An Arkansas man has been arrested for allegedly driving his car into a Ten Commandments monument at the state Capitol early Wednesday morning. Interestingly, this is the second time that Michael Tate Reed, 32, has been arrested for driving into a religious monument. The last time was in 2014, when he ran over another Ten Commandments display at the Oklahoma State Capitol. That time he said Satan made him do it and he reportedly threatened to kill President Obama.

But Reed seems to be non-partisan–he also recently threatened President Trump on social media. He had also planned for the event by creating a GoFundMe page, with which he hoped to raise enough money to replace his car. Around 5 a.m. on Wednesday, Reed drove his car straight into the statue, while shouting, “Oh my goodness, Freedom!” He also streamed the incident on Facebook Live.

Before the crash, he said in the Facebook video that he was back at it with “white plans,” but it’s unclear what he meant by that. He also said that he is a Christian but added, “one thing I do not support is the violation of our constitutional right to have the freedom that’s guaranteed to us, that guarantees us the separation of church and state, because no one religion should the government represent.” Finally, he asked people who support his cause to use the hashtag #Checkmate on social media.

NEW: Man accused of knocking over 10 Commandments statue at AR Capitol did the same thing in OK, 3 years ago:https://t.co/3F8dJsNdur #arpx pic.twitter.com/YtdpH2j292

— Emma Pettit (@EmmaJanePettit) June 28, 2017

The monument crumbled and Reed was taken to the hospital and then to jail. The stone statue had only been up for a day, but Republican State Senator Jason Rapert was confident a new monument would be up soon. He sponsored a law that took effect in 2015, which allowed private citizens to fund the religious monument and put it outside the Capitol. Opponents of that bill said that escaping a government-established religion was one of the things the colonists fled when they first set foot in America.

The crash sparked both criticism and support on social media. Some hailed him as a hero and patriot for standing up for the constitution, while others said the opposite. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee did not exactly support what happened.

Some idiot in my home state broke all 10 commandments at the same time. He wasn’t Moses and it wasn’t Mt. Sinai. https://t.co/r8hXrJ32JZ

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 28, 2017

But others definitely did.

some idiot legislator thought it was okay to place a religious statue in a place where governing occurs, despite separation of church and st https://t.co/1CmKRwVTZg

— John Hornor (@johnhornor) June 28, 2017

Reed was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder back in 2015. Later that year, he sent a letter to the Tulsa World describing why he had destroyed the monument at the state’s Capitol. He wrote that he got his inspiration from Dracula movies, that he thought he was the incarnation of a British occult leader called Aleister Crowley, and that a killer virus in the shape of Michael Jackson’s spirit had infected meat. He said that at the time of the 2014 crash he was also trying to get in touch with Satan’s high priestess, Gwyneth Paltrow.

After the earlier incident, many Republican lawmakers tried to paint what happened as politically motivated or an act of violence or terrorism, but Reed’s family insisted it was his illness. He was released from a mental health facility after doctors found a combination of medicines that seemed to work for him. It’s not clear what prompted Wednesday’s crash, but hopefully, he will get proper care.

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 Man Arrested for Driving His Car Into Ten Commandments Display at Arkansas Capitol appeared first on Law Street.

The Cherokee Nation has filed a lawsuit in the Cherokee Nation District Court against six distribution and pharmacy companies, claiming that they have unjustly profited through over-prescribing and selling opioids.

The companies included in the lawsuit include three pharmaceutical companies: McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, and Amerisource Bergen. It also includes three pharmacies: CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart. The lawsuit claims that it was the companies’ responsibility to monitor opioid prescriptions and orders in Cherokee Nation, identify the red flags present, and report those issues to the federal government. Essentially, the companies should have noticed warning signs like individual patients trying to fill prescriptions from multiple doctors, or driving long distances to fill prescriptions for no apparent reason.

The lawsuit details the horrific effects that prescription opioids have had on the community, noting that American Indians are more likely to die from drug overdoses than other ethnic groups. Annual deaths from opioid overdose have doubled in Cherokee nation between 2003-2014, and now outnumber deaths from car accidents. It also points out that young people have been hit particularly hard. It reads:

A 2014 study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found a much higher prevalence of drug and alcohol use in the American Indian 8th and 10th graders compared with national averages. American Indian students’ annual heroin and OxyCotin use was about two to three times higher than the national averages in those years.

The lawsuit also details the issues with women who are addicted to opioids and become pregnant, as well as the harm to the community as a whole when drug addiction and crime rise. The Cherokee Nation is seeking restitution for health care costs for those who have been affected by opioid addiction.

Cherokee Nation isn’t the first area to file a lawsuit against companies for the metoiric rise in opioid issues around the U.S.–earlier this year, Everett, Washington became the first city to sue a painkiller manufacturer. A tiny town in West Virginia, called Kermit, sued McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal health, Miami-Luken, AD Smith Corporation and a former Kermit pharmacy, Sav-Rite Pharmacy. Those are just a couple examples–there have been others, and until the opioid crisis in the U.S. is under control, there are sure to be more.

In the Cherokee Nation lawsuit, the companies named in the suit have either elected not to comment or have pointed out that they have stringent policies in place to deal with opioid abuse, or that addiction is the real issue.

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 Cherokee Nation Sues Opioid Providers and Pharmacies appeared first on Law Street.

On December 1, the new federal regulations on overtime pay will go into effect. It’s unclear how many American workers will be affected by the changes, but it’s estimated to be over four million. The Fair Labor Standards Act and will make time-and-a-half overtime pay mandatory for any workers making less than $47,476 a year.

Under the current regulations, employers don’t have to pay overtime wages, even if they work over 40 hours, to their employees who make as little as $23,660 if they designate them as “exempt.” Under the new regulations, that will no longer fly, and someone would have to make over the $47,476 threshold to become exempt. The salary threshold for who can be designated as exempt will also rise over time, to keep with inflation and rising costs of living. In 2020, it’s scheduled to be raised to $51,000.

This could mean a few different things for employers come early December–some companies may raise some employees’ wages over $47,476 to avoid paying overtime, others may stop approving overtime wages altogether, and some may hire more part time workers. And it could require new ways of monitoring time, keeping records, and training, for companies and employees alike. But it’s important to note that for some employees, who work well over 40 hours a week but don’t get compensated for that time, this could be a huge improvement to their standards of living.

Some states are rebelling against the new regulations. Over 20 states have joined together in filing a complaint in federal court. Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma stated:

Working families across the state could face increased hardships resulting from this new rule, such as hours being reduced, salaries being slashed, and overtime hours going unrecognized. This is yet another example of the Administration’s ongoing efforts to reach beyond its Constitutional authority, ultimately costing Oklahomans their jobs and the State millions of dollars.

But, regardless of the filing, the new rule will still be going into effect in roughly two weeks, so expect to see changes to overtime rules.

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 New Overtime Rules Will Go into Effect in December appeared first on Law Street.

A weeklong manhunt came to a close Sunday night after an Oklahoma fugitive ended his killing spree in a final act of violence–a shootout with police officers that left him dead.

What Happened

Michael Vance, 38, faced accusations of shooting two Wellston police officers and killing his aunt and uncle inside their Oklahoma home. Vance’s rampage unfolded on October 23 and he posted two Facebook Live videos while on the run.

Oklahoma County Sheriff John Whetsel indicated that the “rage killings” were linked to a pending sexual assault case. Vance had been scheduled to appear in court on November 7 to face felony child sex abuse charges after a 15-year-old girl accused him of sexual assault.

According to emergency officials in Lincoln County, Vance’s crime spree started after a disturbance call. The two responding officers were shot and wounded–Vance managed to flee the scene in a stolen patrol car.

Documenting the events, Vance posted a video to Facebook.

“This is more intense than I thought it would be, to say the least,” he said. “This truck is about dead … I’m about to steal another car. Like right now.”

Investigators believe Vance then shot a woman while trying to steal a Lincoln Town Car.

Authorities later spotted the car in Luther, just northeast of Oklahoma City. There, police found the bodies of Robert and Valerie Kay Wilkson, who were Vance’s aunt and uncle. Both showed signs of attempted dismemberment.

The manhunt continued as Oklahoma Highway Patrol warned that Vance had a “medical condition and may try to spread disease,” specifically “a communicable disease that can be transmitted by blood.”

PLEASE RT!#WANTED!ARMED AND DANGEROUS!Michael D Vance Jr pic.twitter.com/yZOSA67I38

— KS Missing&Unsolved (@KansasMissing) October 24, 2016

The Final Hours

Sunday night, around 9:30 PM, Vance shot and wounded Dewey County Sheriff Clay Sander after Sander stopped a flatbed truck to warn the driver about a chain dragging behind it, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation spokesman Jessica Brown said in a statement.

The sheriff was injured in an ensuing exchange of gunfire and Vance got away, triggering a 20-25-minute car chase.

Vance faced his demise in a second shootout with Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers–ending  an intense statewide manhunt for an accused killer and child abuser.

Oklahoma Highway Patrol Chief Ricky Adams later tweeted: “The manhunt is over.”

The manhunt is over. pic.twitter.com/pw8Zoy4Uqk

— Ricky Adams (@OHP_CHIEF) October 31, 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 Oklahoma Manhunt Concludes with Final Shootout appeared first on Law Street.

Betty Shelby, the police officer who shot Terence Crutcher on a highway in Tulsa, Oklahoma last week, was formally charged with manslaughter. Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler announced on Thursday that he had charged officer Shelby with first-degree manslaughter, which would amount to a minimum of four years in prison if convicted.

In a brief statement about the charges, Kunzweiler said, “The tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Crutcher are on the hearts and minds of many people in this community.” Shelby was booked at the local county jail early Friday morning before being released on a $50,000 bond. Crutcher’s family members said that they approved of the charges and hope that Shelby’s prosecution will lead to a conviction.

Crutcher’s twin sister, Tiffany, said after the announcement, “This is a small victory. The chain breaks here. We’re going to break the chains of police brutality.”

Tulsa Police Officer Betty Shelby will face first-degree manslaughter charges in death of Terence Crutcher: https://t.co/qgCni2r96U pic.twitter.com/cKXAxAqiw6

— Complex (@ComplexMag) September 22, 2016

Crutcher’s car broke down on the interstate last Friday and a woman called 911 reporting that a man was running away from the vehicle as if it was about to blow up. Betty Shelby, who was responding to another 911 call about domestic abuse, came across Crutcher and his car. She got out and started asking Crutcher what was wrong, but he reportedly ignored her questions and kept mumbling to himself. As the interaction unfolded, backup arrived at the scene and Crutcher was later shot and killed.

The court documents claim that Shelby shot Crutcher “unlawfully and unnecessarily.” The filing argues that she became emotionally involved and overreacted to the situation. Shelby’s attorney Scott Wood said that Crutcher was acting erratically, which led Shelby, who Wood said is a drug recognition expert, to believe he was on drugs. She claims to have feared for her life before she fired the shot, and said that Crutcher kept patting his pockets and she couldn’t tell if he had a gun. Crutcher was unarmed and there was no weapon in the car.

A video of the incident shows Crutcher with his hands raised in the air shortly before he was shot. Shelby apparently ordered him to go back to his car and another officer tasered him as he approached the driver-side door. Shelby then shot Crutcher shortly after he fell to the ground.

Police say that Crutcher was reaching into the window before he was shot, but the attorney for the Crutcher family, Benjamin Crump, later said, “The window was up, so how can he be reaching into the car if the window is up and there’s blood on the glass?”

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 Tulsa Officer Charged With Manslaughter in Terence Crutcher’s Death appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin has vetoed the much-criticized bill that would have made performing abortions a felony in the state. This is a relief for women in Oklahoma, who nonetheless still face enormous challenges if they make the decision to have an abortion, in a state that is highly conservative.

Oklahoma’s legislature managed to yet again come up with a bill restricting women’s rights, even though a roaring majority of politicians in the state are men. The bill was passed on Thursday and was the very first of its kind, according to abortion rights group Center for Reproductive Rights, in that it not only banned the procedure but also attached a penalty for a physician who performs an abortion.

Oklahoma is not safe for women

— Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) May 20, 2016

Governor Fallin had five days to decide whether to approve or veto the bill, which goes by SB1552. She made up her mind faster than that by announcing her veto on Friday, saying in a statement: “The bill is so ambiguous and so vague that doctors cannot be certain what medical circumstances would be considered ‘necessary to preserve the life of the mother.”

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights,  said: “Governor Fallin did the right thing today in vetoing this utterly unconstitutional and dangerous bill.”

But it is still hard for women to access the service of abortion–there are only two clinics in the whole state. Oklahoma has, in fact, been trying to pass laws banning abortions almost every year–and as many as eight of them have been challenged as unconstitutional during the past five years.

Abortion has been legalized nationwide since 1973, and the SB1552 was actually ultimately meant to challenge that, said the bill’s sponsor Republican Nathan Dahm earlier this week. His opinion is that life begins at conception, and it is the duty of the state to protect life from that point on. On Friday, he was reportedly considering taking actions to override the governor’s veto via the legislature.

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 Oklahoma Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Criminalize Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma has done it again, ladies.

Oklahoma law does not criminalize someone who forces an intoxicated or unconscious person to engage in oral sex.

A Tulsa County judge dismissed a case in November involving two high school students after a 17-year-old boy reportedly offered a ride home to a 16-year-old girl. She had been heavily drinking and court documents show that her BAC was at 0.34, which would constitute alcohol poisoning. She was taken back to her grandmother’s house where she was completely unconscious and taken to the hospital. She later woke up to sexual assault testing and the boy’s DNA was found on her body.

He was initially charged with forcible sodomy and first-degree rape.

The boy claimed their encounter was consensual, but the girl claimed that she had no memory of it happening.

According to the court, “Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation.”

The case was appealed, but the appeals court affirmed that the state could not prosecute the boy for his actions.

“The plain meaning of forcible oral sodomy, of using force, includes taking advantage of a victim who was too intoxicated to consent,” Benjamin Fu, the Tulsa County district attorney leading the case, told The Guardian. “I don’t believe that anybody, until that day, believed that the state of the law was that this kind of conduct was ambiguous, much less legal. And I don’t think the law was a loophole until the court decided it was.”

The defense attorney, Shannon McMurray, argued in the Oklahoma Watch that the court was right because intoxication cannot be substituted for force.

“There was absolutely no evidence of force or him doing anything to make this girl give him oral sex other than she was too intoxicated to consent” McMurray said.

This ruling has acted as a catalyst for the public to urge change to the law. Lawmakers as well are pushing to close this gap and make sure that this cannot be used in the future to dismiss a case.

One Oklahoma State Representative, Scott Biggs, R-Chickasha, said that he plans to amend the bill in order to include unconscious victims under the forcible sodomy law.

Oklahoma: it isnt rape if you’re drunk. So I can get drunk and rob people and it’ll be okay then? maybe steal a car?https://t.co/yM2YK4cW8z

— Lynsie Lee (@LynsieLee) April 28, 2016

WTF IS WRONG WITH OKLAHOMA???? OK court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking https://t.co/AKf2vyKP7q#YesAllWomen

— Jeska Dzwigalski (@JeskaD) May 1, 2016

While the verdict shocked many, it wasn’t surprising to all.

“It’s not surprising, although unfortunate, that this is how it came down,” Rebecca O’Connor, the vice president for public policy of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network told The New York Times. “It’s also not unique to Oklahoma. This sort of gray area of law can lead to unfortunate consequences.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oklahoma Court: It Isn’t Rape if She is Too Intoxicated appeared first on Law Street.

Doctors who perform abortions may be about to have their licenses revoked in Oklahoma if Republican Governor Mary Fallin signs off on SB 1552.

The bill passed through both houses of the legislature last week in a vote of 59-9 with 33 abstentions, and is now awaiting the governor’s approval. Fallin has not indicated, however, if she will sign it or not.

Doctors who perform abortions would be barred from obtaining or renewing their medical licenses. However, this bill does make exceptions in the cases of saving the mother’s life–but leaves out cases of rape and incest.

“Oklahoma politicians have made it their mission year after year to restrict women’s access vital health care services, yet this total ban on abortion is a new low,” Amanda Allen, Senior State Legislative Counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which advocates for abortion rights, said in a statement on the organization’s website.

Democratic Representative Emily Virgin, who opposed the bill, was concerned with the effect this bill would have on the number of physicians in the state. “We already have a severe physician shortage in Oklahoma, so are you at all concerned about physicians leaving Oklahoma if this bill becomes law?” she asked the bill’s co-sponsor, Republican Representative David Brumbaugh. He responded, saying, “There’s no way that this will impact the medical community, and we’ve checked through that.”

He was later challenged on the idea that the passage of this bill could lead to legal issues. In fact, the bill itself actually has a clause at the end discussing what would happen in the event that the Constitutionality of this law is challenged:

In the event that any provision of this act is challenged in court in any action alleging a violation of either the Constitution of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma, the Office of the Attorney General shall determine the amount of state or local funds expended to defend such action. Such determination shall include the number of hours of time spent by any public employee in such defense multiplied by the rate of compensation paid to such employee, as well as the costs of any outside counsel paid for such purpose, and shall include both direct and indirect costs. The Office of the Attorney General shall report such amounts for each calendar quarter to all members of the Legislature.

“Do we make laws because they’re moral and right, or do we make them based on what an unelected judicial occupant might question or want to overturn,” Brumbaugh asked. “The last time I looked, that’s why I thought we had a separation of power.”

The bill also makes it a felony to perform an abortion:

No person shall perform or induce an abortion upon a pregnant woman unless that person is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than one (1) year nor more than three (3) years in the State Penitentiary.

Planned Parenthood responded on Twitter:

Not content with intruding in your personal decisions, OK gynoticians now want to revoke med licenses of doctors. https://t.co/8oRoRsBQfg

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) April 23, 2016

Brumbaugh also added during the debate, “If we take care of the morality, God will take care of the economy.” We’ll have to see if the rest of Oklahoma, particularly Governor Fallin, is swayed by that argument.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill To Revoke Licenses of Doctors Performing Abortions Passes Oklahoma Legislature appeared first on Law Street.

This weekend the New York Times published the article “Get Home Safe,” My Rapist Said, in its opinion pages. In it, Alisson Wood tells the story of her boss raping her one night after work. She sought justice and solace from her company and the law, but only received dismissals. It was her word against her boss’s, and he claimed the situation was consensual, slut-shaming her. This situation is not uncommon for many other survivors of rape in America, victimized by a culture that often finds more fault in its victims than its perpetrators. Rape culture undermines the power imbalances at the core of rape by diverting attention away from why and how a rapist takes advantage of a person, and instead focuses on the character of the rape victim. For example, a boss takes advantage of an employee, a man takes advantage of a woman, or a cop takes advantage of a citizen. But last week, justice beat the power of rape culture. The prosecutor in the Daniel Holtzclaw case convinced a jury of the power imbalances of a white police officer raping African American women, and for Holtzclaw’s 29th birthday he received a recommended 263-year prison sentence.

Holtzclaw has been standing trial since November 2 after sexually assaulting 13 women in Oklahoma City. Jannie Ligons, a 57-year-old grandmother, went to the police after Holtzclaw attacked her on June 2,2014. Holtzclaw’s record revealed more allegations of rape, catching national attention and leading to his arrest. He faced 36 charges ranging from multiple counts of first degree rape to stalking and sexual battery. Officer Holtzclaw clearly underestimated the courage Ligons possessed as a survivor of sexual assault, and as a woman who could put trust in a police department whose own officer violated Ligons’s most basic right to her body.

Holtzclaw targeted 12 other African American women in a low income neighborhood ostensibly because of their vulnerability and unlikelihood to press charges. A couple of the victims were guilty of criminal activity of their own. The defense tried to use to this to its advantage by discrediting the victims and questioning why they did not contact the police after their assaults. But, who could those victims trust? The fact that they would likely not be perceived as “innocent victims” halted many from contacting authorities. “What kind of police do you call on the police?“–that was a question of one of the victims, who was only 17-years-old.

Race has factored into this case from the onset. Holtzclaw intended to protect himself by preying on these women with full knowledge of the future juxtaposed images of an All American Football player-turned-cop against black women. While the verdict supplies some justice to these victims, the all-white jury hardly seemed fair with about a 15 percent African American population in Oklahoma City.

Some activists see Holtzclaw’s verdict as a good milestone in a long history of black women as victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse. I agree with and welcome the justice served to this rapist. However, the lack of mainstream media attention garnered by this case validates all the fear these women had in reporting their rapes. It’s an indication of the intersectional obstacles women of color face in our lives, our problems often invisible, and rape culture even more prominent. So, it is an insult to see Holtzclaw’s tear stained face. Are those tears because he did not beat the odds? Or because white privilege did not win out and he did not get away with his exploitative assaults? As for me, I’d rather read through the brave testimonies of these 13 women in their own words than see his tears.

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 The Power of Justice: A Guilty Verdict for Daniel Holtzclaw appeared first on Law Street.

Clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch is no stranger to legal trouble due to its alleged discriminatory practices against both workers and customers. The brand came under fire for its refusal to hire a young woman in Oklahoma because she wore a religious head covering. On June 1, after much deliberation, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Samantha Elauf, the prospective employee who was denied a job because of her hijab.

Court rules in favour of Muslim woman who failed to get job after wearing scarf to interview http://t.co/wSiVAgsGvL pic.twitter.com/zagHX1Usdv

— The Independent (@Independent) June 2, 2015

Abercrombie is known for making clothing marketed toward young, preppy, attractive people. Many past employees have claimed that the company discriminated against them for their body type, religious practices, or race. The company has also been known to only market its clothing toward thinner people, as it refuses to make clothing for plus-sized women.

According to Politico, the company paid $50 million to Latino, African American, and Asian job applicants who claimed that there was a lack of diversity in the company. Elauf’s victory in this case has set a precedent for all future employers to follow, which will greatly benefit all potential employees.

In 2008, 17-year-old Elauf applied to Abercrombie & Fitch to work as a salesperson. She did not ask the company to make a religious accommodation for her headscarf during her interview with assistant manager Heather Cooke, and so she was not given the job for two reasons. Firstly, Abercrombie claims that Elauf’s headscarf violated its “look policy,” due to the fact that it was black and considered prohibited headwear, although Elauf claims that she was never informed of this exact policy during her interview. Secondly, Abercrombie also claims that it had no liability since Elauf never identified her headscarf as a religious garment and also because the company did not want to automatically assume that it was being worn for religious reasons so that it doesn’t stereotype any potential employees.

On behalf of Elauf, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal law enforcement agency, sued Abercrombie for discrimination. It was determined that the company did not actually discriminate against Elauf, although her rights were violated under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Abercrombie also has since changed its policies, as now it allows its workers to wear headscarves if they choose to do so.

According to Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in the ruling, “an employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.” The Guardian  also reports that multiple other religious groups were in support of Elauf’s case.

This ruling is a major step forward in terms of workplace equality, as it helps to protect the rights of not only minorities, but all people. Companies now cannot deny employment to any potential worker due to his or her religious observances, which will in turn increase the amount of opportunities available for religious minorities. This court decision also has the potential to completely change how American society views equal opportunity, religious freedom, and workplace discrimination.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Muslim Women Against Abercrombie over Hijab appeared first on Law Street.

From terrorism to racist fraternities, last week’s top news stories covered a variety of unsavory topics. The number one most popular post of the week came from Law Street Crime Editor Kevin Rizzo who shed light on the ISIS’ goals and motivations; the number two story of the week, from Alexis Evans, examined the University of Oklahoma shutting down fraternity SAE after it engaged in offensive racist chants caught on video; and the third most popular story of the week, also from Evans, brought us a look into Uber’s latest effort to win back women. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Understanding ISIS’ Radical Apocalyptic Vision

Nearly everyone knows what the Islamic State is doing–treacherous acts and the consolidation of control in territories throughout Iraq and Syria–but few realize exactly what the group’s goals are. ISIS is a unique manifestation of radical Islam that is bent on establishing a religious government that enforces what it believes is to be the purest form of Islam. Supporting that vision is its supporters’ closely held belief that ISIS is bringing about the apocalypse. Yes, deeply rooted in its ideology is the idea that establishing an “Islamic State” will eventually lead to a final battle between good and evil near the small town of Dabiq in northern Syria. Read full article here.

#2 University of Oklahoma Fraternity Shut Down After Racist Chant

University of Oklahoma’s President is giving chapter members of the fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) exactly one day to get off the campus after a shocking video of the fraternity brothers chorusing a racist chant surfaced on social media. Read full article here.

#3 Uber’s New Hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back the Women

Crowd-sourced mobile taxi service Uber has developed a bit of a reputation for having a sexist “bro culture.” A new announcement this morning from the company reveals it’s trying to change that. Uber announced it will be partnering with UN Women “with the goal of accelerating economic opportunity for women.” As part of that commitment, it has pledged to create 1,000,000 jobs for women drivers by 2020. That sounds good, but is this sudden explosion of growth really proof that the company is becoming more female friendly? 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.

Earlier this week, video surfaced of members of the University of Oklahoma’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity chanting an incredibly racist song on a bus ride to a party. The song involved heavy use of the n-word and  after the video went viral on Twitter, University of Oklahoma President David Boren responded by kicking the chapter off campus and expelling two of the students involved. Those two students are named Parker Rice and Levi Pettit, and they were expelled because of their role in leading the chant. Now the SAE chapter is making noise about filing some sort of lawsuit against either the University of Oklahoma, or possibly against Boren himself.

The reason that many are now speculating that a suit may be forthcoming is because the group of students representing the now-defunct fraternity have retained Stephen Jones. Jones is a pretty recognizable legal force in Oklahoma, perhaps best known for defending Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. While Jones has yet to file any sort of lawsuit, according to KOCO Oklahoma City:

Jones said the board of directors at the OU SAE chapter asked him to investigate certain legal matters that may impact the chapter as a result of the racist chant video. Jones said he has not yet been asked to initiate litigation against any person or party at this time.

There are multiple different legal issues that could be at play here–first and foremost are possible First Amendment Rights inherent in kicking someone out of school and disbanding a fraternity based on something that they said. The debate over the First Amendment is especially complicated given that the University of Oklahoma is a public institution, not a private one. The school accepts federal and state funds and, as a public university, it represents the public–namely the government. While the University of Oklahoma can certainly argue that it’s allowed to expel the students and kick them out for violating the code of conduct, First Amendment concerns may outweigh that. While Jones isn’t representing the expelled students specifically, rather the board representing the members of SAE, it’s possible that if the expelled students decide to file the lawsuit, he’ll be on the front lines.

In addition to the First Amendment concerns, there are also possible due process and 14th Amendment issues with the way in which the students were kicked off campus. There are also concerns that those former members of SAE were painted with too broad a brush, even if some of them weren’t the offenders who participated in the chant.

Overall, it seems like a legal battle is brewing in Oklahoma. What those men did was beyond inappropriate and despicable, and from a moral point of view I think Boren’s actions were not only incredibly warranted but absolutely necessary. However, he may soon have to defend those actions in court.

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 Expelled Fraternity May Sue University of Oklahoma appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma really is coming up with some interesting bills this legislative session. Last week I wrote about a bill that would outlaw Advanced Placement United States History classes from being taught in the state. Now, they’ve come up with another odd and awkwardly invasive issue–a legislator wants to ban couples from getting married if one of them has a sexually transmitted disease.

Oklahoma Senator Anthony Sykes introduced Senate Bill 733, which would create a new requirement for any couples seeking marriage licenses. The couple must each submit to a blood test within 30 days of submitting their application for the license. According to the bill, it appears that in order to receive the license they either both need to be STD-free, or if one of them has an STD, it can’t be at a stage where it would be able to be transmitted to another. It’s unclear what would happen if they both tested for an STD.

The bill reads:

The State Board of Health shall require a blood test for the discovery of syphilis and other communicable or infectious diseases prior to the issuance of a marriage license.

The bill is lauded as a way to provide people with information of their STD status, which is always a good idea, but legal experts don’t necessarily think that it will help prevent STD transmission. STDs tend to be more prevalent among younger, unmarried people. It also seems to imply that someone with an STD and someone without an STD can’t safely have sex with someone who isn’t infected. That’s untrue, and irresponsible to imply.

Furthermore, there are some clear privacy issues with this bill. This may require that those couples who apply for marriage licenses and then get STD tested then have their statuses made publicly available. That’s based on how the bill is worded now, which requires couples to file the results with the clerk after being tested. That not only invades the privacy of those couples, but also violates the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

If Oklahoma were to enact this bill, it would be a sort of throwback to laws that used to be on the books in many states; however, every other state has repealed its premarital testing laws, with the exception of Montana. A 2009 study at Notre Dame explained why these laws no longer make much sense, saying blood test laws:

were enacted in the first half of the twentieth century as part of public health campaigns to reduce the spread of communicable diseases and prevent birth defects. The laws required couples applying for a marriage license to be screened for certain conditions, commonly rubella or syphilis. However, after penicillin proved to be a cheap and effective treatment for syphilis and vaccines were developed for rubella, these screenings were no longer considered cost-effective.

While this law probably comes from a good place, it’s antiquated and overreaching. Providing better sex education and resources for young people would go much further to prevent STD transmission than unnecessarily delving into the lives of engaged couples.

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 Oklahoma Wants to Test Marrying Couples for STDs appeared first on Law Street.

In an exceedingly odd move, a legislative committee in Oklahoma voted this week to eliminate Advanced Placement U.S. History classes. This decision is part of a large, equally bizarre move to get rid of AP classes altogether across the state. Furthermore, the move away from AP U.S. History (APUSH) in Oklahoma is a facet of a much larger debate over what parts of American history we should be teaching our children.

The legislators who pushed for this change in claim that the APUSH curriculum only teaches “what is bad about America.” They also argue that it’s a revisionist view of history. Representative Dan Fish, who introduced the bill, also argues that it doesn’t fairly include a Christian perspective or teach “American exceptionalism.”

Before you think this view is coming from a few crazy crackpots, it’s important to point out that the Republican National Committee itself has weighed in on the debate. Last summer it released a resolution slamming the APUSH curriculum. According to the RNC, the recently revised APUSH guidelines: “reflect a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.”

I’m sure some of you are wondering how people can quibble over history–after all, aren’t most facts undisputed? Well, it’s pretty much universally accepted that history can be taught from different perspectives and through various lenses–take the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, for example. One perspective may teach that those bombings, while yielding tragic results, stopped the war and prevented further deaths through protracted fighting. Another perspective could argue that regardless of why the bombs were deployed, the mass destruction of civilians is unacceptable. While neither of these perspectives is necessarily wrong–they do each adhere to the facts of those historical events–they by nature tell different narratives.

So that leaves us with a conundrum–there’s no real right or wrong answer to how we should teach our history. Clearly, some people in Oklahoma disagree with how it’s being taught there, and while I can’t emphasize how much I disagree with their concerns, they are still allowed to have those concerns.

Like I mentioned above, there’s also a bigger debate brewing over the applicability of AP classes in general. They’re standardized nationwide–although of course only students who sign up for the elite classes take them. They are also mostly uniformly accepted by different universities, although they’re applied to university curriculum requirements on a case-by-case basis. Oklahoma lawmakers are trying to do away with those as a whole, too. Another representative, Sally Kern, claims that AP classes violate a law passed in Oklahoma last year that eliminates Common Core standards.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise that states should be able to dictate what their students learn, I think that AP courses fall into a whole different category. First of all, they’re not universally prescribed; each student makes the choice about what class he or she wants to take. Most colleges do view them favorably, and again, they can be used to obtain certain college credits. Robbing Oklahoma’s students of that opportunity just because you don’t agree with the perspective from which the history curriculum is taught seems petty and short-sighted.

History will never be one sizes fits all, and I think that students should have every opportunity to learn about the important events in our nation’s history from as many view points as possible. That being said, with the inability to learn from our APUSH curriculum, Oklahoma’s students have just been robbed as one of those perspectives.

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 Will AP History Become a Thing of the Past in Oklahoma? appeared first on Law Street.

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

In the report, AMR projects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phew, those four states were a doozy!

Marisa Mostek

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

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: America’s Heartland appeared first on Law Street.

You may have been following along with fellow Law Streeter Marisa Mostek’s Dumbest Laws series, as she goes state by state revealing the most random and outdated laws throughout the country. But this week, I want to tell you about a brand new dumb law that was proposed in Oklahoma this week, banning people from wearing hoodies. Anyone wearing a hood for the purposes of “hiding one’s identity” could be fined $500.

The Sooner State actually once held a similar law intending to stop the Ku Klux Klan back in the 1920s. Though this time I think the law may have more racist motives. With all the recent incidents of police brutality and subsequent protests, I can’t help but remember Trayvon Martin, who was killed by a police officer in 2012 while wearing a hoodie.

Barring dress codes for certain buildings and occasions, our First Amendment rights include freedom of expression and that includes one’s manner of dress. I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be hit with a $500 fine just for wearing a jacket with a hood on a rainy or snowy day.

Senator Don Barrington insists that the reason behind such a law is to prevent people from getting away with crimes while concealing their identities. The law would also exempt those wearing a hood for religious, safety, or medical purposes as well as for Halloween costumes. So basically, the only day you can really get away with a crime is on Halloween. But how would law enforcement officers know if a person is wearing a hood for religious or medical reasons? Would they have to carry around special ID? Don’t police have anything better to do than to go around interrogating every single person wearing a hood in the state of Oklahoma?

So Oklahoma, get ready to say goodbye to one of your favorite closet staples. (Whether you’re allowed to wear hooded jackets as long as the hood is off of your head, I’m not sure.) If you don’t like being out in the cold/rain/snow with your head unprotected, I guess you could always wear a hat?

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumb Laws Fashion Edition: Hide Your Hoodies appeared first on Law Street.

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

#1 Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization

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

#2 Five Parodies to Get You Through Serial Withdrawal

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

In an era when it seems like there’s constantly a story about a shooting on school grounds, we’re always looking for solutions to our school shooting epidemic. One long-discussed argument has been to arm teachers, and people across the country are taking action to do just that.

In many conservative-leaning states, the push to arm teachers is getting pretty serious. As of this year, in 28 different states, adults who own guns will be allowed to carry them into school buildings under certain parameters. Recently, legislation was passed in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas related to arming teachers and staff members in public schools.

There’s also been some expansion of the way in which those who are armed in schools are trained. In some places, free classes are offered for staff members who want to carry guns into schools in an attempt to protect students. The Centennial Gun Club in Colorado is offering free classes to teachers who want to learn how to carry and operate guns. A former Colorado teacher named Tara who is thinking of returning to the classroom named explained her interest in the class, saying:

While I am a teacher, those kids, those students in my class are my kids, and my first responsibility is to protect them at all costs. When all the school shootings happened I realized that I wanted it more for my own personal protection and I thought that that idea of being prepared to protect translates very well to the classroom for teachers.

That’s all well and good, but what they don’t seem to be offering is classes that particularly relate to stopping armed intruders or using a gun under high-pressure circumstances.

In other places, the emphasis is on cutting the response time in case of an armed intruder by training designated staff members who have access to weapons. In some cases, teachers need to disclose information to superiors that they’re bringing a gun into the classroom, in other states the legislation doesn’t require that kind of step. While the laws are varied, one thing is pretty clear — bringing more guns into schools in an attempt to stop horrific tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting has become a fairly popular mindset, without any whiff of consistency from state to state or even school district to school district.

Now, I’m very split here. On one hand I’m frustrated. Part me of thinks that we literally are so bad at finding solutions to our mass shooting problem that we’re just bringing more guns into schools as an answer. That is where we are. We so fundamentally can’t agree on how to deal with gun violence that we can’t even make the laws or required training consistent. Never mind the fact that arming people more to prevent shootings is a kind of miniature mutually assured destruction. Never mind that while shootings are occasionally stopped by bystanders, it’s relatively rare. Never mind that the ability to stop a shooting takes a blend of training, instinct, and temperament that requires way more than one class to learn. Never mind that in the last year, 100 children died in accidental shooting deaths in the United States. Never mind that by bringing guns into our classrooms, we are teaching our children that school is not a safe place, and that gun violence is a reasonable answer. That’s the obnoxious liberal in me talking.

But on the other hand, I have a side that I like to think is rational, and that side is also kind of frustrated. Now, I want to be clear, because I’ve learned from experience that this kind of disclaimer is needed: this is not an attack on the Second Amendment. This is an attack on the complete lack of common sense that we are now employing. If we sat down, as a nation, and truly determined that the best way to protect children is to arm their teachers, fine. We can do that, if we really think that will work. It’s a plan, at least, and as much as I don’t think it’s a good plan, I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

But what we have right now is such a fundamental disagreement on literally everything to do with this debate that we’re half-assing it. We’re passing laws that allow certain people to bring guns into schools under the guise of protection without necessarily creating corresponding legislation to make sure that the plan has the chance to be effective. We’re ignoring the possibly negative ramifications of these laws because it’s just easier that way. We are so far from being able to have a rational debate on this topic that any ability to be able to work together has been thrown out the window.

Every gun death is a tragedy, and the only way we’re going to be able to prevent situations like Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or UC-Santa Barbara from happening again is if we all grow up and talk about this in a rational way.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wendy House 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 Risky Idea Alert: Arming Teachers in School appeared first on Law Street.

A 19-year-old Oklahoma teen named Matthew Durham has admitted to raping and molesting young girls and boys on a missionary trip to Kenya. Durham was volunteering with a group called Upendo and living with the children at the time of the assaults.

Why does this kind of story not surprise me? Maybe because White people have been going to the African continent for decades claiming to help, while actually causing serious harm. Whether they’re enslaving us, stealing our natural resources, or claiming our land; White people have a knack for hurting the people of Africa.

Durham was arrested last Thursday at his parents’ home in Edmond, Oklahoma after he fled Kenya due to the allegations, according to the Daily Mail. The founder of Upendo, Eunice Menja, told the FBI that Durham admitted to raping between four and ten children, including one who is HIV-positive, between April and June of this year.

According to KTLA 5, this was the fourth time Durham had visited Nairobi with Upendo, which was designed to help neglected Kenyan children. The organization’s vision statement reads, “One child at a time — while we envision a community with no more child poverty, no more child abuse but every child with each basic need met.” Oh the irony, oh the hypocrisy, it’s too much I can’t handle it.

Now it’s hard to completely blame Upendo. How were they to know that Durham was secretly into little children? But the one question that arose when I read this story was why was he allowed to sleep in the same place as these kids in the first place? He was there to help the kids, not to have a slumber party. So for that Upendo, I believe you failed.

But Durham’s lawyer doesn’t seem to think so. Stephen Jones, the lawyer who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, says that Menja forced a false confession from the teenage boy with “psychological voodoo.”

Yeah, we’ll see how that holds up in court.

Jones went on to say, “I don’t think Hollywood could make up what happened at this so-called orphanage. We’re on the ground in Kenya now. We’re finding out a lot about these people. This place is right on the outskirts of Nairobi. It’s like some cult over there.”

Whether or not this “so-called orphanage” is a legitimate foundation is not the issue here. Multiple children have come forward and said that Durham touched them in inappropriate places or made them watch as he touched other kids in inappropriate places. Now whether or not you believe in voodoo is up to you, but the fact that multiple children have come forward and spoken on Durham’s behavior has to mean something, and while I get that it is your job to defend your client Mr. Jones, it seems to me like you are grasping at air.

Obviously, most of the blame falls on Durham. Even if you are exploring your sexuality you have absolutely no right to explore it with children. Mr. Durham, don’t you think that these kids have already been through enough in their short lives? Don’t you think the daily hardship that these kids have to endure is already taxing enough without you forcing yourself on them? Don’t you think that these four to ten year olds deserved to grow up just a tad bit more before they were introduced to the complicated world of sex? No. You didn’t think Mr. Durham, and for that you deserve to spend a considerable amount of time in prison to do just that.

Mic Drop

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Geraint Rowland via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Africa Gets Screwed Over Once Again by the White Man appeared first on Law Street.

Due to lethal injection crisis in America — dwindling access to typical lethal injection drugs — states across the nation now either have to come up with new ways to execute their death row inmates or abandon capital punishment. So far, they have all chosen to continue executing death row inmates. Here is everything you need to know about botched lethal injections, new drugs, and the return of some antiquated methods of execution.

How does lethal injection work?

This video from NextMedia Animation gives a quick overview of how the process works. Do not worry, it is safe for the squeamish:

There are three drugs at play in a traditional lethal injection scenario. The first is Sodium Thiopental, a barbiturate which acts as an anesthetic to make the prisoner unconscious. Second is pancuronium, a muscle relaxant that paralysis the prisoner, which stops his or her lungs from working. The paralyzing effect of this drug is also used so that the viewing audience of the execution does not have to see some of the body movements that might take place during the execution. Finally, potassium chloride is injected into the prisoner. This drug stops the heart from beating. If all goes right, the process should be over in eight and a half minutes, and the prisoner should be too unconscious to feel any pain.

What problems has lethal injection run into recently?

States are having trouble accessing the three drugs necessary to complete a lethal injection. While there is no shortage of the drug, pharmacies and drug manufacturers have stopped selling the drugs to states for the use of lethal injection. Unsurprisingly, companies do not like their products being linked to death. Drug companies want people to connect their brand with saving lives, not ending them. European nations, where most of the pharmacies that make these drugs are located, have banned the export of these drugs as part of an effort to ban capital punishment worldwide.

European nations no longer use the death penalty, and most likely will not return to it in the near future. Watch this British discussion about the death penalty to see how they feel about not having capital punishment. Notice that only one panelist wants to bring the death penalty back, and that the rest of the panel, made up of British politicians and public figures, speaks loudly against her:

Should we continue using lethal injection?

Drug Replacements

It is possible for states to continue using lethal injections, with a few changes. For one, they have to get new drugs from a compound pharmacy. These are pharmacies that, instead of mass-producing drugs, make drugs specifically for one patient. They are expensive, but they are also the only option for states that still want to still use lethal injection.

However, even these small pharmacies do not want to be publicly associated with the death penalty. To sidestep this problem, states have just decided to keep the source of the drugs secret. This has outraged critics of the death penalty, who say that death row inmates deserve to know how they will be killed. A few convicted felons have even sued to try and stay their executions by arguing that this secrecy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Their claim is that, since these drugs have potentially never been tested before, there is no guarantee that their death will be painless.

Questions of Humaneness

Even prior to this access problem, lethal injection was not always painless. While 3 percent of all executions go wrong, lethal injections have the highest rate for error.

According to Professor Robert Johnson, an expert on prisons and the death penalty at American University’s Department of Justice, Law, and Criminology, the new drugs and the pharmacies supplying them might be the cause of even more failed executions.

“The compounding pharmacies are not closely regulated by the FDA,” Johnson said, and continued with, “there are concerns that the drugs they produce might vary in strength. Some of the more recent executions involving these compounding drugs have had more complications.”

Apparently, more people being killed by these compounding drugs are seen gasping for air as a result of the paralyzation of their lungs. They are not supposed to be awake for this.

“It’s likely that if the execution goes wrong that the person will asphyxiate which, without anesthesia, will be very painful,” Johnson said.  “A certain number of these cases are quite likely intensely painful but the person cannot show it because they are paralyzed.”

What’s worse is that the people administering these drugs are not doctors. The American Medical Association (AMA) highly discourages doctors from participating in lethal injections, so the people executing these prisoners are often not medically trained, which makes errors much more likely.

“It’s a pretty risky ordeal,” Johnson said.

The results of a botched lethal injection are not pretty. Let’s take, for example, the case of Clayton D. Lockett’s execution in Oklahoma on April 28, 2014. After the first injection, which is meant to protect the prisoner from feeling any pain, the executioners started injecting the next two drugs. It was at this point that Lockett woke up.

The second and third drugs in lethal injection are incredibly painful without an anesthetic. Imagine your entire body going into paralysis and your heartbeat stopping while you are still awake. This is what Lockett experienced. He tried to sit up and then actually spoke. It took nearly 45 minutes for Lockett to eventually die of a heart attack.

Lockett did not receive the drugs commonly used in a lethal injection. The execution still used potassium chloride to stop the heart, but the sedative and muscle relaxant were replaced with midazolam and vecuronium bromide from a compound pharmacy. Oklahoma refused to disclose why these drugs had been chosen and where they had bought them. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma ordered a stay of his execution, but quickly removed the stay after a state legislator threatened the justices with impeachment.

There is definitely a case to be made that lethal injection is the most humane way for the state to kill someone when done correctly– the operative words. That is why the overwhelming majority of executions today are done this way. However, there are too many disturbing stories about botched injections to argue that it is always humane, and the access issue has made these stories too common.

Watch Dr. Joel Zivot, and anesthesiologist, explain why he does not think that lethal injection is humane on Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s CNN show, “SG|MD”:

Are there options besides lethal injection?

Since Lockett’s execution was botched so badly, other states might be wary to continue using lethal injection, even though multiple state Supreme Courts have ruled that keeping the drugs secret is constitutional. That might be why some states are reverting to older forms of execution.

Return to Electrocutions

Since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, there have been 1,379 executions. Only 158 of them have been electrocutions. Yet, Tennessee has, in the wake of a lack of access to lethal injection drugs, recently decided that the electric chair will be their primary form of execution. This is significant for one reason: while there are states that have the option of the electric chair, Tennessee is now the only state that does not give death row inmates an option of another form of execution. While electric chair is a secondary option for prisoners to choose in some states, death row inmates in Tennessee will now be forced to use the electric chair.

This clip from Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer explains how the electric chair works.

Death penalty opponents and death row inmates are expected to challenge this new law in courts. The Supreme Court upheld the electric chair in 1890, but it is possible that they might find it cruel and unusual in a modern setting. To make your own judgement, read this article on Vice.com explaining how the electric chair kills someone.

As you can see, it is not nearly as pleasant as lethal injection. The chair basically cooks whoever is sitting in it. And that is when it goes right. In Florida on July 8, 1999, Allen Davis screamed and bled profusely from his nose during his execution.The chair killed him but he ended up covered in blood and burns. His case led Florida to abandon the electric chair as a method of execution. There are pictures of his body after the execution, but they are VERY graphic.

It is hard to argue that this is the most humane way of killing someone, but that does not mean that states are not allowed to use it as a primary execution form. Because the Supreme Court ruled that the electric chair is not cruel and unusual punishment, states can continue to use it. That is, until somebody challenges them in court. Since the case deeming the chair constitutional was so long ago, there is a chance that the Supreme Court might overturn the ruling. It is not an unrealistic scenario. Nebraska’s Supreme Court ruled that the electric chair was cruel and unusual punishment in 2008.

Return to Firing Squads

A number of states, including Oklahoma, have contemplated returning to the firing squad as their primary form of execution. Oklahoma is currently the only state that allows for death by firing squad, and only as a secondary option.

This news report about the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner in 2010 by firing squad provides an animation that shows how a firing squad works:

As old-fashioned as it sounds, the firing squad actually has some benefits. For example, it is the only form of execution that preserves most of the body’s organs so that they can be donated. Also, when the marksmen are good, it is a quick form of death.

However, a firing squad is expensive. For example, it costed 165,000 to execute Gardner. The majority of this money went to the salaries of the marksmen, but some also went toward the guns and ammunition used, the chair Gardner sat in, and the sedative given to Gardner before the execution began. The cost would probably go down slightly if Utah ever had to do this again, because they now have all of the equipment, but it would still be expensive. It is certainly a far cry from the $1,286.86 spent by Texas to kill Keith Thurmond with a lethal injection in 2012.

Of course, the biggest problem with both the firing squad and the electric chair is that they are violent forms of execution that the American people are potentially not ready to stomach.

“With lethal injection, you could lull yourself into a sense of security that this was a painless procedure,” Johnson said, and continued with, “you could live with that.”

It costs that much to kill someone?

Yes, executions are expensive. It is even more expensive to keep someone on death row. This is because capital punishment cases take significantly longer to resolve and result in more appeals than a life-without-parole case.

“Because someone’s life is at stake, the cases are more contested and likely to have more experts involved,” Johnson said.

Many states also keep death row inmates in expensive high-security confinement. According to a report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, America spent $1.6 billion on capital punishment from the years of 1982-1997.

Should the death penalty be abolished altogether?

That is a complex question, and there is not enough space in this article to answer it. To get an idea of the moral arguments for and against the death penalty, watch this debate between The Nation and National Review Magazine:

In the absence of a new drug discovery, states will either have to prepare for more botched lethal injections or switch to a more violent form of execution. Support for the death penalty has consistently declined in the past two decades, and incidents like the Lockett death might be too much for those that still approve of it.

Resources

Primary

SCOTUS: Majority Opinion in Baze v. Rees

Additional

Hospira: Position on Use of Our Products in Lethal Injections

Death Penalty Information Center: Everything You Need to Know About Compounding Pharmacies

Guardian: Clayton Lockett Writhes on Gurney in Botched Procedure

Slate: Gov. Mary Fallin is Responsible for Clayton Lockett’s Botched Execution

Bloomberg: Teva to Block Drug for U.S. Executions

Bloomberg: Europe Pushes to Keep Lethal Injection Drugs From U.S. Prisons

The New York Times: Outrage Across Ideological Spectrum in Europe Over Botched Execution

Bloomberg: Slow Death in Oklahoma Was Europe’s Doing

Death Penalty Information Center: Descriptions of the Different Execution Methods Used in America

Deseret News: Inmate Threatens to Sue if State Won’t Let Him Die by Firing Squad

Washington Post: The Recent History of States Contemplating Firing Squads and Other Execution Methods

Tennessean: Methodists Want Tennessee to Reconsider Electric Chair Law

MSNBC: Without Lethal Injection, Americans Back Electric Chair, Hanging

Salon: GOP’s Firing Squad Idiocy: The Hypocrisy of ‘Humane Executions’

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lethal Injection Crisis in America: How States Are Solving the Problem appeared first on Law Street.

After a botched execution in Oklahoma rose questions about the cruelty of the death penalty last month, capital punishment is in the news again this week. The Supreme Court has ruled a Florida law unconstitutional that barred the execution of any prisoner with an IQ less than 70, after the case was heard in March. The law was intended to prevent inhumane treatment of those prisoners, but the Justices who voted to strike down the law stated that a strict IQ cut off did not take into account inherent issues with IQ tests. The ruling was 5-4, with the more liberal side of the court voting to overturn Florida’s law. The perennial swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy swung to their side.

The problem with such an inflexible law is that it allowed some prisoners, who fell just above the 70 point threshold, to be executed. IQ tests are not even close to absolute–there is a margin of error that needs to be taken into account. Someone with an IQ of 71 could have the same mental capacities as someone who receives an IQ test of 69. Florida’s law doesn’t recognize that. There is also the fact that IQ can vary over time. When you reach your 50s or 60s, your score will usually go down by a point or two. There’s also the problem that our IQ scores, as a society, have changed over time. Every decade, our average IQ scores go up by about 3 points. Finally, there’s the matter of education–people who had more access to education may score higher on an IQ test, even if their mental abilities are the same as another with less education. The benchmark of “70” means little to nothing, other than an arbitrary number used to decide the future of some prisoners.

Many US states that still allow capital punishment have some sort of IQ or capability requirement in order to sentence a prisoner to death. However, most of those states take a holistic look at prisoners, incorporating psychological assessments and recognizing the margin of error that is present in an IQ test. Florida was one of the few with a purely numerical cutoff, but the others with similar laws will also be forced to reevaluate their policies. The other states are Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. Although Kansas’s death penalty hasn’t actually been used in half a century, and Washington may be moving towards abolishing theirs.

The case that made it to the Supreme Court involved a man named Freddie L. Hall. He has been in prison since 1978, when he was convicted of murdering a 21-year-old woman who was pregnant. His execution has been hanging in the balance due to his borderline IQ scores. He has taken nine IQ tests over roughly the last 50 years. On those tests, he has scored anywhere from low 60s to 80. His most recent tests have hovered right around that 70 benchmark–a few over and a few under. However, not all of his tests have been deemed admissible in court and the one that was used in his most recent hearing had a score of 71. That means that Hall was just one point about the 70 cutoff, even though there’s no evidence to suggest that he consistently could score above 70. Throughout Hall’s entire life, his doctors had classified him as mentally disabled based not just on IQ scores but on other tests and on their analysis.

As a result of the rule regarding Hall, and the changes that the nine aforementioned states will have to make, there are a few prisoners who may get another chance at appealing the ruling that put them on death row.

This is a great step towards a recognition that IQ tests have not, for a long time, been conclusive, and that something as serious as the death penalty needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis whenever possible.

[New Republic]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Biologycorner 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 IQ Requirements for Death Penalty to Change Due to SCOTUS Ruling appeared first on Law Street.

In a last minute stay, Justice Samuel Alito ordered the immediate halt to a Missouri man’s execution. Russell Bucklew, who was convicted of murder, kidnapping, and rape in 1996, was scheduled to be executed Wednesday evening, but his attorneys had successfully appealed to delay the execution on the grounds that the intended drug cocktail can create the same complications as the one used on an Oklahoma death row inmate earlier this month. That execution caused massive controversy after the inmate ended up seizing and having a heart attack instead of the usual quick death.

The Supreme Court usually keeps its nose out of execution cases, which makes Alito’s action very rare. Opponents of the drug mixtures that are currently used on death row inmates may herald this as a victory. Traditional drugs that used to execute inmates are in short supply, forcing prisons to resort to mixing drugs together from companies that are not very anxious to reveal their sources. In a Georgia, the state Supreme Court ruled against a death row inmate suing to find out where his killer drugs were coming from. With that information, the inmate’s lawyers argued, they can then proceed with investigations into whether the drugs being supplied would constitute cruel and unusual punishment; however, the Georgia Supreme Court decided 5-2 that protection from harassment for the pharmaceutical company was more important than the right to know where drugs came from.

With Alito’s stay, capital punishment is set to become the next legal debate on the national stage. As capital punishment continues, there is greater outcry as to why it is acceptable to use shady drugs supplied by anonymous pharmaceutical companies. After all, isn’t it cruel and unusual that inmates are not being told where their killer drugs are coming from? Maybe the Supreme Court can decide.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Ken Piorkowski via Wiipedia].

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Steps Up Amid Execution Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

In my search for a news story today, I came across what looked like an interesting topic. A trial is set to begin in Fort Hood, TX, regarding a prostitution ring that was supposedly set up by a Fort Hood sergeant who has yet to be charged. On trial is Master Sergeant Brad Grimes, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is accused of participating in the prostitution ring.

Conspiring to pay for sex is without a doubt a crime, and if Grimes did so, he deserves to be punished as the court sees fit. But what sparked my interest, and a bit of surprise, was that Grimes was also charged with adultery.

That got me thinking: am I woefully ignorant of current laws, or do I just not see adultery charges that often?

So, I looked it up, and what I found was an incredibly wide-ranging set of laws, and a number of strange cases. Let’s start with the most extreme derivations. In Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, adultery is a felony. Technically speaking, in Michigan, you could be sentenced to life in prison for cheating on your spouse, as Judge William Murphy in the Michigan Court of Appeals noted in 2007.

Then there are states that are not nearly as harsh. Of the 23 states that still have adultery laws on the books (Colorado abolished theirs earlier this year), most classify it as some type of misdemeanor. This means that in most of these states, an adultery conviction would result in a fine.

A slim majority of states don’t have any adultery laws on the books at all. And it’s important to note that in those that do, actual trials or charges rarely develop. In Massachusetts, one of the states that does classify adultery as a felony, no one has been convicted of it since 1983. Even in that case, the punishment was only two $50 fines, one for the woman who committing adultery and one for the man with whom she was sleeping. If anything, adultery comes up during custody or divorce battles.

In the military, adultery laws are taken more seriously. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not specifically contain adultery as a crime, but does have Article 134, which “prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline”. The Manual for Court Martial expands Article 134 to include examples of specific offenses, and does contain adultery. The penalty for adultery can include up to a year in confinement, and/or dishonorable discharge.

According to this Slate article, standalone charges for adultery are rare. They’re usually piled on with other misconduct charges, such as lying to a superior. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be damaging—in 1997, Lt. Kelly Flynn made headlines when she was dishonorably discharged after lying about sleeping with the husband of one of her coworkers.

That brings us back to Grimes. He was charged with adultery in conjunction with other charges, and really, my point here is not to diminish the conspiracy to pay for sex charges he is also facing. My point is that I was shocked to see an adultery charge listed at all. Off the top of my head, I don’t think I can think of a popular prime-time drama in which adultery does not incur. In fact, there have been entire shows that pretty much revolve around it—Desperate Housewives, anyone? Maybe I’m just cynical, but I’ve always seen adultery as a personal act in which a decent proportion of our population engages—not a potential felony. Now I’m not trying to say that adultery is an ok thing to do, or morally acceptable. But the truth of the matter is that it happens. The percentage of married women reporting affairs in the last two decades was around 15% in 2013, for men it was around 21%. Grimes probably deserves the sentence he will receive. But our archaic adultery laws also deserve a look.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Harsh Agrawal/www.chromoz.com 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 Adultery in the US: Do You Know the Laws? appeared first on Law Street.