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:

Jeff Sessions vs. Donald Trump?

It seems like Attorney General Jeff Sessions is in a bit of a spat with his boss, President Donald Trump. Trump has sent out multiple tweets specifically targeting Sessions; in addition to calling him “beleaguered” last week, he tweeted criticisms about his job performance yesterday.

Why didn’t A.G. Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of Clinton investigation but got….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

…big dollars ($700,000) for his wife’s political run from Hillary Clinton and her representatives. Drain the Swamp!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

But apparently these attacks on Sessions aren’t sitting well with Republicans in Washington. Some of Trump’s top aides are reportedly frustrated with Trump’s criticism of Sessions, including Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon. And some Senate Republicans have made it clear that they won’t support a Sessions replacement. A few have even spoken out against Trump’s attacks. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said it was “highly inappropriate” and “says more about President Trump than it does Attorney General Sessions, and to me, it’s a sign of great weakness on the part of President Trump.”

Republicans say nothing as Trump belittles every enemy, institution, and at-risk group. He goes after Jeff Sessions? Deeply, deeply troubled

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) July 26, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

It seems like Congress is one step closer to allowing horsemeat for human consumption. In the U.S., it’s illegal to sell or serve meat that hasn’t been inspected by the Department of Agriculture. At the same time, there has been a ban on funding horsemeat inspections, which has effectively shut down the practice of slaughtering horses for consumption.

But last week, the House Appropriations Committee voted down the ban 27-25. Even wild horses could be in danger under the Trump Administration. The budget proposal for 2018 suggested that killing or selling of wild horses should be allowed in order to save money on their care.

Wild horse advocates are concerned that this would end an almost half-century long protection of horses, and said that the president is just giving in to livestock lobbyists.

On Tuesday, the committee will vote on a bill that prohibits government funding for “the destruction of healthy, unadopted wild horses” or selling wild horses if it will lead to “their destruction for processing into commercial products.”

The ban on funds for horsemeat inspection has led to over 100,000 horses being exported annually to Canada or Mexico to be slaughtered. Those in favor of ending the ban said that allowing inspection on horse slaughtering in the U.S. could ensure a more humane treatment of the horses.

Congress is dangerously close to opening the door for horse slaughter to return to the US, take action today: https://t.co/bIYFTMUIHa pic.twitter.com/8zGHbA35qa

— ASPCA (@ASPCA) July 18, 2017

But supporters of the ban said that previous inspections in the U.S. showed the horses were being treated inhumanely, with some even being “conscious during dismemberment.” “We know unequivocally that horse slaughter is not humane and can’t be done humanely because of the unique biology of horses,” said Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard.

Eating horsemeat is controversial in America; most Americans see horses as pets or companions, and Representative Marcy Kaptur pointed out that Americans fought wars and built the country on the backs of horses. The three remaining horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. closed in 2007.

While horsemeat is still seen as a delicacy in some parts of the world, like Japan and Belgium, eating horse is taboo in many Western countries. Four years ago there was a horsemeat scandal in Europe that spread from Ireland across at least 19 countries. Companies like Ikea had to publicly apologize and recall food products after they were found to contain traces of horsemeat.

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 Congress Might Soon Approve of Horsemeat for Dinner appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration recently announced it would be delaying an Obama-era rule that would allow foreign entrepreneurs to temporarily live and work in the U.S. to build up their companies. In the administration’s announcement, it said the rule would be delayed until next March. But it made clear that its ultimate goal is to scrap the rule entirely.

The delay will “provide [the Department of Homeland Security] with an opportunity to obtain comments from the public regarding a proposal to rescind the rule,” the announcement said. The rule, known as the International Entrepreneur Rule, was set to go into effect next week. It was approved by former President Barack Obama before he left office in January.

The rule was designed “to improve the ability of certain promising start-up founders to begin growing their companies within the United States and help improve our nation’s economy through increased capital spending, innovation and job creation,” according to a press release issued when the final rule was signed earlier this year.

To qualify, foreign entrepreneurs would have to show they have raised at least $250,000 from known American investors, or at least $100,000 from government entities. Qualified applicants would have been granted stays of up to 30 months, with possible extensions. The rule would also have applied to a grantee’s spouse and children. Under the Obama Administration, DHS estimated roughly 3,000 entrepreneurs would have benefitted from the rule.

In explaining its decision to scrap the rule, the Trump Administration pointed to an executive order President Donald Trump signed in January, titled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.”

The order directs the DHS to “take appropriate action to ensure that parole authority is exercised only on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of the statute, and in all circumstances only when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit derived from such parole.”

Investors, along with many tech industry representatives, blasted the administration’s decision to delay, and potentially delete, the rule. In a statement, Bobby Franklin, the president and CEO of the National Venture Capital Association, said the announcement “is extremely disappointing and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the critical role immigrant entrepreneurs play in growing the next generation of American companies.”

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 Trump Administration Delays Implementation of International Entrepreneur Rule 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.

State lawmakers in Oregon passed a bill on Monday that would increase protections for the personal information of marijuana consumers. Oregon is the latest state to propose legislation intended to defend against stricter enforcement of the federal marijuana ban by the Trump Administration, something Attorney General Jeff Sessions has indicated is a possibility. The bill attracted bipartisan support, passing by a vote of 53-5.

If Democratic Gov. Kate Brown signs the proposal, which she is expected to do, marijuana shops would no longer be able to collect consumers’ personal information–names, birthdates, home addresses, and so on. Unlike Alaska, Colorado, and Washington State–the other three states where recreational marijuana is actively being sold–cannabis shops in Oregon can collect this information in a database without the customer’s consent. Businesses use the information largely for marketing purposes.

According to the bill, shops would have 30 days to destroy the information they have on record; they would be barred from collecting information in the future. States that have legalized marijuana in some form have taken steps in recent weeks to protect against any forthcoming crackdown by the Trump Administration. Last week, California–which legalized recreational marijuana last November–introduced a bill that would prohibit local law enforcement authorities from collaborating with federal drug agents.

Last week, the governors of Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington sent a letter to Sessions and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, asking for clarity on the administration’s enforcement stance. Sessions responded that marijuana will be included in a broad Justice Department crime-reduction initiative. While his past is littered with anti-marijuana comments, Sessions has not explicitly stated how he will enforce the federal ban. He recently said marijuana is “only slightly less awful” than heroin.

In addition to protecting consumers against an invasive business practice, the proposal is meant to curtail requests by federal authorities, who, if unleashed by Sessions, could penalize distributors as well as consumers, even in states where the drug is perfectly legal. “Given the immediate privacy issues … this is a good bill protecting the privacy of Oregonians choosing to purchase marijuana,” said state Rep. Carl Wilson, a Republican sponsor of the bill.

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 Oregon Passes Bill to Protect Marijuana Consumers’ Personal Information appeared first on Law Street.

On April 18, Democrats hope to flip a reliably red district in suburban Atlanta blue, in a special election for the House seat left vacant by Tom Price. Price is now the secretary of Health and Human Services. Jon Ossoff, the leading Democratic hopeful, is one of 18 candidates for Georgia’s Sixth District–most are Republicans. All will appear on the same ballot, which Ossoff, 30, hopes to exploit.

Decency. Humility. Respect. Values this campaign believes in. Values worth fighting for. https://t.co/fBvar6nbGX pic.twitter.com/P59QQ1t4dm

— Jon Ossoff (@ossoff) April 1, 2017

If the Republican vote is split among the dozen or so Republicans, Ossoff can win the election outright. To do that, he would need at least 50 percent of the vote which, in a district that has been a GOP bastion for decades, is far from guaranteed. If none of the candidates clinch the election with 50 percent of the vote, a run-off is scheduled in June for the top two vote-getters.

Republican strategists say that Ossoff’s best chance is to win outright on April 18, something they cede is possible, but they remain confident that he would lose in a run-off to whichever Republican candidate emerges from the pack. Steve Strivers, the National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, recently told Politico that he is confident enough Republican voters will turn out to stave off the surging Ossoff.

“Special elections are special, and the Democrats and some independents are excited, so we need to make sure Republicans are just as excited about voting,” he said “Our job is to make sure we keep him below 50 [percent],” Stivers added: “Then we coalesce and unite our forces around one candidate in June.”

The top candidates from both parties are pulling an uncommon number of campaign donations. Ossoff has raised more than $4 million, including over $1 million from readers of the liberal-leaning news site, the Daily Kos. The surge in donations is likely a result of the liberal resistance to President Donald Trump, which Ossoff has pledged to join if he were elected. Republicans have also raised a few million dollars to boost their field of candidates, including front-runner–and former Georgia secretary of state–Karen Handel.

While the Sixth District has been a Republican stronghold for decades, there are some signs that Ossoff, a Georgetown University graduate who currently works as a documentary filmmaker, can turn the tide blue. For one, polls show Ossoff in the lead. But perhaps more importantly, the district supported Trump over his opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, by 1.5 percentage points, a far narrower victory than Republican candidates traditionally enjoy in the affluent, highly-educated district.

A Democratic victory would not have a sizable affect on the make-up of the House, as Republicans currently hold 237 seats to Democrats’ 193. Five seats are vacant, four of which are open because the representatives were tapped for posts in the Trump Administration, including Price. But as one of the first elections since Trump’s Election Day upset, Democrats could score a symbolic notch that could provide momentum for the mid-term elections in 2018.

Alec Siegel

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

The post What You Need to Know About Jon Ossoff’s Campaign for Georgia’s Sixth appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who is on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has become known for defying climate research and trying to prove that global warming is a hoax. In 2014 he brought a snowball to the Senate floor. Back then, 2014 was the hottest year on record and Inhofe asked the chair, “You know what this is?” before throwing the snowball. On Thursday, he appeared in an interview on CNN’s “New Day” and accused the Environmental Protection Agency of brainwashing American kids with propaganda.

It is not clear whether he really doesn’t believe in science, or if he doesn’t understand it, or if he’s just trying to make a political point. But he actually said, without providing any examples or proof: “we are going to take all this stuff that comes out of the EPA that is brainwashing our kids, that is propaganda, things that aren’t true, allegations.” Inhofe was referring to Donald Trump’s new budget proposal, which shows huge cuts in the funding for the EPA.

A lot of people were outraged by Inhofe’s comments.

The deniers have taken over. Future generations will despise these people for their recklessness and selfishness. https://t.co/TBR6kmuoBx

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) March 15, 2017

Lunatics like this are one of the main reasons your clean water is at risk https://t.co/esoPQErEpB

— Jordan (@JordanChariton) March 16, 2017

When interviewer Poppy Harlow asked Inhofe to explain his remarks about brainwashing, he avoided the question and instead started praising Scott Pruitt, the new head of the EPA, who sued the agency when he was the attorney general of Oklahoma.

Inhofe has made this allegation before; in July he made similar comments to radio host Eric Metaxas. He told Metaxas he “was the first one back in 2002 to tell the truth about the global warming stuff and all of that.” Then he told an anecdote in which his granddaughter asked him why he doesn’t understand global warming. Inhofe told the radio host, “I did some checking and Eric, the stuff that they teach our kids nowadays, you have to un-brainwash them when they get out.”

In 2010, Inhofe took his grandchildren to build an igloo on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and named it “Al Gore’s New Home.” He has called global warming the “the greatest hoax” ever imposed on Americans. Now, given the GOP’s control of the government, he has a chance to do some real damage. “Now he and his cronies have far more reach and are far more dangerous than they’ve ever been… That’s good news for the polluters but horrible news for public health,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters.

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 Senator James Inhofe Claims the EPA is Brainwashing Our Kids appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s campaign proposal of a “Muslim ban” is coming back to haunt him yet again: on Wednesday, two federal judges blocked Trump’s new travel ban, which would have restricted travel from six largely Muslim countries. The ban was set to go into effect at midnight. These rulings mark the second time Trump’s attempts at implementing such an order–essentially a veiled “Muslim ban”–have failed. 

Both judges ruled that the executive order amounted to religious discrimination. Judge Derrick Watson of the Federal District Court in Honolulu issued a temporary restraining order on Trump’s directive, on the grounds that it was “issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose.”

Hours later in Maryland, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that the purpose of the ban was “the effectuation of the proposed Muslim ban” that Trump repeatedly invoked during the campaign. The plaintiff in Honolulu was Ismail Elshikh, the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii. Elshikh argued that the ban would have barred his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting him. Syria is one of the six countries–along with Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran–included in Trump’s order.

The Maryland ruling was based on complaints by a cohort of nonprofit groups who work with refugees and immigrants. At a rally in Nashville after the Hawaii judge announced his ruling, Trump said he would take his case to the Supreme Court. He also suggested scrapping the second order, which dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries, and instead pursuing the first one in court.

“Let me tell you something. I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way,” Trump said. “The danger is clear, the law is clear, the need for my executive order is clear.” While there is an argument that Trump was within his executive authority in issuing the order, there is not much tangible evidence that the order would alleviate a clear danger to U.S. national security. Americans have never been killed in a terrorist attack by a citizen from one of the six affected countries.

The government’s next move is likely going to be similar to what happened with the first order last month. An appeal of Watson’s ruling–which was broader than Chuang’s–would be heard by the same federal appeals court in San Francisco that upheld the legal challenge to Trump’s first order. That appeal followed a ruling by a judge in Washington.

Since the issuance of his first travel ban in January, Trump has faced stiff resistance from Democrats, advocacy groups, and even some members of his own party. The Trump Administration contends the order–which freezes travel from the six countries for at least 90 days, and pauses refugee admissions for at least 120 days–is legal, and is based on guidelines the Obama Administration originally set.

But so far, Trump’s argument has been defeated by his own backlog of statements that seem to undermine his claim that his actions are just meant to protect national security. The legal battle is sure to continue, but for now at least, Trump might need to go back to the drawing board.

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 Trump’s Travel Ban Defeated in Court Once Again appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, on the anniversary of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, the Federalist Society released an excerpt from a documentary about his life and legacy. The eight-minute video includes quotes from his children and the other Supreme Court Justices, and some clips of him in action. “On the anniversary of his passing, some of the people who knew him best recount the life and legacy of the ‘inimitable’ Antonin Scalia–father, husband, jurist,” says a statement on the conservative organization’s website.

“He was a principled man.” – Chief Justice Roberts
“I miss him every day. He was inimitable.” – Justice Ginsburg https://t.co/ya7rFSbXfL

— Federalist Society (@FedSoc) February 14, 2017

Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court has been empty ever since he passed away, as Republicans refused to vote, or even consider, former President Obama’s nominee to replace him, Merrick Garland. Now that President Trump has nominated Neil Gorsuch, who is a conservative judge very similar to Scalia in many ways, a lot of Democrats have criticized what they call the GOP’s double standard. Outspoken civil rights activist Reverend Al Sharpton said over the weekend:

Now they want to talk about, since Trump has nominated Gorsuch, how qualified he is. Well, he ain’t no more qualified than Garland was. The danger of this proceeding is, are you now saying that you will select Supreme Court judges based on if the party on the White House corresponds with the party that is the majority of the Senate, then you have in effect changed the constitutional requirements to select a Supreme Court judge.

It’s unclear if or when the Federalist Society will release a full-length documentary about the former justice. But the video clip ends with the words “coming soon.” In the meantime, Neil Gorsuch is on the long road of questionnaires, procedures, and hearings that make up the confirmation process, to finally replace the vacancy left by Scalia.

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 Federalist Society Released Part of a Documentary about Antonin Scalia appeared first on Law Street.

New Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has had a rough first few days. On Friday morning, she was supposed to make her first visit to a public school in Washington D.C., but she was blocked from entering by a group of protesters. The protesters physically blocked DeVos from reaching the entrance of Jefferson Academy, a middle school. One of them yelled, “She doesn’t represent anything they stand for” and another one, “Keep giving money to senators and find your way to positions, you should be proud of yourself.”

WATCH: Sec. Betsy DeVos physically blocked by protesters from entering DC school–turned away and left.
Video: @SweeneyABC pic.twitter.com/RAycuKEVgm

— ABC 7 News – WJLA (@ABC7News) February 10, 2017

DeVos and her driver turned around and left, but entered the school through another entrance and met with teachers, the principal, and the chancellor of D.C. public schools.

Earlier in the week, DeVos–or whoever runs her Twitter account–sent out a tweet about her first day on the new job.

Day 1 on the job is done, but we’re only getting started. Now where do I find the pencils? pic.twitter.com/0vRKF1opE9

— Betsy DeVos (@BetsyDeVos) February 9, 2017

What was probably meant as a cute question did not sit well with the public. A ton of Twitter users offered their answers.

@BetsyDeVos not in the thousands of public schools that can barely afford supplies. Looking forward to you cleaning that lil issue up.

— Erin Weaver (@ByErinWeaver) February 9, 2017

Many others pointed out that public schools are underfunded and that many teachers have to use their own money to buy pencils for the students.

@BetsyDeVos At the store. Something you should know: we teachers buy pencils and supplies for our classes with our OWN money.

— Robin McCauley Lynch (@RobinMcCauley) February 9, 2017

Others criticized DeVos’s earlier statement that guns could be necessary in some schools, because students could be threatened by grizzly bears.

.@BetsyDeVos He has them… pic.twitter.com/6UkaKaP0sN

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) February 9, 2017

Some were wondering what she was going to do with the pencils:

.@BetsyDeVos is this what you plan to do with your pencil while public school teachers work hard to educate and protect students? pic.twitter.com/fzyCPlhLkb

— Jaipreet Virdi (@jaivirdi) February 9, 2017

And yet others came up with ideas for how she could make some money to actually buy pencils:

@BetsyDeVos You worked a whole day but didn’t have anything to write with? Maybe you could hold a bake sale to buy some pencils.

— (((David Lytle))) (@davitydave) February 9, 2017

While it was a laughing matter for some, there are still concerns that the new Education Secretary is a billionaire who has no experience working in education or even attending a public school. But as the Washington Teacher’s Union said during an earlier, peaceful, gathering; if DeVos succeeds in her new role, everyone succeeds.

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 Twitter Replies to Betsy DeVos’s First Week appeared first on Law Street.

In a move that had many people drawing parallels to George Orwell’s classic novel “1984,” the Trump administration issued communications bans on several government agencies this week.

On Monday morning, the U.S. Department of Agriculture sent out an email to the employees of its research branch–the Agricultural Research Service, which includes about 2,000 scientists–instructing everyone to stop most public communication. This move, which was eventually reversed, echoed similar other orders that were issued to several government agencies.

Buzzfeed obtained a copy of the email to the Agricultural Research Service, which said:

Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents. This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content.

Members of the scientific community criticized the announcement, citing suppression of science. After only a day of public outcry, another email was sent to the staff at ARS on Tuesday evening. This email came from ARS administrator Chavonda Jacobs-Young and reversed the initial order, saying the previous notice should not have been sent in the first place. Officials later told the media that the order to the ARS had not been coordinated with the rest of the department and that it would contradict current guidelines that encourage scientists to share their finding with the media.

Scientists at the USDA were also told that they could keep publishing scientific papers in academic magazines, but could not do any interviews with the media without getting approval from the communications office first. Communications restrictions were also sent to the EPA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, and the National Park Service. The EPA order also included instructions to freeze all grants and to not discuss it with any outsiders, the Huffington Post reported. The EPA issues grants for environmental research, air quality monitoring, education, and more.

USDA gag order rescinded after public outcry.https://t.co/L1x2EXsM9A
SO KEEP OUTCRYING – it works

— Kelly Hills (@rocza) January 25, 2017

Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, voiced anxiety about what this may mean for the agency’s future. “To our knowledge, there is not a precedent for large-scale communication freezes like this,” she said to Buzzfeed.

Last week after the inauguration, the official National Park Service Twitter account retweeted a picture comparing the crowds at the event to those attending Obama’s inauguration in 2009. Immediately after, it was ordered by its Washington office to stop all tweeting until further notice. The account was allowed to resume again, after deleting the original tweets and posting an apology.

We regret the mistaken RTs from our account yesterday and look forward to continuing to share the beauty and history of our parks with you pic.twitter.com/mctNNvlrmv

— NationalParkService (@NatlParkService) January 21, 2017

Then on Tuesday, the Badlands National Park sent out a series of tweets with climate change facts but were quickly deleted.

These are tweets that the new Admin has already deleted. RT if you believe in science and oppose Trump’s gag order on climate facts! pic.twitter.com/yBUgyfACN6

— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) January 25, 2017

And now, an alternative, unofficial National parks account claiming to be run by NPS employees has surfaced. The account, with the username @AltUSNatParkService, quickly gained popularity, with nearly 650,000 thousand followers on Wednesday afternoon. Several very similar accounts popped up as well.

What do we want?
Peer-reviewed Science
When do we want it?
Yesterday, please!

— AltUSNatParkService (@AltNatParkSer) January 25, 2017

White House spokesman Sean Spicer told the Hill that he couldn’t comment on the specific bans, but did say that it was normal procedure for a new administration. “I don’t think it’s anything surprise that when there’s an administration turnover, that we’re going to review the policy,” he said.

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 Trump Administration Orders Several Agencies to Restrict Public Communications appeared first on Law Street.

Jared Kushner will be a senior advisor in the White House, President-elect Donald Trump’s team announced on Monday. The appointment of Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, raises some questions about the legality of hiring family members for public positions. Ethics experts are split on whether or not the appointment will hold. Some claim it breaches a federal anti-nepotism law, while others say that law does not apply to White House appointments.

After being elected president in 1960, John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert, as the U.S. attorney general. The appointment of a family member to a top cabinet post stirred up a national debate on nepotism. In 1967, that debate was, for the time being, settled with a federal law that barred public officials from employing family members to serve in public posts. The law states:

A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official.

Trump’s appointment of Kushner, who Trump called “a tremendous asset and trusted adviser throughout the campaign and transition” in a statement on Monday, poses a challenge to the anti-nepotism statute. But some ethics experts say that a 1978 law narrowed the purview of the anti-nepotism law, and effectively allows White House officials, including the president, to appoint family members to a role within the administration.

A previous case involving a former foe of Kushner’s father-in-law, Hillary Clinton, also bodes well for Kushner. In 1993, President Bill Clinton selected his wife to head a health care initiative. The appointment was challenged in a federal court. D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman ruled in favor of the Clintons, saying he doubts “Congress intended to include the White House or the Executive Office of the President” in the anti-nepotism law. “So, for example, a President would be barred from appointing his brother as Attorney General, but perhaps not as a White House special assistant,” he added.

Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner says the President-elect didn’t believe the conspiracy theories he pushed https://t.co/qotveI7KAg pic.twitter.com/dkxNpnTJ0v

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) January 9, 2017

Kushner, 36, has business entanglements in the U.S. and abroad that some worry could compromise his ability to work in the White House. But Jamie Gorelick, Kushner’s lawyer, confirmed that Kushner will divest from his holdings and step-down from various real estate and publishing positions. Kushner is a lifelong Democrat and offers liberals, including New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who called him a “very reasonable person,” on Monday, a moderating voice in the Trump Administration.

Kushner is expected to have an equal role to Trump’s Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. His focus will be on free trade, forging private-public partnerships, and issues involving the Middle East and Israel. Gorelick, who served as the deputy attorney general in the Clinton Administration, is confident that her client will have no problem in his new post. “I am not saying there’s no legal argument on the other side,” she said on Monday. “I’m just saying we have the better argument and will prevail.”

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 Is Trump’s Appointment of Jared Kushner Legal? appeared first on Law Street.