Protests in Portland, Oregon, erupted Sunday after two men were murdered in the city last week while trying to defend young girls from anti-Muslim taunts on a train.

On one side of the Portland protests was a free speech rally for supporters of President Donald Trump. It was organized by conservative group Patriot Prayer, led by Joey Gibson, a self-described “Libertarian and a Christian.” The rally of Trump supporters, located near city hall, led to two counterprotests–a rally originating from an anti-fascist group and a “Portland Stands United Against Hate” rally.

A heavily protected police force, along with Homeland Security officers, stood between the two sides. After violence broke out, police said that officers had been assaulted.

A small group of Buddhists silently joined the Portland protests, according to the Washington Post. 

Portland police face off with counter protesters as Alt-Right activists are seen in background #trump #PDXprotests @wweek pic.twitter.com/ucqnyub87m

— William Gagan (@WillyFoReal) June 4, 2017

The groups were given protest permits despite Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler’s plea to the federal government to revoke the permission.

“Our city is in mourning, our community’s anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation,” Wheeler posted on Facebook.

During an interview with HLN Network, Wheeler clarified that he supports free speech no matter the topic, but believed that the timing was a threat to public safety.

While the Trump supporters argued that their rally was simply to promote the First Amendment, the other side viewed it as an endorsement of the aforementioned train stabbing.

Jeremy Christian, the suspect in the murder case, brought free speech to the forefront of his trial as he entered the courtroom on May 30.

“Get out if you don’t like free speech!” he shouted.“You call it terrorism; I call it patriotism. Die.”

Christian had been seen at previous alt-right rallies in Portland, performing Nazi salutes and screaming racial slurs, according to the Washington Post.

Despite a large police presence separating the protesters, violence erupted throughout the day. The Portland Police Department made 14 arrests at a “variety of locations” and confiscated various weapons, including bricks, hammers, and hunting knives.

Another collection of weapons seized today. pic.twitter.com/tdMmMSM2Wp

— Portland Police (@PortlandPolice) June 5, 2017

The 14 suspects, whose ages ranged from 19-to 64-years-old, were all caucasian. Three got off with citations. The charges include disorderly conduct, carrying a concealed weapon, and interfering with a peace officer. The remaining 11 suspects will be arraigned in court this Friday at Multnomah County Court, according to CNN.

Police say that the situation began with each side hurling insults and names before things escalated. At some point in the day demonstrators began throwing bottles, bricks, and balloons filled with “foul-smelling liquid,” according to USA Today.

Gibson, who claims he disapproves of Christian’s actions both on the train and at previous protests, spoke against violence at the rally.

“I want everybody here . . . to find it in yourself to make this day positive, with no hate and no violence,” he told the crowd. “We have to understand Portland is legitimately shaken up right now.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Portland Protests Result in 14 Arrests, Confiscated Weapons appeared first on Law Street.

FBI’s Russia Probe Makes it Across the Pond

The investigations into the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia continue, and now there’s a new name popping up as a reported “person of interest.” Nigel Farage, the leader of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) that drove the “Leave” movement pre-Brexit, is apparently of interest to the FBI. Specifically, the FBI appears to be probing Farage’s ties to Julian Assange, the controversial founder of WikiLeaks, as well as some other individuals connected to Trump, including Roger Stone. This doesn’t mean that Farage is believed to have done anything wrong, rather that the FBI thinks that he may have information that is relevant to its probe into Trump and Russia.

Farage denies the claims that he’s a person of interest in the investigation. A spokesman told the Guardian, which first published the claims, that the questions were “verging on the hysterical.”

“If you triangulate Russia, WikiLeaks, Assange and Trump associates the person who comes up with the most hits is Nigel Farage.” https://t.co/oar5if5d1u

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 1, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: June 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Angela Merkel Implies that Europe Can No Longer Rely on the U.S.

After his recent trip, some European leaders seem a little sick of President Donald Trump. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently hinted, without specifically mentioning Trump’s name, that European countries can no longer consider the U.S. a reliable ally. During a rally held inside a Bavarian beer tent on Sunday, she said, “The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days.” She added that Europe “really must take our fate into our own hands.”

Frmr CIA Dir McLaughlin: Trump creating rift w/ Germany and Europe “is one of the most damaging things I have seen in…years and years.”

— Steve Peoples (@sppeoples) May 30, 2017

During his visit to Europe, Trump said he might pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement–the most unified effort to combat climate change to date. Trump has also expressed support for Brexit and encouraged other countries in the European Union to explore leaving the coalition. As a result, many Europeans see Trump as a potential threat to regional stability. But now it seems like his recent comments and behavior in Europe could actually unite Europe–even Merkel’s rivals in the upcoming national elections have supported her response. This morning, Trump hit back against Germany with a tweet (of course).

We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 30, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Adding to its recent legal woes, Uber is facing a criminal probe from the Justice Department, according to people familiar with the investigation. The investigation, which concerns the ride sharing service’s controversial Greyball tracking tool, is reportedly in its early stages. A federal inquiry does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing; criminal charges being brought against Uber executives are also not a guarantee.

Since The New York Times uncovered its existence in March, Greyball has been a lightning rod of controversy. Greyball is a technology that allows Uber to present fake versions of its app to people it does not want in its cars–like city officials looking to reign in the company’s illegal practices–and track them using credit card data and other personal information. Uber claims it used the tool to protect its drivers in new markets, some of which the service operated in illegally, like Portland, Oregon.

After the Times’ report in March, an Uber spokesman said Greyball “denies ride requests to users who are violating our terms of service — whether that’s people aiming to physically harm drivers, competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who collude with officials on secret ‘stings’ meant to entrap drivers.”

But officials in cities like Portland, where Uber fought through legal hurdles in late 2014 before it began legally operating in the city in April 2015, say the tool was used for more nefarious reasons. According to Portland transportation officials, Uber intentionally skirted 16 city officials who were looking to shut-down the service because it was operating illegally at the time. Uber’s attorneys say the tool was used “exceedingly sparingly” in Portland; it had not been used since April 2015, they said.

Uber and its embattled chief executive, Travis Kalanick, has been embroiled in controversy for much of the year. From a spate of sexual assault accusations to a video of Kalanick berating an Uber driver, the $70 billion dollar behemoth is facing uncertainty as it enters Silicon Valley’s newest frontier: self-driving vehicles. In fact, Uber’s future in that field is increasingly in doubt. It was also recently hit with a lawsuit from Google’s autonomous car division, Waymo, which accused Uber of stealing its trade secrets.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Department of Justice Opens Criminal Investigation into Uber’s Greyball appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

President Trump Launches Missile Attack on Syrian Government

Last night, President Donald Trump ordered a missile strike on the Syrian government in retaliation for the chemical attack on civilians earlier this week. Almost 60 missiles were fired from warships in the Mediterranean, aimed at the airfield believed to be where the chemical weapons originated from. Russian forces were warned and no Russian soldiers died but President Vladimir Putin denounced the move this morning, calling it “an act of aggression” and claiming the strike violated international law.

First time I’m not totally opposed to Trump. Action needed to stop strikes on civilians. EU & US must continue to work for pol. settlement.

— Guy Verhofstadt (@GuyVerhofstadt) April 7, 2017

Trump announced the order right before his dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago. Although an unexpected and seemingly rushed decision, NATO and international leaders have expressed their support for Trump’s move and said that it was an appropriate response to the horrifying chemical weapons attack. Trump previously blamed the Obama Administration for the chemical weapons attack, arguing that if Obama had intervened more thoroughly during his presidency, it wouldn’t have happened. But many people pointed out that Trump asked Obama to not intervene back in 2013. Also, a majority of Republicans in Congress disapproved of a military strike when Obama sought approval to conduct one.

President Trump repeatedly used Twitter to tell Obama in 2013: Don’t attack Syria https://t.co/1PNNa8SgAA pic.twitter.com/eJ3enCG2ru

— CNN International (@cnni) April 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Protests have erupted in major cosmopolitan cities across America since Tuesday, when Donald Trump shocked the nation with his upset victory. Streams of people crammed the streets of Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Portland, Oregon, and Washington, D.C. over the weekend, many coalescing around Trump properties, chanting and holding signs, and some, clashing with police.

The most violent and contentious protests–deemed riots by the local police–occurred in Portland, Oregon on Saturday evening. People wearing Guy Fawkes masks–now a favored motif of the hacker group Anonymous–and others holding signs, many of which read “Not my President,” flooded the streets. According to media reports from the scene as well as reports from the Portland police, some protesters hurled road flares and rocks at riot police, who were equipped with shields and batons.

Seventy-one people were arrested in Portland. One man was shot at the Morrison Bridge and was later treated at a hospital. Portland police said two 18-year-old men were arrested and charged with attempted murder and unlawful use of a weapon in connection with the shooting. Protests elsewhere, many of which drew thousands of people, were largely peaceful, with people silently walking with encouraging signs preaching empathy for many of the groups that Trump mocked or targeted during his unusual campaign that upended political protocol yet still managed to hand him the White House.

Los Angeles stands with #NeverTrump & #calexit in an **INCREDIBLE** show of solidary on Wilshire Blvd#TrumpProtest pic.twitter.com/wAPa6ied6y

— #CalExit NaphiSoc (@NaphiSoc) November 13, 2016

The protests highlight one of the major fault lines of the bruising 2016 campaign: the disparate worlds of rural and urban America. Most major cosmopolitan cities–Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Washington, D.C.–and many mid-sized ones as well, went blue on Election Day. Smaller towns that are rural and mostly white went to Trump. His divisive rhetoric left deep scars for many who opposed his message and others belonging to groups that were consistently berated by Trump over the past year.

Those scars left a burning desire to protest since Trump’s message won out, and the “not my president” tagline can likely be applied to many liberal pockets on the coasts. But for others, a shred less than a majority of voters, as Hillary Clinton won the popular vote yet lost the Electoral College, Trump is the president they elected and the man they hope will live up to his ubiquitous campaign motto.

For his part, President-elect Trump, in an interview that aired on 60 Minutes Sunday night, said to those who were fearful of his time in office: “Don’t be afraid.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Major Cities Erupt in Protest Over Donald Trump’s Win appeared first on Law Street.

The incredible saga of the Bundy brothers continues. Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and the five other people who have been on trial for an armed takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge in January, were acquitted of all charges on Thursday. Even though the six men and one woman took over federal property for six weeks while armed, the Portland jury agreed that they are not guilty of impeding federal workers from getting to work, which was the official charge. The verdict has many people upset and comparing it to the ongoing Dakota Pipeline protest where Native American protesters have been attacked with dogs and pepper spray, while these white protesters were acquitted despite being armed.

Imagine if these defendants were black or Muslim… there would not have been a trial. https://t.co/AYAT9738Kk #crimingwhilewhite #Bundy

— Sara Elizabeth Dill (@SEDLAW15) October 28, 2016

Even the defendants’ lawyers were surprised at the outcome. “It’s stunning. It’s a stunning victory for the defense,” said Robert Salisbury, attorney for defendant Jeff Banta. “I’m speechless.” The Bundy brothers themselves will remain jailed awaiting another trial in Nevada for an armed standoff that took place in 2014. In that case, the charges are more serious, involving felony weapon and conspiracy charges. After hearing the verdicts from Judge Anna J. Brown, an attorney for Ammon Bundy, Marcus Mumford, threw a tantrum in the courtroom and yelled at the judge to release his client until guards tackled him to the ground using a stun gun. He was then also arrested.

Prosecutors argued that the group used threat of violence to occupy the wildlife refuge, which doesn’t sound that unbelievable considering they were armed and refused to leave. But the defendants said they were simply peacefully protesting government control–even though they urged others to bring their firearms and join them. The whole thing is believed to have cost taxpayers more than $3.3 million and ended dramatically when one participant, Robert “LaVoy” Finicum, was fatally shot by police during a chase when he refused to give up.

Bundy Brothers acquitted. Officially have no hope for this judicial system anymore.

— Max Winner (@maxxwinner) October 28, 2016

The National Wildlife Federation condemned the verdict in a statement:

This was not a peaceful protest; this was occupation by gunpoint and it assaulted the very foundation of our democracy, our Constitutional principles, and our shared public lands heritage. These criminals prevented Americans from enjoying the wildlife that belong to all of us, destroyed refuge infrastructure, degraded wildlife habitat, and desecrated archaeological treasures. In a democracy, disagreements must be resolved through collaboration, debate or the courts, not by brute force.

The question is how they could be found not guilty of preventing federal employees from accessing their workplace when that is precisely what they did. One of their key aims was to get the federal government to give up some of the land it owns to locals, another was to protest the conviction of two men who were found guilty of arson on government land. Those men, Dwight and Steven Hammond, turned themselves in to serve their sentences and said they didn’t want the Bundys’ help, but still became the catalyst for the whole armed standoff.

The next step is the Nevada trial for the Bundy brothers early next year, as well as another Oregon trial for seven participating defendants who chose to postpone their hearings until February.

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 Bundy Brothers Acquitted for Armed Takeover, But Remain Jailed appeared first on Law Street.

In a May 17 vote, the Portland Public School board unanimously approved Resolution No. 5272 to develop a new plan for how information about climate change is taught in local public schools. The controversial catch? The resolution specifically included a section mandating the abandonment of any books that are “found to express doubt about the severity of the climate crisis or its root in human activities.” While proponents of the resolution argue that textbooks containing doubt about the existence of man-made climate change lead to fewer informed children, many people are outraged at the idea of textbook censorship being enacted in public schools.

From the view of the school board, removing texts that cast doubt on the severity of man-made climate change will help to enlighten students in Portland. Rather than seeing the initiative as a ban on certain viewpoints, the school board has identified it as a way to make climate change literacy a priority in the school system. Bill Bigelow, editor of the Rethinking Schools magazine, said: “a lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise.”

He even discussed the fact that it is not uncommon for fossil fuel producers and their PR departments to influence written sections in textbooks about climate change, which could lead to skewed information. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry,” Bigelow said.

On the other hand, the stir that has been created in response to the school board’s resolution has been overwhelming in the last few days after the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) released an official statement against the resolution. Its response detailed several features of the resolution that it considered concerning including the resolution’s overly broad nature, its undervaluing of students being able to consider all sides of an argument, and the fact that it was almost entirely created because of political pressure by environmental lobbyists. The coalition even tweeted last week that the resolution was  unnecessary:

Portland’s climate education resolution is over-broad, politically influenced, and unnecessary. https://t.co/QLf33nDleB

— ncacensorship (@ncacensorship) June 3, 2016

To NCAC, the censorship of books curtails individual students’ rights to read multiple opinions on global warming and then decide for themselves what impact they believe it is having. In addition, the ban could limit accurate exposure to the debate over man-made climate change from the last couple of decades for students. NCAC’s statement express concern over wresting independence from those who teach the material, teachers:

Deciding how to approach the existing political debate around the causes of climate change should be left to those who teach about it: science professors, social studies and civics professors may approach the issue differently in accordance with the requirements of their subject matter. Elected officials have an important role in ensuring the availability of an adequate education to all students; they should devote their energies to that worthy goal, and leave decisions about what and how to teach to the people who are trained to do it.

In other words, students should be exposed to all viewpoints and then it should be up to teachers and professors to determine what is and is not taught in schools–not politicians. Other opponents have criticized the public school system in Portland of promoting “political indoctrination” over the education of children.

While the new Portland plan may raise questions about student access to accurate summaries of the historical debate over man-made climate change, 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree that it is reality. Maybe what Portland needs is an amendment to the plan rather than a complete overhaul: some way to teach kids that the cause and existence of climate change has been debated, but that science overwhelmingly supports its existence and human origin. It seems like the Portland Public School Board had its heart in the right place, and that the controversy stirred up by the NCAC may help the board tailor its policies to be slightly less all consuming and perhaps more effective.

Alexandra Simone

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

The post Portland Censors Climate Change Material In Textbooks, Sparking Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

In an attempt to get American cities thinking about the future of transportation, the federal government initiated a contest last December. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) launched the Smart City Challenge, which asked cities to come up with new and innovative transportation solutions, with particular emphasis on self-driving vehicles. The competition drew 78 different cities (or teams of cities) as applicants, and US Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx just announced seven finalists who will move on to the next stage of the competition.

The cities who made the finals are: Austin, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Kansas City, Missouri; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; and San Francisco, California. Although there were originally only supposed to be five finalists, these seven were chosen because of the strengths of their proposals.

Each city that made it to this level in the competition will receive $100,000 to further develop their plans, as well as DOT help. The overall winner could get up $50 million to implement their innovative transportation solution. The other 71 cities that entered the contest will also most likely get some federal funding help with their transportation systems as well.

There were a wide range of different proposals offered; according to the Washington Post’s Michael Laris:

The plans are ambitious and varied, from Columbus’s push to build a network of on-demand driverless shuttles to Portland’s plan to connect electric vehicle charging stations to its streetlight system.

The contest was inspired by the fact that a 2015 DOT study found that many American cities are unprepared for imminent transportation trends, including increased urbanization, denser neighborhoods, and an older population. According to a statement Foxx gave to Gizmodo:

For a long time these cities have felt very powerless seeing congestion and travel times going up and haven’t had the resources to aggressively tackle those things. We’re saying, if you’ve got a creative idea to answer those challenges, let’s see how we can help.

It will be interesting to see what kind of plans the seven finalist cities are able to implement. They could be the first steps in widespread transportation innovation in the U.S.

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 Smart City Challenge Finalists Announced appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to Law Street Media’s rundown of the best stories of last week. ICYMI, check out the top three below:

#1 Top Five Reasons Young Law and Policy Minds Should Check Out Portland, Oregon

Portland, Oregon, has long been heralded as one of the hottest cities for millennials. Home to Lewis & Clark Law School, it’s also a great city for young lawyers, as well as young aspiring lawyers. If you fit into one of those categories, and are considering a move, check out some of the top reasons to give Portland a look. Read the full story here.

#2 Drunk Driving on Trial at the Supreme Court

Drunk driving has left parents childless, spouses widowed, and siblings as only children. In 2013 alone, 10,076 people were killed in drunk driving crashes. It has claimed the lives of thousands of people over the years and sparked lobbyist action, which has forced stricter regulation of drunk driving on both the federal and state levels. Most recently, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a group of three cases, a sequel per se to its 2013 drunk driving decision, in an effort to review warrantless drunk driving tests as a violation of Fourth Amendment rights and the criminalization of a refusal to take a drunk driving test. Click here to learn more about the development of drunk driving as a crime and what the new cases hold for the future.

#3 Bill Cosby Countersues Seven Rape Accusers For Defamation

Bill Cosby.

You used to be able to say that name and conjure up happy memories of family-friendly sitcom episodes, flamboyant knitted sweaters, or pudding pops. But not anymore.

Now America’s former “favorite dad” has become synonymous with drugging women with quaaludes and raping them, after more than 50 women came forward to accuse the comedian of sexual assault. As a result, Cosby is lashing out by filing a defamation lawsuit against seven of his accusers, claiming they ruined his reputation for “financial gain.” Read the full story 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.

Sponsored Content

Portland, Oregon, has long been heralded as one of the hottest cities for millennials. Home to Lewis & Clark Law School, it’s also a great city for young lawyers, as well as young aspiring lawyers. If you fit into one of those categories, and are considering a move, check out some of the top reasons to give Portland a look.

The Economy

Things are looking relatively good for Portland’s economy. It’s been dubbed a hub of entrepreneurship, with a hot startup scene. In addition, major corporations including Nike, Wieden+Kennedy, and Intel have their largest campuses in the Portland metro area. Portland’s major industries–software, athletic and outdoor products, advanced manufacturing, and green building and technology–promise to be consistently strong fields in the years to come.

Portland also boasts a lower unemployment rate than the rest of the United States, a higher median household income, and a very well-educated population.

Food Scene

Portland’s food scene is consistently ranked as one of the best in the U.S. The city has also been ranked as one of the most affordable U.S. cities when it comes to good cuisines–great news for any aspiring foodies who are in law school or pre-law and don’t want to break the bank. There’s lots of great niche food there too–from great local craft brews to vegetarian and vegan selections.

Check out this feature below on Portland’s innovative food carts for a snapshot of the city’s food scene:

The Population

Portland has seen a huge increase in population growth over the last few years. Portland had the 15th largest metro-area population growth in 2013-2014 (out of the top 50 largest metro areas.) With a population now at 2.35 million, Portland saw 33,500 new residents move into its metro area borders from 2013-2014 alone. Nearly half of those new residents came from different areas of the country, and another 15 percent are international transplants. That kind of wide breadth of transplants is sure to lead to a mix of cultures and voices.

Ted Reid, who works on Metro Planning in the area, explained:

This population growth speaks to the attractiveness of our region’s communities as places to live and work. With two-thirds of the growth coming from people moving here from elsewhere, this is right in line with our long-term forecast. The challenge that we have is to improve people’s quality of life as the population grows. More than ever, there’s a need to plan ahead.

Sustainability and Focus on the Environment

Portland is all about sustainability. Take, for example, the commuting scene in Portland. Portland has a fantastic public transit system, and it’s one of the most bike-friendly cities in the nation. From 2000-2014, the number of workers in Portland who commute by bike jumped from 1.8 percent to 6.1 percent. According to the League of American Bicyclists, Portland was the city with the highest number of bike commuters in 2013.

Portland also extends its focus on sustainability to the food scene, which in addition to being fantastic (see above) has a big commitment to using locally-sourced ingredients. Portland has standout green policies and follow-through: the city’s recycling rate is almost 60 percent, which is pretty impressive compared to the nationwide rate of 34.1 percent. The city-wide composting program is also unique and shows commitment to environmental responsibility.

And if you’re rolling your eyes about the fact that you already knew about Portland’s sustainability track record from the show “Portlandia,” that’s alright, because Portland’s sustainability chief Susan Anderson admits that the show draws some inspiration from real life. She said about Portlandia:

I always say it’s less of a parody and more of a biography. Our [former] mayor is the mayor’s assistant [on the show]. What’s interesting are the parts that [make] people in other cities think, ‘Aw, I wish we were that place.’ It’s not the over-the-top, goofy parts, but the human-scale part of Portland. It’s really walkable and there are restaurants on the corners and there are food carts everywhere. The air and water are generally very clean. You can recycle everything. Portlandia is a parody but a lot of those things are actually normal here.

The Legal Field

Portland’s legal scene will see new challenges in coming years–including an attempt to regulate the burgeoning marijuana market, now that Oregon has legalized it. While the legal market in Portland isn’t necessarily as robust as other parts of the U.S., a large pool of practical training opportunities are available for law school students while they’re still studying. For example, there’s the Oregon Justice Resource Center, which worked to start a new branch of the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project works to free those who have been wrongfully convicted. The OJRC allows law students to provide attorneys with research and assistance on death penalty cases.

Portland is also a center of change and growth in business that may be reflected in the legal field in years to come. There’s been a rise in IP and patent work, probably tied to the fact that Portland is a leading tech hub–its tech talent growth has outpaced Silicon Valley’s. Other of Portland niches, such as sustainability and food ethics, have also found a way to shine within Portland’s legal market. For example, Lewis & Clark Law recently hosted a forum to discuss food law. It’s a revolutionary and developing facet of law that promises to grow as Americans become concerned about the ethics of eating. Another field being pioneered in Portland is Animal Law, as the Center for Animal Law Studies is located there. Its annual Animal Law Conference  tasks itself to take on “cutting-edge global animal law issues including protecting animals in their native countries; international marine mammal challenges; animal testing outside the US; factory farming worldwide; animals in constitutions; litigation and legislation updates; and much more.”

So, if you’re thinking about a change, why not check out Portland? There’s a lot it can offer.

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Top Five Reasons Young Law and Policy Minds Should Check Out Portland, Oregon appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Lewis & Clark Law School is now offering its students an innovative way to gain hands-on experience with criminal law. A new clinic called the Criminal Justice Reform Clinic is a collaboration between the law school and the Oregon Justice Resource Center (OJRC) and will benefit both law school students, and members of the community in need of legal resources.

The OJRC is a non-profit founded by Lewis & Clark Law School graduates in 2011. Its mission is to:

Dismantle systemic discrimination in the administration of justice by promoting civil rights and enhancing the quality of legal representation for traditionally underserved communities. In the spirit of this mission and in collaboration with other like-minded organizations, OJRC believes in an integrative, three-pronged approach to systemic change and achieving its goals in the core areas of criminal defense and wrongful convictions: 1) advocating for individual clients and systemic change in the law; 2) educating future social justice lawyers; and 3) engaging the community in a dialogue about our justice system.

I had the opportunity to talk to law Professor Aliza Kaplan, who is supervising the clinic, about its inception and goals. She explained that the students who are involved in the clinical program will have the option of being involved in three different projects, providing different ways to engage in the criminal justice system.

The first project involves working in tandem with the Oregon Innocence Project. The Oregon Innocence Project was launched by the OJRC just last year, and focuses on exonerating those who have been wrongly convicted by investigating their claims, re-testing crucial evidence like DNA, and following up on appeals if needed.

Another avenue for students to get involved is the Criminal Justice Project. It focuses on reforming the Oregon criminal justice system in a number of ways, including an arm that works directly on death penalty reform. The students who participate in the Criminal Justice Project will also have the opportunity to work on Eighth Amendment  and sentencing issues and to get involved in the Amicus Curiae Project. The Amicus Curiae Project “provides amicus assistance on the state level in cases that present significant social justice issues that are related to criminal defense, civil rights, juvenile justice, or are of particular importance to traditionally underserved communities,” says Kaplan.

The final project that clinical students can work on is a new endeavor called the “Reentry Law Project,” a joint project with Mercy Corps, which will provide much-needed legal services for people once they’ve been released from prison. There are myriad legal issues that people who have been released from prison face, including problems with immigration, healthcare, and housing.

The clinic offers new opportunities to students at Lewis & Clark Law School, and a valuable service to the Portland community. Law students interested in criminal justice issues were lacking an outlet through which to gain hands-on experience. Since the inception of the OJRC, students have been volunteering with the organization and gaining experience working in this field. The new clinical program will increase student involvement, participation, and benefits while meeting community need.

The OJRC has only been around since 2011, and the social justice issues it faces head on are just beginning to be recognized in Oregon. In doing so, the OJRC is tackling a massive field–the conversation about the inadequacies and difficulties inherent in our criminal justice system have never been more visible than they are now. Law school students, regardless of where they are attending school, are on the precipice of entering a legal environment that is being forced to confront these issues–getting hands on experience while still in law school can only strengthen the skills of the students once they enter that environment.

As Professor Kaplan explained to me, the OJRC has taken on a broad remit as an advocate for reform across a range of criminal legal issues as well as providing client services and raising the funds and awareness that are crucial to its success. For students, being part of the OJRC in an official role through the Criminal Justice Reform Clinic provides insights that cannot be found in a classroom. For the organization itself, the students’ contribution allows more to be achieved in less time, helping the OJRC to advance its mission in Oregon more quickly and more profoundly.

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Lewis & Clark Law School’s New Criminal Justice Reform Clinic Fills Holes in the Criminal Justice System appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Portland’s Lewis & Clark Law School, the top-ranking law school in the country for Environmental and Energy Law, opened its doors for the first “Eat, Pray, Law” food forum on March 13, 2015. Food affects pretty much every part of our lives, and concerns about food exist at every level. From an individual perspective, we all obviously want to be comfortable with the nutrients we put into our bodies; on a larger scale, questions of sustainability, regulation, and equality all have their parts to play in a discussion about the ethics and legal issues of our food industry. In an attempt to answer some of those questions, Lewis & Clark brought together a day of panels to engage in lively discussion on some of the most pressing questions in food law.

I had the opportunity to speak to two of the event’s organizers, Janice Weis, the Associate Dean and Director of the Environmental & Natural Resources Law Program, and Vytas Babusis, a 2L and the President of the law school’s Food & Wine Law Society, in order to answer some of my questions about the event’s inception, purpose, and reception.

The fact that there’s been rising interest in topics such as sustainable eating, food justice, and food ethics is no surprise. But Dean Weis reports seeing a noticeable uptick in applicants who cite food law and policy as topics of interest in recent years. Given Lewis & Clark Law’s cutting edge environmental, animal, and business law programs, delving into the different facets of those issues seemed like a natural fit. It was out of this collaboration that the “Eat, Pray, Law” forum was born.

The event hosted at least 120 attendees, although Babusis told me he believed there were more who were drawn in at the last moment who had not registered. The day started out with a keynote speech from Congressman Earl Blumenauer, who represents Oregon’s third district.

Just addressed Lewis & Clark’s Eat Pray Law food summit -no wonder my alma mater was judged #1 enviro law program in the nation! @lclarklaw

— Earl Blumenauer (@repblumenauer) March 13, 2015

Blumenaur discussed the ongoing attempts to overhaul the “Farm Bill” to reflect current food policies and public consciousness.

Each of the three departments–environmental law, business law, and animal law–had a panel that loosely corresponded to it. Weis told me the panels touched on a veritable “potpourri” of hot issues in food law. Most interestingly, she also reported that while each panel had its own focus, consistent themes were apparent across the discussions–a good reminder that so many aspects of food law and policy intertwine and intersect.

One of those consistent themes was a focus on transparency–consumers want to know what is in their food, where it comes from, and the collateral effects of its production. This applies across the board–from consumers reporting these concerns, to the possibility of government regulations to ensure greater transparency, to businesses making the commitment to provide greater transparency.

The day wrapped up with a discussion on food justice. Babusis explained food justice as he sees it by saying,

For me “food justice” is doing the right thing for the planet and for the people in every aspect along the food chain.

He continued:

If we truly understand where our food grows, how to grow it sustainably regenerating the soil and what we have to do to feed people the right food from plants to animals, then we are better prepared to make laws which encourage that and know best how to help those in the industry from employment, IP and business law, to environmental and animal advocacy.

An important facet of food justice is the accessibility of food for many of our low-income citizens. “Food deserts” are defined by the Department of Agriculture as:

Urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. Instead of supermarkets and grocery stores, these communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer few healthy, affordable food options.

Essentially, it’s all very well and good if sustainable, transparent food is made a higher priority, but it needs to be made a higher priority for all of our citizens. The last panel at “Eat, Pray, Law” brought in members of the community for a tangible discussion on promoting food justice and accessibility.

Weis said that they plan on reprising the event again next year, and continuing to expand opportunities for students to discuss and become involved in food law. Overall, this panel was a great example of the innovative work going on at Lewis & Clark Law with regard to the intersections between food, animal, business, and environmental law.

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Eat, Pray, Law: Lewis & Clark Law Forum Discusses Food Law appeared first on Law Street.