyone! We don’t have to worry about Trump contesting the election and claiming it was rigged…if he wins. Here’s a video:

JUST IN: Trump: “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election… if I win” https://t.co/4z453rVzqK

— CNN (@CNN) October 20, 2016

This speech from Trump was a follow up to last night’s debate, when Trump was asked if he would respect the outcome of the election. He said: “I will tell you at the time,” and “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?” Trump has been claiming the election is rigged for a while now (check out fellow Law Street Alec Siegel’s article on the distrust Trump has been sowing among the electorate for more on that.) But this ambiguity about whether or not he’ll accept the election results if he loses seems to go a step further.

There’s more to this than just a narcissistic celebrity who, by almost every definition, is a sore loser. Refusing to accept the democratic outcome of an election is deeply problematic–and can undermine our political system. That’s not to say that when there is corruption or election fraud we shouldn’t be vigilant, but rather to say that when we know that there’s not voter fraud, it’s irresponsible to keep encouraging the narrative that there is. Shaun Bowler, who teaches political science at the University of California Riverside wrote for Vox:

Donald Trump is a candidate who seems to want to claim that, whenever he loses, it is not because more people voted against him than for him, but because the election is rigged. From this assumption arises his frequent call for ‘poll watchers’ with no legal authority and questionable roles. (Will they intimidate voters? Will they interfere with the process?) The longer-term consequence will be the same as in Mexico, Ukraine and elsewhere: They will undermine voter support for the system. The difference is that in the US, the claims have very little basis in actual levels of election fraud.

Donald Trump, by constantly positing that this is a rigged election, and saying he’s not sure that he’ll accept the outcome of the vote, is encouraging even more mistrust in our democracy than there already is. In fact, Trump’s claims are so outrageous that a lot of Republicans are speaking out against them. Both Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) refuted the idea that the election is rigged last night, as did Senator Lindsey Graham:

My thoughts on a ‘rigged’ presidential election. pic.twitter.com/075n83NXMH

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 20, 2016

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley had perhaps the strongest condemnation of Trump’s “rigged” comments, saying:

This election is not rigged, and it’s irresponsible to say that it is. Faith in the democratic process is one of America’s greatest strengths, and it’s more important than the outcome of any election.

Clinton’s chances to win on November 8 are looking even more promising, given recent polling results. Whether Trump will accept that reality remains to be seen.

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 Don’t Worry, Trump Will Accept the Outcome of the Election…If He Wins appeared first on Law Street.

With the swish of her pen, Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) made South Carolina the 13th state to outlaw abortions once a fetus reaches 20 weeks. There are no exceptions in the case of rape or incest, but the bill does allow for post-20 week abortions if the mother’s life is in danger or if the fetus is “incompatible with sustaining life after birth.”

“It is the purpose of the State to assert a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain,” reads the text of the bill, which was named the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Reactions from the state’s General Assembly, which passed the bill on May 17, ranged from staunchly supportive to disappointed.

“I believe that an unborn child is human life and therefore I am compelled to be opposed to abortion except if the life of the mother is threatened,” said Senator Chip Campsen (R-Isle of Palms).

“Women’s reproductive rights should not be subject to politics,” said Senator Marlon Kimpson (D-Charleston).

As for the “substantial medical evidence” that a fetus feels pain at 20 weeks, as cited in the bill’s language, studies over the last decade have supported both sides of the argument, and the topic is still highly controversial. For example, a 2005 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that a fetus does not experience pain until after the third trimester, or at 28 weeks into the pregnancy. The study was not without controversy, however, as two of its authors were found to have ties to pro-abortion groups. One was a lawyer for an abortion rights group, NARAL, for eight months in 1999, and another was a doctor who performs abortions and was the medical director of an abortion clinic.

In her testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee in 2012–involving a bill that would ban abortions at 20 weeks within the jurisdiction of Washington D.C.–Colleen A. Malloy, an assistant neonatal professor at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, presented her finding that fetuses do indeed feel pain prior to 20 weeks, stating:

As early as 8 weeks post-fertilization, face skin receptors appear. At 14 weeks, sensory fibers grow into the spinal cord and connect with the thalamus. At 13-16 weeks, monoamine fibers reach the cerebral cortex, so that by 17-20 weeks the thalamo-cortical relays penetrate the cortex.

But a representative of Charleston Women’s Health Medical Center, one of three abortion clinics in South Carolina, told Law Street that the bill would not have any effect on its practice, as the clinic only provides abortions up to the 13th week of pregnancy.

Last week, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, South Carolina Section sent a letter to Haley, urging her to veto the bill, which they saw as a “large step backward for our state”, stating: “Only a woman and her trusted doctors—not elected officials—should make decisions about her health.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post South Carolina Governor Signs Bill Banning Abortions Past 20 Weeks appeared first on Law Street.

Charleston Law School has had a tough few years. It was established in 2003–right when that big law school boom was starting– and its first class graduated in 2007. The school began as a way to fill a gap in legal education that existed in Charleston; despite the fact that it’s the second largest city in South Carolina, there was not a law school there when Charleston Law began operating.

In 2013, the school began dealing with a company called InfiLaw, which eventually purchased the school pending approval by the American Bar Association (ABA) and South Carolina’s commission on higher education.

InfiLaw is part of Sterling Enterprises, a private equity company from Chicago, and it operates for-profit law schools. Currently there are three in InfiLaw’s collection–Florida Coastal School of Law, Arizona Summit Law School, and the Charlotte School of Law. Charleston Law would be the fourth. The company’s reputation within the law school field isn’t particularly stellar. There are concerns that InfiLaw is a scam, and predatory–after all, it takes students who can’t get into other law schools, puts them into massive debt, and then those students have a very difficult time finding jobs that can pay off said debt. In an in-depth piece on for-profit law schools that focused heavily on InfiLaw, the Atlantic attempted to pinpoint the company’s motivation:

A Florida Coastal faculty member who is familiar with the business strategies of private-equity firms told me that, in his view, the entire InfiLaw venture was quite possibly based on a very-short-term investment perspective: the idea was to make as much money as the company could as fast as possible, and then dump the whole operation onto someone else when managing it became less profitable.

Regardless of whether or not those are actually InfiLaw’s practices, actually taking over Charleston Law could lead to serious changes at the school.

That’s where this all gets very, very messy. Those two entities that have to approve the sale–the ABA, and the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (CHE)–have a few different moving parts. It’s a confusing mess, but essentially what’s happened is that one committee of the ABA, the accreditation committee, has approved the sale; however, another part that needs to give its approval, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, has deferred making a decision. They’re waiting on the CHE, who have their own set of problems with which to contend.

Now CHE is caught in the middle. One of Charleston Law’s founders, a man named Ed Westbrook, doesn’t want the school sold to InfiLaw. He’s in the minority, as the other two founders want to see it go to InfiLaw. Westbrook claims that he can successfully operate it as a non-profit, without taking any money from the state. He’s made vague statements about using his own money to do so. Now, both Westbrook and his lawyers, and InfiLaw and its lawyers are reaching out to the CHE with conflicting proposals and information. Westbrook’s optimism is admirable, I guess, but Charleston Law as it stands seems a bit like a sinking ship. For example, the school’s new President, Maryann Jones stepped down in November. She lasted in the job for a grand total of eight days. Her reasoning was described in an email she sent when she resigned:

The level of vitriol, with all sides making me a lightning rod for an unfortunate situation that was not of my making, makes this truly a situation that I am unwilling at this stage of my life to undertake.

Back to the CHE approval though, which appears to be the lynchpin to this deal. Want to be even more confused? There are 15 seats on the CHE. Four are vacant, and eight are being held by people whose terms have technically expired. Governor Nicki Haley is trying to fill those seats–but that would be in January at the earliest.

So, will InfiLaw succeed in its takeover of the Charleston School of Law? I have absolutely no clue. This tangled web of players, committees, and arguments is a mess–perhaps symbolic of the messy relationship between the ABA, for-profit law schools, and students. Whatever happens, it’s now in the CHE’s hands…and I for one do not envy them.

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 InfiLaw’s Attempt to Purchase Charleston Law is a Giant Mess appeared first on Law Street.