Under current North Carolina law, women cannot withdraw their consent after beginning to have sexual intercourse with a partner or partners.

In a 1979 ruling, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that “if the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman’s consent, the accused is not guilty of rape, although he may be guilty of another crime because of his subsequent actions.” In other words, if a woman begins having sex with someone and decides that she wants to stop, any action after that woman stops consenting is not considered rape under North Carolina law.

Per the 1979 ruling, consent can only be withdrawn, but not once an instance of sexual activity is ongoing. This has affected survivors who have tried to have their alleged rapists charged with rape but were unable to do so because of the court’s ruling. Many states adhere to similar legal principles as those reflected in North Carolina law.

North Carolina State Senator Jeff Jackson introduced a bill in March to the North Carolina General Assembly to address that legal loophole. If passed, the bill would “provide that a person who continues to engage in intercourse after consent is withdrawn is deemed to have committed the act of intercourse by force and against the will of the other person,” regardless of whether the parties had had sex previously or the situation in question was their first encounter.

While well-meaning, the bill does have its fair share of shortcomings. Although the bill is meant to correct the current law’s faults in regard to rape and women’s ability to consent, the bill is narrowly tailored to vaginal intercourse. The bill makes no mention of other forms of intercourse or people who do not have vaginas.

The bill also outlines that “the withdrawal of consent must be clearly communicated in a way that a reasonable person would understand to constitute withdrawal of consent.” This idea still puts the responsibility on the person withdrawing consent, whereas consent should be a continuous conversation among all people involved. After all, consent is not the absence of a “no,” but rather a clear, ongoing, mutual, and uncoerced “yes.”

It is unclear yet whether the bill has any hope of passing. Jackson failed to pass a similar bill last legislative session, and the current bill is still stuck in North Carolina’s Senate’s Rules Committee. However, the bill could have the potential to address some very real issues with North Carolina’s rape laws and bring justice to any future survivors of rape.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women Unable to Withdraw Consent Under Archaic North Carolina Law appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it will hear an appeal regarding political gerrymandering, in what legal experts say could be the most consequential such case in decades. It could alter the tradition of political parties redrawing voting districts for their political advantage. The case, Gill v. Whitford, concerns Wisconsin’s legislature and its gerrymandering efforts in 2011.

In 2010, Republicans gained control of Wisconsin’s legislature for the first time in four decades. After the census, they redrew the state’s voting districts, and in 2012, despite winning less than 50 percent of the vote, Republicans captured 60 of the legislature’s 99 seats. In 2014, Republicans won 52 percent of the vote and increased their state assembly majority to 63 seats.

It is a common practice for state legislatures to redraw voting districts to confer an advantage on the governing party. Redistricting commonly takes place after the once-a-decade census is conducted. The Supreme Court has never struck down districts because of partisan advantage. However, it has, as recently as this year, nixed districts that were devised in order to dilute the vote of minority populations.

In May, the Supreme Court struck down two districts in North Carolina, affirming a lower court’s decision that the Republican-controlled legislature drew the map to dilute the influence of African-American voters.

Last November, a federal district court ruled that Republicans’ 2011 gerrymandering effort in Wisconsin crossed a line and was unconstitutional. In a 2-1 ruling, the court found that the districts were drawn in order to minimize the influence of Democratic votes, and were “designed to make it more difficult for Democrats, compared to Republicans, to translate their votes into seats,” the majority opinion concluded.

“Although a majority of the [Supreme Court] has suggested that states can violate the Constitution if they draw legislative districts primarily to benefit one political party, the justices have never been able to identify the specific point at which states cross the constitutional line,” Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst and law professor at the University of Texas School of Law, told CNN. “In this case, a lower court held that Wisconsin had indeed crossed that line.”

According to the plaintiffs in Gill v. Whitford, Republicans in Wisconsin accomplished their politically-motivated gerrymandering via two techniques: packing and cracking. Packing is fairly self-explanatory: the state legislature stuffs the opposition party’s voters into a single district, thus diluting each individual vote. Cracking is the practice of spreading opposition votes in districts where the governing party enjoys a majority, keeping those votes out of districts that could swing either way.

In a statement released Monday, Wisconsin’s Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel said the state’s redistricting was constitutional. He said: “I am thrilled the Supreme Court has granted our request to review the redistricting decision and that Wisconsin will have an opportunity to defend its redistricting process.”

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 Supreme Court Will Hear Wisconsin Partisan Gerrymandering Case appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down two mapped congressional districts in North Carolina on the grounds that Republican lawmakers drew them with the intention of diluting the African-American vote. In affirming a lower court’s decision, the justices found a narrow–and contentious–distinction between redistricting for political benefit, and redistricting with the intent to harm a certain slice of the electorate based on race.

The case, Cooper v. Harris, was the latest involving racially-motivated gerrymandering to reach the Supreme Court. According to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, state legislatures can redraw congressional districts based on a number of factors, partisanship being the most common. But although race can be one of a smattering of factors when redrawing a state’s districts, it can not be the predominant one.

“The sorting of voters on the grounds of their race remains suspect even if race is meant to function as a proxy for other (including political) characteristics,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. She was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The North Carolina districts in question include one of the state’s largest, District 1, and one of its smallest, District 12. Both are currently held by black Democrats, G.K. Butterfield and Alma Adams, respectively. According to Kagan, the Republican-held General Assembly fashioned the new congressional map after the 2010 census to devalue the black vote.

In District 1, after the census, black people of voting age rose from 48.6 percent to 52.7 percent. In District 12, the percentage of voting-age black residents hit 50.7 from 43.8. Republicans argue that tilting the districts majority-black is within their legal limits, because distinguishing the black vote from the Democratic vote–a vast majority of black voters support Democratic candidates–is almost impossible.

Justice Samuel Alito argued that same point in his dissenting opinion: “If around 90 percent of African-American voters cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate, as they have in recent elections, a plan that packs Democratic voters will look very much like a plan that packs African-American voters.”

He added: “If the majority party draws districts to favor itself, the minority party can deny the majority its political victory by prevailing on a racial gerrymandering claim.” Alito was joined in dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest member, did not participate, because the case was argued on December 5, months before he was confirmed.

The court’s decision was welcome news for Butterfield and Adams. Butterfield said the decision “clearly reaffirms my position that the Republican-controlled state legislature unlawfully used race as the predominant factor” in gerrymandering. And Adams called for an independent redistricting commission in North Carolina, saying, “we should be working together to make access to the ballot box easier and more fair.”

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 Supreme Court Finds Racial Bias in North Carolina Gerrymandering appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered the final knockout blow to North Carolina’s restrictive voter ID law Monday, declining once again to hear an appeal from state Republicans to reinstate it. The move thereby upholds a lower court’s ruling that found the law had intentionally been designed to restrict black voters.

The law, which was enacted in 2013 by a Republican-controlled legislature, was struck down last year after a federal appeals court found that key parts of the law were to “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

Chief Justice John Roberts cited a “blizzard of filings over who is and who is not authorized to seek review in this Court under North Carolina law” as the Court’s reasoning for refusing to weigh in on North Carolina, et al. v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. Roberts, however, was careful to note that the court’s refusal did not constitute an opinion on the “merits of the case.”

North Carolina’s law had required voters to present a government-issued photo identification at the polls, but excluded forms of identification that happened to be used disproportionately by African Americans. For example, driver’s licenses, passports, and military identification cards were permitted, but not public assistance cards. It also shortened the early voting period and did away with same-day voter registration, among other things.

North Carolina, along with a string of other states, enacted voting restrictions like these shortly after a Supreme Court decision effectively struck down an integral part of the Voting Rights Act, diminishing federal oversight of voting rights. In late August, a deadlocked Supreme Court declined to reinstate North Carolina’s voting restrictions. The court was divided 4 to 4, with the court’s more conservative judges voting to revive parts of the law.

Proponents of these kinds of measures avow that they are intended purely to prevent voter fraud, not act as discrimination. However, a study of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases in 50 states between 2000 and 2012 found the level of fraud was “infinitesimal compared with the 146 million registered voters in that 12-year span.” The analysis found only 10 cases of voter impersonation, the only kind of fraud that could be prevented by voter ID at the polls.

In lieu of the Supreme Court’s decision, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are now eager to enact new voter restrictions. In other words, the battle over voter ID laws is hardly over.

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 Supreme Court Rejects Appeal for North Carolina Voter ID Law appeared first on Law Street.

Charlotte School of Law has had a rough couple of months. Last November, the school was placed on probation by the American Bar Association for low test scores and lax admissions policies. A few months later, the federal government withdrew its financial aid to the school’s students, as part of an Obama Administration crackdown on for-profit schools.

Now, the state of North Carolina is opening an investigation into the school, POLITICO has reported. According to a spokeswoman for Attorney General Josh Stein, state officials are “investigating the school under the state’s civil consumer protection laws.”

Whether or not the school will remain open is still uncertain. During the fall semester, there were 716 students enrolled at the school, a number that has dropped to about 220 since the government announce it would stop granting loans to students.

President Barack Obama’s administration began targeting for-profit higher education in 2015, in an effort to make sure colleges and universities don’t attract students by misleading them about how much money they will earn after graduation, only to leave them in debt from steep tuition prices. In one of its earlier measures, the Department of Education required colleges to start monitoring their graduates’ debt, earnings, and jobs.

Charlotte is now looking to President Donald Trump’s administration in hopes that it will be able to reclaim the money it lost. The Department of Education recently urged the school to re-apply for funding, in spite of criticism from Stein. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has a reputation for supporting for-profit educational organizations.

The school landed on the ABA’s probation list in the fall after receiving criticism for low bar exam passage rates and a pattern of admitting students that were unqualified or unlikely to succeed. In January, the DOE announced that current and future students at the school would no longer be eligible for federal aid, after the school’s leaders and education department officials failed to agree on a plan to address its issues. Charlotte refused to implement a “teach out” plan that would allow students to continue their studies at a different accredited institution. Such a system would have required the school to close permanently.

In late January, more than 150 students filed lawsuits against Charlotte in an effort to win back the money they had spent on tuition and recover damages for the shortage of job prospects they faced.

Charlotte is the first accredited school to lose its access to federal aid. InfiLaw, the corporation that owns the school, also owns Arizona Summit Law School, which was placed on ABA probation for similar reasons in March.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Charlotte School of Law Saga Continues: North Carolina AG Investigates the School appeared first on Law Street.

Seriously, Sean Spicer?

Sean Spicer has done it again. At the daily press briefing yesterday, while criticizing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people, he referenced World War II. “You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons,” he said, implying that Assad is worse than Hitler while somehow forgetting that Hitler killed millions of Jews via gas chambers.

I hope @PressSec takes time to visit @HolocaustMuseum. It’s a few blocks away. https://t.co/24fNoMUyS8

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) April 11, 2017

When trying to clarify his comments, Spicer continued to flub, saying, “He was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing.” But between 160,000 and 180,000 Jews that the Nazis killed were from Germany, according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The comparison drew immediate backlash on social media and elsewhere, and Spicer later apologized on CNN.

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 12, 2017 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:

North Carolina Moves to Repeal HB2…Sort of

A North Carolina Senate committee moved toward repealing the infamous bathroom bill, HB2, today. The controversial bill has led to a lot of negative publicity and backlash against the state. Now politicians say they’ve reached a compromise: they want to repeal the law, but also prohibit any local municipalities from passing anti-discrimination laws for three full years. LGBTQ groups are not happy with this development “The initiative is not a repeal. It’s doubling down on the discrimination that HB2 exacts–it’s HB2.0,” said Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality NC. “It doesn’t do anything to better the lives of LGBT North Carolinians.”

Don’t let political spin fool you. N.C. lawmakers are NOT voting to “repeal” HB2. They’re voting to make protecting LGBTQ people illegal.

— Raymond Braun (@raymondbraun) March 30, 2017

The bill is set for a vote this afternoon, and if it passes, North Carolina would still be one of a few states in the U.S. where it is actually “illegal for cities to protect the rights of their residents,” as Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, put it. The timing of this vote isn’t a coincidence–the NCAA said that the state had until today to address this issue, or else the organization would continue to avoid holding events in the state.

BOYCOTTS WORK.

North Carolina was poised to lose BILLIONS & BILLIONS of dollars over this. They buckled under that economic pressure. https://t.co/WvdNcyhUSk

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) March 30, 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: March 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

According to a calculation by the Associated Press, the disputed “bathroom bill”–HB2–would cost North Carolina about $3.76 billion in lost business over twelve years. Over the past year, several companies have left the state. For example PayPal, which pulled out of North Carolina last year, would have contributed an estimated $2.66 billion to the local economy.

Artists like Bruce Springsteen and Ringo Starr have cancelled concerts in North Carolina and the NCAA is also avoiding the state–it is about to announce the locations of various championships through 2022 and has said that North Carolina will not be included as long as the controversial law is in place. This could result in losses of hundreds of millions more.

‘Bathroom bill’ to cost North Carolina $3.76B, AP analysis finds https://t.co/3vyxKpSHJT #HB2 #LGBTQ pic.twitter.com/tIKfCz4DNm

— NBC Out (@NBCOUT) March 27, 2017

The bathroom bill prohibits transgender people from using the public bathroom that corresponds with the gender they identify with. It used the argument that allowing transgender women–who were born male–into the women’s bathroom, would result in an increase in sexual assaults. As there is absolutely no evidence for this, and male predators don’t typically identify as women or care whether they are allowed in the women’s bathroom or not before attacking, that argument understandably caused a lot of criticism and outrage.

Former Governor Pat McCrory, who was very supportive of the bill, failed to win re-election in November and revealed in a recent interview that he has had trouble finding a new job. “People are reluctant to hire me, because, ‘oh my gosh, he’s a bigot’–which is the last thing I am,” he said.

-Gov signs anti-trans bathroom bill
-State loses $600M, reputation hurt
-Gov voted out, can’t get job https://t.co/ByEk5EWbTs #ncpol #hb2 pic.twitter.com/yPpGVodCGq

— Alex Kotch (@alexkotch) March 13, 2017

The AP put together its analysis through interviews and public records, but also said that the numbers probably are an underestimation. The data only includes businesses that the AP could confirm were relocating or canceling their business in the state because of the bill. That means there could be more that the AP couldn’t confirm and therefore didn’t include. There were also likely cancelled endeavors from other companies that the AP had no way to measure.

“Companies are moving to other places because they don’t face an issue that they face here,” said Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America, which is based in North Carolina. He said he has talked to many business leaders who had spoken out about their choice to relocate, but that others are probably moving quietly. McCrory’s statement after signing the bill into law that it wouldn’t affect the state’s position as “one of the top states to do business in the country” seems to have been proven wrong.

But supporters of the bill have not admitted to any defeat; rather they are saying that the costs are worth it, as long as it keeps sexual predators out of women’s bathrooms, which is the main argument in favor of the bill. Lt. Gov. Dan Forest accused the media of creating a false image of the economic impact of the bill. “The effect is minimal to the state. Our economy is doing well. Don’t be fooled by the media,” he said when addressing Texas legislators who are considering adopting a similar law.

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 Looks Like the Bathroom Bill Will Cost North Carolina Billions appeared first on Law Street.

Right in the middle of March Madness, the NCAA has taken another stance against North Carolina’s HB2 law. In a statement released through Twitter by the association on Friday, which coincided with the one-year anniversary of HB2’s passage, the NCAA offered somewhat of an ultimatum and stated that, if North Carolina does not make changes or repeal its controversial transgender bathroom law, it will exclude the state from its process for deciding where to locate its championship games from 2018 to 2022.

NCAA reaffirms North Carolina championship stance. pic.twitter.com/2XqPodlQUP

— Inside the NCAA (@InsidetheNCAA) March 23, 2017

This is not the first time the NCAA has taken action against North Carolina in response to HB2. Last fall, the NCAA pulled its seven planned championship tournament games out of North Carolina because of the association’s “commitment to fairness and inclusion.” This move has taken on brand new significance recently as Duke was knocked out of the second round of the NCAA championship after losing to South Carolina in a game that was originally slated to be played in Greensboro, North Carolina but was moved to Greenville, South Carolina. Many saw the game’s location as a factor in Duke’s performance. In a post-game interview, Duke Coach Mike Kryzewski said in response to whether he was frustrated about the game’s location that if he were president or governor, he would “get rid of it.”

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper tweeted out a statement Friday calling for the state’s Republican lawmakers to “step up, meet halfway, and repeal HB2.” He also called March 24 a “dark anniversary” for the state, referring to the one-year anniversary of the law’s passage.

According to Forbes, the NCAA tournament has a significant economic impact for host cities, as a diverse set of industries benefit from the massive influx of fans coming to watch games.

The NCAA is not the first sports association to pull its events out of North Carolina. This year’s NBA All-Star weekend was slated to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina; however, in response to HB2, the NBA decided to relocate its All-Star festivities to New Orleans.

HB2 is one of, if not the most, salient topic in North Carolina politics right now, and the political back and forth is beginning to turn heads around the country. However, that is apparently not stopping other state legislatures from drafting HB2-type laws, as a transgender bathroom bill in Texas, Senate Bill 6, passed through Texas’s Senate State Affairs Committee and will by voted on by the full Senate. According the The Hill, the law is expected to pass through the full Senate, but will have a shakier path in the House.

HB2 remains deeply unpopular in North Carolina, as a recent poll from Public Policy Polling revealed that 50 percent of those surveyed in the state are opposed to it, and 58 percent of those surveyed think that it’s hurting the state. Things don’t seem to be looking up politically in the state, and repealing HB2 looks like it will be a long, uphill battle, seeing as how on Friday the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature overrode Gov. Cooper’s first veto as governor.

The NCAA will decide on host cities for its championship games by April 18.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The NCAA Offers Politically Divided North Carolina an Ultimatum appeared first on Law Street.

Twelve states are taking the bar out of the bar exam–the newest MacBook Pro’s Touch Bar, that is.

North Carolina’s Board of Law Examiners is the latest board to ask test-takers using MacBooks to disable the function during exams over concerns about cheating. The new rule will go into effect for students sitting for the test in February.

According to ExamSoft, a company that manufactures testing software for the board, the “Touch Bar will show predictive text depending on what the student is typing, compromising exam integrity.”

9to5Mac, a website that covers news about Apple, reported that ExamSoft’s software is typically able to block access to the internet or apps that allow students to cheat, but that the new Touch Bar rule was likely an “extra precaution.”

Meanwhile, California, Colorado, Oklahoma, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia’s bar associations have banned the Apple computers from their tests altogether.

Don’t know if you’ll be allowed to bring your computer to the test? Katherine Silver Kelly, an Ohio State University law professor, has been using her blog Bar Exam Wizard to post the list of states placing restrictions on MacBook Pros and the Touch Bars.

Apple introduced the updated MacBook Pro in October with the Touch Bar as a replacement for function keys. The bar is a touchscreen that runs along the top of the keyboard and can be customized to display users’ most-used apps. It also provides full emoji access.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post MacBook Feature Barred from Multiple Bar Exams appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning everyone, hope you have all your Christmas gifts in order and you’re finished shopping! Some of us get really stressed out from those last minute errands, but here are some of today’s rants to help you channel all that energy. Stay calm and have a good day! 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:

After Berlin, Trump Doubles Down on Anti-Muslim Rhetoric

Yesterday, President-elect Donald Trump insinuated that the deadly truck attack in Berlin shows that he was right to want to ban Muslims from entering the United States. When reporters asked him whether the attack would cause him to re-evaluate his stance on Muslims, he replied: “You know my plans, all along, I’ve been proven to be right. One hundred percent correct.” It wasn’t clear exactly what Trump meant.

Donald Trump seemed to suggest that the Berlin attack vindicated his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the U.S. https://t.co/V9Wsrnu0Gd

— The New York Times (@nytimes) December 22, 2016

But later, one of his advisers, Jason Miller, said that Trump was only repeating his previous statements that he would “suspend admission of those from countries with high terrorism rates and apply a strict vetting procedure.” Trump has both said and tweeted confusing comments since appearing on the political scene and seems unable to make up his mind on some things. “We know he’s got some instincts and predilections, but there is no coherent Trump foreign-policy doctrine, and we’re not likely to see one,” said vocal Trump critic Professor Eliot A. Cohen to the New York Times.

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: December 22, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday everyone! Last night, Trevor Noah came up with a pretty good summary of the year, saying: “2016 started with Zika and then turned bad.” But satire is the best medicine, so watching Noah’s clip could help. Hope you have a great weekend and see you on Monday! 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:

Is This America? NC Republicans Attempt a Legislative Coup

You might have thought that American politics couldn’t get any messier right now. But in North Carolina, the GOP has basically staged a coup. When it became clear on November 9 that Pat McCrory was losing the governor’s seat, he claimed the results were too close to call, with Democrat Roy Cooper only 4,300 votes ahead. He then demanded a statewide recount and claimed that there was voter fraud, before admitting defeat on December 5. But now the GOP is trying to undermine the results by introducing two bills, HB 17 and SB 4, which would essentially strip Cooper of a lot of power.

North Carolina Republicans Make Brazen Bid for Permanent Power After Losing Governor’s Race https://t.co/VFFwNLaSpx pic.twitter.com/iNXPiSmRVQ

— Patrick (@cahulaan) December 15, 2016

The bills would prevent the new governor from making some cabinet appointments, restrict how many Democratic lawmakers could be hired, and basically ensure Republican rule continued. And last night, the NC House passed HB 17, so it’s now up to the NC Senate to decide what to do.

Denying the results of a democratic election is alarming. As Slate writes, “What’s happening in North Carolina is not politics as usual. It is an extraordinarily disturbing legislative coup, a flagrant effort to maintain one-party rule by rejecting democratic norms and revoking the will of the voters.”

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Putting an end to a nearly month-long stalemate on Monday, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina ceded the election to his Democratic opponent, Roy Cooper. McCrory lost the election last month by just over 10,000 votes, among the slimmest margins in the country. But McCrory demanded a recount, despite, as of his concession on Monday, no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

In a video statement on Monday, McCrory said:

Despite continued questions that should be answered regarding the voting process, I personally believe that the majority of our citizens have spoken and we now should do everything we can to support the 75th governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper.

McCrory was elected to his first term as governor in 2012, enjoying support from both sides of the aisle. But in March, McCrory’s attracted national attention, largely negative, for signing H.B. 2, the law that required people in public buildings to use the bathroom that corresponded to the gender listed on their birth certificate. His stock quickly fell. The law ended up costing North Carolina important investments, as artists refused to perform there, and the NBA decided its All-Star game would take place in New Orleans, not Charlotte as originally planned.

McCrory finally conceded the NC governor’s race, proving even the most stubborn stains on our social fabric can be scrubbed out eventually.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) December 5, 2016

With McCrory’s loss, North Carolina’s governorship is one of the few bright spots for Democrats, as Republicans maintained their majority in both chambers of Congress, and President-elect Donald Trump won the White House. The GOP gained two governorships overall on November 8 and now hold 33 in total, up from 31 during the last term. And while Cooper’s win is a boost for Democrats, broadly and in North Carolina, the state legislature is still controlled by Republicans.

Roy Cooper, who has served as North Carolina’s attorney general since 2001, was able to breathe a sigh of relief on Monday. In a statement, Cooper stressed unity moving forward. “It will be the honor of my life to serve this great state,” he said. “While this was a divisive election season, I know still that there is more that unites us than divides us. Together, we can make North Carolina the shining beacon in the south by investing in our schools, supporting working families and building a state that works for everyone.”

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 North Carolina Governor Race is Officially Over as McCrory Concedes Defeat appeared first on Law Street.

In a lot of ways, 2016 was the year in which the fight over transgender individuals’ access to the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity came to the forefront. From North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” that was passed in March, to the directive issued by the Obama Administration in August that instructed all public schools to allow students to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity, it’s been a newsworthy topic for the year. Now, to kick off 2017, SCOTUS will be weighing in on a Virginia case that could provide more clarity on the issue.

Gavin Grimm, who attends high school in Virginia’s Gloucester County, is transgender. He began to take hormones and grow facial hair, and started to use the men’s bathroom early in his high school career. But some parents complained, and the school board decried that students would have to use the bathroom that corresponded to their “biological gender.” So, Grimm sued the school board over the decision. The case has now made it all the way to the Supreme Court, after a federal appeals court ruled earlier this year in favor of Grimm. While the court is deciding, Grimm will still have to abide by the school board’s decision.

Right now, the Supreme Court still only has eight members, as no one has filled the void left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. Hopefully a new member will be confirmed by the time the case is actually heard, although in the case of a 4-4 split the lower court’s decision in favor of Grimm would remain.

Grimm wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he explained the humiliating and inhumane experiences he has had at the hands of the school’s policies. He describes how he has had to go off school grounds to use the restroom at some points and how it has been suggested that he use the single stall unisex restroom “so that no one else would have their privacy invaded by using the same restroom as me.” But Grimm also addresses the issue with a sense of hope, saying:

I did not choose to announce to the news media that I am transgender. My school board made that decision for me. But now that I am visible, I want to use my position to help the country see transgender people like me as real people just living our lives. We are not perverse. We are not broken. We are not sick. We are not freaks. We cannot change who we are. Our gender identities are as innate as anyone else’s.

I hope the justices of the Supreme Court can see me and the rest of the transgender community for who we are — just people — and rule accordingly.

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 SCOTUS to Weigh in on Transgender Bathroom Access appeared first on Law Street.

In key battleground states and some Republican strongholds, early voting trends appear more favorable to Democrats this year compared with the same time last cycle. With less than two weeks to Election Day, 13.4 million voters have cast ballots by mail or in person in 37 states. For starters, the early vote total is far higher than during the same period in 2012. Forty percent of the electorate, or 46 million people, are expected to vote before Election Day on November 8. Below are some takeaways from a handful of key states.

North Carolina

Republican Mitt Romney won this vital battleground state in 2012. But if current trends hold, it seems the state could swing to the left. Fewer people have voted early in North Carolina this year compared to 2012, but of those who have, 46 percent are Democrats and 29 percent are Republicans.

According to a CNN analysis of the early votes, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, will need a strong turnout from African-American voters to capture the state. Their share of the electorate is down five percent from 2012. In the most recent poll, Clinton leads Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, by seven points.

Florida

The Sunshine State went to Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Democrats seem poised to repeat their victory there on November 8. Two million ballots have been cast in Florida so far, with the two major parties in a dead heat, each garnering 41 percent of the voters. This bodes well for Democrats: at the same point in 2008 (the most recent available data) Republican voters cast 113,222 more votes than Democrats, according to CNN.

This could be due to changing demographics: the Hispanic portion of the electorate is up four percent in Florida from 2008, while the share of whites has dropped from 82 percent in 2008 to roughly 77 percent this year. But the most recent poll shows Trump edging Clinton by two percentage points in Florida.

Red to Blue?

Some traditionally purple states are showing signs of turning blue, including Nevada and Colorado. Democrats have cast 46 percent of the ballots in Nevada thus far, compared to 35 percent for the GOP. In Colorado, over 400,000 people have cast early ballots, 40 percent Democrats and 34 percent Republicans. CNN’s analysis of the early vote data shows the Democrats with a 15,000 vote lead, which is slightly more than they had in 2012. Obama won Nevada in 2012, though recent polls show a tie between Clinton and Trump.

Historically, Nevada is not necessarily a Republican shoo-in. Bill Clinton won there in 1992 and 1996. George W. Bush won there in 2000 and 2004. And President Obama won in 2008 and 2012. The past two decades or so in Colorado are nearly identical, aside from the 1996 election, when Bob Dole picked up its eight electoral votes.

Obama won Colorado in 2012, but compared to the same early voting period, Republicans held a slight lead. This year, Democrats are up by about 10,000 votes, according to CNN.

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 Road to 270: A Look at Early Voting Trends in 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

A GOP office in Hillsborough, North Carolina, was vandalized and later destroyed by an apparent act of arson.

The Orange County Republican headquarters suffered damages caused by a substance thrown through one of the building’s front windows. The flammable material damaged the building’s interior before going out. The firebombing occurred at some point between Saturday night and Sunday morning. Graffiti and threatening words also marked the territory. An adjacent building was graffitied “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else” accompanied by a swastika.  No one was injured.

Hillsborough Mayor Tom Stevens released a statement and reminded people that elections should be an opportunity to become more democratic, rather than moving into acts of violence.

“This highly disturbing act goes far beyond vandalizing property; it willfully threatens our community’s safety via fire, and its hateful message undermines decency, respect and integrity in civic participation,” Stevens said. “I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of people who make Hillsborough their home: Acts like this have no place in our community. Our law enforcement officials are responding quickly and thoroughly to investigate this reprehensible act and prosecute the perpetrators.”

According to the town, “no damage estimates are available yet, and Hillsborough police are continuing to investigate the incident with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”

Governor of North Carolina Pat McCrory declared he will use every resource as governor to assist local authorities in the investigation. McCrory’s staff helped deliver new campaign materials to Orange County hours after the bombing.

“The firebombing of a local political headquarters in Orange County is clearly an attack on our democracy,” McCrory said in a statement. “Violence has no place in our society – but especially in our elections. … I will use every resource as governor to assist local authorities in this investigation.”

The firebombing of a local political headquarters in Orange County is clearly an attack on our democracy. pic.twitter.com/fr9FWGQUoG

— Pat McCrory (@PatMcCroryNC) October 16, 2016

Thank you for your thoughts & prayers, Sec. @HillaryClinton.

— NCGOP (@NCGOP) October 16, 2016

Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning @NCGOP

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2016

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina GOP Office Firebombed: Trump Blames Democrats appeared first on Law Street.

Footage from a dashboard camera and a body camera on one of the police officers involved in the shooting of Keith Scott in Charlotte last week have finally been released. It turns out the one officer who wore a camera didn’t turn it on until after Scott was already on the ground.

Two videos were released late Saturday after mounting pressure and some violent protests that left people wounded and one dead. The footage from the dashboard camera shows a plainclothes officer aiming his gun at a car. The officer in the car with the dash cam gets out and joins him. Then Scott is seen exiting his car and backing away, and the officer without a uniform fires four shots. Since the video is from inside the police car, there is no audio to prove what was said. But it’s clear that Scott did not aim any gun at the officers at that point.

The body camera footage is grainy and jumpy and shows an officer standing behind Scott’s car, as the officer wearing the camera comes up and knocks on the window with his baton. Scott is then seen getting out from the car but disappears from the video. Next time he’s in the picture, he’s on the ground. The sound on the camera is not turned on until this point, which is why it’s unclear what happened and who said what. It’s also impossible to see from that footage whether Scott had a gun or not. When the sound is turned on, the officers are heard yelling “handcuffs, handcuffs” and asking each other whether they are okay, while Scott is moaning and lying on the ground dying.

Body camera footage shows Keith Scott shooting https://t.co/W0NhU5sBn8 pic.twitter.com/t44YKbjFlK

— Ruptly (@Ruptly) September 25, 2016

Charlotte was the first major city in North Carolina to start using body cams for officers in 2015. The cameras are always on, but they don’t save the footage until the officer presses a button to activate it. That’s when the audio sets in, and it also automatically saves the last 30 seconds of video from before that.

According to protocol, all patrol officers should wear a camera and must activate it as soon as they anticipate any interactions with civilians. But the officers who first approached Scott were wearing plain clothes and therefore did not have any cameras. They claim they realized Scott had a gun, so they retreated to put on police vests and wait for a uniformed officer. That officer was wearing his camera, but he waited to activate it until after Scott was shot.

This news upset many.

Yet another example of why body cameras are not the way to end police shootings. Sometimes, cops don’t turn them on. https://t.co/Q1jNRKYYkU

— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) September 26, 2016

But this might be the last footage you see from a police shooting in North Carolina. A new law goes into effect on October 1 that will prevent the public from obtaining footage from body or dashboard cameras. According to Governor Pat McCrory it’s about: “respecting the public, respecting the family, and also respecting the constitutional rights of the officer.”

Under the new law, police videos like the ones in Scott’s case would no longer be considered public record.

The day before the footage was released, Scott’s wife published her own video of what happened, in which the officers are heard yelling “drop the gun” to Scott inside his car. She repeatedly says, “he doesn’t have a gun,” and also points out that he has a traumatic brain injury and just took his medicine. In the video she begs the officers not to shoot her husband, right up until they shoot him.

Wife of #Charlotte police shooting victim #KeithScott films encounter https://t.co/kL9M8WjC4P

— YouTube Newswire (@ytnewswire) September 23, 2016

The attorney for the Scott family, Justin Bamberg, argued that the officer not activating his camera is both a violation of department policy and also meant there was little evidence to show what had actually happened. He said:

Information that we could have had is forever gone because of this officer’s failure to follow department policy and procedures. Those policies exist for a reason, and there is a reason the CMPD equips its officers with body cameras–because body cameras provide visual evidence so that when tragic things do happen we don’t have to question exactly what happened.

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 Officer Did Not Turn on Body Camera Until After Keith Scott Was Shot appeared first on Law Street.

Wikileaks Is Probably Publishing Your Private Data Right Now

Wikileaks is often applauded for dumping mass data files exposing the secrets of the Democratic Party and the NSA. But now its contributors may have gone too far. Wikileaks has recently been accused of disclosing identifying information on the health and other topics of private citizens. The Huffington Post wrote a scathing article condemning Wikileaks for exposing the lives of sexual assault victims and the sexual orientation of people who otherwise would like that to be kept a secret.  Woah, woah, woah. Now that’s going too far right? Could there be something wrong with a world that knows (or doesn’t know) everything?

Wikileaks has been quick to defend itself:

Reports that WikiLeaks published data on “Turkish women” are entirely false. US election sees media standards decay. https://t.co/odmpxNB0Jp

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 23, 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: August 24, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a North Carolina voting law on Friday, concluding that it was passed with clear “discriminatory intent.”

The ruling forcefully reversed a district court finding that did not acknowledge the law’s intent to discriminate. In the ruling, Circuit Court Judge Diana Gibbon Motz writes,

In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.

Motz, also writing for judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd, goes on to note that the sequence of events that led to the law provides sufficient evidence to conclude that the law intentionally sought to restrict voting rights of African American voters in clear violation of the Voting Rights Act.

While many argue that voting laws like the one in North Carolina are passed for partisan reasons–by focusing on minority communities that traditionally vote for Democrats, Republican legislators may be seeking an electoral edge–the way this law in particular targeted race amounts to racial discrimination. And yes, challenges to these laws could also be considered partisan efforts on behalf of the Democrats as well, but the racial focus here appears to take it a step further.

A Quick Look at the Voting Rights Act

To understand this case in North Carolina, it’s important to understand the Voting Rights Act. Congress passed the VRA in 1965 to ensure that African Americans and all minority voters would not be discriminated against at the polls.

The law took a particularly active approach to dealing with an enormous challenge. It created a formula to identify states and locales where voting was polarized by race and then added additional safeguards to changing voting laws there. Section 4 of the law created that so-called “coverage formula,” and coupled it with a preclearance requirement in Section 5. That requirement mandated that state and local governments falling within the coverage formula get explicit approval from the Department of Justice before changing voting laws.

The law also maintains provisions to ensure that race-based discrimination does not happen and places redistricting requirements on states to ensure minority representation, among other protections. But the preclearance requirement and coverage formula took the center of attention in an infamous Supreme Court ruling in 2013. That case, Shelby County v. Holder, struck down the coverage formula and ended the preclearance system as it existed at the time. Justice Roberts, who wrote the 5-4 opinion, concluded that the law employed “extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem,” but that those measures are no longer needed. He went on to argue that the coverage formula used to determine which areas require preclearance now violates states’ rights and equal sovereignty as laid out in the 10th Amendment.

Since that ruling, governments have been free to change their voting laws as they see fit without the need for preclearance from the Justice Department. And that brings us to the recent challenge in North Carolina.

The North Carolina Ruling

Judge Motz notes in the ruling that between 2000 and 2012–a period when preclearance was needed for to all statewide and many local voting law changes in North Carolina–registration and participation surged among black voters. By 2012, black voter registration had increased by about 50 percent and turnout nearly reached parity with that of white voters, at about 70 percent. But shortly after the Supreme Court issued its Shelby County ruling, the state assembly began the process to overhaul its voting laws. According to the ruling, the new law would have several effects on black voters in the coming November election:

In this one statute, the North Carolina legislature imposed a number of voting restrictions. The law required in-person voters to show certain photo IDs, beginning in 2016, which African Americans disproportionately lacked, and eliminated or reduced registration and voting access tools that African Americans disproportionately used.

In cases like this, it is particularly difficult to prove that a legislature acted with discriminatory intent, but the court concluded that there was enough evidence to indicate that race was central to the new law. That holds true, according to Motz, even if it was done for partisan reasons and not outright racial hatred or racism. The ruling notes that almost immediately after the Shelby County opinion came down in June 2013, the North Carolina legislature began drafting new voting restrictions. It also notes:

Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

This indicates that shortly after the state did not need preclearance to pass a new voting law, it looked into how certain voting practices related to race, and then passed a new law limiting certain practices. Based on that sequence of events, the court ruled there was clear intent to discriminate based on race.

Going Forward

While the ruling effectively struck down the law, the court declined to use another section of the Voting Rights Act to impose a preclearance requirement on North Carolina after finding discriminatory intent. Essentially, it chose not to reinstate the preclearance requirement on the state using a different part of the VRA. As Rick Hasen–a law professor at University of California, Irvine–notes in a blog post, the state can still appeal the ruling to the Fourth Circuit en banc, which means that all of the judges, not just the original panel of three judges, would review the case. It could also appeal to the Supreme Court, but as Hasen notes, the court may not decide to hear the case given its current eight justice makeup and the Circuit Court’s decision not to implement a preclearance requirement.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Why A Circuit Court Struck Down North Carolina’s Discriminatory Voting Law appeared first on Law Street.

A law designed to prevent the cyberbullying of children was ruled unconstitutional in the North Carolina Supreme Court this past week. In State of North Carolina v. Robert Bishop, the state Supreme Court was asked to assess the validity of the defendant’s claim that a North Carolina law against cyberbullying was a violation of the First Amendment protection of free speech.

The case before the Supreme Court began in February of 2012 when a high school student named Robert Bishop was charged with cyberbullying under a North Carolina statute. Bishop had posted a photo of a sexual message that one of his classmates, Dillon Price, had supposedly sent the defendant. Following several more posts and accusations by Price that the defendant had falsified the sexual messages, Bishop was arrested for cyberbullying.

According to N.C.G.S. § 14-458.1, specifically under section (a)(1)(d), it is illegal to post private, personal, or sexual information related to a minor on the internet with the intent to intimidate said minor. After his arrest and conviction, Bishop appealed to the Superior Court in his county, aiming to dismiss his charges on the grounds that the North Carolina statute is a violation of free speech because it restricts speech based on content. The Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the defendant’s arguments, ruling that the statute regulates conduct rather than speech and that to “the extent the Cyber-bullying Statute touches upon or regulates some aspects of some speech, the burden on speech and expression is merely incidental.”

After this ruling, the defendant once again appealed his case, this time to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

The state Supreme Court held that N.C.G.S. § 14-458.1 was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. This decision was based in part on the fact that the statute was content-based and not sufficiently narrow in its interest to protect children from cyberbullying. This holding reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and simultaneously reversed the defendant’s conviction for cyberbullying under the statute.

What does this mean for the future of cyberbullying in North Carolina? The statute has been struck down, so, pending future cyberbullying laws being written, there isn’t currently a law to point to when a child is being bullied on the internet. Attorney General Roy Cooper, an avid supporter of the law, is worried about the severity of cyberbullying and the state’s ability to protect children from it:

Just because violence happens online doesn’t make it any less real or less hurtful. Cyberbullying can lead to physical harm, depression in its victims and even suicide and it’s troubling to see this law overturned.

On the positive side of things, this ruling may serve as an example to future law makers about the importance of precise language in laws. With any luck, a more narrowly tailored law can be written that will protect kids on the internet.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina Supreme Court Strikes Down Cyberbullying Statute appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

People are Pissed at Facebook Over Supposed Suppression of Conservative News

You know that trending news section on Facebook? It’s on the top right side of your feed and highlights the breaking news each day. Well former Facebook workers are now claiming that they were told to “artifically manipulate” what shows up in the trending news feature, with a favoritism given to more liberal news. They also claim that they were told to blacklist conservative sites and sources. But Facebook is hardcore denying that anything of the sort ever happened, and ironically, Facebook’s “trending news controversy” is trending on Facebook right now.

Facebook Says It’s Taking News Bias Allegations “Very Seriously” https://t.co/wnad5QbNi3 pic.twitter.com/cdggzpeQuP

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) May 10, 2016

Samantha Bee Says “Bye, Bye” to Ted Cruz

Samantha Bee, host of “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee” had a lot of fun with Ted Cruz’s presidential run. But now that Cruz has officially dropped out, the show needed to bid goodbye to its favorite punching bag. And in true Samantha Bee fashion, she said that goodbye with quite a fantastic and hilarious sendoff.

Carry on, Bee. We can’t wait to see what you do with the rest of this crazy election cycle.

West Point Women in Trouble

16 female, black cadets at West Point under scrutiny for photo with clenched fists in the air. https://t.co/mOcL32p5bL

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) May 9, 2016

Sixteen African-American women graduating from West Point are in hot water over a photo that features them raising their fists. The school is investigating the photo, and comparisons are being made to the girls’ actions and the Black Lives Matter movement. While that doesn’t seem like a big deal, West Point expressly forbids expressing political opinions while representing the school. But the women claim that their gestures were just celebratory. So who’s right? We’ll have to see if the school ends up disciplining the students but people on both sides of the debate are pretty mad.

North Carolina v. The DOJ: All Hell Breaks Loose

North Carolina’s bathroom bill has royally pissed off the DOJ, and now both sides are suing each other. It all started when the DOJ gave NC Governor Pat McCrory until yesterday to begin to remedy the new anti-LGBT policies, which the DOJ believes to be discriminatory. McCrory asked for more time, and when he was refused, sued the DOJ. Now the DOJ has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the state. Check out Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s epically badass speech on the subject:

Jon Stewart Calls Donald Trump a “Man-Baby”

Jon Stewart may be retired from the “Daily Show” but that doesn’t mean he’s done going with his scathing social commentary. On David Axelrod’s CNN podcast Stewart said:

He’s a man baby. He has the physical countenance of a man and a baby’s temperament and hands. … (Vanity Fair editor) Graydon Carter did a joke about Donald Trump’s hands 25 years ago, he’s still not f—ing over it.

So…here’s what I’m guessing Trump’s reaction will be:

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 10, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, has sued the federal government in response to the federal deadline to begin to remedy the so-called bathroom bill in the state. The law entered into effect in March and bans transgender people from using public bathrooms that don’t correspond with the sex on their birth certificate. Last week the top civil rights lawyer at the Justice Department, Vanita Gupta, called the law a civil rights violation, and McCrory was given until today to respond. Instead, he reacted by suing both Gupta and U.S. attorney Loretta Lynch, for what he called a “radical reinterpretation” of federal law.

McCrory had asked to have the deadline extended, to which the Justice Department answered no, unless he essentially admitted how discriminatory the law is. He refused, saying doing so would be the same as agreeing with the law’s critics. He also fought back against the claims from some that the bathroom bill was similar to segregating bathrooms by race. McCrory stated that transgender people do not have the same civil rights protection issues as people of color, since you can easily see someone’s race, while seeing someone’s gender identity is definitely harder.

According to CNN, McCrory said that the House Bill 2, commonly called the bathroom bill, does not only affect North Carolina, but all of America. He alleges that the Obama administration is trying to change the norm. McCrory called the federal government “a bully” and used the argument that men will be able to go in the women’s bathrooms or locker rooms and molest them as grounds for backing the law.

Tonight, I joined @MegynKelly to talk about the hypocrisy surrounding the common-sense bathroom privacy bill. Watch:https://t.co/RveLPCpFS3

— Pat McCrory (@PatMcCroryNC) April 29, 2016

If North Carolina keeps the law, this means the state could lose about $1.5 billion in funding, as well as risk $800 million worth of federally backed student loans, and possibly face a federal lawsuit. The law has generated a storm of protests from the public as well as celebrities and big corporations, such as Apple, Twitter, and PayPal. Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam have cancelled shows in the state, and Target announced that employees and customers could use any restroom they identify with in their stores.

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 North Carolina Sues Justice Department Over Bathroom Bill Deadline appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats in the North Carolina state legislature have finally filed the repeal of HB2, the aptly named “bathroom bill,” that has been the center of attention nationwide for the past few weeks. All it took for them to get this repeal in order was, oh, I don’t know, the disapproval of Bruce Springsteen, Paypal, Cyndi Lauper, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam, Mumford and Sons, Cirque du Soleil, and countless more people, groups, and companies.

After over a month since HB2 was passed, it seems like the anger about the bill is starting to get through to the dense legislature and seemingly oblivious Governor, Pat McCrory. Today, Equality NC delivered 190,000 signatures to the Governor’s office, calling for the repeal of HB2.

We are delivering nearly 190,000 petition signatures calling for repeal of #hb2 @ACLU_NC @HRC @CSElive #RepealHB2 pic.twitter.com/s8BSKIu8fT

— Equality NC (@equalitync) April 25, 2016

Boxes filled with signatures just deliver to Gov Office. #HB2 calling for repeal #abc11 #ncpol pic.twitter.com/pqRU3s70Sz

— Elaina Athans (@AthansABC11) April 25, 2016

Thankfully, House Democrats responded by filing HB946, which is the repeal of HB2.

On the first morning of session, a bill has been filed to repeal HB2. pic.twitter.com/GPPxzN7Ob4

— Guilford Green (@GuilfordGreen) April 25, 2016

#BreakingNews–#ABC11 is there as Democratic lawmakers file House Bill 946, hoping to repeal House Bill 2. pic.twitter.com/ytaEcBS7Zi

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

What this new bill will do is relieve any businesses whose policies were affected by the mandates in HB2 of their obligations to the bill. Essentially, policies won’t have to be changed in response to HB2 if the repeal is passed.

Some people in North Carolina, however, are in support of HB2 and have been protesting any kind of repeal, claiming that HB2 protects women and children in public restrooms.

Supporters of House Bill 2 in NC now rallying near opponents. #ABC11 pic.twitter.com/CExZHTlzAT

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

The NC Values Coalition even hosted a rally in downtown Raleigh in support of the discriminatory bill, claiming to be standing up for traditional values.

Signs of thankfulness for Governor @PatMcCroryNC to stand firm on #HB2. #StandWithNC pic.twitter.com/L9U7sERy7p

— NC Values Coalition (@NCValues) April 25, 2016

If you’d like to see more infuriating tweets, feel free to search the hashtag “#StandWithNC” on Twitter to see some of the ridiculous arguments that proponents of HB2 are making–a large chunk of whom are white men purporting that this bill is the only way to protect women and children from dangerous instances of pedophilia.

If anyone needed more reasons to despise this bill, Ted Cruz has come out in favor of it this week in a speech in Indiana, saying:

So let me make things real simple: Even if Donald Trump dresses up as Hillary Clinton, he shouldn’t be using the girls’ restroom.

To be clear, Donald Trump dressing up as Hilary Clinton and a person being transgender are two totally different things. Cruz attacked Trump for his anti-HB2 opinions, saying that:

He joined them [liberals] in calling for grown men to be allowed to use little girls’ public restrooms. As the dad of young daughters, I dread what this will mean for our daughters—and for our sisters and our wives. It is a reckless policy that will endanger our loved ones.

What Cruz’s argument fails to realize is that the HB2 isn’t “protecting women and children” from grown men. It’s forcing people who identify with one gender to use the bathroom of another, for example, James Sheffield:

@PatMcCroryNC It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife. #HB2 #trans #NorthCarolina #shameonNC pic.twitter.com/4b4OdmfmeN

— James P Sheffield (@JayShef) March 24, 2016

Under HB2 this man would be forced by law to use the women’s restroom. How do you feel about that Ted Cruz? Not to mention the fact that even Fox News acknowledges the fact that there are no instances of criminals using transgender protections in order to defend any kind of sexual harassment charges in public bathrooms. Neither groups on the left nor groups on the right have any evidence that any man has ever claimed to be transgender in order to disguise himself as a woman and sexually harass women, which is what HB2 supporters and Cruz are claiming will happen if HB2 is repealed.

At the end of the day, this law is discriminatory, and the people of North Carolina are getting fed up–myself included. Thanks to Democratic lawmakers, though, it’s looking like there is the possibility for a repeal in the near future. And, thank goodness, because it’s about time.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina Legislators File HB2 Repeal: It’s About Time appeared first on Law Street.

The hit TV show “Love it or List it” is getting sued for shoddy work, breach of contract, unfair trade practices, and other allegations. Deena Murphy and Timothy Sullivan, who live in Chatham County, North Carolina are suing the home renovations show, which airs on HGTV, as well as the production company Big Coat TV, and the local contractor used for the renovations, Aaron Fitz Construction.

Here’s the premise of the show: the “Love it or List it” team finds a family who is not happy with their home. Then, interior designer Hilary Farr renovates the home according to the family’s needs while a realtor, David Visentin, shows them other houses in the area that fit their specifications. At the end of the episode the family decides whether to “love” their newly renovated home or “list” it because they’re going to live elsewhere.

In the case in question, Murphy and Sullivan were looking to renovate one of their rental properties and move into it with their foster children. They were chosen to be on the show in April 2015. However, they claim that they paid $140,000 to the show to use for the renovations, but the show didn’t give all that money to the contractors. The lawsuit also states:

Instead, Big Coat hired its own subcontractors and supervised their work itself, acting as an unlicensed general contractor, the suit states. The result of this improper conduct was the very kind of substandard work the statutes are designed to protect consumers against. The floors of the Plaintiffs’ house were destroyed by Big Coat’s negligence, and the work that was done was generally performed badly, for the most part using inexpensive, low quality materials.

The plaintiffs also claim that there were holes left in their floors, making it easy for “vermin” to enter the home, and the rest of the floor was damaged beyond repair. They also had complaints about other parts of the show, including that during the “list it” portion of the episode, they were not shown houses by a realtor who was licensed to do business in North Carolina.

It seems like the show’s producers will fight the suit. According to Maria Armstrong, chief executive officer and executive producer of Big Coat Productions/Big Coat TV:

We are aware of the lawsuit. Because this matter involves ongoing litigation, our attorneys have advised us and we feel that making a comment would be inappropriate at this time. However, we do intend to vigorously defend what we consider to be false allegations.

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 “Love it or List it” Sued by North Carolina Couple appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories covered controversial bathroom laws in North Carolina and Mississippi, the benefits of public interest law careers, and a new ridesharing company exclusively targeted to women. ICYMI, check out the top stories below.

1. North Carolina and Mississippi: States Face Consequences for Discriminatory Laws

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

2. Advocating with a Passion: Why a Career in Public Interest Law is Worth Considering

Public interest lawyers provide voices to the members of our society who are so often overlooked, help to save the environment, take on oppressive laws, and fight for fairness. If you are a changer-of-the world looking for meaningful work that will feed your desire to make real change, public interest law is a path you should consider. Lewis & Clark Law School, located in Portland, Oregon, has one of the leading Public Interest Law programs in the country, making it a great place for aspiring public interest lawyers to get their start. Read the full article here.

3. Chariot: A New Women-Only Ridesharing Company Could Have Legal Issues

Uber (and its competitors) have certainly disrupted and innovated the transportation industry. But the reviews haven’t all been stellar–there have been multiple instances in which drivers have been accused of sexual assault. So, a new ride sharing company,Chariot for Women, is launching, with both women drivers and for women passengers. However, legal experts are concerned that the company may face legal challenges early on, on the grounds of discrimination. Read the full article here.

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

North Carolina has received a lot of ire over the passage of its anti-LGBT law; if you’re interested, check out fellow Law Streeter (and native North Carolinian) Alex Simone’s masterful takedown of the law. As a result of the new policies, multiple businesses are pulling out of North Carolina, performers are canceling their scheduled shows, and late night hosts are lampooning the state. The latest company to push back against North Carolina’s law? Porn site XHamster, which is blocking computers in North Carolina from accessing it.

XHamster is one of the largest porn sites in the world. According to the spokesperson for XHamster, Mike Kulich:

We have spent the last 50 years fighting for equality for everyone and these laws are discriminatory which XHamster.com does not tolerate. Judging by the stats of what you North Carolinians watch, we feel this punishment is a severe one. We will not standby and pump revenue into a system that promotes this type of garbage. We respect all sexualities and embrace them.

Kulich’s statement was a bit tongue-in-cheek–he pointed out that the search terms “gay” and “transsexual” had received tens of thousands queries in the state. Kulich also pointed out: “I think that porn has the power to do what Bruce Springsteen can’t”–a reference to the fact that Springsteen has cancelled a show in North Carolina.

According to Alexander D. Hawkins, Chief Marketing Officer at XHamster:

Some politicians won’t walk the walk they talk. All the fuss about moral values being destroyed by porn is ridiculous when checking the statistics on the porn consumption state-on-state, including North Carolina, Mississippi and Tennessee.

There are hypocrites who don’t practice what they preach. Respecting others (sic) sexuality may not come easy, but this is something we must all work together to address.

Users based in North Carolina who attempt to access the site will receive a pop up that lists the amount of searches for the terms “gay” and “shemale” in 2016, to date, as well as visits to those respective categories. The pop up is entitled “The Incredibly Hypocrisy of North Carolina: The Land Where Homophobia is Law.”

Ironically, some of the residents of North Carolina are totally fine with the porn site blockage, arguing that the “moral majority” supports Governor Pat McCrory.

North Carolina has been receiving plenty of criticism, and now some citizens are being punished by not being allowed to access their favorite porn site as well. So, what’s next for North Carolina? At this point, who knows. Maybe a great mock tourism video like this “Funny or Die” one for Mississippi:

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 Porn Site XHamster Blocks North Carolina in Light of H.B. 2 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Bruce Springsteen (@springsteen) April 9, 2016

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

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

— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) April 5, 2016

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

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

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

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

North Carolina just passed a ridiculous new law that makes it impossible for cities and towns in the state to pass their own anti-discrimination laws. North Carolina legislators called a special session this week just to pass this law, after the city council of Charlotte dared to vote for a local ordinance that would ban discrimination against LGBT individuals this February.

Of course, fear-mongering played a big role in why the North Carolina House and Senate were so desperate to pass this bill. One big sticking point was that Charlotte’s ordinance would allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender identity that they identify with. The popular and untrue reaction to relatively innocuous provisions like this around the country has been to raise the alarm that it will be used by “sexual predators” to prey on women and girls in bathrooms and locker rooms.

That claim is essentially an outright lie, as there’s no evidence to suggest that passing non-discrimination laws that allow transgender people to use the restroom that conforms to their gender identity leads to more sexual assaults. States and cities that have passed such provisions have not reported increased instances of sexual assault–police departments from various locales in Iowa, Hawaii, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Texas have all gone on the record to say so. According to Vincent Villano, the director of communications for the National Center for Transgender Equality, the organization:

Has not heard of a single instance of a transgender person harassing a non-transgender person in a public restroom. Those who claim otherwise have no evidence that this is true and use this notion to prey on the public’s stereotypes and fears about transgender people.

However, the legislators in North Carolina fell for the panic and decided to pass a law that not only ignores what the people of Charlotte want, but could actually cause issues for its schools and public buildings. As David A. Graham of the Atlantic put it:

The student-restroom laws raise other questions, such as how schools might seek to enforce then, and whether enforcement would make schools fall afoul of federal Title IX regulation and thus endanger federal funding. (It would be somewhat ironic if the state’s attempt to preempt cities was itself preempted by federal law.)

So, North Carolina’s reactionary new law accomplishes little besides making it harder to protect people from discrimination. That’s not really a legacy to be proud of.

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 North Carolina’s Reactionary New Anti-LGBT Law appeared first on Law Street.

The right to privacy has always weighed heavily in the legalization of abortion. In the landmark Roe v Wade (1973) decision, the Supreme Court granted women the right to an abortion  under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. But, on January 1, a new regulatory law passed in North Carolina. The law requires doctors to send the ultrasounds of women receiving abortions between the 16-20th week of their pregnancies to the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), as a way to ensure abortions happen before the 20th week of pregnancy. The law leaves the doctors responsible for leaving off the patient’s identifiable information. But those in opposition of the law question its purpose and criticize its breach of privacy.

Since abortion became legal in 1973, states have been tasked with a responsibility to balance the rights of women’s choices and the rights of potential human life. A spokesman for Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina suggests the new law protects women by ensuring medical professionals use proper safety precautions in procedures. However, at the same time it denies these women and their doctors privacy.

Many citizens of North Carolina feel betrayed by the bill because of a promise Governor McCrory made during his campaign. During a 2012 debate McCrory said he would not sign legislation on further abortion restrictions while governor. Yet, the new law also extends the waiting period for abortions from 24 hours to 72 hours.

Melissa Reed is president of Planned Parenthood Votes! South Atlantic, and has been vocal in opposition to this law. She contends that state officials already have access to ultrasounds and other patient statistical data through yearly inspections. That method of yearly inspections makes more sense than the law being enacted. Under the new law, the ultrasounds, along with the estimated gestational age, will be checked by a board certified obstetrician in the DHHS for compliance with the 20 week provision. Some tax payers don’t want state money to go to abortion, but they are instead now funding the paycheck of the person responsible for reviewing the ultrasounds of thousands of women.

People in support of the new legislation find solace in the protection of fetuses older than 20 weeks. The Daily Journal quotes Tami Fitzgerald, an anti abortion advocate in North Carolina, stating,

The whole purpose of this ultrasound provision is to be a check on the abortion industry to make sure they’re not violating the law and rights of these unborn babies that are older than 20 weeks to live.

Per the Supreme Court, states must weigh privacy against other legitimate interests–protecting women’s health and potential human life. But regulation on the part of protecting potential human life can be performed in a less abrasive way than mandating the collection of intimate health records. It undermines the privacy for which the Supreme Court granted protection to women for abortions in the first place.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina’s New Abortion Regulations are Fracturing Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

If you haven’t already heard, Deez Nuts–the independent candidate from Iowa–is polling at nine percent in North Carolina and close to that in other early primary states. Deez Nuts will obviously never be president, but a series of recent polls may highlight the issues with other, more ordinary polls when they are conducted so early on in an election cycle. While videos of news anchors attempting to seriously report the poll’s findings are certainly hilarious, Deez Nuts may tell us something deeper about polls in general.

But first, who is Deez Nuts and how did he manage to get on a poll like this in the first place? The poll featuring the illustrious Iowan Independent was conducted by Public Policy Polling (PPP), a liberal polling firm that produces polls for the public as well as its paying clients. After the poll’s results went viral, reporters finally started to ask the question: who is Deez Nuts? Deez Nuts, according to several media reports, is actually a 15-year-old boy from Iowa named Brady Olsen. While Olsen is two decades away from being constitutionally eligible to run for president, Deez Nuts has officially submitted a statement of candidacy with the Federal Elections Comission for the 2016 election. Jim Williams, a polling specialist at PPP, told the Daily Beast that his company received an email saying, “I’m Deez Nuts. I’m running. Here’s my filing statement. Would you poll me?” The company’s reasoning–according to its Twitter account–“YOLO.”

#YOLOhttps://t.co/p1aZw9wiCf

— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) August 21, 2015

This isn’t the first time PPP has run a rather eccentric poll. Public Policy Polling is also the company that compared Americans’ approval ratings of random things with their approval rating of Congress. This poll led to headlines like, “Congress is less popular than lice, colonoscopies and Nickelback.” The firm has also received a fair amount of scrutiny from the media for allegedly “herding” its poll results, which involves adjusting a poll’s findings to fit better with the results of other polls or the polling average. While PPP may have herded previous polls, it is (so far) the only firm to survey people about Mr. Nuts, so no polling average exists for comparison.

PPP conducted three surveys asking voters about Deez Nuts–whether they viewed him favorably and whether they would vote for him, Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump. Relative to the other two candidates, he polled at seven percent in Iowa, eight percent in Minnesota, and nine percent in North Carolina where Clinton and Trump received 38 and 40 percent respectively. Here are the results reported by ABC6 Columbus (yes, this was actually aired on TV):

#DeezNuts is a registered Pres candidate, and he’s gaining in polls (Yes you read that right) http://t.co/pTEkImqRPy pic.twitter.com/H2RJNyveIH — WSYX ABC 6 (@wsyx6) August 20, 2015

There are several potential reasons why North Carolina voters may have chosen Deez Nuts over the Democratic and Republican frontrunners. Some may not like the available selection of candidates, others may be dissatisfied with politics or both parties in general, and some may not be able to resist choosing Deez Nuts when asked who they would vote for. What is more important than the reasons behind this poll’s results, is the fact that people’s opinions will likely change a lot before primary elections and even more so before the general election. Among North Carolina voters, Deez Nuts has a six percent favorability rating, 13 percent view him unfavorably, and 81 are not sure.

While this poll was certainly fun, it does point to some potential drawbacks of early polls in general. When people know little about the candidates, name recognition–or in Mr. Nuts’ case, an unorthodox name–could be enough to inflate poll numbers, but as time goes on and people learn more about who the candidates are and what stand for, the poll results start to adjust. As the campaign continues, candidates may also get caught up in controversy or flat out embarrass themselves–causing their numbers to fall. What’s more, polls that take head-to-head matchups for a general election before the primary has even occurred, like PPP’s poll with Deez Nuts, do not provide much useful information the summer before an election year. For obvious reasons, giving three options from different parties more than a year before the election and several months before the primaries will not give a great picture of what the matchup actually looks like. As Danielle Kurtzleben from NPR puts it, “That might tell you a little bit about how the election would turn out if it were held today, but unless you’re reading this on Nov. 8, 2016, the election is not today.”

This is not to say that polls will never predict the outcome of an election well before people cast their votes, but accurate predictions generally come when candidates are established and already have other structural advantages–for example a president running for reelection or a sitting vice president will already have high polling numbers among members of his or her own party well before the primary. Put simply, it’s not the fact that someone is polling well, rather the reasons behind it that determine the likelihood that they will win the election. Early polls can be accurate, but in these cases you often don’t need a poll to tell you a candidate is popular. PPP’s Deez Nuts poll made for some great headlines and some early election fun, but it also shows the importance of looking at a poll and the questions that it asked before you draw your own conclusions.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post What Can we Learn from Deez Nuts? appeared first on Law Street.

You may have noticed lately that the prices at your local grocery store have been going up, and we tend to chalk it up to many things: rising gas prices, season, time of the month, or even the moon. Many of us will even pay more to shop in certain stores. When you think of grocery stores that cost a little for the ambience, you might think of Whole Foods. Just last week, the upscale grocery chain hit a rough patch when it was discovered that it has been overcharging its customers by a lot–and it has created problems for the grocery giant.

The Problem With Whole Foods

New York City’s Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) is investigating the grocery chain for “systemic overcharging for pre-packaged foods” that affected several branches of the store. It was something that they had been monitoring for a long time, and had even warned the stores about; however, they found on multiple trips that there were many problems and incorrect markings.

Some of these problems were outlined in the DCA’s report, including packages that were labeled with heavier weights than they actually were:

• Vegetable platters that were priced at about $20 a package. The packages were all different sizes, averaging about $2.50 over. One package in particular was overpriced by a whopping $6.15.
• Chicken tenders, a staple in many households, were priced at about $9.99 per pound, but were marked up by an average of $4.13.
• Berries, currently in season, were priced at $8.58 a package, but customers were overcharged by $1.15.

These charges were widespread, and though they may only look like a few dollars, they likely added up quickly over time. The DCA concluded that “New York City stores routinely overstated the weights of its pre-packaged products — including meats, dairy and baked goods — resulting in customers being overcharged.”

However, Whole Foods spokesman Michael Sinatra says that the DCA hasn’t actually confronted the store:

Despite our requests to the DCA, they have not provided evidence to back up their demands nor have they requested any additional information from us, but instead have taken this to the media to coerce us.

This isn’t the first time this has happened. Just last year, Whole Foods had to pay an $800,000 fine in California for overcharging customers. So what can we do about this problem?

Rising Prices

The prices of different foods aren’t set by the government, like many think, but instead are a result of supply and demand. While the U.S. government does track prices, they are instead set by the wholesalers and growers of food.

One of the biggest causes of rising grocery costs is the prevalence of drought throughout the United States, especially in California. Drought affects everything from the crops that need water to survive to the cows that eat the grass. However, what the government can do is make sure that grocery stores are truthful when it comes to what they charge–and they can penalize those who don’t fall in line. In fact, that is exactly what they did to Whole Foods, which was fined “$950 for the first violation and up to $1,700 for a subsequent violation. The potential number of violations that Whole Foods faces for all pre-packaged goods in the NYC stores is in the thousands.”

Other Issues

Think the problem of overcharging is limited to just Whole Foods? There are a litany of other offenses that grocery stores have committed. In 2012, the Los Angeles Superior Court handed out a settlement of $1.1 million from Ralphs Grocery Co. because it overcharged its customers at the deli stand.

Some states, like North Carolina, allow for a small over- or under- charge on deli or weighted items. North Carolina allows a 5 percent discrepancy, but that hasn’t stopped the problem of overcharging. In fact, since November 2014, nine stores were fined by the state, including Dollar General, CVS, Target, and Walgreens, according to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

What Can You Do?

Apart from reporting any discrepancies that you think you see to the management of your local grocer, what are some of the things that you can do to keep yourself from being taken advantage of?

There are multiple things you can do to check whether or not you are being charged too much at the grocery store. The New York Department of Consumer Affairs suggests checking your receipt for what can and cannot be taxed. They even offer a quick link to a hot list of items that can be taxed.

The Today Show, which did a whole segment on the charges, suggests that you should actually weigh items yourself just to make sure. Most grocery stores will have electronic scales that are fairly easy to work and will help you out. They also suggest that you should make sure you are paying for the things you actually get, and not things like ice on frozen fish or packaging.

Another suggestion is that instead of focusing on getting your money ready or looking at the candy bar display, you should watch as the cashier rings up your food items. You will catch many mistakes that way, and often they will be corrected without a fight.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, grocery stores are in the same market that everyone else is in: they want to make money. While there are governmental teams out there that can help with these problems, it is largely up to consumers to make sure that everything’s kosher.

When you are at the grocery store, try to be present and pay attention to the things you are purchasing. Understand that sometimes prices will rise and fall, but they should always be around the same price. Don’t be afraid to ask workers if something seems off, as you might just save yourself a few bucks and the company thousands in fines.

Resources

CNN: Whole Foods Accused of Massive Overcharging

New York City Consumer Affairs: Department of Consumer Affairs Investigation Uncovers Systemic Overcharging for Pre-packaged Foods at City’s Whole Foods

Salon: Whole Foods is Ripping You Off (And it Has Been For Years)

Amarillo Globe-News: Several Factors Determine Food Prices at Grocery Stores

Class Action: Court Hands Victory to Workers in Wage and Hour Lawsuit

Fox News: New York City Says Whole Foods is Overcharging Customers

Journal Sentinel: State Fines Four Stores For Overcharging Customers

NY Eatery: City Sting Reveals Whole Foods Has Been Overcharging New Yorkers Since 2010

,Today Show: Not Just Whole Foods: Beware Supermarket Overcharges

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Your Grocery Bill Breaking the Bank? It’s Not Just Whole Foods appeared first on Law Street.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision is a victory for women’s rights, reproductive rights proponents, and physicians. It’s also a failure for hypocritical, radically immoral Republican men in North Carolina.

The court decided today to avoid reviewing a law that would force doctors to show and describe a fetal ultrasound to a patient immediately before an abortion, even if she resists. A U.S. District Judge previously struck down the law in 2014 for violating the First Amendment, but state officials filed an appeal to overturn this decision. The law was again branded unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In March of this year, North Carolina officials petitioned the Supreme Court in the hopes that the highest court would uphold their woman-hating law. Luckily, SCOTUS has better cases to review than this one, so the previous decisions to reject the law stand.

What’s so disturbing about the ultrasound law is that it symbolizes the too-widely-accepted belief that women are not able to make informed decisions about their own bodies. Lawmakers in North Carolina argued that this law was a protective measure under the umbrella of “informed consent” and that the law simply ensured that women made a “mature and informed” choice about the matter. But forcing doctors to deliver anti-abortion messages on behalf of the state, even when a woman does not agree to hear the information, isn’t consent.

The law used very detailed language that legally bound physicians to tell their patients about alternative options to abortion, such as “keeping the baby or placing the baby for adoption.” It also forced doctors to place the ultrasound image in front of the woman’s face and describe the “anatomical and physiological characteristics” to the patient before permitting an abortion. The law applied to women who were survivors of rape and incest, and those who discovered severe fetal abnormalities. Even more frustrating is the lawmakers’ incorrect assumption that women are inherently uninformed. Sixty-one percent of abortions are undertaken by women who already have one or more child, so they aren’t naïve about the implications of pregnancy or the responsibilities of parenthood. They don’t need the “help” of male lawmakers telling them that their decisions are invalid.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit included the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Last year, they argued in their brief that the law:

Commandeers unwilling physicians to use their own voice and expressive conduct to communicate the state’s message against abortion.

The brief further argued that:

It commandeers physicians to convey this message in a uniquely intrusive way — during a medical procedure while the patient is vulnerable and disrobed on an examination table with an ultrasound probe inside or on her.

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny another review of this law may be a victory today, but there are more anti-abortion laws making headlines that the justices will likely have to address soon. For example, an abortion regulation law in Mississippi threatens to close the last abortion clinic in the state. In a similar vein, a Texas regulation currently making its way through the legal system requires clinics to meet the same building equipment and staffing standards that hospitals must meet, reducing the number of abortion clinics in the state. The Texas law is particularly concerning, as it will cause nearly one million women of reproductive age to live more than 150 miles from an abortion clinic, making abortions even more inaccessible to women of limited income or those who have no disposable time to travel the obscenely long distances to a clinic in order to have the procedure.

Reproductive rights are women’s rights, not North Carolinian, lawmaking men’s rights. I’m glad to see that the Supreme Court, if even just passively, recognizes that.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thanks SCOTUS: A Victory for Reproductive Rights appeared first on Law Street.

The North Carolina House of Representatives voted to override Governor Pat McCrory’s veto of Senate Bill 2 on Thursday, a move that will allow officials to abstain from performing marriages that conflict with their beliefs. Magistrates may now refuse to perform marriages and deed registrars can refuse to issue certificates for couples if they have a “sincerely held religious objection.”

Both the senate and the house voted to override the governor’s veto in the last two weeks, making the bill North Carolina law. Under the new law, once a magistrate claims a religious objection he or she cannot perform marriages for a six-month period, after which the district court judge may allow them to resume their duties.

McCrory vetoed the bill following a district court ruling earlier this year that struck down North Carolina’s Amendment 1, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. After the court’s ruling, McCrory vowed to uphold the decision despite his personal opinions of the issue. In a statement shortly before his recent veto, he said,

Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2.

Some citizens and members of the state senate disagree with McCrory’s stance. Senate Leader Phil Berger commented that “if someone takes a job, they don’t park their First Amendment rights at the door. They are entitled to exercise those rights.”

The law stirred up controversy over the intersection of personal religious beliefs and the rights of LGBT citizens. Supporters of marriage equality point to the law as another way to set up roadblocks for same-sex couples. In the time leading up to an important Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, North Carolinians who support gay marriage accuse the state legislature of preemptively seeking loopholes.

Despite some media coverage, the law is not as radical as opponents may claim, especially because it states that all couples who are issued a marriage license will be given a magistrate to marry them. This means that same-sex couples will still be granted licenses, but individual magistrates may now claim an exemption from the process. This law is not as expansive as some other religious liberty laws, such as Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which saw a significant backlash after its passage. North Carolina’s law places the burden on individual magistrates to claim an objection then wait the six-month period before performing marriages, rather than allowing for blanket exceptions.

Although this law likely will not hinder same-sex marriages in North Carolina, the message and precedent behind it are still important. Allowing public officials  to exempt themselves from laws that bind other citizens is a complicated issue. But as McCrory and Berger’s opinions reveal, there is a significant divide among people over the supremacy of religious beliefs. It makes sense, as Governor McCrory stated, to require public officials to fulfill their sworn duties regardless of their personal opinions. Even in the strongest religious liberty protections, a “compelling government interest” can supersede religion. Although it is seen as one of the strongest and most unalienable rights, religious liberty–both in the courts and in the legislature–has never had supreme authority. The question then remains: where does personal freedom end and civic duty begin? That debate is far from decided.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Will Same-Sex Couples Be Affected by North Carolina’s Newest Law? appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) just announced that they’re not playing nice with climate change-deniers anymore. FEMA has officially proclaimed that unless states create plans that consider how to combat climate change, they may not be eligible for disaster preparedness funds from the agency.

The new FEMA guidelines acknowledge the problems that have come or may develop from climate changes, including things like more intense storms, heat waves, drought, and flooding. Given that all of those are situations in which states often turn to FEMA for funding and assistance, the agency is asking that when making their disaster preparedness plans, states “assess vulnerability, identify a strategy to guide decisions and investments, and implement actions that will reduce risk, including impacts from a changing climate.”

It’s important to note that this change won’t affect how much aid FEMA will give to states affected by natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, and hurricanes. That’s called disaster relief, and it’s not part of this change. Rather, if states don’t provide adequate hazard-mitigation plans that acknowledge climate change and its effects, it will withhold the funds for that disaster preparedness. These funds are used for things like training and purchasing equipment. Overall, FEMA gives out grants of this sort that total about $1 billion each year.

This creates a big political problem for some of America’s most visible and prominent Republican governors, many of whom have long either advocated that climate change is not a product of human activity, or that it’s simply not happening. Deniers who are now on the chopping block include Governors Rick Scott (Florida), Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), Chris Christie (New Jersey), Greg Abbott (Texas), and Pat McCrory (North Carolina).

Jindal and Christie have, at the very least, been floated in talks about possible 2016 Republican contenders. Ironically, Louisiana gets the most disaster preparedness money and New Jersey comes in at number three, so Jindal and Christie, as well as the other Republican governors who deny climate change, are faced with an interesting catch-22. They can either sign off on plans that comply with FEMA regulations and lose some political clout among the conservatives they may have to woo in a presidential primary, or refuse to acknowledge climate change and lose funding that their states probably need.

This policy shift comes amid many debates happening around the country over how states should individually handle climate change. There are allegations that in Florida, for example, there’s an “unofficial policy” to not use the words climate change, even when discussing the phenomenon and its effects.

No matter what, this is certainly a bold move on FEMA’s part, and shows that politics can’t always take the front seat when it comes to safety. FEMA is making a move that it thinks will help mitigate the results of climate change–if it ruffles a few political feathers in the meantime, so be it.

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 FEMA to States: Recognize Climate Change or Lose Funding appeared first on Law Street.

Like anything with a life, survival is a germ’s end game. When it faces a challenge, it will adapt. Some germs adapt alarmingly well to the challenge of modern medicine. They’re called superbugs because they’ve evolved to survive the challenges we throw at them, including antibiotics.

Do we have a counterattack against these superbugs? Let’s find out.

Superbugs in the News

Superbugs have been making headlines lately. Here’s what’s happening in case you missed it.

CRE Outbreaks

CRE stands for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, a type of bacteria resistant to carbapenem antibiotics. CRE resists nearly all antibiotics and can cause death in about 50 percent of infected patients because most people who become infected are already sick and have weakened immunity. Most recently, CRE killed two people in an outbreak at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles and one person in a Charlotte, North Carolina hospital.

A duodenoscope, a device that drains fluids from the pancreatic and biliary ducts, stands out as the main suspect in the UCLA outbreak. Duodenoscopes probe the body, making infection easier for hitchhiking germs, especially superbugs like CRE. The particular duodenoscope implicated in the UCLA outbreak boasts an intricate design that unfortunately makes it difficult to clean properly even through reprocessing, the multi-step sanitation process designed for reusable devices. So this particular model of duodenoscope picked up some potent CRE that withstood reprocessing and infected several patients.

C.difficile Infections on the Rise

C. difficile infections happen when the harmful bacterium Clostridium difficile (C.diff) overpowers the otherwise harmless and helpful bacteria living in the intestines. Antibiotics kill bacteria, including the good kind that help fight off C.diff, so sick people who have taken antibiotics for long periods of time become especially vulnerable to C.diff. Since C.diff resists antibiotics, once good bacteria succumbs, zero defenses stand between it and the multiplication that causes deadly intestinal infections. C.diff preys on the sick and spreads wildly through hospitals. It ranks as one of the three most common infections acquired in hospitals and still cases are growing. Confirmed C. difficile infections doubled from 2000-2009 according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In Short, Superbugs Threaten Hospitals

As you can see from the cases above, superbugs thrive in hospitals where sick people with weakened immune systems squeeze together in close contact. Our usual sanitation tricks don’t stop them. Even when healthcare workers practice sanitation that could kill the flu virus, these superbugs stick around, hiding out in bathrooms, hospital beds, and on medical equipment. Since superbugs resist antibiotics, once the inevitable infection does occur, it’s extremely hard to fight and could lead to death. For example, CRE kills almost half the people it infects.

Public health officials working on the UCLA outbreak have sprung to action to contain the spread. They’re finding people who might have been exposed to CRE via use of the potentially faulty duodenoscope. They’ve issued warnings about the devices so other hospitals don’t run into similar problems.

But after two deaths in California and one in North Carolina in 2015 so far, many have asked: how can we prevent superbug outbreaks in the first place?

Preventing Superbug Outbreaks

To fight superbugs, experts recommend combating the antibiotic resistance that produced them in the first place, becoming better at monitoring and controlling them, and developing innovative techniques for prevention and control.

Combating Antibiotic Resistance

The CDC’s report Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013, inspired government action that fights the antibiotic resistance that produces threats likes superbugs. Their recommendations include prevention, tracking, changing antibiotic use, and developing new drugs and diagnostics.

In actual practice, the CDC has encouraged hospital antibiotic stewardship programs, which combat overprescribing and incorrect prescribing of antibiotic drugs. The programs push for evidence-based assurance that antibiotics are necessary and effective for the condition in question. For example, in antibiotic “time-outs,” doctors revisit the need for antibiotics after receiving diagnostic lab results. Often antibiotics are prescribed as a precaution while waiting for medical tests, but this practice encourages doctors to reassess the need for the drugs with medical test results in hand. These programs are voluntary, and so far California is the only state that requires antibiotic stewardship programs by law. Experts, including President Obama’s science advisers, are pushing to make stewardship programs a requirement for hospitals and nursing homes that want to receive Medicare payments.

Additionally, President Obama’s FY 2016 budget shoots to double federal spending to fight antibiotic resistance that would help move the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria along.

Read More: Are We Doing Enough to Prevent Antibiotic Resistance?

Monitoring the Spread of Superbugs

Tracking is crucial to understanding where superbug infections might happen and what efforts might be needed to control them.

One recommended control measure requires all patients admitted to hospitals be screened for CRE. CRE squats in the guts of many people, but only creates problems when they’re weakened by sickness or too many antibiotics. Knowing who carries CRE would help control potential problems before they happen.

In terms of general tracking, there’s no requirement that state health agencies track and monitor antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but luckily, many of them do. According to an Association of State and Territorial Health Officials survey of antibiotic resistance-related state health agency activity, about half of them collect surveillance data about occurring infections. Federal requirements could lead to all states performing valuable surveillance activities.

Implementing Innovative Practices

Superbugs challenge our sanitation practices and antibiotic use. The race is on to develop new techniques to fight them so we can replenish our defenses instead of relying on old practices. Here are a few new interventions considered for fighting superbugs. Warning…don’t read this while eating.

• Fecal transplants: Nope, that’s not a typo. This procedure is exactly what it sounds like. Fecal matter is collected from an ideal donor and placed into the gut of another individual whose population of good bacteria might have been compromised through antibiotic use. In the case of C.diff, a fecal transplant can replace good bacteria that keep infection at bay. It might seem strange, but the procedure has proven 90 percent effective at curing C.diff infections. These unorthodox transplants work better than many other cures.
• Sanitizing robots: A concentrated hydrogen peroxide solution poses a threat to superbugs. It can be toxic to humans, so at Johns Hopkins University Hospital they’ve enlisted impervious robots to help them sanitize hospital rooms. After a human technician seals the room, a bot blasts the air with 35 percent hydrogen peroxide solution that reaches every inch of the room, even cracks and crevices. A second bot dries up the room so no residue remains. This results in a completely pristine hospital room, medical equipment and all.

• New antibiotics and alternative therapies: Superbugs grow accustomed to existing drugs and we haven’t created new ones that shock their systems. This is partly because 99 percent of living species (plants and fungi) that produce promising new antibiotics will not grow in lab conditions. If they can’t grow in a lab, scientists can’t study them to make them into medicine. Recently, scientists tapped into this 99 percent horde of potential antibiotics by tricking the microbes into thinking they were in a natural environment by stuffing dirt in between two membranes. The extracted antibiotic is known as Teixobactin and has proved successful in battling antibiotic resistant MRSA and TB in mice. It hasn’t been tried on humans yet, but the methods scientists used to grow “ungrowable” cultures in laboratory conditions hold promise for the future.

Antibiotics are also overused in agriculture to treat animals raised in conditions that lead to persistent infection. Hyun Lillehoj, an avian immunologist at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, has discovered promising new treatments for diseases affecting poultry that would render antibiotics unnecessary. She’s found promise in using food supplements, probiotics, and phytochemicals to enhance a bird’s natural immunity and ward off infection in the first place.

On a sweeter note, Lund University found promise in the lactic acid bacteria hiding in honey bee stomachs. Lactic acid bacteria contains antimicrobial properties and has proven effective in fighting resistant MRSA. Honey processing kills the good bacteria, so store-bought honey has no antibiotic properties. The researchers reintroduced the natural bacteria into honey and used it on horse wounds. All horses were healed when no other antibiotics or steroids had worked.

Legal Challenges of Superbugs

Superbugs involve a liability hotbed because they’re changing the rules. Healthcare professionals adhere to strict rules and protocols proven to prevent the spread of infection. Unfortunately, following those rules doesn’t prevent the spread of infection from superbugs. So when something goes wrong, who is liable? The new proliferation of superbugs presents a legal problem without precedence. Courts will look at whether a hospital has taken reasonable actions to promote safety, unfortunately with a lack of history in the case of antibiotic resistance laws, what actions might be considered reasonable are not yet clear. Upcoming decisions might afford more clarity.

California Congressman Ted W. Lieu requested a hearing from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (OGR) to discuss the sterilization issues with duodenoscope that led to the UCLA CRE outbreak. Family members of affected patients are also filing suits against the manufacturer of the duodenoscope that led to their infections, citing grievances like negligence and fraud. Decisions in these cases could influence future arguments.

Are superbugs under control?

As alarming as recent superbug growth might be, so far the situation is under control. However, the outbreak and C.diff growth calls attention to the need to prepare our defenses for the growing threat of superbugs. Antibiotic resistant germs prey on the weak, making hospitals and nursing homes vulnerable targets for devastation.

The government and medical professionals have jumped on the case with their efforts to combat antibiotic resistance, stop the spread of superbugs, and develop new treatments. While antibiotic resistance presents a challenge, consider how antibiotics themselves have been around for less than a hundred years. While their invention was considered a medical miracle, we surely have more miracles up our sleeves to get past this new challenge.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Lethal, Drug-Resistant Bacteria Spreading in U.S. Healthcare Facilities

FDA: Design of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Duodenoscopes May Impede Effective Cleaning

U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health: Clostridium Difficile Infection: New Insights Into Management

CDC: Vital Signs: Preventing Clostridium Difficile Infections

California Department of Public Health: The California Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Initiative

CDC: Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship Programs

USDA ARS: Alternatives to Antibiotics in Animal Health

Additional

Network for Public Health Law: Superbug Prevention and Hospital Liability

Kaiser: UCLA Bacteria Outbreak Highlights the Challenges of Curbing Infections

USA Today: Dangerous Infections Now Spreading Outside Hospitals

International Business Times: Drug-Resistant Bacteria A ‘National Security Risk’

US News & World Report: Patients File Lawsuit Against Medical Scope Maker in Hospital Superbug Infection

Washington Post: New Class of Antibiotic Found in Dirt Could Prove Resistant to Resistance

CNN: Superbug Cases Reported in North Carolina; One Dead

Food Safety News: The Search For Alternatives to Antibiotics

Food Safety News: White House Wants to Nearly Double Funding for Antibiotic Resistance Fight

Nature: A New Antibiotic Kills Pathogens Without Detectable Resistance

ASTHO: State Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Superbugs: How to Fight the Evolving Menaces appeared first on Law Street.

Crime and weird news ruled the news last week. A new interactive map from writer Law Street’s crime editor Kevin Rizzo made waves across the internet as it allows you to visualize where crime in the United States is getting better or worse. Definitely check that out! The number two story, from Anneliese Mahoney, brings yoga pants back into the news as Montana lawmakers continue their quest to outlaw the comfortable clothing in public spaces. And finally the third most popular post came from writer Marisa Mostek with her weekly look at the dumbest laws across the country, this time focusing in on the Virginias and the Carolinas. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Interactive Crime Map: Is Your City Getting Safer or More Dangerous?

As reported in Law Street’s comprehensive annual crime rankings, Crime in America 2015, violent crime across the United States continued its downward trend according to the latest figures reported by the FBI. Curious to know how your hometown stacks up against the rest of the country? Check out the interactive map below for yourself to see if your city is getting safer or more dangerous according to the latest data. Read full article here.

#2 Just Relax: Montana Lawmaker Attempts to Ban Yoga Pants

A proposed bill that would ban yoga pants in Montana has been tabled, eliciting joy from practitioners, women who like to be comfy, and rational human beings everywhere. If you’ve never worn yoga pants before (or their closely related cousin the leggings) they’re basically like wearing a hug on your legs. But not everyone is that happy with yoga pants, because they tend to conform to our bodies, apparently rendering them a scourge to society that needs to be outlawed. Read full article here.

#3 Dumbest Laws in the United States: The Virginias and the Carolinas

This week, the dumb laws blog will focus on two sets of neighboring states: Virginia and West Virginia and North and South Carolina. What do railroad companies and Sundays have in common? South Carolina has dumb laws pertaining to both seemingly unrelated things, as it turns out. On Sundays in South Carolina, you won’t be able to go dancing, as dance halls may not operate on that day of the week. Also on Sundays in South Carolina, you cannot do any work. It is the day of rest after all. If you wish to spend your day off playing an instrument, make sure you buy one before Sunday, as they are banned from being sold then. It makes sense, if you think about it–since work on Sunday is prohibited, who would be working at the musical instrument store? Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

This week, the dumb laws blog will focus on two sets of neighboring states: Virginia and West Virginia and North and South Carolina.

What do railroad companies and Sundays have in common? South Carolina has dumb laws pertaining to both seemingly unrelated things, as it turns out. On Sundays in South Carolina, you won’t be able to go dancing, as dance halls may not operate on that day of the week. Also on Sundays in South Carolina, you cannot do any work. It is the day of rest after all. If you wish to spend your day off playing an instrument, make sure you buy one before Sunday, as they are banned from being sold then. It makes sense, if you think about it–since work on Sunday is prohibited, who would be working at the musical instrument store?

There is a surprisingly large number of laws dedicated to the regulation of railroads in the Palmetto state. In some cases there, railroad companies may be held liable for scaring horses, so hopefully conductors steer clear of skittish steeds. That may be a difficult feat, however, considering that by law, railroads must exist in towns of more than 500 people. Men also must be 100 percent sure about marriage before popping the question, because if an unmarried man promises to wed an unmarried woman, they legally must follow through.

South Carolina’s neighbor to the north has some pretty dumb laws as well. If you can somehow get around federal and state laws prohibiting you from possessing illegal substances, you must pay taxes on them in North Carolina. Yes, I’m sure that everyone with drugs in that state will make that fact known and pay taxes on them. Logical, North Carolina, so logical. Speaking of taxes, a three dollar tax must be paid on all white goods sold. Perhaps that includes sugar, white shirts, milk, you name it. If I ever buy something in North Carolina I’ll definitely stick to colored things.

Bingo in the Tar Heel state must have gotten a bit out of hand in the past, as now there is a law dictating that the game may not last over five hours unless it is held at a fair. Furthermore, serving alcohol at bingo games is strictly prohibited. Residents also take meetings very, very seriously. Even if one is held on Halloween, organizations may not hold their meetings while the members present are in costume.

Virginia cops must have a difficult time deciphering if someone is speeding or not, as radar detectors are illegal there. And even those in a consensual relationship, no matter how long they’ve been in it, cannot have sex by Virginia law, which limits sexual relations to married couples. Even married couples, however, are prevented from having oral or anal sex.

Hunting laws in Virginia are strict when it comes to every animal, stating that none except raccoons may be hunted on Sunday. Hunters have to cancel their raccoon hunting trip if they occur late at night, as hunting the furry bandits is only legal until 2:00 a.m. It’s good that Virginia law takes serious measures to prevent kids potentially drowning in private pools, but this state takes it to the extreme. In the city of Frederick, any pool owner risks a $2,500 fine for not closing the gate to the pool when they finish swimming in it.

I’m not entirely sure why someone would WANT to own a skunk as a pet, but doing so is illegal in Prince William County, Virginia, just in case. Another strange law there is one banning swearing about someone else in his or her presence. Hey, maybe that area of Virginia just wants people to be nice to each other.

West Virginia had many stupid laws prior to 2010, when a good portion of them were repealed. These repealed laws include ones fining people who wear hats inside theaters and individuals who commit adultery. Also repealed was a law stating that any “unmarried couple who live together and ‘lewdly associate’ with one another may face up to a year in prison.”

As far as current stupid laws go, West Virginia still has plenty. For example, just like Virginia, West Virginia has a law pertaining to swearing. There, if you swear in public, you will be fined one dollar. Also, if you are feeling hungry and see some roadkill that looks tasty, go ahead and take it home for dinner. Doing so is completely legal in West Virginia.

Phew, so many stupid laws, so little time. On to the next part of the United States!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws in the United States: The Virginias and the Carolinas appeared first on Law Street.

By now we have all heard about the heart-wrenching news that three young people have been killed in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The three were Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23; Yusor Mohammad, 21; and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19. Barakat was a student at the University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, and his wife, Yusor Mohammad was to begin her studies there this year. Her younger sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, was a student at North Carolina State University in nearby Raleigh. They were shot by a man named Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, who is now in police custody.

Victims’ dad says he believes students’ deaths in #ChapelHillshooting are hate crimes. http://t.co/EdxTgmcPEM#wralpic.twitter.com/sRCQxU5lGR

— WRAL NEWS in NC (@WRAL) February 11, 2015

Here’s a picture of Barakat and Mohammad at their recent wedding:

God willing they will spend eternity together #ChapelHillShootingpic.twitter.com/k08A1LHxgm

— rabia chaudry (@rabiasquared) February 11, 2015

The motive of the attack isn’t known yet–police are saying that it might have been over some parking spots. Others, including the family members of the slain, are concerned it was a hate crime. Some are saying that it was terrorism.

I don’t know exactly what happened, and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise. That being said, I’m not surprised by this news. Horrified, sure. Disgusted, absolutely. Incredibly saddened, of course. Surprised? Not at all.

This is what happens when we take an entire group of people and stereotype, demean, and dehumanize them for years and years. When we make them the bogeymen for our problems. When we associate them with people who do horrible things just because they happen to share a religion. We use violent rhetoric, and then we’re supposed to be surprised when there’s a violent result.

What violent rhetoric am I talking about? Here are some examples, but they’re only examples–this is by no means anywhere near a full list.

From Fox New’s “Outnumbered:”

The quote that stuck out to me was Andrea Tantaros saying:

If you study the history of Islam. Our ship captains were getting murdered. The French had to tip us off. I mean these were the days of Thomas Jefferson. They’ve been doing the same thing. This isn’t a surprise. You can’t solve it with a dialogue. You can’t solve it with a summit. You solve it with a bullet to the head. Its the only thing these people understand. And all we’ve heard from this president is a case to heap praise on this religion, as if to appease them.

You read that right: “You solve it with a bullet to the head.” Furthermore look at the language she uses…”these people”….”this religion.” This is a piece on ISIS, yes, but it’s one that’s not careful about making any sort of distinctions. “This religion” refers to Islam as a whole, make no mistake.

Or how about the time that Joe Walsh, a man who was actually elected to the United States Congress said that “One thing I’m sure of is that there are people in this country – there is a radical strain of Islam in this country -– it’s not just over there –- trying to kill Americans every week.” Again, there’s a clear message here–Muslims are trying to kill people. There’s no distinction here–Walsh is basically saying that every single one of the roughly three million Muslims in the United States are out to get anyone who adheres to a different religion.

Or what about the time Sean Hannity compared the Qur’an to Mein Kampf?

Muslim extremists exist, of course, but to use violent rhetoric in reference to all Muslims is as inaccurate as it is reprehensible. But that’s exactly why I’m not surprised–if you are constantly inundated by media and leaders who treat a segment of the population as less than, it’s easy to internalize that misinformation as fact.

I’m not necessarily saying that Hicks committed a hate crime–his family keeps repeating that it was over a parking dispute. But it seems incredibly likely–after all the definition of a hate crime is pretty broad. As CNN’s legal analyst Sunny Hostin points out: “To qualify as a hate crime, all that matters is that the crime was motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias.” Evidence has come out that Hicks was a militant atheist, and that he often decried religion. Again, I don’t know what happened here. But calling it a hate crime, in today’s environment of vitriol, doesn’t seem like it’s too much of a stretch. When there’s so much hate, it’s very hard to imagine that said hate plays no part.

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 Chapel Hill Shooting: An Environment of Hate appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has an exciting new term ahead of it, and today’s case is no exception. This week the justices will hear arguments in Heien vs. North Carolina, a case that at its core poses one very simple question: should police officers be held to a higher standard? It’s a timely question, given the events of this summer, and one whose answer may hold some interesting ramifications.

In 2009, a man named Nicholas Heien was with another man who was driving his car in North Carolina when he was pulled over for having a busted tail light. Officers ended up searching the car — which belonged to Heien — and discovering a relatively substantial amount of cocaine. Heien was arrested and charged with drug trafficking.

Now under North Carolina law, if Heien was pulled over because he was breaking a law, and the subsequent search yielded the cocaine discovery, that would have been legal. The problem is that he wasn’t actually breaking a law when he was pulled over — technically, as long as you have one functioning tail light, you’re operating within the law in North Carolina. The officer who pulled him over was simply wrong about the law.

The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches are lawful — and there’s significant evidence to suggest that the search of Heien’s car was not. There needs to be reasonable suspicion that a law has been violated in order to conduct that search. A non-functioning brake light, which is not even illegal, is simply not enough.

Heien lost his original trial. He then won an appeals case, but lost in the North Carolina State Supreme Court. The case will now be making its way to the Supreme Court, which will have to figure out whether the North Carolina Supreme Court made the right decisions saying that Heien’s arrest was fair, even though the cop who pulled him over was ignorant of the laws in the state in which he worked.

The State Supreme Court held that requiring officers to be walking encyclopedias of the states’ laws is ridiculous and creates much higher standards than the Fourth Amendment mandates. But the dissenters pointed out that allowing that kind of subjectivity could create a sort of slippery slope. In the dissent, Justice Robin Hudson wrote:

The danger in adopting a new constitutional rule here is that this particular case seems so innocuous: Of course it is reasonable that an officer would pull over a vehicle for a malfunctioning brake light. But this new constitutional rule will also apply in the next case, when the officer acts based on a misreading of a less innocuous statute, or an incorrect memo or training program from the police department, or his or her previous law enforcement experience in a different state, or his or her belief in a nonexistent law.

Then there’s the context of this August to discuss. The events in Ferguson propelled a national dialogue, one that was opened by stop-and-frisk laws, militarization of our police departments, and dozens of other issues around the country about the power of our police departments. Obviously, none of these examples are about the same kind of issue — the cops in Heien’s case obviously did not shoot anyone. But it does hark back to that question: what leniency do we give to our cops?

In the United States, not knowing a law is no excuse for breaking it. Should not knowing it also be an excuse for incorrectly enforcing it? Now, that’s up to the Supreme Court to decide.

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 Police Decisions Up for Debate in Today’s SCOTUS Case appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/police-decisions-debate-todays-scotus-case/feed/ 0 26197 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/us-attorney-offices-slammed-by-shutdown/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/us-attorney-offices-slammed-by-shutdown/#respond Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:21:02 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=5221

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

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

]]>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

Featured image courtesy of [OnceAndFutureLaura via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/us-attorney-offices-slammed-by-shutdown/feed/ 0 5221 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/massdep-fines-n-c-company-40k-for-environmental-violations-in-leominster/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/massdep-fines-n-c-company-40k-for-environmental-violations-in-leominster/#respond Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:26:24 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=1999

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has issued a $40,000 penalty to South/Win Ltd. of North Carolina to settle environmental violations discovered following a 12,000-gallon methanol release in Leominster. The spill occurred at the South/Win’s Nashua Street location where windshield cleaner and other automotive consumer products are produced. Company employees discovered an apparent leak […]

The post MassDEP Fines N.C. Company $40K for Environmental Violations in Leominster appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has issued a $40,000 penalty to South/Win Ltd. of North Carolina to settle environmental violations discovered following a 12,000-gallon methanol release in Leominster.

The spill occurred at the South/Win’s Nashua Street location where windshield cleaner and other automotive consumer products are produced.

Company employees discovered an apparent leak from a hose line used to transfer methanol from railcars to the building on March 7, 2011. A backflow valve apparently failed, discharging 12,000 gallons of methanol to the rail bed.

For a spill of this magnitude, notification to MassDEP is required within two hours of discovery; assessment and cleanup should begin immediately. The company did not notify MassDEP until March 10, and also did not hire an environmental contractor to conduct the cleanup until that date.

[Banker & Tradesman]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Paul-W via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post MassDEP Fines N.C. Company $40K for Environmental Violations in Leominster appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/massdep-fines-n-c-company-40k-for-environmental-violations-in-leominster/feed/ 0 1999