Texas’ revamped voter ID law is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday. The judge, Nelva Gonzales Ramos, issued an injunction, saying it violates the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution. Gonzales Ramos also blocked another Texas voter ID law, which passed in 2011 and took effect in 2013. A number of subsequent legal challenges have largely blocked that law.

The protracted legal battle over Texas and its voter ID laws–among the toughest in the country–represents a larger voter fraud debate, playing out at both at the state and federal levels. Critics of voter ID laws say Republican-controlled states are deliberately stymying minorities from voting, because they are more likely to vote Democratic. Proponents of voter ID laws say voter fraud is rampant and must be kept in check with tougher voting standards.

Gonzales Ramos said Texas’ updated law, which was set to take effect in January, “remains discriminatory because it imposes burdens disproportionately on blacks and Latinos.” She added that the revisions made in the updated law, known as Senate Bill 5, do not “fully relieve minorities of the burden of discriminatory featured” of the 2011 law.

“The court thus issues injunctive relief to prevent ongoing violations of federal law and the recurrence of illegal behavior,” she wrote in the ruling.

Gonzales Ramos tossed the 2011 law, Senate Bill 14, in 2014. A circuit court affirmed the decision, but asked Ramos and the District Court for the Southern District of Texas to reexamine its discriminatory purpose. In April, Gonzales Ramos once again ruled that the law intentionally discriminated against minorities.

The original law required Texas voters to show one of seven forms of government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport. Critics contend minorities are less likely to have any of the seven ID options, and thus would be disproportionately barred from voting. The revamped law offered more options for identification, including utility bills or bank statements. Still, Gonzales Ramos found the law to be too restrictive.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has vigorously fought the legal challenges to the voter ID laws over the past few years. In a statement, he called Wednesday’s ruling “outrageous,” and vowed to appeal the decision. He also cited the Justice Department’s support of the law. Paxton added: “Safeguarding the integrity of elections in Texas is essential to preserving our democracy.”

Voting rights activists, civil rights groups, and a number of Democratic politicians cheered the decision. U.S. Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX), issued a statement saying, “Republican state leaders’ transparent efforts to make it harder and less likely that some Texans will vote are disgraceful.”

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 Judge Blocks Texas Voter ID Laws…Again appeared first on Law Street.

Fifteen undocumented youth were arrested in Austin, Texas on Wednesday during a protest against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s threat to sue the federal government over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, according to a statement from the protest organizers.

The protest, organized by national immigrant rights advocacy group Cosecha, brought together about 40 protesters for the first DACA-led civil disobedience action under the Trump Administration. Four DACA recipients and eleven allies were arrested after they blocked traffic by sitting in an intersection in front of the State Capitol, according to Cosecha.

“I am getting arrested today to tell my parents, my community, and the rest of the 11 million [undocumented immigrants] that no matter what politicians say, you are worthy and we will not settle for the crumbs they offer us in exchange for being the economic and labor force that sustains this country day in and day out,” said Catalina Santiago, a DACA recipient who was arrested during the protest.

Another shot of the sit-in blocking traffic. People opposing Paxton’s move to end DACA pic.twitter.com/V3KfkKMxMS

— James Barragán (@James_Barragan) July 26, 2017

 

Here’s video of DACA protesters being loaded onto police vehicle pic.twitter.com/MZQ0vf2xqy

— James Barragán (@James_Barragan) July 26, 2017

DACA is an Obama-era program which allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the U.S. if they had entered the U.S. before they turned 16, in addition to certain other provisions. Paxton, alongside nine other Republican attorneys general, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in June. In the letter, the attorneys general threatened to sue the federal government if Trump does not rescind the DACA program by September.

During the protest, “DACAmented” youth–a combination of “DACA” and “documented”–and allies marched through the streets of Austin chanting and singing phrases like, “One struggle, one fight, immigrants of the world unite,” and “The power is in our hands. This is our state. Injustice is not welcome here.”

Upon arriving at the capitol building, protesters laid posters in the middle of the intersection which read “Permanent protection. Dignity and Respect,” but a state trooper removed the signs immediately. The protesters sat in the intersection as drivers blared their car horns, and law enforcement officials began arresting those protesters about 10 minutes later.

BREAKING: Support the #DACAmented youth who were arrested at a sit-in in Austin, TX this morning: https://t.co/bW7Oo3eKv3pic.twitter.com/sp8YP22Rbi

— Movimiento Cosecha (@CosechaMovement) July 26, 2017

“Best case scenario is that they don’t arrest us,” one protester in the intersection said in an interview with KVUE. “The worst case scenario is that we get deported and I’m willing to do that for all 11 million undocumented immigrants. Not just DREAMers, not just DACA recipients, all 11 million undocumented immigrants that deserve dignity, respect, and permanent protection.”

After the protesters in the intersection were arrested, the remaining protesters continued their demonstration on the lawn next to the capitol building with chants of “Undocumented, unafraid.” Cosecha live streamed the protest on their Facebook page.

Paxton’s opposition to DACA is the latest in a series of state and national actions aimed at ramping up restrictions against undocumented immigrants. Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB4 into law on May 7, punishing local governments, officials, and police who do not comply with federal immigration laws. Opponents say the SB4 law, which essentially bans sanctuary cities, threatens the safety of undocumented immigrants and communities as a whole by placing distrust in law enforcement and government officials.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 25 which enlisted local law enforcement officers to act as immigration officials to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. In the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, undocumented immigrant arrests increased by 38 percent compared to the same period in 2016, according to data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Wednesday’s protest is only the most recent demonstration in support of immigrant rights. A group of 15 girls donning quinceañera gowns took to the steps of the Texas capitol building on July 19, where they danced to “Immigrants (We Get The Job Done)” and spoke out against SB4.

“We will resist through celebrating our families and our culture.”

Latinas are protesting an anti-sanctuary city law, quinceañera-style. pic.twitter.com/PQgfMNF1et

— Splinter (@splinter_news) July 20, 2017

 

#SB4Basta Quinceañera protest. They begin by dancing to traditional music, finish w/@Lin_Manuel‘s Immigrants We Get the Job Done! pic.twitter.com/JJLdY2YY2t

— Alyssa Harad (@alyssaharad) July 19, 2017

The Trump Administration has taken a tough stance against immigration over the past six months. While delivering a speech to the National District Attorneys Association on July 17, Sessions said that “our goal is not to reduce illegal immigration but to end illegal immigration.” But as undocumented immigrants and allies push back against policies that would negatively affect their communities, the fight for immigrant rights wages on.

Marcus Dieterle

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

The post 15 Protesters Arrested at Texas Capitol in Demonstration Defending DACA appeared first on Law Street.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry apparently spent 22 minutes on the phone last week discussing international energy issues with someone who he believed was Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman. Unfortunately for Perry, the call was a prank from Russian jokesters posing as Groysman. They discussed, among other topics, a fuel that is made from home-brewed alcohol and pig manure.

Perry was duped by Vladimir “Vovan” Kuznetsov and Alexei “Lexus” Stolyarov, who are known for pranking high-profile celebrities. Perry and the duo talked via a translator so the American politician was convinced the man he was corresponding with was Groysman. Besides the alternative fuel, Perry discussed underwater pipelines for gas, cyber attacks on America, natural gas in Ukraine, and even the Paris Accords, according to Bloomberg.

“Our position is that it’s our record that should be looked at, not whether or not we have signed onto some international accord,” Perry said. “We see our record of progress relative to the global environment to be substantially defensible.”

The pair even inquired if Ukraine could strike a deal on American coal exports, to which Perry responded that negotiations are always possible.

(FYI: the entire conversation was uploaded to a Russian video streaming site and can be found here.)

The prank phone call was first reported by E&E News. After the hoax was discovered, Perry’s office commented on the matter in an email to the Washington Post:

Secretary Perry is the latest target of two Russian pranksters.These individuals are known for pranking high-level officials and celebrities, particularly those who are supportive of an agenda that is not in line with their governments.

The duo, known as the “Jerky Boys of Russia,” claims to have pranked celebrities such as Elton John, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and John McCain, but rumor-debunking site Snopes notes that while some instances are true, such as McCain’s call, others remain unverified.

The situation is perhaps even more confusing since Perry and Groysman met in person just last month. On June 20, Perry hosted Groysman and his entourage at the Department of Energy office in Washington D.C., according to the Washington Post. So when Perry’s office received a call requesting a follow-up conversation, they assumed it was the Prime Minister. Instead it was the young Russians scheduling their prank.

After serving as governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015, Perry was the second contestant eliminated on ABC’s “Dancing With The Stars,” (though it’s debatable how much of a star Perry really is.) Besides competing on the reality show, Perry has famously been pretty gaffe-prone throughout his career. During a Republican Presidential Debate in 2011 Perry forgot which government agencies he vowed to abolish. Then, in 2013 Perry was giving a speech in New Orleans when he mistakenly said he was in Florida.

Perry has the political resume to lead the Department of Energy, but these juvenile gaffes should worry some Americans as we enter an era in our country where the debate over climate change is fierce. Citizens can only hope that mistakes like these don’t eventually endanger American interests at home or abroad when it comes to the energy sector.

Josh Schmidt

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

The post Rick Perry Tricked by Russian Pranksters appeared first on Law Street.

A Houston judge was suspended from her job on Friday amid accusations that she solicited prostitutes, sexted from the bench, and used her bailiff to buy drugs.

Hillary Green, who has been a judge since 2007, presided over misdemeanors, traffic cases, and civil suits for Harris County Precinct 7. Her lawyer called the decision “frustrating and surprising” in addition to arguing that many of the accusations were already public when Green was reelected with 86 percent of the vote.

She will remain suspended until a civil trial is held to make a final decision, but her lawyer said that trial could be years down the line and another judge is already slated to replace her, according to the Washington Post.

Accusations against Green first arose during her divorce from Houston Controller Ronald C. Green in 2015. It was at that point that Green said his now ex-wife “operates daily with impaired judgment as evidenced by her presiding over cases in which she has ongoing sexual relationships with litigants and witnesses,” according to the Houston Press.

Suspicions rose further when Claude Barnes, who Green admits she had an affair with for many years, came forward with allegations regarding drug use and hiring prostitutes for threesomes.

“The three of us sat,” Barnes said. “We smoked marijuana. We had a couple drinks and then three of us had sex.”

These accusations led the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct to file its first formal inquiry into the Houston judge’s behavior, an investigation that culminated in a 316-page recommendation to suspend her that was released this year. Executive Director Eric Vinson said that the commission has been investigating Green for almost four years and that in his decade in that role he has never seen a judge contest proceedings this strongly, according to the Houston Press.

The commission took note of Green’s inability to change her behavior over a five-year span and called out Green’s “outright betrayal of the public’s trust” in the report.

Other stories allege Green and Barnes smoked marijuana that was confiscated from a citizen, bought cough syrup from a drug dealer named “lover boy,” and that she texted her bailiff about explicit sexual acts that she would perform with him later.

Green admitted to buying $500 worth of cough syrup and smoking marijuana daily, but denied hiring prostitutes. In addition to smoking weed and drinking the syrup, she and Barnes took ecstasy on multiple occasions, but Green denies paying for it. So, even though she was sentencing people for committing minor drug offenses, Green frequently undertook similar behavior, according to the report’s findings.

Disgusted with her behavior, the commission asked the Texas Supreme Court to suspend Green while officials prepared their case to permanently remove her. The state bar wrote in May:

To this day, Judge Green has apparently made no attempt to reassign the bailiff with whom she actively participated in an inappropriate sexual texting relation and whom she recruited to assist in illegal drug activity. She engaged the services of a peace officer to commit a criminal act, and indeed he was apparently willing to do so. Incredibly, Judge Green sees nothing wrong with the arrangement.

Green and her lawyers countered that the allegations are the result of a bitter divorce and that Ronald Green could have stolen her phone and sent some of those text messages. They also argue that the accusations were improperly filed, creating a bureaucratic legal issue. Still, there is already ample evidence that the judge crossed several lines.

Even if some of the allegations aren’t true, Green has already admitted to multiple acts that would break the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The code explicitly states that appropriate action must be taken if a judge is impaired by drugs and that judges must maintain professional relationships with their staff.

Though Green’s civil trial is over a year away, she will almost surely not be reinstated from her suspension with the concrete evidence the bar association already has. Green, who was once part of a powerful political marriage with Ronald, has now had a meteoric fall from grace.

Josh Schmidt

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

The post Houston Judge Suspended for Buying Drugs and Prostitutes, Sexting Her Bailiff appeared first on Law Street.

A federal district court judge in Texas upheld a state law allowing residents to carry concealed handguns on university campuses on July 7, after three University of Texas at Austin professors sought to ban guns from their classrooms.

The plaintiffs, Professors Jennifer Glass, Lisa Moore, and Mia Carter, argued that “classroom discussion will be narrowed, truncated, cut back, cut off” if guns are allowed in classrooms. The defendants, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, UT-Austin President Gregory Fenves, and the university’s Board of Regents, defended the law’s implementation at UT-Austin.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel said the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they had suffered an “injury in fact” and had not established that there was a “causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of” that could be traced to the defendants.

In other words, the plaintiffs failed to show beyond speculation that they would be harmed by the concealed carry of handguns, or that concealed carry could be connected to having a “chilling effect” on classroom discussions. Therefore, Yeakel ruled that the “plaintiffs present no concrete evidence to substantiate their fears” and that they did not have standing to sue the defendants.

“The court’s ruling today is the correct outcome,” Paxton said in a statement. “The fact that a small group of professors dislike a law and speculate about a ‘chilling effect’ is hardly a valid basis to set the law aside.”

Texas passed a law in 2015 allowing licensed concealed handgun owners who are at least 21 years old to carry a concealed handgun on campus. The law prohibits institutions from creating rules that restrict gun owners’ right to carry a concealed handgun on campus, except for rules pertaining to the storage of handguns in dorms and residence halls.

The controversial bill was met with opposition from gun control advocates, but gun rights supporters won out in the end when Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill into law in June 2015. Still, the fight against the “campus carry” law continued. UT-Austin students protested the law in August 2016 by organizing a “Cocks Not Glocks” demonstration during which they handed out more than 4,500 donated dildos, according to the Texas Tribune.

“We want these dildos on backpacks as long as there are concealed handguns in backpacks,” UT-Austin student Ana López, who helped organized the protest, told the Texas Tribune at the time.

Under UT policies, the concealed carry of handguns is permitted on campus and in university buildings, but is prohibited in all on-campus residence halls, with some exceptions: staff members and visiting family members may carry a concealed handgun, and concealed carry of handguns is permitted in common areas. Unless the plaintiffs appeal the ruling, concealed carry will remain at UT-Austin and other Texas universities.

Marcus Dieterle

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

The post Texas Judge Rules Residents Can Carry Concealed Handguns on College Campuses appeared first on Law Street.

Prosecutors have dropped the perjury charge against the police officer who arrested Sandra Bland, a black woman who was arrested at a traffic stop and later was found dead in jail.

The officer, Brian Encinia, only faced a single charge of perjury for lying during the investigation into the arrest. He agreed to surrender his officer license and never work in law enforcement again in exchange for the charge to be dropped. But the case will permanently show on his record.

In July 2015, Encinia pulled Bland over on a road near Houston, Texas, as she didn’t use her indicator when switching lanes. She said she was trying to get away from the police vehicle, as it had come up very close to her car and wouldn’t stop following her. When Bland was pulled over, Encinia asked her to put out her cigarette.

But she refused. In the audio from the dashcam footage you can hear how he violently pulls her out of her vehicle and slams her to the ground. She can be heard complaining about her wrist being bent to the point of breaking, and saying she can no longer hear.

Encinia also threatened to “light [her] up” with his taser gun. He also said “good” after Bland explains she has epilepsy. After taking Bland into custody, Encinia can be heard laughing and debating what he will charge her with–resisting arrest or assault.

It’s not enough. These officers need to be held accountable for murdering Black people. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

— Dr. SaVonni Yestanti (@SaVonniYestanti) June 29, 2017

Three days later, jail staff found Bland dead in her cell, hanging with a plastic bag around her neck. The official explanation was that she committed suicide. But her family has doubted that claim, saying that she had just gotten a new job and wouldn’t want to die. In July 2016, another officer claimed that officials tried to make him keep quiet about circumstances surrounding Bland’s time in jail.

The officer claimed he had seen marks on Bland’s forehead, and said that Encinia made up a charge of assaulting a public servant to justify why she would be detained for so long. After the dashcam footage was made public, Encinia was charged with perjury. He reportedly lied in a sworn affidavit in which he wrote that Bland was “combative and uncooperative” at the time of the arrest. But he never faced any assault charges.

No members of the jail staff faced any charges at all, even though they knew Bland had expressed suicidal thoughts before and had a history of depression. A lot of people do not think justice has been served, and Bland’s family has criticized the single perjury charge.

“We understand that this is far from a perfect solution, and that many people will feel that this is an inadequate punishment, while others feel that charges should have never been filed,” prosecutors in Encinia’s case said on Wednesday.

Rep. @GFColeman, author of Sandra Bland Act: “I’m sorry to Ms. Bland’s family for how poorly Texas has treated their loved one.” #txlege pic.twitter.com/DptVePBI06

— Chuck Lindell (@chucklindell) June 28, 2017

The one good thing that came out of this tragic case was the creation of the Sandra Bland Act, which Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law two weeks ago. The new law will require county jails to divert people that suffer from mental health issues or substance abuse to treatment. It will also require law enforcement to investigate any deaths that occur in jail. The law will go into effect on September 1.

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 Perjury Charge Dropped Against the Officer Who Arrested Sandra Bland appeared first on Law Street.

A lawsuit challenging Texas’ controversial immigration law made its way to a federal court in San Antonio on Monday.

SB4, which Governor Greg Abbott signed into law on May 7, essentially bans “sanctuary cities” in Texas. While the law does not specifically mention the phrase “sanctuary city,” it does punish local governments, officials, and police who adopt, enforce, or endorse a policy that “prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws.” The law is slated to go into effect on September 1.

According to the law, those entities and individuals may not prohibit “peace officers” from asking a person who is lawfully detained or under arrest about their immigration status or place of birth. They also may not impede peace officers from cooperating with a federal immigration officer, or permitting a federal immigration officer to enter a jail to conduct enforcement activities. If they fail to comply with immigration laws, local governments can face fines of up to $25,500 per day of non-compliance, officials may be forced to give up their positions, and police chiefs can be charged with misdemeanors.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the City of El Cenizo, Texas; Mayor Raúl L. Reyes of City of El Cenizo; Maverick County Sheriff Tom Schmerber; Maverick County Constable Pct. 3-1 Mario A. Hernandez; and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). They filed a lawsuit against the defendants–the state of Texas, Abbott, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton–one day after the governor signed SB4.

The lawsuit claims that SB4 puts Texas and its local government officials and entities “at the complete mercy of federal officials,” and violates the Tenth Amendment and due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit asserts that Texas “may choose to voluntarily relinquish its retained sovereignty entirely to the federal government,” but cannot force local governments to do so.

The lawsuit also asserted that SB4 threatens community members’ trust in local government and law enforcement officials.

Plaintiffs are safer when all people, including undocumented immigrants, feel safe when their local law enforcement officers can be trusted for reporting crimes or just speaking with them about issues in the community. Plaintiff’s communities are healthier when all residents including undocumented immigrants, access public health programs,  unafraid to seek health care. And Plaintiffs’ communities are economically and socially stronger when all children, including undocumented immigrants, attend school.

The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest on June 23 supporting Texas in the litigation. According to a press release from the DOJ that same day, United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions explained that the DOJ is participating in the lawsuit to facilitate state and local cooperation with national immigration laws.

“President Trump has made a commitment to keep America safe and to ensure cooperation with federal immigration laws,” Sessions wrote in the press release. “Texas has admirably followed his lead by mandating state-wide cooperation with federal immigration laws that require the removal of illegal aliens who have committed crimes.”

In a CNBC commentary piece about SB4, author Julissa Arce expressed her opposition to the law. “SB4 is essentially a ‘show me your papers’ law that is set to create an environment for racial profiling in a state where 10.4 million Hispanic Americans live,” wrote Arce, who is also the co-founder of Ascend Educational Fund, a nonprofit in New York City that provides scholarships to students regardless of their ethnicity, national origin, or immigration status.

Arce expressed hope that the court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs and protect immigrants regardless of their immigration status.

“I believe the Texas that led the country in giving undocumented students an opportunity at higher education, my home state, is the state that will ultimately prevail,” she wrote.

SB4 opponents spoke out against the law at a protest in San Antonio on Monday.

Undocumented youth have come from all over Texas to stand up for communities of color and against SB4. #HereToStay #SB4isHate pic.twitter.com/ut41Wtn8rz

— Yunuen Alvarado (@ysalvarado5) June 26, 2017

On 2nd anniversary of #MarriageEquality I’m proud to be #undocumented & #queer fighting racist laws like #SB4 in TX! #Pride2017#HereToStay pic.twitter.com/PaMnvq4Fry

— Sheridan (@SirSheri) June 26, 2017

Among the crowd were Austin Mayor Steve Adler, and members of the San Antonio and Austin city councils.

LIVE elected officials address crowd #SB4isHate #HeretoStay https://t.co/DbAoIgxEnJ

— Yunuen Alvarado (@ysalvarado5) June 26, 2017

Austin Councilman @GregCasar speaks to protestors against #SB4 this morning before federal judge hears both sides. “Alright let’s do this.” pic.twitter.com/5rrkRtFXoi

— Nick Wagner (@WagsPhoto) June 26, 2017

SA Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Sillar gives an impassioned plea and prayer against #SB4 outside federal courthouse. pic.twitter.com/HNMZXVEoVZ

— Joey Palacios (@Joeycules) June 26, 2017

“We will not accept overt racism embedded in #SB4. Not today not ever.” @LUPE_rgv outside of the courthouse to #BlockSB4#SB4isHatepic.twitter.com/iAYPoHMKPI

— ACLU of Texas (@ACLUTx) June 26, 2017

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, who heard the case, declined to make a decision on Monday, according to the Texas Tribune. It is not yet clear when a decision will be handed down.

That same morning, Reverend Jim Rigby, a pastor at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church of Austin, was charged with a criminal trespassing misdemeanor after he was arrested on May 1 for protesting SB4 in a state office building. Rigby was among about 20 protesters, including immigrants, students, and Austin City Council Member Greg Casar, who were arrested in May for protesting the law.

On May 8, the day after Abbott signed SB4 into law, Paxton filed a lawsuit to uphold the constitutionality of the law. That case will be heard Thursday. These lawsuits could have a huge impact on undocumented immigrants in Texas and set a precedent for other areas that have designated themselves as “sanctuaries.”

Marcus Dieterle

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

The post Texas Municipalities Challenge State’s “Sanctuary Cities” Law appeared first on Law Street.

Still confused over the Bill Coby mistrial? ICYMI–read up on what possibly led to a hung jury and more with Law Street’s best of the week below!

New Texas Law Will Fine Police for Not Reporting Shootings

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law on Thursday that would fine state law enforcement agencies up to $1,000 a day for not reporting officer-involved shootings in a timely manner. The law, which will officially be enacted in September, was created with the intention of strengthening a current Texas law–passed in 2015–that requires departments to report to the attorney general’s office any time an officer firing their gun results in injury or death.

Massachusetts Marijuana: Voters Could See Huge Spike in Sales Tax

Massachusetts marijuana advocates are up in arms over a new House-backed proposal that could more than double the total sales taxes on recreational marijuana before the new industry is even up and running. The legislation is part of a proposed re-write of the state’s new recreational marijuana law approved by voters in a November referendum. According to a draft copy of the legislation, the new bill would raise the current total sales tax from 12 percent to 28 percent, the highest in the country.

Bill Cosby Mistrial: What Kept the Jury Deadlocked?

It was billed as the trial of the century–Bill Cosby, a national treasure and pioneer for black Americans, on trial for sexual assault. Most people expected a guilty verdict, convinced that Cosby was overwhelmingly guilty of sexually assaulting former Temple University basketball staffer Andrea Constand. But in the end, there was no verdict at all. After a week of deliberations, the jury could not come to a unanimous verdict and the judge was forced to declare a mistrial. Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele immediately vowed to retry Cosby, but the lack of verdict still left some legal experts surprised. Here are several key factors that could have led to a hung jury.

Alexis Evans

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

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

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law on Thursday that would fine state law enforcement agencies up to $1,000 a day for not reporting officer-involved shootings in a timely manner.

The law, which will officially be enacted in September, was created with the intention of strengthening a current Texas law–passed in 2015–that requires departments to report to the attorney general’s office any time an officer firing their gun results in injury or death.

Gathering data on police shootings has been an issue for the state, whether it’s been through misrepresentation or refusal to comply. A Texas Tribune investigation was only able to gather data on police shootings between 2010 and 2015 from 36 cities that had 100,000 or more residents, totaling less than half of the state’s population. While some precincts were more than willing to put the information on their website, others fought public information requests, gave heavily redacted records, or said they did not keep track of police shootings. Corpus Christi and Pasadena, for example, did not specifically track officer-involved shootings.

Even after the 2015 law was enacted, some departments decided to take their time in filing their reports and reported their data to the state months after the incident had actually occurred. The late responders typically only filed their reports after state publications pointed out that which departments had been slacking.

State Rep. Eric Johnson, the author of the new bill, said that this law will help curtail the inconsistent reporting and provide the state with the data it needs to analyze the issue of police shootings.

“I’m glad that he signed the bill, and I believe that we’re well on our way to leading the nation in getting to the bottom of what causes these fatal encounters between police and citizens, because we’re going to have the data,” Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, said Thursday to the Texas Tribune.

The new law gives departments a 30-day window to file a report after the shooting. Once that window has closed, the attorney general’s office can investigate and notify the department it has seven days to clear up any unreported shootings. After that, the state will be able to fine departments $1,000 a day. All of the money collected from these fines will be going to Texas’ Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund.

The bill did not contain everything that the authors originally wanted. State Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat, was unable to add a requirement for the attorney general’s office to build and maintain an online portal that would collect and analyze police shooting reports to the bill. The addition was struck down on the Senate floor.

Texas legislators might want to revisit that provision at some point. As of this article’s publication, 37 people have been shot and killed by Texas police officers this year, which is on pace to eventually match the total number police killed in the state last year.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Texas Law Will Fine Police for Not Reporting Shootings appeared first on Law Street.

A Texas sheriff’s deputy and her husband have been indicted on murder charges after choking a man to death outside of a Denny’s restaurant in the Houston area last month.

John Hernandez was confronted by the couple just after 11 p.m. on May 28 for urinating outside of a Denny’s restaurant in Northeast Harris County after a dinner with his family.

Terry Thompson, 41, put Hernandez in a chokehold and pushed him to the ground. His 45-year-old wife, Chauna Thompson, an off-duty Harris County sheriff’s deputy, helped pin him down.

When the couple noticed Hernandez wasn’t breathing, they finally let go and he was rushed to the hospital–but it was too late. The 24-year-old father of one was put on life support and died the following week.

The choking took place in front of Hernandez’s shocked wife and young daughter, who reportedly was screaming, “Quit hitting my daddy.”

On Thursday, the Thompsons were indicted on murder charges and they face life in prison if convicted. The charges came a day after protesters held a rally and a march in support of Hernandez’s family to demand justice. One group organized a sit-in at the sheriff’s office.

Tensions were high the entire week leading up to the indictments after a cellphone video of the altercation was circulated on social media.

John Hernandez was clearly attacked by the husband of a Harris County Deputy. This man needs to be held accountable. pic.twitter.com/QNf6I3TVip

— Alexis Isabel (@lexi4prez) June 5, 2017

According to Terry Thompson’s lawyer, Scott Courtney, the indictment was rushed due to public pressure. Courtney said Hernandez attacked Thompson first, and that the chokehold was self-defense.

“It’s disappointing that citizens can simply march on the courthouse and demand somebody be indicted for murder,” he said.

But District Attorney Kim Ogg didn’t buy it. In a statement, she said:

We grieve with the Hernandez family. We believe that this grand jury true-bill is a reflection of our community’s belief that a crime occurred and that crime was murder–and that it was participated in by Terry Thompson and his wife, Deputy Chauna Thompson.

Family of #JohnHernandez says their “faith has been restored” after indictments of Chauna and Terry Thompson. #abc13 pic.twitter.com/ySIxIZ2uNp

— Pooja Lodhia (@PoojaOnTV) June 8, 2017

Randall Kallinen, an attorney for the Hernandez family, said Hernandez’s wife was put in a police car for four hours after the incident, as if she were a suspect. She also had her cellphone taken away by deputies at the scene.

Melissa Trammell, a Denny’s employee testified that she had witnessed the incident. “The man was turning purple,”said Trammell. “We begged him to get off the man and he wouldn’t.”

Trammell testified that she tried to reason with Thompson, but instead he looked her in the face and said, “I’m not getting off him.”

Chauna Thompson and her husband were both offered the opportunity to testify, but declined.

Even with the indictments, the Hernandez family worries that the Thompsons may receive a more lenient treatment because of the wife’s position. Prosecutors, however, say they will show no favoritism in the case and will “let the chips fall as they may with the grand jury.”

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 Texas Deputy and Husband Indicted in Denny’s Chokehold Death appeared first on Law Street.

The residents of Texas City in Galveston, Texas received an unwelcome gift this Memorial Day: plastic bags with fishing weights, candy, and KKK recruitment flyers that were left on their lawns, apparently thrown from a vehicle driving past on Monday night.

Seventeen different homes received the bags, which contained two versions of KKK flyers, one reading “Say No to Cultural Genocide” and the other saying “Join the Best or Die Like the Rest.”  Local police have labeled the plastic bags a criminal matter, so whoever distributed the bags may face criminal charges if they are caught. At this point the police do not yet have a suspect.

The phone number listed on the flyers is not in service, no witnesses have come forward, and there seem to be no leads in the case, unless anonymous tipsters can provide new information. Many residents of Texas City were shocked by the flyers, stating that they typically consider their community to be a diverse and tolerant place, but Ashton Woods, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Houston, called the flyers “not surprising.”

The plastic bags are jarring and disturbing to the residents of Texas City but Woods is correct in citing them as part of larger trend. Earlier this month, flyers reading “around blacks never relax” were circulated on the University of Texas at Austin campus on the heels of a series of flyers targeting Chinese students that were posted in the university’s engineering department. In April, flyers urging white Americans to report illegal aliens with the slogan “America is a white nation” were posted throughout the University of Texas at Arlington campus. In February, the white nationalist group American Vanguard posted flyers at several Texas colleges urging white men to “take your country back.” Immediately after the November election, flyers calling for “vigilante squads” to arrest and torture those who support diversity were posted around the Texas State University campus.

It would seem that each series of flyers emboldened copycats to try their hand at attacking a new group. Hate groups have launched an estimated 17 recruitment campaigns on Texas university campuses since September. In the Anti-Defamation League’s Southwest Region, which stretches from El Paso to Orange, anti-Semitic incidents have spiked by more than a third this year. After a week in which two nooses were found inside the African American history museum and the home of Lebron James was spray painted with a racist slur, the Memorial Day flyers in Texas City feel like par for the course. It is comforting to see that at least all three of this week’s cases are being investigated as serious threats rather than being written off as “harmless” pranks–but the Texas City flyers are part of a larger pattern that needs to be taken seriously before leaving flyers on people’s lawns escalates.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Memorial Day Threats: KKK Recruitment Flyers in Texas City appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration issues were on the docket for Texas lawmakers on Monday, and protesters were present throughout the day. But one lawmaker, Republican state representative Matt Rinaldi, shocked his colleagues when he said that he reported the protesters to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It was the final day of an intense four-month session debating sanctuary cities, and over 1,000 demonstrators showed up to protest a new state law that makes it illegal for local law enforcement to refuse to comply with immigration laws and detention requests.

Rinaldi told his colleagues that he had reported the protesters to ICE as he believed they were undocumented immigrants. He allegedly said, “We are going to have them deported,” followed by an obscenity. Democrats were shocked by Rinaldi’s comments. “He assumed that because they were brown, in the gallery and protesting that they were here illegally,” said Representative César J. Blanco.

VIDEO: Lawmakers in Texas House scuffle during #SINEDIE on Monday.
BACKGROUND: https://t.co/q77vMguaXh pic.twitter.com/zlAGEaL0pB

— KVUE News (@KVUE) May 29, 2017

Some lawmakers were upset by Rinaldi’s behavior and a scuffle and some finger pointing ensued. Rinaldi claimed that Democratic Representatives Poncho Nevárez and Ramon Romero threatened his life and physically assaulted him. But according to others, Rinaldi was the one making the threats. “There was a threat made from Rinaldi to put a bullet in one of my colleagues’ heads,” said Representative Justin Rodriguez, also a Democrat.

Man, Texas knows how to protest. pic.twitter.com/976zeoxYNL

— john r stanton (@dcbigjohn) May 29, 2017

Now they have a case of “he said, he said”–Nevárez said he never threatened Rinaldi. Rinaldi claimed he saw protesters holding signs saying, “I am illegal and here to stay” and that some of the Democratic lawmakers encouraged them. Blanco said he didn’t see any signs of that nature. ICE didn’t confirm whether or not it sent officials to Austin. But Blanco blamed President Donald Trump’s rhetoric for the conflict, saying that the president promotes hate speech:

The Trump rhetoric is trickling down and allowing current elected officials and candidates to resort to racism and violence making it sound like it was O.K. This has to stop. It is not what our country or what Texas is about.

Members of the Texas House Mexican-American Legislative Caucus said at a press conference on Monday that Rinaldi approached them repeatedly just to tell them he had called ICE. “F*ck them, I called ICE,” were his specific words, according to several members. Rinaldi said the protesters broke the law. But the chairman of the caucus, Rafael Anchía, said he simply saw Texans exercising their First Amendment rights.

The new law banning sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 4, will go into effect in September. Several law enforcement agencies opposed the law, and citizens have continued to protest it even after Governor Greg Abbott signed it.

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 Matt Rinaldi: The Texas Republican Who “Reported” Protesters to ICE appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, we took a look at New York’s proposed “Textalyzer,” a new PTSD report, and a first date from hell. ICYMI, check out some Law Street’s most talked about stories below!

New York May Legalize “Textalyzer” to Bust Distracted Drivers

Most of you have probably done it. You hear a ding or feel that all too familiar faint  buzz, and tell yourself there’s no harm in taking a quick glance at the screen–I mean it could be important. But as harmless as a quick text from behind the wheel might seem, texting while driving can be incredibly dangerous. Looking to put a stop to the trend, New York lawmakers are considering legalizing technology that would help police bust distracted drivers.

Soldiers Discharged for Misconduct Often Suffer from PTSD, Other Disorders

As many as three-fifths of soldiers that are discharged for misconduct actually have post-traumatic stress disorder or other types of brain injuries, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office. The report confirms a suspicion that has been talked about for a long time. “It is everything many of us believed for years,” said Iraq veteran Kristopher Goldsmith, who is an assistant director at Vietnam Veterans of America. “Now I hope Congress will direct the resources to making it right.”

Texas Man Sues His Date for $17 After She Texted During a Movie

A man from Texas was not happy with how his first date was going, and sued the woman he went out with–all because she was texting at the movies. Brandon Vezmar, 37, met his date online and invited her to go see the 3D version of “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2” in Austin. But she apparently wasn’t as excited as he was to see the new blockbuster.

Alexis Evans

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

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

A man from Texas was not happy with how his first date was going, and sued the woman he went out with–all because she was texting at the movies. Brandon Vezmar, 37, met his date online and invited her to go see the 3D version of “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2” in Austin. But she apparently wasn’t as excited as he was to see the new blockbuster.

In the lawsuit, Vezmar says that the woman “activated her phone at least 10-20 times in 15 minutes to read and send text messages.” He is now trying to get the money for the movie ticket back, $17.31. He also said it is a matter of principle.

“It was kind of a first date from hell,” he said. “This is like one of my biggest pet peeves.” According to Vezmar, he asked his date to stop texting, but she didn’t comply. He then asked her to do it outside, after which she allegedly left and never came back. That left Vezmar with no ride home, as they drove there in the woman’s car.

Obviously the internet had a lot of feelings about the unusual lawsuit and many people called Vezmar petty.

The fees he’s paying to bring this suit (filing + service: $121) are 7x what he’s asking for ($17.31).

Ridiculous.https://t.co/6CY7LPMiyT

— Brian Powell (@briandpowell) May 16, 2017

Vezmar said he texted the woman a couple of days later asking for the ticket money back. He didn’t think he got the full experience of the movie because he was distracted by her texting. In his lawsuit he cited the movie theater’s policy of no texting, saying that the woman affected everyone’s experience.

That’s going to put a huge damper on the second date. https://t.co/MDKxR3Dipp

— MagnoliaPeach (@magnoliapeach) May 16, 2017

“While damages sought are modest, the principle is important as defendant’s behavior is a threat to civilized society,” the petition said. But the woman said she didn’t text more than two or three times, and only did it because her best friend had a fight with her boyfriend and was upset.

@NewsForrest Who takes a girl 2 a movie 4 a 1st date?! Umm ya can’t talk! Serves him right, she should counter sue him 4 being a self-centered douche!

— Asia McClain Chapman (@AsiaRChapman) May 17, 2017

The woman said she filed a protection order against Vezmar after he contacted her younger sister to get the $17 back. “I’m not a bad woman,” she said. “I just went out on a date.” It seems like Vezmar doesn’t mind the attention, as he started a Twitter account on Tuesday evening and started pushing out tweets about his case.

2/2 What contact after movie looked like: 1 text, 1 call, ignored > Text two days later getting serious > Lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/q4EOId868O

— Brandon Vezmar (@BrandonVezmar) May 17, 2017

Even the director of the movie weighed in. But he was probably the only one who took Vezmar’s side.

Why stop at suing? She deserves jail time! https://t.co/c41MWGz74M

— James Gunn (@JamesGunn) May 16, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post Texas Man Sues His Date for $17 After She Texted During a Movie appeared first on Law Street.

Texas has asked the government to give the state back the federal Medicaid money that it gave up when it chose to exclude Planned Parenthood from its family planning program. The request has alarmed women’s health advocates, who worry that if Texas is given access to the money without having to include Planned Parenthood again, it could set an example for other states to do the same thing.

The program Texas wants to fund is an alternative for women’s reproductive health that doesn’t include any abortion providers. It is called Healthy Texas Women and it connects women with providers that offer cancer screenings, contraception, and treatment for diabetes or high blood pressure. It helps women that make up to 200 percent of the poverty line and don’t qualify for Medicaid.

Normally, these types of programs are financed largely by federal money and the rest by the state. But after Texas decided to shut out all providers that offered abortions in 2013, the program had to be completely financed by state money. That is because federal law doesn’t allow states to simply pick and choose which providers it gives Medicaid money to.

Um, no. If you throw women under the bus, you don’t get the money. https://t.co/GLHN6iTsZk

— Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) May 16, 2017

But critics say most women don’t know that Healthy Texas Women even exists. The number of women enrolled has decreased significantly compared to the number enrolled in a previous version of the program in 2015. And the difference is even larger compared to the number enrolled in the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program in 2011, when Planned Parenthood was still included. Officials have spent millions of dollars on marketing, but it hasn’t been as successful as expected. Reduced funding also led to many women losing health coverage.

Joe Pojman, executive director for Texas Alliance for Life, said that “low-income women deserve better care than Planned Parenthood is willing or able to provide.” But women are not as sure about that. Jessica Farrar, Democratic Texas State Representative, said earlier in May:

Increased funding for marketing for Healthy Texas Women highlights the simple fact this program has not yet, and never will, replace Planned Parenthood.

And Yvonne Gutierrez, executive director for Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, agreed:

They’ve been trying this for several years, but every time they’ve gone through an iteration of this they’ve not been able to make it work. Why is this taking you so long if it was supposed to be so easy to do this without Planned Parenthood?

A study looking into the effects of removing Planned Parenthood from the state’s health program showed that throughout the following 18 months thousands of women stopped getting long-acting birth control. There was also a 27 percent increase in Medicaid pregnancies. Texas now has the most births in the country: 400,000 babies were born between July 1, 2014 and the same date a year later. Texas also has one of the highest teen birth rates in the U.S.

Now state legislators wants to get the Medicaid funding back for Healthy Texas Women but not be required to include any abortion providers. And considering President Trump’s record on abortion legislation so far, it doesn’t look impossible. “This is a new administration, and we’re looking at what funding opportunities may exist for us,” said Carrie Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

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 Texas Wants Medicaid Money Back, Won’t Play Nice with Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

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

New Report Likens Texas Solitary Confinement to Torture

A new report from the Human Rights Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law states that solitary confinement in Texas violates international standards for human rights and amounts to torture. According to Ariel E. Dulitzky, a law professor who co-wrote the report, prisoners that were interviewed in the study suffered psychological problems after being in solitary. They were not allowed to have any contact with other inmates or access to health care, and changes in the execution schedule meant that some prisoners had to prepare for death more than once.

Hey Texas! What are we doing, exactly? Violating international human rights standards? Torturing people? Let’s not! https://t.co/koUEYiRFE9

— Haley Samsel (@haley_samsel) April 27, 2017

Inmates were also not allowed to have any physical contact with family members, even when they were heading to their execution. According to the study, the state of Texas is unique in that it uses all of these policies, while other states may only use one or two. Also, it seems like Texas is using solitary confinement as a general practice, rather than for a specific reason like safety or punishment. But a strong lack of transparency or will to cooperate on behalf of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has obstructed any change.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Last week on Law Street we covered marijuana drive-thrus, UK’s controversial welfare “rape clause,” and fake marijuana news out of Texas. ICYMI, check out these top stories from Law Street below!

Welcome to Tumbleweed Express: America’s First Marijuana Drive-Thru

When Mark Smith realized that the residents of Parachute, Colorado craved a late-night marijuana fix, after his dispensary had closed for the day, he had an idea. Smith, 58, decided to re-brand the Valley Car Wash across the street from his dispensary as Tumbleweed Express, the nation’s first marijuana drive-thru business. The drive-thru’s grand opening coincides with the unofficial–yet widely celebrated, especially on college campuses–holiday of “4/20,” a spirited celebration of pot and paraphernalia.

Scotland’s Battle Against the UK Welfare “Rape Clause”

Protesters took to the streets of Glasgow last week to push back against the “rape clause” in the UK welfare system. After reforms of the welfare system took effect in April, the tax credits a family can receive for having children are now capped at two children–except in the case of mothers who have a third child as a result of rape. However, those mothers have to provide evidence that the child was in fact conceived from rape–a provision decried as inhumane.

No, Texas Has Not Legalized Marijuana

In case you were wondering, no, Texas has not legalized marijuana. Prank website React365 published a fake news story titled “Marijuana now legal in state of Texas” on Thursday that had many people believing the conservative state had switched its hardline stance on cannabis.

Alexis Evans

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

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

In case you were wondering, no, Texas has not legalized marijuana.

Prank website React365 published a fake news story titled “Marijuana now legal in state of Texas” on Thursday that had many people believing the conservative state had switched its hardline stance on cannabis.

According to Texas CBS affiliate KHOU, the “news” article–which has since been deleted–was shared more than 71,000 times on Facebook.

Verify: Is marijuana legal in Texas? https://t.co/n8ENJElZcG pic.twitter.com/1S5tQqAhap

— KHOU 11 News Houston (@KHOU) April 14, 2017

The excerpt bellow the title of the link reads [sic]:

In a 10-2 vote marijuana has now been legalized in the state of Texas. Texas’ first marijuana dispensaries said to open up in Corpus Christi, TX April 12, 2017. We were out speaking with local resident of Corpus Christi today who were very excited to say the least of the legalization.

Unfortunately, recreational marijuana is still illegal in the lone star state. Medical marijuana is outlawed too, however, epilepsy patients have been granted an exception when it comes to CBD oil.

In December, State Sen. Jose Menendez filed Senate Bill 269 for 2017, that would increase the number of medical conditions that qualify for the Texas Compassionate Use Program. That bill is still in committee.

FYI, a quick scan of React365’s homepage is a dead giveaway that the article was fake. The site’s header reads: “Prank your friends now! Write an article and prank your friends for fun. Bullying is forbidden.”

KHOU did a little snooping and uncovered that one Nicolas Gouriou registered the site under the organization name Mediavibes SARL. Gouriou currently resides in Binic, France.

So, when in doubt, do your due diligence before sharing suspicious–too good to be true–stories online!

For more information on each state’s marijuana legalization status, check out  our State of Weed: Marijuana Legalization State by State.

Alexis Evans

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

The post No, Texas Has Not Legalized Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas just ruled that Texas’ voter ID law intentionally discriminates against minority voters and violates the federal Voting Rights Act. The 2011 law has been thrown out as unconstitutional, and there’s the chance that Texas’ voting laws could once again be put under the purview of the federal government.

The law was passed by the Texas legislature in 2011 but didn’t go into effect until 2013. It required that all voters show some sort of government-issued photo ID before casting a vote, such as a driver’s license or passport. Since its inception, it has been controversial, sparking a drawn out legal battle. Critics point out that black and Hispanic voters are less likely to have those forms of identification. Judge Ramos ruled that the law was enacted with the intent to discriminate against minority voters.

The suit was brought by a number of plaintiffs, including the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus of the Texas House of Representatives, La Union del Pueblo Entero and League of United Latin American Citizens, several individual voters, and Dallas County.

If you’re feeling a bit of Texas voter ID law deja vu, you’re not wrong. This is actually the second time that Ramos has ruled on this law. She ruled on it in 2014 as well, and then the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, located in New Orleans, sent it back to her. That court “found that Judge Ramos had relied too heavily on Texas’ history of discriminatory voting measures and other evidence it labeled ‘infirm’ and asked her to reweigh the question of discriminatory intent.” She once again found that the law is discriminatory.

The state of Texas is expected to appeal her decision again, but this could set Texas up for federal monitoring of its voting laws. The Voting Rights Act used to require that certain states–Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia–that had a history of passing discriminatory voting laws had to get federal approval before changing their voting laws. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the provision that required such “preclearance” but if a state is found to have passed a law that is intentionally discriminatory, it could be subject to that oversight once again.

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 Judge Rules that Texas’ Voter ID Law is Discriminatory appeared first on Law Street.

A Texas teenager who ran into a church earlier this month, claiming she had been abducted and sexually assaulted by three black men, has admitted that she made the story up. Breana Harmon Talbott made headlines with her story, and many white nationalists took the opportunity to blame the alleged perpetrators’ race for the crime. Far right groups on Reddit, social media, and neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer picked the story up. Many complained about the lack of media coverage and claimed that if the races had been reversed, it would be all over the national news. But now, the story has proven to be a hoax.

#satchat
Breana Talbott, 18, Denison TX, appar kidnapped/raped by 3 men.
I guess no media bc doesn’t fit noble blacks/evil whites narrative. pic.twitter.com/qBMiuqYPOz

— Philip Schuyler (@FiveRights) March 11, 2017

When Talbott entered the church on March 8 she was bleeding from cuts and scratches on her body, which she later admitted were self-inflicted. A rape kit from the investigation came back negative, meaning that there was no physical evidence of rape. On Wednesday, police announced that Talbott’s allegations were unfounded. “Talbott’s hoax was also insulting to our community and especially offensive to the African-American community due to her description of the so-called suspects in her hoax,” a statement on Facebook read. It also said the department would file a criminal case against Talbott for “False Report to a Peace Officer, a Class B Misdemeanor.” Talbott also admitted that she had fabricated the story.

Breana Talbott of Denison accused of staging kidnapping, making up story of being raped near church: #Denisonpolicehttps://t.co/Vm3UlUyUDI pic.twitter.com/7qtvJ0mMFX

— domingo ramirez jr. (@mingoramirezjr) March 22, 2017

The news caused shock and outrage in the community. Talbott’s friends had even created a GoFundMe to replace her jewelry that she claimed was stolen. Her then-fiancé was the one who called the police when she “went missing” about three hours before she reappeared. He had no idea she made the whole thing up and they have since separated. Denison Police Chief Jay Burch said that even though everyone was relieved the attack never happened, “there could be permanent damage as a result–a damage of relationships within our community, damage to the reputation of our community.”

Denison PD confirms 3/8/17 kidnapping & sexual assault was a hoax perpetrated by Breana Talbott, victim @FOX4 pic.twitter.com/pbapqXKF7s

— John Gnann (@kdfw07) March 22, 2017

The topic of false allegations when it comes to rape and sexual assault is incredibly sensitive. According to Slate, a commonly cited estimate is that only about 2 percent of rape reports are false. And women had to fight for a long time to gain the respect and the rights we have today. For a long time it wasn’t considered rape if a man forced himself upon his spouse, and that didn’t change until 1979 with the first conviction of spousal rape in the U.S. Still, victims of sexual abuse are often not taken seriously and so many have to fight to get a proper investigation. Cases like Talbott’s make it even more damaging when people make false accusations, because they’re used as justification to not trust other survivors.

Unfortunately, Talbott’s case received even more attention because she claimed that the made-up offenders were black. This played right into the hands of far right extremists who immediately used the story to push their own agenda. According to a recent study, black people are more likely to be wrongfully convicted than white people, and are also more likely to spend a long time imprisoned before being exonerated. False accusations will undermine the credibility of real victims, but they also contribute to a false image of who commits crimes. While the police figured out what had really happened before anyone was arrested or charged, wrongful convictions are always a problematic possibility.

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 Police: Texas Teenager Fabricated Story that She Was Raped by Three Black Men appeared first on Law Street.

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

U.S. Government Restricts Flying With Electronics from Eight Muslim-Majority Countries

The U.S. government has issued a restriction banning electronic devices such as laptops and iPads on flights from eight Muslim-majority countries. The countries affected by this restriction are not the same ones included in the now-infamous travel ban. The affected countries are Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Passengers from these eight countries will not be allowed to travel with electronics bigger than a cellphone in their carry on luggage, but they can place them in their checked luggage.

This is sure to pose an inconvenience for passengers traveling from the Middle East to the U.S. who will not be able to use their devices for work or entertainment on long flights. And most people are confused by the rules, as the new list includes countries that traditionally have been U.S. allies and are not included on the travel ban. Experts are also criticizing the logic behind the rule. If someone placed a bomb inside a laptop, it would be just as dangerous in the cargo hold as it would be in the cabin of a plane.

It is strange that this electronics ban is about security, but includes no countries on the #MuslimBan, which was also about security.

— Adrienne Mahsa (@AdrienneMahsa) March 21, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Texas state Rep. Jessica Farrar was fed up with men making laws restricting women’s reproductive choices and decided to get back at them. Farrar, a Democrat, introduced a bill on Friday that calls for a $100 fine on men who masturbate, and would place additional requirements on doctors prior to performing vasectomies and colonoscopies or prescribing Viagra. Under the proposed legislation, men would have to go through the same invasive scrutiny that women face today when seeking an abortion. House Bill 4260 would also allow doctors to refuse to perform a vasectomy and prescribe Viagra because of religious beliefs.

Farrar realizes that her bill, unfortunately, has very little chance of becoming law, but she said she hopes it will open up people’s minds–even though she admits this may be too much to ask of her fellow politicians. “What I would like to see is this make people stop and think,” she told The Texas Tribune. “Maybe my colleagues aren’t capable of that, but the people who voted for them, or the people that didn’t vote at all, I hope that it changes their mind and helps them to decide what the priorities are.”

#HB4260, “A Man’s Right to Know,” mirrors real TX laws and health care restrictions faced by TX women every #txlege session.

— Jessica Farrar (@JFarrarDist148) March 11, 2017

The new bill is named the “Man’s Right to Know Act.” Given that many male politicians cite the sanctity of life when fighting against abortion, Farrar said it’s only fair to view a man’s sperm as a contribution to that life and that it would be a shame to waste it. Therefore she proposed a bill that would require men to be responsible for their own actions–only allowing them to masturbate at a clinic where the sperm can be stored to fertilize a woman in the future.

Mirroring yet another law that currently affects women, the bill also calls for a 24-hour waiting period after a man’s first consultation for an elective vasectomy procedure or a Viagra prescription. This is a reality today for women seeking an abortion. Also, Farrar’s bill would require a rectal exam before a vasectomy or colonoscopy, even though it is not medically necessary. Today in Texas, women are required to have an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat of the fetus before an abortion is performed, which is also medically unnecessary and, as Farrar says, “messes with women’s heads.”

Jessica Farrar, a Texas state Rep. from Houston, just filed a bill that trolls the entire Texas GOP. H/t @rossramsey https://t.co/PMNNQtmEje pic.twitter.com/IN9BvSHwdV

— Aman Batheja (@amanbatheja) March 11, 2017

It probably goes without saying that Farrar is an outspoken advocate for a woman’s right to choose abortion, and she has long fought against Texas legislation that restricts access to abortions. Lately, a lot of bills have been filed in the state targeting women’s reproductive rights. A bill by Rep. Tony Tinderholt goes as far as charging women who have an abortion, and their abortion providers, with murder. In a statement responding to the “Man’s Right to Know Act,” Tinderholt said, “I’m embarrassed for Representative Farrar,” and suggested that she take a biology class, obviously missing the point Farrar was trying to make.

Another bill by Rep. Byron Cook requires Texas hospitals to bury or cremate all fetal remains rather than disposing of them as biological waste. Texas is only one of many states with pending legislation like this. Advocates say it’s inhumane to “throw the bodies of human beings into a landfill.” Opponents say this is an ideological viewpoint that the state shouldn’t impose on women and that it could affect the access to abortion by imposing additional costs on clinics and hospitals.

As expected, many men and conservatives attacked Farrar and the bill on social media, claiming that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. But most people got the joke and if the satirical bill could help people open their eyes to what women go through every day, that’s at least one step in the right direction.

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 Texas Legislator Introduces Bill to Penalize Male Masturbation appeared first on Law Street.

Texas has a feral hog problem. There are over two million wild pigs in the state and they can cause big problems for landowners–the state Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller even says they eat newborn calves and lambs. ICYMI, Miller was the guy who introduced the practice of hunting boar from helicopters, something he takes so much pride in that he keeps a toy helicopter and a boar head on the wall by his office. But now he has come up with an even more efficient way of reducing the number of hogs.

This new method is a poison, by the name of “Kaput Feral Hog Lure.” “This solution is long overdue. Wild hogs have caused extensive damage to Texas lands and loss of income for many, many years,” Commissioner Miller said. “With the introduction of this first hog lure, the ‘Hog Apocalypse’ may finally be on the horizon.”

The main ingredient, warfarin, is an anticoagulant that has been used for many years to fight the hog problem in Australia. Considering that the boars uproot city parks, landscaping installations, and crops; can pose a physical danger to humans when crossing highways; carry viruses and parasites; and can feed on local endangered species, the Texas Department of Agriculture was happy to find a new method. But what the press release from the department doesn’t mention is that warfarin kills the animals slowly and painfully–it would take one to two weeks for a boar to die. It also doesn’t mention that Australia has been phasing it out for the past few years because of those inhumane issues.

This is not how you manipulate wildlife.
Makes a lot of us sick to think of. https://t.co/HtGsuYpgXD
Quoted @texashoghunters

— Kayla Jean (@Kayla_Jean10) February 23, 2017

The Environmental Protection Agency approved the pesticide in January, but the Texas Hog Hunters Association does not approve. The organization has partnered with other groups of conservationists and trappers and started an online petition protesting the toxin–so far it has about 7,200 signatures. The group argues that it’s pretty likely that the toxin could accidentally sicken humans who unknowingly eat a poisoned pig. But Miller’s counter argument is that the poison contains a blue dye that will turn the boars’ insides blue so that it will be obvious if the pig is poisoned or not.

There’s also the argument against animal cruelty. Stephanie Bell from PETA, said that it is not right that wild animals should suffer just because they’re trying to survive. Besides, she points out, humans brought boars to America in the first place, for hunting. Former researcher with the U.S. Agriculture Department, Tyler Campbell, compared the effects of warfarin to those of rat poison. “They bleed. Internally and externally, usually for a week or more before they die,” he said. And he also pointed out that there is no way to ensure that other animals don’t eat the poison, and end up spreading the warfarin even deeper into the eco system. “The wildlife community at large has reasons to have concerns,” Campbell said.

This is awful. The proposal is to poison the hogs with warfarin which *is not selective* for hogs and can permeate the ecosystem. https://t.co/u4yXzNWteq

— Bryan William Jones (@BWJones) February 22, 2017

Louisiana politicians are considering using the poison as well. But state wildlife veterinarian Jim LaCour is hesitant. He said that even with precautions meant to make the food accessible to hogs only, such as heavy lids, it is impossible to guarantee that other clever animals, like raccoons, don’t learn how to lift the lids. Hogs are also likely to make a mess when they eat, dropping crumbs on the ground where birds and small rodents can pick them up.

Pigs are highly intelligent animals and their genome is rather similar to ours. It seems like an unnecessarily inhumane option to knowingly expose them to drawn-out and painful suffering when humans were the ones that introduced them to this country in the first place.

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 The Texas War on Wild Pigs: The “Hog Apocalypse” is Here appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence for a man who has been on death row since 1997 because of the racist testimony of a witness called by his own lawyers. On Wednesday, the court decided 6-2 to give Duane Buck another chance. Buck was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend and her male friend, and wounding his own stepsister, with a shotgun in Texas in 1995.

During the sentencing phase of the trial in 1997, Buck’s own defense lawyers knowingly called an expert witness to the stand who claimed that Buck ran a higher risk of posing a danger in the future because he is black. “It’s a sad commentary that minorities–Hispanics and black people–are over-represented in the criminal justice system,” said former prison psychiatrist Dr. Walter Quijano.

ICYMI: Today #SCOTUS ruled in favor of a new sentencing hearing for our client, #DuaneBuck. Read our statement: https://t.co/xlU5mo1zPP pic.twitter.com/CxEOJPTgil

— Legal Defense Fund (@NAACP_LDF) February 22, 2017

The jury listened to Quijano and sentenced Buck to death. Then began Buck’s long series of appeals. He appealed the original sentence, but didn’t raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. A state court affirmed his sentence. Then Buck’s lawyer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but it didn’t mention Quijano or his testimony. But then it was discovered that Quijano had given racist testimony in several other cases. Some of those convicted raised claims in federal court in 2000, and they were granted new sentencing hearings.

Duane Buck’s trial lawyer, who put on testimony that his own client was dangerous for being black, still works in the 208th court every day.

— Franklin Bynum (@bynumlaw) February 22, 2017

Buck’s lawyer filed a second habeas petition, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by the trial lawyers, but it was filed in state court and not in federal. Then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn said that because Buck’s own defense had called Quijano as a witness, there was no mistake made by the state and therefore nothing that needed to be fixed. The fact that Buck didn’t mention Quijano in the first habeas corpus was the final nail in the coffin.

In the new petition, filed in October, Buck’s defense cited “extraordinary circumstances” in order to pursue the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, even though that legally should have been done in the first place. This time SCOTUS listened. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision that the testimony in 1997 by Quijano claimed “that the color of Buck’s skin made him more deserving of execution. No competent defense attorney would introduce such evidence about his own client.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying that the heinousness of Buck’s crime and his lack of remorse justify the death penalty. But, Buck will now be able to have a new hearing on his sentence.

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 SCOTUS Overturns Death Sentence for Black Man Whose Lawyer Called Racist Witness appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments for Hernández v. Mesa, the case of a 15-year-old Mexican national who was fatally shot while on Mexico’s side of the border by a U.S. border patrol agent.

The parents of Sergio Adrian Hernández Guereca (Hernández) are arguing that their son’s constitutional rights were violated, even though he wasn’t standing on U.S. soil at the time of his death.

Hernández was killed in Juarez, Mexico in the summer of 2010 by U.S. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa Jr., who was patrolling the U.S. border on a bicycle at the time of the incident. Mesa fired his weapon through the border fence at Hernández, who was hiding behind a pillar of the Paso Del Norte bridge, killing him.

According to the amicus brief, the family says Hernández and his friends “were merely playing a game, running up the back and down the incline of the culvert and touching the barbed wire fence that separates Mexico and the United States.”

The FBI claimed that Hernández and his friends were hurling rocks at the agent, however, video footage refuted that claim.

Hernández’s parents decided to sue Mesa in federal court, but the district court dismissed the claim. The case was then appealed to the 5th Circuit of Appeals, which also sided with Mesa. The family then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to take the case in October of last year.

With Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat still vacant and Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, still waiting for his Senate hearings to begin next month, we could very well have a 4-4 split decision–the court has been operating with only eight justices for just over a year. In the event of a tie, the court would defer to the lower court’s ruling that favors the agent.

But this isn’t the first time this type of case has been argued in court. An eerily similar shooting occurred in 2012 in Arizona, when a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez 10 times in the back and head through the slats of the border fence.

Rodriguez was also accused of throwing rocks at agents across the border and endangering their lives, but witnesses on the Mexico side claimed Elena Rodriguez was walking down the street when the other youths ran past just before the shooting started.

Following the shooting, Elena Rodriguez’s family and the ACLU filed a civil lawsuit against Agent Lonnie Swartz in the U.S. District Court in Tucson. The judges said they would not rule until after the U.S. Supreme Court decides on Hernandez v. U.S.

The cases “involve almost identical legal issues,” said attorney Sean Chapman, who represents Swartz in both the criminal and civil cases.  “That’s what is interesting about it…It’s incredibility similar to the Rodriguez case in Arizona. I’m waiting to see what they do.”

If SCOTUS deadlocks, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Guereca’s family cannot sue the Border Patrol agent in the U.S. would stand in the 5th Circuit. Then the 9th Circuit may rule on the Elena Rodriguez case, Chapman said.

Alexis Evans

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

The post SCOTUS Weighs Case of Teen Shot in Mexico by U.S. Border Patrol appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from Texas officials who wish to restore their state’s voter ID law, which lower courts ruled unconstitutional and discriminatory against minorities. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the order on the case. In his brief statement, he left open the possibility of hearing the case after it is finished moving through the lower courts.

“Petitioners may raise either or both issues again after entry of final judgement,” Roberts wrote. “The issues will be better suited for certiorari review at that time.” The courtroom tussle over the ID law goes back to 2014, when a federal judge first struck down the bill as “unconstitutional.” Other federal courts took up the case as well; one affirmed the 2014 decision, and another is awaiting trial.

Enacted in 2011, the Texas law requires voters to present photo identification–a Texas driver’s license, gun license, military ID, or passport–at the voting booth. Critics contend that it is specifically aimed at silencing the minority vote; adherents say it is meant to stanch voter fraud. Up until 2013, the Voting Rights Act required states with a history of discrimination, which includes Texas, to get approval from federal authorities before changing a state-level voter ID law.

In 2013 however, the Supreme Court struck down the section of the Voting Rights Act that required federal approval for changes in a states’ voting laws. Texas began enforcing this one. But soon after, the law was challenged in the Federal District Court in Corpus Christi. Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found the law to be an “unconstitutional burden on the right to vote,” adding that it has “an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans.”

Texas officials were adamant that the challengers to the law “presented no evidence that the law resulted in diminished minority political participation or prevented even a single person from voting.” The challengers to the law responded, saying it was an “unusually and unnecessarily harsh law, affecting over 600,000 registered voters, and taking aim specifically at minority voters.”

While the National Conference of State Legislatures previously classified the Texas law as a “strict photo ID law,” it now puts it in in the “nonstrict voter ID” category. This includes states that allow voters to sign an affidavit in lieu of a photo ID if they are unable to produce one at the polls. For now, at least, this policy will hold.

Alec Siegel

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

The post Supreme Court Rejects Hearing for Appeal to Restore Texas Voter ID Law appeared first on Law Street.

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission issued a final notice on Tuesday to Planned Parenthood that the health services provider will be barred from receiving Medicaid funds. Planned Parenthood said 11,000 women who seek treatment in 34 clinics across the state will be affected. The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from when it was issued, unless a federal court denies the state’s move.

The group, which receives about $4 million each year in Medicaid funding, signaled that it will pursue an injunction in federal court. President of the Planned Parenthood Federation and Planned Parenthood Action Fund Cecile Richards, called the decision a “cautionary tale for the rest of the nation,” and warned that if similar moves are made in other parts of the country, “it will be nothing less than a national health care disaster.”

Federal courts have stepped in to dismiss similar state-level rulings over the past year. Judges stopped attempts to defund clinics in Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Kansas. And earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court saved a number of abortion clinics in Texas from shutting down. But this has been a drawn-out battle between Texas and Planned Parenthood, and it’s unclear how courts will rule in this case.

In July 2015, an anti-abortion group released covertly filmed and heavily-edited videos that claimed to show Planned Parenthood officials agreeing to sell fetus parts for profit. The group has vehemently waved off the videos as heavily doctored and highly inaccurate. Tuesday’s notice cited the videos as “the basis for [Planned Parenthood’s] termination” from Medicaid. It also said the group fails to provide care “in a professionally competent, safe, legal and ethical manner.”

“Texans expect that when taxpayer dollars are granted to health care providers, it is only to those who demonstrate that the health and safety of their patients come before a profit motive that puts women at greater risk,” said a statement from the office of Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican.

Planned Parenthood sued Texas in November 2015, when the state first signaled it would be cutting its access to federal money, a move that was also in response to the controversial videos released a few months prior. That case is still pending. A wider effort to defund Planned Parenthood could come early next year, when President-elect Donald Trump takes office. While he has expressed support for some of the services the group provides, Trump’s appointment for health secretary is Tom Price, a vocal opponent of Planned Parenthood.

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 Texas is Ending Medicaid Funding for Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

Last week Sarah Palin sensed divine intervention, Donald Trump supported torture techniques, and Texas required women to cremate unborn fetuses. ICYMI–check out these top stories from Law Street below!

1. Sarah Palin Claims God Intervened and Helped Trump Win the Election

Sarah Palin likes Donald Trump, but doesn’t believe he made it all the way to the White House on his own. On the holiday edition of the Breitbart News Daily radio show she claimed that God was responsible for Trump’s win. In the show, she said she saw the role “divine providence” played on the campaign trail. She said people have been desperate for a change after the country’s deterioration and that his victory was due to people praying to God that the rest of the citizens would wake up. Read the full article here.

2. Trump Could Dismiss Lawsuit by CIA Torture Victims

In the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CIA broadened its torture toolkit. Detainees were stuffed in boxes. They were forced to spend hours holding uncomfortable positions, sometimes barred from sleeping for days at a time. And of course, there was waterboarding. In October 2015, two men who were subjected to the CIA’s interrogations at secret prisons in Afghanistan filed lawsuits against the two CIA contractors who sculpted the agency’s torture program. Read the full article here.

3. New Rules in Texas Will Require Burial or Cremation of Fetal Remains

Texas established new rules preventing health care facilities from disposing of fetal remains following an abortion or any miscarriage that requires a medical procedure–instead, the state will now require women to pay for the burial or cremation of those remains. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

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

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

Texas established new rules preventing health care facilities from disposing of fetal remains following an abortion or any miscarriage that requires a medical procedure–instead, the state will now require women to pay for the burial or cremation of those remains.

The rules will take effect on December 19, according to state health officials, the Texas Tribune reported. The decision, supported by Governor Greg Abbott, prohibits hospitals, abortion clinics, and other health care facilities from disposing of fetal remains regardless of the period of gestation.

In a fundraising email sent to supporters Thursday, Abbott cited the rule change, saying Texas is working to “turn the tides” against the abortion industry in the state and protect the “rights of the unborn.”

“I believe it is imperative to establish higher standards that reflect our respect for the sanctity of life,” Abbott said in the email. “This is why Texas will require clinics and hospitals to bury or cremate human and fetal remains.”

The Texas Department of State Health Services finalized the new regulation on Monday, inviting a legal challenge from reproductive rights advocates. Their arguments against the rule are that it has no medical or safety benefits. In fact, reproductive rights advocates said the state had failed to provide evidence that the rule benefits public health or improves current medical practices.

But Republican lawmakers have already filed legislation to make the law official when the state government reconvenes in January.

“The state agency has once again ignored the concerns of the medical community and thousands of Texans by playing politics with people’s private healthcare decisions,” Heather Busby, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, said in a statement.

The public reaction to the fetal burial law was overwhelmingly negative online.

Keep in mind that fetal burial laws aren’t just in Texas; Ohio has one coming down the pike & VP-elect Pence signed one into law in Indiana.

— Lauren Rankin (@laurenarankin) November 29, 2016

This will encourage women having a miscarriage not to see a doctor. That’s unconscionable. https://t.co/H8rgViM7Zc

— Lori Grapentine (@LGraps) November 29, 2016

Texas is the second state to implement a fetal burial law. When Vice President-elect Mike Pence was the governor of Indiana, he also signed a bill that included such a provision.

Bryan White

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

The post New Rules in Texas Will Require Burial or Cremation of Fetal Remains appeared first on Law Street.

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

Texas Considers Awful Anti-Transgender Student Bill

Last week, Texas Senator Konni Burton filed a bill that would force schools to out transgender students to their parents. Under Bill 242, ironically filed on National Transgender Day of Remembrance, school staff would face disciplinary action if they fail to tell parents about kids’ physical and psychological states. This sounds vague, but Burton wrote that the bill is a response to previous guidelines that DO allow school staff to withhold information about transgender students from parents. When the media started paying attention, Burton decided to attack journalists in general, claiming the reports were all “clickbait” and claiming that the reporters had not contacted her when in fact, they had.

Anger stoking, click bait sites that do not contact sources to write a story depend on ur anger to keep them relevant. Don’t be their puppet

— Konni Burton (@KonniBurton) November 18, 2016

@the_mical People are upset because a few publications ran with a totally false story & never contacted us to understand it. It’s clickbait.

— Konni Burton (@KonniBurton) November 18, 2016

Transgender individuals and activists were quick to respond, claiming that Burton’s bill will put lives at risk.

@KonniBurton awful lot of kids going to get murdered or forced into suicide by their parents because of this bill

— Transgarbo woman (@Herracks) November 17, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Apparently NASA’s version of getting people to the polls is the motto “vote while you float.” And if Shane Kimbrough could do it, everyone should! The astronaut–who is the only American citizen currently not residing on planet Earth–cast his vote from the International Space Station, by sending it to Earth via an electronic delivery system specially designed for this purpose.

Voting in space: astronaut Shane Kimbrough is the only American to casts a vote from space. https://t.co/qn2CtvVXFS pic.twitter.com/nOEzhRpz79

— Chicago Tribune (@chicagotribune) November 7, 2016

There is even a specific “space voting” law in Texas, which allows every American astronaut to cast their vote from space and have them registered through the county clerk’s office in Texas. It is all handled via email. A statement from NASA in 2008 described it like this: “An email with crew member-specific credentials is sent from the county clerk to the crew member. These credentials allow the crew member to access the secure ballot.”

.@astro_kimbrough voted from space. What’s your excuse? #ElectionDay https://t.co/zsx0tJKOtF

— Emilee Speck (@EMSpeck) November 7, 2016

After that, the space crew member returns the ballot to Texas, United States, Earth, via the electronic delivery system. Kimbrough’s current expedition has only been in space since mid-October, and will stay up for four months. His predecessor Kate Rubins cast an absentee ballot in case her mission was delayed, listing her address as “low-Earth orbit.” But she did make it back last week, and said: “It’s very incredible that we’re able to vote from up here, and I think it’s incredibly important for us to vote in all of the elections.”

Kimbrough tweeted an amazing picture from when he switched shifts with Rubins.

Farewell #AstroKate, Takuya, and Anatoly! Thanks for leaving the @Space_Station in great shape! pic.twitter.com/2G1InLMtcs

— Shane Kimbrough (@astro_kimbrough) October 30, 2016

According to Kimbrough, astronauts are “pretty much apolitical,” and he said he would be glad to welcome the new commander in chief, whoever it may be.

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 Voting is Out of this World: U.S. Astronaut Casts Ballot from Space appeared first on Law Street.

Another mall shooting took place on Monday morning, this time in Houston, Texas. Nine people were wounded before police took the suspect down. Police officers initially responded to a 911 call at 6:30 a.m. after reports of a shooting victim close to a strip mall, but realized that the shooter was still active when they got there.

Officers soon tracked down and killed the gunman, who was firing shots at moving traffic from the parking lot of the mall. The nine wounded people, one in critical condition, initially believed to be six, were inside their own vehicles when they were injured. Police did not release the suspect’s identity, but did say that he is a lawyer, and “there were issues concerning his law firm.”

Active shooter at Weslayan & Bissonnet has been shot by our officers; no reports of other suspects at this time #hounews

— Houston Police (@houstonpolice) September 26, 2016

One witness, Eduardo Andrade, said he heard an explosion when he was driving by the scene of the attack:

As I was driving by Law Street I suddenly heard a big explosion. I covered myself, accelerated and tried to get out of there. I did not know if someone was following me or trying to shoot me.

It is unclear whether this had anything to do with terrorism. According to authorities, they were investigating the suspect’s car for possible bombs.

Houston gunman injures six at US mall before being shot https://t.co/aubyR3pVbM

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) September 26, 2016

The shooting in Houston comes only three days after a shooting at a mall in Burlington, Washington, which left five people dead. Police arrested that shooter, Arcan Cetin, who was reportedly found unarmed in a zombie-like state after a daylong search on Saturday evening. Cetin had a history of domestic abuse against his stepfather. His ex-girlfriend used to work at the store in which he opened fire. A judge had previously ordered him to not possess a firearm.

Cetin is expected to appear in court on Monday to be formally charged with five counts of first-degree murder. Authorities first described Cetin as being Hispanic, but later changed that to Turkish. No details have been released about the Houston shooter’s ethnicity.

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 Lawyer Wounds 9 in Houston Parking Lot Before Being Killed by Police appeared first on Law Street.

Just in time for the first day of school for many kids, Federal Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas announced that he is blocking the Obama administration’s directive that allows transgender students to choose whichever bathroom is consistent with their gender identity.

This means schools will face no consequences if they do not accommodate bathroom or locker room options for transgender students. The blocking of the order will apply nationwide for the time being.

The government’s bathroom directive became official in May after the Justice Department sued North Carolina over its bathroom bill, HB2, which prohibited people from using bathrooms that do not correspond with the sex on their birth certificate. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch compared North Carolina’s policies to racial segregation.

On August 12, Texas and 12 other states filed a lawsuit against the government at a hearing in Fort Worth, saying the bathroom rules are unconstitutional and complaining they would loose billions of dollars if they do not follow the rules. The Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, called Obama’s “illegal federal overreach” and said to Associated Press:

This president is attempting to rewrite the laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and is threatening to take away federal funding from schools to force them to conform. That cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we took action to protect states and school districts.

But the Obama administration disagreed and argued earlier this year that the bathroom guidelines are non-binding and have no legal consequences.

Even though the government never explicitly said that schools need to follow the bathroom rules to not lose their funding, it was implied in court documents that stated the schools that get federal funding ”are clearly on notice that anti-discrimination polices must be followed.”

Judge O’Connor also claimed that existing laws that require schools to not discriminate people on the basis of sex do not apply to transgender students since “the plain meaning of the term sex meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.”

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 Texas Judge Blocks Obama’s Directive on Transgender Student Bathroom Use appeared first on Law Street.

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

Donald Trump “Art” Installments Causes A Stir

“The Emperor Has No Balls.” That’s what the plaques say under the true-to-size sculptures of a naked Donald Trump that have suddenly appeared in parks across the United States. These statues were obviously meant to mock the hell out of the Republican nominee.

Naked Donald Trump statue leaves New York in giggles https://t.co/STBfXwxkfg pic.twitter.com/fWNYwGiJgT

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) August 18, 2016

One park, however, did not get the joke and ripped the statue out of the ground almost as soon as it was installed. New York City Parks and Recreation released a statement which, no matter how carefully worded it is, is QUITE the statement: “NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small.”

Take that as you will. NYC Parks took the statue down Thursday.

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 19, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Remember the “clock kid”? Ahmed Mohamed, the 14-year-old from Irving, Texas became a viral phenomenon last year after he was arrested for bringing in a homemade clock to school to show a teacher, which was mistaken by school officials as a bomb. The outcry that followed shoved the teenager into the media spotlight, making him an inadvertent symbol for religious tolerance and equal protection under the law. As his story spread, his fame brought with it opportunities such as invitations to the White House, offers for multiple scholarships, and support from organizations such as NASA, MIT, and many major tech companies.

One year later, the Mohamed family is filing a lawsuit against the Irving Independent School District (IISD), his former principal, and the City of Irving for violating Ahmed’s constitutional rights.

The lawsuit highlights IISD’s alleged history of racial and religious discrimination, including many such incidents that Mohamed himself experienced involving classmates and teachers while he was a student in the school district. It also details “unconstitutional arrests” by Irving’s Police Department, which, the lawsuit claims, city officials knew about but showed “deliberate indifference” toward. The failure of officials to provide training to officers after such incidents “[led] Irving police officers to arrest Ahmed Mohamed without probable cause.”

Last November, it was reported that Ahmed and his family wrote letters to the City of Irving threatening a civil suit unless they received $15 million in damages and apologies from city and school officials. This suit did not provide specific monetary demands, only requesting a trial by jury.

Ahmed and his family moved to Qatar late last year, accepting a scholarship offer from the Qatar Foundation. However, Ahmed has expressed a desire to return to the U.S., telling The Washington Post that  he gets “bored” in Qatar and would like to study in an American college.

Both IISD and the City of Irving responded to the lawsuit to WFAA on Monday. The school district said it “continues to deny violating the student’s rights,” while the City “is prepared to vigorously defend itself” in the case.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “Clock Kid” Is Back and Suing His Former City and School District appeared first on Law Street.

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

Illinois Republican Party Delegate Booted from RNC

On Wednesday, the Illinois Republican Party stripped the credentials of a Donald Trump delegate from Chicago after they found out that she had posted racist and violent threats on Facebook.

State party chair, Tim Schneider, said in a statement: “Let me be unequivocally clear — racism and threats of violence have absolutely no place in the Illinois Republican Party or in a civil and inclusive society.”  In public, at least. Right?

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 22, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the country was shocked as yet another shooting occurred–this time injuring both police officers and civilians in Dallas, Texas. The Dallas shooting was the latest in a string of violence involving white police officers and black men. However, this time it was civilians who turned the trigger on those in uniform, leaving five of them dead. 

In the slideshow below, a collection of individuals across the nation–including anyone from politicians and celebrities to everyday people–used Twitter to express their grief, fury, and condolences over last night’s events. Read their messages and reflect on their collective outrage over how a protest of emotional and peaceful observance transformed into a crime scene full of chaos and carnage. 

Inez Nicholson also contributed to this story.

President Obama Delivers A Statement

Watch @POTUS‘s statement on last night’s attack on law enforcement in Dallas, Texas. https://t.co/lqd4OaofxM

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) July 8, 2016

Alexis Evans

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

The post The Aftermath: The Nation Reacts to the Dallas Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

Refugees fleeing gang violence, blackmail, torture, and murder in Central America hope to end up on U.S. soil after weeks of walking, but of those who make it across the border, many end up in family detention centers for months. Countries such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala have among the highest homicide rates in the world, according to the UN, and women and children are the most vulnerable. In 2014, over 66,000 children traveling with their mothers fled from Northern Central America to the United States.

What is a family detention center?

At “Beyond the Wall: Women and Children Refugees: A Central American Crisis,” an event hosted by the New York City Bar Association last Tuesday, human rights advocates and health researchers got together to start a dialogue about the complex Central American refugee situation. The discussion focused on a UNHCR study, “Women On the Run,” which was released  last October detailing the crisis and its current challenges.

One family detention center in particular, the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, has gotten a lot of attention from advocates. The Dilley facility is the first family detention center in the United States since the Japanese family centers during World War II. It opened in December 2014 and is the largest in the world–though the term family center may be a bit misleading because men get separated from their families and sent to all-male centers that can be located thousands of miles away. Human rights advocates have reported numerous instances of verbal and physical abuse as well as insufficient food and water for the detainees.

Read More: Mother’s Day Appeal Outside the White House Aims to Abolish Family Detention Centers

"I was just trying to save my son's life" ~ Ada fled violence in #CentralAmerica https://t.co/UUqup2A23o #refugees pic.twitter.com/rtqmKcXxch

— UNHCR Washington (@UNHCRdc) May 20, 2016

Fleeing Violence

The UNHCR’s study, “Women on the Run” details the dangerous situations that women and children in many Central American countries face, forcing many to flee to the United States for safety. These women have been through serious domestic abuse, extortion, death threats, and rape. One of them tells of how she was two months pregnant when her cousin grabbed her and raped her on the street in front of his gang. Many others say that they see dead bodies on the streets daily. It can be the choice between certain death, and risking everything to have a chance of a normal life if granted asylum in the United States.

But even if they make it across the U.S. border, these refugees are not necessarily safe. Many end up in the family detention centers, where the women and children can stay for months without any information about their cases or even when they can talk to lawyera.

Imprisoned for over a year

Ana has spent the longest time in an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) family detention–almost 13 months–according to Aseem Mehta, a fellow at Immigration Justice Corps. Her last name is kept secret for legal reasons; her case is still pending. Back in El Salvador she was blackmailed by a gang that thought her family made a lot of money, and if she didn’t regularly pay them off they said they would kill her. Ana’s husband had already been granted asylum, but she and her daughter were sent back home.

But in 2014, Ana and her 13-year-old daughter decided to make the long journey across the border–a 2000-mile path through the desert, hot during the day and very cold at night. When they reached Texas three weeks later, they were held at the Dilley family detention center–a 50-acre trailer park in the middle of the 100-degree desert, hours away from the closest city. At Dilley, the mothers’ average age is 26, the children’s is 7, according to Mehta.

The horrors beyond the wall

Mehta told the story of how he met Ana in July 2015. He came to Dilley as part of a pro-bono effort with one purpose: get the detainees out of there. After hard work and some difficult months, he managed to get Ana and her daughter out of the family center in September 2015. A victory for Ana, but her freedom is still confined, her case still pending, and she still doesn’t know how it will end. For now, she is reunited with her husband and mother-in-law in New York.

The conditions in which the families live inside the center are worse than most people are aware of. According to Ana,

We got food once or twice daily, sometimes they forgot, so maybe only crackers. When I asked for more food for my daughter the officials said it’s not their responsibility to feed my kid, and it was my own fault she was hungry.

Dr. Allen Keller, director of the Bellevue/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, conducted a study at Dilley last summer. At the NYC Bar event, he called it “a disgrace” and spoke about the “icebox.” When refugees first arrive–many wet from passing through rivers–the women and children are stripped of their sweaters and placed in a 50-degree room on a cold cement floor. This is where many kids catch pneumonia.

“This is a population that is horribly traumatized, with PTSD, depression, and hopelessness,” Keller said.

And he said that as a result, many kids start to bed wet and become vegetative: dull, passive, and unresponsive. Injured women and children are denied medical help. One woman had a seizure but the guards wanted to put her on a plane anyway–risking her life–until Keller stepped in. People with chicken pox sleeps on the floor next to pregnant women, who if they catch the disease could pass it on to their fetuses, risking severe brain damage.

A collection of affidavits recovered by Fusion gives other examples of abuse–a child complaining of a dislocated shoulder was told to just drink more water. Hundreds of kids were given the adult dose of a hepatitis vaccine, after which a woman said her child got a severe earache, but she was scared to bring her back to the doctors again.

On June 1, human rights advocates cheered a Texas court decision to delay the issuing of a child care license to the Dilley facility due to low standards.

major victory against one of the nation’s largest immigration detention center, Austin, TX https://t.co/ql9plIFaMg

— ACIJ (@ALimmigrant) June 2, 2016

During Dr. Keller’s study at the Dilley center, he was part of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. He witnessed how guards arbitrarily filled out questionnaires during asylum interviews without asking refugees all the questions–even when they were sitting there in the room. The list of abuses of power goes on and on.

According to Mehta, the family detention centers are really just prisons–where women are required to wear an ankle GPS at all times–and serve the purpose of discouraging more refugees to come to the United States. It’s also a way of keeping children locked up without actually putting them in prison.

What can we do?

It’s easy to feel hopelessness when hearing about the fates of the families in Dilley, but Mehta urges Americans and their politicians to start talking about it and to change the dialogue, and to stop seeing refugees as a threat to our national security.

These people don’t flee their homes to exploit the U.S. government and get things for free; they flee because they don’t have a choice–it’s a humanitarian crisis. Trump may be the one talking about building a wall, but as Dr. Keller points out, this has happened under a liberal government. We all need to keep pressuring politicians to make a change. We all need to help more women like Ana.

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 Family Detention Centers: Women and Children Locked up After Fleeing Violence appeared first on Law Street.

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

Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump’s Twitter War Escalates

Today’s edition of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC discussed some very important news: Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren’s Twitter war. Besides the fact that it’s getting very much out of hand, the hosts raised some real concerns that it reflects the state of American politics in the age of social media. Likening the debacle to cyberbullying, the hosts wondered what kind of awful example these “leaders of the free world” were setting for young people. They also wondered when the senator and GOP frontrunner were going to use their Twitter savvy to impact real change on actual issues instead of personal attacks. While many see Trump’s weekend jabs at Warren and the Clintons as weaknesses, many others see it as turbo fuel for getting him to the White House. Check out the full early morning rant below:

Uber & Lyft Vow to Leave Austin, Texas after Voters affirm regulations

Ride hailing companies Uber and Lyft lost their grip Saturday after Austin voters decided it would be best for the companies to continue to be regulated by the city’s ordinances instead of looser laws. This requires Uber and Lyft drivers to undergo more intense background checks, among other protocols. The two companies have seen worldwide success and popularity, but it did them no good in Austin, a presumably  lucrative market. Although they spent over $8 million on ads, voters didn’t go their way. To be very honest, after that crazy  driver in Kalamazoo, Michigan that killed six people, injured others, and claimed to be possessed by the app, many feel as though no amount of regulation will be quite enough.

Ivy League economist ethnically profiled and interrogated for doing math on American Airlines flight

You may be wondering: How does one get interrogated for doing math on an American Airlines flight? Let alone a differential equation. Because when someone is doing that kind of math in their casual spare time it must be important and you shouldn’t question them. You should just stand back in awe, because most Americans actually suck at math.

But this puzzling scenario happened to Guido Menzio, a decorated Ivy league economist. Unfortunately for Menzio, a passenger next to him thought he was writing in Arabic and was, presumably, a terrorist. *Face palm* Instances of this kind are on the rise, and are often unfounded, as seen with the “Clock Kid” 14-year old Ahmed Mohamed, who was arrested for bringing a hand-made clock to school.

Melissa Joan Hart and Julianne Moore March for “Gun Sense”

Melissa Joan Hart and Julianne Moore are two Hollywood stars who were greatly affected by the news of the Sandy Hook shooting, a tragic event that left many young children dead and dozens parents mourning. This past weekend, the actresses joined hundreds of parents in support of Moms Demand Action, a group advocating gun control. Gun control has been a contentious topic of dispute for many years. But while many attribute pro-gun attitudes to conservatives and anti-gun to liberals, Moore has said she believes it should not be a partisan issue but rather a “safety” issue.

‘They stole my big brother’: violence turns child into champion for ‘gun sense’ https://t.co/Ji36LIfiMJ pic.twitter.com/V8DFjZwqu0

— Moms Demand Action (@MomsDemand) May 9, 2016

Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman can be extradited to U.S. to face charges

Just in case there wasn’t enough El Chapo drama in your life, a Mexican judge ruled that El Chapo can be extradited to the U.S. to face charges for drug trafficking in accordance to a U.S.-Mexican extradition treaty. Although the legal side has been justified, the ministry has 20 days to authorize the extradition.

In the meantime, El Chapo has been moved to a less secure prison in Juarez, one of his cartel’s strongholds. An anonymous official admitted that there is concern that, while Guzman is being surveilled day and night in a secure wing of the prison, the Juarez prison is more lax than the one Guzman previously resided in. This move raised eyebrows for the DEA, and officials questioned the logic of moving him to a less secure prison where he potentially had the tools and people to help him escape. Prison break again, anyone?

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Do you need to order a quick ride in Austin, Texas? You may now be out of luck, or forced to call a cab, because both Uber and Lyft are pausing their operations in the city for now.

This big move comes after voters in the city rejected a ballot measure that would have loosened regulations on the kinds of services ridesharing companies provide. The regulations were adopted late last year after the legislation was passed by Austin’s City Council, but the ballot measure was posed to Austin’s voters this Saturday. While both Uber and Lyft lobbied hard for its passage and spent a combined $8 million plus in lobbying, 56 percent of Austin’s voters cast their ballots against the measure.

The Austin regulations essentially required Uber and Lyft to be treated more like taxis. One of the biggest points of contention was that they required that the companies run the fingerprints of the drivers they hire–Uber and Lyft pushed back against that regulation because both companies conduct their own internal background checks. According to the Wall Street Journal:

Austin also prohibits drivers from stopping in traffic lanes for passenger drop-offs and pickups, includes requirements for identifying vehicles for hire and imposes data reporting on the ride-hailing companies.

Austin is a major tech hub with a recent large influx of young people, so the fact that Uber and Lyft would rather give up that market than comply with the regulations makes quite a strong statement. Uber has additionally threatened to leave Houston, where similar regulations are under ongoing debate. Both companies also followed through on their threat in San Antonio, after that city made fingerprinting mandatory. Neither operated within San Antonio limits until the city made fingerprinting voluntary instead of required.

Statements from both companies echo these sentiments. Lyft’s spokesperson Chelsea Wilson said:

Lyft and Austin are a perfect match and we want to stay in the city. Unfortunately, the rules passed by City Council don’t allow true ride-sharing to operate.

Uber’s Austin general manager, Chris Nakutis, talked a local news outlet and stated: “Disappointment does not begin to describe how we feel about shutting down operations in Austin.”

Uber and Lyft are now in a game of chicken with Austin–and there’s really know way to tell who will swerve first.

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 and Lyft Pull out of Austin After Voters Keep Strict Regulations in Place appeared first on Law Street.

In Dallas, Texas an 89-year-old woman helped stop a criminal on a violent streak when he tried to invade her home with a knife. Mili Carter, the grandmother who was at home alone with her two dogs at the time, responded quickly and slyly to the situation, which ended in the arrest of a local criminal and a pretty hilarious lesson.

Carter was sitting alone in her Dallas apartment when the intruder knocked on her back door, yelling for help. When she went to open the door, she was shocked to find a man–later identified as Maxxim Elliot Bedford–with a knife, forcing her to let him inside. Once in her apartment, he tried to drag her into the laundry room in order to get a change of clothes and to hide from the police who were looking for him after an alleged break-in. Instead, Carter ran the other way and called 911 once she was safely outside.

Bedford was a known criminal in the area and had tried (and failed) to steal three cars the day before this break-in occurred. After two failed carjacking attempts, he was stopped in his tracks by a man with a gun–who was not happy to see his car being stolen–on his third try.

In fact, the reason he had demanded to be let into Carter’s apartment was so that he could escape the police after allegedly burglarizing a nearby apartment. Unfortunately for Bedford, he was no match for Mili Carter’s quick wits and brave attitude. After spending two and a half hours locked in Carter’s bathroom, the police finally broke down the door to find Bedford inside with a hair straightener, instead of the gun he claimed to have had.

The most amazing thing about this entire scenario was Carter’s response to the stressful situation. She remained calm and in control and when WFAA News 8 asked about the whole ordeal and how she managed to stay calm, she replied, “I reared three boys and four daughters. You don’t show fear.” Better yet, when asked to comment on the experience overall Carter had this to say: “I’ve lived this long. How do you think I got there? Not by being a wimp.”

The moral of the story? Don’t be a wimp in the face of danger. It’s not that often you find such a cool, calm, and collected grandma in a situation like that. You go Mili!

Alexandra Simone

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

The post Grandma Fends Off Armed Intruder in Dallas appeared first on Law Street.

When discussing the clean energy revolution, the southern American states are rarely mentioned as progressive leaders. Texas in particular has a longstanding reputation for supporting the interests of the fossil fuel industry. Texas politicians fiercely deny the scientific validity of climate change and the state is home to the headquarters of some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, such as Exxon Mobile and ConocoPhillips.

However, the Lone Star State actually has a greater Installed Wind Capacity than any other state in the United States. How did this paradox occur?

The Wind Capital of the United States

The proliferation of wind energy in Texas is a relatively recent phenomenon. In 2001, Texas received only 1 percent of its energy from wind. Only 15 years later, wind provides almost 10 percent of the state’s energy and powers over 3.6 million homes. Throughout the state there are 17,713 MW of installed wind capacity; to demonstrate the significance of this number, the second place state, Idaho, only has 6,212 MW and the 3rd place state, California, only has 6,108 MW. The irony behind these numbers is that areas such as California and the North Eastern states have all made political commitments to pursue renewable energy installations, yet they trail far behind one of the most fossil fuel friendly states in the nation when it comes to wind energy. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, and both of its senators, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, all deny climate change, along with 16 of the state’s 36 congressional representatives. The state has also historically been heavily dependent on the fossil fuel industry; in 2014 Texas was the leading producer of crude oil and natural gas.

The Evolution of Renewables in Texas

The policy shift in Texas toward wind can be traced back to 1999 when the state legislature narrowly passed the first Renewable Electricity Standard. To the surprise of many, wind energy turned out to be a reliable and affordable source of electricity in the areas where it was first implemented. Following the success of their first law, the legislature updated it in 2005 to dramatically increase renewables throughout the state. The 2005 Renewable Electricity Standard forced the Public Utility Commission to create Competition Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ), which designated areas in the wind heavy, rural north of Texas for wind farms to be built. The CREZ also created a fund to build gigantic transmission lines connecting these wind farms to the highly populated urban areas of lower Eastern Texas.

To better understand the success of wind, it may be helpful to look at why other renewables, such as solar and hydro, haven’t gained anywhere near as much traction. One of the biggest problems with renewable energy is that it has difficulties matching energy demand. Hydroelectricity will provide fairly consistent power day and night, but solar can only generate electricity during the day, meaning solar panels stop being able to provide energy when the sun goes down. The ideal solution to this may come from advances in energy storage systems, but as of now most battery systems are underdeveloped and simply not capable of handling the amount of energy that would need to be stored for a highly populated area.

The power output of a wind turbine depends completely on the strength of the wind as it blows throughout the day–although its highest output is generally at night–which can be a serious problem in regions with lower wind potential and more fluctuating wind patterns. However, the geographically even terrain of rural Texas (along with the entire vertical band in the center of the United States) has some of the highest wind potential in the entire nation, making wind farms a highly effective technology for the state. While the northeastern states and California have all made political commitments to renewables and are all actively interested in wind energy, their placement on the more mountainous edges of the country means that they have dramatically less access to wind potential.

Interestingly enough, if you look just beyond the U.S. coasts there’s incredibly high potential for offshore wind energy. There has in fact been a growing interest in offshore wind in recent years, especially in the coastal northeastern states, but as of yet there hasn’t been a single offshore wind farm successfully implemented in the United States. This is due to offshore wind’s exceptionally high costs and difficult permitting process, along with high levels of community opposition, especially from beachfront property owners and fisherman.

An unfortunate fact of renewable technology is that its performance is largely dependent on where you want to install its source. While other states may be committed to the environment, (or at least to domestically available energy and protection from future CO2 regulations) it will generally be more cost effective to install wind turbines in the geographical center of the United States than on the outskirts. The 1999 and 2005 Renewable Electricity Standards have been opposed a number of times over the years by fossil fuel interests. A notable example is the Heartland Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council’s 2013 Electricity Freedom Act, a model bill circulated among state legislators seeking to scale back renewable energy standards in every state. However, a majority of Texas state legislators have voted against these attacks for 16 years, arguing that the wind has created a reliable domestic source of energy, lowered utility rates, and created jobs throughout the state.

“Iowa Wind Turbines” courtesy of Theodore Scott via Flickr

Regulatory Barriers to Renewables

It’s also important to understand that implementing renewable energy is rarely as easy as being a pro-clean energy state. Texas is in a unique situation when it comes to its energy infrastructure and, as a result, it faces fewer technical barriers than the rest of the U.S. when it comes to renewables. The U.S. energy grid is split into three different sections: the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection, and the Texas Interconnection. The Eastern and Western Interconnections each cover about half of the country as divided by the Rocky Mountains, and each connects the states on its respective side with transmission cables that span entire regions. However, the Texas Interconnection was built completely isolated from the rest of the country. The vast majority of the state has its own grid, called the Energy Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, while the upper panhandle and El Paso have their own, smaller grid operators.

The independent nature of the Texas Interconnection is part of a long-standing battle to achieve independence from federal regulations. The 1935 Federal Power Act gave the Federal Power Commission regulatory oversight over all interstate electricity sales, so Texas avoided these regulations by designing its grid so that none of the power lines crossed state boundaries. While Texas does currently have two connections to the Eastern Grid and three connections to the Mexican grid, ERCOT has to this day managed to remain outside of Federal regulation.

This has a significant impact on the development and growth of energy within the state. Because the other 47 mainland states all exist on larger interconnections, each must undergo highly complex permitting systems if they desire to build a wind farm. A project will need to obtain permits from their municipal and state governments, but also from a number of outside entities. Those entities include its region’s Independent System Operator, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Forest Service, the Interstate Highway System, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration–which is concerned with any structure over 200 feet tall that might obstruct planes–and many, many more. There are countless additional permits that any given project may also need to obtain based on its proximity to a wetland, the protected environment of a certain species, a national park or other form of federally owned land, or if the turbines could in some way interfere with the migratory patterns of birds.

Because the Texan grid is independent of the rest of the country, developers can avoid many of these national regulatory obstacles. Furthermore, even within the state, the permitting process is extremely streamlined. State environmental organizations, such as the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, do not have oversight on wind farm projects that they would in other states. State, county, and local governments also have no regulatory power when it comes to wind siting; only the landowner and the developer are allowed to make a decision about where a wind farm is built. Texas’s incredibly deregulated electrical market makes it much easier to build a wind farm within the state than anywhere else in the country.

“All Texas” courtesy of Kevin Dooley via Flickr

The Current Political Context

In April 2015, the Texas senate voted 21 to 20 on Senate Bill 931 to end the state’s Renewable Energy Portfolio, both removing the state’s target Renewable Energy Goal and ending the Competitive Energy Zone initiative. The bill is currently pending in the state House of Representatives where a final decision will be made on Texas’ Renewable Energy Portfolio. While many environmentalists see the vote as a major loss to the clean energy movement, Texas is already firmly set on its path toward increasing wind energy. The 1999 and 2005 Renewable Electricity Standards have allowed the industry to grow so dramatically that Texas has far surpassed its original renewable energy goal of 500 MW by 2025 and all of the transmission lines connecting cities to wind farms have already been constructed, making the Senate Bill 931 a largely symbolic victory for fossil fuel companies.

On December 20, 2015, wind turbines generated a record high of 40 percent of Texas’s energy for 17 hours of the day during a low-pressure wind front. This milestone not only indicates the extreme potential of wind within the region but also proves that the newly built transmission lines are capable of handling almost an entire day’s worth of wind energy without malfunction, contrary to the arguments of many fossil fuel advocates.

If Senate Bill 931 becomes law then it may have some impact on future state support of the wind industry; it also comes at an inconvenient time when Texas may have to further reduce its CO2 emissions under Obama’s Clean Power Plan. However, renewables are currently projected to continue to grow in Texas regardless of state support. Currently, wind energy projects constitute 70 percent of all new energy capacity in the state and ERCOT projects that wind will generate another 8600 MW by 2024. As of now, it looks like Texas will continue to remain a major player in the wind energy industry.

Conclusion

Texas has managed to become the nation’s leader in wind energy for two main reasons. The first of these reasons is that the center of America has incredibly high wind potential and Texas reaps the benefits of this in the northern section of the state. The second major reason is that there are fewer regulatory obstacles to building a wind farm in Texas than in the rest of the country, both because Texas exists on its own grid and because the state’s public agencies have very little control over private development. Despite the fact that Texas is led by many politicians who publicly oppose climate change and the fact that the state contributes a huge share of U.S. fossil fuel production, renewable energy still prospers in Texas because it is available, cheap, and easy to implement. While the proliferation of renewables in Texas is certainly positive, the fact that this success is reliant on an unorthodox combination of factors also puts into focus how difficult it is for the rest of the U.S., even for openly pro-environmental states, to achieve the same degree of success.

References

American Wind Energy Association: U.S. Wind Energy State Facts

CNN: Billionaire Brothers Give Cruz Super Pac $15 million

The Desert Sun: In Texas, Different Ideas on Fossil Fuels, Renewables

George Washington Journal of Energy & Environmental Law: Why is Texas the Leading State for Wind Power?

Houston Chronicle: Renewable Energy v. Fossil Fuel

The Atlantic: How Green Energy Won Out over Fossil Fuels in a Red State

National Energy Renewable Laboratory: Wind Maps

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability: Learn More about Interconnections

Oil and Gas: Texas Oil and Gas Companies

The State of Texas; Texas Wide Open for Business: The Texas Renewable Energy Industry

Texas Tribune: Senate Votes to end Renewable Energy Programs

Texas Tribune: Why Does Texas Have its Own Power Grid?

Think Progress: How Texas Politicians are Ignoring the Climate Change that Could Hurt their State’s Economy

Scientific American: Wind Provided 40 percent of Texas’s Electricity for 17 Hours One Windy Day in December

State Energy Conservation Office: Texas Renewable Energy Resource Assesment 2008: Wind Energy

Windustry: Permitting Basics

Wind Energy Transmission Texas, LLC: Our History

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 Mystery of Wind Energy in Texas appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court ruled this week that states can continue drawing election districts based on the idea of one person, one vote. The lawsuit, brought by a conservative activist group in Texas, sought to challenge the practice of drawing districts using total population numbers that include people who are ineligible to vote, notably illegal immigrants, but would also include children under the age of 18. While the court unanimously upheld the existing practice, it did not directly take up the question of whether states can change their redistricting processes to only include eligible voters.

Had the court ruled against the current practice, a massive shift in the way states draw their election districts would have ensued. The challenge would have had the most significant effect on areas with high immigrant populations like Texas, where the lawsuit originated. The appellants’ intended change would have shifted a lot of political influence from populated urban areas–which tend to have more ineligible voters like immigrants without citizenship, illegal immigrants, and children–to rural areas. That shift would also help Republicans at the expense of Democrats, whose voters tend to cluster in cities.

The challenge was brought by the Project for Fair Representation, an activist group that is also responsible for a pending challenge to the University of Texas at Austin’s use of affirmative action and recently mounted a successful legal battle against the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The group’s argument focuses largely on the idea of voter equality, claiming that counting ineligible voters when drawing districts inflates the importance of eligible voters in the district.

Texas, like all other states with some slight exceptions, uses total population numbers from the decennial census as the basis for its redistricting plans. The Constitution requires districts to have about the same number of people in them. The standard for Congressional districts is particularly strict, requiring each district to be equal in population “as nearly as is practicable.” If any Congressional district is smaller than the average district, also known as the ideal district size, then its size must be explicitly justified.

The rules are looser for state legislatures like the Texas Senate that the case targeted specifically. Court precedent requires state districts to be “substantially” equal. In practice, this means that if the size of a state’s largest district is within 10 percent of the size of the smallest district they are generally acceptable to the Constitution’s standards. There are some cases where district sizes deviate from that norm, notably to make exceptions for districts that meet minority representation requirements in accordance with the voting rights act.

Justice Ginsburg wrote the court’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts as well as Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justices Alito and Thomas wrote concurring opinions. In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg concludes,

Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 States and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries. Appellants have shown no reason for the Court to disturb this longstanding use of total population.

She also notes the fact that non-voters have legitimate interests in public policy as they often receive government services.

The opinion largely focuses on the fact that based on historical precedent, states should not be forced to change the ways in which they draw districts. However, in the opinion Ginsburg acknowledges that she is not ruling on whether a state could switch its redistricting process to a system that only looks at eligible voters–leaving that question open for a future legal challenge. While states will not be forced to change the way they draw districts, they could conceivably change to a system that only counts people who can vote.

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 Supreme Court Upholds “One Person, One Vote” appeared first on Law Street.

In a promising turn of events, the investigation into Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast ended with an indictment, but not of the organization.

A grand jury in Houston, Texas, handed down an indictment of the two Center for Medical Progress (CMP) employees who slandered Planned Parenthood through doctored videos earlier this year. David Daleiden, the director of the Center for Medical Progress, and CMP employee Sandra Merritt were indicted on charges of tampering with a governmental record and a misdemeanor charge in relation to purchasing human organs.

The news was quick to incite reactions, both from pro-lifers outraged that justice had been served:

I will be a champion of the unborn and will fight to defund rogue groups like Planned Parenthood. Join the fight: https://t.co/KKUDfyWyoc

— Dr. Ben Carson (@RealBenCarson) January 26, 2016

Pro-life investigators respond to grand jury indictment: #PlannedParenthood is guilty,not us https://t.co/83jNUpAime pic.twitter.com/mO3AeDBnGU

— The Patriot (@ThePatriot143) January 26, 2016

And by pro-choice advocates standing behind Planned Parenthood and this major step forward in women’s healthcare rights:

Pro-tip: Don’t manipulate info about #reprohealth or you might get indicted: https://t.co/Pi9qXKwXZP

— EMILY’s List (@emilyslist) January 26, 2016

How the nationwide crusade against planned parenthood is failing https://t.co/djPcUVYxxT pic.twitter.com/16g6Wvnc5H

— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) January 26, 2016

Cecile Richards, the director of Planned Parenthood, pointed out that states investigating her organization have failed to find any illegal activity.

In addition to Harris County, officials in 10 states have concluded investigations – each one has cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing.

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) January 25, 2016

But what does this indictment mean for the future of Planned Parenthood, and for women’s rights on a broader scale? The damage done by those videos is irreparable, and pro-life politicians are still attempting to defund the organization despite all the evidence against their arguments.

What this means is that, at least from a legal standpoint, the battle for reproductive rights will continue to be won. Planned Parenthood, it comes as no surprise, is not guilty of anything except providing affordable healthcare. The organization is more than abortions.

But what about politics? Fear-mongering and emotional appeals are strong campaign tactics, as we have seen from the GOP candidates and by the fact that a bill to defund Planned Parenthood made it all the way to Obama’s desk. The blatant facts seem to have little effect on politicians who let emotion and religion guide their decisions.

What pro-life advocates and politicians need to understand is that Planned Parenthood does not exist for abortions alone, and pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. Just because the government funds a clinic that offers abortion as a service, does not mean it endorses abortion itself. Pro-choice literally means pro-each woman should make her own decision about her own body. And while conservative state governments will continue to attempt things like “All Lives Matter” acts to kick reproductive rights back a century, at least this indictment shows there really is no basis for such legislation.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Indictment of Pro-Life Extremists a Positive Step Forward appeared first on Law Street.

Hold on to your holsters, folks–there’s a new gun law in Texas. As of January 1, 2016, licensed owners of firearms will be able to carry them in plain view in most places. People will actually be able to flaunt and parade their firearms in belt and shoulder holsters in public…at restaurants, bars, parks, and stores–for every person to witness. It begs the question, is it necessary to expose one’s weapon in public spaces in light of laws allowing for weapons to be carried so long as they are concealed? And if it is necessary, why?

Earlier this year, on June 13, 2015, Governor Greg Abbott (R) signed the open carry bill into law. It passed in the Texas House by a margin of 102-43 votes and in the Senate by 20-11, divided by party lines with Democrats opposing the bill. Visible handguns have been banned in Texas since just after the Civil War, but that will change with the new law taking effect by the start of the New Year.

Despite its Wild West history of cowboys, bandits, John Wayne, and fairly lax gun laws, Texas is pretty late to flex the open carry facet of its Second Amendment arm. Surprisingly, it is the 45th state to enact such legislation, but only after a provision barring law enforcement from asking Texas residents whether they were licensed or had a proper license to carry firearms visibly was removed from the bill. Texas is by far the most populous state with the open carry laws, with nearly 850,000 concealed license holders, thereby making it a notable change regarding the nation’s gun laws as a whole.

Thankfully, the law allows for private businesses and establishments to ban open carry and many have been on the fence about the direction in which they will go. A number of family-based restaurants have geared up to ban visible weapons within their establishments. They fear that families with children and other customers would be “a little uncomfortable” coming to a restaurant that has firearms in plain view. Additionally, H-E-B, a grocery store chain with 316 stores in 150 Texas communities, has also decided to ban open carry within its store. Largely staying out of the debate, H-E-B noted that it sells alcoholic beverages and are acting in accordance to state regulations on that basis. The store, for years, has maintained the policy that long guns and unlicensed guns are prohibited on its property. But it allows concealed weapons and will continue to do so. Whole Foods and Randall’s have followed H-E-B’s suit in banning open carry within their stores.

Other organizations have taken a different stance. Kroger, another grocery chain, will allow open carry within its stores, as will the First Baptist Church of Arlington, near Dallas, Texas. Senior Pastor Dennis Wiles, who sees approximately 2,500 worshipers on Sundays, noted that he came to the decision after meeting with the church’s legal team, congregants, and police officers. Wiles further recognized that the church will re-assess the situation in a couple of months to see if there are any issues to be address, however, he is confident that there won’t be much of a noticeable difference. Executive Director Charley Wilkison of the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas does not agree. Wilkison stated that, “[p]eople will drive without a license…[a]nd we can sure count on them to carry a weapon without training or license.”

But we still don’t know why. Why is this necessary? Intimidation? Self defense? Fashion? What good will come of this? Furthermore, if individuals are entitled to carry concealed weapons, why the additional need to flaunt those weapons, particularly at a time when citizens have been plagued by mass shootings, police brutality, racial discrimination, and religious intolerance? Placing firearm intimidation on the forefront of unstable societal, racial, and economic tensions does not sound like positive and commendable progression toward stability in such a gun weary and gun polarized nation.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Wild Wild West: “Open Carry” Law in Texas Rings in the New Year appeared first on Law Street.

In a move that surprised probably no one, but saddened many, a Texas grand jury declined to indict any of the jail staff for the death of Sandra Bland. Bland, 28, was found dead in her cell at the Waller County Jail after being arrested during a routine traffic stop. While her death was ruled a suicide, the entire nature of the situation–the seemingly excessive force used during the stop, and the mysterious circumstances surrounding her untimely death–raised suspicions and criticisms. The grand jury will be meeting again to determine charges against others, including Officer Brian Encinia who originally pulled Bland over and arrested her, but many are pessimistic that charges will not be filed against him either.

Sandra Bland is another entry on a horrifyingly long list of Black Americans who have died at the hands of police officers or in police custody; the police officers or other officials involved in their deaths have overwhelmingly not been charged with any wrongdoing. Bland’s family has called the grand jury procedure that ended in no indictments a “sham,” and the family is moving forward with a wrongful death suit against state and local authorities.

It’s surprising, in a legal sense at the very least, that the grand jury didn’t find any wrongdoing on the part of the jail staff. The forms filled out when she was brought to jail do indicate that she was depressed and had exhibited suicidal tendencies in the past–that should have led to jail officials keeping a closer eye on her, per procedures from the Texas Commission on Jail Standards.

But there are multiple other instances throughout Bland’s case where strong arguments can be made that the law was broken–beginning with the traffic stop that landed her in jail in the first place. What happened during that stop isn’t so much at issue; video from Encinia’s dash cam as well as a bystander video has long been available to the public. The stop itself was seemingly legal–although there are certainly very convincing concerns about whether or not she would have been stopped in the first place had she been white–but Encinia’s actions after that point are questionable.

The stop quickly escalated into an argument over Bland’s cigarette that ended with Encinia pulling Bland out of the car and arresting her–yet that flies in the face of a recent Supreme Court ruling that states that routine traffic stops can’t be extended unless there’s evidence that the driver has committed another crime, or there’s a safety issue in play. So, the question of whether or not the altercation that led to her arrest stemmed from a legal action on her part will be one that the grand jury has to weigh in its probing of Encinia’s actions.

So, questions about Sandra Bland’s treatment certainly aren’t over, but the fear that Encinia won’t face any charges seems warranted. As Cannon Lambert, one of the attorneys representing the Bland family, stated “if he [officer Encinia] was going to charged, you’d think he’d be charged already. The evidence that they need is flat out on the videotape.”

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 Grand Jury Declines to Indict Prison Staff for Death of Sandra Bland appeared first on Law Street.

A six-second video of a game of beer pong has lead to an arrest warrant and  intensive manhunt for Ethan Couch, the famed “affluenza teen” who avoided jail time two years ago for the drunk-driving deaths of four people because he was rich.

New information released in search for “affluenza” teen Ethan Couch. https://t.co/CZNUqUhWT5 pic.twitter.com/oaPyt5QTut

— WPEC CBS12 News (@CBS12) December 21, 2015

Couch, 18, missed an appointment with his probation officer on December 10, leading authorities to issue a warrant for his arrest. Now authorities believe his mother, Tonya, is helping to hide him after he was labeled a missing person on nationwide databases Monday.

The decision to run comes just a few weeks after the beer pong video surfaced on social media, showing Couch partying with others. The video alone isn’t proof of Couch violating his probation since the teen isn’t seen drinking, but an investigation into the incident may have caused him to flee.

ya boy ethan couch violating probation. i got more if u want @CityofBurleson @TarrantCountyDA pic.twitter.com/otiGprQ1uD — h (@BlondeSpectre) December 2, 2015

Couch was 16-years-old when a drunken joyride with his friends ended with him mowing down a young woman changing a flat tire and the three pedestrians who stopped to help her. His lawyer used expert testimony from a psychologist to convince a judge that he was unable to appreciate the consequences of his actions because he suffered from “affluenza,” thanks to a whole lot of money and bad parenting.

Instead of serving jail time, the Texas teen was sentenced to therapy at a long-term in-patient facility and 10 years of probation. But for many, the sentence only perpetuated Couch’s lack of accountability and offered no justice for his victims.

Now authorities are offering a $5,000 reward to anyone with information leading to an arrest. Unfortunately it’s unclear exactly how long he has been at large, and due to the family’s considerable financial resources, the pair could have already fled the country.

The judge that sentenced #ethancouch should be investigated & made to resign. Couch committed mass murder and is now on a beach in Mexico.

— Born2Rezist (@Born2Rezist) December 16, 2015

The whole situation just reeks of irony. A judge avoided a tough sentence that would have held him accountable for four people’s deaths, because he doesn’t have a history of being held accountable. It just doesn’t make sense. If authorities are able to capture Couch and his mother, hopefully they won’t get away with yet another slap on the wrist.

Alexis Evans

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

The post ‘Affluenza’ Teen Ethan Couch on the Run, Missing Mom Presumed Helping appeared first on Law Street.

Women have, for centuries, been fighting a battle to obtain equal rights and autonomy within the patriarchal society in which we live. From voting rights, equal pay, gender equality, and financial independence to stigmatized domestic violence ideologies and highly controversial contraceptive and reproductive rights, women continue to strive toward a gender equilibrium.

While their history is bountiful, reproductive rights–specifically those focused on abortion–have morphed from a religious, hot-button voting issue and politically polarizing topic of interest into a women’s rights and equality war zone, which has mixed reviews even from within. For years, various states have been testing the limitations of abortion laws by trying to implement restrictions to access, mandatory and burdensome requirements, and regulations upon women and healthcare providers. Most have not passed muster, however, in early November 2015, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a major and consequential abortion rights case for the first time since 2007. Read on to learn more about the history of abortion rights, the important facts of Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, and what it could mean for future generations of women.

A “Brief” History of Abortion Rights

Laws pertaining to contraception came to the Supreme Court in 1965 with Griswold v. Connecticut, where the court found that a state statute forbidding the use of contraceptives, punishable by fine and imprisonment, was unconstitutional. Justice William O. Douglas crafted the “penumbra” argument, stating that, “…the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion,” finding that “the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms” is not a place that is subject to government control and infringement. Marital privacy was to remain private. The curtain would remained closed on the intimacies of married life.

Image Courtesy Of [Kate Ausburn via Flickr]

In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade. Justice Harry Blackmun, a conservative father to three daughters who served as resident counsel in the Mayo Clinic (1950-1959), authored the weighty opinion. The importance of the right to privacy and a woman’s autonomy over her pregnancy led him and the Court to find the restrictive Texas statute unconstitutional and abortion a private legal matter encompassing a woman’s right to choose. The Court quoted the Texas District Court below, agreeing that the “fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment.” However, the opinion explained vested interests in abortion proceedings and outlined different levels of state interests in regulating abortion procedures in the second and third trimester.

While 1992 brought United States citizens “Aladdin,” Windows 3.1, and the birth of Miley Cyrus, it also bestowed upon us the sequel to Roe v. Wade in the form of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey—a complex multi-part decision that ultimately addressed what regulations were and were not acceptable by the states regarding abortion procedures under a undue burden/substantial obstacle analysis. The Court reaffirmed its Roe holding by adhering to the three major principles in Roe: 

1. That a woman has the right to abort prior to viability “without undue interference from the State:”
2. That the State has the right to restrict abortions after fetal viability so long as its laws contain exceptions for any pregnancy that endangers the life or health of a woman; and
3. That the State has a “legitimate interest” in the pregnancy to protect the life of the woman and fetus.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey challenged five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982. One required women, prior to getting an abortion, to obtain informed consent. Informed consent is a process in which a woman is provided with the risks of abortion, fetal development, gestational age of the fetus, whether the fetus can feel pain during the procedure, and that personhood begins at conception, etc. The act also require women to wait a mandatory 24 hours following signed consent to proceed with the procedure, obtain parental consent for minors with the allowance of a judicial bypass, and obtain signed spousal consent. Additionally, the act defined a “medical emergency” within the context of abortion procedures and set out specific reporting requirements by the facilities performing abortion services. The Court, in a plurality decision, upheld the central holding in Roe, but did however, overturn Roe’s trimester analysis framework and only found one provision–requiring spousal consent–burdensome and an unconstitutional regulation on a woman’s right to choose. The rest of the provisions were upheld.

Legal discourse pertaining to abortion did not end there.  In 2000, Stenberg v. Carhart surfaced to challenge a Nebraska statute prohibiting and criminalizing “partial birth abortions,” also known as “dilation and extraction” in the medical community. The court’s scientifically detailed opinion ultimately held that the Nebraska statute was unconstitutional and therefore could not be enforced as it did not carve out an exception for the “preservation of the health of the mother.” Additionally, the statute, with its ambiguous wording and terminology, unduly burdened the mother’s ability to choose an abortion, noting that in certain situations and in the presence of specific circumstances, partial birth abortions were “safer” than alternative procedures and methods.

In 2003, Congress and President George W. Bush signed into law the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act which expressively banned the “dilation and extraction” abortion method cited in Stenberg. Advocates that challenged the federal statute in lower courts had the statute struck down, but the challenge to the federal statute did not reach the Supreme Court until 2007 in Gonzales v. Carhart.

The court in Gonzales v. Carhart addressed the issue of whether the federal statute imposed a substantial obstacle for late-term pre-viability abortions and found it to be constitutional. The act directly outlined the procedure prohibited–the delivery of a viable/living fetus to an anatomical landmark which required an additional “overt act,” an act separate from the delivery usually involving piercing or crushing the fetal skull, to be taken in order to kill the partially delivered fetus, hence countering any argument that the statute was “vague.” Further, the court addressed the possibility of other legal abortion options and stated that, “if intact [dilation and extraction] is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of ‘a living fetus.'” Here, Congress sought, and the court agreed, to create a hard line between abortion and infanticide.

Since Gonzales, states have taken to further testing the limitations of abortion regulation, introducing “fetal pain” laws. Fetal pain laws proceed to assert that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks of gestation and therefore abortion should be prohibited after 20 weeks of pregnancy, but no challenges pertaining to these laws have reached the Supreme Court yet. In fact, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole will be the first major abortion case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court since 2007.

Sifting Through Whole Women’s Health v. Cole

In 2013, the state of Texas passed into law House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), in an effort to “raise the standard and quality of care for women seeking abortions.” The statute, which contained four primary provisions pertaining to abortion regulation, is currently being challenged for two of its provisions. The first is a requirement of physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital located within a radius of 30 miles from where the abortion is being performed. The second provision being challenged requires abortion clinics to comply with the same set of standards applicable to ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) along with compliance to standards set for abortion clinics.

The challenger? Whole Woman’s Health, a privately-owned women’s healthcare facility that offers comprehensive gynecology services, including abortion, and provides a holistic approach for the care of their patients. The organization was founded in 2003 by Amy Hagstrom Miller who saw a need in the communities of women to address pregnancy and reproductive choice not only as a medical matter, but also as something that requires a woman to evaluate her identity, goals, and future plans–an emotional and weighty process.  Whole Woman’s Health has seven offices within the United States and assists over 30,000 women per year for a variety of reproductive healthcare reasons.

Image Courtesy Of [Ann Harkness via Flickr]

At the time of trial, seven ASCs, located in five major Texas cities, were licensed to perform abortion services and would be able to comply with H.B. 2. Although Texas had over 40 abortion clinics prior to the law taking effect, it was stipulated that, at most, eight abortion-providing centers would be able to comply with the ASCs provision of H.B. 2, subjecting women exercising their right to choose to increased travel and transportation costs. During trial, the State offered expert testimony to suggest that the regulation would be “medically beneficial,” but did not prove necessity, and as such, the District Court found that the ASC requirement, in its entirety, was overly burdensome. Furthermore, the District Court also found that the physician privilege requirement “was not medically justifiable and that the burdens it imposed were not outweighed by any potential health benefits.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that res judicata barred any facial challenge and as-applied challenge (under a different analysis) on the admitting privilege and ASC compliance provisions of H.B. 2 and that the District Court erred in rejecting the State’s res judicata defense during the motion to dismiss stage of proceedings. Essentially, due to a previous lawsuit that was still pending a decision when Whole Women’s Health challenged H.B. 2 but was shortly thereafter decided, the Plaintiffs could not challenge the bill again as any injury arose out of the same claim and the parties had a legal relationship with one another.

The Court did, however, provide an analysis on the merits as well concluding that:

1. The Plaintiffs failed to prove that H.B. 2 was enacted with an “improper purpose,” mainly to close a majority of abortion clinics in Texas;
2. That the District Court incorrectly analyzed legislative factfinding of information that led to the passage of the Texas law under the “rational basis review,” which solely calls for the court to presume the law in question is valid and inquire whether that law is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest;”
3. The District Court’s analysis and the Plaintiff’s evidence did not satisfy the “large fraction test,” requiring a showing that the law imposes a substantial obstacle on a large fraction of women in Texas;
4. That the abortion services offered at the McAllen Whole Woman’s Health location, a clinic not complying with ASC standards, and lack of a “qualified” clinic for 235 miles created a substantial obstacle for a woman to obtain an abortion and therefore was granted injunctive relief until a licensed facility opened closer to the Rio Grand Valley;
5. That the Plaintiffs offered a considerable amount of evidence showing that the physicians at the McAllen location were denied privileges at the local hospital for reasons “other than their competence,” and were therefore granted injunctive relief enjoining the State of Texas from enforcing the privilege requirement; and
6. That the El Paso clinic was not granted injunctive relief based on an undue burden of women to travel over 550 miles to the nearest Texas abortion clinic in San Antonio because they could travel across state lines to Santa Teresa, New Mexico, which shares a metropolitan area with El Paso to obtain the procedure.

The Fifth Circuit largely upheld the challenged provisions of H.B. 2.

So…What Could That Mean for the Rest of Us?

H.B. 2 showed the level of impact that such abortion regulation could have on the availability of abortion services, bringing down the 40+ available abortion clinics in Texas to a mere 8-10 as outlined in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision. Such legislation could create a large and costly barrier, not only to the 5.4 million women in Texas, the second largest female populated state in the country, but to all women in the United States.

In four states–Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming–only one abortion clinic remains and it is unclear whether or not those clinics would be able to survive with the Texas-based legislation.

If such regulation passed muster in the Supreme Court, there could be an increase in self-attempted abortion and risky abortion procedures, which was noted, by the Plaintiffs in Whole Women’s Health, as a growing trend after H.B. 2 was passed in Texas. Additionally, costs would increase in travel, transportation, lodging, and in the procedure itself, potentially costing women their actual right to choose. Qualified abortion clinics would be overwhelmed, appointments would be scarce and harder to coordinate with travel and work schedules, and ultimately, those most impacted would be individuals in poverty and those with transitioning immigration status. Such legislation would force an unhealthy psychological effect on woman already making a difficult decision and consequently impose a great burden on a major woman’s right without proof that the abortion clinics functioning today are doing so at a sub-par or dangerous level.

So, one question remains–what’s next for abortion regulations in the United States?

RESOURCES

Primary

FindLaw: Whole Women’s Health v. Cole

JUSTIA: Griswold v. Connecticut

JUSTIA: Roe v. Wade

JUSTIA: Stenberg v. Carhart

JUSTIA: Gonzales v. Carhart

Legal Information Institute: 18 U.S. Code § 1531

State of Texas Legislature: House Bill 2

Additional

The New York Times: Supreme Court to Hear Texas Abortion Law Case

Planned Parenthood: Federal and State Bans and Restrictions on Abortion

Linda Greenhouse: Becoming Justice Blackmun

Guttmacher Institute: State Policies in Brief – Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion

USA Today: Idaho First State to have Fetal Pain Law Rejected

National Public Radio (NPR): High Court’s Pass on ‘Fetal Pain’ Abortion Case Unlikely to Cool Debate

Whole Woman’s Health

Bloomberg: The Vanishing U.S. Abortion Clinic

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole: What’s Next for Abortion Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

More than three percent of all American students are homeschooled–a number that has been steadily climbing over the last decade or so. How exactly “homeschool” is defined is a question that is left up to the states. But do students actually have to learn anything when they are homeschooled in Texas? The Texas State Supreme Court is about to answer that question.

The case revolves around one Texas family, the McIntyres. Laura and Michael McIntyre began homeschooling their nine children in 2004, out of an extra office in a motorcycle dealership run by the McIntyres and their extended family. But in 2006, complaints began surfacing against the family, alleging that the children weren’t being properly educated. Michael’s twin brother and the children’s grandparents worried because they never saw the children reading, doing math, or working on computers. Instead, they mostly learned how to play instruments and sang religious songs. Tracy, Michael’s brother, also reported that he overheard one of the children saying that they didn’t need to learn certain things because they were going to be “raptured.” An additional damning piece of evidence is that the oldest McIntyre daughter, Tori, ran away from home at 17 and wanted to be placed in a public school. The public high school determined that she had to be placed in the ninth grade, because officials weren’t sure she could handle higher-level work.

The issue is that there don’t appear to be too many clear guidelines about what’s considered appropriate homeschooling in Texas. Parents (or other homeschool teachers) aren’t required to register with the state. The students aren’t required to take standardized tests, or learn a pre-approved curriculum. Laura McIntyre claims that she was using a curriculum created by Pensacola Christian College to teach children from a Christian perspective, but there’s no way to verify that. Really, the only requirement mandated by the state of Texas appears to be that parents ensure their child receives a “bona fide” education, with no real clarification about what that means.

The revelations of the McIntyres’ family members eventually led to a years-long back-and-forth between the McIntyres and the school district. The McIntyres provided a letter from a Home School Legal Defense Association attorney stating they were in compliance, truancy charges were filed and later dropped, and now the whole thing has ended up in front of the Texas Supreme Court. The McIntyres are arguing that they’re being discriminated against for being Christian. But an appeals court ruled against the McIntyres, essentially saying that there’s nothing that prevents school districts from ensuring that students are actually learning.

How the Texas Supreme Court decides this case could have huge ramifications for the state of homeschooling education in Texas. It could lead to stricter requirements, if the court decides against the McIntyres, or it could lead to even less supervision over homeschooled children, if the court decides for them. It will be up to the court next week to make that determination.

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 Do Homeschooled Kids Need to “Learn Something?” appeared first on Law Street.

Students at the University of Texas-Austin are taking public protest to a whole new, innovative level. In an attempt to protest a new law signed by Governor Gregg Abbott that allows “campus carry”–essentially people with conceal carry licenses may now carry their handguns on public university property. However, these enterprising students noticed that UT-Austin still has some obscenity rules on the books, meaning that someone could feasibly get cited for carrying around an “obscene” sex toy, such as a dildo. So, hundreds of UT-Austin students are planning on doing exactly that next August, when the law will go into effect. They’ll be walking around for the day and attending a rally, all with sex toys strapped to their backpacks.

The Facebook page for the event, started by recent UT-Austin alum Jessica Jin, explains the motivation for the event, stating:

The State of Texas has decided that it is not at all obnoxious to allow deadly concealed weapons in classrooms, however it DOES have strict rules about free sexual expression, to protect your innocence. You would receive a citation for taking a DILDO to class before you would get in trouble for taking a gun to class. Heaven forbid the penis.

The page goes on to explain the details of the forthcoming protest:

Starting on the first day of Long Session classes on August 24, 2016, we are strapping gigantic swinging dildos to our backpacks in protest of campus carry.

ANYBODY can participate in solidarity: alum, non-UT students, people outside of Texas. Come one dildo, come all dildos.

“You’re carrying a gun to class? Yeah well I’m carrying a HUGE DILDO.”

Just about as effective at protecting us from sociopathic shooters, but much safer for recreational play.

As one would assume, the entire tongue-in-cheek protest offers plenty of room for innuendo. The entire thing is being called a “strap-in” as opposed to a sit-in, and protestors are getting the word out with the accompanying hashtag #cocksnotglocks.

#CocksNotGlocks America. Sex is good. Shooting each other is not. http://t.co/ferzga2siQ

— Rachel Delmar (@RachelDelmar) October 11, 2015

‘We glorify violence in our media but vilify sex.’ #Cocksnotglocks http://t.co/mfzMQXqd3H — K Merie (@lezcakes) October 11, 2015

While the event is making waves, it’s not all in the form of good feedback. The Facebook page is also receiving a lot of negative comments from those who support the conceal carry law, and Jin has left it up to highlight the violent and upsetting rhetoric being used by those who oppose the protest. In fact, Jin has already received multiple death threats for the event. Yet, supporters keep joining the Facebook group, and Jin is being applauded by many for her creative and catchy activism.

Overall, this protest has a little bit of everything–humor, shock value, and a really good point: many UT Austin students don’t want conceal carry on their campus, especially in today’s environment of consistent mass shootings on college campuses. News of the protest has gone viral, and rightly so. Come August 24 of next year, expect to see a lot of dildos around UT-Austin’s campus.

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 UT-Austin Students to Protest New Conceal Carry Law by Carrying Sex Toys appeared first on Law Street.

Ahmed Mohamed is a 14-year-old living in Irving, Texas. His hobby is inventing and creating things–but when he brought in a homemade clock on Monday, he was accused of making a bomb, suspended from school, interrogated by the police, arrested, and taken to a juvenile detention center. America: land of the brave, home of stamping out creativity in young people.

Ahmed’s sister told me to post this. Yes this situation is real for those questioning. pic.twitter.com/Oxd0JxUS6O

— Prajwol/Ru (@OfficalPrajwol) September 16, 2015

Mohamed had created a clock by linking a circuit board and digital display–a pretty straightforwad engineering project. He put it in a pencil case that had a tiger hologram on it and brought it to school to show his teachers. He thought his teachers would be impressed–and they should have been, given that I’m fairly certain most 14-year-olds don’t have the technical wherewithal to make a clock. He showed it to his engineering teacher, who told him it was “nice” but instructed him not to show it to other teachers. But when it started beeping during his English class–as clocks sometimes do–he showed it to his English teacher. She said it looked like a bomb, he argued that it was just, in fact, a clock, and he was sent to the principal’s office. A police officer was waiting for him when he got there, and apparently upon seeing Mohamed stated: “Yup. That’s who I thought it was.” Then, in Mohamed’s own words, he was brought to a room with five officers, and interrogated. They kept insisting that he had made a “movie bomb,” evidently meaning one that could be transported in a suitcase. Then, he was brought to a juvenile detention facility where he was fingerprinted and mug shots were taken. At no point during that process was this 14-year-old allowed to contact his parents. Ahmed’s explanation of events is below:

While the charges have now been dropped, the fact that the situation progressed as far as it did is reprehensible, and Mohamed’s school sent out a letter after the fact: 

Think the egregious behavior ended w/teacher/police? Think again. Parents were sent this letter: #IStandWithAhmed pic.twitter.com/OfOL8vDpWD — Imraan Siddiqi (@imraansiddiqi) September 16, 2015

My favorite sentence is this one: “I recommend using this opportunity to talk with your child about the Student Code of Conduct and specifically not bringing items to school that are prohibited,” because it puts all the onus on Mohamed, for bringing in a clock that he built. What part of his item was prohibited I have no idea, but I have an inkling it has something to do with his name, his religion, and the color of his skin.

I understand the principle of “rather safe than sorry” but “rather be ridiculously reactionary than sorry” doesn’t have the same ring to it, and that’s almost undoubtedly what happened here. There were so many easy fixes the school and the police could have taken here–including contacting the engineering teacher who saw the project, looking at the clock, or just maybe not rushing to conclusions about a 14-year-old. 

The hashtag #IStandWithAhmed is now trending on Twitter, garnering plenty of support for Mohamed.

That moment when school can’t tell the diff b/w a clock & a bomb but since the kid is brown, they arrest him just in case #IStandWithAhmed

— shannonwoodward (@shannonwoodward) September 16, 2015

White kids walk in public with weapons, brown kids are arrested for building clocks. #IStandWithAhmedpic.twitter.com/AmfwkqtvQ0

— Indian Stats (@Indian_stats) September 16, 2015

 

White kid makes a nuclear reactor? He’s a genius. Brown Muslim kid makes a clock? A terrorist #IStandWithAhmedpic.twitter.com/fEwcq7tUsr

— Farhan Khan Virk (@FarhanKVirk) September 16, 2015

I’m sad for the adults at the Irving Independent School District, who are so inundated by prejudice that they couldn’t work with Mohamed to figure out what he had brought in.  I’m sad for his classmates, who were just taught that it’s ok to rush to assumptions and terrorize a kid. And I’m sad for Ahmed, who was forced to bear the weight of other people’s ignorance this week at 14. No kid should have to deal with that–that’s why #IStandWithAhmed.

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 #IStandWithAhmed: Because We Arrest 14-Year-Olds For Making Clocks Now appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Last Friday night two Texas high school football players pummeled a referee while on the field during a game. The two students claim that this referee was directing racial slurs toward them and making bad calls.

To make things worse, the assistant head coach, Mack Breed, allegedly told the players that this ref needed “to pay for cheating us,” or words similar to that sentiment. So, instead of keeping his cool and being a responsible adult, it seems that this man essentially instructed his players to go out there and do something about what they felt were unfair or bad calls. Instead of following the simplest guidelines and informing the lead official of the game, Mack Breed allegedly thought that it be wise to have the kids take it into their own hands. Instead of being an adult and taking this moment to turn into something teachable he did the exact opposite.

According to the Northside Independent School District, the district that John Jay High School falls under, the two players have been suspended from school and will have to attend a disciplinary hearing which will treat the incident as “an assault on a school official.” Naturally there is also a complaint being filed with the Texas Association of Sports Officials against the referee for the racial slur allegations.

Fellow Law Streeter, Alexis Evans, caught this story early on and had great insight about whether or not the players will be hit with criminally charges. I would add that in the state of Texas simple assault consists of; (a) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another person, (b) intentionally or knowingly threatening another person with imminent bodily injury, or (c) intentionally or knowingly causing physical contact with another that the offender knows or reasonably should know the victim will find provocative or offensive. That is what these players committed, unless there has been serious bodily harm done to the referee which there has been no report of as of today.

If there is serious bodily harm done then these players could be charged with aggravated assault which consists of; (a) intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing serious bodily injury to another person, or (b) using or exhibiting a deadly weapon in the course of committing any assault crime, including threatening another with bodily injury or engaging in conduct that the victim likely will find offensive. For the sake of an argument, it is very possible that a football helmet could be seen as a deadly weapon and these boys could be charged with aggravated assault if there was more bodily injury done to the ref than what we know about. With as hard as his head snapped back upon the first impact, who knows what kind of internal damage was done. I strongly believe that these players should be charged with some kind of criminal offense–it’s too obvious that they were harming this man intentionally.

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 What’s Next for the Texas High School Football Players Who Hit a Ref? appeared first on Law Street.

When a football player lands a big tackle on an opposing player during a game, a congratulatory slap on the back is pretty typical. However, when that person being intentionally pummeled into the ground is a referee, the outcome could be criminal.

This is the current reality for two San Antonio high school football players, who could potentially face criminal charges after deliberately targeting a referee during a game Friday night.

A video of the assault captured the two defensive backs from John Jay High School inexcusably retaliate against a ref during the tail end of a 15-9 loss in Marble Falls, Texas. In the video the unidentified referee is seen being completely blindsided after the first player makes a beeline for him, slamming into his back and knocking him face forward into the turf. Then moments later the second player dives on top of him–helmet first.

Just before the referee was hit two Jay players, including the starting quarterback, had been ejected from the game on separate plays. According to the San Antonio Express News,

Marble Falls was looking to gain the yards required to extend its possession and effectively run out the clock and called for a handoff toward the left side of the line of scrimmage. The penalties stemming from the incident gave Marble Falls a first down.

Afterwards both players were ejected from the game, and have since been suspended from the team and the school. Austin Football Officials Association secretary Wayne Elliott told the Washington Post that the referee was “very upset” and “wanting to press charges.” A prosecutor has already been contacted by investigators and is reportedly open to filing charges against the boys. If that happens they will most likely be looking at charges of assault, with the severity depending on their age–individuals 17 and older are considered legally adults in Texas.

The University Interscholastic League, which oversees athletics in Texas public schools, tweeted out the following statement.

UIL statement concerning actions in San Antonio Jay football game: pic.twitter.com/QhPH8rskzc

— Texas UIL (@uiltexas) September 6, 2015

NFL Referees Association executive director Jim Quirk also released a quick statement addressing the hits saying,

These types of actions against any game official at any level are inexcusable. We fully support the suspensions of the players involved, along with a full and complete investigation by the Texas University Interscholastic League (UIL).

They’re right that it is inexcusable. Any big sports fan will tell you that rarely do they agree 100 percent of the time with every one of the officials’ calls. Regardless of whether or not this high school referee did make a bad call, physical violence shouldn’t have been the answer. Unfortunately this incident sheds yet another negative spotlight on the sport, which seems to have been plagued by its fair share of public scandals over the past year.

It’s unclear how the official is doing after the hits, but he easily could have been seriously injured. Just last night Virginia Tech Hokies starting quarterback Michael Brewer suffered a broken collarbone after receiving a massive hit from 290 pound Ohio State lineman, and unlike the blindsided referee, he was wearing pads. These boys better hope he wasn’t seriously injured or else  they can pretty much guarantee they’ll have their day in court.

Alexis Evans

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

The post Texas HS Football Players “Targeted” Ref, May Face Criminal Charges appeared first on Law Street.

Sandra Bland was found dead in a Texas jail cell from what authorities believe was suicide. But friends and family of the victim are outraged, and claim that she had no reason to take her own life. The entire story of her arrest and subsequent death raise a lot of questions about her treatment in the justice system.

“I do suspect foul play,” a friend, Cheryl Nanton, told ABC 7. “I believe that we are all 100 percent in belief that she did not do harm to herself.” Bland, 28, had just landed her dream job, when she was arrested for allegedly assaulting an officer, police said.

On June 29, Bland drove down to Texas from Illinois to begin a new job with her alma mater, Prairie View A&M. On July 10, police stopped Bland just outside of the school’s campus for failing to signal while changing lanes. Police officers claim that during this stop, Bland became combative, and was thrown to the ground, arrested, and charged with “assault on a public servant.”

But, the recently released video from the policeman’s dashboard camera show that the stop that led to her arrest was anything but routine.

While Bland is being combative in the above video, she had plenty of reason to be. The situation escalated rapidly–but her questioning of the police officer was valid. In these situations, people sometimes say the best thing to do is be polite and respectful to police officers so they have no reason to accuse you of anything, but that shouldn’t preclude someone who is pulled over from asking questions about the reason why. This was not a routine traffic stop, and that is very clear. He was extremely forceful with Bland, to the point where you can hear her wincing at the pain he is causing her. The video below captures their interaction after he removed her from the car and it doesn’t seem to get better.

“After he pulled her out of the car, forced her and tossed her to the ground, knee to the neck, and arrested her,” says her friend Malcom Jackson.

In the second video, Bland is heard saying, “You just slammed my head into the ground. Do you not even care about that? I can’t even hear!” Then, as she is taken into custody, she repeats, “You slammed me into the ground and everything.”

Reports claim that jailers saw Bland at 7 AM Monday when they gave her breakfast, and again at 8 AM when they spoke to her over the jail’s intercom about making a phone call. She was found in her cell one hour later. Waller County Sheriff’s Office Captain of Patrol Brian Cantrell claimed that Bland strangled herself with a jail cell trash bag. CPR was reportedly done immediately, but she was pronounced dead shortly after.

Waller County Sheriff Glenn Smith, who made the first public announcement about Bland’s death, was suspended for documented cases of racism when he was chief of police in Hempstead, Texas in 2007. After serving his suspension, more complaints of racism came in, and he was fired from this position shortly after. Smith made his way to Waller County, where he was then elected as sheriff of Waller county. While this connection to her death is not certain, there are questions about the role that her race could have played in the incident. 

Bland’s family held a news conference last Thursday afternoon in the Chicago Loop, but no details have been released. They are firm in their belief that foul play is suspected, and looking for answers. “She was planning for the future, and she came here to start for that future, so to say that she killed herself is totally absurd,” said her friend Lavaghn Mosley. 

But her friends and family are not the only ones who suspect something is amiss. With the popular hashtag #WhatHappenedtoSandraBland trending on Twitter, there are several people wondering what happened to Sandra Bland in that jail cell.

Reporters are working around the clock tonight to find out if Sandra Bland's babysitter's boyfriend's cousin ever broke a law. #SandraBland

— JRehling (@JRehling) July 16, 2015

Dear white people, any of you EVER been pulled over for a lane change? Did you end up dead? #SandraBland #WhatHappenedToSandraBland

— Jessica Fish (@Fishica) July 16, 2015

Don't tell me that #SandraBland could be my sister, friend, mother. It is enough that she was a human being! #WhatHappenedToSandraBland

— Ntombizikhona (@valavoosh) July 16, 2015

You stay. You run. You submit. You resist. It doesn't matter. They will kill you anyway. Your skin is black. #SandraBland #BlackLivesMatter

— Amarlie (@marabout40) July 16, 2015

These questions make a lot of sense, and Bland’s story does fit into the continued narrative of #BlackLivesMatter, because it highlights the way that our society continues to treat Black lives as lesser than others. What needs to happen to ensure that all of our citizens are safe when in the hands of the justice system? After all, it didn’t matter how loud Bland screamed, because she still wasn’t being heard.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Death of Sandra Bland: More Questions Than Answers appeared first on Law Street.

Iconic restaurant chain Whataburger just announced it will not allow the open carrying of guns on its properties. The company has locations in 10 states, including Texas, which recently passed legislation stating that licensed Texans can openly tote their handguns in a hip or shoulder holster.

Whataburger President and CEO Preston Atkinson wrote an open letter than can be viewed on the company’s website. Atkinson writes that the company must think about how the open carry policy affects its employees and customers. He stated:

From a business standpoint…we have to think about how open carry impacts our 34,000+ employees and millions of customers.

The open-carry law will be put into effect starting January 1, 2016, but Texas Restaurant Association CEO Richie Jackson said he was not surprised by Whataburger’s early announcement. Under the new law, “gun rights do not trump property rights.”

Other Texas area restaurants are expected to follow Whataburger’s lead.

Residents of the Lone Star state will likely react both positively and negatively to Whataburger’s announcement. Naysayers like Open Carry Texas founder C.J. Grisham will probably boycott the restaurant (let’s hope he can resist the siren call of the famous Patty Melt) while supporters like the members of Moms Demand Action will undoubtedly express their gratitude and continue to visit Whataburger locations.

But what if Whataburger had remained silent on this issue—or, heaven forbid, openly praised the open-carry bill?

For starters, it probably would have lost a lot of business from customers who brought their families or sports teams onto Whataburger properties. (Nothing says “good sportsmanship” like grabbing a seat next to a man with a gun-holster after the big game).

Secondly, this would have meant a huge change in the training of employees. How would you feel if you had to constantly survey customers and be on the lookout regarding who was visibly armed?

Before Whataburger released its open letter, moms like “Moms Demand Action” spokeswoman Stephanie Lundy reflected on what would happen to their teenaged sons and daughters who worked the late shift at fast-food restaurants. Since when does the job description of a minimum-wage occupation include assessing if someone was going to use a firearm to rob their place of business?

To quote Mary Jones, a woman who was featured in the Associated Press coverage of the Whataburger situation: we are not in the Wild, Wild West. Leave your firearms at home if you want to eat some French fries.

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 Iconic Restaurant Chain Will Not Follow Texas Open Carry Law appeared first on Law Street.

How would you feel if the veterinarian treating your pet was recently accused of hunting and killing a cat? Wouldn’t you want the person taking care of your furry companion to show them complete care and respect? Well, you might not want Kristen Lindsey to be your pet’s veterinarian, then. Many are furious since the Austin County, Texas grand jury decided not to indict Kristen on animal abuse charges. While she was an employee at Washington Animal Clinic in Brenham, Texas. Kristen–whose full name was not disclosed–posted the following picture on Facebook, which shows her holding up a stray cat that she supposedly killed by shooting a bow and arrow straight through its skull.

The Texas veterinarian who bragged about killing a stray cat with an arrow won’t face charges. http://t.co/YomiNCX8NG pic.twitter.com/Pj6HPYAjDm

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) June 25, 2015

The 31-year-old vet, whose full name was never released since she was not formally charged for this vicious act, originally made headlines back in April when the picture was first posted. Now she is infamously known throughout the world as an animal abuser. She quickly deleted the disturbing photo from her profile, although not before many saw it and screen-shotted the post–those screenshots ended up going viral. It was then brought to the attention of her place of employment. Kristen’s position was immediately terminated, although it does not seem that she will lose her license. The clinic also stated how sickened and shocked they were by their former employee’s actions, and begged customers not to let this one incident define their center.

It seems as if everyone was shocked by Kristen’s actions, given that her former workplace, the Texas Veterinary Medical Association, and other institutions she was affiliated with all expressed how upset they were with her. The deans of Colorado State University, where Kristen earned her veterinary degree, also announced how disgusted and disappointed they were with their former student’s actions. There were also multiple petitions created proposing that the vet’s license should be revoked, each with thousands of signatures.

This incident definitely appeared to be an act of animal cruelty and was being investigated as one, although it could not be proven that a crime even occurred. Animal rights advocates were outraged when this picture surfaced, and many urged authorities to arrest Kristen. Since investigators couldn’t tell when or where the supposed crime took place, they did not have enough evidence for probable cause. If sufficient evidence had been found, then a search warrant would have likely been issued, which then might have led to an arrest.

After an exhaustive court battle, the grand jury decided to rule the case as “no bill,” which means that there was insufficient evidence to charge Kristen with an actual crime. Much to many people’s chagrin, Kristen will get off with merely a slap on the wrist and a damaged reputation. After the ruling, many people gathered in front of the courthouse to protest this decision, although it can’t be turned around.

Reports state that Kristen later claimed that she only killed the suspected wild cat to protect her own pet from it, which would have made this incident legal,  although the post makes it seem as if she was hunting for fun and sport. Kristen appears to be quite proud of her kill, as she brags about her precise marksmanship and jokes about how she deserves a “vet of the year award” for her actions.

In what appears to be a blog created by Kristen when she was a student in veterinary school, she disturbingly describes herself as someone who likes to kill animals as a hobby. What’s also shocking is despite how grotesque and sad many people find this killing, the American Veterinary Society actually sees a bolt to the head as a humane way to kill a cat.

A resident of the town has come forward, claiming that the murdered cat is actually Tiger, a domestic cat who went missing from a local farm around the same time the image was posted and who distinctly resembles the slain cat. Despite there being many claims of the cat’s true identity, there is no confirmation of this since the feline’s corpse was never found.

However, this incident and Kristen’s pride in her actions don’t seem just in the slightest. Animal cruelty is a heinous crime, and people who commit this act should not go unpunished, particularly those who are trusted to take care of our pets.

Toni Keddell

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

The post Texas Veterinarian Accused of Animal Cruelty After “Hunting” Cat 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.

On Thursday June 5, Rick Perry announced his plans to run for the Republican presidential bid in 2016. Despite his blunder in a Republican presidential debate almost four years ago, Perry decided that reforming his image and enhancing his stage presence will give him a good shot at running for president this time around. But considering Perry’s low support among Texans and his indictment regarding his alleged abuse of power as governor, Perry might not be able to rally any support for his bid.

So far, Perry has focused his presidential bid on his experience as a governor who stimulated Texas’s economy and on his military experience. His primary tactic is to distinguish himself from the other Republican candidates by being the face of leadership and experience. He’s also emphasized his humble background by relaying his childhood upbringing on a cotton farm. But this technique has not quite corrected his previous blunder, nor is it garnering the same support that he had the first time around.

Perry has already lost crucial support in Texas and many Texans don’t even support him; in a recent poll he barely polled at 2 percent compared to Scott Walker at 18 percent and Marco Rubio at 13 percent. Many Republican and Tea Party members have flocked to Ted Cruz instead of Perry.

The last piece of the puzzle that is seriously damaging Perry’s chances of winning the Republican bid for the presidency is the indictment that accuses Perry of abusing his power as governor when he was in office. Perry allegedly threatened Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg to resign after she had pleaded guilty to drunk driving and served a 45-day sentence. She refused and Perry vetoed the funding to her office’s Public Integrity Unit, which focused on anti-corruption measures. As a result of the indictment, Perry faces the possibility of 109 years in prison. Perry’s defense appeals to the rule of the law, as he stated:

I stood up for the rule of the law in Texas, and if I had to do it again, I would make exactly the same decision.

However, the original complaint was actually filed before Perry vetoed the funding for the Public Integrity Unit. The team who filed the complaint found four other allegations that could point to felonies. The claim for the complaint is focused more on Perry threatening another official and actually has little to do with his vetoes. All of these accusations could spell problems for Perry on the campaign trail.

Perry seems to be taking on a lot as he runs for the Republican presidential bid. The fact that he is accused of abusing his power as governor should put a lot of doubt in voters’ minds. And even though his presidential campaign has focused on important issues so far, such as increasing jobs, Perry has not been successful in gaining support in Texas. Some could say it’s admirable that he is trying to run for the presidency again, but he should be more focused on his abuse of power charges, which may end up determining his presidential campaign before it even really begins.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rick Perry’s Hands Are Full appeared first on Law Street.

The Texas legislature recently passed a bill that will allow licensed residents to carry concealed hand guns on public colleges and universities. With the bill currently on its way to Governor Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it, it will soon permit the presence of concealed weapons on college campuses. But this raises some serious questions about the levels of danger the schools could potentially face as a result of the new law.

The final version of this bill allows private institutions to opt out, while public universities would be able to create gun-free zones in areas of campus. This new bill allows licensed gun owners to carry their handguns in classrooms, libraries, and other campus buildings. The law would be in effect in September for four year colleges and universities and by fall 2017 for community colleges.

Some key components of the law include a requirement for university presidents to adopt rules and policies regarding carrying a concealed handgun on campus. The university may also create rules on policies regarding carrying guns into dorms and the storage of guns. The bill does not change who can obtain a concealed handgun license. Any locations that have their own rules off campus, such as bars and hospitals, can keep those rules. Open carry on campuses remains prohibited.

As a student, and someone looking at law schools in Texas, I am not sure how I would personally respond to a bill like this being passed on my college campus. In addition to attending classes, campus is a place where students eat, sleep, and live. It doesn’t really seem fair to invade one’s home with a weapon without really asking. That sentiment is consistent with some of the reactions coming out of Texas and the country right now in response to this legislation.

Julie Gavran, the western director of the Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus, said she worries accidents involving guns, gun thefts, and suicides will increase. She also fears that if the bill is passed, colleges will have to invest more money into hiring security officers and buying metal detectors, which will be taken away from education spending. Gavran stated:

The legislators were more concerned with (concealed handgun license) rights rather than the quality of research and education that the state provides. This total disregard of the voice and concerns of the campus community is an insult to the State of Texas.

Despite these fears, Bill McRaven, chancellor of the University of Texas System does not seem to agree, stating:

It is helpful that the bill was amended to allow our campus presidents to consult with students, faculty and staff to develop rules and regulations that will govern the carrying of concealed handguns on campuses. I pledge to our students, faculty, staff, patients and their families and to all those who may visit a UT institution that, as UT System leaders, we will do everything in our power to maintain safe and secure campuses.

The bill’s House sponsor, State Representative Allen Fletcher explained his motivation for filing it, stating:

Currently, a student, faculty member, or other adult with a concealed handgun license may carry their concealed handgun throughout a campus as long as they remain outside, but the moment they step foot into a building on campus they become criminals.

Despite that point, the safety factor is still a large issue. Fletcher believes that the media, parents, students, and higher education officials exaggerate the bill’s consequences. He argues that the measure will just broaden current laws that already allows concealed handguns on campus outside of buildings. Those in favor of passing the bill also believe permitting gun owners to carry weapons on college campuses can help students and faculty members defend themselves.

The arguments in favor of this bill are extremely valid, but I feel like there could be a different solution that accommodates the needs of all people. An increased presence of weapons on campus still makes me and many others very wary.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Bill Will Allow These Weapons on College Campuses appeared first on Law Street.

Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX) has taken a new, innovative approach to dealing with the insane conspiracy theorists in his state. He appears to have joined them.

Since President Obama was elected in 2008, a number of particularly unhinged individuals have spouted theories that he’s going to enact some sort of martial law, or take over the country. It’s a fringe theory, to be sure, but one that has permeated many facets of the extreme right wing side of the internet. Go ahead, google “Obama martial law.” I’ll wait here patiently, while you get sucked into the crazy wormhole. The theories all boil down to one particular idea–Obama wants to remain President, so he’ll declare martial law and take over. This will, apparently, be the end of the United States as we know it.

One of the places where this conspiracy theory has taken hold is in deeply conservative Texas. So when the federal government announced that there will be a series of training exercises held by the United States military in a number of Southwestern states, including Texas, it raised red flags for some. Some very, very red flags.

Operation Jade Helm 15 will involve 1,200 special operations forces. It’s designed to help these special forces practice their readiness skills, and will take place in various sites across Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Nevada and California for two months this summer.  While in some cases it will not be immediately obvious that this is a military operation, as some of the forces involved may be blending in as civilians, only public land will be used, or private land if the government has gotten permission to use it. Practice operations like this are a relatively normal practice for our military, and happen on a fairly regular basis.

However, the  people waving those very red flags seem to think that it will lead to tyranny, martial law, and takeover by the federal government.

Operation Jade Helm 15 Huge Step Closer Towards Permanent Military Presence On Main Street http://t.co/w4eKQcwXF7

— Now The End Begins (@NowTheEndBegins) April 30, 2015

Some are even purporting that the protests in Ferguson and more recently, Baltimore, are a set-up for more extended martial law in Texas and around the country. Again, not only is this completely bonkers, but it does a complete disservice to the very real issue in our country of police militarization and abuse. 

Obama is taking over Democrat-held cities via martial law like ISIS is taking over places in the M.E. via #SocializedTerrorism @CyberMommie — Kickin’ It Crews (@imcrews) April 28, 2015

The riot in Baltimore is exactly what operation jade helm 15 was about to prepare for martial law where we the people are the enemy

— Kevin Lancour (@kevinlancour30) April 28, 2015

In light of this totally irrational paranoia and terror, Governor Greg Abbott decided to get on board and stoke his citizens’ fears by ordering the Texas Militia to monitor Operation Jade Helm 15. Abbott elaborated in a letter to Major General Gerald “Jake” Betty his reasoning for the monitoring, stating:

During the training operation, it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed.

In response to Abbott’s horribly misguided call, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest spoke for many of us when he bluntly stated: “I have no idea what he’s thinking.”

Abbott stating that he will be monitoring Operation Jade Helm 15 so that Texans know that their rights will remain in tact can mean one of two things. The first that he could be acting like a dad who will check in the closet for monsters so his child will go to sleep, even though the father knows that there are no monsters in the closet. That’s an unflattering picture to paint of a chief executive of a state–that he thinks his citizens are so idiotic and immature that they can’t simply be told that there is no monster in the closet.

Or, by ordering the forces to keep an eye on the operation, Abbott is telling his citizens that their worries are warranted and that there’s a chance that their rights won’t remain protected. By doing so, Abbott is legitimizing the conspiracy theorists who are freaking the fuck out about a relatively normal military practice operation. That’s not so great either, because that tells me that the head of our second biggest state thinks there’s a chance, however infinitesimal, that the federal government could be coming to take over his state.

I don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on, I think we’re all a little too old for conspiracy theories and monsters in the closet. Too bad Governor Abbott doesn’t agree.

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 Governor Greg Abbott is Pandering to Conspiracy Theorists appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most hazardous locations for one’s lungs is Texas. A site of many refineries and factories, the state already presents itself as a major emitter; but its activity exceeds the second ranking states by a wide margin. For example, nitrogen oxide emissions from smoke stacks and vents surpass number two ranking Pennsylvania by more than 60 percent, and tonnage of volatile organic compounds eclipse number two Colorado by more than 44 percent. If this is not enough, many state officials are siding with the industries themselves in an attempt to combat the implementation of tighter emissions regulations. Their testimonies argue that toughening up the standards will be too expensive and not necessarily beneficial to public health.

This conflict extends far beyond the Lone Star State. The Supreme Court itself is locked in a debate as to what measures are necessary and how much they will cost. Dissenters argue that the Obama Administration’s latest initiatives via the Environmental Protection Agency do not contain a cost-benefit analysis. The argument leans on wording in the Clean Air Act, which stipulates that regulations be “appropriate and necessary.” But who has the right to unilaterally determine what is appropriate and necessary? A rough estimate at a “quantifiable” benefit estimates that 11,000 unnecessary deaths can be prevented each year. Calculations diverge as to the monetary expenses and savings; one concludes that $9.6 billion in expenses will result in $6 billion in savings, while another maintains that those same costs can result in up to $30-90 billion in savings. These numbers should not be the focus of the decision, though. If thousands of people might live on who would otherwise die, this should be justification enough to implement the necessary measures.

Henan Province, China. Courtesy of V.T. Polywoda via Flickr.

Ozone and air contamination are a widely pervasive problem; the lives that potentially could be saved are not just in urban areas. Gases and ozone emissions are not stagnant; many studies and measurements have found excessively high air contaminants in rural and wide-open areas such as the Colorado mountains and the Native American reservations in Utah. In addition to the problem of poor restrictions on emission, the standards as to what technically constitutes contamination or poor air quality are too lax. For this reason, non-emitting areas are facing health risks that are not legally deemed as such.

Air pollution is a perfectly remediable problem. In the early 1900s, the great steel city of Pittsburgh rivaled Victorian London for poor air quality. But a series of laws and regulations and more efficient use of fuel led the city to be declared one of the most livable by the 1980s; the characteristic smoke and pollution cleared away almost entirely. A more poignant example is Japan. A system of local governments responding to local concerns but acting seamlessly with national and international-level reform efforts enabled the country to curb pollution without derailing economic growth. In fact, considering the incentives to invest in research and new technologies, the formulation of new overseeing agencies and subsequent job creation, by 1980 air pollution control became a profitable industry itself!

This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of the debates in the Supreme Court right now; all the concerns about cost effectiveness and damage to industry and the economy are based on perceptions of the status quo. People seem to be under the impression that the objective is simply to cap emissions while maintaining all the other aspects of day-to-day life and commercial activity. Rather, as demonstrated by the multi-layered action of Japan, it is a complicated process that requires commitment by many parties, but ultimately a worthwhile one because it is clearly doable and benefits not just the health of the people but can be financially desirable, as well.

This past November, an interesting thing occurred in Beijing. In anticipation of the arrival of many world leaders for an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, the government mandated a six-day vacation for urban residents, which included traffic restrictions and the closure of factories in an attempt to clear the smog. It was a monumental success; in less than a week, what came to be labeled as “APEC Blue” dominated the skies. The striking effects of this action has galvanized progressive voices and demonstrated to the nation and world that there is a plethora of options from which we can draw that quite effectively address the problem.

Courtesy of Nicolo Lazzati via Flickr.

Air pollution is one of the most visible and widespread consequences of industrialization, rampant consumption, and natural resource use. It may not have as immediate or drastic consequences as some other environmentally related challenges, but it certainly is dangerous. Most importantly, there are so many things that we can do to address it, which may be surprisingly effective and rapid in doing so, while at the same time improving our own habits and ways of life.

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 Beijing Knows How to Curb Its Air Pollution, So Why Doesn’t Texas? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. For weeks, any other legitimate potential Democratic challengers have been backing away very quickly from a nomination consideration. Honestly, with the way this race is probably going to go we might as well just have the convention right now, because Hills is definitely sitting pretty.

So now we turn our eyes to the much more interesting and significantly less important race on the Democratic side–who will be Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee?

Given that everyone is still freaking out over her announcement, it’s probably best to let the dust settle before coming up with any concrete answer. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have some fun speculating in the meantime.

Speculation about who Clinton may pick includes a lot of mid-to-high-level players in the Democratic Party. Both sitting Virginia senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, might be legitimate choices, as they are from a crucial swing state. Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, and long considered a potential contender to fight Clinton for the nomination, could also make a strong partner.

Julian Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, could also be a tempting second in command. While Texas isn’t purple yet, it may be relatively soon, and capitalizing on that in advance could be a smart overall strategy for the Democratic Party. Castro is Hispanic, a voting bloc that has become a priority to win for both the Democrat and Republican tickets. Furthermore, Castro is 40 years old–30 years Clinton’s junior. In addition to balancing out her perspective, Castro will look young and virile standing next to Clinton, and assuage those who have concerns about her health.

There are also questions over whether Clinton would only limit the search to men. There are a lot of female rising stars in the Democratic Party, including Elizabeth Warren, the popular senator from Massachusetts. She has said she’s not planning on running, despite the fact that she’d presumably have quite a bit of grassroots support if she chose to. More liberal than Clinton in many ways, including on financial issues and ties to Wall Street, she could energize young liberals who are still hurting from the 2008 recession.

Also from the ranks of Democratic women there’s been talk of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N). That one seems like a long shot though, despite the fact that Gillibrand took over Clinton’s seat when she vacated it to become Secretary of State. She’s gone after some big, important issues in her time in the Senate, such as sexual assault in the military; however, in addition to the fact that Clinton and Gillibrand are seen as somewhat similar, there are concerns over whether a ticket with two people from the same state could even work. The 12th Amendment effectively prohibits that both the President and Vice President be from the same state, but exactly what that means is somewhat difficult to parse out. Clinton and Gillibrand both served as Senators from New York, but does that make them “from” the same state? That would be an issue that would have to be decided, but the idea that she chooses Gillibrand is unlikely to begin with. It could however, impact any other possible VPs from New York, including Governor Andrew Cuomo.

There are plenty of other names for consideration on this list. There’s also Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She was an attorney with a strong record on crime and safety before being elected to the Senate. Senator Cory Booker is another rising star, particularly after his much-respected time as mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick has been brought up, and even though he says he’s not interested, that was over a year ago, and he may change his mind.

No matter who Clinton picks, she’s got a solid list from which to choose. As the Republican Party contenders spend the next few months tearing each other down, she’s got time to groom a running mate and solidify her base.

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 Hillary’s In, But Who Will She Run With? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Despite the fact that it’s often grainy and shaky, citizen-generated footage has become a permanent fixture in our current media landscape. Armed with something as simple as a cellphone camera, people are always ready to capture anything at a moment’s notice. That was especially the case last July when New Yorkers recorded controversial video footage of Eric Garner‘s arrest which led to his death. However a new Texas bill could soon make close up videos like that illegal.

The bill, which was filed in the Texas House of Representatives this past Tuesday by Representative Jason Villalba (R), would make it a class B misdemeanor to photograph and film law enforcement within 25 feet of you. The bill would also make it illegal for citizens to photograph officers from within 100 feet while that citizen is carrying a handgun.

Here is a full copy of the proposed bill courtesy of PetaPixel.

According to the Washington Times, only radio or television stations that hold an FCC license, or newspapers that are published at least once a week, or magazines that appear “at a regular interval” and are “of interest to the general public” can legally record the police within the 25 feet range. The long list of “exceptions” listed in the bill provided comedic material for some:

A handy graphic to help folks understand their rights under @JasonVillalba‘s proposed #txlege #HB2918. CC: @Copwatch pic.twitter.com/5pgr0WwtnK

— Tony McDonald (@TweetTonyMac) March 13, 2015

Representative Villalba took to Twitter to explain and defend his bill in a series of tweets, stating its purpose is to help prevent interference with law enforcement, not to restrict the ability to keep them accountable.

@brettsanders My bill does no such thing. Just asks filmers to stand back a little so as not to interfere with law enforcement. — Jason Villalba (@JasonVillalba) March 12, 2015

HB 2918 is meant to protect officers, NOT restrict the ability to keep them accountable. It DOES NOT prohibit filming. @TMPALegislative — Jason Villalba (@JasonVillalba) March 12, 2015

@bdrileysaustin I have not restricted filming police. Merely asking folks to stand back a little to let the cops do their job. — Jason Villalba (@JasonVillalba) March 13, 2015

There may be some legal issues with the bill–in 2011 an appeals court deciding Glik v. Cunniffe ruled unanimously that private citizens are allowed to record police. What’s also interesting is the Washington Times pointed out that Texas already has legislation that makes it illegal if someone “interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law.” These facts make you wonder if Villalba’s law does have an alternative agenda.

Critics were quick to voice their opinions on the bill with most of them calling it unconstitutional, which it very well might be. Public photography is considered a form of expression and thus a form of speech–it’s protected under the First Amendment. But, the First Amendment is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions that make it acceptable in some situations for police to request photographers to move back for safety purposes. On the other hand, this bill may have little to do with keeping the peace and more to do with maintaining police peace of mind. While it may serve some useful purposes, I do predict its passing would be highly unlikely, especially at a time when the police are being heavily scrutinized by the American public.

Alexis Evans

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

The post Texas Bill Could Make Photographing Police a Crime appeared first on Law Street.

Common Core State Standards have been a matter of controversy for a few years now, garnering opposition from both sides of the aisle. Common Core in some ways saw its inception in the George W. Bush era and serves as a predecessor to the No Child Left Behind Act. But what exactly is Common Core, why was it launched, and what is the opposition? Read on to find out.

What is Common Core?

The Common Core State Standards “aim to raise student achievement by standardizing what’s taught in schools across the United States.” They include a particular focus on language arts and mathematics. The objective is to universally prepare students from Kindergarten to high school to be successful for entry-level college courses or to enter the workforce. It lays out what students should know and be able to do by the end of each specific grade. The standards are results driven, but the methods used to achieve the set results are chosen by local teachers and facilities.

The History Behind Common Core

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was first signed into law by President Bush in January 2002. The next decade was spent revising the law’s requirements and attempting to create more successful “adequate yearly progress” reports. However, people quickly realized that NCLB was in need of serious reform itself. In November 2007, state chiefs first brainstormed Common Core standards at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Annual Policy Forum. The following year, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA), CCSSO, and education nonprofit Achieve released Benchingmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education. In it they recommended the common standards. In April 2009, the NGA and CCSSO officially invited states to commit to the Common Core standards, and by June 49 states and territories announced commitments. After public feedback, a final draft was released in June 2010.

The NGA and CCSSO  led the development of the standards and actively advocated for their implementation. They also sought input from teachers, parents, school administrators, and various state leaders in “how the standards are taught, the curriculum developed, and the materials used to support teachers.” Implementation, however, is completely up to the states. Once a state adopts the Common Core standards, it is delegated to local teachers, principals, and superintendents to introduce the standards into school curriculum.

 Why was the Common Core program started?

It has long been a bipartisan view that the U.S. needs education reform. Common Core was started to allow high school graduates to be competitive in college, but also in “the rapidly changing American job market and the high tech, information-based global economy.” It is widely believed that U.S. students are falling behind their counterparts in other countries. Standardized tests in countries like China and Singapore have advanced well beyond the U.S. over the last few decades. Bill Gates, a heavy investor in the Common Core, advocated,

Our nation is one step closer to supporting effective teaching in every classroom, charting a path to college and careers for all students, and developing the tools to help all children stay motivated and engaged in their own education. The more states that adopt these college and career based standards, the closer we will be to sharing innovation across state borders and becoming more competitive as a country.

In Gate’s interview, he repeatedly noted that the standards are not based on curriculum. They are “solely” milestones for where the students should be at each grade level.

How much does Common Core cost?

The cost for implementing Common Core will vary from state to state, but will undoubtedly be expensive. Training teachers and buying new materials will take a substantial amount of money. In 2011, California estimated that replacing its current standardized tests with Common Core standards would cost taxpayers approximately $1.6 billion. In Texas, the estimate is upward of $3 billion dollars.

According to the Common Core Initiative however, the implementation will allow for states to eventually save on resources, materials, and “cross-state opportunities that come from sharing consistent standards.” The cost-benefit ratio should end favorably. As of 2014, 43 states, Washington D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands adopted the Common Core.

What are some characteristics of Common Core?

English and Language Arts

Generally, the standards call for “regular practice with complex texts and their academic language.” They demand a steady increase in complexity and progressive reading comprehension. There is to be an emphasis on academic vocabulary, focusing on meaning, nuances, and range. There isn’t a required reading list; however, categories of literature are required. Examples include classic myths, foundational U.S. documents, works of Shakespeare, and staples of American literature.

Students should know how to provide evidence from the text when forming analyses and arguments at different levels. The standards call for text-dependent questions on assessments as opposed to questions based on student experiences and/or opinions. The objective is for students to be able to effectively inform and persuade, and for these skills to become stronger as students move up in grade levels.

There is also a larger focus on nonfiction. For grades K-5, there is a 50/50 ratio between informational (history, social sciences, etc.) and literary texts. In grades six through 12 there is substantially increased attention to literary nonfiction.

Mathematics             

In mathematics, the standards call for a “greater focus on fewer topics.” The standards aim to narrow and deepen lessons on concepts, skills, and problemsolving depending on grade level. For example, K-2 will focus on addition and subtraction, while grades three through five will focus on multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions.

There is an overriding theme across grades of linking topics and thinking. A standard at any grade level is designed to build upon the standard of the previous grade and act as an extension. This consistently reinforces major topics, which are used to support grade-level word problems that need mathematical applications to solve.

Finally, the mathematics standards aim to pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skills and fluency, and application with equal force. The idea is to deepen the understanding of concepts as opposed to memorizing rules. If the building blocks of complex math concepts are completely understood by students, that will eliminate degrees of future difficulty. Speed and accuracy are both to held in high importance.

What are the arguments against Common Core?

The goals of the Common Core seem to have U.S. students’ best interests at heart. So why is there so much opposition? Here’s a look at some of main challenges.

National Standards

First, some argue that the name “Common Core State Standards” is misleading. Since they have been adopted by 43 states, they are truly national standards. Detractors worry that states didn’t necessarily adopt the Common Core by choice, but were strong-armed by conditions ascribed by federal Race to the Top grants and the No Child Left Behind programs. Prior to the implementation of Common Core, all 50 states–whether on board or not–adopted NCLB or revised standards under the threat of losing federal funding.

More of the Same

Many see the Common Core as round two of No Child Left Behind. NCLB failed in both “raising academic performance and narrowing gaps in opportunity and outcomes.” This propagated the notion that American schools need to be fixed. Test results from NCLB did not meet expectations. After the first ten years, more than 50 percent of the nation’s schools were categorized as failing. Many of these same schools never received the support or resources necessary to stand a chance. In the same respect, will all schools be supplied with the needed computers required to take the Common Core tests?

Too Curriculum Based 

There are also worries that Common Core has become more curriculum based than originally intended. In the video below, a seven-year public school teacher discusses why the Common Core is not good for kids and dictates curriculum. She argues, “when the standards are tested that’s what you are going to spend your time on…[there is] no room to teach anything else.”  Her job security is based on meeting the standards. As a result, she’s concerned that the standards must be taught 100 percent of the time, and don’t allow flexibility or creativity.

She continues to argue that the material is not condensed, using the 93 elements of the third grade reading standard as an example. Her largest problem with Common Core is its age appropriateness. Although she advocates pushing students, she doesn’t believe seven year olds should be expected to master the difference between an adjective and an adverb. She labels the standards as a  “race to the middle” with “mediocre teaching.” Using a uniform approach, the faster learners are bored, while the slower learners are under immense pressure.

There is plenty of concern on the length and difficulty of the assessments as well. In the first round of distribution of the Common Core tests in New York, students, parents, and teachers strongly voiced their concerns. Many students felt immense pressure and were scared of failing, and teachers complained about the atmosphere the tests created.

Opting Out

Some children have started to opt out of the tests, often with parental support. The “opt out movement” has grown in popularity–thousands of students nationwide have chosen this route. Opt-outs protest the Common Core standards and the overemphasis on testing in public schools. There is even a National United Opt Out group comprised of parents, educators, students, and social activists. The legality of opting out seems to be a gray area, varying from state to state. In an extreme case, the Illinois State Board of Education sent a letter stating students opting out would be breaking the law and teachers refusing to administer the test would face legal consequences.

There are a variety of other arguments as well. One other concern is that corporate businesses are behind the standards to create a marketplace for Common Core resources. Others argue that electives like music and art will be sidelined. Finally, many teachers and parents don’t approve of the “one-size fits all” approach to teaching children.

Conclusion

It’s hard to say what is in store for U.S. education reform. We do need a change, but is Common Core the right one? There aren’t any studies regarding Common Core’s success to fall back on. Only time will tell. There are convincing arguments on both sides. Ultimately, everyone involved wants the same thing: U.S. students to be as educated and prepared for the world as possible.

Resources

Primary

Common Core State Standards Initiative: About the Standards

CCSSO: National Governors Association and State Education Chiefs Launch Common State Academic Standards

U.S. Department of Education: No Child Left Behind

Additional

Washington Post: The Common Core’s Fundamental Trouble

EdWeek: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World Class Education

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting for Common Core

Truth in American Education: State Costs for Adopting and Implementing the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: Opt-Out Movement About More Then Test, Advocates Say

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting Against the Common Core

Why Science: A Historical Timeline of No Child Left Behind

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Common Core: A Solution to America’s Education Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

Lawsuits, crime, and drugs ruled the news last week and the most popular articles at Law Street were no exception. The #1 article of the week, from Anneliese Mahoney, detailed the suit over royalties earned by “50 Shades of Gray” won by a woman in Texas; #2, also from Mahoney, covers the explosive news out of Chicago that there is a secret ‘black site’ where Americans are held outside of the justice system; and #3, from Alexis Evans, is the story from Wesleyan University where nearly a dozen students were hospitalized in apparent Molly overdoses. ICYMI, here is the Best of the Week from Law Street.

#1 Texas Woman Wins Big “50 Shades of Grey” Royalties Lawsuit

It seems like one of the most popular topics of conversation these days is the movie version of the erotic novel sensation “Fifty Shades of Grey.” (Spoiler alert: It’s really bad. I went hoping to make fun of it and have a few laughs, and it was too awful to even laugh at.) But one woman may be laughing soon–laughing all the way to the bank, that is. An Arlington, Texas woman named Jennifer Lynn Pedroza just won a major “Fifty Shades” related lawsuit. Read full article here.

#2 Chicago “Black Site” Allegations Yet Another Example of Police Brutality

News of a secret detention facility in Chicago broke this week and it’s sparking horror and outrage across the country. This “black site,” revealed by the Guardian, is a nightmare image straight out of a post-apocalyptic movie. People are “arrested” and taken to this site, which is inside a warehouse in Chicago’s Homan Square. Then they are subjected to inhumane treatment. They aren’t afforded the rights that the U.S. Constitution promises all of us. Read full article here.

#3 Mass Molly Overdose Hospitalized 11 Wesleyan Students

Connecticut’s Wesleyan University was flooded with sirens Sunday night as almost a dozen students were rushed to hospitals after reportedly overdosing on the party drug commonly known as Molly, or MDMA. The exact number of alleged victims varies, with police reporting that 11 students were hospitalized for the drug, while Wesleyan University President Michael S. Roth reported the figure as ten students and two visitors in a letter sent to students Monday morning. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

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

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

Hey y’all!

One hundred fifty-four years ago this week, citizens across the great state of Texas voted by a wide margin to secede from the United States. This vote finalized the state’s intentions of joining the Confederacy in the Civil War. Of course, the state declared the Ordinance of Secession null and void five years later in 1866. But those five years are something that most proud Texans hold on to for dear life. There are even some people in the state who actually think it is something we should do again.

The group Republic of Texas held a Valentine’s Day meeting  that was raided by several different law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, the Brazos and Kerr County Sheriffs’ departments, the Texas District Attorney’s office, the Bryan Police Department, and my personal favorite, the Texas Rangers (the law enforcement group, not the baseball team). The meeting was held in Bryan, Texas, about 100 miles northwest of Houston.

I can just imagine Chuck Norris kicking down the doors of a meeting hall where this event took place and these guys getting a what’s what kind of talking to.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Apparently the Republic of Texas group actually believes that Texas was unlawfully annexed in 1845 and should be recognized again as an independent nation. Sure, maybe this seems like a normal day in Texas–Texans sitting around talking about “the good ol’ days” (when none of us was actually alive) and how Texas would do so much better as a country of its own than attached to the whole of the United States. It’s just nuts to think that there are people who are actively seeking legal ways to make this happen.

You must be wondering why this silly group of people was raided on the most romantic holiday of the year. Well, instead of tending to their sweethearts, the group decided it was the right time to “simulate legal process.” They sent a legal summons to a Kerr County judge and banker to appear before the group’s “court” over the foreclosure of a residence belonging to a member of the group.

Wait. What!?! What exactly does a foreclosure have to do with seceding from the union, or anything with the state of Texas? Absolutely nothing.

Kerr County Sheriff Rusty Hierholzer told the Houston Chronicle that this group has had many dealings with the County and City police, “flooding the court with simulated documents.” Also known as wasting the government’s time and killing trees for a lost cause.

Though I was born in Germany I am definitely a fifth-generation Houstonian and I take serious pride in all things Texas, but even I have a hard time truly believing that seceding from the union would be a good idea. Sure, Texas is the greatest state in the country, but I don’t think it would be as great without the rest of the states and the federal government.

Let’s keep talking and dreaming about seceding, but let’s not actually do it. That would just be foolish. Plus, we usually have a Texan in the White House every couple of Presidents, anyway.

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 Texans Trying to Secede…Again appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like one of the most popular topics of conversation these days is the movie version of the erotic novel sensation “Fifty Shades of Grey.” (Spoiler alert: It’s really bad. I went hoping to make fun of it and have a few laughs, and it was too awful to even laugh at.) But one woman may be laughing soon–laughing all the way to the bank, that is. An Arlington, Texas woman named Jennifer Lynn Pedroza just won a major “Fifty Shades” related lawsuit.

Pedroza used to work with a business partner named Amanda Hayward who’s based out of Australia. They worked together at “The Writers Coffee Shop,” which publishes e-books. “Fifty Shades” was actually first published as an e-book and a print-on-demand book by The Writers Coffee Shop after it gained fame as an online fan fiction written by British author E.L. James. The rights were eventually sold to Random House.

Pedroza, one of the original founders of The Writers Coffee Shop, claims that Hayward took steps to restructure their partnership for supposed “tax reasons.” In doing so, Pedroza was no longer in a position to receive the royalties from the books and resulting movie(s). Pedroza claims that Hayward tricked her into signing the paperwork. While Pedroza did receive some money when the rights to the book were first sold to Random House, she didn’t receive any royalties that come from the book and its subsequent endeavors.

Given that the book has sold more than 100 million copies worldwide and the movie had an $81.7 million opening weekend, that’s the potential for a lot of royalties.

The suit claims:

Hayward signed a contract on behalf of the Coffee Shop with Random House for the rights to the ‘Fifty Shades’ trilogy in exchange for millions in advances and future royalties but, because of her chicanery, all payments flowed to her and not the partnership.

Pedroza originally filed the lawsuit in a Tarrant County court in Texas, and after a nine-day trial and three days of deliberations, the jury found in her favor. They made their determination on Thursday.

Pedroza appears to have asked for one million dollars in the court documents, but it will be up to a judge to decide how much she’ll actually be awarded. It’s going to be in the hands of State District Judge Susan McCoy. She’ll make that determination based on financial records of the sales. Although those records aren’t open to the public, it was estimated that her share could have been anywhere from $10-20 million. Mike Farris, Pedroza’s attorney, said that it will be in the seven figures.

Originally, there was a third woman involved in the lawsuit named Christa Beebe, who also partnered with Pedroza and Hayward. She, however, settled her lawsuit in December under confidential terms.

While it’s yet to be determined how much Pedroza will end up profiting, it’s safe to say that she came out on top. While no one knew that “50 Shades” would be such a success, the people who made it happen obviously all deserve a piece of the pie.

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 Texas Woman Wins Big “Fifty Shades of Grey” Royalties Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I’ve talked about immigration a lot in the past, it’s a pretty big issue here in Texas. On Monday, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville prohibited the Obama Administration from carrying out immigration programs announced in November 2014. These programs would allow protection from deportation and give work permits to nearly five million undocumented immigrants. One of those many programs was supposed to start today, but that’s not happening now.

Hanen found that the state of Texas, as well as the 25 other states that had filed against this initiative, had satisfied the minimum legal requirement to bring the lawsuit, stating that the Obama Administration failed to comply with the basic procedures required in order to put the program into effect.

Of course, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated that the administration was “within the bounds of the law” and implied that it would be appealing the decision. Any appeal in this case filed by President Obama would be handled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott stated that “Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the President’s overreach in its tracks.”

All of the states that oppose this measure argue that President Obama has very clearly violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which limits the scope of presidential power. Only time will tell what will happen next, though one thing’s for sure: it will be a long, drawn-out process but it’ll be fun to see how things turn out.

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 Texas Federal Judge Halts Obama’s Immigration Plans appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I am an avid social media user. I love all things social media but I have yet to cross the line into obsessively taking selfies and sending them off to anyone, let alone posting them all over the Internet. In today’s world it is almost impossible to find someone who has not taken one selfie and sent it to at least one other person. But one teen not only crossed the line in selfie etiquette, he showed how much he doesn’t value life.

Maxwell Morton, 16, faces first-degree murder charges, in addition to charges of criminal homicide and possession of a weapon by a minor, after shooting Ryan Mangan, who was also 16, last Wednesday.

A funeral was held for Mangan on Monday in a small town just outside of Pittsburgh.

Morton was dumb enough to photograph what he had done and then used the popular social media app SnapChat to send it to another boy. SnapChat allows the user to send a multi-media message that disappears within a few seconds once the recipient opens it. Thankfully the young man that Morton sent the image to was smart enough to save the image, show his mom, and then contact the police.

Morton also had taken a photo of himself with the 9 mm pistol that was used in the shooting, which was later found on the camera roll on his phone.

The amount of disregard for human life that Morton has is just sickening, and the fact that more and more social media is used for this kind of thing makes me want to delete all my apps and go back to an old school flip phone that would only allow you to make calls or send text messages..

Morton is being charged as an adult and could face up to life in prison. Life in prison. I think he deserves the death penalty. Something that the state of Pennsylvania does in fact still have in effect. Pennsylvania ranks 26 in executions for the past five years.

I have to wonder where this kids parents were, why he wanted to kill Mangan and where did he get the gun? Only time will tell.

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 Teen Murder Suspect Takes Selfie With Victim appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a new Texas state representative named Molly White. She’s a Republican, represents District 55 in Central Texas, and is a huge bigot.

Why is she a huge bigot? Well, this is a Facebook post from her page a few days ago on Muslim Capitol Day in Texas.

Freshman Rep. Molly White welcomes you to Texas. But not *you.* https://t.co/BHtVRiuKbVpic.twitter.com/CblzqTaRq5

— Scott Bixby (@scottbix) January 29, 2015

There are so, so many things wrong with that post. First of all, White is a representative of the U.S. government. Here in the United States, we have something called “Freedom of Religion.” Obviously White isn’t trying to make a law that prohibits the free practice of religion or anything overtly illegal, but I think we can all agree that this pretty fundamentally stands against the expressed values of the nation she purports to represent. Freedom of Religion is just that. Not “Freedom of Religion only if I like your religion.” Or “Freedom of Religion if you do what I say.” Or “Freedom of Religion only if you prove it.”

White apparently has never imagined how demeaning it would be to prove her “loyalty” to the United States just because she’s in the minority. This myth, conspiracy theory, and thought of pure lunacy that Islam is synonymous with terrorism needs to end. Right Now. As does this habit of asking Muslims to denounce the actions of terrorist groups. It’s demeaning on so many levels, beginning with the fact that it takes almost one quarter of the world’s population and boils every single, diverse, individual member of a major religion down to no more than their religious beliefs. And not only that, it assumes that a quarter of the world’s population supports horrible violent actions in the name of said religion. That’s just insane. That would be like asking all Christians to condemn Timothy McVeigh (the man responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings), or Wade Michael Page (the man responsible for the Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting), or Jared Lee Loughner (the man who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, as well as others).

White’s post also makes an odd, seemingly random mention of the Israeli flag. Seriously? Does she think that Israeli flags are what, kryptonite to Muslims? Is that some weird superstition I’ve never heard of? Does she think that it’s like vampires with garlic? Seriously, Ms. White, what the hell does that even mean?

I don’t even think that White is a bad person. She’s behaving the way that she truly believes is right. She genuinely thinks these horrible things, borne out of misinformation and fear. In some ways that’s worse–I truly don’t think she believes what she did was wrong.

What sparked this disgusting display of bigotry? According to the Texas Tribune:

Texas Muslim Capitol Day, which began in 2003, is organized by the Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and brings members of Muslim communities in Houston, Dallas and other areas of the state to the Capitol to learn about the political process and meet state lawmakers.

Sounds nefarious, truly. So nefarious that White wasn’t the only one who flexed her offensive muscles that day. The day was met with protests, shouts of “go home,” and harassment.

Anti-Islam protesters at Texas Muslim Capitol Day screaming “go home!” and “Mohammad is dead!” #txlegepic.twitter.com/SqF27tK1O1

— Lauren McGaughy (@lmcgaughy) January 29, 2015

There are so many more things that I could say about this. So many times that I could lament the rampant bigotry, Islamophobia, prejudice, and miseducation in this country. So many times I could be sad, so many times I could be angry, so many times I could get into this argument. But I’m going to go one step further. As a white American woman who was raised a Christian, I’m going to go ahead ad renounce State Rep. Molly White and all who think like her, and pledge my allegiance to America and our laws. After all, she and I share some thoughts, so unless I renounce her, everyone will assume that I support her disgusting behavior, right?

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 Everything’s Bigger in Texas: Even Islamophobia appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

As I’ve mentioned before, I just took the LSAT and have started the process of applying to law school. One of my top choices is South Texas College of Law, which is located in Downtown Houston and has a great reputation. While researching law schools I came across an interesting–and to be honest shocking–new addition at South Texas. The school recently started the region’s first Oil & Gas Law Institute. The shocking part is that such an institute didn’t already exist, considering how big the oil and gas industry is here and how badly it always needs lawyers.

Houston is the capital of the oil and gas business. Everywhere I turn there is another oil and gas company or a company that has some kind of association to that industry; Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, Technip, Worley Parsons, and Mustang Engineering are all here. These six companies are within a two-mile radius of my house and there is no escaping them. I’ve also considered a law career in the oil and gas sector; it makes sense being a native Houstonian with plans to stick around here for a while longer.

Establishing this Oil & Gas Law Institute will allow South Texas to respond to the more specific needs of the energy industry by which its surrounded and promote better education and training for students interested in working in that sector.

The idea is that this Institute will mostly concentrate on creating applied petroleum-related transactional, regulatory, and title practice skills. Christopher Kulander, a visiting associate professor at South Texas, has been appointed the Institute’s, and he has quite the resume; he taught oil and gas law for three years at Texas Tech University (wreck’em!), is a legal writer, is used as an expert witness, and frequently gives presentations about the oil and gas industry, not to mention he is also Of Counsel at Haynes and Boone, LLP.

Kulander states that one of his “main goals is to make the third year in law school much more specialty-focused and practice responsive” for those interested in going into this particular field. The Institute also plans to place advanced students in the legal departments of Houston oil and gas companies, a great way to get in the door of these corporations, which is no easy feat. There are also hopes to expand the areas of study in the Oil & Gas Law Institute with courses focusing on international petroleum transactions, midstream and downstream oil and gas activities, as well as other sources of energy.

This is a small step into a massive industry that definitely needs lawyers on its side.

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 South Texas College of Law School Opening Oil and Gas Law Institute appeared first on Law Street.

Texas. Home to the Bush family, the South by Southwest music festival, big trucks, Tex Mex, and some of the dumbest laws in the South. Knowing the conservative tendencies typical of the large southern state, it should hardly be surprising that homosexual behavior there was once a misdemeanor offense. The Supreme Court overturned this law in 2003, however.

Also reflecting the state’s conservative nature is the law banning the promotion of dildos or owning more than six of them. Technically, the law bans obscene devices, which it defined as “a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.”

Reflecting a previous post on dumb laws in Nevada, urinating on the streets is illegal in El Paso. Really gotta pee there? Best to sneak into McDonald’s and pretend to be a paying customer.

Not in the El Paso streets, Tom Hanks!

It is also prohibited to appear in public places wearing lewd dress. Specifically, the “lewd dress law” states that, among other things, “no person shall exhibit or expose himself naked, or disguised, or in any indecent or offensive manner to any person.”

Looking to sell your eye or other organs in Texas? Sorry, you’ll have to take your body-part sales aspirations elsewhere, as doing so is illegal there.

Agnostics or Atheists looking to hold public office in Texas may have trouble since you are legally required to acknowledge the existence of a higher being before taking office. Though, I guess they could lie and say they believe in a higher power.

In Austin, wire cutters cannot be carried in one’s pockets. This law seems perfectly reasonable to me, however; imagine how many accidents have been and will be prevented by such a measure, especially for men.

Speaking of conservative laws, New Mexico has many of them on the books, especially concerning nudity. There, nudity is legal under two conditions: first, male genitals must be covered, and second, women must have their nipples covered.

I’m not sure exactly the criteria used to determine whether or not one is an idiot, but in New Mexico, they are prevented from voting. Perhaps it is some sort of I.Q. test. Maybe they should just take it one step further and say that only geniuses may vote. In fact, not only idiots but also “insane persons and persons convicted of a felonious or infamous crime unless restored to political rights” are prevented from voting.

Deming, New Mexico must have had some strange issues in the past because it saw the need to specifically ban spitting on the steps of an opera house. Or, the community just really, truly values the operatic arts and doesn’t want a building relating to them defiled by nasty saliva. In the same city, they made a law prohibiting hunting in Mountain View Cemetery. I don’t even WANT to know what happened to provoke that one.

Marisa Mostek

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

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Texas and New Mexico appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I have always been partial to the ‘Don’t Mess With Texas’ slogan; it gives a good heads up to anyone who wants to break the law or cause a ruckus in this great state! Osiel Cárdenas Jr., however, apparently did not get that memo.

Osiel Jr., son of former drug lord Osiel Cardenas Guillen, was reportedly arrested by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents after they discovered nearly 500 rounds of ammunition and tactical weapons gear hidden in different parts of his sweet Cadillac Escalade SUV. Junior was attempting to cross a bridge going over the Rio Grande that connects South Texas to Mexico but got caught. He admitted to the items being his and to knowing that it was illegal to smuggle them into Mexico. What a winner–his dad must be so proud.

The inspection of the Cadillac Escalade SUV uncovered 290 rounds of 9mm ammunition, 161 rounds of .223 caliber ammunition, 29 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition, two .223 rifle magazines, and other tactical weapons gear hidden in various parts of the car that included the glove box, center console, and a factory compartment behind the stereo buttons. A pat down of Osiel Jr. also brought to light 14.2 grams of marijuana hanging out in his underwear. That’s a strange place to keep your pot but hey, to each his own.

Osiel Cárdenas Jr. is scheduled for a hearing at a detention center tomorrow. The realities of smuggling across the border are real. If that is going into Mexico I can only wonder what is being brought into the states that we know nothing about. Border Patrol is a vital part of keeping this country safe and a lot of that comes through Texas.

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 Son of Drug Kingpin Busted for Smuggling Weapons, Drugs at Border appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 midterm elections weren’t the only reason to pay attention to political news this year. Keep scrolling to check Law Street’s top 10 political stories of 2014.

1. BridgeGate: 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal

This winter, revelations about Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in the shutting down of the George Washington Bridge came to light. The whole scandal raised a lot of questions about Christie’s ability to be a contender on the national stage, quite possibly as the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. Whether or not Christie chooses to run, there will be a lot of eyes on his handling of “Bridgegate.”

2. Marijuana Legalization: Let’s Be Blunt 

The states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and the sale and use started moving into the public sphere earlier this year. However, given that Colorado and Washington were the first two states to do so, many were left with questions about how exactly the legalization worked, what affects it could have on society, and how the Washington and Colorado laws would interact with federal law.

3. Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians?

Drones have evolved from being a futuristic fantasy to real part of American military strategy. However, like any new innovation, the legality is developed after the technology itself. In early 2014, the Obama Administration’s drone strike policies were a hot topic of conversation, especially after the disclosures regarding a December 2013 strike in Yemen.

4. Hobby Lobby: They Want to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage

Image courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Another hot political topic in 2014 was the Supreme Court case that’s widely become known as Hobby Lobby. It questioned whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) required employers to provide contraception for their employees, regardless of the company’s religious beliefs. Concerns about the case extended far beyond whether or not those particular employees would get contraceptive coverage, as it could have set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of discriminatory policies.

5. Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks

Image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

The much maligned Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) finally went into effect this year, with the first open enrollment period. The act provided healthcare for many who previously didn’t have it, but that doesn’t mean that it was anywhere close to perfect. Partisan bickering over the law remained steady, but the Affordable Care Act can certainly be considered a step in the right direction.

6. Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

This summer, the arrival of undocumented youth at the Texas border sparked political debates, some outrage, and acts of compassion. One of the biggest advocates for these young people was a man named Jose Vargas, a prominent undocumented immigrant who works as a journalist and advocate. When Vargas traveled to McAllen, Texas, one of the towns most heavily affected by the arrival of the children, he was briefly detained and then released–cementing his status as one of the lucky few.

7. Debating Minimum Wage in America

As the cost of living in the United States continues to creep upward, and the American economy rebounds from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, many people still struggle to meet ends meet. Minimum wage jobs are an important sector of our economy–but what exactly do we mean when we say minimum wage? It’s an important political question that has yet to find an exact answer.

8. “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California

For some time, the “gay panic” defense served as a way to claim a sort of self-defense in regards to hate crimes. While it doesn’t have a strong track record of actually succeeding, there were no laws specifically forbidding it. This fall, California became the first state to actually ban the “gay panic” defense, an important step in the fight against homophobia.

9. Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

In the wake of Citizens United and other landmark court decisions, our rules about campaign finance have seen some extreme changes in the last few years. These changes will have a huge impact on the 2016 Presidential elections, and pretty much every election moving forward, unless more changes happen. Given the topsy-turvy world that is the debate over campaign finance, anything is possible.

10. Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House

We’ve all barely recovered from 2012, not to mention this year’s midterms, but speculation about 2016 has, predictably, already begun. Probably the Democratic front-runner at this point, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support. There are many reasons to get on the Hills bandwagon–including feminism, foreign policy, and her awesome facial expressions.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Political Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

When most people think of Texas one of the first things they associate with this great state is guns–and they would be correct. Texans love their guns! And now lawmakers in the Lonestar state are considering expanding our gun rights.

According to Fox News, Governor-elect Greg Abbott was very open about this the day after his election in November: “If open carry is good enough for Massachusetts, it’s good enough for the state of Texas,.”

Texas has had an open carry ban since the 1870s and I think it might be time to reevaluate those laws. The whole purpose of the original ban of carrying handguns was “when the carpet-bagger government was very anxious about former Confederates and recently freed slaves carrying firearms.”

There are now about 810,000 registered concealed handgun license holders in the state. That is the entire population of San Francisco.

Despite the early momentum of this idea, there are no guarantees open carry will even pass. Bills to allow concealed handguns on college campuses appeared to have huge support in 2009, 2011, and 2013, but they didn’t go anywhere due to objections from universities and law enforcement.

There are plenty of Texans who have their concealed handgun license, so we already know that at least those people are carrying guns. Why not let them show that they are carrying the gun instead of hiding it from all to see? Some people get a certain level of comfort from knowing that they could protect themselves if need be.

I do understand the objections of universities allowing handguns on campus. There haven’t been many shootings on campuses in Texas; but one notorious shooting could keep most universities on edge. Back in 1966, Charles Whitman climbed to the top of the University of Texas Tower with three rifles, two pistols, and a sawed-off shotgun. This guy was an ex-Marine and an architectural engineering major at UT who had already murdered his mother and wife before going to the UT Tower and continuing his killing spree. He had perfect aim at the five-block radius below to kill whomever he wanted. It took 96 minutes to take Whitman down, but 43 people were shot and 13 of them died. That is one chilling tale and enough to have anyone want to oppose an open carry law. However, Charles Whitman was a very sick man and there have been steps taken to prevent something like that from happening again.

Texas has the most federal firearms license holders in the country. The state allows public displays of long guns, such as rifles and shotguns. Concealed handguns are allowed inside the Capitol, where license holders can bypass metal detectors. And yet Texas still insists that handguns be concealed.

According to Fox News, most of the country already allows some form of open carry of handguns but Texas, California, Florida, New York, Illinois, and South Carolina–which make up more than a third of the U.S. population–do not.

A majority of the open carry bills already filed for the upcoming session would still require a license. One, by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, would eliminate the licensing requirement for concealed or open carry. This is something I don’t agree with. If you are going to openly carry a gun around then you need to have a license. You need to have something that says you understand how to use the gun, what the gun laws are, and what kind of power a gun has.

Texans love their guns. I was raised on how to use them but also how to respect them. It is a culture down here in the South. By all means allow us to show that we have a gun but still make sure that those who carry have the same knowledge and respect for those guns.

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 Texas Considering Open Carry of Handguns appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has agreed to look at an interesting First Amendment question–can those silly vanity license plates that a lot of people have be considered protected free speech? SCOTUS will hear Walker vs. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc in the spring.

The case came from Texas, where an organization called the Sons of Confederate Veterans requested a specialty plate. The license plate included a Confederate flag, as well as text of the group’s name. The Texas DMV considered the request, and eventually decided to reject it because:

A significant portion of the public associate the Confederate flag with organizations advocating expressions of hate directed toward people or groups that is demeaning to those people or groups.

There are two questions here–are license plates a form of free speech? And if so, whose free speech?

The reason those two questions are both so tantamount is because if license plates are a form of free speech, but that speech is the state’s, the state can reject an offensive license plate request because it doesn’t want to be portrayed that way. However, if the license plates can be considered the free speech of the people who are displaying them on their cars, it’s a different matter altogether.

There’s some precedent to suggest that license plates are government speech, not citizens’. After all, a DMV can choose to reject a license plate request if it’s lewd or inappropriate. That being said, there’s some precedent to show the opposite is true as well. In 1976, there was a Supreme Court case called Wooley v. Maynard. If you’ve ever seen a New Hampshire license plate, it prominently features the state’s motto: “Live Free or Die,” a throwback to Revolutionary War times. A man named George Maynard, who was a Jehovah’s Witness, objected to being required to display the motto because it stood contrary to his religious beliefs. He obscured it, despite the fact that was against the law. The case was appealed all the way to SCOTUS, who ruled that New Hampshire couldn’t require citizens to display the motto if it stood contrary to their beliefs.

There’s another case this year dealing with free speech and license plates that’s sort of intertwined. It’s called Berger v. ACLU and it originated in North Carolina. It regarded whether or not North Carolina could issue “Choose Life” license plates, as requested by a pro-life group, without similarly offering a comparable pro-choice plate. That was where the case was left, and while the Supreme Court took no action on it right now, it may be decided along with the Texas case. Either way, whatever the Supreme Court decides could have a big impact on those vanity plates we all see so often–and not necessarily in a good way.

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 Is Your Vanity Plate a Form of Free Speech? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Last week Rachel Craig, 28, from Waynesboro, Virginia was convicted under the state’s new revenge porn law. She faces up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The revenge porn law went into effect in July and it criminalizes posting nude pictures of someone on the Internet without the individual’s consent. Craig was said to have been in an argument with her former boyfriend when she allegedly stole a picture of his current girlfriend from his phone and posted it on Facebook. Craig even took full credit for the act and warned the victim “not to mess with her” according to Sgt. Brian Edwards of the Waynesboro, Virginia Police Department.

Okay. I’m sorry. What!?! I have so many questions. First of all, if he is your former boyfriend why are you still even communicating with him? Secondly, what was she doing with his phone at all? Third, don’t you think at 28 you would be mature enough to not take this to Facebook? I don’t get it. I don’t get the blatant disregard for an innocent bystander and the maturity level of this woman. I also kind of wish there was a stupid clause tacked on to the law to give this girl an extra six months to sit in solitude and think about how dumb this whole situation is. Craig might go to jail and have to fork over $2,500 for something petty that could have been avoided if she just stopped and thought about what was the real issue and not harming an innocent bystander.

Two months ago another woman in Virginia — Crystal Cherry — was also charged with revenge porn because she posted nude photos of her boyfriend’s former girlfriend on Instagram and Twitter just days after the new law went into effect. Again, another one of these women who is dumb enough to take to social media and create issues that could be avoided at all costs if she could just handle her problems like an adult.

I like this law. The only thing that concerns me is that if this is a first-time offense, both Crystal and Rachel will probably not do any time and will just pay the fee. I know prisons are crowded and our tax dollars are hard at work with sustaining life for idiots who like to break the law, but maybe there should be something a little bit more that we could do. Maybe a class on how to not be so stupid? Or teach kids the proper way to use social media?

I like Facebook and Instagram and I admittedly have a serious love of Twitter, but I don’t need to know everything that you are doing. I don’t need to read about your daily drama. And I definitely don’t want to see you posting nude photos of another woman just because you’re mad at some dude who probably won’t matter to you in five years. Craig and Cherry get to be reminded of that every day now for the rest of their lives when they have to include their misdemeanor convictions on any application they fill out.

This month Jennifer Lawrence is on the cover of Vanity Fair and in her interview she mentions the celebrity nude hacking scandal that she was a part of. J-Law called it a “sex crime not a scandal,” and I tend to agree with her. Not only did this hacker violate someone’s privacy but also committed a cyber crime. Hundreds of celebrities’ nude photos were splashed across the internet, violating their privacy. Some people say that when you choose the life of a celebrity you choose to give up your privacy, but I completely disagree. Celebrities are still people. But I will criticize anyone who is dumb enough to take nude photos and save them anywhere. iCloud is not secure. Your computer is not secure. There is always someone trying to hack into something that will violate you in some way and they may just be doing it for the fun or just because they can.

Even some idiot Pasadena, Texas school teacher gave nude photos to a student she was having an affair with who ultimately ended up sharing them with others. Ashley Zehnder, 24, had reported that nude photos of her were being shared throughout the school where she taught. An investigation revealed that she was sleeping with a student who shared them. Will anything happen to the student who was having the affair and sharing the nude photos? Probably not. But Zehnder lost her job, will go to jail, and will probably have to register as a sex offender. Can we say Mary Kay Letourneau?

I think that there is a lesson in all of this. People need to be more cautious about what they are doing and where it is being saved. Craig and Cherry’s victims are on the same side as Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities. The only difference is Craig and Cherry got caught. Zehnder is the predator and the victim. Her private nude photos were shared with an entire school but she also preyed on a student.

Word to the wise: if you are going to take nude photos use a Polaroid and burn them when you are done if you don’t want them to be shared. Or better yet, just don’t take them. Have a little modesty and respect for yourself. If you want to share being nude do it in person where the only other person looking at you can only use their memory, not a hard copy that could be sent out to the world.

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 PSA: Nude Photos Will Send You to Jail appeared first on Law Street.

Mankind’s greatest enemy is not war or hunger but infectious disease. Throughout history it has cost countless deaths, and even in the twenty-first century our defenses against it remain limited. Above all, it is the threat of outbreak that unsettles us so; it is not just suffering and death, but fear. Whether it’s the Black Plague, Cholera, Spanish Influenza, H1N1, or Ebola, disease is a dark cloud looming over our lives.

Most of the microscopic killers with which we contend have been transmitted to us through animals. In the early ages of settled agriculture, close contact with domesticated chickens, pigs, cows, and others exposed humans to pathogens to which their immune systems had no previous exposure and consequently minimal means by which to combat them. There are two primary behavioral patterns of diseases. Some ascribe to the category of “chronic.” In this case, as geographer and ornithologist Jared Diamond explains, “…the disease may take a very long time to kill its victim; the victim remains alive as a reservoir of microbes to infect other[s]…” The other category is “epidemic.” In this case, Diamond continues, there might be no cases for a while, followed by a large number in an affected area, and then none for a while more. Such behavior is a consequence of the intensity of the disease’s manifestation; it strikes with such force that it basically burns itself out because the potential hosts all either die or become immune.

“Epidemic” is a widely feared term. Rather than consider the fact that they can and have been occurring on very small scales throughout human history, many people associate epidemic with things like the Black Plague in Europe, Smallpox in the New World, or a global zombie apocalypse. Since people naturally fear most what they do not understand, insufficient knowledge of disease vectors and behavior results in widespread fear and panic.

Ebola is a relatively late arrival on the scene. Originally suspected to be yellow fever, it was discovered in 1976 near the Ebola River in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Samples extracted from an ill nun who had been working in the region came to doctors and scientists in an Antwerp, Belgium laboratory. They eventually discerned that the infection behaved differently from what would be expected of the original diagnosis. After sending samples to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, their conclusions were confirmed and a new disease had been discovered. Shortly thereafter, another outbreak occurred relatively far away in Sudan. While knowledge of the initial source and starting location of the disease is still vague, it was determined that it had spread via unsterilized syringes and contact with bodies during funerals. Therefore a lack of knowledge of the nature of the disease lent itself to its spread.

Ebola in large dropped off the radar screen until the recent epidemic began in West Africa. Going hand in hand with lack of knowledge of the disease are incomprehensive and underdeveloped means of addressing it. On a recent edition of Global Public Square, the insightful international news show hosted by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, international relations PhD Chelsea Clinton declared that the disease is spreading exponentially, necessitating exponential containment measures. This is very difficult to achieve, due to the poor technological and economic infrastructures of the region. As Dr. Paul Farmer — another guest on Zakaria’s show — expanded, the Liberian healthcare system is also very weak. Liberian Foreign Minister Augustine Ngafuan detailed how Liberians have deeply ingrained burial practices that involve close contact with bodies; this is an important aspect of cultural values in the region and not easily relinquished in the face of something that foreign experts, much less locals, barely understand.

A Liberian village, courtesy of jbdodane via Flickr.

Globalization and increased interconnectedness between individuals, societies, and locations has exacerbated the rate at which diseases spread. Many Americans cried out when infected aid workers were brought home to be treated. Appropriate measures were taken in this instance, with sanitary transportation vehicles bringing the patients to the Emory hospital in Georgia. Due to its affiliation with the CDC, this is one of the few facilities truly equipped to accommodate infectious diseases of this nature. Both those patients recovered, though they would likely have died if they were forced to remain in Africa. The situation was handled intelligently and effectively, without resounding negative consequences. Yet the outcry and fear demonstrates people’s lack of knowledge and tolerance of the unknown and perceived dangers. This was in fact the first occasion in which Ebola was present on American soil.

The situation changed with the death of Thomas Duncan. Having arrived from Liberia in late September, Duncan provided a new first by being the first patient diagnosed with Ebola in the United States. His illness was unknown during his transit, and so new fears arose as to the likelihood of Ebola crossing the ocean with traveler hosts. Now in a complete state of fear, Americans want more and more action taken in defense of the nation’s health, yet do not know what those measures ought to be because we do not know enough about the disease. Many airports have begun taking travelers’ temperatures. The CDC initially cited 101.4 degrees as the point at which one must be quarantined, but lowered it after some supposedly ill people were cleared. This demonstrates the uncertainty of the disease’s nature; in what ways does Ebola affect a person’s body temperature? At what point in their illness are they contagious? Is a body temperature an effective indicator of this? These questions have yet to be answered for the disease of whose existence we have known for less than 40 years.

Specialists clean up a Hazmat area, courtesy of sandcastlematt via Flickr.

The second set of problems that are causing fear are the alleged breaches of protocol that have enabled several other people to catch the disease in the United States. The Dallas hospital in which Duncan died was not equipped to handle this disease and consequently could not treat him effectively. Furthermore, the staff did not have the proper training insofar as interacting with Ebola, and this has been cited as the reason why nurse Nina Pham, who was treating him, became ill as well. A recent video surfaced wherein a patient is being transferred from one vehicle to another by four workers in “hazmat,” or hazardous material, uniforms. A fifth person, dubbed “clipboard man,” stands with them completely unprotected. Finally, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden has come under fire for making statements and then retracting them. Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Tom Marino has even called for him to step down. We have quickly forgotten, though, that in the early 1990s Frieden was instrumental in developing awareness and programs to combat a rising Tuberculosis epidemic in New York City. In addition to other stellar career highlights, Frieden is a highly capable leader experienced in engaging these concerns.

We are too wrapped up in fear of the unknown to do anything but demand immediate results. Ebola is a newcomer on the scene and will take some time to understand effectively. As we continue to discern our relationships with our surrounding environments, we do know that ebola is not nearly as contagious as other diseases. It requires direct contact with bodily fluids of infected patients. As we continue to learn how it works, and how our actions, societies, and cultures interact with it, we will become more effective at addressing it. In the meantime, we annually face airborne foes which are far more dangerous and contagious; do not forget to get your flu shot in the coming weeks.

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 Ebola and America’s Fears appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I try not to spend a whole lot of time paying attention to the local news in Houston because it’s usually about someone getting killed or the meteorologist getting the weather wrong yet again. But I noticed a tweet from my local outlet about Houston’s mayor Annise Parker doing something crazy. That something crazy is subpoenaing pastors over their sermons.

I will be 100 percent honest and let you know that I am not fond of Mayor Parker. She drives me insane. Not because she is a Democrat or a lesbian but because her ideals of how to run this city are just bananas! (Sidenote: I do really hate how every news outlet constantly identifies Mayor Parker as the “first openly lesbian mayor of a major city.” I mean this with all do respect, but who gives a crap at this point!? She’s been mayor of Houston for four years — time to let that go. This is why we can never be seen as more than our gender and sexuality. Stop identifying people by these two labels — she is MAYOR ANNISE PARKER! What does her sexual preference have to do with running this city? Absolutely nothing! Off my soap box.)

The city’s Equal Rights Ordinance was voted on back in May and is now being challenged for various reasons. The ordinance included a “bathroom” clause that was eventually dropped, which regulated which bathrooms a transgender person could use. Over the summer, opponents of the ordinance delivered 50,000 signatures for repeal— nearly triple the minimum necessary number of 17,269. In this case, good ol’ Mayor Parker — champion of the ordinance — has decided to take away the First Amendment rights of pastors in Houston by subpoenaing the sermons and other communications of pastors who opposed the ordinance and collected signatures in church.

The subpoenas sought “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO (Houston Equal Rights Ordinance), the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession,” according to the Houston Chronicle.

Churches and pastors are specifically protected in their speech and religious practice under the First Amendment. So why does Mayor Parker and her cronies think it was okay to subpoena their sermons? Let’s just start to chip away at the constitution a little bit at a time until we have no more rights. Who needs rights or to be protected by the law anyway?

I certainly do love how Mayor Parker and City Attorney Dave Feldman have started to back track on everything since the subpoenas were issued on Monday; they are now claiming that they have realized that the subpoenas were too broad. Too broad? You basically want to see everything that is being said about you and stripping away the rights of fellow Houstonians. It’s like the popular girl in high school finding out someone doesn’t agree with her and then demanding to find out everything that is being said behind her back. Grow up! Not even two days after the subpoenas were issued Mr. Feldman received criticism from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott stating that the subpoenas needed to be withdrawn immediately. Hmmm. City attorney versus Attorney General of the State of Texas. Who do you think has more clout?

Mayor Parker needs to set aside her own personal agenda and do what’s right for the whole city and maybe take into account the reason why she is in the position she is in. Wouldn’t it make sense to know about the laws and the Constitution before trying to get your way? You just made yourself look like a fool, Annise.

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 Is Houston Mayor Annise Parker Violating First Amendment Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

The rate of “active shooter” incidents has been increasing since 2000, according to a new study from the FBI in conjunction with researchers at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center. The study identified 160 incidents occurring between 2000 and 2013, and concluded that there were over twice as many of these shootings in the second half of that period as there were in the first.

In total, these incidents caused over 1,000 casualties — which the FBI classifies as both injury and death — leaving 557 injured and 486 dead, not including the shooters themselves. Among the study’s many important conclusions is the finding that police officers are often not able to respond in time, making civilian response extremely important.

Researchers found an average of six active shooter situations per year between 2000 and 2006. That rate increased to over 16 in the second half of the years studied. The number of casualties – including both injuries and deaths– increased from an average of 35 per year in the first half of the study to 113 in the second.

It is important to note that active shooter situations are not the same as mass shootings. The agreed upon definition of an active shooter is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area,” though the FBI expanded it slightly for its research. In contrast to this definition, a mass shooting is an incident where a shooter kills three or more people.

Of the 160 total cases identified by researchers, 64 incidents or 40 percent would be classified as mass shootings. The distinction between “mass” and “active” shooter situations is small, but very important, as a person can be an active shooter without directly causing injury. Even the Wall Street Journal conflated the two, as the title of its coverage is “Mass Shootings on the Rise, FBI Says.”

James Alan Fox, a professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University, cautioned against the conclusion that mass shootings are increasing. In an interview with Time he said, “A majority of active shooters are not mass shooters… A majority kill fewer than three.” Fox went on to say that, if the study focused specifically on mass shootings it might not reveal an increase. Instead, he contends that the number of mass shootings have remained relatively steady since the 1970s.

Implications for Law Enforcement

While the findings about the rate of active shooter situations are important, the report’s primary purpose was to take a closer look at these incidents and their trends to see how law enforcement can better respond. The focus on active, rather than mass shooters is based on the underlying implication that the situation is in progress, meaning that law enforcement and bystanders may be able to influence the outcome.

One major finding about these situations is that they often end very quickly. In the 64 incidents where a duration could be determined, 44 ended in five minutes or less and 23 of those finished in just two minutes or less.

Equally important is the specific ways in which these incidents end:

 “At least 107 (66.9%) ended before police arrived and could engage the shooter, either because a citizen intervened, the shooter fled, or the shooter committed suicide or was killed by someone at the scene.”

-FBI’s Active Shooter Study

Additionally, over half of the situations (56%) ended on the shooter’s accord; the shooter either committed suicide, stopped shooting, or ran away. Also important is the fact that 21 incidents (13.1%) ended when unarmed citizens intervened, only two of which involved off duty law enforcement. Armed citizens were only involved in five incidents, four of which ended after armed security guards intervened, and only one ended after an armed civilian bystander engaged the shooter.

Also important is the location of these shootings. The three places with the highest rate of active shooter incidents are commercial areas (45.6%), educational environments (24.4%), and government properties (10%).

The study’s findings indicate that law enforcement may have a limited ability to respond to active shooters, as they typically end very quickly and before officers can arrive. However, they may also emphasize the importance of prevention and response training for citizens. Prevention remains the most important strategy for dealing with this problem, but the FBI’s recent emphasis on training may also help reduce the danger posed by shooters.

Featured image courtesy of [North Carolina National Guard via Flickr]

—-

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [North Carolina National Guard/TSgt Richard Kerner, NCNG Public Affairs, 145th Airlift Wing 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 New FBI Report: Active Shooter Incidents on the Rise appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like all anyone can talk about anymore is Ebola. Especially now that the first case of Ebola has been found in the United States, in Dallas, and the first case transmitted outside Africa reported in Madrid, people seem to be freaking out. One big concern has been that Ebola is going to become an issue in the U.S., which I just want to start by saying is unfounded and unrealistic. The public health infrastructure in the U.S., as well as our ability to isolate the disease make it incredibly unlikely that it becomes an epidemic. You’re still significantly more likely to die of the flu, or a car accident than even go near someone who has Ebola. As of press time, Thomas Eric Duncan — the man in Dallas who had contracted Ebola — has passed away of the disease, and while our thoughts and sympathy are with his family, this development does not change the risk factors in the U.S.

People are losing their minds over it. Seriously, check out #EbolaQandA on Twitter. It makes me terrified — not of Ebola, but at the extent to which our American education system appears to have failed people when it comes to very, very basic concepts of health and geography. Now Ebola is an incredibly important world issue right now, and combating it absolutely deserves our attention, vigilance, and support. That being said, we all need to take a deep breath over here in the U.S., and stop listening to misinformation and conspiracy theories, because this is getting silly. Here’s a helpful flowchart for anyone who’s concerned about the spread of Ebola in America.

Worried about Ebola? Here's a flowchart just for you! #diseases #outbreak #EbolaOutbreak #notenoughwine pic.twitter.com/U6uvQd8MKf

— Melody Butler (@MelodyButler) August 2, 2014

There have been many proposals to try to keep the United States from having Ebola-infected people cross over our borders. One of the most extreme is a “travel ban” aimed at West African countries with high infection rates.

This sounds like a good idea in theory, it really does. But in reality, it’s not something the U.S. will do, or should do. First of all, the best way to make sure that the United States does not experience problems with Ebola is to stop the epidemic. And if we restrict our access and communication with the affected region, it’s just going to get worse. When there’s not a huge risk of Ebola reaching any sort of epidemic levels in the United States, it doesn’t make sense to impede our relief efforts with a ban. A travel ban could mean that relief workers have a harder time going in, or refuse to go at all because they worry that they might not be able to get back.

Also, instituting a travel ban could make it more likely that someone with a case of Ebola makes it into the U.S. If we have a ban in place for countries heavily infected like Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia, people are going to find a way around it. They could go to Senegal, or any other nearby nation where travel is not restricted. Because of the ban they may be incentivized to lie about whether or not they’ve been in contact with an infected person in hopes of not being prevented from getting on a plane. Right now we’re able to track people and examine them at the airport and upon arrival, and we’re going to strengthen our tools for that. We shouldn’t incentivize anything that makes it harder for us to do that.

I’m not an expert in public health; I don’t know what will happen with this epidemic. But what I do know is that panicking is going to do nothing. Educate yourself. Donate to the relief effort. Don’t feed the frenzy. This crisis needs a pragmatic approach, not a reactionary one.

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 Keep Calm and Carry On: You Don’t Have Ebola appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to hypocrite junction, which is the nickname I’ve given to the corner of the internet that’s still discussing Texas Gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis speaking out about her abortion. For those of you who missed this whole story, here’s the skinny: Texas State Senator Wendy Davis made headlines last year when she filibustered against a restrictive abortion bill for 11 hours. Now, she’s running for governor of Texas, the first woman to run for that office since 1994. Currently she’s trailing the Republican candidate, Greg Abbott, but she’s still making headlines left and right. She’s tough and she’s smart, and regardless of how the polls turn out in November, she deserves a hell of a lot of respect.

In the midst of the current campaign, Davis’ book came out. That’s by no means an uncommon practice — it’s a pretty normal undertaking by candidates on the campaign trail. Davis’ book contained a story about how she has had two abortions — both for medical reasons.

Most people responded to her admission well, either recognizing the struggle that she must have gone through, or applauding the courage she had to tell her story.

And then there are the people who accused her of making it up for political purposes. I think we may need a new phrase beyond “double standards” at this point. First, she was attacked for standing up for the women who Texas’ insanely restrictive abortion law would have punished. When she first entered the national spotlight, she was called “abortion barbie.” Some of her critics went so far as to create “abortion barbie” posters of her. Click here to see them, but fair warning — they’re about as tasteful and subtle as you’d expect. Then, when her back story came to light, which includes a stint in a trailer and as a low-income single mother, people criticized her parenting skills. Bristol Palin, daughter of Sarah Palin, was one of the loudest critics. Now that Davis has come out with the story of her abortions, she’s being accused of making them up. Do you have a headache yet? Because I definitely do.

Oh, that might be why.

Politicians have lied before, sure. I highly doubt that Wendy Davis is lying in this case, but I’m not privy to either her life story or her medical history, so I can’t say that with 100 percent certainty. But come on people, do you really think that she’s stupid enough to make up that lie in the first place? And more importantly, how shitty of a person do you have to be to accuse a woman of lying about what very well might have been two of the most difficult, traumatizing, and upsetting decisions of her life.

That’s exactly where the problem is — those who are criticizing her don’t realize how normal Davis’ story truly is. Her critics are attempting to use facts here, so in order to save my sanity I’m going to take a second to debunk one of the most egregious among them. One of the claims is that Davis probably didn’t have an abortion for medical reasons, because those are relatively rare. Texas Right to Life’s Emily Horne claimed, “it is extremely rare — if not non-existent — for a woman to have an abortion because the pregnancy posed a risk to her life. As for fetal anomalies, it simply isn’t necessary to abort a child because he or she is sick or has a medical condition.”

Well one of the two abortions Davis has discussed involved an ectopic pregnancy, which occurs when a fertilized egg stays in the fallopian tube. It’s estimated to happen in one of 50 pregnancies, the baby most likely won’t survive, and given that the condition is life threatening to the mother, often emergency care is needed. In some cases the pregnancy may need to be terminated. As the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine’s site puts it:

Ectopic pregnancy is life-threatening. The pregnancy cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother’s life.

Women have abortions to end ectopic pregnancies, and they also have abortions because of the quality of life that their unborn child may be subjected to, as was the case of Davis’ other pregnancy. The baby was going to suffer severe medical issues, and Davis chose to terminate the pregnancy rather than have her child suffer. The truth is that one in three American women will have an abortion at some point in her life. The exact statistics for why are often debated, but according to a comprehensive study released by the Guttmacher Institute in 2005, four percent of women seeking abortions do so out of concern for their own health, and another three percent choose to terminate a pregnancy out of concerns about the fetus’ health.

This was not an attempt to justify Davis’ choices — they don’t need to be justified by me because they were hers and hers alone. Rather this is my attempt to point out the argumentative flaws of those who are attempting to cast doubt on Davis’ story right now because not only are their arguments disrespectful, they’re also pretty weak.

Quite frankly it doesn’t matter why Davis had an abortion, or why any other woman makes that choice. What does matter is that they have the resources to make that choice, or any other, for themselves — exactly what Davis stood for eleven hours to protect. I applaud her for sharing her story, and her work to make others who have had equally difficult choices understand where she is coming from.

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 Standing with Wendy Davis: A Story That Deserves Respect, Not Doubt appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

The Berkley City Council in California has unanimously approved an ordinance requiring pot dispensaries donate 2 percent of their product to “patients” making under $32,000 a year. A single person is eligible for this “welfare weed” if they make $32,000 or under, but if that person has a family, the family income has to be $46,000 or under. This ordinance will go into effect in August 2015, but I imagine there will be some pushback over the next year about whether this should actually go into effect or not. I mean really, allowing free weed to those already on welfare? We all might as well quit our jobs or take on low-paying jobs and wait for our handouts. This is getting a little bit ridiculous. How many people in Berkley actually need free weed!?!

There are only three licensed dispensaries in the Berkley city limits and one of those dispensaries, House of Compassion, claims they already had:

[A] program in place that allocated a pound of marijuana for giveaway each week. The pound is broken up into 3.5-gram parcels and distributed on Mondays to anyone who can prove that they are on welfare (using an EBT card or other form of proof) and have been certified to use medical marijuana.

So why the need to create an ordinance if one location already has this program and there are only three dispensaries in the city? I don’t feel right about the reasoning behind this ordinance or the idea that marijuana should be free to anyone. And to be honest, I don’t think it should be legalized.

I don’t believe that every medical marijuana cardholder is someone who is genuinely sick or needing it for medicinal purposes. Back in 2011, the top three reasons physicians gave for recommending medical marijuana were “back/spine/neck pain” at 31 percent, “sleep disorders” at 16 percent and “anxiety/depression” at 13 percent. That is a total of 60 percent. SIXTY PERCENT! Now, I understand that many of these patients probably went through a very frustrating period of trial and error with other medical remedies, like pills, and nothing worked. But realistically how many of these “patients” were telling the truth? I understand, for the most part, the benefits of medical marijuana for some, but not everyone that has an ailment. I get the need for medical marijuana for people diagnosed with cancer or HIV/AIDS–those are diseases that can really take a toll on your body. But the “I need pot because I’m depressed” thing doesn’t sit well with me. Anyone can claim they are depressed or anxious or have certain levels of pain when in reality they don’t. Symptoms can be faked and I know people who have done so, which is why I am so cynical about the whole thing.

My biggest issue with the Berkley City Council is that they basically have said that if you need pot and are on welfare you might as well get it for free. They are allowing the lazy to be even lazier.

In Texas, the Texas Senate passed a bill last year that approved drug testing of welfare applicants so I can’t imagine the ideals of the Berkley City Council will breach the Texas boarder anytime soon. Which is great. Legalizing marijuana is probably one of the most reckless things a state can do. I love the fact that the Texas Senate allows for drug testing and if someone fails that drug test three times, no more welfare for them! “Taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize someone’s drug habit,” read a statement made by Texas State Sen. Jane Nelson, (R-Flower Mound.) I could not agree more!

I’ve seen the functioning pothead who will smoke a blunt everyday but still be able to go to work and act like a contributing member of society. I’ve seen the pothead who will sit at home, smoke out of their glass pipe in front of the computer and play mindless video games all day long, contributing nothing to their own lives or to society. I also recently had a friend tell me that she wished her husband would stop smoking pot but she recognizes that if he doesn’t smoke his four or five blunts throughout the day he turns into a completely different person, so she accepts his decision to smoke weed everyday, all day long. Dependence. Addiction. Altered mood. These are things that marijuana does to a person and it isn’t something that we should condone.

Marijuana’s second hand smoke is said to be very dangerous to children and pregnant women. Obviously there isn’t a whole lot of testing that has been done on the subject because of the dangers but there have been a few and the results appear to be compelling. According to studies, just like any other illicit drug, marijuana and secondhand marijuana smoke can cause premature labor, low birth weights and even neurological damage. There are people reckless enough out there that will disregard warnings and expose their loved ones to the second hand effects of marijuana. This short, but very interesting and to the point, article really brings to light what can happen to young children that are exposed to it in the womb or through second hand smoke.

Now I am not a believer in the “marijuana is a gateway drug to other drugs” idea–I think it is completely inaccurate–but I do think that allowing our country to accept an illegal drug like marijuana simply opens the door to other illegal drugs like opiates. At one point opiates were used like Tylenol is today. We should not revert back to the days of not knowing just to appease the drug users of the world; drugs are illegal for a reason. They do more harm than good.

—

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 [Ian Sane 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 Welfare Weed – Let the Lazy Be Lazier appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Wendy House via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Risky Idea Alert: Arming Teachers in School appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

As most of you know, I hail from the great state of Texas! I wasn’t born here but my parents made sure I got here as fast as possible. I’ve been here long enough to experience both governors George W. Bush and Rick Perry, two men I have a great amount of respect for.

I was flabbergasted the moment I read that Governor Rick Perry is being indicted for alleged abuse of power in a veto dispute. First, I must have been hiding under a rock for a few weeks because I had no idea that they were even considering indicting Governor Perry. But let’s be really honest, someone is always trying to sue or indict a lawmaker, even the President. We do live in a world of frivolous lawsuits so I really shouldn’t be surprised.

Let’s jump in to the most ridiculous of the ridiculous: The person who made the decision to convene a grand jury to indict Governor Perry is Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. The same woman who was arrested for drunk driving. No one is above the law, but she clearly thought she was. The cops even had to put a spit guard on her and strap her to a chair. What does that say about her decisionmaking skills? I find her almost as laughable as the crack-smoking Toronto Mayor.

To make things even worse, after Lehmberg plead guilty to drunk driving, she refused to leave her position as District Attorney. How shocking, one poor choice on top of another. It puts the whole Perry indictment into question. Actually, for me it makes me question her whole career. Forget her political affiliation, consider the decisions she has made and think, how that one decision ruined her life, and think about how many other decisions that she has made that have had the same impact on others. You have to question her ability to reason — or at least I do.

An indictment would kill a presidential bid for most political careers of this magnitude, but it seems to be making Perry’s stronger. So many people have come out in support of him it is like a blessing of endorsements for the future run.

Part of what Perry is being indicted for is “misusing government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.” Perry threatened to veto funding for the state’s public integrity unit last summer. This veto threat is more specifically about $7.5 million in funding for the state’s public integrity unit, the ethics watchdog unit housed under Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg’s office.

I think that this whole thing is a game of cat and mouse. It also seems to me that today’s government officials are more stubborn and selfish than ever. What about that is good for the people? Rosemary Lehmberg is a joke and has turned the Travis County District Office into a joke as well. Governor Perry may not be perfect but at least he knows how to conduct himself in a manner that doesn’t lead to a spit mask, being arrested, putting people’s lives at risk, and being strapped to a chair.

Fellow Law Streeter Anneliese Mahoney wrote a really great piece about the Rick Perry indictment with a bit different point of view that you should check out!

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 Rick Perry Indictment is a Joke appeared first on Law Street.

Texas Governor and former 2012 Presidential candidate Rick Perry was indicted by a grand jury last Friday. The indictment claims that he used misused government property for his own political gain, and that he attempted to influence a public servant using the powers of his office. If convicted of these crimes, both of which are felonies, Perry could face serious time in prison–up to 99 years.

The controversy stems from a rather small incident–the Travis County District Attorney, a Democrat named Rosemary Lehmberg, was caught driving very, very drunk. In fact, she was sitting in her church parking lot with an open bottle of vodka, the epitome of class. Her Blood Alcohol Level (BAC) was almost three times the legal limit. She reportedly kicked the officers before they restrained her, and then stuck her tongue out at them. Overall, it was an entirely inappropriate and illegal way for a District Attorney to comport herself.

Perry, understandably, asked her to resign. However, Perry is  Republican, and Lehmberg was a Democrat. So, she and the rest of the Texas Democrats worried that she would be replaced by a Republican District Attorney. That’s where this whole thing gets a little weird. Perry threatened to veto funding for an anti-corruption unit that is part of Lehmberg’s purview in Travis County. Lehmberg refused to step down, so Perry went through with his threat and vetoed the unit’s funding. In response, a watchdog agency filed an ethics charge, a prosecutor brought the issue to the grand jury, and Perry was indicted on Friday.

There’s a lot of debate over whether or not the indictment was fair, or just a gross example of political game-playing. The position of Rick Perry and his supporters is that the governor does have the power to veto funding in such a way. As Ari Melber at MSNBC puts it, the governor’s supporters’ argument is,

There are two felony counts, both stemming from Perry’s public battle to veto funds for a local prosecutor.  Yet under the Texas Constitution, the governor has explicit authority for such vetos.  And under the U.S. Constitution, politicians have wide authority to talk about their vetoes and votes – it’s a core example of protected political speech.

The prosecutors argue that even though the Texas Governor is entitled to the above enumerated powers, he or she cannot use them for illegal purposes. So the question that dominates this issue is: was what Rick Perry did actually illegal, or just ill-conceived?

One of the more sketchy things about the whole situation is that the unit that was defunded, the one that dealt with ethics, was also looking into some possible Republican infractions. In fact, they were the ones who had previously looked into an ethical breach by former House Majority Leader Tom Delay.

So, there were political motives for Perry to veto Lehmberg’s funding, multiple political motives in fact. But the drunk driving issue is still pretty damning–she did probably deserve to lose her job. So this entire issue ends up being kind of hypocritical and problematic. A Republican governor maybe plays politics for political gain, ends up getting called out by a left-leaning watchdog group, and then everyone gets to run the headline “Rick Perry indicted.” Even some Democrats are questioning what’s happening in Texas right now–David Axelrod, a former Obama political adviser,  said that the move seemed “sketchy.”

Did Rick Perry cross a line? Maybe. Will he actually get in trouble as a result of this indictment? Possibly. Does he deserve to go to jail? Most likely not. Is the media coverage, blow to public opinion, and the like going to hurt him if he actually tries for a 2016 run? Absolutely.

That’s what this is about. Perry had a notably unsuccessful 2012 bid, but insiders say that he’s been grooming himself for 2016 again. While a scandal doesn’t necessarily disqualify a candidate (hello, Chris Christie), it certainly doesn’t help. A conviction out of this indictment would definitely send his future political ambitions down the drain. And when it’s framed that way–as a not particularly well-executed political move, the ordeal seems much less scandalous. Everyone in this story is equally guilty of playing politics–and well that’s pretty much it.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Rick Perry’s Indictment: A Purely Political Move appeared first on Law Street.

If a red state known for its oil can spearhead a massive campaign in support of the installation of wind farms and restructure its economy to correspond, then there is no reason why the rest of the country cannot follow suit.

Texas is now the place to be when it comes to turbines and renewable clean energy. Bruce Selcraig explained in a Sierra Club article that politicians, including then-governor George W. Bush, deregulated the electricity industry in Texas in 1999. It was not so much motivated by environmental altruism, but by the nature of the business industry there. Investors are usually willing to make substantial investments so long as there is a reasonable expectation of profit. This is telling, though — clearly there are economic incentives to pursue renewable energy campaigns. If the government of Texas embraces and benefits from these changes, imagine the results on a national level.

Monetary returns provide the driving incentive for the wind industry in Texas on all fronts. In addition to the business-motivated profits, many private landowners are amenable to the installation of turbines on their land because of the promise of royalties. Further, corporate tax incentives and federal support have assisted substantially in wind’s ability to carve out a foothold. As long as it is fiscally advisable, it would seem that the wind will blow strong in Texas.

Harnessable Wind Energy in the US, courtesy of US Department of Energy via Wikipedia

There is a danger, though, in leaning too heavily on financial motivations for clean energy, while completely neglecting the environmental angle. In recent years, fracking and horizontal drilling have led to a reawakening of big oil and gas, especially in Texas. These industries, Selcraig points out, have historically received several billion dollars in annual support from the federal government, while wind has received less then one tenth of that amount. This disparity could widen with the recent increased attention on black gold.

Business savvy investors should understand, however, that in the long-run these non renewable sources of energy are not viable solutions. Despite the surge induced by fracking, wind energy has also been experiencing technological improvements that heighten its efficiency and viability. In 1991, the US Department of Energy speculated that North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas alone had enough wind potential to meet the country’s electricity needs. Since then, there have been many improvements to the technology. These include simple changes, such as making the shafts of turbines longer so that they reach heights where winds are stronger and steadier.

As a result of this and other changes, that same assessment now concludes that the wind capacities of those three states could satisfy the country’s energy needs. This is a bold statement, but if anything it demonstrates that wind is a more reliable and efficient energy source than most think. In addition, the technology continues to have room for growth and improvement, while non-renewable sources can only yield so much.

Large Global Wind Cells, courtesy of Wikipedia

With regard to renewable energy, the relationships between customers and utility companies vary. Thanks to the installation of new high-capacity electricity lines, a Texas panhandle wind project is on the rise. However, as New York Times journalist Matthew L. Wald illuminates, some residents are concerned that they are compelled to assume the financial risk; customers are seeing an increased monthly bill to pay for the new lines. Wald continues, however, that the efficiency wrought by the new lines will cut electricity costs by more than the increase. This dynamic ought to be conducive to encouraging more people to come on board, as it offers tangible returns.

Where in this debate are the voices of the people? The fate of the energy sector and the health of the planet ought not to be decided solely by corporations. As people become more aware of the dangers we face, and more able to voice their opinions on what to do about them, citizens will project ever increasing influence on the policy-making process. We still have a long way to go, as there are still many “climate denialists” and individuals with too jaded a nature to feel compelled to act. Some changes simply require small lifestyle adjustments. Others require dedication and major overhauls of the status quo. But the status quo is shifting, and the means of its shift continue to fall into our own hands. We must be cautious and proactive with this great responsibility. As Al Gore wrote in a Rolling Stone article,

The progressive introduction of Internet-based communication — social media, blogs, digital journalism — is laying the foundation for the renewal of individual participation in democracy, and the re-elevation of reason over wealth and power as the basis for collective decision making.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) 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 Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chuck Coker via Flickr]

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 Winds of Change: Renewable Energy Booming in Texas appeared first on Law Street.

Despite declining law school enrollment statistics nationwide, one school is going against the grain and defying the norm. The University of Northern Texas, Dallas School of Law’s inaugural class is shockingly large for a brand new law school–there are roughly 80 full-time and 40 part-time students enrolled so far. UNT Dallas Law’s success in recruiting students is due to a great tactic: offering low tuition rates. The new law school’s accomplishment reflects its mission to provide a legal education at a low cost.

A core goal of the UNT Dallas College of Law is keeping tuition and student debt low for all students to the extent consistent with meeting its educational goals. The organized bar and legal educators agree that the cost of legal education poses concerns for the profession and for legal education. High costs and debt loads reduce access to legal education, are often spread unevenly in relation to financial need, and shrink the horizon of opportunity. The UNT Dallas College of Law has a unique opportunity to respond to these challenges. We will not do this by reducing quality or taking short cuts. Rather, we will keep tuition low by focusing on excellence in our educational mission and by not incurring costs that are not critical to that mission.

The law school boasts the lowest tuition costs in the state of Texas–$12,540 for in-state tuition, and $24,000 for out-of-state. See how these prices compare to other Texas law schools:

UNT Dallas Law is taking a whole new approach to the law school industry. Not only does UNT Dallas Law offer shockingly low tuition rates and grant need-based scholarships, but they also target a unique audience. Unlike most other law schools, UNT Dallas School of Law focuses on attracting the “nontraditional” law student–older students, often with families of their own, who are returning to get that legal degree they couldn’t afford right after college.

UNT Dallas Law aims to make every moment in law school a valuable learning experience. Students must complete extensive legal writing and research courses and practice foundation courses. Students are encouraged to select specialties in their upper-level curriculum such as family law, business association, and evidence. As part of the upper-level curriculum, students are encouraged to engage in practicums, externships, and clinics.

According to Dallas News, UNT Dallas Law seeks to train lawyers who will work in the public sector “to represent the middle class, small companies and other groups.” Last week I wrote about the need for legal public service in our country. UNT Dallas School of Law is doing an excellent job by pinpointing the lack of public service in the legal industry and encouraging its students to pursue careers in that field.

By working around the norms for tuition and focus in law school, UNT Dallas Law could actually make a mark on legal education practices. Other schools are also working to lower tuition, but their rates pale in comparison to those of UNT Dallas Law’s. Despite what Above the Law has to say about building yet another law school in our nation, we should give UNT Dallas Law a chance. By providing students with an affordable education in a field that is seriously lacking legal professionals, UNT Dallas Law is already ahead of the curve. Its location also puts it at a great advantage–cities with dense populations usually have a greater need for legal aid.

The institution may not yet be ABA accredited but that’s completely normal for new law schools. According to the ABA’s Law School Accreditation Process, institutions cannot apply until they have been operating for at least one full year; UNT Dallas Law is in the process of welcoming its first class ever. So, I say give UNT Dallas Law a chance–an affordable, practical legal education that targets the inadequate legal aid for those who can’t afford Ivy-leaguers may be just the remedy our nation needs.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [tylerhoff via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Disruptor of the Week: The New UNT Dallas School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Congress and President Barack Obama have to quickly respond to a recent influx of thousands of Central American child immigrants spilling over the border into Texas. Read on to learn about why they are coming here and why finding a place for them will be a challenge.

How many people are coming over the border?

There has been a recent surge of Central American children illegally immigrating into the United States over the Texas border. 47,000 unaccompanied minors have been detained at the border in the past eight months. This is a 92 percent increase from the eight month period prior to that.

Why now?

Evidence points to two different factors.

First, living conditions in Central America have gotten significantly worse in recent years. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 48 percent of the detained minors had experienced abuse from an organized criminal group before fleeing to America. This should not be too surprising. Honduras, the country where the plurality of children are coming from, boasts the highest murder rate in the world. In 2012, there were more than 90 murders per 100,000 people. The next country on the list, Venezuela, only has 53.7 homicides per 100,000 people. It should be no surprise that children want to leave Central America.

Check out this story from The New York Times to learn more about the gang violence that Honduran children are escaping.

You can also watch this report on gang violence in Honduras, but it is graphic:

So it makes sense that children would want to leave this environment, but why are they coming to America? Why do they choose this specific country? Critics of President Barack Obama argue that his immigration policies have convinced illegal immigrants that they will have an easy time entering the country, and there is some evidence to support that. There is a belief among Central Americans that the United States has recently started treating children easier than they treat adults. This is because of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). The law requires the United States to ensure the safety of any children repatriated back to their homes. This means that the United States cannot just simply turn away or deport children. Border officials have an obligation to make sure that the environment the children are being deported to is safe. President Obama signed this bill into law March 7, 2013; however, a key part of the law allowing these children to gain legal counsel and appeal to stay in the country was signed by President George W. Bush in 2008.

Republicans also assert that Obama’s enforcement of the DREAM act through executive order is an incentive for children to come to America, but there is less concrete evidence to support this.

What is happening to these children when they come here?

These children would be quickly brought back home if they were coming from Mexico or Canada; however, they have to go through a formal deportation process because they are coming from far-away countries. Thanks to the TVPRA, this process involves month-long hearings where the children can appeal to stay in the country. Currently, there’s a massive 360,000-case backlog preventing many of these children from having their cases heard. Since so many are coming at once, it is likely that they will be stuck in detention for some time until a solution is found.

What is the Obama administration trying to do about it?

Obama has requested $3.7 billion from Congress to deal with the border crisis. The administration is telling Congress that the money will go toward building detention facilities to help ease overcrowding, the hiring of judges to hear the backlog of immigration cases, and border security to prevent more children from illegally entering the country. The plan would also allocate $300 million to the State Department to assist Central American countries in repatriating their citizens.

Watch President Obama present this plan to the press:

How are Republicans reacting?

Not well. Republicans are calling the plan a “blank check” without any accountability. Republicans in Congress are also not happy that Obama is not planning on amending the TVPRA to make it easier to deport illegal immigrants.

Conservatives have been crying foul about this crisis for the last week. Texas Governor Rick Perry even called this situation “Obama’s Katrina.” Most notably, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has called for Obama’s impeachment. Palin argues that Obama is deliberately opening the borders and allowing illegal immigrants into the country.

Is Obama going to be impeached? Absolutely not. A President can only be impeached if he has committed high crimes. Obama has not violated any laws. In fact, the current immigration laws are part of the reason this crisis is happening in the first place. Still, Palin’s call for Obama’s impeachment shows that Republicans are angry about this issue.

Watch Boehner blame Obama’s actions for the current problem and criticize the President’s plan to solve the humanitarian crisis:

Law Street’s Allison Dawson lives in the affected area of Texas and has expressed anger at the fact that the children will be housed in abandoned Texas schools that could be used for other purposes.

Across the board, it looks like this has become the newest reason for Republicans to criticize the President.

What does this mean for immigration reform?

Not much. Immigration reform is almost guaranteed not to happen in 2014. Both Speaker John Boehner and President Obama agree that the reform effort is dead.

This is unfortunate because a comprehensive immigration bill could fix many of the problems posed by this spike in illegal immigration, including solving the backlog of cases, sealing the border, and providing a path to citizenship for those who go through the proper channels.

Resources

Primary

US Congress: The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act

Additional

Washington Post: Central American Immigrants Overwhelm Texas Border

Migration Policy Institute: Surge in Unaccompanied Kids Has Deep Roots

CNN: Honduras Has the Highest Murder Rate

The New York Times: Fleeing Gangs, Children Head to U.S. Border

Appleseed Network: Report: Children at the Border

Washington Post: White House Request $3.7 Billion for Border Crisis

MSNBC: Rick Perry: This is Obama’s Katrina

Breitbart: Sarah Palin: It’s Time to Impeach President Obama

Washington Post: Obama is Accused of ‘Lawlessness’ for Following Law

Slate: Immigration Reform is Dead

Eric Essagof

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

The post Crisis at the Border: Influx of Child Immigrants Causes Major Problems appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Last week I wrote about President Obama coming to visit Texas and the issues I have with him and Houston’s independent school district. I thought I would be able to say my peace and move on. Unfortunately that is not the case. As the week went on there was more and more talk about immigration and I feel like it is time for me to say a little bit more.

First of all, it was great to see that President Obama got off of his high horse for a little while to even speak with Governor Perry, but it did not seem like it was taken too seriously. I’m sure you’ve all seen the photo of Obama and Perry sitting at a table together: Obama is laughing away and in a jolly good mood whereas Perry has a sour look on his face. There have been jokes and comments made about Perry being too serious and Obama trying to defuse the situation. No one knows what was actually going on in that room when the picture was taken but I think that it is fair to say that the look on Perry’s face is one of frustration. In this state immigration is a real issue. It can be talked about over and over and over again in DC, but the realities don’t hit as hard as they do here.

I can appreciate that Obama agreed with some of the points that Perry made, but then he had to go and make a stupid comment. In a speech after the meeting he stated, “You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.”

So where is the problem? The problem for me is this entire statement. He basically just laughed off the entire situation in a matter of seconds. Not to mention he made himself look like an idiot by stating we would want a moat. Dear Mr. President, please take out your third grade geography book and notice that there is a RIVER that separates a good portion of Texas from Mexico, that little thing called the Rio Grande. Details. Yes, I know he was making a joke and being overly dramatic but let’s get something straight: this is not a joking matter. For him to come out and make jokes about a serious issue in our country is disrespectful and shows how little he cares about the domestic issues.

In the last day or so there have been reports that 40 illegal immigrants were returned to their homes in Honduras, including adults and children. Forty immigrants, and government officials are claiming that is “a step in the right direction.” Excuse me? Forty immigrants is a step in the right direction? Among the estimated 82,000 who are still sitting in federal housing, they chose to send back 40. That is a laughable number. The average Boeing 747 airplane can seat 416 passengers.  That is 376 empty seats on a plane for those 40 people to stretch out across. I know that there is a method to what needs to be done before sending these people back to their countries but maybe processing more than 40 at a time would help the situation.

Immigration issues won’t be fixed overnight, I realize that. But having a president who blatantly and publicly makes fun of the issue is not a step in the right direction and is actually a huge step back. If the President of the United States doesn’t really care about the issue then why should anyone else care about it? His job is to not only lead us but to represent us in the global arena, and when he shows weakness and disdain for his own people that shows the world that they can have the same lack of respect for our country and our citizens.

Superpower, what superpower?

—

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 [U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 Immigration Isn’t a Joke, Mr. President appeared first on Law Street.

“Don’t call me illegal, because I am not, illegal are your laws, and that’s why I’m not leaving.” A group of thirty undocumented youth chanted this rallying cry in the city of McAllen, Texas, while wondering if they had left behind their families and traveled hundreds of miles for just a fleeting glance of America. Jose Antonio Vargas is a reporter who traveled to McAllen to cover this vigil, and for him, it’s personal. He has had much more than a glance of life in America, calling himself the “most privileged” undocumented immigrant in the country. He has written for the New York Times Magazine and TIME Magazine about his experiences, and directed a recent documentary on the immigration issues facing this nation. He has traveled around the country for over three years, with his seemingly American identity and the media recognition he draws keeping him safe from deportation. But now, in McAllen, he may be no different than the undocumented children whose stories he is reporting.

Vargas went to McAllen to cover the vigil for the undocumented children, and to report on shelters set up by citizens of the town. Shortly after his arrival, he began receiving emails from friends asking him how he planned to get out, considering the checkpoints that were set up outside of the town and the airport. Vargas usually flies on his Filipino passport, but these checkpoints require proof of citizenship to pass. Vargas has now been arrested, and like those undocumented children, what will happen to him remains to be seen.

The crisis in McAllen

There are currently waves of undocumented immigrants flooding into Texas, mainly composed of children. McAllen, one of the cities most hard hit, has responded to this crisis in a way that should make Americans proud. Long before the federal government stepped in to help aid the massive influx of immigrants, the people of McAllen answered the call. Local residents began giving out supplies and aid to immigrants at the local bus station, where the children would often be stranded for hours or even days. Makeshift shelters began operating out of the trunks of cars and the basements of churches. The Rio Grande valley, where McAllen is located, has seen a 178 percent increase in the number of migrant workers the past few months. The federal government was not prepared for this and still is not–shelters remain a poorly met necessity in McAllen. But McAllen has answered the call, with volunteers exceeding the number needed on some days.

But the great work the people of McAllen are doing is not without protest. Outside the shelters housing these children are signs declaring that they should be sent home. It is currently legal for the government to send children to live with relatives, family friends, or a foster family until the children face a deportation hearing, which can sometimes take years. At these hearings the judges will have the authority to allow the children to stay or send them home. But many are saying that Obama has the authority to send these children home and should do so. This crisis has quickly become a frantic flashpoint in American politics, with politicians, pundits, and the media all chiming in.

One politician arguing for deportation is Texas Governor Rick Perry. He says, “allowing them to remain here will only encourage the next group of individuals to undertake this dangerous and life-threatening journey here.” Others have said the children should be allowed to stay, especially considering the dangers they face back home. In a surprise move, conservative pundit Glenn Beck has been a huge advocate for allowing the children to stay. In perhaps the one of the wisest statements Beck has ever made, he said, “I’ve never taken a position more deadly to my career than this — and I have never, ever taken a position that is more right than this.”

A change does need to be made because the current system is far to slow to deal with the influx of child immigrants, but that does not mean the solution is to send them back. These children have left places that are ravished by poverty and gang violence. Sending them back could be akin to authoring their death sentences. It’s clear that the people of McAllen have put politics aside to help these children. It would be nice if politicians would do the same.

Jose Vargas: the “most privileged” undocumented immigrant 

So back to Jose Vargas, the celebrity journalist whose story is now inextricably linked with the children who have arrived at our borders. Jose Vargas is now being detained in the McAllen Border Control Headquarters. He was arrested trying to fly out of a local airport. Vargas, almost better than anyone, knew the risk he was taking, as the Border Control was publicly checking IDs at the airport. He tweeted the incident as seen below:

About to go thru security at McAllen Airport. I don’t know what’s going to happen. For updates follow @DefineAmerican & @MAC_UTPA

— Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting) July 15, 2014

The only IDs I have for security: Philippine passport and my pocketbook US Constitution @DefineAmerican & @MAC_UTPA pic.twitter.com/IFH0Vb4oX7

— Jose Antonio Vargas (@joseiswriting) July 15, 2014

Here's a photo of @joseiswriting in handcuffs, because the Border Patrol has nothing more pressing to do apparently pic.twitter.com/dN8KewqeZr

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) July 15, 2014

Considering what Vargas knew, combined with the way he tweeted before going through security, it seems as if he expected to get arrested. It seems that he is trying to prove a point, or perhaps is just trying to draw attention to the situation. If that is the case, he has succeeded–social media and news networks have been all over his arrest. And if he were to be deported, that would be a even bigger story and rallying cry for his supporters.

If this was done on purpose, Vargas has positioned himself to have a huge political impact on the current humanitarian crisis. He may be able to be the voice that these children don’t have. He is showing the world that undocumented immigrants don’t all look the same. It’s an issue that affects all of us. Hopefully his actions have a real world impact–because something needs to be done in Texas.

Update: Jose Antonio Vargas has been released by the Texas Border Control, with an order to appear in front of an immigration judge. There has been no notable progress on the statuses of the thousands of children in McAllen.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Otzberg via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

President Obama will be coming to Texas today. Yippee! Thankfully he doesn’t plan to come to Houston so I don’t have to worry about the traffic jam disasters he tends to create. We Houstonians have to deal with horrible traffic day in and day out so having that additional stress just makes us less friendly.

Let’s get to the more important stuff: President Obama, Governor Rick Perry, and immigration. So much has come out about these three in the last couple of days that it is making me mad.

But first I want to address the petty topic that Governor Perry has declined shaking President Obama’s hand when he hits the mean Texas tarmac. When I first read this headline I thought, “Oh great, something else for Democrats to grab on to and slander Texas and Republicans with,” but once I read the blurb that went along with that headline it actually makes sense. I love Governor Perry and although I don’t agree with him on everything, I do agree with him on not wanting to simply shake Obama’s hand and take a few pictures. Despite our differences you should always show respect to our Commander in Chief (until Texas secedes from the Union — though we all know that isn’t legal or likely). But if our good ol’ President is going to come to Texas he should probably squeeze in a little time to talk to the Governor and see what’s going on at the border instead of hitting up Democratic party circuit. Squeeze in reality for a few hours sir, you might look like you care about what’s happening down here.

Moving on to something a bit closer to home and a little more important: a Houston Independent School District (HISD) middle school is being considered as housing for immigrant children. I am the product of a HISD education — a craptastic one at that — and my intelligence and creativity come from hard work and influences outside of the HISD realm, but I still feel it is necessary to share that tiny bit of information. HISD is the largest school district in Texas, seventh largest in the United States, and it has 282 schools. Yes nearly three hundred schools, but how many of those are actually in use?

HISD was so kind as to give Homeland Security officials a nice little tour of an abandoned middle school in the Houston area. Why would Homeland Security want to come visit an abandoned school, you ask? Well it’s because this building is being considered for housing for undocumented children who have crossed the Texas-Mexico border in recent months. Most of these kids crossed the border illegally and alone, which has now turned into another issue that the U.S. is being forced to handle. Typically Border Patrol is required to transfer all unaccompanied children over to the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement within 72 hours, but because so many children — 52,000 since October 2013 — have crossed the border it is taking more time and resources to house all of these illegal children. Surprisingly by law, all illegal alien children who are not from Mexico cannot be immediately deported without an additional investigation to ensure that these children are not victims of sex trafficking.

It was news to me to find out that Terrell Middle School, the site of the tour, had been closed since 2001 and is now simply a storage unit for the district. So instead of taking the hard-earned tax dollars of Houston locals and putting them into keeping Terrell as a school, people like Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and the higher ups within HISD feel it is okay to turn it into a housing facility for children. I have never been a fan of Congresswoman Lee and certainly have very little respect for anyone at HISD, but this is getting a little bit ridiculous. Allowing an abandoned school to go unused is infuriating, but then to turn it into federal housing is even worse. Yes, these children need a place to stay but it is not the responsibility of a school district to house children and the federal government should probably get its act together and do what needs to be done. Terrell could be reopened had HISD used a little bit of a $1.9 BILLION bond to update it instead of just letting it sit there while they tear down and rebuild schools that really don’t need to be renovated or rebuilt altogether.

What else could the abandoned middle school be used for instead of just housing for immigrant children and storage for HISD? Well, the school could be torn down and the property sold to a private investor to create more housing or a shopping center for the area. Or even use the land as a sports arena. At the end of my neighborhood is a parcel of HISD property that is all baseball fields rented out to a local little league association for $1 a year. HISD doesn’t even care to profit from what it already owns. The building could be turned into a public library, police station, or even a community center. Allowing the 14.5 acres to be used in a way that is beneficial to the city of Houston is much more ideal than allowing it to be turned into storage or federal housing for undocumented children.

Everyone knows that getting anything done by the government is like watching paint dry. Slow and painful. And can I ask why President Obama declared back in June that we have an “urgent humanitarian situation” at our border? This is not something new; this has been going on for decades. Sometimes I wonder where the President has been all of these years. I’ve seen the statistics: there have been a larger number of border crossings in the last year but there is a reason for that. I partially blame how bad it is getting south of the border, but I also blame how relaxed we have become about our borders without even realizing it.

I may come across a bit heartless, but I don’t believe in a handout and I don’t believe that just because you cross the border into the United States that you are automatically allowed to live here, even if you are a child. There are laws and regulations that need to be upheld. The first step to becoming an American is to respect the United States.

—

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 [Debi Fitzsimmons 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 Obama, Perry, and the Crisis at the Texas Border appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno.

Click here to read more coverage on Law Street’s Law School Specialty Rankings 2014.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Featured image courtesy of [MC Lewis via Wikipedia]

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 Top 10 Schools for Healthcare Law: #9 University of Houston Law Center appeared first on Law Street.

The latest news from Northwestern Law School seems eerily reminiscent of the TV show “Suits.” Just a few months before graduation, Northwestern University Law School discovered that one of its students, Mauricio Celis, was a Texas felon infamous for posing as a lawyer. Celis was expelled in March from the school’s International Law LLM program as soon as they discovered his criminal history. He is now suing Northwestern over the decision.

Northwestern Law argued that the 42-year-old LLM student misled admissions officials by failing to inform them of his criminal history during the admissions process. Celis’ record includes a felony conviction for falsely presenting himself as a lawyer and a misdemeanor conviction for misidentifying himself as a police officer in an incident involving a woman wandering nude from his hot tub to a local convenience store. According to Northwestern Law, Celis’ criminal history makes him an “undesirable candidate” for their program. School officials say he would not have been admitted had they known of his past.

Celis is arguing, however, that they never asked about his criminal history during the admissions process. He was accepted to the prestigious program in 2012, spent about $76 thousand on tuition and fees, and was never once asked about his criminal history in the process.

While Celis has not commented on the lawsuit, he mantains that he is innocent in the Texas cases, despite the fact that both ended in convictions. He told the Chicago Tribune, “I’ve been trying to put this thing behind me for many, many years already”. According to his Northwestern application, Celis holds dual citizenship in the United States and Mexico. He worked in the legal field in Mexico and then co-founded a personal injury law firm in Texas in 2005.

In 2006, Celis made headlines in Chicago. After six children died in an apartment fire, he read a statement outside their wake. The Chicago Tribune picked up the story, and quoted Celis as the family’s attorney. According to Celis, he has no idea how the Tribune got the impression that he was the family’s attorney. He believes that he was brought in to help because he speaks Spanish, like the victims’ family members.  He has also stated that he has “never allowed anyone to have the impression” that he was licensed to practice law in the United States, and that while he was happy to help, he “let the lawyers do the lawyering.”

In 2007, Celis was indicted in Texas on charges that he illegally presented himself as a lawyer. Based on the court records, the argument was over whether or not Celis could technically be considered a lawyer from Mexico, despite the fact that he never obtained a license to practice law in the United States. Celis argued that the legal education that he received in Mexico qualified him to practice certain types of law there, although he was unable to provide any official documentation of his certification. He also maintained that he never actually practiced law in the United States.

However, the jury wasn’t buying it. They found Celis guilty on 14 counts in 2009, and he was sentenced to 10 years of probation. In response to the jury’s verdict, Celis said, “they looked at me as being some shyster faking my credentials, I am a Mexican lawyer.”

Regardless, Celis was convicted, and the issue at stake here is that Northwestern Law really should have caught it. If they were truly concerned about having convicted felons in their program, then that is something that they should ask about on their application. At the very least, they could have googled him. One quick search and you have access to public criminal records. That way, they wouldn’t have had to kick a student out just months before he was set to graduate. Paul Campos, a University of Colorado law professor and frequent critic of law schools put it best, stating,  “the fact that this guy got into Northwestern … it’s, I think, kind of revelatory of how much checking goes on even at a top program.” If a school doesn’t manage to ask its applicants a question that is found on every McDonalds application, then that’s on them.

Northwestern is arguing that Celis should have known that his criminal history was a problem, and should have voluntarily disclosed the information to admissions. However, I would disagree: if you don’t ask, what would stop someone with a criminal history from applying to your program? If someone with a criminal past wants to do something positive in their life, like get an education, why would they voluntarily disclose information that could stand in their way? It’s the school’s responsibility to ask the right questions of their applicants, not the applicants’ responsibility to anticipate possible issues.

According to court records filed in Chicago, Celis and Northwestern both agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit. No details of a settlement were disclosed. While they were able to work something out this time, hopefully this situation will make law schools rethink their application processes so something like this does not happen again.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Devers via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Too Much, Too Late: Northwestern Law Expels LLM Student for Former Crimes appeared first on Law Street.

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

How does lethal injection work?

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

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

What problems has lethal injection run into recently?

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

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

Should we continue using lethal injection?

Drug Replacements

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

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

Questions of Humaneness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there options besides lethal injection?

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

Return to Electrocutions

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

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

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

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

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

Return to Firing Squads

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

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

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

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

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

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

It costs that much to kill someone?

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

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

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

Should the death penalty be abolished altogether?

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

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

Resources

Primary

SCOTUS: Majority Opinion in Baze v. Rees

Additional

Hospira: Position on Use of Our Products in Lethal Injections

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

Guardian: Clayton Lockett Writhes on Gurney in Botched Procedure

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg: Slow Death in Oklahoma Was Europe’s Doing

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

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

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

Tennessean: Methodists Want Tennessee to Reconsider Electric Chair Law

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

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

Eric Essagof

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

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

Austin, Texas is home to many innovative tech startups. Recently I discovered a wonderful peer-to-peer bike sharing startup with its own cool app. Spokefly and founder Nate McGuire are excited to provide the city of Austin, and eventually areas throughout the country, with an easy to use, technology-supported way to bike! Nate graciously agreed to an interview and I’m happy to share all the Spokefly details. If you’re seeking more information, you can check them out at www.spokefly.com or tweet them @Spokefly. Prepare for the Spokefly greatness!

Spokefly, a six-month-old company, has gone live but won’t be considered officially launched until it moves into an additional city. Right now the company is working to expand to DC and the Bay Area. When I asked Nate how he came up with the idea for a peer-to-peer bike share, he said he was first inspired by his friends who were able to get around Austin much faster during rush hour because they biked. After realizing how efficient bikes could be, he decided to create a peer-to-peer bike share that didn’t have the same limitations as Austin’s bike share. Unlike the city’s program, Spokefly allows customers to browse an app and select from a variety of listed bikes, with the advantage of docking the bike at any rack throughout the city. Spokefly just changed the game.

Spokefly allows riders to use their app to reserve a bike. Available to both Android and Apple users, there will be a new release of the mobile app within the next two weeks. Once the bike is reserved, riders are given a combination number to unlock it. At that point, the rider is free to go anywhere they need to in the city. Once they’re finished, they find the nearest bike rack to dock and lock the bike, and then check it in using the app on their phone. It’s nice, easy, and most importantly convenient. The GPS on the rider’s phone records the bike’s location, allowing other users to find it. My only concern, which I shared with Nate, was the potential to have all the bikes end up in the same area; however, Nate assured me that because of Spokefly’s large-scale distribution system, they are able to make sure bikes are spread throughout the city, allowing customers to always have easy access.

People interested in joining Spokefly can select one of three membership options, and can even list their bike to receive a 50 percent discount on monthly membership. Spokefly has been received very well in Austin, especially with college students. Nate was happy to announce that students with unlimited monthly memberships are now using Spokefly almost as their primary mode of transportation. I definitely see the appeal. Aside from the freedom of docking the bike anywhere, biking is already a better cost saving mode of transportation. With biking there are no costs for gas, parking, or insurance. For a monthly fee, Spokefly users with unlisted bikes don’t even have to buy a bike or worry about storage or maintenance. As if Spokefly wasn’t already sweet, they’re also considering creating an option for app users to request on-demand public delivery.

Nate made it clear that Spokefly reviews all bikes before they agree to list them, and requires owners to constantly maintain the bikes to ensure they are safe for all riders. Because owners are responsible for providing combination locks to secure the bikes, Spokefly has a list of acceptable locks for participation in the program, and the company will refuse to list any bike that doesn’t meet all safety requirements, including providing that approved combination lock.

After speaking with Nate McGuire and confirming the utility, convenience, and safety of Spokefly, I’m just waiting for it to come to DC.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spokefly, Austin Tech Startup, Spreads Peer-to-Peer Bike Sharing appeared first on Law Street.

2 + 2 = 4. George Washington was the first President. Dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth together.

Does one of those things sound different than the others, something you wouldn’t learn in school? If you’re a student at many private schools, and recently discovered, some charter schools in Texas, creationism is taught along with evolution.

Charter schools are privately run but publicly funded. Depending on the school, charters may focus on a particular teaching method, specialized curriculum, or just as an alternative to neighborhood public schools about which parents are concerned.

The charter school movement has been growing across the country, but not without concern. While some schools have seen incredible jumps in test scores and student abilities, other still suffer. This has led to discussions about effectiveness, management, and selectivity within charter schools.

One recent topic of conversation has to do with the curriculums in certain charter schools, specifically, those that teach creationism and other Christian themes.

A recent article pointed out that the largest charter school provider in Texas is teaching Creationism, among other topics, to its students. Responsive Education Solutions runs charter schools across the state, and on its surface, doesn’t seem to be partisan or religious in any way.

But as more people have looked into it, it seems Responsive Ed schools use materials that teach creationism, and discount other, more commonly taught, scientific principles like evolution.

So what’s the problem?

Absolutely nothing, if this was a private school. But even though Responsive Ed manages its own personnel and classrooms, it receives a lot of money from the state. And unfortunately for the company, the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism in schools is unconstitutional.

In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism would violate the First Amendment because it would force Christian ideology into a public school. That was in 1987.

So why, over 15 years later, is this still happening? Charter schools have a large amount of autonomy, and Texas has a lot of people in charter schools. Responsive Ed themselves claim to have over 17,000 students enrolled at their various campuses around the state.

The reason schools often get away with presenting information to discredit evolution, is because of state standards. While in Aguillard, it was decided schools can’t teach creationism, the way some Texas curricula are worded, students can be taught to question the “theory” of evolution. So while a teacher may not come straight out and say, “evolution is incorrect,” he or she could tell students about the “lack of evidence” surrounding the Theory.

And while people outside the state are certainly discussing the ramifications of these actions, including Bill Nye, who will be debating creationism at the Creation Museum in Kentucky (yes, that’s a museum dedicated to the idea of creationism) soon, some politicians in Texas don’t seem to mind. Earlier this month, a candidate for the Texas Board of Education made quite the statement when she said, “we know we didn’t come from monkeys.”

And Texas isn’t the only state in which this is happening. Recently, Virginia legislators have proposed a bill which would encourage students to “respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific controversies in science classes.” This sounds wonderful without the context of the rest of the bill, which reads in part, “[This bill shall not] promote or discriminate against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs.” In short, religious ideas can be presented as a counter-argument to scientific ideas like evolution.

As recently as this week, South Dakota has proposed legislation which would make it illegal to restrict teaching Intelligent Design in schools. Though, as previously discussed, it’s already illegal to teach Intelligent Design. States across the country seem to be looking for ways to get around these laws.

This isn’t to say there is never a place for Intelligent Design in the classrooms, or that talk of creationism should be banned. In Humanities, social sciences, and religion/philosophy classes, there is a clear and distinctive reason for having students discuss these topics in the proper context, not as hard science.

But by attaching these discussions to science classes, and presenting them as legitimate alternatives to scientific theories like evolution, students will be at a disadvantage. We already know that American students are behind other industrialized nations in math and science testing scores, and by perpetuating the idea that evolution is a theory without any merit will only harm students who wish to attend college and beyond.

Additionally, teaching creationism in publicly funded schools could be the start of a slippery slope. By injecting religious (or really any politically fueled topic) tenets into science classes, who is to say they won’t soon enter history classes as well? Public schooling is supposed to provide all students, regardless of beliefs, the most factual and non-partisan education possible. Teaching creationism is not the best way to accomplish this.

But change to these policies cannot come without lawmakers taking a stand on the topic. And unfortunately, the trend seems to be swinging towards allowing the teaching for creationism more rather than less.

So without politicians taking note that there is an inherent problem with schools using taxpayer money to teach creationism, and discount evolution, creationism may be around schools in Texas, and other states, for a while longer.

[Slate] [Edwards v. Aguillard] [Washington Post] [Virginia Legislation]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Ray Bodden via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teaching Creationism in Public Schools…Really? appeared first on Law Street.

Mexican citizen Edgar Tamayo Arias was executed last Wednesday night in Texas for the fatal shooting of a police officer, despite pressure from the Mexican government and U.S. State Department to reconsider.

Tamayo’s execution by lethal injection marks the first of 2014 for Texas, a state that carried out 16 executions last year, according to The Bureau of Justice preliminary statistics. In fact, since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976, Texas has been the most active death penalty state with 509 executions – roughly 37 percent of the 1,360 total executions that have taken place nationwide.

While capital punishment has been a divisive issue for years, Tamayo’s case was especially controversial.  In January 1994, Officer Guy Gaddis was transporting Tamayo and another suspect from a robbery scene. Tamayo, who was carrying a concealed pistol, reached for the weapon and shot Gaddis three times in the back of the head. Tamayo fled on foot and was arrested a few blocks away. Despite the heinous nature of his crime, the Mexican government claimed Tamayo’s trial was tainted because he had not been properly informed of his right to diplomatic assistance following his arrest.

This right, granted by a 1963 international agreement known as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, “requires all countries who signed it to provide foreign nationals accused of a crime with notice and an opportunity to seek assistance from their consulate.” The Mexican government called Tamayo’s case “a clear violation by the United States of its international obligations.”

According to Diann Rust-Tierney, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, “assistance would likely have been critical. Language barriers and intellectual disabilities hampered his [Tamayo’s] ability to receive a fair trial. It might have made the difference between an execution and a more appropriate means of holding him accountable.”

Tamayo’s case is not the first in which allegations of a violation of consular rights have been raised. Within the past five years, the state of Texas has executed two other Mexican citizens amid disputes regarding international rights. Jose Ernesto Medellin and Humberto Leal Garcia Jr., both convicted of rape and murder, were executed in 2008 and 2011 respectively.

Tamayo’s lawyers and supporters were not the only ones questioning Texas’ legal procedures. In 2004, the International Court of Justice – the primary judicial body of the United Nations – ruled that the United States had violated its obligations under the Vienna Convention. According to the ICJ, the U.S. had failed to inform Mexican consulates immediately after the arrests of nearly 50 Mexican citizens, Tamayo included. In what became known as the “Avena decision,” the ICJ ordered the U.S. to reconsider the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals. In 2005, then-president George W. Bush backed the ICJ, calling for states to abide by the court’s ruling. In the end however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 Medellín v Texas case that “although the ‘Avena decision’ is a binding obligation under international law, without a statute from Congress the president does not have the power to force states to comply with ICJ rulings.” Without the proper legislation, Texas was essentially free to circumvent international law.

While Texas is not bound by the Vienna Convention, Rust-Tierney points out that Texas’ decision may challenge the U.S. Constitution. She states, “the Constitution places the authority to define and engage in foreign policy with the federal government [and also] some argue that by refusing to follow the dictates of the Vienna Convention, Texas is setting international law and policy.”

Even more troublesome, the legal ramifications from the Tamayo case could have an impact for Americans who find themselves in legal trouble overseas. In a letter written to Texas Governor Rick Perry last month, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged him to grant Tamayo a new hearing, calling the decision to set an execution date “extremely detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Kerry wrote “I want to be clear: I have no reason to doubt the facts of Mr. Tamayo’s conviction, and as a former prosecutor, I have no sympathy for anyone who would murder a police officer [but] this is a process issue I am raising because it could impact the way American citizens are treated in other countries.”

In the end, despite appeals and diplomatic pressure, Texas would not back down. According to Lucy Nashed, spokeswoman for Gov. Perry, the state was simply enforcing its laws. “It doesn’t matter where you’re from – if you commit a despicable crime like this in Texas, you are subject to our state laws, including a fair trial by jury and the ultimate penalty.”

Twenty other foreign citizens, including 11 Mexicans, remain on death row in Texas.

[CNN] [Fox News Latino] [The Guardian] [LA Times]

—

Matt DiCenso (@MattDiCenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [Zaldylmg via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mexican National Executed Despite Pressure from Mexican and U.S. Governments appeared first on Law Street.

Merry Christmas Eve, folks!

Today, I’ve got ridiculousness upon ridiculousness. And it’s infuriating.

Salon reported today, via Raw Story and NBC News, on Rachel Bradshaw-Bean, a young woman from Texas who was raped in the band room at Henderson High School back in 2010, when she was just 17 years old. This is the first time Rachel has spoken out to the media about her experience – and she’s telling an awful story.

In an interview with NBC, Rachel recounted how in 2010, when she initially reported the rape, her school told her to “work it out.”

Are you kidding? Go kiss and make up with your rapist, sweetheart, no big deal.

I can’t.

News of the assault traveled to a school vice principal the following day, and Rachel was sent to a health clinic for examination. The clinic confirmed that her injuries were consistent with her report.

Despite the fact that medical professionals confirmed Rachel had experienced a rape, the Texas police informed her and her parents that no charges would be filed.

NO CHARGES WOULD BE FILED.

As in, you got raped, darling, but no one really cares. Get over it.

WTF?! This is the actual worst.

Except it’s not! Because things got worse for Rachel. Her high school opted not to carry out its own, independent investigation — which is required by law under Title IX. Instead, they decided to ship Rachel and her attacker off to a disciplinary school for 45 days with charges of “public lewdness.”

That’s right. Public fucking lewdness. How dare you get raped — how indecent of you!

So, Rachel’s mom tried to transfer her daughter to a different school. You know, where maybe she wouldn’t get treated like a criminal as punishment for being the victim of a sexual assault. And guess what? That didn’t pan out. Since Rachel was technically suspended from her original school, no other school would take her in. Ridiculous.

Seriously so bad.

So, Rachel and her family went to the ACLU, where they were told that, sadly, their situation was far from unusual. According to the ACLU, school officials often don’t understand the laws, so they don’t put much stock in following them.

The Department of Education does, though. A year after Rachel’s ordeal, it ruled that Henderson High School had violated Title IX by failing to investigate the attack, and by retaliating against the victim with her exile to a disciplinary school. As a result, the school was given a 13-point plan for Title IX compliance, mandatory staff training around rape and sexual assault, and was ordered to pay for Rachel’s counseling.

I’m glad that at least there were some consequences for this shit hole of a case.

There are so many issues here. Let’s start with the fundamental lack of empathy or concern for Rachel. WTF. This is misogyny at its finest. Misogyny, if you’re rusty on your Women’s Studies vocab, is defined as having a hatred for women. And that’s all I can really explain this as. Hatred of women. Because how else do you understand such heartless behavior? Here’s a person who was violently attacked. She’s in physical pain, she’s mentally and emotionally traumatized — this is a terrible thing that’s happened. People should respond with some empathy, am I right? There should be a collective desire to help the victim heal, and to teach the perpetrator never to cause this type of harm again.

That’s what should have happened. But it didn’t. Instead, Rachel was treated with carelessness at best and outright contempt at worst. Why would you treat a victim that way? It’s disgusting.

Seriously gross.

Moving right along, let’s tackle this issue of telling women to get over it. I’m so, so, so very sick of this sentiment. And I hear it way too often.

When someone is hurting, and they’re told to get over it, do you know what they’re hearing? They’re hearing that they don’t matter. That their feelings, and experiences, and their pain doesn’t matter. They’re being dismissed, denied, and ignored. And when that happens, a fundamental lack of trust forms in the space where healing should have started. Because, how do you feel safe in a world where you fundamentally don’t matter?

You don’t.

That’s where we’re at right now, people. And we’ve been here for a long time. Every time a woman like Rachel gets brushed aside, women everywhere are being reminded that we don’t matter. Not really. Not in this moment, not in this society.

So, for Christmas, let’s change that, shall we? Let’s use all those warm, fuzzy feelings of love and goodwill, and let’s start transferring them to all the people who need it most. Some of those people will be like Rachel. And some of them will be in totally different, but equally awful, circumstances.

Either way, let’s spread the love this year. We could all use a little extra.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [The Untrained Eye via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post All I Want For Christmas: Stop Telling Rape Victims to Get Over it appeared first on Law Street.