When Upton Sinclair wrote “The Jungle,” he intended to show the harsh conditions of poor immigrants working in the meat packing factories of Chicago. Published in 1906, his book ended up being one of the earliest catalysts for American food regulation. People were revolted by the unregulated food industry and the awful truth behind where their meat came from.  Sinclair’s book led to a public outcry, and many called for more regulations for the food industry. And for good reason–throughout American history up until that point there had never been any serious attempts to regulate the food industry. 

We now live in an age of big farms and monoculture. It used to be that most of the food you ate was grown or raised fairly close to where you lived. As technology and jobs changed, and the demand for meat grew, food began to be produced on a larger scale. Read on to learn more about the changing food culture and the concept of “food sovereignty.” 

Eating Local?

During President Theodore Roosevelt’s tenure, the U.S. began regulating food and drugs produced in the country with the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906. This act prohibited “misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks, and drugs in interstate commerce.” This was regulated by the Bureau of Chemistry in the Department of Agriculture, which eventually became the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1930.

Today, food laws are still imperfect. But the American public is increasingly conscious of where and how food is produced. Debates regarding food production are happening all over the country. Most Americans eat three times a day. A 2011 study found that the average American eats roughly 1,996 pounds of food each year. With that much food at stake, it makes sense that people are concerned.

Recently in America there has been a push toward “eating local.” Many people want to go to farmers markets and buy their tomatoes and cabbage from the farmer who grew it. They want to buy their eggs from chickens that were raised in hen houses that they could visit, rather than from a place straight out of “Food Inc.” 

In short, people are more aware of where their food is coming from. And that is where “food sovereignty” comes in. It’s an issue that is starting to gain traction in the U.S. Those who advocate for food sovereignty feel that farming has become over regulated. The movement is global, and many farmers around the world are standing up for themselves and for food production as a whole.

What is Food Sovereignty?

La Vía Campesina, an international “peasant” movement, coined the term “food sovereignty” at the 1996 World Food Summit. The group defines it as such:

Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through sustainable methods and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.

With the increased demand for locally-grown produce in America, it’s becoming more popular for farmers to want to sell their produce to their local communities. But it’s also important to note that outside of the U.S., food sovereignty takes on a much more important role. Hannah Wittman, Annette Desmarais, and Nettie Wiebe, authors of “Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature and Community,” wrote: 

The stunted growth and high mortality rates of hungry children and the ill health and lost potential of malnourished adults are clear and tragic results of the chronic food shortages suffered by an increasing number of people. A growing number of households and communities fear for tomorrow’s meals, even though there may be enough food for today.

Shifting more power to local farmers would increase the availability of food. And food would not have to travel as much, making it less costly and more likely to be fresh.

In the U.S., Maine Leads the Way

The U.S. has very structured regulations for farmers. One state is breaking away from this model. On June 16, Maine Governor Paul LePage signed LD 725, or An Act to Recognize Local Control Regarding Food Systems. This act is the first of its kind in the United States. It shifts power from the state to local municipalities. The Bangor Daily News described the rationale behind the law:

Supporters of food sovereignty want local food producers to be exempt from state licensing and inspections governing the selling of food as long as the transactions are between the producers and the customers for home consumption or when the food is sold and consumed at community events such as church suppers.

There were already about 20 municipalities in Maine that had their own food sovereignty laws. Now with this statewide law, municipalities that apply for food sovereignty will be granted more control. 

The law allows small farmers to sell food within their communities with fewer government regulations. Maine Rep. Craig Hickman enthusiastically embraced the passage of the law. In an interview with the Bangor Daily News, he said, “Food sovereignty means the improved health and well-being of the people of Maine by reducing hunger and increasing food self-sufficiency through improved access to wholesome, nutritious, and locally produced foods.”

According to a 2012 USDA census, Maine has some of the youngest farmers in the country. And the field is drawing in more and more young farmers, partially due to the growing demand for local produce. As more farmers embraced this lifestyle, and consumers demanded local produce, Maine decided to change the regulations a bit to accommodate them.

In 2013, many municipalities in Maine fought for food sovereignty. One of their complaints was about a new law that allowed small farms that sold less than $1,000 worth of chicken a year to slaughter chickens on their own farms rather than go to a slaughter house. The regulations it sought to change would require those farms to spend as much as $40,000 to be able to properly slaughter their chickens.

The Advantages of Food Sovereignty

Less regulations may give pause to the more cautious eater or the revolted reader who cannot get the images of “The Jungle” out of his or her head. But many local Maine representatives feel that this new act is a good thing for Maine. So what regulations are being repealed exactly? While the law states that food produced locally must still adhere to federal standards, these local farms do not require state licensing, nor do they have to go through state inspections of food produced, sold, and consumed locally.

The new law does not apply to every food producer and seller, however. Chain grocery stores and establishments selling large quantities of food must still adhere to the old laws. The new act is specifically designed for small farmers selling within their communities.

Betsy Garrold, the acting executive director of Food for Maine’s Future, felt that this will encourage many young and burgeoning farmers to enter the trade. She told the Bangor Daily News, “This means face-to-face transactions are legal if your town has passed a food sovereignty ordinance [and] you can sell food without excessive government regulations,” she said. “If we can feed ourselves, no one can push us around.”

Garrold felt that with the amount of farms in Maine, large and small, it is hard to make one law that regulates everyone equally. “Now if a small vegetable farmer wants to diversify their holdings and run a few meat birds, they can,” she said.

But Not Everyone is Onboard

Maine might be alone in its quest to deregulate farmers for a while. As of right now, no other states are moving to enact food sovereignty laws.

There are national food sovereignty groups, like the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance (USFSA). However, the group is more engaged in activism than writing laws. USFSA “works to end poverty, rebuild local food economies, and assert democratic control over the food system,” according to its website.

And while other states do not seem to be following Maine any time soon, not even all Maine farmers are pleased with the new act. When Maine began allowing certain municipalities more sovereignty back in 2013, Kevin Poland, a local Maine farmer, was less than pleased.

“It has nothing to do with encouraging local farming,” Poland said in an interview with NPR back in 2013. “There’s plenty of that here. What there should be more encouragement of is food safety. The state of Maine has laws that work,” he added.

Perhaps this is why other states have not joined Maine in passing their own food sovereignty laws. With all of the criticism that the food industry faces, it could seem counterintuitive to try to ease regulations on those who provide us with our food.

Global Impact

While Maine may be the first state in the U.S. to enact a food sovereignty law, other global initiatives have been on the forefront of this movement for decades. La Vía Campesina (The Peasants’ Way) started in 1993 as a way to support small farmers. The group is now a huge global initiative that has been one of the largest advocates of food sovereignty. 

La Vía Campesina says on its website that it represents, “164 local and national organizations in 73 countries from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Altogether, it represents about 200 million farmers.”

Most recently, the group supported a rally in Morogoro, Tanzania on June 23. The protesters felt that the government was not acting in the best interest of the Tanzanian people. In a statement on its website, La Vía Campesina said, “We know that our African elites in the public and private sectors have been for many years colluding in corruption with the evil transnational corporations which today represent the new face of imperialist neo-colonialism.”

Conclusion

Food sovereignty is a topic that is gaining traction around the world. Those fighting for it do so because they cannot comply with the regulations imposed by the government that are intended for larger farms. For small farmers selling food within their community, these regulations can be damaging. In America, it is less dire that we change our food sovereignty laws, but in other countries, the consequences are higher. Food shortages and government corruption are why farmers around the world want to take their food back into their own hands. 

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Food Sovereignty: Shifting Control from the Government to Local Farmers? appeared first on Law Street.

A federal appeals court on Monday blocked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt from temporarily freezing an Obama-era regulation on methane gas emissions. The ruling represents the first legal setback Pruitt has faced during his months-long quest to dismantle the Obama Administration’s environmental rules.

The case highlighted the split between the EPA’s growing cadre of opponents, mostly made up of environmental groups, and its allies, mostly made up of industry groups. It specifically pitted Pruitt and the American Petroleum Institute against six environmental groups. The plaintiffs, which include the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, brought their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June.

The events that led to the court’s 2-1 decision began in June 2016, when the EPA announced a rule that would require oil and gas companies to, among other things, monitor and reduce methane gas emissions. The rule was set to take effect in August 2016; companies would be required to conduct an “initial monitoring survey” of their methane emissions by June 2017.

In April, soon after Pruitt was anointed head of the EPA, he announced a 90-day delay of the methane rule. And in June, Pruitt proposed an extension of the stay for two years. Monday’s ruling struck down Pruitt’s 90-day delay; a separate hearing will be held on the two year extension.

The EPA “lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to stay the rule, and we therefore grant petitioners’ motion to vacate the stay,” Judges David Tatel and Robert Wilkins wrote in the majority opinion. Pruitt’s 90-day stay, the judges said, “is essentially an order delaying the rule’s effective date, and this court has held that such orders are tantamount to amending or revoking a rule.”

In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Pruitt defended his stay, saying that it did not necessarily portend a complete reversal of the rule. He argued: “Just because you provide a time for implementation or compliance that’s longer doesn’t mean that you’re going to necessarily reverse or redirect the rule.”

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Janice Rogers Brown largely echoed Pruitt’s point, saying, “The Court presumes a certain outcome from EPA’s reconsideration, one that a stay alone gives us no basis to presume.”

Methane is a greenhouse gas that is typically emitted during the fracking process for natural gas. According to a fact sheet released by the EPA last year, methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas in the U.S., behind carbon dioxide. About one-third of methane emissions come from natural gas, the fact sheet says, adding that the Obama Administration’s methane regulation would have reduced 510,000 tons of methane gas by 2025.

The court’s ruling was a victory for environmental groups, many of which have found themselves in staunch opposition to the governmental body that is supposed to share their goals. David Doniger, director of the Natural Resource Defense Council’s climate and clean air program, said in a statement:

“This ruling declares EPA’s action illegal — and slams the brakes on Trump Administration’s brazen efforts to put the interests of corporate polluters ahead of protecting the public and the environment.”

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 Federal Appeals Court Hands EPA Admin Scott Pruitt Legal Defeat appeared first on Law Street.

Before his presidency, Donald Trump was a builder. Specifically, he built towers, golf courses, and even vineyards. Last week, he took on his biggest building job yet: America’s national infrastructure network. This push was dubbed by President Trump and his administration as “Infrastructure Week.”

Using a series of events and announcements, the current administration presented a $1 trillion plan to revamp this nation’s infrastructure, which includes highways, electrical systems, waterways, and airports.

Given that much of the news last week had little to do with infrastructure–notably Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before Congress–here are some of the highlights in case you missed it.

Privatizing Air Traffic Control

President Trump made his first major infrastructure announcement at an event last Monday at the White House with executives of numerous airline companies. At that meeting, President Trump announced his plan to privatize the air traffic control system with the hope that the private industry can significantly upgrade air travel. He said:

At its core, our new plan will dramatically improve America’s air traffic control system by turning it over to a self-financing, nonprofit organization. This new entity will not need taxpayer money, which is very shocking when people hear that. They don’t hear that too often.

The plan is based off of a bill written by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pennsylvania) last year and is supported by the air traffic controllers’ union as well as the CEO of Airlines for America (A4A), Nicholas E. Calio, who said it could potentially save the economy billions and dramatically improve air traffic control.

While the plan may not increase taxes as Trump claims, the cost of airline travel could increase for consumers as new fees would provide funding. The structure of this nonprofit corporation would give broad decision-making power to the board, which would be made up of mostly airline representatives and airline workers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that completely modernizing the aviation system through privatization would actually cost more money (because of an expected increase in spending to modernize air traffic control) than maintaining the current system under the FAA. Reports have also indicated that privatization of the system increased air traffic control fees in Canada and the U.K. by 59 and 30 percent respectively. And if the cost burden is decided by airline executives and workers then it may be more costly for the consumers.

$1 Trillion= $200 Billion?

It’s important to understand that the $1 trillion infrastructure plan does not actually involve $1 trillion dollars in direct federal government spending. Instead, the government will foot $200 billion in infrastructure spending with the expectation that private companies foot the other $800 billion.

However, infrastructure projects typically don’t yield high return rates, leading some to question how the Trump Administration will be able to convince private companies to take on 80 percent of the workload. A potential consequence of this approach would be the prioritization of projects that will lead to higher returns for investors, rather than those with greater public need.

Trump and his team have said that they will change rules and regulations to make the process more appealing to businesses. So far the Trump Administration hasn’t said how exactly it will change the regulations.

Rolling Back Regulations

On Wednesday, during his speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, President Trump said that he will work aggressively to fight the red tape (regulations) that makes infrastructure spending difficult. He said:

So we’re getting rid of the regulations, and we’re massively streamlining the approvals and the permitting process. Already my administration has expedited environmental reviews and critical energy projects all across the country.

Trump was in Cincinnati to discuss waterway reform, which is one area where the administration may seek to remove regulations.

Part of the plan that President Trump and his Secretary of Transportation recently emphasized is the amount of time it takes for new projects. When talking about his plans to cut regulatory hurdles in April, Trump said, “We’re going to try and take that process from a minimum of 10 years down to one year.”

Still No Detailed Plan

Probably the most confusing aspect of “Infrastructure Week” is that there is still no fully completed infrastructure plan detailing specific policies.

On May 1, Trump stated that his infrastructure plan would be completed in two to three weeks. It’s been almost five weeks since that announcement and there are still many questions left unanswered.

For example, while Trump has touted that he will help rural infrastructure, he has only given vague hints as to what he wants to improve. On Wednesday, the president said, “Rural America will receive grants to rebuild crippled bridges, roads, and waterways.”

According to NPR, there were no further details given on how, specifically, rural American will receive this spending.

The bottom line is until there is an official bill, or at least a detailed proposal, presented to Congress with specific plans for how the administration will drive $1 trillion of infrastructure spending, Trump’s plan will be just that, a plan.

James Levinson

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

The post Because We All Missed it: Highlights from Infrastructure Week appeared first on Law Street.

Detroit city officials have shuttered over 150 medical marijuana dispensaries since last year, with dozens of additional closings expected in the coming months. The closings reflect the ever-shifting regulatory framework surrounding pot legalization, and how businesses that are slow to respond to new rules could find their doors padlocked.

Melvin Butch Hollowell, the Detroit corporation counsel, told the Detroit Free Press that the city has closed 167 dispensaries around the city since last year.

“None of them were operating lawfully,” he said. “At the time I sent a letter to each one of them indicating that unless you have a fully licensed facility, you are operating at your own risk.” Hollowell also indicated that another 51 closings are in the offing. Detroit is rife with unlicensed or otherwise illegal marijuana establishments; Hollowell said 283 total have been identified, and as of last week, a mere five marijuana facilities in Detroit are fully licensed.

According to the city’s medical marijuana ordinances, which took effect on March 1, 2016 (Michigan voters legalized pot for medical use in 2008), dispensaries have to abide by a number of zoning and other regulations in order to qualify for a license. For instance, marijuana businesses must be more than 1,000 feet away from the following areas: churches, schools, parks, liquor stores (and other places where alcohol is sold), libraries, and child care centers. Marijuana businesses are also required to close by 8 p.m.

Hollowell told the Free Press that city officials go through the courts when seeking an order to shutter an illegal marijuana business. Because the public pushed legalization in 2008, he said, his team pursues the closings “in a way that is consistent with keeping our neighborhoods respected and at the same time, allowing for those dispensaries to operate in their specific areas that we’ve identified as being lawful.”

And according to Winfred Blackmon, the chairman of the Metropolitan Detroit Community Action Coalition, complaints from Detroit residents helped propel the recent surge in dispensary closings. He told the Free Press: “People started getting frustrated with the marijuana shops that kept popping up around their houses and schools.”

Michigan is also weighing a ballot measure for next November that, if voted through, would legalize marijuana for recreational use as well. Language for the measure was submitted to the Board of State Canvassers earlier this month; it is currently under review.

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 Detroit’s Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are Closing by the Hundreds appeared first on Law Street.

As the Trump Administration continues its efforts to undo much of the regulation put in place during President Barack Obama’s term in office, the FCC’s efforts to peel back net neutrality rules will be particularly controversial, as the issue has sparked fierce debate for several years. While much of the regulatory rollback happened quickly using the Congressional Review Act, a law that allows for expedited removal of recent regulations under a new president, the net neutrality rules will take quite a bit more time. In fact, this is just the latest development in a regulatory dispute that has been going on for nearly 10 years. Read on to see why this is such a contentious issue, what the proposed regulations would do, and what we can expect in the weeks and years ahead.

Quick Refresher: What is Net Neutrality?

While many people have heard the term network neutrality, understanding of it tends to vary widely. That may be because net neutrality is more of a general concept than a set of clear rules. The principle behind it is the idea that all online content should be treated equally and that no internet provider should be able to discriminate or block content regardless of the source or type. Most people support net neutrality, or at least the general concept behind it, but disagree on what needs to be done to ensure that networks are designed in a way that lives up to that principle. That disagreement is what brings us to the current debate over internet regulations. Some advocates argue that regulations blocking internet providers from discriminating against or privileging certain content or sources are necessary to protect a free and open internet. Opponents argue that absent these regulations we still wouldn’t have a problem with content discrimination and we should have as few regulations as possible to allow for internet investment and innovation.

The two major categories of groups involved in these debates are Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and content companies. Internet service providers are the companies that sell access to the internet, like Timer Warner Cable, Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T. Content companies are the businesses that create and distribute the things you find online–notable examples of these include Netflix, Google, and Facebook, but every website or online service is essentially a content company. The three core priorities for net neutrality regulation have been to prohibit blocking, slowing, and the paid prioritization of a source or type of content as it makes its way through the network to consumers.

While many agree that blocking and slowing shouldn’t be allowed, the issue of paid prioritization is one that tends to have more gray areas. This debate manifests itself in the context of internet fast lanes, where companies can pay up to ensure that consumers can download their services as quickly as possible, giving them a potential edge over the competition. For more on the fast lane debate, check out this explainer.

What Were the Old Rules?

Before we can get into the FCC’s proposal to peel back net neutrality rules, let’s take a quick look at how we got here. While Columbia Law professor Tim Wu coined the phrase in a journal article published in 2003, the regulatory debate didn’t really come into play until 2008, when it was revealed that Comcast was blocking or slowing BitTorrent traffic on its network. After that dispute, the FCC tried to intervene to prohibit companies from slowing or blocking traffic, but a federal appeals court ruled against the commission, concluding that it had limited authority over internet traffic. Two years later, the FCC issued an Open Internet Order establishing rules that sought to ensure neutrality with a focus on blocking, discrimination, and transparency. However, Verizon sued the commission, and in 2014, a federal appeals court struck down the bulk of those rules and concluded that under the internet’s current classification, the FCC didn’t have the authority to prevent ISPs from slowing or blocking web traffic.

At the center of the issue was the FCC’s initial decision to classify the internet as an information service and not a telecommunication service. The Communications Act of 1934–which created the FCC and was most recently overhauled in 1996–gives the commission varying authority when regulating these different services. The courts ruled that under the initial classification of the internet, the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit the blocking or slowing of web traffic. Following those decisions, the FCC decided in 2015 to reclassify the internet as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, which gave it much greater authority to regulate. It then imposed regulations that were similar in principle to the original rules, but were upheld initially by the courts due to the new classification. This change, classifying the internet as a public utility, allowed the FCC to regulate providers as common carriers to block any form of traffic discrimination.

The FCC’s New Plan

Although the Obama-era FCC, led by former Chairman Tom Wheeler, went through the process of reclassifying the internet to allow for stricter regulation, that effort will likely be reversed under President Trump. The 2015 rules were adopted after a 3-2 vote by the FCC and one of the commissioners voting against the measure, Ajit Pai, now holds the reins as the commission’s chairman and has since vowed to undo those regulations.

Re-Reclassification

The FCC recently took the first step in its efforts to remove the utility-style regulations placed on the internet. While the whole process will likely take some time and face several lawsuits along the way, much like the original reclassification process, most expect Commissioner Pai to be successful. The process for creating new regulations is governed by the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires a notice and comment period for all proposed changes. This means that the FCC is required to notify the public that a rule change is coming, then seek public comments and take those into consideration as it develops the final rule. The FCC issued its notice of proposed rulemaking on May 18 to begin that process. While we do not know exactly what the new rule will involve–after the comment period, the final rule will be drafted, debated, and then adopted–the public notice outlined the commission’s goals going forward.

First, the rule would reclassify the internet to remove Title II regulations from internet service providers, moving back to what proponents call a light-touch framework under Title I. It would also reclassify mobile broadband, provided companies like AT&T and Verizon, as a private mobile service, which currently faces the same common carrier regulations after the 2015 rule change. Finally, the notice also asks for comments on what are known as the FCC’s bright-line rules, which are the central components of past net neutrality regulations. Specifically, these rules prevent providers from blocking, slowing, and creating paid prioritization deals with content companies. Finally, the proposal would remove a conduct standard created under the Title II regulations that applied to all ISPs.

While blocking and slowing have been important issues in the past, the possibility for paid prioritization, or internet fast lanes, under the new rules could have the biggest effect on the direction of the internet. This form of prioritization would allow large content companies like Netflix and YouTube to negotiate deals with ISPs to ensure that their content is delivered to consumers faster than other services. While competitors may be able to strike up their own deals in an effort to level the playing field, new companies may not have sufficient money in the early stages of development to secure these deals, making established companies more difficult to challenge.

In the video below, Chairman Pai outlines his goals for the new regulation:

FCC Chairman Pai argues that these rules will spur investment, leading ISPs to expand and improve upon their networks. He says that the utility-style regulation under the current rules places too much of a regulatory burden on internet companies making additional investment less attractive. In Pai’s view, investing in innovation and infrastructure is one of the most important issues facing the internet today, so he prefers fewer regulations in an effort to spur that investment.

Opponents argue that net neutrality is core to the innovative nature of the internet, and note that several companies have said that such rules would have little impact on investment decisions. Moreover, they note that given the ubiquity of the internet in our personal and professional lives, we should start to look at it like another utility company. Instead of loosening regulations to allow companies to innovate, we should view these networks like we do the electrical grid–as essential to our daily lives–and regulate them as such. The video below outlines the rationale for viewing ISPs as utilities:

Conclusion

Internet rules have been one of the most controversial regulatory issues in the last several years and the FCC’s recent efforts to change them once again mean that they will continue to be a hot-button issue in years to come. While the concept of net neutrality is quite broad, most of the current discussion focuses on whether we need rules to prevent blocking, slowing, and paid prioritization of online content–the so-called bright-line rules.

Amidst these larger debates are more technocratic ones relating to the extent of the Federal Communication Commission’s authority to regulate the internet. When previous attempts to enact bright-line rules to prevent discrimination against any kind of traffic have failed when challenged in the courts, the FCC under President Obama decided to reclassify the internet in order to make those rules with the necessary authority. While the Title II, utility-style regulations were initially upheld by the court, it’s unclear whether that question will be answered now that the new chairman is already working to undo past efforts. Given the level of interest across the political spectrum and from private citizens and large corporations alike, more court cases are likely to follow. But many still expect these changes, once they have worked their way through they regulatory process, to be upheld in the courts. Given the number of changes to internet regulation in the past several years, many observers have called on Congress to settle the issue once and for all. While the future of net neutrality remains uncertain, we can expect the ensuing regulatory debates to continue to ignite the vigorous public debate.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Behind the FCC’s New Plan to Peel Back the Net Neutrality Rules appeared first on Law Street.

Soon after President Donald Trump was sworn in, he signed a directive that said for each new regulation, two Obama-era regulations would be revoked; a reverse two-for-one. In his first month and a half as president, Trump and his cabinet have worked at an unprecedented clip to reverse the Obama Administration’s rules. Trump has frozen, suspended, or terminated roughly 90 regulations put in place under Obama, many as a response to opposition from industry leaders and advocates. Here are five rules that Trump has worked to scrap. 

Lead on Federal Lands

As President Barack Obama was leaving office, he issued an order to ban hunters from using lead bullets and anglers from using lead tackle when hunting and fishing on federal lands. The order was designed to protect wildlife from lead poisoning. Days after Trump’s swearing in, the National Rifle Association (NRA) issued a press release, which said the lead ammunition ban imposed a “considerable financial hardship” on hunters and anglers “by forcing them to use more expensive alternatives.” On March 2, Ryan Zinke, the freshly confirmed Secretary of the Interior, revoked Obama’s order.

Consumer Protection

In January, major communications companies–Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and others–signed a petition against an Obama-era rule that required “reasonable measures” to protect consumers’ personal information–Social Security numbers, browsing history, and more– from being stolen by hackers or other actors. The rule would have a “potentially deleterious impact on consumers, competition, and innovation,” the companies wrote. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission issued a stay on the rule.

Clean Water Rule

In the waning days of Obama’s tenure, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers broadened the scope of water sources in the U.S. that are to be protected and regulated. The California Farm Bureau Federation responded that the rule would prove “economically harmful for California agriculture.” The group wrote: “In order to comply with the regulation, farmers and ranchers will become increasingly reliant on attorneys and consultants, making farming the land more difficult and costly.” Last week, Trump issued an executive order to review the law, and to begin the process of rolling it back.

Gun Control

Under an Obama-era regulation, people on disability insurance and Supplementary Security Income would be barred from purchasing guns. The Social Security Administration would be forced to give the personal information of people who qualified as “mentally disabled” to the Department of Justice. This rule was equally opposed by two wildly different groups: the NRA and the American Civil Liberties Union. Both groups said that it broadly paints all people with mental disorders as potentially violent, and therefore unfit to own a gun.

In December, soon after Obama enacted the rule, the NRA issued a statement that said the rule “would stigmatize the entire category of beneficiaries subject to reporting.” Last week, Congress repealed the rule, and Trump signed the repeal.

Emissions Standards

On January 12, the Obama Administration issued an order dictating emissions standards and miles per gallon requirements for automobiles by 2025. Two dozen of the world’s largest automakers–from Toyota to Aston Martin–sent a letter to Scott Pruitt, the new EPA administrator. The letter said the rule was rushed, and needs a more thorough evaluation to determine if “the future standards are feasible” and “cost-effective.” While the rule has yet to be revoked, the Trump Administration has signaled it would likely reverse the rule as early as this week.

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 Here Are Five Obama-era Regulations Trump Has Worked to Scrap appeared first on Law Street.

One of Donald Trump’s first moves as president was announcing his plan for the imminent repeal of 75 percent of federal regulations. In a previous article, we went over the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the ways in which federal environmental regulations affected business growth, outsourcing, and public health costs. Reviews of environmental regulations show that they have saved trillions of dollars in public heath costs while having a modest effect on American business, which has continued to grow and thrive since the creation of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Removing environmental regulations will likely not be the deciding factor that enables manufacturing to return to America but it could seriously endanger our water and air, especially for poor and at-risk communities.

But the question of what effect regulations have on the energy market itself has been a hot topic of debate lately. Conservative interests have argued for some time that environmental regulations place serious handicaps on fossil fuels and unfairly favor renewables, and the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan has come under a storm of criticism for strengthening this dynamic. Read on to learn about federal energy policy and environmental regulations to see how they have historically impacted different energy industries and examine what the Clean Power Plan would have done in contrast to what Trump’s proposed policies will likely do.

Regulations and the Energy Market: Renewables vs. Fossil Fuels

A central objection to environmental regulations is that they unfairly skew the energy market. They place countless handicaps on fossil fuel companies and allow renewables full freedom to prosper, unfairly impacting business throughout the country. It is very true that the energy market is subject to unfair business handicaps, but those that are in place overwhelmingly favor fossil fuel companies rather than hinder their success. Much of this dates back to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which determined subsidies for different energy sources. The law allocated $5.6 billion in incentives for the gas, oil, and coal industries, $4.5 billion for renewable and alternative energy sources and $3 billion in electricity incentives that largely addressed nuclear power (another $1.3 billion went to energy efficiency and conservation research and development, which mostly applied to fossil fuel production). This $4.5 billion may seem substantial and it did, in fact, bring forth the creation of critical incentives, such as solar tax credits. However, a review of the 2007 budget shows that more than two-thirds of all these renewable subsidies went to ethanol and biofuels. Only a little over a billion dollars went directly into America’s three dominant clean energy sources: solar, wind, and hydropower.

While direct funding and incentives are slanted toward fossil fuels, the real imbalance comes in the form of large-scale post-tax subsidies for fossil fuels that involve the costs of the externalities they create in the form of environmental damage and public health effects. Globally, the subsidy imbalance is extremely dramatic: worldwide about $120 billion in pre-tax subsidies goes to renewables and $523 billion goes to fossil fuels. But when you add post-tax subsidies, the IMF calculates that the fossil fuel industry received a staggering $4.2 trillion in subsidies in 2011. The United States is the world’s top producer of gas and petroleum and it’s a stretch of the imagination to claim that those industries are getting marginalized or cut an unfair deal.

The first part of this series explained the regulations that were placed on power plants for emissions and dumping, which represented a relatively small industry cost (especially compared to the massive public health savings generated by those regulations) and did nothing to stop the growth of the fossil fuel industry. For the most part, renewable energy systems don’t deal with regulations that affect emissions and toxic dumping because they don’t create waste streams through energy production. However, this doesn’t mean that renewables are given a free ride to prosper in the energy market; they are subject to extensive regulatory processes as well despite the fact that they do not have the same adverse impact on public health. The installation of a wind turbine, for instance, requires permits from a vast number of different regulatory authorities, and if even one of the required organizations doesn’t grant a permit then a project can be killed.

A great deal of attention has been called to the potential damage renewables can inflict on wildlife (the most common narrative is that wind turbines kill birds), despite the fact that fossil fuels do much greater damage to wildlife, and protected species regulations are often used to oppose renewable projects. Renewable energy systems can and have been repeatedly shut down mid-project for causing even minor habitat damage. The $2.2 billion BrightSource Solar Farm in the Mojave Desert, the largest solar facility ever to be built in the United States, was almost completely abandoned because of the death of a single endangered desert tortoise.

Fossil fuel companies must deal with some land and water regulations as well, but they also have access to a variety of unique legislative loopholes that allow them to dodge critical regulations and benefit from the tax code–in effect, giving them permission to pollute so that their business may thrive. The most dramatic example of this is the “Halliburton loophole,” which gives hydraulic fracturing companies special permission to inject hazardous chemicals underground, in what would normally be a direct violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. These benefits extend to the basic permitting processes that different energy companies must go through as well: fossil fuel companies generally have a streamlined permitting process, are given the cheapest land leasing rates, and must provide no strategy or evaluation of environmental safety.

In California, for instance, a solar farm project can require a three-year permitting process that requires millions of dollars. Comparatively, a fossil fuel company needs only a one-page declaration of intent and can begin construction almost immediately. Furthermore, the Bureau of Land Management values the land it leases to oil and gas companies at a rate set almost a century ago, meaning these companies pay incredibly low prices when utilizing federal land (costing $30 billion in federal revenue over the last 30 years for undervalued land) while the BLM requires renewables to pay modern land leasing rates. The idea that the fossil fuel industry is unfairly suppressed by regulation is a myth; the fossil fuel industry already has access to numerous regulatory loopholes and subsidy benefits. The environmental regulations that are in place aren’t suffocating growth, they’re providing critical protection for our public health against industries with high pollution potential.

Regulations and the Energy Market: The Coal Industry

The fossil fuel source that does face serious decline is coal, which the Clean Power Plan specifically targeted as the most dangerous energy source in use, both for climate change and for public health. One of Trump’s favorite mantras during his campaign was that regulations have destroyed the coal industry and taken away countless jobs from Americans in the process. Historically, no such pattern has been observable; the coal industry prospered under environmental regulations for decades and has suffered so much in recent years largely because of competition with the massive spike in domestic natural gas production and usage. This makes President Trump’s claim that he will boost both coal and gas production–which are two directly competing industries–particularly confusing. Critics of environmental regulations generally point to the implementation of the Mining Safety and Health Administration’s 2014 Respirable Coal Mine Dust Rule, which decreased acceptable concentrations of coal dust per cubic meter from 2 grams to 1.5 grams and required regular air samplings to be taken. This legislation has been a hot topic among the anti-regulation community and coal advocates have complained that maintaining such low levels are unfairly difficult at existing output levels.

Image courtesy of Greg Goebel; License: (CC BY-SA 2.0).

However, it’s worth noting that the rule was put in place in 2014, long after American business made the decision to favor natural gas and long after the initial downturn of the coal industry. It’s also true that the rule addresses very legitimate health concerns and when evaluating the efficacy of a regulation it is important to compare the health benefits to the cost savings that would disappear if the rule were rescinded. A staggering 76,000 miners have died from black lung over the last 50 years. Over the same time frame, the government has had to pay out $45 billion in federal compensation to affected workers and their families. The law is also directly targeted at mining crews with Part 90 miners–workers who have already been diagnosed with a respiratory illness. The rule sought to protect the most at-risk population of workers and if the coal industry is to have a productive workforce then it has a responsibility to ensure the health and survival of that workforce. Estimated annualized compliance costs were about $28.1 million at a 7 percent discount rate, with the majority of compliance costs coming from tech purchases for the newly required Continuous Personal Dust Monitors. This number may seem huge but it only represents about 0.13 percent of the coal industry’s annual earnings of $20.2 billion and less than a third of the $1 billion our nation pays out each year in federal compensation to sick and dying miners.

As an energy source, natural gas simply provides more energy for a lower cost, making it unlikely that coal will experience a serious resurgence in the United States. The coal industry survived and grew under the Clean Air Act, and the industry was on its way out long before the Respirable Coal Mine Dust Rule came into effect. While it’s highly likely that the Clean Power Plan would deal a deathblow to the industry, increasing funds to gas as Trump plans will accomplish the same thing only just at a slower rate.

Repealing pollution regulations like safeguards and filter requirements and removing coal mine dust restrictions wouldn’t make the changes necessary to revive the weakening business, not as long as gas is abundant and comparatively cheap. Removing these regulations would, however, make the coal production and disposal process more dangerous for the environment and miners would be the first group to experience the health consequences.

Obama vs. Trump

The Clean Power Plan issued new carbon emissions reductions standards for each state and would have required the states to independently create a plan to meet their target goals. The result would have been a huge increase in clean, renewable energy production. Coal would have been hit the hardest by this as the worst polluter, although the natural gas industry would more easily be able to improve efficiency rates and meet the new standards. The CPP actually encourages the increased use of gas, as long as it’s primarily a replacement for coal.

The nature of this policy aligns with public opinion as well. About 65 percent of the population favors stricter emissions regulations, about 70 to 75 percent of Americans want to see increased renewable energy, and only about 30 percent want to see more coal. However, the coal industry represents 174,000 jobs, including extraction, transportation, and production and it is unfair to cut off employment without generating new opportunities, even if those lost jobs had high health risks.

However, the Clean Power Plan has a strong focus on creating jobs in renewable energy and pollution control industries. The traditional conservative narrative claims that fossil fuels create employment and clean energy policies stifle it, but the reality is actually the reverse; renewables can be a vital catalyst for job growth and actually create more jobs than fossil fuels. One powerful example of the over-inflated projections of fossil fuel employment opportunities is happening right now, with President Trump advancing the Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline, in particular, has come under a media firestorm after it was revealed that the project would only create 35 permanent jobs. Like most construction projects, the vast majority of jobs related to the pipeline will be temporary positions, including some that will only last for a few months or “spillover jobs” that take place in another industry.

The entire clean energy sector employed 8.1 million workers as of 2015 and growth in the sector has also moved at a rate 12 times faster than overall job growth. In 2014 there were 7.7 million clean energy jobs worldwide and by the end of 2015, that number had grown to about 8.1 million. The related job creation is also remarkable when compared to fossil fuels–a million dollars of spending on renewable energy and energy efficiency will create 13 jobs. That same million dollars only creates 6 jobs within the fossil fuel industry. These are good jobs for middle-class Americans as well, paying on average 13 percent higher than median wages. Many of the jobs that are created by renewable energy involve manufacturing, which would align with President Trump’s vow to revitalize the American manufacturing industry. However, unlike fossil fuels, positions in the renewable energy industry don’t endanger the health of the workers who support them. Hillary Clinton’s ambitious Clean Power Challenge would have expanded upon Obama’s CPP and would have increased renewables through competitive grants, tax incentives, and market-based incentives and created a flux of new jobs in the process. Such efforts would have also meant opening up the industry of offshore wind, a massive and untapped source of domestic energy and employment.

“Keystone XL Pipeline Protest at White House” courtesy of Tar Sand Action; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Critics of the Clean Power Plan claimed that it unfairly supported renewables and made it impossible for fossil fuels to thrive. It’s more accurate to say that it would have leveled the playing field, not skewed it in favor of renewables. Fossil fuels would still be disproportionately subsidized and would still play a huge role in American energy. What the CPP would have done is act as a major catalyst for an increase in clean energy use that America needs to combat climate change, establish energy independence, protect our public health and national lands, while creating new jobs for Americans.

Conclusion

It’s a political myth that the fossil fuel industry is unfairly regulated in the United States. America produces more gas and petroleum than any country on earth, subsidizes the fossil fuel industry with billions more than goes to renewables, and gives oil and gas companies fast-track access to land at the cheapest possible rates. The Clean Power Plan was a chance to increase clean, domestic renewable energy across the nation. Without the plan, the state renewable energy goals will be rendered non-binding and the progress of renewables will move at a much slower rate. Over the next four years, America will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels as the Trump Administration works to open up federal lands for drilling and fracking and peel back regulations allowing the oil and gas industry to freely pollute.

Will a Donald Trump presidency destroy the renewable energy industry? No, because the president doesn’t truly have control over the free market. Trump can seriously slow down renewable progress, but even if the Clean Power Plan is reversed, 29 states still have Renewable Target Portfolios established and another eight have created non-binding goals for themselves. The renewable energy industry has grown dramatically and will continue to receive bipartisan support in the places where it is cost efficient and useful. Red states such as Idaho, the Dakotas, and Texas have all made serious commitments to renewables because they have high renewable energy potential and investing in solar and wind simply makes economic sense. Technological improvements, especially within the field of energy storage, are increasingly raising the value of renewable energy systems and boosting growth within the private sector. In terms of coal, it will be difficult, and maybe even impossible, to bring the coal industry back to its previous rates of production as long as natural gas thrives in the United States.

However, climate change worsens every year and we don’t really have the luxury of waiting for things to move slowly. With Trump in power not only will much of Obama’s work be undone, we will also lose out on one of our last chances as a nation to try and combat climate change.

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Impact of Environmental Regulations on the Energy Market appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. The bill, which passed with a vote largely along party lines by 237-187, would require certain executive regulations to be approved by a joint session in Congress. Republicans see the bill as a necessary check on the executive branch, while Democrats dismiss it as a way to gut much-needed regulations.

Calling the legislation “groundbreaking,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) said the REINS Act will curb expensive regulations. “The outgoing Administration broke Constitutional restraints time and time again,” said Duncan, a co-sponsor of the bill. “Without passing the REINS Act, the boundaries for administrative rule making are endless.”

President Barack Obama used his executive authority to pass a historic number of regulations, much to the chagrin of the Republican-controlled Congress. President Donald Trump has promised to roll back a number of Obama’s executive actions, and it remains to be seen how he will use executive power. But if the REINS Act passes the Senate, it would hamstring Trump’s ability to unilaterally push regulations.

Trump has already indicated he will support the legislation. “I will sign the REINS Act should it reach my desk as President and more importantly I will work hard to get it passed,” he said last year. “The monstrosity that is the Federal Government with its pages and pages of rules and regulations has been a disaster for the American economy and job growth.”

The bill would require congressional approval for regulations that are deemed a “major rule” by the Office of Management and Budget. A “major rule” is a regulation that has costs $100 million or more, increases costs for consumers, and hurts U.S.-based companies in competition with foreign ones. A joint session in Congress would have 70 days to approve any proposed legislation by executive agencies.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the REINS Act could “end rule-making as we know it.” Referring to the 2008 housing crises and recession, Conyers added: “Without question, it was the lack of regulatory controls that facilitated rampant predatory lending, which nearly destroyed our nation’s economy.”

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 What is the REINS Act? appeared first on Law Street.

When I last worked in an office (many moons ago) I was one of the millions of workers who are exempt from overtime. I did have some managerial responsibilities but I would not have characterized my job as “executive” or “professional.” Anyone with some common sense and a calendar could have effectively done the work I was doing. But because I was above the $23,660 per year threshold I was not eligible for overtime pay for the extra hours I worked. Depending on the season (my work ebbed and flowed dramatically based on the school calendar), I could work 60 hours a week and still be scrambling to get it all done; I could also be hunting for projects outside of my department just to make up a full work day. I started to think that I MIGHT be better off as an hourly wage worker because then at least I would be getting paid for how much I was working. But under the system, I was sometimes working 20 hours a week for free.

The recent changes in overtime rules are designed to address this concern for many employees who find themselves in a peculiar middle place. They are working more than 40 hours a week, but instead of being paid time and a half for the time they put in over 40 hours, they are barred from compensation for those hours because they make more than $23,660 a year or $455 per week. They are working for free. The recent changes to overtime rules–which will go into effect late this year–will raise the threshold from 23,660 to $47,476 per year. Meaning that all the workers who earn between $23,660 and $47,476 will now be eligible for time and a half–one and a half times their regular wage–for each hour they work beyond the 40-hour work week.

Are these workers going to be better off? Or are we going to place such a burden on employers that we actually do harm to these employees?

All About That Base

Nothing is more exciting than the phrase “let’s do some math!” but to understand the debate surrounding overtime we have to look at the numbers.

The previous $23,660 threshold, which was established in 2004, works out in the following way. Let’s say you have a job where you are right at the $23,660 and not eligible for overtime. If you are working 40 hours a week then the magic of math breaks that down $11.38 an hour gross ($23,660 a year divided by 52 weeks per year divided by 40 hours each week). That’s better than the federal minimum wage. But if you are working 60 hours a week for that same salary with no overtime eligibility, you’re only making $7.58 an hour. That’s barely more than the $7.25 federal minimum wage and in many states it’s actually lower than the required minimum.

If your $23,660 a year job is being a manager at a retail store and you’re working 60 hours a week with no overtime, there is a good chance that you are making less than the employees that you manage. Which seems inconsistent with the whole idea of managers being worth extra pay for their expertise and responsiblities and unfair that you are working for less than the minimum wage or working for free. Either way, you slice it that’s a fairly raw deal.

Under the new rules, which raises the threshold to $47,476 per year or $913 per week, many salaried workers are now entitled to overtime pay. In the same scenario as before–with a worker earning $23,660 per year–he or she would be paid the same 11.38 for a 40 hour work week. But for a 60-hour work week, that worker would make an average of 13.27 per hour, when you include the 20 hours of time and a half pay. That is a considerable improvement from the $7.58 per hour that he or she would earn without overtime.

In the video below, PBS NewsHour gives a brief explanation of how the overtime regulations currently work and what the proposed changes will do for workers.

How Businesses Might Respond

There are a few points to unpack from that video in terms of the arguments and counter-arguments for overtime. The reason that some people don’t think this is a sound policy is because employers are likely to react in several ways which could have negative consequences for employees.

The first way they might react is by reducing hours for workers who would be newly eligible for overtime and hiring multiple part-time workers instead in order to keep their labor costs about the same as they were before the change in the rules.

But is this necessarily a bad thing for the existing workers? Maybe not. Currently, a worker who is putting in 60 hours a week for a salary of $36,000 a year won’t be losing any money if their company reduces them to 40 hours a week and then hires someone else to work for 20 hours a week to avoid paying overtime. In fact, if you think about your time as having a monetary value you are getting more money because you are getting 20 extra hours a week back in time. The trickier scenario is a company that decides to change from one employee working 60 hours a week to two employees working 30 hours each–while also reducing the salary of the original employee or paying them on an hourly basis. This would, in fact, be a reduction in that worker’s total wages from $36,000 to about $27,000 per year (assuming that the hourly rate was the same).

That’s a significant decrease and a trade that many employees might not want to make for 30 extra hours a week. In a job market that had more positions available, those individuals would be able to get a second job for 30 hours a week. If it had a comparable salary they would actually be doubling their income. But in an economy where there isn’t a second job to take on with your extra time, this could be financially devastating.

In fact, some economists argue that increasing the threshold for overtime eligibility would be a good thing overall because it will help create jobs. Some employers will choose the second option of splitting one job into two. This change could be a mixed blessing for workers–a source of more jobs even if it might depress wages.

Another way employers might respond is by increasing salaries for workers to the new $47,476 per year cap, thereby rendering them ineligible for overtime. For workers who are close to that level, it may just be cheaper for employers to pay an extra few thousand dollars a year than to deal with the added hassle of calculating overtime pay or the added expense of paying it. Workers in that situation will get a raise.

In the video below, the Department of Labor explains the history of overtime as well as the recent rule change:

Obviously increasing labor costs places a burden on employers and some employers will have difficulty accommodating. The argument against increasing the overtime threshold essentially boils down to not wanting workers to lose what they already have in an effort to get a deal that is fairer. Instead of elevating worker wages, changes in overtime may decrease worker pay overall and alter the flexibility that some workers enjoy.

One of the benefits of being overtime exempt, some argue, is that you have more freedom from your employer to work a 30-hour week to make up for the 60-hour week you had to work. That was my experience when I was working–although culturally at the office it may breed resentment when other employees see you leaving early or not working Fridays if they don’t also see you working late or doing some of your tasks from home on the weekends. But for many workers, the mythical 30-hour work week never comes and so employees have essentially just charitably donated hundreds of hours of their time to their employers. Or they have worked as “managers” for less than the minimum wage.

The greatest danger that this change in overtime rules presents is that employers may cut workers and not replace them, making the unemployment situation worse. For some companies that will undoubtedly be the case and these businesses will take hits in productivity and be run by skeleton crews. But it is unclear whether, on balance, the changes will do more harm than good or more good than harm. And it is hard to anticipate how many workers will be cut versus how many will get raises. It’s even harder to know beforehand whether this change will be worth it for the overall health of the economy.

Conclusion

If you look at the numbers an increase in overtime benefits is undoubtedly helpful for those workers who currently are putting in more than 40 hours a week at their jobs. They will be more fairly compensated for the hours they work. But the larger effects on the economy are tricky to determine. Depending on how employers react, and how much of an increase in labor costs employers can absorb, this change can have serious negative impacts as well.

There will undoubtedly be some job loss and wage depression, as well as job gains and wage increases. As we get closer to the December 1 deadline when this change will go into effect, there will probably be more predictions about how this will ultimately shake out. But the fairness argument that workers should be paid for the time that they work when they aren’t actually making the high salaries for an executive or professional role is hard to refute.

Resources

U.S. Department of Labor: Final Rule: Overtime

U.S. Department of Labor: Questions and Answers

US News: Are The New Overtime Rules About To Boost Your Paycheck?

The Atlantic: Overtime Pay For Millions of Workers

Bloomberg: Obama’s Overtime Rule Defies Econ 101

The Hill: Senate GOP Files Motion To Roll Back Obama Overtime Rule

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Overtime Changes: Is it Time for More Time and a Half? appeared first on Law Street.

Tens of thousands of chemicals are used to create our everyday products, and the legislation that regulates them hasn’t been updated for nearly half a decade–but that all changed today. President Obama signed into law Wednesday new regulations that will overhaul toxic chemical use and garnered unexpected bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats and environmentalists and the chemical industry.

It has been a long journey but today @POTUS has officially signed #TSCA into law! pic.twitter.com/jCNuVVH4Ll

— Senator Tom Carper (@SenatorCarper) June 22, 2016

The new law is an update of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and will now allow the Environmental Protection agency to collect more information about a chemical before it can be used in the United States. Also under the new law, the EPA must conduct a review of all the chemicals currently on the market and make the results public. The EPA will also have to consider the chemical effects on certain demographics like infants, pregnant women, and the elderly.

“This is a big deal. This is a good law. It’s an important law,” Obama said at the bill-signing ceremony at the White House. “Here in America, folks should have the confidence to know the laundry detergent we buy isn’t going to make us sick, [or] the mattress that our babies sleep on aren’t going to harm them.”

The law will also streamline the different states’ rules on regulating the $800 billion industry. Three years of negotiating between lawmakers went into creating this law which aims to “bring chemical regulation into the 21st century,” according to the American Chemistry Council, who backed the bill.

“I want the American people to know that this is proof that even in the current polarized political climate here in Washington, things can work — it’s possible,” Obama said. “If we can get this bill done it means that somewhere out there on the horizon, we can make our politics less toxic as well.”

In recent years, Republicans have been critical of Obama’s efforts to strengthen environmental and climate protections, claiming regulations create unnecessary burdens and stifles business. However, all parties were on board for this bill–it passed in the House with a 403-12 vote.

“That doesn’t happen very often these days,” Obama said. “So this is a really significant piece of business.”

The Environmental Defense Fund called it “the most important new environmental law in decades.” However, as with any law, there are some downsides. The law restricts how and when a state can regulate certain chemicals and limits the EPA’s ability to monitor some imported chemicals. The Environmental Working Group, another organization that supported the bill, criticized that the EPA may not have enough resources or legal authority to review and/or ban chemicals, citing that House Republicans slashed the EPA’s funding and staff in an appropriations bill for next year.

But, on the bright side, the approximate 700 new chemicals that come on the market each year will now have to clear a safety bar first and companies can no longer classify health studies of those chemicals as “confidential business information.” Those studies now must be made available to the public.

The law was named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, after the late New Jersey Democrat who spent years trying to fix the law. His wife attended the signing at the White House.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Signs Law that Will Overhaul Toxic Chemical Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government issued new rules on Tuesday regarding the flying of commercial drones, opening up a ton of business opportunities. Drones–small, unmanned aircraft–can be used for taking photos, to survey damage done by natural disasters, and plenty more. But using drones for delivering packages, as e-commerce giant Amazon plans on doing, will not be possible under the new rules.

The problem for Amazon and other retailers with hopes of delivering orders via drones is the requirement that mandates the pilot to always be in the line of sight of the aircraft. In addition, drones can only fly in daylight, and can’t weigh more than 55 pounds.

DOT and FAA Finalize Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems https://t.co/yr1VUrygOf #drones #flysafe pic.twitter.com/XaUTA9rhB7

— The FAA (@FAANews) June 21, 2016

The Big Brother Aspect

The biggest issue with regulating drones has been ensuring safety and privacy. Several groups have expressed fears that they could be used for spying on people, or are simply not safe enough. The fact that they can now be as small as insects, and can use cameras with facial recognition technology, is indeed unsettling to some. “The FAA continues to ignore the top concern of Americans about the deployment of commercial drones in the United States–the need for strong privacy safeguards,” Marc Rotenberg, president of Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Boston Globe.

Drone captures 70 tiger sharks feasting on a whale https://t.co/JGGv3F9pPa pic.twitter.com/gBrqVjmVYZ

— Drones (@drones) May 24, 2016

Despite this, some in the business sector are happy with the new rules. Michael Drobac, a lawyer for drone efforts at companies like Amazon and Google, said:

Within months you will see the incredible impact of these rules with commercial drones becoming commonplace in a variety of uses. This will show the technology is reliable, and then it becomes harder to argue against broader uses–like for delivery.

More Jobs

According to the press release from the Federal Aviation Administration, the new regulations could open up more than 100,000 new jobs within the next 10 years, and could generate more than $80 billion for the U.S. economy. U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said: “We are part of a new era in aviation, and the potential for unmanned aircraft will make it safer and easier to do certain jobs, gather information, and deploy disaster relief.”

Before the new rules, a piloting license was needed in order to operate a drone, but with the new rules you only need  a “remote pilot certificate,” which is attainable by passing an aeronautical knowledge test. You must be at least 16-years-old to fly a drone, and cannot fly the aircraft over other people. The new rules don’t affect hobbyists, however, so if you own a drone and want to know what is allowed, you can read the FAA’s “Fly for Fun” guidelines here.

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 FAA Issues New Rules for Commercial Drones appeared first on Law Street.

If you ever wondered if spelling, grammar, and punctuation were really important, the answer is yes. Not only will using them make you look halfway literate, it will make law enforcing just that much easier.

You have to be a smooth talker in order to talk your way out of paying a parking ticket on a grammar-cality. Andrea Cammelleri, then, must be one smooth talker.

It’s a Comma Mistake

In Ohio, there are certain types of things that cannot be parked for more than 24 hours in certain spots. The village thought that Cammelleri’s pickup truck was one of those things that could not be parked where she chose. That is why they so happily provided her with a ticket when she failed to follow the whole ‘don’t park here for more than 24 hours’ law that they thought was so clear.

They were apparently wrong–both in that Cammelleri’s truck was not one of the vehicles that made the don’t park here list, and because the law was not as clear as they had assumed.

The reason they thought that Cammelleri was illegally parked was because a pickup truck is a motor vehicle and the way the village reads the law in question, motor vehicles were included in the list of covered things. However, they were missing one vital piece of information to make that assumption true: a comma.

If you have ever gotten into a debate about commas (this is a real thing that happens all the time when you are a writer and/or editor), then you will be happy to know that the debate has finally found its way to court with a definitive, legal answer.

What the law actually says is that motor vehicle campers could not park in the spot for that long. What exactly is a motor vehicle camper? A fancy term for RV? Or just a long way to say camper?

Cammelleri said that she wasn’t sure what it was, but she knew here truck wasn’t one. Therefore that ticket she got for illegally parking should be tossed.

The village had a different argument. Come on, they told the court. It’s pretty obvious we meant to say “motor vehicle, camper” and not “motor vehicle camper.” This woman’s just trying to weasel out of paying up. Let’s just fine her, and use the money to fix the law. (Okay. That last part was completely editorialized.)

Who did the court side with? If you read the headline, and I am assuming you must have in order to have gotten here, then you already know the answer. The court sided with Cammelleri.

Why? They ruled that while contextually the law might be understandable, technically it could be read both ways. If they want the court to interpret the law the way the village does, then they better go change it to be both contextually and technically right. Otherwise, they should start saving their parking tickets for illegally parked motor vehicle campers, whatever those might be.

Proofread or Lose Money

What can you learn from the forgotten comma? If you want to get paid, you better proofread. Otherwise, you miss losing more money than a Macy’s mispriced mailer.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thank the Grammar Police For This Dismissed Parking Ticket appeared first on Law Street.

Two sisters from Overton, Texas are receiving an outpouring of support after local police shut down their roadside lemonade stand. (Ex-squeeze me?)

Zoey and Andria Green, 7 and 8 years old respectively, were trying to raise money to buy their dad a Father’s Day present. They harnessed their entrepreneurial energies and decided to sell lemonade and kettle corn to drivers and passers-by until they earned enough money to take their dad to a nearby water park for his special day.

Overton Police Chief Clyde Carter told the girls they could not continue operating their stand. He said they needed to pay $150 for a peddler’s permit, noting that they were also in violation of certain health codes since they prepared the kettle corn themselves.

(Just a reminder: these were kids…in a residential area in Eastern Texas…selling snacks).

Aren’t there bigger issues that a Police Chief should be focusing on? Couldn’t the fees or permit be waived at the discretion of the commanding officer? I guess Police Chief Carter never saw this video from 2010, wherein a county official in Oregon apologized to a little girl for the closure of her lemonade stand.

The Green sisters have since received tons of support from their community, and have discovered how to use one of America’s most sacred tools: the loophole. As long as the girls “give away” their snacks and ask for donations, they are not breaking any laws–and do not require any permits.

Hundreds of East Texans have pledged their support and plan to visit the sisters’ stand this Saturday. The girls were given (free) water park tickets to both Six Flags and Splash Kingdom after their story broke.

Mom Sandi Green Evans told reporters that additional donations collected on Saturday will be given to the Deana Rinehart and Felicia Roach Overton High School Sports Scholarship Fund.

Any police officers in the area won’t be doling out tickets–they’ll be directing traffic.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kids’ Lemonade Stand Shut Down by Texas Police For a Ridiculous Reason appeared first on Law Street.

The future is now…on hold until further notice. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed drone regulations that will make Amazon’s future drone service (dubbed “Amazon Prime Air”) nearly impossible to implement. Unfamiliar with the online retailer’s plan to send packages via unmanned drone? Take at look at this video with Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos featured on CBS This Morning.

The concept of drone ethics has become a hot-button issue both in the United States and abroad. Most recently, the off-Broadway play “Grounded,” starring Anne Hathaway, has brought issues regarding remote drone pilots into the spotlight.

Drone regulation remains a highly divisive issue. There is no question that drones have the potential to be used as weapons of war  as well as tools for efficient aid delivery.

Let’s highlight some clear benefits to delivery by drone in the United States. If small aircraft are being used, that means having fewer delivery trucks on the road, less fuel being consumed, and faster delivery times. Companies like Amazon and Google are urging the FAA to revise its irksome rules that impede the use of drone technology rather than accommodate it.

For example, under FAA rules all drone operators must fly aircraft “only within their line of sight.” While this rule might make sense for a recreational drone user, it does not necessarily make sense for a commercial drone that could be programmed to follow a GPS path to an exact location.

Speaking of recreational drone users–if you or anyone you know owns a drone, you could get into big trouble if you do not abide by the FAA’s policies regarding small, unarmed aircraft systems.

Seems like a lot of rules for a device that could be bought online for under a hundred bucks. In fact, on most sites there are no age restrictions to purchase drones. Are kids or teenagers going to know that flying drones above 400 feet is illegal? Are they even going to abide by the FAA’s rules even if they do know? Hopefully they don’t try to fly drones in harsh weather. Or fly too close to seagulls. Or interfere with local air traffic. (Suddenly smart phones don’t seem so dangerous anymore.)

The FAA has created conservative rules regarding drone use, and it is going to take its time evaluating comments from the public and private sectors while it revises those rules. Roughly speaking, it will take 18 to 24 months for the FAA to review everything and speak with Amazon regarding proposed policy changes.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking Forward to Amazon Deliveries Via Drone? FAA Says Not So Fast appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a new product floating around that is threatening to be a big game-changer for the alcohol industry. It’s called “Palcohol” and it’s powdered alcohol. Since the idea of powdered alcohol began being floated around, regulators have been worried about its potential for abuse–despite that Palcohol just received federal approval this week.

Read more: Schumer’s Crusades Against Weird Alcohol Help Build His War Chest

Palcohol is a patented product, so exactly how it works is proprietary to the company that owns it, Lipsmark, but essentially powdered alcohol is a lot like powdered milk. You have to add water to make it liquid again. In Palcohol’s case, a one ounce package needs to be mixed with six ounces of water. That one ounce ends up equivalent to a shot. Palcohol will be sold in five “flavors”–vodka, rum, cosmopolitan, powderita (a riff on margarita), and lemon drop. Now that the product has been approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, we should expect to see “Palcohol” on our shelves sometime within the next few months.

Advocates for Palcohol cite its convenience, and how easy it will be to transport. Palcohol’s site uses its founder, Mark Phillips, as an example:

Mark is an active guy…hiking, biking, camping, kayaking, etc. After hours of an activity, he sometimes wanted to relax and enjoy a refreshing adult beverage. But those activities, and many others, don’t lend themselves to lugging heavy bottles of wine, beer or spirits. The only liquid he wanted to carry was water.

Palcohol also might have pretty cool future uses besides just a convenient, light way to throw one back. For example, it could be used as an antiseptic, particularly because of how lightweight the pouches will be.

However, there are many who are worried about Palcohol. First of all, because of Palcohol’s smaller size and weight, it would probably be easier for underage drinkers to sneak somewhere–whether that be into an event or just concealed within their own home. In that vein, not only could it be easier for underage drinkers to utilize, it could be rendered particularly potent. Technically Palcohol could be mixed with any sort of liquid to create a drink. So, if you really wanted, you could mix it with another type of alcohol to make a very strong drink. There’s also a concern that it could be used in food, whether to get drunk yourself or to spike someone else.

This is probably a pretty legitimate concern as, to be fair, teens aren’t always exemplary when it comes to making smart decisions with regard to alcohol consumption. Remember Four Loko? The caffeinated adult beverage was thought to be responsible for quite a few college and high school binge drinking injuries.

One of the more high-profile figures to come forward with concerns about Palcohol was Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who included in a statement:

I am in total disbelief that our federal government has approved such an obviously dangerous product, and so, Congress must take matters into its own hands and make powdered alcohol illegal. Underage alcohol abuse is a growing epidemic with tragic consequences and powdered alcohol could exacerbate this. We simply can’t sit back and wait for powdered alcohol to hit store shelves across the country, potentially causing more alcohol-related hospitalizations and God forbid, deaths. This legislation will make illegal the production and sale of this Kool-Aid for underage drinking.

While many new products have the potential to be abused, drinking fads also tend to die out pretty quickly. Yet all of these concerns aside, the federal government did give Palcohol the go-ahead, so we’ll probably see it on shelves eventually. Changes for the alcohol industry are ahead, that’s for certain.

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 Federal Government OKs Powdered Alcohol appeared first on Law Street.

On January 8, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration finished the work started by previous Mayor Michael Bloomberg by announcing that styrofoam containers will go by the wayside. This includes to-go boxes from the city’s many food trucks as well as coffee cups and packing peanuts. This is a purely environmental move, which might end up costing consumers more money and inconveniencing vendors. Though it has been met with some controversy, most people agree that ultimately it is a good decision.

Expanded Polystyrene Foam, or styrofoam, is one of mankind’s worst inventions. While it’s buoyant properties are desirable for flotation devices and its insulating properties are handy in construction projects, it is non-biodegradable. Thus it sits in landfills forever, never decomposing into the soil. Furthermore, the Department of Sanitation recently determined that it is not recyclable, which played a substantial part in deciding to ban the product. Finally, since most people’s exposure to styrofoam comes in the form of food or beverage containers, it is worth noting that some studies by the EPA suggest a possible mild carcinogenicity.

Courtesy of Jon Hayes via Flickr.

The New York City ban goes into effect on July 1, 2015; however, there will be a six-month grace period before the city begins enforcement so that vendors can seek alternatives. Furthermore, nonprofits and businesses with less than $500,000 in annual income may qualify for an exemption. Finally, while packing peanuts will no longer be sold within the city, packages containing them can still be shipped in. Nonetheless, this determination represents a great step forward in eradicating the material.

Those who support styrofoam do so because it is cheap to acquire and convenient to use; however, there are plenty of alternatives. For example, the city’s Department of Education plans to serve children their food on compostable plates instead. Starbucks and some other coffee companies hand out their products in paper cups with a cardboard ring around them; these are recyclable products that also do a sufficient job of keeping the customer’s hands from being burned. This is a poignant example, because styrofoam is a part of the fashion employed by Dunkin Donuts. In New York, they will have to find a slightly new appearance to compliment the regulations. Customers might worry that their coffee will not stay as hot for as long or will be inconvenienced in other ways.

Courtesy of Erik Sagen via Flickr.

Smaller businesses and vendors are most concerned about the ban because they will likely have to buy more expensive containers. Assuming they can find effective replacements for styrofoam, they will probably have to charge more for what is famously cheap food in order to make up their losses. Up until now it has cost $86 per ton to landfill foam, and $160 to reuse it in some form. These expenses come out of taxpayers’ pockets. Therefore consumers should be okay with paying a slightly higher price for environmentally friendly containers, because it would likely be to their financial benefit in the long run.

Just as with attempting to live off of alternative energy sources, making the transition to environmentally sustainable items and lifestyles is a difficult one. There are likely to be some monetary losses at the outset, but in the long run these things tend to prove to be more financially viable. Environmental sustainability often goes hand in hand with economic sustainability. We should not be afraid to venture outside of our comfort zones and established ways of life in quest of something new and better. Styrofoam is something we take for granted; our morning cup of coffee seems an insignificant thing, but it ends up having a massive impact as it is on a scale of hundreds of millions and of a daily occurrence.

Courtesy of Jonno Witts via Flickr.

These measures will not simply open up space in landfills; an unfortunately large amount of garbage ends up in the water. Especially considering New York City’s geographic orientation, many feel that the styrofoam ban will benefit the local aquatic biodiversity as well as the urban water supply itself. Styrofoam will not yet disappear altogether, but this is a substantial step in the right direction.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wave Goodbye to Your Takeout Containers: NYC Bans Styrofoam appeared first on Law Street.

Uber is a great way to get from point A to point B, but the company may have a rocky road ahead of it in 2015. There are a lot of lawsuits pending against the ridesharing company, and while none of them seem that damaging, it does raise a question: why is Uber so prone to lawsuits?

One of the pending legal struggles against Uber involves its habit of sending incessant text messages to users. Uber has been named in a class action suit filed in U.S. District Court based in San Francisco. The suit argues that Uber has been abusing text-messaging marketing and bombarding people’s phones with unwanted messages. This is illegal ever since a change in FCC polices that interprets a law differently, namely that it:

Restricts telephone solicitations and the use of automated telephone equipment to include text messages sent to a mobile phone, unless the consumer previously gave consent to receive the message or the message is sent for emergency purposes. The ban applies even if consumers have not placed their mobile phone numbers on the national Do-Not-Call list.

Uber isn’t the only company to be on the receiving end of such a lawsuit–CVS, Jiffy Lube, Steve Madden, and Burger King have also been sued for doing the same or a similar thing. This class action lawsuit is asking for over $5 million in total for the text messages, although a judge will have to rule on whether or not to allow the legal proceedings to move forward as a class-action lawsuit.

That’s not the only time that Uber may see the inside of a courtroom this year. There’s currently an ongoing lawsuit about the tipping procedures used by the company. The lawsuit claims that Uber advertises that 20 percent of its fees go to tips for the drivers, but that it’s actually misleading its customers and keeping a substantial amount. This case, which also has the potential to become a class action suit, was originally filed by Caren Ehret of Illinois. She claims that because Uber’s policies are misleading, she, and other customers, ending up overpaying. This case has been stretching on for a while, as there has been some back and forth over whether or not the plaintiff can have access to certain of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s emails. It was just ruled that the plaintiff will be able to see those messages, and the case is continuing to move forward.

A third recent lawsuit against Uber involves the company’s “safe ride” fee that’s charged to its UberX customers. UberX is a ride sourced through Uber that uses the driver’s own car. This lawsuit argues that UberX is misleading its customers about what the “safe ride” fee does. According to Uber’s website, the safe ride fee is used to ensure that the drivers are up to industry standards, that they have the proper training, and that they pass background checks; however, this lawsuit, filed by one California and one Michigan resident, says that Uber’s safety features actually fall below industry standards.

These aren’t the only lawsuits with which Uber will have to contend in the coming months and years, and it’s not just in the courtroom that the company will see trouble. It’s also seen PR backlashes from controversies ranging from charging surge prices during the Sydney hostage crisis in late 2014, to sexual assault allegations in Chicago and New Delhi.

To be honest, I probably won’t stop using Uber, and I have a feeling most of my peers won’t either. It’s cheaper than cabs, and incredibly convenient. It’s a company that truly does have the ability to revolutionize transportation. But in order to get to that point, the truly revolutionary point I mean, it’s going to have to be careful. There are a lot of bumps in the road ahead for Uber–if it can weather them, it’ll be in good shape.

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 Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I’ll be honest, I have never been a fan of Wal-Mart. I get the appeal of the low-cost products and everything, but I’ve never felt like any Wal-Mart I have ever been in has seemed clean or worthy of my money. I also have a huge problem with all of the lawsuits that seem to stem from Wal-Mart mistreating its employees, especially women.

Back in June there was a fatal accident involving a Wal-Mart delivery truck and a limousine party bus. The party bus was carrying comedian Tracy Morgan and his posse. One man was killed and several injured, including Morgan who was in critical condition at one point. The semi-truck driver had supposedly been awake for 24 consecutive hours and was reportedly going 20 miles per hour OVER the speed limit.

Naturally after all is said and done, Morgan has filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart because of the accident. I would too if I were him, but he had to see the blame game coming.

Good ol’ Wal-Mart has come out in the last several days to say that because Morgan and the other passengers were not wearing seat belts they are to blame for their injuries. Well Wal-Mart, if that’s the only defense you have then you certainly are scraping the bottom of the barrel. But it is actually a good defense — that’s why the Wal-Mart lawyers get paid the big bucks. I want to be a lawyer, but I could never imagine taking a job for Wal-Mart no matter how much it offered to pay me. With the amount of shitty lawsuits that that company has to deal with I would probably end up retiring early and forced into the nut house. I could never work for a company that has zero respect for anyone, even its own employees.

As for the truck driver, he may have been under some pressure to get his shipment out quickly and maybe was told to overlook the trucking industry regulations because Wal-Mart needs its shelves fully stocked at all times. But then again, does a Wal-Mart-employed truck driver have a different set of rules then what OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) requires? Have the great slimy lawyers of Wal-Mart found a loop hole? Don’t get me wrong, I love lawyers — I want to be one. But the idea of what Wal-Mart has gotten away with because of its lawyers rubs me the wrong way!

Should Morgan have had his seat belt on while whooping it up in the party bus? Uhm, maybe. Are there even seat belts on a party bus? I’m sure there are, but they are probably so neglected that they have been tucked under the seats by so many people and forgotten. When I think of a party bus I think of a safe driver who creates a safe atmosphere in the bus so that passengers don’t have to think about safety or even seat belts. That’s the purpose of hiring a driver, so you can have fun and be safe with a sober, capable, licensed driver.

Wal-Mart said the injuries were “caused, in whole or in part, by the plaintiffs’ failure to properly wear an appropriate available seat belt restraint device.” The company said that by not using seat belts, the plaintiffs “acted unreasonably and in disregard of plaintiffs’ own best interests.” I’m sorry, WHAT!?! YOUR DRIVER had been awake for 24 consecutive hours and YOUR DRIVER was going 20 mph OVER the speed limit! Your driver “acted unreasonably and in disregard” of his own life and the lives of any other motorists on the highway!

If you look at the pictures from the crash you can see that even if Morgan and his friends had their seat belts on there was enough damage done that it still would have caused injuries. Seat belts are great but just because you are strapped into a chair does not mean that you will not be harmed or even killed.

So to those dear Wal-Mart lawyers, you should reconsider allowing your client to blame Tracy Morgan’s injuries on the fact that he was not wearing his seat belt because I just gave a better defense. Would a judge side with me? Who knows. I’m no lawyer, yet! But if you are any good at your job you would have seen both sides of the coin before allowing a statement to be released blaming someone for injuries that were incurred because of an accident one of YOUR EMPLOYEES caused!

Shame on you Wal-Mart, shame on you!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wal-Mart Blames Injuries From Tracy Morgan’s Crash on Lack of Seat Belts appeared first on Law Street.

It seems as though the fake tanning trend is finally nearing its expiration date. Or at the very least, its legal limits. In recent months, multiple states have moved to restrict the ability of minors to access tanning beds. Teens under 18 in the states that have moved to legislate may need parents’ permission before indulging in the fake-UV rays, or be banned altogether.

Just a few years ago, tanning beds seemed ubiquitous for high school students looking to get a little more orange, despite that the dangers of tanning beds have been well known for years. Laws have always varied, but more states are moving toward banning minors outright, or requiring parental consent for those under 18. The American Cancer Society (ACS) tends to recommend the latter, highlighting the danger of tanning beds for young people. ACS South Dakota’s grassroots manager Carmyn Egge recently pointed out, “what we have found is that a person under the age of 35, who uses an indoor tanning device, their likelihood of getting a melanoma diagnosis [increases] by 59 percent.” Cindy Caneveri, of the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network has cited similar statistics to the press, explaining:

Melanoma is now the second most common cancer for ages 15 to 29, and most common for ages 25 to 29. Melanoma is cumulative, so if you start out using a tanning bed [in your teens], you’re not seeing cancer until your late 20s.

States that have banned tanning completely for those under 18 include: California, Texas, Vermont, Illinois, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Minnesota, Hawaii, and Louisiana. Delaware just recently passed a bill as well, although it won’t go into effect until 2015.

While the states above have banned teen tanning outright, some states are settling for restricting the ways in which teens can tan. This summer, a new law went into effect in Pennsylvania making tanning tougher on minors. The Indoor Tanning Regulation Act took place last month, and banned anyone under 16 years old from using a tanning bed. It also required that 17 year olds have parental consent. A recently passed Missouri law is also cracking down on the ways in which teenagers can tan indoors. The state now requires that anyone under the age of 17 provide written permission from a parent before using tanning facilities.

The Indoor Tanning Association disagrees with the bans on younger people, pointing out that 16 year olds can drive, own guns, and in certain cases get married, so they should not be limited in their choices to engage in indoor tanning.

The laws, however, do make a lot of sense. Tanning can be a harmful alteration to your body, and it’s logical to leave the ability to consent up to adults. Cigarettes, for example, are illegal until an individual turns 18 and is no longer a minor. Skin cancer is actually more frequent at this point than lung cancer. Each year in the United States, approximately 420,000 new cases of skin cancer are diagnosed that can be traced back to indoor tanning. In comparison, a total of about 225,000 new lung cancer diagnoses were expected in the U.S. in 2014. While cigarettes and tanning beds carry very different types of carcinogens, the move toward restricting harmful activities for those underage is a traditional practice.

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 States Saying No to Teen Tanning appeared first on Law Street.

The possibility of government regulation of noncompete clauses in the business world has been a hot topic in recent months – especially throughout the tech industry. Now it seems that the debate has expanded to an array of other smaller industries, including the ever-so-competitive camp counseling field.

According to the New York Times, 19-year-old college student Colette Buser was passed over for a summer counselor job in Wellesley, Mass. in fear that nearby LINX camp would sue. Apparently Buser had a noncompete clause tucked into her contract from the previous summer, which prevented her from working within ten miles of a LINX location. According to the Times, everyone from “chefs to investment fund managers to yoga instructors, employees are increasingly required to sign agreements that prohibit them from working for a company’s rivals.”

LINX tried defending its actions to the Boston Herald, claiming that its training methods are just as crucial as the confidential intel that tech companies using noncompetes have. LINX President Joe Kahn said that the company uses these clauses because they train employees using unique methods and have seen counselors get hired mid-summer as babysitters. “Much like a tech company would be protective of their technology and proprietary information, we’re protective of our customer information,” said Kahn.

Buser is not the only person who has been affected by noncompete clauses recently. According to the Boston Herald there have been plenty of other instances where former employees found themselves in trouble because of a noncompete clause.

• A student trying to intern at a tech firm was requested to sign a one-year noncompete.
• A Massachusetts man whose job involved spraying pesticides on lawns was asked to sign a two-year noncompete agreement.
• A Boston University graduate was asked to sign a one-year noncompete for an entry-level social media job at a marketing firm.
• Phil Poireir, a pastor at a Megachurch in Seattle, was let go because he refused to sign a noncompete contract.
• A hair salon in Norwell, Mass., obtained an injunction requiring hairstylist Daniel McKinnon to stop working at a nearby salon because he had signed a noncompete, which prohibited him from working at any salon in neighboring towns for a year.

In McKinnon’s case, he was forced to live on unemployment benefits for months. “I almost lost my truck, I almost lost my apartment. Almost everything came sweeping out from under me,” McKinnon told the Times.

From the employer’s perspective, noncompete clauses make sense. The company has invested its time and money into training its employees, so it would only be logical to protect those investments. But it seems that some companies are taking it a bit overboard. Can one hairdresser really cause a business to flop? What does it say about your company if you’re trying to scare your employees to stay committed? These are the questions that businesses need to ask themselves when they put noncompete clauses in their employees’ contracts.

Many noncompete clauses put people like Daniel McKinnon out of work for weeks and even months at a time. MIT professor Matthew Marx thinks that people should have the freedom to come and go as they please. “There was a saying at the Silicon Valley startup where I worked, ‘You never stop hiring someone.’ They can go where they want. People are free to leave and start companies if they’re not happy,” Marx said.

Over the past year there has been a 60 percent rise in departing employees who face lawsuits from their former bosses for breaching these agreements, the Wall Street Journal reported. These disputes lead to long, drawn out court battles that impede productivity on both sides of the disagreement.

Many legislators are trying to bar noncompetes in various states throughout the country. State Representative and Vice Chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, Lori Ehrlich,  contends that noncompetes are hurting growth in our economy by “decreasing working mobility and squelching startups.”

Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has proposed a bill that will make it easier for workers in all types of industries to move from one job to another with ease by banning noncompete agreements. These agreements seem to cripple employees’ ability to be innovative, leaving them befuddled and frustrated with their inability to advance.

While the fear that former employees may take confidential information is understandable, companies should sue if, and only if, the former employee is caught doing so, not beforehand. Should their personal knowledge be considered company information? Does that make sense to anyone out there?

Currently, only California and North Dakota ban noncompete clauses according to the Herald. So if you are working for a company and you have a brilliant idea for a new startup, you can go to California or North Dakota and the judge will not honor the agreement. Since startups in North Dakota aren’t exactly booming, I would look to the Golden State.

— Trevor Smith Featured Image Courtesy of [Penn State 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 Want to be a Camp Counselor? Better Check Your Noncompete Clause appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I hope everyone had a great Memorial Day weekend! For me it is always a low-key weekend that usually ends up in quality time with my family, celebrating the holiday honoring the men and women who have died serving in the armed forces protecting our freedom. This weekend also calls for a celebration of my birthday — my actual birthday is today.

Monday was like every other Memorial Day where a small group of my family members get together to have some sort of meal and talk about anything and everything. This time, no surprise, the subject matter of the young man who murdered six people and injured 13 before killing himself near Santa Barbara over the weekend was brought up. A tragedy that is hard to understand but something that has become increasingly normal in our society.

It’s no secret that I have conservative views, as do most of my family members. I was raised with guns around the house, unavoidable when your father is in the military and a gun enthusiast from the South. I was taught early on in life what guns can do, how to handle them but also how to respect them. Shooting a rifle in the backwoods of Mississippi was a summer pastime with my brother under the supervision of our father. I am not a member of the NRA but I certainly support the organization.

As my family and I sat down for lunch, my aunt brought up this news and the press conference where the father of one of the victims, Christopher Martinez, age 20, had made a statement blaming not only politicians but also the NRA for his son’s death.

I cannot imagine the pain that a parent goes through when losing a child to such a heinous act and I understand that with grief comes anger and the need to blame someone for the loss of his child. I have lost friends in the past to guns, either self-inflicted or at the hand of someone else, but never have I once needed to blame anyone except the person who pulled that trigger.

The NRA promotes safety, responsibility, respect, and education toward guns. The NRA did not put that gun into the hands of this obviously disturbed man. Not to mention that in later reports police have discovered that three people were stabbed to death by the same person. Who do we blame then? Victorinox Swiss Army? Spyderco Knives? How about Crate & Barrel for selling cutlery? A knife can be just as deadly as a gun. It is not the method being used but rather the person behind that tool that we should blame.

The scariest part of this whole tragedy is that in some way it could have been avoided. The shooter’s father even contacted police a month ago due to the disturbing YouTube videos his son was posting. Let’s take a step back and think about why the police were unable to do anything about it before all of this occurred. Hindsight is always 20/20 and we can always play the “what if” game, but there were warning signs and nothing was done about them. This is not the fault of the NRA or anyone who supports the Second Amendment. This is the fault of a disturbed young man who felt that he was dealt a bad hand in life and blamed everyone but himself.

With that said, we should all take a minute to pay our respects to those who lost their lives in this tragic event. They are the ones who deserve the attention from the media — not the soulless creature who took them from this earth.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Shooter Alone is to Blame for Santa Barbara Slayings appeared first on Law Street.

The FCC proposed new rules last week that would allow companies to pay Internet service providers (ISPs) additional money in return for faster web access to customers, creating a so called “Internet fast lane.” If implemented these changes would have significant consequences for the future of neutrality online.

The concept of net neutrality has been under attack recently after the court struck down a 2010 FCC order that supported the equal treatment of online content by ISPs. In addition to the neutrality debate, there have also been several issues with bandwidth, as content-like video have caused traffic burdens for ISPs. The emerging debate hinges on the question of whether or not Internet service providers should be able to control Internet speeds for certain websites.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality, a term coined by Columbia University professor Tim WU, refers to the idea that content on the Internet should be treated equally without the interference of ISPs. Advocates argue that a level playing field is essential for the Internet to remain free of commercial control.

In 2010, the FCC implemented the Open Internet Order, which prohibited content blocking and unreasonable discrimination in addition to requiring transparency regarding network management. These rules were struck down in January 2014, when the court ruled that although the FCC had the authority to regulate the internet, its existing rules overreached its authority. Since then the commission has been tasked with finding new ways to promote net neutrality, of which the first steps were taken with the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) last week.

Back to the New Rules

So what does the FCC’s new proposal mean for the Internet and its consumers? The new rules would allow ISPs to charge for faster Internet access. Advocates of net neutrality argue that these rules mark the abandonment of Internet freedom, as ISPs may now be able to control what websites will reach consumers faster.

The creation of an Internet ‘fast lane’ has far reaching implications for the equality of Internet content. Companies with more money will be able to pay additional sums to Internet service providers in exchange for more bandwidth. As a result, videos from services like Netflix, Youtube, or Hulu (to name a few) would be able to load much faster, given that they are willing to pay the price. Many view this as a serious threat to start-ups and emerging websites, which typically do not have the funds to pay for such services.

Although many may see these new rules as the end of Internet neutrality, current FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler wrote a defense of the new rules in a blog post shortly after their release. Wheeler argues that the new regulations would lead to “the reinstatement of the Open Internet concepts adopted by the Commission in 2010.” He further emphasized the FCC’s ability, under the proposed rules, to prevent “commercially unreasonable” activity.

If passed, the new regulations would again promote transparency, prohibit the blocking of legal content, and prevent ISPs from acting in a commercially unreasonable way. In a second blog post published on April 29, Wheeler further defended the new NPRM, arguing that people still misunderstand the rules and the FCC’s commitment to an open internet. In the blog post, he provides further explanation as to what would be considered not “commercially reasonable.” Such practices include anything that may harm consumers or competition, provide favorable traffic to a company affiliated with the provider, and curbing free speech or civic engagement.

Wheeler contends that the transparency rule will allow the FCC to monitor any abuse, and openly stated that “degrading service in order to create a new ‘fast lane’ would be shut down.” He went on to say that he and the FCC is keeping all options open and may even be willing to regulate using its Title II authority to ensure openness. However, his reasoning to not do so initially because he wanted the rules to be put in place as soon as possible rather than start a legal battle.

These rules would not allow slowing down speed to one website while speeding it up for another, but it will still give broadband providers the ability to negotiate contracts with companies to provide faster services. While this may not slow down the competition, the mere act of allowing certain websites to load faster may still have significant consequences.

What this Means for the Internet

Speed is clearly an important part of the Internet for consumers, and emerging data may suggest that it is essential for businesses as well. There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that the Internet usage has already started to become concentrated around established websites. A paper published in 2010 by Professor Matthew Hindman of George Washington University, found that “the top 300 media sites account for 80 percent of traffic on a typical day, with the top 10 sites receiving 30 percent of all news visits.” The new FCC rules, may further contribute to this phenomena, as wealthier companies are able to pay for a better customer experience. Leaving new websites and those without large sums of money stuck with standard loading times.

To understand just how important loading speed is to a website’s success, check out this infographic created by KISS Metrics.

Before these new rules are put in place, they must go through internal FCC debate, receive a majority vote from the commissioners, and then go through a comment period where companies and individuals can provide their opinions. If approved by the FCC, the full text of the rules will be released after the FCC’s next meeting on May 15.

The exact implications of the new proposal have yet to be seen, but if approved they would mark a notable deviation from the concept that all web traffic must be treated equally. The rules do provide the FCC with the authority to prevent unfair blocking and slowing of content, but understanding the extent to which enforcement will occur is not yet possible.

While several potential implications of these new rules remains to be seen, one thing is for sure: ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon stand to make a lot more money.

[The Washington Post] [Wired] [FCC]

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [Sean Weigold Ferguson via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post The Future of the Internet: What the FCC’s Latest Rules Mean For You appeared first on Law Street.

When you decide to start a business, you need to get all of your ducks in a row. Financially. Mentally. And legally.

The JOBs Act has helped a lot of new businesses sprout up over the last year, and crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter have proven to be the catalyst that a lot of budding entrepreneurs needed. Crowdfunding and earlier access to funding is making it easier for people (especially young people) to start their dream of being self-employed sooner than ever before.

While all of this new business development is lubricating our economy, creating opportunities for employment, and adding to the overall landscape of innovation and creativity, it is also raising legal questions.  As I’ve touched on previously, the SEC has gone through many adjustments and set in place regulations to protect both the entrepreneur and the investor.

Here’s a list of the most recent crowdfunding regulations (thanks, Forbes!).

• The amount an issuer can raise is capped at $1 million in any 12-month period.
• The amount a person can invest in all crowdfundings over a 12-month period is capped at 10 percent of annual income or net worth (incomes of $100,000 or more) or the greater of $2,000 or five percent of annual income or net worth (incomes of less than $100,000).
• Crowdfunding must be done through a registered broker-dealer or registered “funding portal.” Broker-dealers and funding portals may not solicit investments, offer investment advice or compensate employees based on sales. Traditional investment banks have shown little interest in crowdfunding, leading to speculation that crowdfunding will be facilitated by lesser-known financial institutions with little or no retail investment track record.
• Crowdfunding requires a disclosure document to be filed with the SEC at least 21 days prior to first sale, and requires scaled financial disclosure, including audited financial statements for raises of more than $500,000.
• Unlike Regulation D Rule 506 private placements to accredited investors following the JOBS Act, crowdfunding does not allow advertising except solely to direct investors to the appropriate broker/funding portal.
• Annual reports must be filed with the SEC by a company which completes a crowdfunding round.

Law firms specializing in business law need to accommodate the new influx of startups and stay up to date on the ever-changing and developing market, and I can’t stress enough the importance of speaking to someone who knows the exact you need to take. Startups have high risk potential, so it’s important that when presenting your idea to investors or to future clients you have everything organized appropriately. Many law firms, such as Manhattan’s Cohen Schneider & O’Neill, are taking note of the new potential market opportunities. One of this firm’s main areas of focus is on entrepreneurship and startups, for which they offer a comprehensive package for those ready to venture out on their own. For example, they can help the budding entrepreneur with particulars such as: required document preparation in the appropriate jurisdiction; compliance requirements and training, drafting and executing bylaws, resolutions, and stock issuance; tax ID registration; as well as brainstorming and consultations with a legal startup team.

So, basically, although things are getting easier in the market for new businesses, you still need to lawyer up, because it’s never easy when things aren’t done by the books. Save yourself some time and lots of money and take care of the legalities before you finish designing your logo.

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is a PR & Media Outreach Manager. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Have a Great Startup Idea? Find a Good Legal Team First appeared first on Law Street.

Disclaimer: I am a very vocal advocate of stricter regulation of gun laws.  That does not mean that I do not respect the 2nd amendment (“right to bear arms”).  I absolutely do, and I respect the original point of view of the framers of the Constitution.  So does Justice Scalia; it’s called being an originalist.  Now can we acknowledge that times have changed since the drafting of the Constitution?  That public safety should override, or at least be more strongly considered, in federal, state, and local legislative actions?  That sometimes there is a limit to how far a law can reach?

The backstory is simple: According to the Des Moines register, Iowa now grants permits to obtain guns to legally blind people.

Their reasoning is simple: it is legal and constitutional, pursuant to both the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 endeavors to regulate, and has for years regulated, who is able to obtain a license to carry a gun and the rules surrounding the ability to obtain a gun license.  The law provides that there are certain classes of people who are ineligible to be licensed gun owner.  These people include, but are not limited to, the following: criminals, a non-citizen of the United states; potentially dangerous people against whom restraining orders have been issued, and abusers of illegal substances or alcohol.  Not listed in this group of people banned from owning a gun license?  Blind people.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 seeks to protect those who for any reason may face unlawful discrimination due to a disability.  These disabilities include physical and mental disabilities like blindness, deafness, those in wheelchairs, and those with developmental issues.

Both of these federal laws serve important and necessary purposes for the protection of public safety and civil liberties.  The difficulty with this particular legal and legislative issue is the cross-section of the laws and their purposes.

In allowing the legally and completely blind to obtain gun licenses, Iowa is taking an important stand in the advancement of the ADA and the protection of the civil liberties of its citizens.

That being said, our nation has, in the last few years had significant problems with gun control, gun access, and disabilities (specifically mental health).  We’ve been down this slippery slope before.  Is anything catastrophically dangerous likely to happen if a legally blind person is carrying a gun they are legally licensed to have?  Probably not.  But what if a blind woman is in her home with her two children one night and an intruder enters?  What if the woman grabs her firearm and shoots in the direction of the perceived intruder, but instead fatally wounds her child?  Why are we not considering the repercussions of this law?  There needs to be more debate on this, and more possible scenarios considered, before the full enactment of the law.

[Des Moines Register, CNN, Fox News]

—

Featured image courtesy of [M Glasgow via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

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

The post Iowa Permits Blind People to Obtain Gun Permits. Seriously. appeared first on Law Street.

As congressional gridlock persists, companies have started targeting sympathetic Republican leaders in the house to fight California’s notoriously strict workplace, consumer protection, and environmental laws.  Officials are worried that many of these landmark laws may be in danger. New legislation to strengthen federal environmental laws on toxic chemicals would come at the price of invalidating an extremely strong California law that protects people against the most dangerous toxins.

The new law would give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to screen chemicals for safety rather than only being able to regulate chemicals that have already been proven dangerous; however, it could also prevent states from implementing their own regulations.  This is not the only instance in which strong state laws have been threatened by federal ones.  Just last year, a law that would have prevented California from enforcing its state water protections for endangered species made it through the house but failed in the senate.

[Latimes]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

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

The post Landmark California Regulations Under Attack appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

[Banker & Tradesman]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Paul-W via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

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

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

Texas Governor Rick Perry signed into law Thursday a bill that  greatly restricts abortion in the state. In his remarks before signing the bill, Perry said that the new law would prevent “reckless doctors performing abortions in horrific conditions” as a part of “our continued commitment to protecting life in the state of Texas.”

The new law makes abortions in Texas illegal after 20 weeks of pregnancy. It enforces surgical center regulations that will likely shut down the majority of abortion clinics as well as severely limit the locations where an abortion can be performed.

“That is reasonable. That is (the) common sense expectation for those caring for the health and safety of the people in the state of Texas,” Perry said in reference to the higher safety requirements.

[KMBZ]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Ed Schipul via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

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

The post Texas Sets Further Limits on Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

A new measure passed by Oregon’s state legislature seeks to reduce by two-thirds the number of suction-dredging permits issued in salmon-producing areas. Senate Bill 838 is on Gov. John Kitzhaber’s desk and he plans to sign it, said Tim Raphael, his communications director. Kitzhaber has until Aug. 19 to sign legislatively-approved measures into law.

The bill, widely supported by environmentalists and harshly criticized by the mining industry, was approved by the senate on July 3, followed by the house on July 7.

Suction dredge mining employs a vacuum to suck up gravel from a stream bottom. Materials from the river bottom then go through a sluice to allow miners to strain out gold and other heavy metals.

Beginning in 2014, the law would set a limit of 850 permits for suction dredge mining on Oregon’s salmon-bearing rivers, matching the level allowed in 2009. There are roughly 2,400 permits allowed this year. In addition, the law implements new restrictions on where, when and how dredging can occur.

[Daily Tidings]

—

Featured image courtesy of [William Cho via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

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

The post New Dredging Law to Reduce Permits appeared first on Law Street.

Activists are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take a drastic regulatory step that could have significant repercussions for the U.S. economy. At issue is the Pebble Mine — a natural resource project in Alaska that could yield more copper than has ever been found in one place anywhere in the world.

With more than 80 billion pounds of copper, Pebble Mine also holds other strategic metals like molybdenum and rhenium, which are essential to countless American manufacturing, high-tech and national-security applications. However, before plans have even started to be developed, the EPA seems to have responded to activist groups, such as the National Resources Defense Council. The EPA has carried out initial assessments of the site and has already taken a position to veto the project before Pebble Partnership even applied for permits.

The goal is to kill the proposal before it starts. The NRDC and other activist groups worry that once in progress the project will continue unless stopped early on, saying that, “EPA’s study (and intervention) is critically important. If left to its own devices, the state of Alaska has never said no to a large mine.”

However, some groups are speaking out against this preemptive EPA vetoing power. The Center for American Progress, for example, has come out in favor of letting the permitting review take place, even though the group has criticized the Pebble Mine project.

[See Full Article: Alaska Dispatch]

—

Featured image courtesy of [emydidae via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

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

The post EPA Trying to Stop Pebble Mine appeared first on Law Street.