Energy Transfer Partners, the Dallas-based developer of the heavily criticized Dakota Access Pipeline, has filed a massive $1 billion lawsuit against activist groups including Greenpeace, Earth First!, BankTrack, the Sierra Club, Bold Iowa, and Mississippi Stand. Energy Transfer claims that by protesting, and encouraging others to protest the pipeline, the actions of the groups “violated federal and state racketeering statutes, defamation, and constituted defamation and tortious interference under North Dakota law.”

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in North Dakota. Energy Transfer is claiming that the groups embarked on a campaign of misinformation about the pipeline, sparking the drawn-out protests, and funded and supported eco-terrorists. A press release about the lawsuit from Energy Transfer claims:

In addition to its misinformation campaign, the Enterprise directly and indirectly funded eco-terrorists on the ground in North Dakota.  These groups formed their own outlaw camp among peaceful protestors gathered near Lake Oahe, and exploited the peaceful activities of these groups to further the Enterprise’s corrupt agenda by inducing and directing violent and destructive attacks against law enforcement as well as Plaintiffs’ property and personnel.

The Dakota Access pipeline was heavily protested throughout the fall, but ultimately was able to be completed after President Donald Trump signed a presidential memo allowing the massive project. Construction was completed in April 2017. Greenpeace’s response to the recently-filed lawsuit actually pointed out a connection between Trump and Energy Transfer–the developers are being represented by Marc Kasowitz’s law firm. Kasowitz is one of Trump’s personal lawyers. Greenpeace USA General Counsel Tom Wetterer released a statement that included: “It is yet another classic ‘Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation’ (SLAPP), not designed to seek justice, but to silence free speech through expensive, time-consuming litigation. This has now become a pattern of harassment by corporate bullies, with Trump’s attorneys leading the way.”

Representatives from other groups named in the suit, including the Sierra Club, Bold Iowa, and Mississippi Stand, dispute the allegations and say they still oppose the pipeline.

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 Dakota Access Pipeline Developer Sues Greenpeace, Other Activist Groups appeared first on Law Street.

Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post News Quiz, News Quiz, Get Your News Quiz! 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:

Trump is Considering a Pardon for Joe Arpaio

President Donald Trump said that he is seriously considering issuing a pardon for Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff who was recently found guilty of criminal contempt for repeatedly profiling Hispanic people in violation of a court order. He has been dubbed “America’s toughest sheriff” and was a staunch Obama opponent who joined Trump in the “birther” movement. And Trump seems to like him quite a bit.

“Is there anyone in local law enforcement who has done more to crack down on illegal immigration than Sheriff Joe?” Trump reportedly said during a conversation with Fox News. “He has protected people from crimes and saved lives. He doesn’t deserve to be treated this way.” Arpaio’s sentencing is scheduled for October 5 and he is facing up to six months behind bars. Trump retweeted a Fox News article about the possibility of a pardon. Yesterday, Trump finally condemned the violence in Charlottesville, so some critics believe that the Arpaio comments might be a nod to white supremacist groups.

Make no mistake: If Trump pardons Arpaio, this would be an official presidential endorsement of racism.

— ACLU National (@ACLU) August 14, 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: August 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

If for whatever reason you have been lucky enough to avoid the news over the past few days, then let me be the first to welcome you to the “fear of an imminent nuclear war”-phase of Trump’s presidency.

President Donald Trump warned North Korea on Tuesday against making any more threats against the United States and announced his own threat of “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” This came in response to a report in the Washington Post that said the country is now capable of creating missile-ready nuclear weapons, according to a U.S. intelligence assessment.

While he did use rather apocalyptic terms, Trump’s threat is not anything new. In fact, threats against North Korea are almost a presidential tradition. In keeping with the tradition, the country decided to call the president’s bluff within hours of his statement. Pyongyang announced on Wednesday that it is “carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam.”

The Trump Administration issued its latest threat from the president’s Twitter account that said, “Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!”

But playing with Guam’s fate is not unusual for the United States. The United States’ historic treatment of Guam–and the fact that many people searched Google for Guam for the first time after this story broke–shows that the government does not really appear to care what happens to the island territory or its people.

What is Guam?

Guam is a U.S. island territory located in the Pacific Ocean–about three-quarters of the way from Hawaii to the Philippines. The U.S. seized the island from Spain in 1898 to provide a fueling station for the U.S. fleet in the western Pacific and has been used as a base for military operations since. Navy and Air Force bases make up approximately 27 percent of the island’s mass.

Guam as it stands governs itself but its foreign policy–like who it trades with and goes to war with–is determined by the federal government, and its citizens pay many–if not, all–of the same taxes that Americans pay. However, they can’t officially vote in the presidential election–despite having a high voter turnout in a straw poll the territory’s government holds–and they don’t have a voting representative in Congress. If any of those traits sound oddly familiar, it’s because they’re very similar to what the 13 original colonies went through before the Revolutionary War. Remember colonialism, that thing we fought England over because we hated it so much? Turns out we have our own version!

That’s an over-exaggeration. Surely Guam’s status as a military hub means something?

The truth is it really doesn’t. According to Guam’s office of veteran affairs, at least one in eight adult Guamanians is a veteran–one of the highest rates in the country. This speaks volumes about their dedication to the country’s armed forces considering they don’t get a vote in choosing a commander-in-chief. The territory also ranked dead last in medical care spending per veteran in 2012. In many cases, the closest veteran care facilities are in Hawaii–just over 3,000 miles away.

Also the colonial comparison is not far-fetched. Just three years after Guam was taken from Spain and cemented as a U.S. territory–not a great start–the Supreme Court wrote a series of opinions. They became known as the Insular Cases and were focused on the territories gained after the Spanish-American War. They decided that even though the territories–Guam included–belonged to the United States, all the laws and rights of the U.S. did not apply because they were inhabited by “alien races” who wouldn’t be able to understand “Anglo-Saxon principles” and laws. In fact, the decisions were authored by the same justice who wrote Plessy v. Ferguson.

Ok that’s not great. But is cynicism the only thing you have to offer?

No. The most important fact about Guam is that it is home to 163,000 American citizens. While the reality of whether or not North Korea could actually pose a threat to the U.S. is debated on the mainland, concern for an attack is apparently growing on the island according to Mayor Paul McDonald.

“Especially with our elders who have experienced the Second World War, when the Japanese force came and invaded Guam — you know, my mom, she’s 91 years old and I was over at the office all day today,” McDonald said to NPR. “She’d call me every 10 minutes to update her. We are really taking it seriously, a lot of the people in Guam.”

Even citizens who have been ignoring threats for years are suddenly feeling a little bit concerned about how the tone in Washington has changed. One example is Todd Thompson, a lawyer who lives on Guam, who said he laughed off past threats because he “figured cooler heads in Washington would prevail, and it was just an idle threat.”

“But I have to say, I’m not laughing now,” Thompson said to the Associated Press. “My concern is that things have changed in Washington, and who knows what’s going to happen?”

When you combine the long history of mistreatment the territory has received from the federal government and the ego-stroking threats the president feels almost compelled to make toward an unstable leader, it’s hard not to be worried.

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 Guam: From Historical Mistreatment to North Korean Threats 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:

Trump is “Thankful” to Putin for Expelling U.S. Diplomats From Russia

Late last month, President Vladimir Putin decided to expel 775 U.S. diplomats and staffers from the U.S. Embassy and consulates in Russia. Yesterday, President Donald Trump commented on that decision for the first time. Trump said that he is very thankful to Putin for helping him cut down the payroll and that it was great that he let “a large number of people” go. “There’s no real reason for them to go back. I greatly appreciate the fact that we’ve been able to cut our payroll of the United States. We’re going to save a lot of money,” he said. Some people thought it was a way to troll Putin.

I get it! Trump’s using reverse psychology on Putin … as some 2nd grade teachers do. Certain to work on a KGB trained killler/dictator. https://t.co/J6v5HY3h06

— Ronald Klain (@RonaldKlain) August 11, 2017

But Trump was not clear on whether he was actually joking, and a lot of people were baffled that the president took the increased tensions with Russia so lightly, as well as hundreds of people losing their jobs. Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul was not entertained and pointed out that the diplomatic staff in Russia provides the U.S. with invaluable information about the country, which is an incredibly important function.

Imagine wanting to know less about Russia’s military modernization! That’s what Trump praised today. https://t.co/qMorkknjhU

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) August 10, 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: August 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Trump Takes on McConnell

In his seemingly never-ending quest to pick a fight with pretty much everyone in Washington, President Donald Trump has continued his spat with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell by tweeting about him this morning.

Can you believe that Mitch McConnell, who has screamed Repeal & Replace for 7 years, couldn’t get it done. Must Repeal & Replace ObamaCare!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 10, 2017

Trump and McConnell have been exchanging words publicly since the Senate failed to pass a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act a few weeks ago. On Tuesday, McConnell claimed that Trump had “excessive expectations” about what Congress could accomplish in a short period of time. On Wednesday, Trump responded to that criticism, also through Twitter:

Senator Mitch McConnell said I had “excessive expectations,” but I don’t think so. After 7 years of hearing Repeal & Replace, why not done?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 9, 2017

But if Trump actually wants any of his agenda to make it through Congress–take, for example, funding for the border wall–he can’t really afford to alienate McConnell. This latest fight is seen by many as indicative of deepening tensions between the White House and Congress.

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: August 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Amid what seems like constant chaos in the White House, it appears as though the next source of trouble for the Trump administration may come from celestial bodies–namely the upcoming solar eclipse–according to astrologers.

On August 21, a solar eclipse will occur that is expected to cast a 70-mile-wide shadow diagonally across the entire United States. Solar eclipses occur approximately once every 18 months, but this will be the first time since 1918 that the shadow will stretch across what is known as “the path of totality.”

While Americans are making plans to see this particularly rare event, astrologers have been analyzing the cosmic events surrounding it to discover what it means for the future. Even in present day, eclipses still hold a lot of power in astrology, according to Wade Caves, an astrological consultant who earlier in July published a 29-page analysis of the coming eclipse.

“What we’re talking about is the ability of the sun to be able to give light and life-generating heat, and all these things being momentarily taken away,” Caves told Newsweek. “So there’s this symbolism that’s built in with eclipses about…things coming to a close, and in often a very dramatic fashion.”

Astrologers are not so much intrigued by how rare this eclipse is, but rather how well the astrological activity surrounding it lines up with Trump’s chart.

Bad Omen for Trump

The eclipse falls just before the end of the Leo sun sign, which is in a “rising” stage on Trump’s astrological chart–meaning that the president is exuding personality traits very similar to that of a typical Leo. The personality of the  average Leo tends to fall somewhere between egotistical and confident, so Trump’s zodiac sign shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Leo is also symbolized as a lion, which is commonly used to represent rulers and kings.

As a result, Caves believes that the timing of the eclipse is a bad omen for Trump.

“It seems to me very possible that by this time next year, we’re looking at the reality of Trump not being in office,” he said.

Caves is not the only astrologer with this belief. Debra DeLeo-Moolenaar, a British astrology blogger, interprets eclipses to be “a big burst of energy” that spreads across the sign chart of a nation or person, “giving energy and power into something that’s already in play.”

She believes that growing frustrations throughout the nation may be “set off” by the solar eclipse, and that the moon symbolizes “the common people” blocking their leader–the sun.

In February, DeLeo-Moolenaar wrote that astrological charts showed Uranus, which is apparently known for being disruptive, approaching Trump’s astrological “birth planet,” Mars, during the eclipse. This, she said, indicates a potential “crisis of some sort” for the president.

Is War Written in the Stars?

Eugene Johnson, another astrologer, wrote an analysis in April of the eclipse that expanded to Jupiter, Pluto, and Neptune, and suggested that the United States should be prepared for some significant event just short of war.

“[The eclipse will] mark important developments on the world stage because of the high preponderance of outer planets involved,” Johnson added.

Astrologer Marjorie Orr noted last November that the eclipse is a part of what is known as the Saros series–which has included eclipses in 1909, 1927, 1945, 1963, 1981 and 1999. Coincidentally, significant political events occurred during each of those years, including the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

“Certainly this eclipse presages violence in one form or another,” Orr wrote.

Pseudoscience or Nah?

While it may be easy to dismiss these astrologers’ conclusions as pseudoscience nonsense, it’s worth noting that there has been speculation over the use of astrology in the White House before.

Not only did Ronald Reagan experience an assassination attempt in 1981–one of the Saros series years–but he had a deep interest in astrology himself. He is said to have scheduled important meetings, presidential debates, cancer surgery, State of the Union addresses, and his 1967 inauguration as governor of California based on astrological information.

First Lady Nancy Reagan was even said to be in constant contact with an astrologer named Joan Quigley, who died in 2014 and wrote a book about her time in the White House. Considering how highly Trump regards Reagan, and some of the similarities between their presidencies, it’s possible that the eclipse is on the president’s radar.

But even so, there are those in the scientific community who come out against such predictions. Duncan Steel, an American scientist and author of “Eclipse: The Celestial Phenomenon that Changed the Course of History,” called them foolish.

“Way back, when people had little ability to predict when eclipses would occur apart from recognizing that there are distinct cycles, perhaps it is understandable that doom-mongering based on eclipses occurred,” he said in an email to Newsweek. “But for people nowadays to imagine that they are portents of doom is just daft…. If people believe that the forthcoming solar eclipse ‘means’ anything for the U.S., for Trump, for the world, then they are deluded.”

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 Astrologers Believe Solar Eclipse Could Signal the End of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Trump’s tweets get him in trouble all the time. But his recent tweets about banning trans individuals from serving in the military have now led to a lawsuit in federal court. The National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates filed a lawsuit on behalf of five active trans service members in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia on Wednesday.

The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s directive is unconstitutional, as it violates the due process clause and the equal protection clause. According to the lawsuit, the five servicemembers have all  “followed protocol in informing their chain of command that they are transgender. They did so in reliance on the United States’ express promises that it would permit them to continue to serve their country openly. These servicemembers, like many others, have built their lives around their military service.”

Trump’s tweets were muddled, and sudden. The three tweet chain didn’t provide any information for how exactly a ban would be implemented, or what it would mean for trans individuals already serving.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

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

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

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

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

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

The announcement blindsided the Pentagon and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since that tweet storm, none of those questions appear to have been answered. The Department of Defense says it is still waiting for formal guidance. But the fear and panic that trans military members felt was real, and the lawsuit argues that the tweet-based directive “already resulted in immediate, concrete injury to Plaintiffs by unsettling and destabilizing plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of continued service.”

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 Transgender Military Members Sue Trump Over Ban appeared first on Law Street.

There is no such thing as a perfect immigration policy. Even ones that have received praise from leaders of other countries have their cracks. Australia recently took note of a flaw in its system when an automated computer program determined that an Irish vet’s oral English fluency was not up to the standards of Australia’s immigration department, putting her residency in the country at risk.

Louise Kennedy has been working as an horse veterinarian on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland for the past two years. She is a native English speaker and has two university degrees in history and politics–both obtained in English. As her skilled workers visa was coming to an end, Kennedy decided to apply for permanent residency on the grounds that there is a shortage of her profession in the country.

Part of the process of applying for an Australian residency visa is a mandatory English proficiency test–administered by Pearson–with both a written and spoken portion. Kennedy got through the writing and reading portions rather easily, but it was during the oral portion that her troubles began.

The test utilizes an automated question system that asks applicants a series of questions on a monitor and records their vocal responses. The recordings are then analyzed by a system and a score is generated. Despite the fact that Kennedy has been speaking English her whole life, she scored a 74 on the oral section when the Australian government requires a 79 or higher to pass. Needless to say, she was shocked.

“There’s obviously a flaw in their computer software, when a person with perfect oral fluency cannot get enough points,” she said to The Guardian.

Anyone who has had their frustrations using voice-operated “intelligent assistants”–like Siri, Cortana, or Alexa–knows that there are still limits to what voice-analyzing technologies can do, especially when someone’s accent differs from the majority of the population. However, Pearson representatives stood by their programs saying the real problem was that the immigration department set the bar very high for people seeking permanent residency, according to Sasha Hampton, head of English for Pearson Asia Pacific.

Even with the Pearson test being as supposedly good as it is, Kennedy was given the opportunity to retake the test because there appeared to be construction noises that were audible in the background of her recording. Unfortunately, time became a bit of an issue. Her current visa would have expired in the timeframe it would take for all of the paperwork to be completed, even if she was recognized as a fluent English speaker by the testing company. Kennedy now has to resort to applying for a more expensive spouse visa.

“Because I’m married to an Aussie I luckily have a back-up visa to go to but there is a $3,000 cost over the skilled immigrant visa which we weren’t banking on 12 weeks before having our first baby,” she told the Ireland Independent.

This comes within days of Donald Trump announcing a move toward re-hauling the current immigration system into a skills and merits-based one. Though Australia’s system has been criticized for its inability to accurately determine the country’s employment needs, and is getting revamped to meet the demands of far-right politicians who want to ban Muslims from entering the country, Trump Administration officials have offered nothing but praise for the model and hope to enact a similar version in the U.S.

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 Computer-Based Oral English Test Fails Irish Vet in Australia appeared first on Law Street.

Throughout the campaign and the beginning of his presidency, President Donald Trump has criticized a lot of different people. But there is one group that he has consistently attacked with passion and fervor like no other: “The Media”

His attacks are blunt and relentless, he has gone after world-renowned organizations like the New York Times, and has even posted a video meme of himself attacking a CNN icon, calling it the “Fraud News Network.”

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN pic.twitter.com/WYUnHjjUjg

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2017

Wow, the Failing @nytimes said about @foxandfriends “….the most powerful T.V. show in America.”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2017

He contends that these major news corporations are “enemies” to his administration because they consistently post critical stories.

But now Trump seems to have found a solution to counteract “Fake News”… his own “Real News”. On Sunday, the Trump presidential campaign announced a short weekly segment on its Facebook page called “Real News.” The show aims to be a brief two minute recap of news about the Trump Administration, straight from Trump Tower. The show is hosted by Kayleigh McEnany, a Trump-supporting CNN pundit, who resigned from her position at CNN to work on the show as well as become a spokesperson for the GOP.

While the resources to produce the show are not directly coming from Trump himself, investigative reports from The Daily Beast and Mic show that the effort is being spearheaded by Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law. The money is coming from a PAC that is raising money for Trump’s reelection campaign.

Though the show aims to produce so-called “real news,” it seems to focus more on touting Trump’s accomplishments than anything else. In the two minute segment McEnany discussed Trump’s new immigration policy, data that showed global economic confidence at an all-time high, and Trump awarding a medal to a Vietnam veteran.

It’s fair to note that this is not the first time a president has had his own “information” show. Obama’s administration hosted a weekly video series titled “West Wing Week,” which discussed the activities going on in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue during the week. Nevertheless people all over social media couldn’t get enough of the idea of Trump TV and its quest for “real news.”

Donald Trump’s “Real News” seems kinda familiar. pic.twitter.com/TAMDYHGtXq

— Zac Richey (@the_zacsta) August 2, 2017

This is the person reporting the “Real News” from Trump Tower on Trump TV.

In New York.

The End. https://t.co/tgyWJMWk9S

— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 7, 2017

The left must be going crazy knowing #Trump TV is “Real News”
Those who laugh last, laugh best!#MAGA #DrainTheWashingtonSwamp #YesWeWill pic.twitter.com/43erYELDin

— Joel Fischer (@JoelFischerNYC) August 7, 2017

James Levinson

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

The post Trump’s “Real News” Sparks Social Media Reactions appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump reluctantly signed a bipartisan bill Wednesday morning that imposes additional sanctions on Russia. The bill, which also levies sanctions on North Korea and Iran, severely limits Trump’s ability to lift Russian sanctions in the future. Between the House and Senate, 517 members of congress supported the bill, giving Trump pretty much no choice but to sign it.

The bill represents a rare showing of bipartisanship–and of congressional Republicans’ willingness to stand up to the Trump Administration. Republicans, traditionally hawkish on Russia, have until now overlooked Trump’s repeated overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin–during the campaign and his presidency–in order to pursue other legislative goals.

The new sanctions target Russia’s energy and defense sectors, but perhaps more important than the sanctions themselves, the bill gives Congress the final say if the president decides to lift sanctions. Congress would have a 30-day review period to consider any such actions by Trump or future presidents. The administration has decried this part of the bill as “unconstitutional,” as it unfairly limits the president’s flexibility on matters of foreign policy.

In a statement released Wednesday after Trump signed the legislation, the White House said the bill contained “a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions” that “purport to displace the President’s exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) said the bill sends a “powerful message to our adversaries that they will be held accountable for their actions.” He added: “We will continue to use every instrument of American power to defend this nation and the people we serve.”

After signing the bill, Trump released a second statement calling it “seriously flawed” because it “encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.” He went on to deride Congress for its failure to pass health care legislation: “Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking,” he said.

Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, Washington has been engaged in a diplomatic tit-for-tat with Moscow. Last December, after it became clear Russia meddled in the 2016 election, former President Barack Obama increased Russian sanctions. He also expelled Russian diplomats and seized two of its diplomatic compounds.

The Kremlin retaliated with measures of its own over the weekend, ordering the U.S. to slash its diplomatic staff throughout Russia by 755. It also seized two properties used by U.S. diplomats. On Wednesday, after Trump signed the bill into law, Russian officials offered ominous signs, with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying it amounts to a “full scale trade war.”

And Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, added his two cents: “Some U.S. officials were saying that this is a bill that might encourage Russia to cooperate with the United States; to me that’s a strange sort of encouragement,” he said. “Those who invented this bill, if they were thinking they might change our policy, they were wrong.”

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 Signs “Significantly Flawed” Russian Sanctions Bill 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:

NAACP Issues Travel Advisory for Missouri

The NAACP has issued its first-ever statewide travel advisory for the state of Missouri. This announcement came after Senate Bill 43 passed the state legislature and was signed by Governor Eric Greitens. The new law makes it harder for employees to prove their protected class status in a lawsuit; critics, including the NAACP, say that it makes discrimination easier and dubbed it a “Jim Crow bill.”

The advisory is intended to let people of color and members of the LGBT community traveling through the state know what’s going on, and to be particularly vigilant. It cites recent instances of police brutality and discrimination in Missouri, and asks that everyone “warn your families, co-workers, and anyone visiting Missouri to beware of the safety concerns with travel in Missouri, notify members of your trade associations, social and civil organizations that they are traveling and living in Missouri at their own risk and subject to unnecessary search seizure and potential arrest, and file and seek help on any existing claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistle blowing ASAP before your legal rights are lost.”

.@NAACP issues travel advisory for Missouri, the first in its 108-year history, after passage of “Jim Crow Bill” https://t.co/sEFbjOzQUa pic.twitter.com/N1UyXNEcqk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) August 2, 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: August 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

DOJ vs. Affirmative Action

The DOJ intends to direct its Civil Rights Division’s resources to investigate affirmative action policies, specifically what effects those policies have on white applicants. The DOJ may sue universities it believes are discriminating against white applicants. This is an odd use of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which was designed to address issues faced by minority groups in the United States.

Many have also pointed out the irony of the Trump Administration’s crusade against affirmative action:

The people who hate affirmative action because its ‘unfair’ are gonna be really mad when they find out how rich kids get into elite schools

— Ayatollah Cumonme (@Phonycian) August 2, 2017

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action policies was in 2016, affirming the University of Texas’ admissions policy was constitutional after white student Abigail Fisher sued the university. But that hasn’t stopped additional cases from moving forward. Two more, one against Harvard and one against the University of North Carolina, are pending. Unlike the Texas case, they both allege discrimination against African-American students.

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: August 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Insert Mooch Pun Here

After an illustrious 10 days as President Donald Trump’s communications director (sort of), Anthony Scaramucci is officially out. Sources close to Trump have explained that his remarks to various news outlets–including Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker–”disgusted” Ivanka and Melania Trump. Newly minted White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told Scaramucci on Monday that his services were no longer needed as one of his first tasks on the job.

Twitter had an absolute field day, mocking Scaramucci’s incredibly rapid rise and fall.

I’m still laughing at the fact that Mooch was fired before his official start date. Only WH staffer in history to serve for negative days.

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) August 1, 2017

gotta add “scaramucci” to the dictionary as a measure of time

— Desus Nice (@desusnice) July 31, 2017

These constant staff shake-ups have marred the White House in recent weeks, so insiders are hoping that Kelly will be able to chart a smooth course moving forward.

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: August 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump tweeted on Wednesday that transgender people will no longer be allowed “to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military” because the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” would become a burden and distract armed services from “decisive and overwhelming victory.”

The announcement will reverse the Pentagon’s 2016 decision to lift the long-standing ban that had prevented transgender individuals from serving openly in the military. It also falls in line with other measures and decisions the administration has made concerning the transgender community, including removing the LGBT rights page from the White House’s official site, rescinding a rule that allowed transgender students to use their preferred bathroom in public schools, and dropping the federal lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s “bathroom bill.”

Given that track record, it makes sense that Trump decided to discuss the decision with unnamed “Generals and military experts,” rather than with the Pentagon–which has commissioned studies that identify almost no downside to lifting the transgender ban. In fact, the Department of Defense was so out of the loop in the recent decision that reporters who asked Pentagon officials about Trump’s tweets were told to call the White House instead.

This is an obvious leap backward for the rights of transgender people in the United States. The ban will only enhance the existing problems that this country has when dealing with gender identity and the military.

A Financially Dubious Decision

In 2016, the Rand Corporation published a report titled “Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly,” which the Department of Defense commissioned. The report concluded that annual active-component health care costs would increase by anywhere from $2.4 million to $8.4 million–yielding a 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in health care expenditures. In total, those costs would amount to about a thousandth of a percent of the military’s annual budget. Some have said that their biggest concern is the use of taxpayer funding for expensive gender reassignment surgeries, which may not allow transgender soldiers to fight on the front lines. But according to the Rand report, “less than 0.1 percent of the total force would seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.” The report’s authors recommended developing an explicit written policy on for the gender transition process to avoid any disruptions to service member and unit readiness.

Even if you choose to ignore the percent increase in costs and only focus on the total cost of military health care, it’s worth noting that U.S. military spending is high relative to the rest of the world. The United States spends more money on its military than the following eight countries with the highest defense spending combined–an approximate $611 billion–and the House recently passed a bill that would increase military spending by nearly $30 billion next year. The military spends about $50 billion on health care, which includes a few interesting expenses. For example, a Washington Post analysis found the military spends five times as much on Viagra as it would on transgender troops’ medical care. But some in the House were still looking to remove gender reassignment surgery coverage from the military budget nonetheless, although that effort failed. In a way, proponents of such a change got what they were looking for and continued their crusade against denying health care to Americans.

Significant Consequences

Prior to the Pentagon’s 2016 decision, military service members who revealed their transgender identity could be kicked out or denied reenlistment solely on that basis. This meant they would be denied the benefits previously provided for them by the military, including health care and severance pay, due to being considered “unfit to serve.” Trump’s announcement leaves much to the imagination as to what will happen to anywhere from 1,300 to over 15,000 transgender service members currently enlisted, but a return to the old discharge format seems likely.

Current statistics show that 16 percent of transgender and gender nonconforming people have lost their jobs due to their gender identity–according to a 2015 survey of over 27,000 transgender people conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). But Trump still wants to strip the military of its status as the largest employer of transgender workers in the United States for “cost effectiveness.” It is also worth noting that this would cut necessary income and health care from a group that faces significant challenges. According to the same NCTE survey, transgender and gender nonconforming people have an unemployment rate that is three times that of the national average, report having experienced psychological distress in the last month at a rate that is 34 percentage points higher than the U.S. population, and one-third say they have been homeless at some point in their life.

America’s Relationship With its Military

There are two prongs to this topic. The first looks at the general issue of trans-erasure. The cynic will argue that it’s a good thing that transgender people no longer have to participate in a “murderous imperial institution.” But that’s not the only way to look at this issue. The act of excluding a group of people from public institutions–particularly those that are (excessively) associated with social responsibility like the military–devalues that group of people in society because of that lack of exposure and erases their importance. Eventually, the perception will grow that the transgender community is full of people who don’t serve their country, and only take from it instead of giving back. This, of course, would be a stark contrast to our wonderful president–who dodged the draft a total of five times, once arguing he couldn’t serve in the U.S. military because of bone spurs in his heels.

Regardless, both Democrats and Republicans have expressed their concerns with Trump’s decision because many understand that–at its core–the ban is more focused on discriminating against transgender people than cutting costs. A bipartisan stand against discrimination is hard to have a problem with, but I’m going to try anyway. Unfortunately, this bipartisan position comes from the country’s obsession with the military and all of the glory that comes with it, and that’s the second prong.

Whether politicians want to admit it or not, there are transgender people who live in their states and districts. There is a responsibility to show that the lives their constituents–especially those in underrepresented groups–matter to them.

But, unfortunately, they don’t in this country. Trans women face a 4.3 times higher risk of being murdered compared to cis women in the U.S., and at least 87 percent of the trans people murdered between 2013 to 2015 were people of color, according to a study done by the Human Rights Campaign. According to the NCTE, 40 percent of transgender people have attempted suicide at one point in their life. So for a brief moment on Wednesday, it was a nice change of pace to see Democrats and Republicans come forward against the ban and in support of the lives of transgender people. So what changed?

It’s simple. It took challenging transgender Americans’ ability to serve in the military for many politicians to finally stand up for their rights. For many members of Congress, this is the first time they made that kind of statement, which meant that trans rights only began to matter when trans people could no longer die for their country. The transgender community deserves better than that.

The lives of underrepresented, and outright oppressed, citizens should not depend on whether or not they are willing to fight for their country, especially when that country does nothing to fight for them. The optimist will hope that this opens the door for more trans support from politicians, but unless it can score them political points, that probably won’t happen.

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 The Problems with Trump’s Trans Military Announcement appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump has continued to establish a precedent that loyalty to his administration will be rewarded, and anything else will be met with a harsh response on social media. Both of Alaska’s senators were recently on the receiving end of that ire.

Trump decided to publicly and privately express his displeasure with Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski for her “no” vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act. Early Wednesday, Trump took to Twitter to specifically call out Murkowski for her decision.

Senator @lisamurkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday. Too bad!

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

But Trump’s team did not leave it at that. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke called Murkowski and fellow Republican Senator Dan Sullivan yesterday to warn them that opposing the bill could lead to repercussions for Alaskans, according to Alaska Dispatch News. Sullivan told the Alaskan publication that the message was “troubling.”

“I’m not going to go into the details, but I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs, and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop,” Sullivan said.

Some of the key regulatory issues that have been priorities for Murkowski and Sullivan include nominations of Alaskans to Department of Interior posts, an effort to build a road out of King Cove through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, future opportunities to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and expanding drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. All of these could hypothetically be in jeopardy.

However, as is the case with many of the decisions this administration has made, it appears that this may have been a poorly thought out move. First off, Trump has decided to hit back at a senator who is quite popular with Alaskans. In 2010, Murkowski became the first senator in over 50 years to win an election with a write-in campaign over Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. The campaign gave out temporary tattoos to voters so they could remember how to spell her name on the ballot.

Murkowski is the chairwoman of the Interior-Environment Subcommittee, which is tasked with confirming any nominees to the Department of the Interior that Secretary Zinke may put forward. She also helps control the money that goes into the department as a member of the Senate Appropriations committee. It’s been theorized that Murkowski may be hitting back against Zinke. A hearing to confirm a series of nominees to the Interior has already been delayed, according to NBC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Kasie Hunt.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the Trump Administration’s threat is its inadvertent support for the environment. The road through King Cove is supposed to cut through a wildlife refuge. The plans for oil expansion include drilling in protected lands. So, Zinke could end up continuing the Obama Administration’s tradition of prioritizing environmental protection over exploiting federal lands.

Murkowski might still be paying attention to these threats. Oil is one of the largest contributors to Alaska’s economy so any damage to that would be severely damaging to the jobs of her constituents. But it seems that the senator is confident that she made the right decision with her health care vote. “I base my votes on what I believe is in Alaska’s best interest,” she said Tuesday. “So I know that there are those who wish that I would be more in line with following the party platform, but I don’t think it should come as any surprise that there have been occasions that I have not followed the lead of the party.”

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 Trump’s Threats Against Alaska May Be Misguided 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:

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.

To kick off a week-long trip to Washington, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri met with President Donald Trump on Tuesday to address common security threats and increased economic and security funding. Lebanon is an important U.S. ally in the fight against Islamic State. It also has taken in 1.5 million Syrian refugees, who now comprise about a quarter of its entire population.

But Lebanon is a land of contradictions, largely due to the outsized influence of Hezbollah–an Iranian-backed group that the U.S., the EU, and Israel all consider a terrorist organization–on its politics and security. President Michel Aoun is an ally of the militant group, which is fighting on the side of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even while Lebanon absorbs scores of refugees displaced by Syria’s intractable civil war.

At a press conference on Tuesday, following a private meeting with Hariri, Trump seemed to fundamentally misunderstand Hezbollah’s role within Lebanon. He said: “Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah.”

While the U.S. and its allies view the group as a terrorist outfit, Lebanon does not. In fact, Hezbollah, which is fighting ISIS in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime, enjoys broad support in Lebanon. Its priorities certainly diverge from those of the U.S.–it is an Iranian proxy force and has vowed to destroy Israel. But Hezbollah (“Party of God”) is key to stabilizing the country, Hariri said in remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on Wednesday.

Hariri said he has numerous differences with Hezbollah, but “one thing we agree on is that the national interest of Lebanon is to have stability and to have a government that is functional.” And despite Trump’s apparent confusion over Hezbollah, the “administration understand very well the position of Lebanon,” Hariri said.

U.S. lawmakers are currently considering sanctions against Hezbollah, and any Lebanese banks that do business with it. Hariri has opposed any effort to sanction Hezbollah, because he says it would cripple the country’s entire banking system.

The U.S.-Lebanon partnership remains vital, however. In April, the State Department announced it would provide an additional $167 million to Lebanon to help support Syrian refugees. Hariri, during Wednesday’s event, said Trump had promised $140 million more in aid.

“Our approach supporting the humanitarian needs of displaced Syrian citizens as close to their home country as possible is the best way to help most people,” Trump said in the Rose Garden on Tuesday. Aid for Syrian refugees in the U.S. will likely dry up soon. Earlier this month, the U.S. reached its 50,000-refugee limit for the year, a threshold Trump lowered from 100,000 as part of his travel ban that will be heard in the Supreme Court later this year.

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 Lebanese PM Saad Hariri and Donald Trump Discuss ISIS, Syrian Refugees 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:

Trump Announces Ban on Trans People Serving in the Military

In a surprise series of tweets this morning, President Donald Trump announced a new military policy. Per Trump’s tweets, he plans on banning trans people from any and all military service.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow……

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

….Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…..

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

….victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

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

It’s unclear which “generals and military experts” he consulted with, but this announcement marks a major departure from current military policy. Last year, it was announced that trans individuals would be able to serve openly in the military. It’s also unclear what will happen to trans people already serving. Exact numbers are, understandably, hard to quantify, but it’s believed that approximately 1,320-6,630 trans Americans currently serve. But their medical care, which Trump cites as the reasoning for precluding them from service, contributes to a miniscule percentage of Department of Defense health care expenditures. Estimates put caring for trans people in the military anywhere from $2-8 million. For context, the DoD’s total yearly health care spending is to the tune of $50 billion.

There are a lot of details still to come, but right now, it seems clear that this move was at least partly political:

Just spoke to a Trump administration official about the transgender military decision. Here’s what they said… pic.twitter.com/eOWdvlxTfd

— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) 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 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

The Senate is Voting on…Something?

Today, the Senate will vote on something to do with health care, but it’s not clear exactly what. The Senate has been working to pass, or at least debate, some sort of bill to repeal and replace Obamacare for weeks, but the most recent efforts were derailed when senators couldn’t agree on the “replace” portion. After that, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell started pushing for a “repeal now, replace later” approach.

One of the challenges for Senate Republican leadership is that no more than two Republican senators can defect. Senator Susan Collins of Maine has made it clear that she intends to vote “no.” While Senator John McCain, who was diagnosed with brain cancer last week, is reportedly returning to Capitol Hill to cast his vote, other defections could stop McConnell’s plan to move any sort of action forward. All eyes are now on two senators who seem likely to join Collins in dissension–Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Regardless of what happens today, the secretive nature of the procedures have frustrated many:

Health care vote today.

– No final text
– No final Byrd guidance
– No final CBO score
– No public hearingshttps://t.co/SCxwL0g5Ev

— Dylan Scott (@dylanlscott) July 25, 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 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Pardon Me?

As the investigation into the Trump Administration’s ties to Russia continues to heat up, Trump has reportedly asked for more information about the power of his presidential pardon. Specifically, he has asked about the power he has to pardon his aides, family members, and even himself.

In 1974, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) explained that Nixon could not pardon himself. https://t.co/KKfSVe3Vzx

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) July 21, 2017

He has also asked questions about the reach of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. According to the New York Times, Trump’s team has been looking into whether it’s possible to fire Mueller or some members of his staff. Trump claims that Mueller should not be looking into any issues other than the allegations of collusion with Russia during the 2016 election. That worry isn’t without precedent. Kenneth Starr’s investigation into former President Bill Clinton’s land deals in Arkansas eventually led to his impeachment after it was discovered he had lied about an affair. But many point to Trump’s shakiness when it comes to Mueller as evidence that his team is increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of scrutiny placed on the president.

Bonus: for more info on what a presidential pardon actually is, check out Law Street’s explainer.

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 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

This article has been updated. Click here to jump to the update.

President Trump’s travel ban–which according to his aides and representatives is “not” a travel ban, but based on the president’s tweets, is in fact a travel ban–has just been handed another discouraging ruling from the courts.

Late Thursday, a U.S. District in Hawaii, ruled that the president’s executive order restricting immigration from six Muslim-majority countries can’t be used to exclude “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.” The ruling rejected the government’s interpretation of recent guidance issued by the Supreme Court.

That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

The ruling, from Judge Derrick Watson, stems from Trump’s revised executive order that was issued on March 6. Later that month, Judge Watson issued a nationwide halt on the revised travel ban, ruling that it discriminated on the basis of religion. Judges in other parts of the country issued similar rulings that were upheld by multiple circuit courts. The issue then made its way to the Supreme Court after an appeal from Justice Department. In June, the Supreme Court said that it would hear the case in the fall and issued a partial ruling in the meantime.

The Supreme Court’s order stated that until it makes its final decision, certain aspects of the executive order could proceed. The court said that if someone seeking a visa or a refugee from one of the six countries could establish a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity of the United States then they should be allowed to enter the country.

While the Supreme Court offered guidance as to what a “bona fide relationship” is, much of the interpretation was left to the executive branch. The State Department interpreted the ruling through a diplomatic cable saying the only acceptable relationships include: spouse, parent, parent-in-law, child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, fiancé, and sibling.

In his ruling, Judge Watson stated that the administration’s definition “represents the antithesis of common sense” by including son-in-law and daughter-in-law but not grandparent as qualifying relationships.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions immediately sought clarification from the Supreme Court, saying that the district court:

Undermined national security, delayed necessary action, created confusion, and violated a proper respect for separation of powers… The Supreme Court has had to correct this lower court once, and we will now reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court to again vindicate the rule of law and the Executive Branch’s duty to protect the nation.

At the Supreme Court’s request, the state of Hawaii responded to the Justice Department’s arguments on Tuesday night, forcefully supporting Watson’s initial ruling and arguing that any appeal should go to the lower courts before the Supreme Court. The Justice Department fought back hours later with another brief making a case for the government’s narrower definition of a bona fide relationship. The government also justified its decision to go directly to the Supreme Court, saying that it is “is the only court that can provide definitive clarification.”

Although the Supreme Court is currently on its summer recess, it’s possible that the justices will decide to weigh in on the dispute in the near future.

James Levinson

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

The post Confused About the Latest in the Travel Ban Case?: Here’s What you Need to Know 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:

Trump’s Lawyer Sent Threatening Emails to Critic

President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, sent a string of threatening emails filled with profanities to a stranger on Wednesday night, after the man sent an email to him saying he should resign. Kasowitz wrote things like, “I’m on you now. You are f*cking with me now. Let’s see who you are. Watch your back, b*tch.” He also wrote, “Call me. Don’t be afraid, you piece of shit. Stand up. If you don’t call, you’re just afraid,” adding that he knows where the guy lives. Reportedly the man’s initial email argued that it would be in Kasowitz’s best interest to resign as the president’s attorney in the Russia investigations. The man contacted Kasowitz after ProPublica published an article about Kasowitz not having a security clearance, and alleging that he has suffered from alcohol addiction.

This is outrageous: Trump’s lawyer (Kasowitz) reportedly can’t pass a security clearance – and he’s threatening people who ask about it. https://t.co/fcNgU8lFQm

— Caroline O. (@RVAwonk) July 13, 2017

The man, who has only been identified as a former PR professional, said the emails worried him enough that he ended up handing them over to the FBI. After the emails were published, Kasowitz said he intends to apologize to the man. But some legal experts have said Kasowitz’s language is “incredibly troubling.”

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: July 14, 2017 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.

The internet is a powerful tool. It can be used to spread information quickly, to answer any question instantly, and to share photos of vacations. 

But the internet can also be a powerful platform where unsavory things can flourish. All the benefits of being able to spread information quickly and share photos can be used negatively. When these sorts of things are directed at a specific person or group, it is called “cyberbullying.”

Stop Bullying, a website dedicated to spreading awareness about bullying, defines cyberbullying as:

bullying that takes place using electronic technology. Electronic technology includes devices and equipment such as cell phones, computers, and tablets as well as communication tools including social media sites, text messages, chat, and websites. Examples of cyberbullying include mean text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles.

“Troll-in-Chief”

Recently, President Donald Trump attacked “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Twitter, saying:

I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017

…to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017

This raised a lot of eyebrows and questions. One of the most serious questions raised was if Trump could be banned from Twitter for his behavior. John Cassidy of The New Yorker said that Trump will go down in history as the “Troll-in-Chief” because of his online behavior.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s spokeswoman, brushed off the criticism her boss was receiving. “This is a president who fights fire with fire,” Sanders explained. But where does self-defense end and cyberbullying begin?

Trump is the face of America to the rest of the world and his actions reflect on the entire country. More than that, as such a public and powerful figure, he is someone children will undoubtedly look up to. So with cyberbullying increasing in schools, it’s dangerous to have the commander-in-chief setting such a poor example for children.

Harmful Effects

The effects of cyberbullying can be serious. According to Stop Bullying, some of the effects cyberbullying can have on a victim include: alcohol and drug use, lower self-esteem, and health problems. 

Cyberbullying happens a lot more frequently than you might think. In a 2016 report by the Department of Education, 20.8 percent of students ages 12 through 18 reported being bullied in the 2014-15 school year. The study found that 6.1 percent of male students experienced bullying online or through text message. 15.9 percent of females reported being bullied online or via text. The disparity between male and female is bad enough. But the numbers themselves show a growing problem.

Cyberbullying is different than other forms of bullying for a few reasons. First, it can occur at any time. A bully no longer needs a face-to-face interaction to inflict harm. Through the wonders of the internet, someone can be reached at any hour of the day via text, social media, email, or other channels on the internet. Next, the layer of anonymity can invite more bullying in perpetrators who normally would not have engaged in the act. An article Psychology Today published in 2013 said,

The ability to be anonymous might increase the likelihood that youths will engage in the behavior. Furthermore, a cyberbully does not necessarily see the reaction of the victim, making it easier to engage in mean behaviors.

Those who engage in cyberbullying are subject to certain anti-bullying laws. See how your state stacks up here. In 2012, Delaware became the first state to introduce a comprehensive cyberbullying policy to be adopted by public schools in the state.

via GIPHY

As of 2017 every state has laws regarding cyberbullying, with most having both a policy and laws. Delaware’s policy was drafted by then-Lieutenant Governor Matt Denn and the late Attorney General Beau Biden. Here’s what Delaware’s policy says:

Incidents of cyberbullying shall be treated by each school district and charter school in the same manner as incidents of bullying, and notice of each school district’s and charter school’s policy against cyberbullying shall be provided to students, staff, and faculty in the same manner as notice of the school district’s and charter school’s policy against bullying.

This specific cyberbullying policy is intended for schools and how they can take action. But what about when cyberbullying takes place outside of a school setting?  

Many websites have anti-harassment rules, though they can get tricky to enforce. Take the President of the United States, for example. On July 2, only a few days after the Morning Joe attack, he tweeted:

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN pic.twitter.com/WYUnHjjUjg

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2017

Many people have suggested that Twitter ban Trump for this behavior. Twitter’s rules explicitly say “You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.”

But the social media giant has not banned the president. Yet. Banning the president is a big deal, but cyberbullying is a pretty big deal, too.

Anne Grae Martin

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

The post Can Twitter Ban Donald Trump for Cyberbullying? 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:

Thousands March in LA for President Trump’s Impeachment

Yesterday, thousands of protesters marched on the streets in downtown Los Angeles to demand President Donald Trump’s impeachment. “Down, down, down with Trump–up, up, up with the people,” they chanted. Similar protests are scheduled to take place in other cities in California and the United States. “Every day when I wake up, something is more terrible than it was yesterday,” one protester, John Meranda, said. Before the demonstration started, counter-protesters gathered outside the LAPD headquarters.

One anti-Trump demonstrator screaming at pro-Trump folks, including, “You’re a fraud! You’re a fraud! You’re a fraud!” pic.twitter.com/OpDwnd9xnp

— Laura J. Nelson (@laura_nelson) July 2, 2017

Democratic Representative Brad Sherman spoke from the stage at a rally close to LA’s City Hall, and urged other congressmen to begin an impeachment process. “We have to act now to protect our country from abuse of power and impulsive, ignorant incompetence,” he said. Even though many lawmakers have talked about impeachment, Sherman has actually taken action by drafting articles of impeachment in which he accuses Trump of trying to disrupt the investigation into Michael Flynn.

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: July 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers are moving forward with plans to repeal the Clean Water Rule, an Obama-era water pollution regulation that’s long been on the Trump Administration’s chopping block.

The Obama Administration signed the Clean Water Rule in 2015, extending existing pollution protections of larger bodies of water under the Clean Water Act of 1972 to include all “navigable waters,” including smaller bodies such as rivers, streams, and wetlands. Opponents of the rule included farmers who claimed it infringed on their property rights. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February to review that rule.

“It is in the national interest to ensure that that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing, regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution,” the order read.

The Clean Water Rule provides for the protection of about 60 percent of the nation’s bodies of water. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said by rescinding the rule, the government will restore power to states, farmers, and businesses.

“We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses,” Pruitt said in the EPA’s announcement. “This is the first step in the two-step process to redefine ‘waters of the U.S.’ and we are committed to moving through this re-evaluation to quickly provide regulatory certainty, in a way that is thoughtful, transparent and collaborative with other agencies and the public.”

Pruitt released a proposal Tuesday that would rescind the Clean Water Rule and revert regulations to the language in the Clean Water Act prior to the 2015 definition of “waters of the United States” or WOTUS.

Environmentalists opposed the Trump Administration’s rescission of the rule. Without regulations, they said, the nation’s water would be threatened by pollution. John Rumpler, senior attorney and clean water program director at Environment America, spoke out against the EPA proposal.

“Repealing the Clean Water Rule turns the mission of the EPA on its head: Instead of safeguarding our drinking water, Scott Pruitt is proposing to stop protecting drinking water sources for 1 in 3 Americans,” Rumpler said. “It defies common sense, sound science, and the will of the American people.”

Clean Water Action President and CEO Bob Wendelgass also released a statement, saying that the only people who stand to gain from the Clean Water Rule repeal are special interest groups.

“The Clean Water Rule is essential to public health,” Wendelgass said. “It is vital to communities that rely on healthy wetlands and streams to power small businesses and provide drinking water. We’re not going to protect clean water by ignoring science and common sense. Americans understand that–yet President Trump and Scott Pruitt don’t seem to.”

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 EPA Moves To Repeal Obama Administration’s Clean Water Rule appeared first on Law Street.

After over a year of President Donald Trump accusing the mainstream media of disseminating “fake news,” Trump has been caught with a fake Time magazine cover hanging in many of his properties. After learning of the situation, a Time spokeswoman said that the magazine had asked the Trump Organization to remove the fictional covers but it had not yet received a response.

This counterfeit cover was hung in at least eight of Trump’s 17 golf courses, including Mar-A-Lago, which Trump has visited regularly since taking office. Additionally, the cover was hanging at Trump golf resorts in Ireland and Scotland until they were removed in the past few months, according to the Washington Post.

The fake cover, which is supposedly from March 1, 2009, praises Trump as a “television smash” and that he is “hitting on all fronts…even T.V!” But Time magazine argues that this is not a real cover. Instead, the real edition, which was released on March 2, 2009, features actress Kate Winslet on the cover with the headline “Best Actress.”

There were a handful of issues with the presentation that tipped off observers to the fact that the cover was, in fact, fake news. First, the border was too skinny and was missing a white divider. Next, secondary headlines were stacked on the right side as opposed to the top where Time traditionally places them. Some of the stories did indeed appear in that week’s edition, but others weren’t published until the following month, according to Newsweek.

Another crucial mistake was the use of two exclamation points, which Time almost never uses on the cover.

The kicker is that the bar code is fake and pulled directly from this tutorial on how to make a fake Time cover. The instructions were laid out by a Peruvian graphic designer.

This situation prompted Virginia congressman Gerry Connolly to mock Trump on Twitter.

Wow, my first cover of Time. Asked my staff to frame this and hang it in all four of my offices. @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/Hx57ZJExR8 pic.twitter.com/y1HciTB5G1

— Gerry Connolly (@GerryConnolly) June 27, 2017

While it is still unknown who exactly put together the fake cover, or whether Trump himself knew about it, it’s clear that Trump views Time covers as a sign of success. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump bragged about being on the cover “six for politics and…two for real estate.” According to Time magazine history, Trump has indeed appeared on the cover plenty of times in the past year, albeit not always positively. But he only appeared once for his real estate ventures and that was in January 1989.

Even when giving a speech at the CIA headquarters in January, Trump boasted that he owned the “all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” In actuality Trump has appeared on the cover 11 times up to this point while Richard Nixon, the 37th president, appeared on 55 covers before his death in 1994.

Despite having appeared on the cover of the prestigious magazine plenty of times, Trump has clearly been hyperbolic when describing his number of appearances. It is unclear whether Trump knew of the fake covers or why it was created when there were legitimate alternatives, according to the Washington Post.

While there are websites that aid the public in creating fake magazine covers, it seems unethical for the President of the United States to be promoting himself with falsified news covers. And this entire debacle seems even more troublesome in the context of Trump’s repeated attacks on the news media. 

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 Time Magazine Asks Trump Organization to Remove “Fake News” Cover appeared first on Law Street.

Cyber Attack on Multiple Countries…Again

Another massive cyber attack has made it to multiple countries. The attack is believed to have originated in Ukraine. The ransomware has affected an estimated 64 countries so far, and is mainly targeting businesses. Infected computers show a message saying that all files have been encrypted. And just like the earlier ransomware attack in May, these hackers demand ransom payments in the form of Bitcoin to unlock the owner’s data. According to cybersecurity experts, this type of ransomware has never been seen before.

However, experts reportedly found a “vaccine” against the ransomware early this morning, that could cure individual infected computers. But they still have not found a kill switch, which would stop the computers from spreading the virus to others. Now, everyone is wondering who is behind the latest hack, and why. Some say it could have political motivations or that the hackers just want to cause widespread disruption. But because Ukraine was hit the hardest and its main antagonist is Russia, many people suspect the Kremlin is behind it.

The fast-spreading Petrwrap/Petya ransomware sample we have was compiled on June 18, 2017 according to its PE timestamp. pic.twitter.com/CHUYvsiQ08

— Costin Raiu (@craiu) June 27, 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: June 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Senate Health Care Bill Sparks Protests

After the new Senate health care bill was revealed yesterday, a lot of people took to the streets to protest. Some parked themselves outside of Mitch McConnell’s office and were physically removed–including disabled people in wheelchairs or with respirators. And a lot of people showed up at DCA–one of Washington D.C.’s major airports–to make sure lawmakers saw their signs before leaving town.

Don’t fly away, save the ACA! pic.twitter.com/PsaSqjpVEw

— Generation Progress (@genprogress) June 22, 2017

The new bill will, if it passes, trigger big tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and slash spending on Medicaid. The bill even drew remarks from President Barack Obama, who has largely remained silent in political debates since leaving office. “The Senate bill, unveiled today, is not a health care bill. It’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America,” he wrote in a Facebook post. He also said the bill has a “fundamental meanness” and that it will harm anyone who might one day get sick, get old, or start a family.

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: June 23, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

It’s Health Care Bill Reveal Time!

This morning, Senate Republicans unveiled the draft of the new health care bill. They’ve been working on this bill behind closed doors for weeks now. House Republicans passed a first version of the bill last month, but President Trump urged the Senate to pass a “more generous” version. Under that House bill, 23 million people could lose their health care coverage. The Senate version is pretty similar to the House bill, except even less generous. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the Senate version there are massive cuts to Medicaid, and it undoes important parts of Obamacare, like the individual mandate. It also eliminates Planned Parenthood funding.

BREAKING: Full text of the Senate’s closely-guarded health care bill has posted online. Read it: https://t.co/tWGoaC4whm pic.twitter.com/T18BUSFpTf

— CNN (@CNN) June 22, 2017

“Republicans are writing their health care bill under the cover of darkness because they are ashamed of it,” claimed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer earlier this week.

via GIPHY

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: June 22, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

To raise or not to raise? That is the question when it comes to the minimum wage. The national minimum wage is $7.25, but many states have set their own minimum wages a few dollars higher (see how your state stacks up). A person working at the federal rate would earn about $15,000 a year. When the current rate was set in 2009, a single parent raising a child under the age of 18 would be above the poverty line…though not by much.

According to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the federal poverty line for a two-person household in 2009 was $14,570. In 2016, the ASPE put the poverty line for a two-person household at $16,240. And while the poverty line has increased, the minimum wage has not, prompting many people to push for a raise in the minimum wage.

But it’s not that simple. Many people fight back against the thought of raising the minimum wage. One argument against raising the minimum wage is that it would hurt low-skilled workers. Companies will not want to pay more to employees for the same work they were getting before the rise in the minimum wage. Thus, they will lay off employees to not lose profits. What’s more, they will not hire as many workers either, now that they “cost” more.

Tim Worstall, a Forbes contributor, raised this exact concern when talking about Seattle raising its minimum wage back in 2016. “A rise in the price of something will lead to people purchasing less of that thing,” he said in an article for Forbes. “So a rise in the price of low-skill labor will lead to employers purchasing less of low-skill labor.” A trend, Worstall said, that was confirmed when Seattle raised its minimum wage and saw a decrease in hiring low-wage workers.

History of the Minimum Wage

The first minimum wage was set in 1938. It was introduced under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression. The idea of a minimum wage is to protect workers, and having a minimum wage helps the government, too. If people are working and staying above the poverty line, that is less money that the government has to spend on welfare or other government programs to help the poor. When it was first introduced, the minimum wage was $0.25 an hour. In today’s dollars that would be $4.19.

Since its introduction, Congress has raised the minimum wage 22 times. The most recent raise was in 2009 when it increased from $6.55 to $7.25. There are many reasons why the minimum wage gets raised, including inflation and the changing value of the dollar, as well as an increase in productivity.

The Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

One of the strongest cases for raising the minimum wage is the fact that a single parent, working for the minimum wage and raising a child under the age of 18, is living below the poverty line. If the minimum wage was invented to help and protect workers, this is a clear failure.

Another argument for raising the minimum wage would be the positive effect it might have on the economy. According to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, increasing the minimum wage by $1.75 an hour would result in an increase of $48 billion in household spending. When people have more money, they will spend more money. If a family is living at or below the poverty line, they are less inclined to spend what little money they have on anything but the essentials. Earning even a little more an hour, households would have more to spend on products that they normally would not have purchased.

In addition, raising the minimum wage could help augment the disparity in wages in the U.S. The disparity between the richest one percent and the rest of the country is staggering. Raising the minimum wage has the potential to move almost 900,000 people (out of 45 million) out of poverty, according to the Congressional Budget Office. While this is a small percentage, it is a step in the right direction. Bringing people out of poverty eases tension on the government, as a less impoverished populace means that the government will spend less on welfare and programs.

Peer pressure is another reason to raise the minimum wage. An article in The Economist explains that the U.S. is an outlier when it comes to other countries’s minimum wage rate. Considering the U.S.’ GDP per person ($53,000), the country’s minimum wage should be about $12 per hour. Converted to U.S. dollars, the minimum wages of many other western countries far surpass America’s. Australia, France, Germany, the U.K., and Canada all have higher minimum wages than we do. However, this is not a case of apples to oranges. Living conditions, local economies, taxes, health care, and a slew of other factors play into this as well. 

The Case Against Raising the Minimum Wage

Now let’s address some of the arguments against raising the minimum wage. While the current minimum wage would put a single parent below the poverty line, it would not put a dual-income household below the poverty line. Furthermore, not all living conditions are equal around the country. Many states have minimum wages that are higher than the federal one in order to compensate for higher living costs within those states.

Next, while decreasing the need for welfare paid by the government sounds positive, the money does have to come from somewhere. While the government is not paying as much for welfare, companies now take on that burden of paying people more. The effect of this is two-fold. Companies, in an effort to save money, may lay off workers, thus putting more people on welfare anyway. Companies may also raise the prices of their products, so the consumers will take a hit for the higher paid employees.

Also, companies may slow hiring employees because they now “cost” more. When it comes down to someone getting paid $7.25 an hour or $0.00 an hour, getting paid something is more beneficial than not earning anything at all. These threats are not just hypothetical. Rising minimum wage rates are happening in certain states and the effects are already starting to show.

In January 2017 some states raised their local minimum wages, causing national chains based in those restaurants to start paying their workers more for the same job they were doing before. Wendy’s CEO Bob Wright expects to spend four percent more on employees’ wages. To offset this, Wright had every store cut 31 hours of labor per week and replaced that lost labor with automated kiosks at some locations.

Some critics also argue that raising the minimum wage hurts lower-skilled workers and younger workers. The Pew Research Center published an article claiming that nearly half of all workers who are earning minimum wage are aged 16 to 24. Young members of the workforce who are trying to break their way in will have a harder time.

Companies might be less willing to hire someone with no experience and pay them a higher wage. They will be more willing to hire someone with more experience who they feel will be a better value for this higher price. Of course this then becomes a vicious cycle of young workers not getting hired because they do not have experience and having a harder time finding work because they continue to not get experience. A lower minimum wage might give young workers more opportunities.

What Should the Minimum Wage Be?

If the minimum wage is going to increase, how much should it increase by? There are a variety of numbers that get thrown around when talking about raising the minimum wage. Here is a breakdown of how people arrive at these figures.

Some people argue it should be raised to $21.67. The minimum wage had the highest purchasing power in 1968 when it was $1.60, or roughly $10.55 today when adjusting for inflation. Some studies show that personal income, excluding Social Security, has increased by 100 percent, and thus the minimum wage should be adjusted to fit that standard as well.

Others argue it should be raised to $15. In 2014 and 2015, many major cities put into place economic plans that would gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2017 and 2018. Cities that enacted those plans include New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. 

In 2014, The Economic Policy Institute made the case that the minimum wage should be raised to $10.10, arguing that it should be raised over a three-year period. This amount was determined to ease pressure on Medicaid and other governmental assistance programs. The debate over the minimum wage rages on, and states may adjust their own minimum wages because the federal one is too hard to change right now.

What’s Happening Now?

There has not been much movement at the federal level. Individual states are combating the federal inertia. On January 1, 2017, 19 states raised their minimum wages. The majority of the changes were to adjust for inflation (Missouri, Ohio, and Florida raising their minimum wages by only $0.05 an hour), but some states saw significant increases, like Maine (from $7.50 to $9.00), Washington ($9.47 to $11.00), and Arizona ($8.05 to $10.00). Many states have plans to increase their minimum wages in the coming years as well.

As a candidate, President Donald Trump suggested the minimum wage might be too high. In a debate in November 2015, he said in his opening statement that he would not raise the minimum wage and that wages were “too high.” He had said previously that year in an interview with MSNBC that a higher minimum wage would hurt America. “We can’t have a situation where our labor is so much more expensive than other countries’ that we can no longer win,” Trump said. This may be bad news for Trump supporters, many of whom work at the minimum wage and struggle to get by.

Conclusion

The minimum wage debate is not a new one and it’s not one that will end any time soon. Inflation and the fluctuating value of the dollar will forever throw the minimum wage’s value into question. As it stands, the current minimum wage is too low for many people to live on, but too drastic of an increase could result in far more catastrophic job loss. A delicate hand and a knowledgable course of action will be the best hope going forward. It seems that this issue will not be raised in the current administration any time soon; individual states should (and are) trying to ameliorate the issue on a local scale. If you want to see change, go out and call, mail, email, tweet, or visit your local representatives. They’re the ones who will be able to help the most right now.

Anne Grae Martin

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

The post The Minimum Wage: Where Are We Going and How Did We Get Here? appeared first on Law Street.

The Dreamers are here to stay–for now. Late Thursday night, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly issued a press release and Q&A page on the department’s website announcing a two-year expansion of President Obama’s 2012 DACA policy, which protects immigrants who came to The United States as children. These children are commonly known as “Dreamers.”

It’s a surprising move by the Trump Administration. During the campaign, Trump once said that Obama’s 2012 DACA program “defied federal law and the Constitution” and vowed to end the program if elected.

DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was an executive order issued by President Obama in 2012 designed to protect children who entered the U.S. as minors from being deported. While DACA does not provide citizenship to those who qualify, it prevents them from being deported from their established lives in the United States and makes them eligible for work permits.

A sister program known as DAPA, for the parents of American citizens and lawful permanent residents, was blocked a few years earlier by a federal judge in Texas who declared that the program overstepped the president’s constitutional authority. Last week’s announcement formally rescinded the program, although it had never actually been implemented.

This change in immigration policy was praised by members of the immigration community, but to Trump’s hardline supporters, it may be seen as a betrayal of one of his key campaign promise on immigration.

However, aides to the president and representatives from Homeland Security confirmed that the DACA program is only under a temporary extension. Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Jonathan Hoffman stated that it is still up to Congress to form a long-term solution to the immigration debate. This means that when the extension of DACA ends in just two years, the ‘Dreamers’ could still face deportation in the absence of a further extension or legislative solution.

But for now, it looks as if the Dreamers are safe to stay, that is unless Trump changes his mind.

James Levinson

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

The post Trump Gives Dreamers a Temporary Reprieve 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:

Trump’s Travel Ban Loses…Again

A second federal appeals court has shut down President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco rejected the ban that would limit travel from some Muslim countries yesterday, saying that the president exceeded his authority by making decisions about national security regarding immigration without sufficient justification.

Last month, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond reached the same decision but with different reasoning. That court said the ban is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. Team Trump has asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, and seems determined to keep fighting to ban some citizens from visiting the U.S.

Well, as predicted, the 9th Circuit did it again – Ruled against the TRAVEL BAN at such a dangerous time in the history of our country. S.C.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 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: June 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

While testifying before the Senate on Thursday, Former FBI Director James Comey faced questions seeking to determine whether or not President Donald Trump’s actions amount to obstruction of justice.

The debate first began on Wednesday when Comey’s prepared opening statement was released to the public. The statement recounts conversations with the president in which he pressed for Comey’s loyalty, distanced himself from an unconfirmed dossier, and assured the director that former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was a “good guy” that “has been through a lot.”

But the standout moment came later on in a conversation between Comey and President Trump. Comey noted in his statement:

[Trump] then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ I replied only that ‘he is a good guy.’ I did not say I would ‘let this go.’

While many speculated on the subject, the Senate Intelligence Committee decided it would be best to ask Comey himself. Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) was the first to ask if the president obstructed justice, but the former FBI director would not weigh in on the subject, only noting that he found Trump’s comments to be “disturbing.”

“There was an open FBI criminal investigation of his statements in connection with the Russian contacts and the contacts themselves,” Comey said. “And so that was my assessment at the time. I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct.”

Senator James Risch (R-ID) expanded on the chairman’s questions and asked whether Trump had explicitly “ordered” or “directed” Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. Comey responded that he understood the president’s statement to be an order, but that Trump had used the words, “I hope.”

The senator continued to probe about the semantics.

“He said, ‘I hope.’ You don’t know of anyone who’s ever been charged [with obstruction of justice] for hoping something. Is that a fair statement?” asked Risch. “I don’t as I sit here,” replied Comey with a shrug.

Sen. James Risch asks Comey about obstruction of justice

Watch live here: https://t.co/THlNhXekzk pic.twitter.com/REs7GfdKNY

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 8, 2017

Senator Risch is a strong supporter of the Trump Administration. He is on the record saying that the president was right, and even entitled, to share classified information with Russian officials in the Oval Office. He also agrees with the president that the ongoing leaks to the news media are a cause for concern. It’s likely that he saw Comey’s responses to his line of questioning as a victory and proof that Trump did not obstruct justice.

However, Senator Risch’s questioning implies that an obstruction of justice charge requires an explicit order from the accused, which may not be the case given the fairly broad federal statutes in place. There are several relevant statutes to this situation, which may implicate anyone who “corruptly […] endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law.” So asking Comey to drop part of an investigation, and later firing him, could meet these requirements, particularly when you consider the power dynamic between an FBI director and president.

Samuel Buell, a criminal law professor at Duke University and former federal prosecutor who led the Justice Department’s Enron task force, told the New York Times that the case against Trump has only grown over time.

“The evidence of improper purpose has gotten much stronger since the day of Comey’s firing,” Buell said. “Trump has made admissions about that. And we now have evidence that he may have indicated an improper purpose previously in his communications with Comey about the Russia investigation.”

Of course, Trump did have the legal authority to fire Comey. In fact, the former director even noted in his testimony that he was aware that he could be fired at any moment for any reason at all when he first took the job. But courts have ruled that acts generally considered lawful can be illegal if they are meant to obstruct justice.

Even so, this testimony might not mean much for the immediate future. The process of impeachment is hardly swift and involves both quasi-judicial and quasi-political proceedings. Not only does the president have to have committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but a majority in the House and two-thirds of the Senate need to agree in order to impeach and remove a president from office. Also, the events surrounding this testimony, and subsequent accusations, are largely unprecedented, creating more than its fair share of uncertainty.

It should be noted, however, that two most recent American presidents subjected to impeachment proceedings–Bill Clinton in 1998, and Richard Nixon in 1974, although he resigned before the House could vote–were accused of obstruction of justice.

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 Comey Hearing Recap: Defining Obstruction of Justice appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration is proposing to allow seismic air guns to survey oil and gas deposits along the U.S. Atlantic coast, but some environmentalists are concerned that the surveys could harm marine mammals.

Seismic air gun surveys use ships that tow seismic air guns. The guns are used to shoot compressed air through the water and into the seabed. That blast reflects back information about oil and gas deposits below the seabed, according to Oceana, an international advocacy organization focused on ocean conservation. The guns shoot compressed air every 10 to 12 seconds, said Ingrid Beidron, a marine scientist and campaign manager at Oceana.

The use of seismic air guns has a controversial history due to its impact on the environment. The Associated Press reported that the United States has not conducted any seismic air gun surveys in the mid- and south-Atlantic regions for at least 30 years. In January, the Obama Administration denied six energy companies’ applications for permits to conduct air gun seismic surveys in those regions. In May, under the Trump Administration, the Department of the Interior began reviewing those same six applications.

Most recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration took action on those applications by releasing a proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service on June 6 outlining the details of the plan as it seeks permits for the use of five seismic air gun surveys that could incidentally harass marine mammals.

The proposal includes measures to minimize harm to marine mammals such as prescribing a standard exclusion zone and, under some circumstances, shutting down the acoustic source so as not to disturb marine mammals. However, many environmental organizations, local governments, and businesses remain opposed to seismic air gun surveys.

Michael Jasny, director of marine mammal protection for the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in a blog post that some of the potential negative effects of the surveys could include causing marine animals to abandon their habitats, preventing animals from feeding regularly, obstructing animals’ communication, and injuring and killing fish and invertebrates.

The Endangered Species Act prohibits the “take”–or harassment, harming, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capture or collection–of species listed as “endangered” or “threatened. However, a 1982 amendment to the Act allowed for taking that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.”

The proposal in question lists five energy companies’ seismic operations, each spanning a range of days. The shortest operation would be 70 days; the longest, 308. According to the proposal, the seismic operations would generally occur within 200 nautical miles of the coast between Delaware and Cape Canaveral, Florida, with some additional activity up to 350 nautical miles from the shore. The operations would typically occur 24 hours per day.

Jasny called the surveys “an environmentally assaultive activity” that will open the east coast to offshore oil drilling. Over 120 East Coast communities, over 1,200 elected officials, over 41,000 businesses, and over 500,000 fishing families have opposed seismic air gun surveys and/or offshore drilling, according to Oceana.

If the NMFS finds that the taking will have a “negligible impact on the species or stock(s)” and “will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence users,” an incidental harassment authorization will be granted. Individuals can comment on the proposal until July 6, exactly 30 days after the date on which the proposal was released, by contacting Jolie Harrision at the NMFS.

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 Environmentalists Blast the Trump Administration Plans for Seismic Air Gun Surveys appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

— Steve Peoples (@sppeoples) May 30, 2017

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

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

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Feel like you missed out on some of the top news this Memorial Day Weekend? Here’s what trended last week:

Mississippi Sued, Accused of Not Providing Equal Education to Black Students

A federal lawsuit has been filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the state of Mississippi, arguing that the state is violating a 150-year-old law that requires it to provide a “uniform system of free public schools” for all students. The SPLC lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the parents of four minor children, claims that Mississippi has deprived black students of the “school rights and privileges” guaranteed in its 1868 constitution.

PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement

PayPal is suing music streaming service Pandora, accusing it of copying its signature “P” logo, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The digital payment company alleges that Pandora’s new logo intentionally confuses customers into mistakenly opening the wrong app on their phones.

Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Jared Kushner Under FBI Scrutiny

Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and one of his closest advisers, is under FBI scrutiny regarding the Russia probe. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Kushner has done anything wrong, rather that investigators believe he has information related to the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. According to people with knowledge of the investigation who spoke to the Chicago Tribune, Kushner “is being investigated because of the extent and nature of his interactions with the Russians.” The FBI has yet to comment.

Last week, sources told the Washington Post that one of Trump’s senior advisers was under scrutiny; many hypothesized that it was Kushner. There has also been speculation that the investigators are looking into possible financial crimes on Kushner’s part, including a possible failure to disclose certain loans and assets.

The FBI turns its attention to Jared Kushner, @ariabendix reports https://t.co/WuGpKn8Mqk pic.twitter.com/NbMiYWEFNG

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) May 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: May 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

During a speech in Brussels on Thursday, President Donald Trump spoke to a cluster of European heads of state. He implored them to pay their fair share in defense spending for the NATO alliance, while simultaneously refusing to commit to support in case of an attack. The speech baffled America’s European allies, and potentially pleased Russia’s militarily-adventurous President Vladimir Putin.

“Members of the alliance must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations,” Trump told the leaders of the 28-member defense bloc, including the newly-elected French President Emmanuel Macron. “Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.”

Trump, it turns out, was correct: According to NATO figures, only five countries meet the benchmark for defense spending, which is set at two percent of each member nation’s respective GDP. The U.S., Britain, Estonia, Greece, and Poland are the only five NATO members that meet the mark. The rest, including Europe’s economic engines, France and Germany, do not.

Speaking at the opening of NATO’s new billion-dollar headquarters in Brussels, Trump barely mentioned Article 5, the treaty’s tenet of collective defense. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, and fomented a pro-Russia separatist movement in eastern Ukraine that same year. So, Trump’s refusal to explicitly endorse Article 5 could worry NATO members, especially the Baltic States, which border Russia and were occupied by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The last–and only–time the 68-year-old alliance triggered Article 50 was after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, when NATO forces joined the war in Afghanistan. While Trump–who called NATO “obsolete” as a candidate but nominally embraced it as president–did not reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Article 5, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson did.

Asked on Wednesday about Trump’s commitment to Article 5, Tillerson said, “of course we support Article 5.” Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said all the fuss about Trump’s failure to back Article 5 was “silly because by being here at such a ceremony, we all understand that by being part of NATO we treat the obligations and commitments.” He added: “By having to reaffirm something by the very nature of being here and speaking at a ceremony about it is almost laughable.”

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 In Speech at NATO HQ, Trump Implores Members to Pay More for Defense appeared first on Law Street.

After 100 days of aggressive anti-immigrant action, the Trump Administration may be approaching a stumbling block: keeping American farms running without immigrant farmworkers. At a roundtable last month, American farmers explained to Trump that they are dependent on immigrant labor as local hires are rarely willing to work the farms.

Farms across the country, but especially in California, have faced labor shortages for years and as immigration restrictions tighten, the labor supply is quickly dwindling. The White House declined to discuss the specifics of the conversation but Trump reportedly said that he was focused on “criminals” rather than farmworkers and that he won’t destroy the labor force for American farms. However, it is difficult to make such a promise when more than half of American farmworkers are undocumented.

The H 2-A visa program provides agricultural guest workers with legal entry into the United States and as use of the program has risen over the past several years, fewer agricultural workers have been entering the country illegally. However, the H 2-A visa is only a temporary permit. Senate Democrats are currently sponsoring a “blue card” bill that would protect undocumented farmworkers who have worked at least 100 days in each of the past two years from deportation. A “blue card” is a modified green card, designed specially for agricultural workers to fast-track them toward permanent residency in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the bill lacks bipartisan support and there is little incentive for Republican senators to reach across party lines as the majority of their farming constituents voted for Trump, despite the fact that his administration plans to gut spending for farms across rural America. The blue card bill is a viable path to citizenship that will keep farms running and actually stabilize the labor market. Farmers often lose seasonal workers after they return home in the off season and don’t want to risk the passage back into the U.S., but with blue cards, the farmworkers could stay legally and work multiple seasons in a row.

Farmers only stand to benefit from having a steady labor supply but their loyalty to the Trump “pro-business” platform might push them to act against their own self-interest and be satisfied with the empty promise he made at last month’s roundtable. Even if Trump expanded the H-2 visa program, without a path to permanent residency, it is only a Band-Aid over a much more serious labor shortage. The blue card bill could be the path to citizenship that keeps farms running but it’s flown pretty much under the radar up to this point and without a grassroots campaign pushing for it, it will fade before it ever gets close to becoming a law. Undocumented workers do not always have the resources to speak for themselves and fear of deportation after a spike in arrests only makes speaking out seem more dangerous. It is up to the farmers, who have organized unions, lobbying groups and above all, stock with the Republicans, to fight for the blue card bill. If they let this bill fade into obscurity, their farms could take a hit.

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 Why Farmers Must Support the “Blue Card” Bill 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:

Trump Allegedly Leaked Classified Information to the Russians

Last night, it was revealed that President Donald Trump disclosed highly classified information during his meeting with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador. This information involved an ISIS plot to use laptop computers on airplanes, and was so sensitive that details about it were withheld from other U.S. allies and even from some agencies within the U.S. government. According to the Washington Post, Trump allegedly also mentioned the specific city in which the threat had been discovered.

An official confirming Post story to us and says, ““it’s far worse than what has already been reported” https://t.co/xPggSHW9Bt

— Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen) May 15, 2017

The meeting in question took place the day after Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey, who was investigating the Trump/Russia ties. American journalists were blocked from attending the meeting, while a Russian photographer was allowed in. Now some U.S. officials have called the news shocking and reckless, and Democratic Congressman Al Green called for Trump’s impeachment, saying that he’s not above the law and that he must be charged. This morning, Trump seemed to admit that he did share the information, even after the White House completely denied the allegations last night. This is a mess that could have serious consequences.

it’s fun to recall that Trump’s campaigned for president on a platform of handling of classified intel securely and proper records retention

— Tim Murphy (@timothypmurphy) May 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In January, seven members of Greenpeace scaled a 270-foot crane at a construction site near the White House and unfurled a massive banner with the word “resist” printed in block letters. In April, Greenpeace members blocked the entrance to Coca-Cola’s UK headquarters with a 2.5 ton sculpture of a seagull regurgitating plastic and unfurled a banner reading “Stop Dirty Pipeline Deals!” on the center stage of Credit Suisse’s annual shareholder meeting. All of these Greenpeace interventions grabbed headlines but they did not shut down operations of the White House, Coca-Cola, or Credit Suisse. Greenpeace’s banners certainly entertain and uplift, but do they actually have an impact?

While Greenpeace would be nothing without its partnerships with local NGOs, it does have more brand recognition and funding than local organizations. Greenpeace campaigners unrolling banners and installing sculptures gain more publicity than a handful of protesters picketing outside of Coca-Cola headquarters. Images of a Greenpeace demonstration go viral within hours and that kind of power grants the group access to negotiations that smaller organizations never get. Greenpeace negotiators have worked with dozens of major corporations, including Nestlé, Mattel, LEGO, and McDonald’s, to address how the companies can reduce their carbon footprint, protect the environment, and divest from harmful supply chains.

Under the Trump Administration, when sustainability and climate change are treated like myths, businesses will feel no pressure to commit to green practices–unless they are publicly called out and the public is educated about their operations. The Science March and the People’s Climate March were powerful but brief–the true work will be sustaining the outrage and activism that those marches created over a four year period. Greenpeace has the network, the funding and the name recognition to turn individual protests into a larger, more cohesive movement.

Activists can continue to do their work challenging corporations but should also look to the local level as 2018 approaches. If they choose to expand the “market based campaigning” strategy they’ve used against corporations in the past to local and federal governments, they could build powerful local power bases. Imagine Greenpeace banners in town meetings or on the campaign trail during the mid-term elections–the setting for a Greenpeace campaign doesn’t always have to be a corporate meeting and negotiations should not be reserved for corporate sustainability departments.

When Greenpeace was founded in 1971, its first activists leased a fishing boat called the Phyllis Cormack and set sail for Alaska, protesting nuclear testing off of the coast by putting themselves in harm’s way. This ship was stopped by the U.S. Coast Guard and turned back–but several members of the Coast Guard crew signed a letter supporting the protesters’ mission and the media attention the boat drew contributed to ending nuclear testing in Alaska. So, while that first fishing boat could easily have been written off as just another publicity stunt, look what it launched.

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 Beyond Symbolic: Greenpeace in the Trump Era appeared first on Law Street.

After President Trump signed an executive order last week, every national monument of 100,000 acres or more created since January 1, 1996, is under threat. At least 25 national parks and monuments established under Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton will all be subject to review.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 has been used by presidents from both political parties to protect hundreds of millions of acres of land, but overnight, dozens of parks and monuments are now at risk. The parks under review include Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, Marianas Trench near Guam, and the Vermilion Cliffs in Arizona. Many of these parks are concentrated in the West and Southwest, but marine reserves in both the Pacific and Atlantic are also under threat. With a second executive order approving offshore drilling in previously protected areas signed last Friday, marine environments are in an especially precarious position.

Trump framed the national parks as a “massive federal land grab” and claimed to be giving power back to the states, but by gutting public land protections, he is opening the parks up to industries that they have long been protected from. If the acreage of national parks is reduced, the land will be available for drilling, mining, and logging. The argument for defending states’ rights is a transparent cover for promoting commercial interests.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke went so far as to state that Trump is concerned national parks result in the loss of jobs and reduced wages. This concern is based on zero evidence. The National Park Service helps add hundreds of thousands of jobs to the economy, which is why economists encouraged President Obama to frequently use the Antiquities Act while in office. In 2016, visitors to national parks spent an estimated $18.4 billion in local gateway regions (communities within 60 miles of a park). Hotels, campgrounds, restaurants, and bars flourish in areas around national parks. The parks are undeniably popular–hundreds of millions of visitors stream to them each year and the number of visitors has been rapidly rising for the past three years. States orient their entire tourism industries around their national parks and reap the benefits accordingly. For example, in Utah, national park tourism at the state’s 13 sites created $1.6 billion in revenue last year. It’s an interesting statistic considering that Utah Senator Orrin Hatch claims that President Obama abused the Antiquities Act and now supports Trump’s executive order.

If Trump truly believes parks are draining public funds, then he should be attacking the private vendors that monopolize concessions and merchandising within the parks. If he really sees designating parks as an individual state’s responsibility, he should have placed state governments in charge of the review, not Ryan Zinke. If Trump truly cared about parks having a negative impact on the economy, he should have established a review of park spending, not a review of the parks’ existence. Disbanding the parks is not a bold move to cut government spending or limit the authority of the federal government–it’s a transparent power grab from the private companies that Trump is beholden to.

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 An Executive Order Without Justification: Attacking the National Parks 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 Thought Being President Would be Easier

In an exclusive interview with Reuters, the president revealed what he thinks about his first 100 days in office. To sum it up, he said that he thought it would be easier than this to be the President of the United States. He seemed to miss his old job, and said that he would like to be able to drive a car again. He also admitted to feeling a little restricted by the massive security apparatus that surrounds a president. “You’re really into your own little cocoon, because you have such massive protection that you really can’t go anywhere.” Recently, Trump also warned that “There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely.” Now a lot of people are appalled–how could anyone not know that being POTUS is arguably the hardest job in the world?

Greatest superpower the world has ever known, and this is who we gave it to https://t.co/kUHVrA2KCF

— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) April 28, 2017

In fairness, the rest of us thought impeaching Trump would be easier than it is.

— Dave Pell (@davepell) April 28, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

After Republicans’ first attempt to swiftly repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act failed, President Donald Trump finds himself in a difficult position: he has to administer a law that he has frequently called a “disaster.” The question now becomes: will President Trump and Tom Price, his Secretary of Health and Human Services, try as hard as possible to support the law that’s already on the books or will they take steps to undermine it?

As Republicans continue to try to broker a compromise between their more moderate and conservative wings–and there’s at least some evidence they are making progress–questions about the existing law may need to be answered before any new legislation makes its way to the president’s desk. While many of these pending decisions are somewhat small or would require a long time before taking effect, there’s one relatively arcane component of the Affordable Care Act–cost-sharing subsidy payments–that could swiftly pull the rug out from under the health insurance exchanges that about 12 million people rely on for health insurance. Read on for an overview of the Affordable Care Act exchanges and to see how a pending lawsuit gives President Trump unique control over the fate of a major part of his predecessor’s landmark accomplishment.

An Overview of the Health Insurance Exchanges

The Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, is an extraordinarily long piece of legislation that touched almost every part of the U.S. health care system–an industry that accounts for nearly one-fifth of the entire economy. One of the law’s primary goals was to lower the number of people without health insurance coverage. To do this, the law dramatically increased the number of people on Medicaid–the government-run health insurance program for low-income Americans–by expanding outreach and eligibility to a larger number of Americans. It also created federal and state-run health insurance exchanges on which people who do not get health insurance through their employer and also don’t qualify for Medicare or Medicaid can buy health insurance. While most of the coverage gains came from expanding Medicaid, creating regulated exchanges and offering subsidies made health insurance available to groups who previously did not have access to it on the individual market, notably those with preexisting conditions.

Individuals could buy health insurance before the Affordable Care Act’s passage, but insurers could charge people with chronic health conditions a lot more for insurance and could even deny coverage outright. The ACA introduced significant marketplace reforms to ensure that all insurance plans offered on the exchanges cover a minimum set of services, known as the 10 essential benefits, and prevented companies from denying anyone coverage because of a preexisting condition. The law also included provisions that prohibited charging people higher premiums based on certain characteristics like gender or health status. For other characteristics, the law set specific ranges at which companies can use to price premiums. For example, companies can charge no more than three times as much for their elderly customers as they can for their youngest customers.

The law had a number of provisions to try to make the marketplaces stable for insurers and consumers. One of the most discussed (and controversial) market stabilization components of the law is the individual mandate–the requirement that everyone get health insurance or pay a tax penalty. To help make insurance affordable for consumers, the ACA provided premium subsidies to people making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty line. The premium credits are tied to a benchmark plan to ensure that an individual or a family’s healthcare spending is capped at a certain percentage of their income. This means that if insurance premiums change dramatically from one year to the next then the subsidy will also adjust for those who are eligible. Finally, the law also had several stabilization programs that sought to reduce the risk that insurers would face when beginning to sell plans on the new exchanges.

Cost-Sharing Reductions

One of the many ways the law sought to make care affordable for low-income Americans is the cost-sharing reduction requirements. The cost-sharing reduction provision is relatively small in the overall scope of the law, but remains an important component because it addressed costs that people face when going to get care. In addition to premiums, health insurance plans typically include several forms of cost-sharing, which involve out-of-pocket costs when someone visits the doctor or fills a prescription. The Affordable Care Act sought to reduce these costs for people with incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level. People who are eligible for cost-sharing reductions must enroll in silver insurance plans, the middle tier plans, on the insurance exchanges. Based on an eligible consumer’s income, insurers adjust the value of the plan to ensure that they cover a certain percentage of all costs. The government then provides a subsidy to insurers so they recoup those costs. A typical silver plan has an actuarial value of 70 percent, meaning that the insurance company will, on average, pay 70 percent of the cost for covered services–the other 30 percent typically comes through different cost-sharing. In plans eligible for cost-sharing reductions, the actuarial value of a silver plan increases based how close a person or family is to the federal poverty level. For the lowest income Americans who buy insurance on the exchanges, the actuarial value goes as high as 94 percent.

This year there are 7.1 million Americans who have plans with cost-sharing reductions, accounting for 58 percent of all plans on the exchanges. The total cost of the subsidies provided by the government is about $7 billion each year. This process–in which insurers are required to reduce cost-sharing for certain low-income customers and then the government subsidizes the insurers–is key to understanding the current challenge, which we’ll get to in the next section.

It’s worth noting that the law was not implemented exactly as it was designed, as legal and legislative obstacles played a significant role in the way the law took effect. Additionally, while the law has many provisions to reduce the burden on insurers and consumers, there are a number of local marketplaces that are particularly fragile at the moment. Several insurers have pulled out of the exchanges and there are several counties where people buying insurance on the health exchanges have only one insurance plan to pick from. At the same time, there are several places where the exchanges have been particularly successful–where strong competition between insurers has created a stable market for consumers. Debating the overall success of the Affordable Care Act and what should be done going forward is clearly important, but that is beyond the scope of this piece. What is clear is that the law led to a significant legal and political backlash, which brings us to the next part of the story.

The Lawsuit

The passage of the Affordable Care Act sparked a number of legal challenges, several of which have made their way to the Supreme Court. But the lawsuit that is the most important right now is the one challenging the cost-sharing subsidies. Interestingly, this lawsuit didn’t come from private citizens, small businesses, or religious institutions, but from another branch of the government.

In November 2014, Republicans in the House of Representatives filed a lawsuit against the executive branch to challenge two aspects of the ACA’s implementation. The lawsuit first argued that President Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by delaying the implementation of the employer mandate–a requirement that companies of a certain size must provide health insurance for their employees or pay a fine. Second, it claimed that the Obama Administration’s payments to insurers for the cost-sharing subsidies were illegal because the money had not been properly appropriated. A federal judge dismissed the first claim but allowed the second to proceed.

The Arguments

Both sides of the lawsuit agree that money cannot be spent unless it is properly appropriated, but the dispute focuses on the question of whether or not the current law amounts to an appropriation. House Republicans argue that although the ACA created the subsidy, the payments are not linked to a specific appropriation. Although the law calls for the payments to be paid, it doesn’t specify a source for the payments. This is not the case for the law’s premium subsidies, which are paid out in the form of refundable tax credits and are appropriated by the statute that allows the IRS to make refund payments. When the issue first emerged, President Obama asked Congress for a specific appropriation but Congress declined. After the lawsuit began, the Obama Administration argued that the same appropriation that is used for the premium subsidies can be used to make the subsidy payments to insurers.

Nicholas Bagly, a law professor and health care expert at the University of Michigan, has studied the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and argues that the Republicans’ lawsuit has a point. The justification used by the Obama Administration doesn’t quite make sense because tax credits are not the same thing as direct payments to insurance companies. As Bagley puts it, “It’s an enormous stretch to read an appropriation that governs refunds for individual taxpayers as also covering payments to insurers.” However, he also argues that the Republican lawsuit should have been thrown out by the courts in the first place. The White House and Congress are two coequal branches of government and they have the authority to resolve the dispute between themselves. If Congress has a problem with something the president is doing, it can pass a law that stops him from doing it. Congress could also pass a law appropriating the funding for the cost-sharing payments and the problem would be resolved. Allowing one branch to take an issue with another branch to the courts could set a problematic precedent as political disputes should ideally be resolved by elected officials.

What’s Next and Why It’s Important

After the district judge’s initial ruling–which allowed the cost-sharing subsidy claim to continue but dismissed the employer mandate claim–a separate ruling in 2016 ordered President Obama to stop making the payments. Obama immediately appealed the decision and the judge stayed her ruling so the White House could appeal. This means that right now, if President Trump decided to stop reimbursing insurers for cost-sharing reductions, he could drop the appeal and the judge’s injunction blocking the payments would stand. Doing so would have massive consequences for the fate of the health insurance exchanges. This is also something that the president has publicly considered, but the fate of these payments remains unclear.

On April 10, the Department of Health and Human Services told the New York Times that it planned to continue making the cost-sharing payments to insurers while the lawsuit was being litigated. But a few days later, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said that he would consider withholding the payments as a way to force Democrats to negotiate on health care legislation. This was, in effect, a threat to undermine the insurance markets as a way to force a deal. Democrats have also reportedly considered demanding a specific appropriation for the payments for their support in a funding bill that will be needed before the end of April to avoid a government shutdown. While the politics of the issue remain unclear, the ultimate effects that ending the payments would have are fairly clear.

Consequences for Health Insurance Markets

Ending the cost-sharing subsidy payments would have dramatic consequences for the individual health insurance market. Ending the payments would not change the fact that insurers who sell plans on the exchanges would still need to provide cost-sharing reductions for customers who qualify–whether they get reimbursed by the government or not. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan organization that analyzes health care policy, estimated that average premiums would need to increase by 19 percent to offset the lack of government funding. These estimates varied by location, ranging from a projected 9 percent increase in North Dakota to a 27 percent in Mississippi. Alternatively, insurers may simply leave the exchanges altogether.

After several insurance companies had difficulty turning a profit in the early years of the ACA’s implementation, several companies decided to stop selling plans in many markets. The current uncertainty surrounding the cost-sharing payments and health care policy more generally, could lead many companies to pull out from the exchanges. Trade groups have already started to warn lawmakers that blocking the payments may cause insurers to drop out of the markets. By June 21, all health insurers will need to decide whether or not they plan to sell insurance on the ACA exchanges next year. This year there are more than 960 counties in the country with just one insurer offering to sell plans on the exchanges, and if companies decide to pull out, several markets could collapse altogether.

Conclusion

As Republicans continue their efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President Trump may need to make decisions about the current law before he has an opportunity to sign a new law overhauling it. Arguably the most pressing of these challenges is what to do about the lawsuit challenging the cost-sharing subsidy payments. Trump could decide to stop the pending lawsuit and block the payments almost immediately, throwing exchanges that provide insurance to 12 million Americans into chaos. He could continue the current policy–allowing the appeal to move forward and payments to be made to insurers–or he could ask Congress to appropriate the required funding and resolve the issue once and for all.

In the meantime, the subsidy payments will continue to play an important role in legislative negotiations, particularly the funding bill needed to keep the government open past April 28. Meanwhile, insurers must deal with uncertainty as they decide if they want to continue to sell plans on the state and federal exchanges. While much remains in question, the end result will largely be the product of Congressional politics. Both parties seem to think they have the upper hand–assuming the other will be blamed if subsidy payments are blocked and insurers hike premium prices or leave the markets altogether.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Behind the Lawsuit that Could Upend the Affordable Care Act Exchanges appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday was the March for Science in many cities around the U.S. (and the world). According to the organizers, over 600 cities participated yesterday. The organizers explain the purpose:

People who value science have remained silent for far too long in the face of policies that ignore scientific evidence and endanger both human life and the future of our world. New policies threaten to further restrict scientists’ ability to research and communicate their findings.  We face a possible future where people not only ignore scientific evidence, but seek to eliminate it entirely.  Staying silent is a luxury that we can no longer afford.  We must stand together and support science.

The application of science to policy is not a partisan issue. Anti-science agendas and policies have been advanced by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and they harm everyone — without exception. Science should neither serve special interests nor be rejected based on personal convictions. At its core, science is a tool for seeking answers.  It can and should influence policy and guide our long-term decision-making.

But, as with many of this year’s protests, one of the highlights was the awesome signs many protesters came up with. Check out some of the best in the slideshow below:

These Awesome Science March Signs Prove Scientists have a Sense of Humour | https://t.co/11IBFaC8Gi pic.twitter.com/E2wItAgQgs

— Academia Obscura (@AcademiaObscura) April 23, 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 Killer Signs at the March for Science appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since it was announced that Donald J. Trump was going to be the 45th President of these United States of America, Democrats have been looking to attach themselves to any kind of competition to gain some kind of payback for their defeat (See: Super Bowl LI). Although it didn’t result in an explicit victory, this past Tuesday’s special election for Georgia’s House seat in its Sixth District offered Democrats their first viable taste of victory and vengeance.

Wednesday’s special election resulted in Democrat Jon Ossoff narrowly missing out on the 50 percent of the vote that he needed to win the contest outright, thus making a run-off between Ossoff and top GOP vote-getter Karen Handel necessary. The details of the run-off, scheduled for June 20, have already become the subject of controversy and, now, a lawsuit.

Yesterday, the DC-based Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit on behalf of five different civil rights groups–the Georgia NAACP among them–that claims that a certain Georgia state law that prohibits those who weren’t registered for this week’s special election from voting in June’s run-off is in violation of national voting laws.

The reportedly violated law that the complaint cites is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which explicitly states that states “can set a voter registration deadline for federal elections shorter than 30 days, and a number of States do so, but cannot set a longer deadline.” The complaint claims that Georgia’s “statutory scheme” effectively creates a deadline that exceeds the restriction of a 30-day registration deadline, which will mean that people who registered between March 21 and May 22 won’t be eligible to vote in June.

According to the complaint, the five groups are seeking “injunctive relief” by requiring the state of Georgia to allow all eligible residents of Georgia’s Sixth District the ability to continue to register to vote in the June run-off through May 22.

Speaking to reporters, Candice Broce, a spokeswoman for Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp, characterized the lawsuit as a “political attack” “This law has been in place since [former Georgia Secretary of State] Cathy Cox, a Democrat, was in office but they’ve waited until now to challenge it. This is just being done to disrupt our processes. We will fight it in court,” Broce said.

Broce also said that Georgia state law treats run-off elections as extensions of special elections, which would make the rigidity of the voter registration deadline a logical practice.

Georgia has a record of employing various voter suppression tactics both historically and recently. In October, the ACLU sued the state over its decision to not extend its voter registration deadline in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp said in a statement that the lawsuit was a “nakedly political stunt to manipulate the system and squander state and county resources days before the election.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post State of Georgia Sued Over Alleged Voter Suppression appeared first on Law Street.

Today, President Donald Trump’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., appeared to enjoy a nice, relaxing day by the pool. The weather was beautiful outside, so Trump Jr.’s choice of venue makes sense. But his attire grabbed Twitter’s attention. Trump Jr. tweeted out a picture of himself wearing a t-shirt that poked a bit of fun at the “mainstream media”:

I’m going to have to buy 5-10,000 of these to pass around to our buddies in the #MSM. In the meantime I’ll model it for them. #yourewelcome pic.twitter.com/Hnn3Z5Pspm

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) April 15, 2017

And Twitter had quite a laugh editing and responding to the shirt. Check out some of the best responses in the slideshow below:

@rolandscahill @DonaldJTrumpJr Donald Jr describing himself as a model is very fake news.

— Mike P Williams (@Mike_P_Williams) April 15, 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 Donald Trump Jr. Gets Mocked on Twitter for “Fake News” Shirt appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the United States dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in wartime on an ISIS target in Afghanistan, says a Pentagon spokesman. The GBU-43/B, or Massive Ordnance Air Bomb, is often referred to as the “Mother of All Bombs,” likely due to its acronym. The name seems fitting considering it weighs about 21,600 pounds. The bomb’s target was a ISIS cave and tunnel complex in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province in the northeastern part of the country.

According to U.S. officials, the bomb was developed during the Iraq war but this is the first time it has ever been used on the battlefield. It was dropped from an airplane around 7 p.m. local time. The bomb is designed to explode in the air above its target and the overpressure crushes tunnels below it and everything in them. This could make it very difficult to determine if there was any civilian casualties.

Just dropped a MOAB on ISIS in Afghanistan. Massive Ordnance Air Blast is a concussive bomb … the father of all bombs (nonnuclear). pic.twitter.com/fW5UE1r2QA

— Saman Arbabi (@SamanArbabi) April 13, 2017

The bomb focused on the underground tunnels that ISIS fighters use to move around freely in the area.

“The strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction” to the militants, said a statement from Pentagon.

The bombing comes just five days after Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, a 37-year-old Green Beret from Maryland, was killed in combat with ISIS in the same province. He was the first American service member killed in combat this year in Afghanistan. President Donald Trump said on the campaign trail that he would “bomb the s**t” out of ISIS, and Thursday’s strike seems to have done exactly that. But many people were confused about why an 11-ton bomb was needed.

Was use strategically necessary? Most efficient and effective option? Did it accomplish objective? Was there collateral harm?

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) April 13, 2017

Another U.S. airstrike Thursday targeting ISIS killed 18 Syrian rebel fighters allied with the United States. The strike marks the third time in just a month that U.S. forces have accidentally hit allies or civilians. The Pentagon is already investigating two earlier airstrikes that hit a mosque complex in Syria and a building in Mosul that both killed several civilians.

Now many people are questioning what the White House’s policy for the Middle East really is, and whether President Trump just wants to show off his powers and “play war.”

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 U.S. Drops One of the Largest Non-Nuclear Bombs in the World on ISIS Target appeared first on Law Street.

As tensions on the Korean peninsula continue to heat up, Chinese and South Korean officials met in Seoul on Monday and agreed to strengthen sanctions on North Korea if the state continues to carry out nuclear tests. As the two parties finalized the agreement, South Korea had to respond to news that the United States Navy dispatched a strike group to the Korean peninsula. Many in the region, and throughout the world, fear the U.S. strike force might exacerbate an already fractious situation.

The Chinese-Korean agreement on sanctions comes just before a busy period on the North Korean calendar. April 15 marks the beginning of the country’s most important holiday. The “Day of the Sun,” which actually involves three days, commemorates the birth of the country’s founder and first president Kim Il Sung. April 21 honors the birth of Kim Il Sung’s mother and April 25 is Military Foundation Day. The fear is that April’s festivities could motivate Kim Jong Un to order another round of missile tests as a show of national strength. The Chinese and South Koreans hope their threat is enough to discourage any holiday testing.

North Korea has few international allies and is heavily reliant on its diplomatic and economic relationship with China. While China’s agreement with South Korea will not go unnoticed above the 38th parallel, North Korea rarely demonstrates the kind of obedience China might expect from its dependent client state.

North Korea has a long history of shirking China’s wishes in favor of its own agenda. In the past, China was often willing to fund the regime and look the other way whenever North Korea misbehaved because it acted as a strategic buffer with South Korea and, by extension, the United States. While China publicly opposed North Korea’s efforts to obtain nuclear weaponry, Chinese trade with, and aid to, North Korea remained largely the static after Kim Jong Il ordered the country’s first round of tests in 2009. However, this dynamic may be shifting.

The relationship between the two countries seems to have deteriorated since Kim Jong Un ascended to power. Kim Jong Il visited China seven times in the last 11 years of his life, while Kim Jong Un has yet to meet with the Chinese President Xi Jinping. Many believe the Chinese President firmly dislikes the Supreme Leader. Recent talks between China and South Korea could accelerate the growing rift between China and North Korea. China may soon be unwilling to forgive a North Korean state headed by a leader who it does not trust.

While it is unclear whether regional pressure will be enough to prevent more North Korean tests, Chinese and South Korean negotiators would have certainly preferred it if the United States had not sent a naval strike group to the region. South Korea’s chief nuclear envoy Kim Hong-kyun said that the two countries did not discuss the possibility of an American strike on North Korea, but President Trump’s snap decision to bomb a Syrian air base late last Thursday, as well as recent statements by both Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have put many on alert.

Even if the fleet’s deployment was a symbolic display of power, there is a good chance the simple presence of a U.S. strike force will make matters worse. Whereas Kim Jong Un may have considered standing down in the face of Chinese sanctions, the arrival of a U.S. naval fleet could push him to order more tests.

Although China appears increasingly frustrated with Kim Jong Un, it is not yet willing to take actions that might threaten the future of the Kim dynasty or the North Korea state. Meanwhile, the United States is taking steps that are unbeknownst to those in the region, including South Korea. The international community is at least cursorily united against Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ambitions but has yet to form a combined front. The messy and disjointed way in which international actors are approaching North Korea may well rile up Kim Jong Un and push him to lash out.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nuclear North Korea: Can China, South Korea, and the U.S. Unite? appeared first on Law Street.

Are President Donald Trump and Twitter friends again?

The website–Trump’s social media platform of choice–has dropped its lawsuit against the federal government for trying to identify an anonymous user who was criticizing the president.

Twitter filed the case in a California court Thursday after it received a summons from the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection to reveal the person behind the Twitter account @ALT_uscis (which stands for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services). Though it is not a verified Twitter page for USCIS, the account’s administrators claim to be rogue employees who use the platform to criticize Trump’s immigration policies.

So when Twitter received DHS’s order, which allegedly requested the user’s name, login information,  phone number, mailing address, and IP address, the company refused to comply and sought to have the agency’s actions declared “unlawful and “unenforceable” in court. The American Civil Liberties Union also threw its support behind Twitter, offering to represent the individual behind the account.

One day later, the government backed off of its demands and the tech company withdrew the lawsuit.

Twitter’s lawyers say it was aiming to protect the free speech and First Amendment rights of its users from being violated by the government, and that complying with the DHS requests would “chill the expression of particularly valuable political speech.”

https://twitter.com/ALT_uscis/status/850399183127273472

But this may not be the end of the Trump Administration’s attempts to crack down on those who disagree with him. The president is not known for his ability to handle criticism well. In the past, he has lashed out after being made fun of, threatened legal action against newspapers that publish unflattering stories about him, and labeled those who say negative things about him as “haters and losers.“

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Administration vs. Twitter: Twitter Comes Out on Top appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday morning, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes announced he was stepping aside from the investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. This announcement isn’t too surprising, given his questionable actions two weeks ago when he decided to brief President Donald Trump about the ongoing investigation into his campaign, and then called a spontaneous press briefing without notifying his colleagues on the committee first.

Also on Thursday morning, the House Committee on Ethics revealed that Nunes is being investigated because of suspicions that he “may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information,” according to the New York Times.

The main criticism against Nunes is that he doesn’t seem capable of conducting an impartial investigation into President Trump; many have claimed that he is too close to Trump and the White House. Nunes said that “left-wing activist groups” had filed “entirely false and politically motivated” accusations against him and that he made the decision to step down from the investigation into the Russia ties because that would be the best for the committee.

Devin Nunes to be investigated for disclosing classified information while heading Russia probe https://t.co/xg9AY0mLuT pic.twitter.com/bWi0jF9Gmq

— The Hill (@thehill) April 6, 2017

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said in a statement that he still trusts Nunes but also supports his decision to step down. Texas Rep. Mike Conaway will replace him on the investigation. Nunes will remain the House Intelligence Committee Chairman, but just won’t participate in the Russia investigation. Conaway announced that he hopes to work with the Democrats on the committee to get the investigation going but that he needs their cooperation.

The investigation has already had one high-profile recusal, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself in the beginning of March. That time it was over questions about his meetings with the Russian ambassador last year, which were revealed after he denied having any contact with “the Russians” at his confirmation hearing. Trump then accused the Democrats of carrying out “a total witch hunt.”

However, many people had positive reactions to Nunes’s recusal.

Devin Nunes has recused himself from the Russia probe. Soon there won’t be Trump allies anywhere but in the crosshairs of this scandal.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) April 6, 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 Devin Nunes Steps Away from House Investigation into Russia 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 “Extreme Vetting” Could Force Tourists to Hand Over Cellphones and Passwords

According to Trump Administration officials, the government is considering adding “extreme vetting” to the security check process at airports. Tourists and visitors could be forced to reveal their phone passwords to allow border agents to look through their contacts, social media profiles, and whatever other information they keep on their phones. Visitors could also face inquiries about their “ideology,” including questions about honor killings and the “sanctity of human life.” They could even be forced to hand over financial records. Officials said that the rules could also apply to the countries currently enrolled in the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens from 38 countries to travel to the U.S. without applying for a formal visa.

If the goal is to deter/eliminate foreign travel to the US, this would definitely do it: https://t.co/n8QG7jlCj3

— brianweeden (@brianweeden) April 4, 2017

A lot of people were pretty upset by this news and called the move intrusive and crazy. Dozens of human right groups came together and issued a joint statement saying that the new rules would enable unjustified scrutiny and invasion of privacy. It would also deter travelers from coming to the U.S., which could harm the American tourism industry.

If as reported, “extreme vetting” would be extremely destructive to our long term competiveness and global standing. https://t.co/gPSQ24xyY4

— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) April 4, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

With a new story coming to light seemingly every single day, there’s no question that all the news about Russia and its interference in the 2016 election is confusing. So, it’s fair to assume that a lot of people were surprised on Wednesday when Senators Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Mark Warner, the Democratic Vice Chairman, held a joint news conference discussing the Senate’s Russia probe.

The biggest takeaway from the press conference was Warner’s comment on one part of Russia’s strategy to destabilize the election, which concerned the Kremlin hiring 1,000 paid trolls to generate fake anti-Clinton stories targeted at specific areas in the U.S. Warner did not elaborate on where those specific areas were, but he alluded to the committee investigating trolls targeting Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The significance of Russia targeting these three specific states is simple: they are all swing states that President Donald Trump narrowly won. They were also the three states included in the unsuccessful recounts prompted by Jill Stein.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia Probe appeared first on Law Street.

Dreamer Hits Back at People Sending Her Online Threats

ASU student Belén Sisa came to the United States with her parents when she was six years old. She is protected under the DACA program and is allowed to live, study, and work in the United States. On Sunday she posted a selfie with a tax form on Instagram. She wanted to show that there are millions of immigrants who work hard and pay taxes and don’t get anything back from the system, as they are not eligible for benefits or unemployment.

Belen interned in our Phoenix office. I’m proud to see her dispelling myths about immigrants & defending #Dreamers https://t.co/ktKginIxDK

— Ruben Gallego (@RepRubenGallego) March 28, 2017

But the post resulted in a ton of hate messages on social media; people called her derogatory names, said they had reported her to ICE and that she would be deported, and claimed that she is a criminal. Someone even photoshopped a disturbing picture of her decapitated, with Trump throwing her head over a wall. But she hit back at the harassers by Instagramming pictures of their messages, with their social media names fully visible. “Those messages were to instill fear and ensure we wouldn’t fight back, but it made me do the complete opposite,” she 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 RantCrush Top 5: March 29, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration courts have long struggled to handle the caseloads created by years of policies aimed at criminalizing undocumented immigrants. Formal deportation proceedings for apprehended immigrants were emphasized under President George W. Bush and would later define President Barack Obama’s deportation legacy.

The influx of asylum-seeking refugees–many from Central America–that began in 2014 compounded the problem by further increasing caseloads and diversifying the type of cases put before judges. While President Donald Trump has ordered new facilities and an expanded border patrol workforce, his policies will likely confuse an already-tangled system.

Shift to Formal Deportation

In the past, immigration agents “voluntarily returned” the vast majority of undocumented people they apprehended. Under this practice, undocumented immigrants, particularly those apprehended along the border, were deported from the U.S. but were not formally processed or subjected to legal consequences. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Clinton Administration deported a total of 12.3 million people (including “voluntarily returned” immigrants), but only formally deported about 900,000 people.

Critics demanding the government formally deport anyone found entering the U.S. without documentation referred to voluntary returns as “catch and release.” Soon there was a concerted government effort to implement policies that would essentially criminalize undocumented immigrants. These policies were meant to deter deported migrants from attempting to re-enter the country.

In 2005, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the Consequence Delivery System (CDS), which resulted in an increase in formal deportations. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Bush Administration deported 10.3 million people (two million fewer than Clinton), and formally deported over 2 million people. This trend continued under Obama, who was either unwilling or unable to rollback formal deportations.

In his two terms, Obama formally deported 3.1 million people in spite of the fact that he deported far fewer people (5.3 million) overall than the Clinton and Bush Administrations. About 7.3 percent of undocumented immigrants were formally deported under Clinton, 19.4 percent under Bush, and 58.5 percent under Obama.

The decades-long commitment to criminalizing undocumented immigration has put enormous pressure on immigration courts. For years, immigration courts have lacked the resources necessary to undertake the hundreds of thousands of deportation hearings. While existing policy demands the criminalization of undocumented immigrants, the courts are struggling to keep pace in spite of controversial methods, such as Operation Streamline, designed to expedite hearing proceedings.

Refugees, Not Immigrants

In the summer of 2014, thousands of Central American refugees fled north in search of protection from violence in their home countries. In years prior, the vast majority of migrants attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border were Mexican citizens. Since the 2008 recession however, the number of Mexican migrants has dropped dramatically. In 2014, non-Mexicans outnumbered Mexican migrants for the first time on record.

Immigration officers found that far fewer people were attempting to cross the border undetected; instead, many more people were simply turning themselves in and requesting asylum. While approximately 90 percent of non-Mexican migrants crossing the southern border over the past few years have been from Central America, there is an increasing trend of non-Latin American migrants moving through Mexico in need of asylum.

Unwilling to provide asylum to the thousands seeking help and hoping to ease the strain placed on immigration infrastructure, the Obama Administration pressed the Mexican government to act. On July 7, 2014, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto announced the Southern Border Plan, which he claimed would both protect the rights of migrants while ensuring security of the region.

Mexico deported nearly twice as many Central Americans in 2015 than in 2014, but the plan did little to discourage refugees from traveling through Mexico. While the number of migrants traveling on traditional thoroughfares north through Mexico decreased, they took lesser-known, more dangerous, routes to avoid detection. Central American refugees and refugees from around the world continue to arrive at the southern border demanding their cases be heard by U.S. authorities.

Under both international and domestic law, the U.S. is required to review the case of anyone who arrives on U.S. soil claiming to be a refugee and requesting asylum. While the Obama Administration approved a fraction of the asylum requests, policy dictated that migrants requesting asylum were entitled to have their case formally reviewed.

Trump’s recent executive order accused refugees of abusing the asylum program by forcing asylum proceedings to delay deportation. Trump’s order upended the asylum process by affording border officers the power to review asylum claims. Reports suggest immigration agents are either reviewing cases in brief or simply refusing to accept asylum claims and turning people around. Critics argue that these practices are in violation of domestic and international laws.

The Courts Under Trump

Trump inherits a system that is plagued by backlogs that have been building for over a decade. Nonetheless, Trump’s persistent rhetoric, his numerous executive orders, and a spate of recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids suggest deportation cases will climb under his presidency.

While Trump ordered the expansion of the immigration enforcement workforce and construction of new facilities, the funds would require congressional approval. Furthermore, new appropriations would likely fail to fill existing cracks caused by a decade of aggressive deportation policies. Recent shifts in migration patterns have exacerbated immigration courts’ caseloads.

While Trump’s promises of secure borders and increased deportations won him the support of many, it remains to be seen whether he will be able to fulfill his promises. Trump’s immigration policies present a logistical nightmare for an already overworked system and will likely face numerous legal challenges both domestically and internationally. In attempting to ramp up immigration enforcement to unprecedented levels, Trump may force it to a grinding halt.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Policies Could Further Damage Ailing Immigration Courts appeared first on Law Street.

As the Trump Administration cracks down on illegal immigration in the U.S., immigrants have been crossing the border into Canada. In 2016, 1,222 immigrants fled the U.S. to Quebec alone–a fivefold increase from prior years–and there have been similar spikes in British Columbia.

Stories of frostbitten immigrants crossing into remote, unmarked border towns this winter garnered international attention and set conservative Canadians on the warpath, demanding stricter regulation of the border. But the rise of illegal immigration has also led to calls for alterations to (and even the repeal of) the Safe Third Country Agreement, which states that refugees must apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in. Many immigrants who were hoping to seek shelter in the U.S. are crossing into Canada illegally because they believe their asylum claims will be denied in the U.S. but upheld in Canada. If the act was repealed or suspended, immigrants could request asylum at official border crossings and enter the country legally.

In the Justin Trudeau era, Americans tend to glamorize Canada as the last moral outpost on the continent but the nation is not quite the united front we assume it to be. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week, nearly half of respondents want to send illegal immigrants crossing the Canadian border back to the U.S. and a similar number of respondents disapprove of how the government is handling illegal immigration. The subsets that were most in favor of deportation were men, adults without a college degree, higher income individuals, and older individuals. This is by no means a perfect representation of Canadian attitudes. Yet in an era where xenophobia is encouraged and even enshrined by executive orders, it’s important to keep an eye on shifts in public opinion.

The U.S.-Canada border has historically been a “soft” one but as illegal immigration rates climb, Canada appears to be moving slowly toward a more hardline stance. Trudeau has defended proposed legislation that would allow U.S. customs agents to question, search, and detain Canadians on Canadian soil. Trudeau publicly stated in February that the government would not take steps to quell irregular migration–yet by giving more power to U.S. customs agents, he is essentially passing the buck. Policing the border is a cooperative effort between the two countries and if Trudeau steps away from that responsibility, he will be enabling the Trump Administration.

Trudeau met with Trump earlier this year in a carefully coordinated encounter that let Trudeau hold strong on all of his positions without actively attacking Trump. While it is diplomatic common sense not to antagonize an ally, Trudeau could take a stronger stand against the Trump Administration through legislative action–such as scrapping the Safe Third Country Agreement. Trudeau has done outstanding work with the Syrian refugee population, striving to fast-track their entry into Canada so that tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have now been granted asylum in Canada–but can he keep it up?

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 The Other Border: Pushback Against Illegal Immigration in Canada 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:

Trump’s Ultimatum: Approve the New Health Bill or We’ll Stick with Obamacare

Donald Trump yesterday posed an ultimatum for House Republicans–approve the new healthcare bill, or he will leave Obamacare in place as it is. The vote on the new American Health Care Act was supposed to take place yesterday but was delayed, as too many Republicans had said they would vote against the bill. In a closed-door meeting last night, Trump said he wants the House to vote on the bill this afternoon whether it has enough votes to pass or not–he’s apparently tired of negotiating. If the bill doesn’t pass, Trump said he would move on to other issues, despite touting an Obamacare repeal as a priority throughout his campaign.

The president and VP Mike Pence held a meeting with the extremely conservative House Freedom Caucus yesterday afternoon to discuss the bill. A photo from the meeting circulated on social media and was heavily slammed. One of the main topics of conversation was whether to get rid of essential health benefits regulations, which require insurance plans to cover pregnancy and maternity services. But…notice anything missing from this photo?

Here’s the picture of the leaders negotiating away birth control, maternity care & abortion. Notice anything? #ProtectOurCare

(h/t @Emmya2) pic.twitter.com/X1dYUSa7nO

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) March 23, 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 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day! 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:

Rex Tillerson Says Military Action Against North Korea is Possible

This morning, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke at a press conference in South Korea and warned that military action against North Korea is not unthinkable. “If they elevate the threat of their weapons program to a level that we believe requires action then that option is on the table,” he said. North Korea has been pretty active with its nuclear weapons tests recently, with two tests last year and several missile launches. North Korean leaders have also said that they are working on a missile that could reach the U.S.

Tillerson said that the U.S. has been patient with North Korea for a long time, which hasn’t had much effect, but that he obviously wants to avoid an armed conflict. An armed conflict with North Korea is kind of a worst possible scenario–an American Army strategist, Major ML Cavanaugh, even pointed out that a ground war with North Korea would be very difficult. The country’s terrain is hard to navigate, and the North Korean army is likely better trained to handle it than Americans.

But, no one knows what the Trump Administration is thinking. In fact, Donald Trump tweeted about it this morning, seemingly echoing Tillerson’s comments.

North Korea is behaving very badly. They have been “playing” the United States for years. China has done little to help!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 17, 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 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

One of President Donald Trump’s main campaign promises was to “build a wall” on the border of the U.S. and Mexico. During his first few days in office, President Trump signed an executive order on border security and immigration enforcement improvements. In Section 2 of the order, it reads that it is the policy of the executive branch to: “secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism.”

Many of President Trump’s supporters are also ardent fans of the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Despite encountering intense opposition from Democrats and some Republicans, the Trump Administration appears to be committed to beginning construction as soon as possible. However, there may be roadblocks ahead for the massive security project, such as issues of eminent domain and private citizens blocking or severely slowing construction of the wall, in addition to environmental concerns and waivers that must be obtained before beginning construction.

Border Wall Plans

Border security is critically important to our overall national security. As noted by the order, aliens who illegally enter the U.S. without inspection or admission present “a significant threat to national security and public safety.” President Trump’s executive order seeks to expedite determinations of any apprehended individual’s claims that they are eligible to remain in the U.S., as well as promptly remove any individuals whose claims have been lawfully rejected.

“Mexico / US Pacific Ocean Border Fence” Courtesy of Tony Webster : License (CC BY 2.0)

A critical component of Trump’s presidential campaign was regaining control of America’s borders. Now that he’s president, the particulars of how he will finance the massive border wall are still up for debate. The wall is estimated to cost $21.6 billion (though other estimates put it anywhere between $8 billion to $25 billion). The executive order signed by Trump in January contains no mention of the cost of construction. Mexico has repeatedly stated that not only will it not pay for the wall, but it will retaliate if a border tax is imposed. The order also required government agencies to report the financial assistance they gave Mexico in the past five years, giving rise to speculation that Trump wants to redirect the aid to pay for the wall.

Currently, there are hundreds of companies looking to profit significantly from the construction of a border wall. More than 375 companies have expressed interest in participating in the project. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency said it would likely begin accepting prototypes in March 2017. Those that are approved will be asked to submit full proposals. Surprisingly, a Mexican company, cement maker Cemex SAB, has stated that it would be willing to provide supplies to the project. The plan to seal the border would take three phases, with over 1,250 miles of fences and walls, and would be completed by 2020. San Diego, California; El Paso, Texas; and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas are expected to be part of the first phase. A U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report also showed that the U.S. government has begun seeking environmental waivers to build in specific areas.

Secure Fence Act of 2006

President Trump is not the first president to propose a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. On October 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The goal of the act was to build 700 additional miles of physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, and authorize more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting. It also gave the Department of Homeland Security permission to use technology such as cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles, and specifically noted that there would be at least two layers of reinforced fencing. In 2006, both Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly supported the act, including then-Senator Barack Obama.

In 2008, Congress introduced the Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008, which called for Homeland Security to again construct more fencing. This time it asked for an additional 700 miles of two-layered, 14-foot high fencing along the southwestern border of the U.S., but the bill never made it out of committee. The Secure Fence Act of 2006, however, was amended in 2007 to give the Department of Homeland Security discretion in determining what type of fencing was appropriate, given the different terrain along the border. A one-size-fits-all approach, according to many, including the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), was not an effective manner to tackle securing the border.

Issues With Landowners

Once construction on the previous border wall began, the government ran into issues with landowners near the Rio Grande. Hundreds of landowners protested what they called a “government land grab” to install the fence. It resulted in 320 eminent domain cases being taken to court. In order to purchase property for the construction of the wall, USBP had to settle with private landowners. While some settled out of court, others are still fighting.

Some private property owners want more money, while others want a gate in the fence to be able to access their land on the other side. Eloisa Tamez, 81, was given a code to get through a gate to access a quarter of her three-acre ancestral property that was bisected by the 18-foot barricade. A prominent border wall opponent, Tamez battled her case in court for seven years, before she eventually lost to the government. She was awarded $56,000 for her loss of land and the inconvenience, but says she wasn’t looking for money–she wanted to keep her land without the barriers.

The government almost always wins in eminent domain or condemnation cases, but these cases can take a significant amount of time and resources to settle. Therefore, landowners fighting President Trump’s proposed border project may have the ability to slow the project down immensely. NPR analyzed more than 300 fence cases, and found that two-thirds of them have been settled, with most taking about 3.5 years for a resolution and usually involving under an acre of land. The median settlement awarded to landowners was $12,600.

Other Concerns and Considerations

Aside from the eminent domain, private property rights, and human rights concerns with building a border wall, there are also environmental considerations. Arguably, the full construction of a wall will interfere with the migration of animals and plant pollination. Immense amount of traffic around the wall will destroy flora and fauna, potentially leaving large amounts of garbage and debris in the area as well. These environmental concerns do not seem to be of much importance to those in favor of construction.

“Double Wall Near Tijuana” Courtesy of Jonathan McIntosh : License (CC BY 2.0)

Juanita Molina, the executive director of Border Action Network, told NPR that construction of the wall could cause flooding issues. A wall will profoundly affect the connectivity of species, fragmenting habitats, and block the free movement of wildlife. So, the border wall has the potential to spread detrimental consequences not just to humans, but also to other species. Additionally, building over major physical barriers, like mountains which dot the U.S.-Mexico border, make the border wall almost impossible to build.

Moreover, it is clear that the wall will disproportionately affect people of color. Militarization of the border means that minority communities will be targeted and even displaced. Millions of people live on both sides of the border. In the four states–California, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona–on the U.S. side of the border, people of Mexican origin comprise at least a quarter of the total population, and even higher concentrations exist within 100km of the border itself.

Conclusion

The executive order signed on January 25, 2017, is still in effect. Many people who voted for President Trump view the wall as his signature campaign promise and expect to see progress made on its construction as soon as possible. Companies also seem to have an overwhelming amount of enthusiasm for profiting off the proposed construction. However, private property owners may have the most power in stalling the wall’s completion for a significant period of time, and the efficacy of a wall in actually securing the borders is certainly up for debate. For now, President Trump has promised that construction is “going to start very soon. Way ahead of schedule. It’s way, way, way ahead of schedule.”

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Trump’s Border Wall Actually Be Built? 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:

Trump’s Second Travel Ban Gets Thumbs Down from Federal Judge

President Donald Trump’s new version of the travel ban for six majority-Muslim countries was supposed to go into effect today. But last night, a Hawaiian federal judge temporarily blocked it, citing religious discrimination. Then overnight, a second federal judge in Maryland also ruled against the ban.

As expected, Trump got pretty upset–so upset that he was actually two hours late for a rally in Nashville last night, as his staff tried to improve his mood by showing him some comments from supporters. But at the rally, he still lashed out at Judge Derrick K. Watson. Trump shouted, accused Watson of ruling based on political motivations, and said, “this ruling makes us look weak, which by the way we no longer are, believe me.”

Watson’s decision caused the hashtag #BoycottHawaii to trend on Twitter as some Trump supporters expressed their frustration with the ruling. But for others, this wasn’t a bad thing:

Trump’s travel ban is derailing US tourism but the #BoycottHawaii or promise of a TrumpFreeZone is making it one of the hottest destinations

— Norm Clark #resist (@Normsmusic) March 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 RantCrush Top 5: March 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Rachel Maddow Gets Trump’s Tax Returns…Sort Of

Last night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow stirred up excitement when she tweeted ahead of her show that she had access to President Donald Trump’s tax returns. It turned out that she only had two pages of them, from 2005. These documents showed that the president paid $38 million in taxes on an income of $150 million. He also wrote off $103 million in “business losses.” MSNBC got the documents from financial reporter David Cay Johnston, who has written a book about Trump. Someone sent them to him anonymously by mail.

Does anybody really believe that a reporter, who nobody ever heard of, “went to his mailbox” and found my tax returns? @NBCNews FAKE NEWS!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2017

The documents don’t really say much, except that Trump did pay taxes, largely thanks to the alternative minimum tax, a policy that stops the richest Americans from using deductions to avoid paying income taxes. Trump argued against this policy on the campaign trail.

Now people are calling for all of Trump’s tax returns to be released and are wondering why anyone would bother leaking a document that makes the president look kind of good. Johnston said he had no idea who sent them, but mused that they might even have been sent by Trump’s team to distract from other negative news, like the CBO predictions for the new healthcare bill.

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 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Trump Claims Obama Wiretapped His Phone

On Saturday, Donald Trump claimed, without stating any evidence, that former President Barack Obama wiretapped his phones at Trump Tower throughout the month before the election. On Twitter, Trump called Obama a “Bad (or sick) guy!” He didn’t say where he got the information, but similar allegations circulated on a conservative radio show and Breitbart the day before. A spokesperson for Obama said the allegation was “simply false.” Then yesterday, the White House demanded a congressional inquiry into the matter. A statement from Sean Spicer called “reports” about it “very troubling,” but he said that the White House would make no further comment until after an investigation is concluded.

There are no credible public sources for this, only Trump’s assertions. And he seems not to have checked w 17 Intel agencies-just Breitbart https://t.co/XnP3NGNZpw

— Trip Gabriel (@tripgabriel) March 5, 2017

These are pretty serious allegations, and it’s important to note that a president doesn’t have the power to just order a wiretapping by himself–requests would normally have to go through the FBI and be approved by a judge. Later on Sunday, FBI Director James Comey asked the Justice Department to publicly reject Trump’s claims, as he is implying that the FBI and Obama potentially broke the law. But the DOJ has been silent and now people are wondering if this is all just a way to divert our attention away from something else.

On @ThisWeekABC, Sen. Al Franken calls Pres. Trump’s wiretap assertion “a distraction.” https://t.co/I4naMV1Nfj pic.twitter.com/NaIRVI6Mew

— ABC News (@ABC) March 6, 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 6, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump is getting some praise for his joint address to Congress–specifically his tone and the fact that he didn’t say anything too racist while he was addressing the nation. However, there was one moment during his speech that elicited a groan from his audience. This is not a groan in the abstract sense, but a literal groan. It was when Trump introduced the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office (VOICE).

As Trump outlines in his speech, VOICE is supposed to provide a voice (oh, I get it now!) for those who have been affected by crimes committed by illegal immigrants. However, the language Trump used in his speech was vague to say the least.

So what actually is VOICE? Here’s a quick breakdown of where this office came from, what it is, and whether it really is groan-worthy.

VOICE comes from a January 25 Executive Order

Trump has signed a lot of executive orders since he got into office. The one that VOICE is related to was signed on January 25 and called “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” It concerns issues related to illegal immigration and the expansion of the role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS oversees the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE).

Aside from threatening to restrict federal funds from jurisdictions that don’t turn over detained illegal immigrants and authorizing the DHS secretary to allow state and local officials to effectively act as immigration officers, the EO calls for two actions that are instrumental to VOICE:

1. The creation of something called the “Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens,” an office that provides professional services to victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. This is basically the start of VOICE (although without that super-cool and snazzy title).
2. An alteration to the Privacy Act so that persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents are exempt from certain protections.  This is a break from a Bush Administration action that required agencies like the DHS  to afford undocumented immigrants certain privacy rights. According to the New York Times, some of these Privacy Act rights included blocking information obtained by an agency from being shared with other agencies like ICE.

We’ve known about VOICE for almost two weeks now

On February 20, two DHS memos from Secretary John Kelly that were circulating for a while were reported by McClatchy. These memos outlined how the DHS planned to follow through on the executive order’s provisions. One of these memos establishes VOICE, which serves as a “programmatic liaison between ICE and the known victims of crimes committed by removable aliens.” The office plans to provide victims, “to the extent permitted by law,” information about crimes committed by illegal immigrants and victims’ families with information about the suspect, such as their immigration status and custody status.

The memo also directs the Director of ICE to reallocate resources used to “advocate on behalf of illegal aliens” to VOICE instead, and “to immediately terminate the provision of such outreach or advocacy services to illegal aliens.”

It also directs ICE to develop the weekly report that Trump called for in the EO. The memo highlights that the ICE Director will develop a weekly report on a medium that can be accessed by the public.

So what does VOICE do exactly? 

What VOICE does is give victims a voice by not giving illegal immigrants the benefits of the Privacy Act which, with the help of Trump’s executive order, is now a lawful practice for government agencies. VOICE would allow victims to have access to their offenders’ information that had been previously withheld by agencies. The potential cost to immigrants here is that, according to the New York Times, those who are seeking legal status could face a harder citizenship process. According to the Chicago Tribune this could also be used to target immigrants for deportation. And since VOICE is so closely tied to privacy protections for illegal immigrants, what happens to all that information when an illegal immigrant goes through the process to become a citizen? What will the DHS do with that information?

The DHS memo seems to attempt to shed light on this issue, but with very vague language. In the memo, Kelly outlines how the DHS Privacy Office and the Office of the General Counsel will work together to “develop new guidance specifying the appropriate treatment of personal information DHS maintains in its record systems.” We still do not know exactly what that “new guidance” is, which is alarming considering Trump’s joint address has now brought the existence of VOICE to the forefront.

VOICE does a lot to tackle a small national issue

The issue with VOICE lies in its specific acknowledgment of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and framing the issue as if it is a dire national crisis. A study published by the American Immigration Council shows that not only are immigrants less likely than native-born citizens to engage in criminal behavior, but higher immigration is associated with lower crime rates.

It would be ignorant to say illegal immigrants do not commit crimes, whether violent or non-violent. But we have seen that what illegal immigrants contribute to this country is not simply violence, rape, and crime. We see that immigrants make vital contributions to this country not only in terms of taxes and labor, but through art and culture as well.

VOICE is a practice of proxy racism–it seeks to cover a racist notion of a whole people with a cynical dose of fear for terrifying uncertainties. The office would elevate the worst stories that immigrants have to offer and have them serve as referenda for these human beings as a whole. VOICE shouts over the cries of the vital and vibrant immigrant communities that so desperately want and need to be heard in this country.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Here’s What You Need to Know About VOICE appeared first on Law Street.

Here’s a breakdown of everything that happened to Kellyanne Conway in February:

The Bowling Green Massacre (February 2)

In an interview with Chris Matthews, Conway uses a fabricated massacre to justify the immigration ban.

The Bowling Green Massacre Response (February 3)

The day after the interview, Conway claims she misspoke.

On @hardball @NBCNews @MSNBC I meant to say “Bowling Green terrorists” as reported here:
https://t.co/nB5SwIEoYI

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) February 3, 2017

However, the Washington Post finds this isn’t the case, as Conway had referred to the “Bowling Green massacre” three times before.

Credibility Dispute with CNN (February 6)

CNN reportedly declines the White House’s offer to have Conway appear on Jake Tapper’s “State of the Union,” due to “serious questions about [Conway’s] credibility,” according to the New York Times. Conway refutes this claim on Twitter, but is quickly called out by CNN’s PR account.

. @KellyannePolls was offered to SOTU on Sunday by the White House. We passed. Those are the facts.

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) February 6, 2017

Mika Brzezinski, co-host of “Morning Joe,” tweets a response that suggests MSNBC also declines Conway appearances.

.@CNNPR @KellyannePolls you are not the first.

— Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) February 6, 2017

The Jake Tapper Interview (February 7)

Conway appears on Tapper’s other show, “The Lead.” The interview garners Tapper acclaim for his relentless grilling. At one point in the interview Conway seems to admit her boss is a liar. The interview also gives the internet Tapper’s resting bitch face:

the look on jake tapper’s face while talking to kellyanne conway… pic.twitter.com/NiQtNSh8Rt

— Nicole Cairns (@nicoleindc) February 7, 2017

The Ethics Violation (February 9) 

On “Fox & Friends,” Conway endorses Ivanka Trump’s Nordstrom clothing line–a violation of an executive branch regulation that prohibits employees from promoting the private gain of friends.

This prompts two members of the House Oversight Committee to send a letter to the White House and the Office of Government Ethics asking for recommendations for disciplinary action against Conway. According to POLITICO, the OGE’s website crashes due to traffic that same day. Later that day, Sean Spicer in a press briefing says Conway was “counseled” for her comments. This causes some controversy within the White House.

The SNL Sketch (February 12)

Presented without comment:

The Michael Flynn Interview Pt. 1 (February 13)

In an MSNBC interview, Conway claims that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn enjoys the “full confidence of the president” despite reports that revealed Flynn lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his communications with Russia’s U.S. ambassador. Flynn resigns later that day.

The Michael Flynn Interview Pt. 2 (February 14)

Conway is interviewed by Matt Lauer the morning after Flynn’s resignation. Lauer grills Conway on the timeline of Flynn’s resignation and Trump’s trust in Flynn. At one point, a frustrated Lauer tells Conway that she isn’t making sense.

The White Nationalist Twitter Account (February 14)

After her Lauer interview, Conway tweets “I serve of the pleasure of @POTUS. His message is my message. His goals are my goals. Uninformed chatter doesn’t matter.”

A Twitter account named “Lib Hypocrisy” responds, praising Conway’s “strength and resiliency” and expressing love for her. Conway subsequently retweets the praise while responding that she loves them back. It is discovered that “Lib Hypocrisy’s” bio includes the hashtags #Nationalist and #WhiteIdentity.

Conway tells Buzzfeed News that she wasn’t the one who retweeted the account, and that someone else has access to her account.

The Office of Government Ethics (February 14)

The OGE responds to the House Oversight Committee’s letter by sending a letter of their own to the White House ethics official, recommending that the White House take disciplinary action against Conway.

“Morning Joe” Ban (February 15)

The “Morning Joe” hosts officially ban Conway from their show because they believe she has lost her credibility.

The Spicer Leaks (February 15)

CNN’s Dylan Byers reports that five sources believe the person who has been leaking stories about Trump’s frustration with Spicer is Conway. They say Conway is doing this place the blame of the administration’s troubles on Spicer and to earn a “lasting place in the President’s inner circle.”

Sidelined (February 22)

You may have noticed there is a week-long gap between this controversy and the last one. Apparently, that was the White House’s intention as, according to CNN Money, the White House sidelined Conway because comments she made during appearances on multiple shows were “off message.”

When the news of the “sidelining” comes out, Conway refutes these claims and says she was invited to shows but wanted to focus on other pieces of her “portfolio.”

Merriam-Webster (February 23)

At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Conway says she doesn’t identify with being a feminist because “[modern-day feminism] seems to be very anti-male, and it certainly is very pro-abortion.” The Merriam-Webster Twitter account then tweets this in response:

’Feminism’ is defined as “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.” https://t.co/Zjf7CAPUjL

— Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) February 23, 2017

Misconduct Complaint (February 24)

The Washington Post reports that 15 law professors specializing in legal ethics filed a professional misconduct complaint against Conway, who is a member of the D.C. bar.

The Couch (February 27) 

Presented without comment:

Kellyanne Conway photographed making herself comfortable on Oval Office couch https://t.co/4qeNGFjJWdpic.twitter.com/978aeedbxM

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) February 28, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Kellyanne Conway and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Month 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:

Politics at the Oscars: No Surprise There

Last night was the Academy Awards and “La La Land” got a lot of the statuettes. But it didn’t get the most prestigious award–Best Picture–even though it was incorrectly announced as the winner at first. After an embarrassing mix-up, “Moonlight” took home the coveted prize.

This off-camera shot of the cast/crew of Moonlight winning Best Picture pic.twitter.com/uWfxehXRsJ

— Spencer Althouse (@SpencerAlthouse) February 27, 2017

The whole evening was a success for more diverse movies, following last year’s criticism of #OscarsSoWhite. “Moonlight,” which depicts the coming of age story of a young black gay man, was an important victory as debates centering on race, immigration, and LGBT rights are in full swing. “Moonlight” actor Mahershala Ali also became the first Muslim actor ever to win an Oscar. While there’s still a lot more work to be done to increase representation and diversity in Hollywood, the success of “Moonlight” was heartening.

But the politics didn’t stop there. The night saw plenty of jabs at the new president from host Jimmy Kimmel. “I mean, remember last year, when it seemed like the Oscars were racist?” 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 RantCrush Top 5: February 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

After almost a year of protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline, demonstrators at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation went out in a literal blaze of glory Wednesday. Most of the occupants cleared the main protest camp ahead of a government-ordered 2 p.m. deadline, but not before first setting fire to their tents as part of an exit ceremony.

A handful of occupants remained on the grounds in a final act of defiance. Authorities arrested 10 people for not complying with evacuation orders, while a seven-year-old boy and 17-year-old girl at the site were hospitalized for burns.

The protest site in Cannon Ball, North Dakota resides close to where the government plans to build a 1,172-mile pipeline to transport crude oil through the Dakotas and Iowa to Illinois. The cause united environmentalists attempting to hinder the transportation of fossil fuels and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe who opposes the pipeline over concerns that it will destroy sacred sites and contaminate their drinking water.

Months of Pipeline Opposition

Over the summer, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, arguing that it did not properly consult the tribe beforehand and violated the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. 

A judge later denied the injunction request in September. This prompted the company building the pipeline to counter sue the tribe for interfering with construction. Small protests at the designated pipeline locations began to expand in August following the countersuit.

In the fall, Standing Rock began to attract national attention as confrontations between demonstrators–who call themselves water protectors–and private security guards became violent. Protesters reported being pepper sprayed and bitten by security dogs, and a few officers also said they had been injured. 

In late October, military personnel and police in riot gear attempted to force protesters out of an encampment by using pepper-spray and firing beanbag rounds at the crowds. According to authorities, the protesters were attacking officers with firebombs and debris.

Social Media Intervenes and Tensions Escalate

News about the movement spread on social media as Facebook users from across the country “checked in” at Standing Rock to prevent police from finding protesters online (although the effectiveness of this effort was unclear) and show solidarity with those present at the site.

Tensions escalated even more the following month when authorities shot rubber bullets at demonstrators who had been praying, and sprayed water cannons on crowds right before Thanksgiving weekend as temperatures dropped below freezing.

Temporary Reprieve

Protesters achieved a temporary victory in December when the Obama administration and the Army announced that they would suspend work on the project and consider “alternative routes for the pipeline crossing.”

However, President Donald Trump made the decision to move forward with building the pipeline just a few days into his presidency, which brings us to today. Protesters were told to evacuate by Wednesday because of expected floods at the site. The state of North Dakota offered shelter and bus tickets to those exiting the campground.

But the protests aren’t over yet–the movement will just take place elsewhere. In March, a group of activists are planning to march on Washington, D.C. for four days, where they will set up a prayer camp on the National Mall.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters Leave Campsite Before Evacuation Deadline 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:

Protests After Off-Duty Cop Fires Gun During Altercation with Teens

On Tuesday, an off-duty LAPD officer seems to have lost it in an altercation with some kids who walked on his lawn in Anaheim, California. A video that went viral on social media yesterday shows a group of young teenagers outside a house and the cop pulling the limbs of a 13-year-old boy. When the boy’s friends start pulling him in the other direction, the cop fired his gun. No one was injured, but photos surfaced of the boy with bruises on his neck.

JUST IN: Hundreds protest in Anaheim after an off-duty LAPD cop grabbed a teenager and fired his weapon during a scuffle on his lawn. pic.twitter.com/ry6W56fkh1

— Fusion (@Fusion) February 23, 2017

The boy, Christian Dorscht, allegedly stood up for a 13-year-old girl after the officer started shouting profanities at her for walking on the lawn. According to Dorscht’s father, the boy said he was going to “sue” the cop, which the cop allegedly misheard as “shoot,” and decided to arrest him. The incident ended with Dorscht being charged with criminal threats and battery while the cop walked free. Hundreds took to the streets of Anaheim to protest and the ACLU of Southern California said it is deeply disturbed by the video and demanded a full explanation. The LAPD will conduct an internal investigation of the unnamed officer.

Keep in mind this all started cuz an off-duty cop was ready to shoot children over walking in his yard. https://t.co/Efm3d4bssc

— X (@XLNB) February 23, 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: February 23, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Washington Post unveiled a new slogan this week, straight out of the trailer for a summer action blockbuster or a Harry Potter paragraph: “Democracy Dies at Darkness.”

Here’s the Washington Post’s logic about its new slogan, per spokeswoman Kris Coratti:

This is actually something we’ve said internally for a long time in speaking about our mission. We thought it would be a good, concise value statement that conveys who we are to the many millions of readers who have come to us for the first time over the last year.

As the New York Times pointed out, this isn’t the first time that democracy and darkness have been mentioned hand-in-hand by higher ups at the paper. Jeff Bezos said last year:

I think a lot of us believe this, that democracy dies in darkness, that certain institutions have a very important role in making sure that there is light. And I think The Washington Post has a seat, an important seat, to do that because we happen to be located here in the capital city of the United States of America.

Regardless of the logic–and it’s important to note that that logic does seem sound, given President Donald Trump’s relentless attack on “fake news,” and the fact that trust of the media is at a notable low–the slogan is still striking many as a tad…dramatic. And of course, it has received some mocking on Twitter:

i am critical of the washington post but if batman could say your newspaper slogan with a straight face that feels like its ok

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) February 22, 2017

wow, the washington post’s new slogan is pretty dark pic.twitter.com/6yxzZ2EC5G

— Tom Phillips (@flashboy) February 22, 2017

The Washington Post’s new tagline is pretty good. pic.twitter.com/W922lcvzim

— neontaster (@neontaster) February 22, 2017

The Washington Post has a new slogan. It’s very… metal. pic.twitter.com/k2S95AsMSD

— Thomas Seal (@TW_Seal) February 22, 2017

pic.twitter.com/96TkFdVWHs

— Matt Nelson (@Maddoxnelson) February 22, 2017

But regardless of the mocking, the new slogan got readers’ attention, and reaffirmed the Washington Post’s very laudable commitment to standing up to the Trump Administration. Still…we have to ask: you guys ok?

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 Should We Be Worried About the Washington Post’s New Slogan? appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, in a $1.8 billion deal, the Canada-based fast food company Restaurant Brands International (RBI), acquired Popeyes, one of the largest chicken fast-food chains in America. The deal is expected to close in April.

“With this transaction, RBI is adding a brand that has a distinctive position within a compelling segment and strong U.S. and international prospects for growth,” RBI CEO Daniel Shwartz said in a statement. “As Popeyes becomes part of the RBI family we believe we can deliver growth and opportunities for all of our stakeholders including our valued employees and franchisees.”

This acquisition makes Popeyes part of the RBI “Family of Brands” that includes Burger King as well as the Canadian coffee and doughnut chain Tim Hortons. RBI is majority-owned by the Brazilian investment firm 3G Capital and was formed in 2014 after the Burger King and Tim Hortons merger. Since the merger, Burger King has expanded around the world with much success.

The deal seems to be good news for Popeyes investors and shareholders. Since news of the deal emerged, Popeyes stock has been soaring, according to Business Insider.

While the deal is being applauded as a good business call by RBI, some people are calling foul, bringing up the fact that RBI has been a prominent perpetrator of tax inversion, which will become even more significant now that RBI is making strides toward becoming one of the largest fast food companies in the world.

Tax inversion is a way for companies to dodge American corporate tax by rerouting their revenue to a so-called “tax haven.” In the Canadian-based RBI’s case, the Burger King merger with Tim Hortons allowed for Burger King’s revenue to be taxed at the Canadian corporate tax rate rather than the American one, which, according to CNN Money, was projected to save Burger King shareholders over $800 million in capital gains taxes and the company itself about $400 million in corporate tax.

Projected tax savings for Popeyes have not been reported yet, but, according to ThinkProgress’ Alan Pyke, being a smaller firm, Popeyes’ tax savings are probably going to be much smaller than Burger King’s. However, with the new Trump Administration, questions about tax/corporate inversion have been growing, as the administration is expected to take a much different approach towards quelling its effects than the Obama Administration did.

Per ThinkProgress’ Alan Pyke:

Inversions were all the rage in corporate management in the second term of the Obama administration, which sought to curb them through new Treasury Department rules. The bankers who helped complete those deals raked in close to a billion dollars in fees for their assistance.

Republicans in Congress are widely expected to gut the Obama-era restrictions on inversions. President Donald Trump’s administration has signaled it would prefer to slash the U.S. corporate tax rate rather than combat corporate tax avoidance through regulation — even though rates are not what drive American-made companies to pretend they live somewhere else.

Pyke cites a report from Reuters that looked at six companies that were known to have completed or were in the process of completing “inversion-type” deals. The report finds that, while the U.S. corporate tax rate is high, many large companies use elaborate strategies to cut tax costs, which reduce the effects of the country’s 35 percent statutory rate and allow companies to pay well below the actual rate. These elaborate loop holes within the U.S. tax code suggest that companies may be practicing tax inversion for a variety of incentives offered abroad, which shows that “Washington’s current debate over business tax reform may be too focused on the statutory rate, neglecting effective rates and the incentives that companies have to shift profits abroad.”

As Pyke points out, President Donald Trump and many other Republicans still prefer to slash corporate taxes to stop companies from making tax inversion deals. Trump has frequently stated that he will lower the corporate tax rate to 15 percent.

On the Bloomberg Politics show “With All Due Respect” in November 2015, Trump said that “other candidates don’t even know what corporate inversion is. I do know, I really know,” Trump said. “You are going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs to other countries because of corporate inversions. What you are going to do is lower the taxes bring the money in and they are going to use that money to build and do things in the United States.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Chicken With a Side of Tax Inversion?: A Look at the Popeyes Sale appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, thousands of people attended “Not My Presidents’ Day” rallies throughout the country to protest the Trump presidency. In Washington D.C., a large group gathered in Dupont Circle to listen to a number of speakers before marching toward the White House.

Lee Carter, a candidate for the Virginia State House of Delegates (50th district), was the first to address the D.C. crowd. He called for those against the president to stand up to his administration, and to “stand together and let people know that there is a viable alternative for this country going forward.”

Lindsey Middelton, a researcher at the National Institute of Health, attended the rally holding star-shaped American flag balloons and a sign demanding “respect, inclusion, and civility.” She said she “wanted the energy from the Women’s March to continue.” Middelton recalled protesting the Vietnam War, and said the protests surrounding President Donald Trump are at least equally passionate. She hopes “the public outrage affects the people downtown making decisions.”

Marchers approach the White House. Courtesy of Callum Cleary for Law Street Media.

Native and civil rights activist Gray Michael Parsons then took the stage. He spoke of the important role the media played in capturing and exposing injustice during the civil rights movement and demanded that those in the audience work to do the same. Parsons, who protested the Dakota Access pipeline in Standing Rock, North Dakota last fall, criticized the Department of Justice for not visiting the protest site and asked the crowd to “be our media…stand up for us.”

Mizraim Belman, an undocumented immigrant and first-year student at Georgetown University, stood at the center of Dupont Circle to decry the president’s hardline immigration policy. He affirmed his undocumented status before defiantly declaring that he was “unafraid” of the president’s expressed intentions.

Jordan Marie Daniels, also a native activist, stood in the center of Dupont Circle in front of a striking “Defend the Sacred” banner and asked for a continued and unified resistance in the face of an “unfit administration.” Daniels will be part of a native rights march on the White House on March 10.

At one point during rally, two men on roaring motorcycles began circling the park, attempting to drown out the speakers by revving their engines. Fixed to the back of one bike was an American flag; the other held a blue flag that read “Trump.”

“Bikers for Trump” attempt to disrupt the D.C. rally. Courtesy of Callum Cleary for Law Street Media.

Ken Boddye, a candidate for the Virginia State House of Delegates (51st district), was the last to speak in front of the crowd, and his words echoed those who spoke before him. He concluded by proclaiming that those against Trump will “not stand for his regression, hate or fear.” He, along with the other speakers, then led the rally on a march down to the White House.

Among the stream of protesters en route to the White House was Will Allen. Wearing the ubiquitous pink hat from the Women’s March and a tie-dye shirt, Allen stood to the side to speak with Law Street. He said he was protesting the endless incompetence of the Trump Administration. “It’s just one thing after another,” he said, “every day another lie, every day another story.” Before rejoining the march, Allen added: “it’s not making any sense, so we need somebody new.”

Alec Siegel also contributed to this story. 

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happened at the D.C. “Not My Presidents’ Day” Protest? 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:

Milo Yiannopoulos Dropped from CPAC After Pedophilia Comments

Alt-right journalist Milo Yiannopoulos was supposed to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference this week, but now CPAC has rescinded the invite after a video surfaced of him speaking favorably about relationships between “younger boys and older men.” CPAC originally had to defend its decision to invite Yiannopoulos to speak, citing freedom of expression, but when the latest controversy hit, the internet reacted fiercely. Yiannopoulos also lost his book deal with publishing company Simon & Schuster, which was supposed to publish his book “Dangerous.”

#BREAKING: Milo Yiannopoulos disinvited from CPAC after pedophilia remarks emerge https://t.co/i2bFLTcTh3 pic.twitter.com/Jwqw4Q0pOK

— The Hill (@thehill) February 20, 2017

Yiannopoulos apologized in a Facebook statement yesterday afternoon, saying that his comments were misinterpreted and that he is “horrified by pedophilia.” “I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim,” he wrote. “My own experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous.” However, many people seem to have had enough of Milo altogether.

#MiloYiannopoulos was never a conservative. He is just a gay guy who enjoys the publicity that comes from being controversial.

— LZ Granderson (@Locs_n_Laughs) February 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: February 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

If you followed any of the coverage of President Donald Trump’s rally on Saturday in Florida, you may have seen this odd incident:

This is the man Trump brought on stage pic.twitter.com/cHtvop8EYX

— Andrew Hibbard (@andrewhibbard) February 19, 2017

But you may have also seen a ton of confused journalists wondering “what in the world happened in Sweden on Friday night?” Per the Palm Beach Post, Trump said:

Here’s the bottom line. We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening. We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we’re going to keep our country safe.

Well, it turns out that nothing really happened in Sweden. But, thanks to Aftonbladet, a tabloid-like Swedish newspaper, we can read about what really went down on Friday night in Sweden. Publishing a slyly snarky response to President Trump’s remarks, Aftonbladet released a short breakdown of the worst events that took place on Friday night in Sweden–and none of them are any sort of terrorist attack worthy of being compared to the Bastille Day attacks in Nice or 2015 mass shooting in Paris.

Some of the stories are tragic: “8:23 p.m.: A man died in hospital, after an accident in the workplace earlier that day in the city of Borås.” Aftonbladet also captured the mundanity of that Friday night: “6:42 p.m.: The famous singer Owe Thörnqvist had some technical problems during rehearsal for the singing competition ‘Melodifestivalen.’ (However, the 87-year-old singer still managed to secure the victory the very next day.)”

You can check out the full Aftonbladet article here.

So what was Trump even thinking? We now know that Trump’s comments on Sweden were informed by a Fox News segment he watched.

My statement as to what’s happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 19, 2017

We also know that a White House spokeswoman told officials that Trump wasn’t referring to a specific incident, but just rising crime in Sweden in general. Reuters points out that this is not an entirely true statement, as the country’s crime rate has fallen since 2005.

We also know that facts don’t seem to matter anymore.

Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound. https://t.co/XWgw8Fz7tj

— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) February 19, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post A Swedish Newspaper Shows Trump What “Really” Happened in Sweden appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Presidents Day! 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:

Hey, Donald Trump: What Exactly Happened in Sweden?

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump cited Sweden when discussing terrorism and immigration. “You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?” he said. But there was no remarkable incident in Sweden the night before. The former Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt commented on Twitter, asking, “What has he been smoking?”

Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound. https://t.co/XWgw8Fz7tj

— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) February 19, 2017

The Swedish embassy said it asked the White House for an explanation, as no one in Sweden knew what the American president was talking about. And many on Twitter mocked POTUS’s comments, speculating that it could be IKEA-related:

Uncovered: the plans for the terrorist attack in #Sweden last night. RT because the fake news MSM wont report it! #swedenincident pic.twitter.com/EMh1FmsFac

— Liora Yukla (@LiogaYukla) February 19, 2017

On Sunday, Trump “explained” via Twitter that his statement was in reference to a Fox News segment that claimed that immigration has led to a dramatic increase in crime in Sweden. But today, Swedish police officers who were interviewed in the segment called Ami Horowitz, the man who interviewed them, a “madman” and said that they answered completely different questions than what Fox aired.

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: February 20, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Sharing a last name with the president could make you unpopular in some circles, as Tiffany Trump learned while attending New York Fashion Week.

During the Philipp Plein show on Monday, the youngest Trump daughter was seen sitting by herself after fashion editors allegedly switched seats to avoid sitting next to her.

Former Wall Street Journal columnist Christina Binkley tweeted a photo of Trump from the show that she captioned: “Nobody wants to sit next to Tiffany Trump at Philipp Plein, so they moved and the seats by her are empty.”

Nobody wants to sit next to Tiffany Trump at Philipp Plein, so they moved and the seats by her are empty. pic.twitter.com/XcxNYI6Kf8

— Christina Binkley (@BinkleyOnStyle) February 14, 2017

Empty seats next to Tiffany Trump. pic.twitter.com/axvYJAFupl

— Christina Binkley (@BinkleyOnStyle) February 14, 2017

Nikki Ogunnaike, senior fashion editor at “Elle,” tweeted that the show started late due to the last-minute seat changes, with editors “fleeing” to not have to sit close to Tiffany.

The incident caused quite a stir online, with many people calling both Binkley and the fashion editors bullies for posting the photos and seemingly punishing Tiffany for her father’s actions. “The View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg was especially peeved by the snub, and defended Tiffany during Wednesday’s episode of her show.

“You know what, Tiffany? I’m supposed to go to a couple more shows. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I’m coming to sit with you,” Goldberg said. “Because nobody’s talking politics. You’re looking at fashion! She doesn’t want to talk about her dad! She’s looking at the fashion!”

Goldberg’s co-host Sara Haines also chimed in saying, “it’s almost like we live in a time where people are saying that ‘because it’s a Trump’ it’s ok to bully her.”

.@WhoopiGoldberg reacts to editors not wanting to sit next to Tiffany Trump at fashion week: “Girl, I will sit next to you!” pic.twitter.com/FcNDqaw1Pn

— The View (@TheView) February 15, 2017

Tiffany accepted Goldberg’s invitation via Twitter.

Thank you @WhoopiGoldberg I’d love to sit with you too!

— Tiffany Ariana Trump (@TiffanyATrump) February 15, 2017

Three days after her original tweet, Binkley followed up to clarify that the seats surrounding Tiffany were only empty for about two minutes before other people sat down. Then the designer’s sister made those people move so she could sit there for the show.

“It’s easy to assume from a photograph that she sat there, humiliated, with empty seats by her, which wasn’t the case,” Binkley said.

However, online critics pointed out that if Binkley was upset that people thought she was a bully, maybe she shouldn’t have waited three days to clarify what happened.

The designer of the show also spoke out against the editors’ treatment of Tiffany, saying that a young girl shouldn’t be humiliated because her father has political opinions that people don’t like.

Hopefully the rest of NYFW goes much better for the first daughter.

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 Tiffany Trump Shunned by Editors at New York Fashion Week appeared first on Law Street.

The White House is pushing back against claims that President Trump is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants.

According to an 11-page draft memo obtained by The Associated Press, governors in 11 states, including some that are not along the U.S.-Mexico border, would have the choice to have their guards participate in the roundup. The deportation measure would act in conjunction with Trump’s executive order on immigration and border security signed on January 25.

The AP originally reported that the memo from U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, was addressed to the then-acting heads of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Vice published a copy of the memo obtained by the AP.

Trump weighs mobilizing National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants in 11 states. https://t.co/0lLvP59GZU pic.twitter.com/UJXfJslnqy

— AP Interactive (@AP_Interactive) February 17, 2017

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer categorically denied the AP report, calling it “100 percent not true” and “irresponsible.” He said, ”There is no effort at all to utilize the National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants.”

However, conflicting reports are coming out of the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS spokesperson contends that the pre-decisional draft never made it to Secretary Kelly’s desk and was never seriously considered by the agency. But staffers from the department told the AP that they discussed the proposal as recently as last Friday.

As the document’s validity continues to be investigated, it’s important to consider the substantial impact it would have if implemented. Nearly one-half of the 11.1 million people residing in the U.S. illegally live in the 11 states–California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana–according to Pew Research Center estimates using 2014 Census data.

The leaked proposal comes as the Trump administration hurriedly attempts to save face after the swift demise of its unconstitutional and discriminatory immigration ban. Last week, ICE agents arrested 680 people in raids across the country, which Secretary Kelly later called “routine.” While National Guard personnel have helped with immigration enforcement on the border before, this action would increase their involvement significantly.

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 White House Denies Plans to Deploy National Guard for Immigration Roundups appeared first on Law Street.

The current political climate has resulted in reminders of celebrities that none of us have thought about in a while. First, there was Scott Baio. Then, there was Aaron Carter. Next, it was Three Doors Down.

The latest celebrity who, through the power of conservative politics, has come out of the woodwork is none other than Robert Ritchie, also known as Kid Rock. You know, the guy who sings “All Summer Long.”

According to a report from Roll Call, Kid Rock’s name was brought up at a Michigan Republican Party convention as a potential candidate to run for Debbie Stabenow’s Senate seat. Stabenow, a Democrat, has served in the Senate since 2000. She is one of 25 Democratic senators on the ballot in 2018.

While Kid Rock has not commented on the possibility nor has he been officially asked, a Michigan GOP spokesperson told Fox News that she “wouldn’t be surprised if there was a movement for him to run.”

If Kid Rock does decide to run, he might face some competition from none other than Ted Nugent, the hardcore conservative rock musician who was an outspoken Trump supporter during the campaign and appeared at a couple of his Michigan rallies. One such appearance resulted in Nugent grabbing his crotch on stage while he said, “I’ve got your blue state right here. Black and blue. Each and every one of you have only 24 hours to convince the numb nuts that you know, that you can’t vote for criminals, you can’t vote for liars, you can’t vote for scam artists.” Note that this is also nowhere near the most vulgar thing Nugent has done or said.

Speaking to The Daily Caller about a possible Senate run, Nugent said that he “is always interested in making [his] country and the great state of Michigan great again” and that “there is nothing I wouldn’t do to help in any way I possibly can.”

Kid Rock has proven to be less conservative than Nugent, once telling Rolling Stone in 2013 that he considers himself, politically, to be a “lone wolf” and “more Libertarian,” although he tends to vote Republican. In a 2015 interview with Rolling Stone, Kid Rock spoke about his belief in gun ownership as a “sacred right.”

This past election, Kid Rock supported Trump, telling Rolling Stone that he would like to see America run like a business because: “it’s not really working too well running it not like a business.” Early in the 2016 campaign, he spoke of his interest in Dr. Ben Carson as a candidate. Kid Rock’s website also began selling pro-Trump merchandise during the election. A sample of this merch: a shirt with America’s electoral map on the chest, with the states in blue labeled “Dumbf*ckistan.” The shirt sold for $24.99 plus shipping costs.

Kid Rock has been touting his political beliefs for years. During the 2000s, Kid Rock would perform with a Confederate flag behind him, which came back to haunt him in 2011 when he accepted an award from the NAACP’s Detroit branch. He was also an outspoken supporter of Mitt Romney during the 2012 election. Romney called his song “Be Free” his campaign theme song and Kid Rock performed it for him at a campaign event. He also appeared at multiple Romney rallies throughout the country.

While he has been an outspoken conservative, Kid Rock did perform at an Obama inauguration event in 2009, telling The Guardian that, despite not voting for Obama, “there was an exciting sense of change in the air.” However, Kid Rock has said that Obama helped to create a country that was “more divided than ever.” He was, of course, referring to the tension that is rising among people living in red states and those living in “Dumbf*ckistan.”

If this past year has taught us anything, it’s that we should never say never. This 2018 senatorial race could be one to pay attention to.

VOTE KID ROCK pic.twitter.com/SwTMgckKbd

— Kid Rock (@KidRock) November 8, 2016

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Is Kid Rock Michigan’s Next Senate Candidate? appeared first on Law Street.

The Relson Gracie Jiu-Jitsu Academy in Columbus, Ohio has released a video that could come in handy for cabinet appointees, visiting heads of state, victorious athletes, or anyone else set for a photo op with the new president. The video provides step-by-step instructions on how to defend against Trump’s aggressive handshake technique.

First, a disclaimer: the black-belt Jiu-Jitsu instructor explicitly states that he is not suggesting his moves should be employed against the president and he does not intend to use the move should he have the opportunity to meet with the president–nor should anyone else. However, if President Trump’s handshaking style happens to become popular with his followers, this guide could help make your next Thanksgiving with that uncle a little bit more bearable.

In short, the defense goes like this:

Step 1: Once the president/your uncle grabs your hand, allow them to pull you in.

Step 2: Step in with your left foot and use your free left arm to wrap around the president’s…I mean, your uncle’s right elbow.

Step 3: Use the hand embraced in a shake with the perpetrator’s tiny hand to bend their (possibly tiny) wrist inwards.

Step 4: Then, use your free left hand to put your red-hatted uncle into a “gnarly” “gooseneck wrist lock.”

Step 5 (optional but recommended): Wash any peculiar orange, Cheeto-like residue from your hands lest you wish to fall ill with the same skin ailment that seems to have stricken Sean Spicer.

Remember, these five easy steps might just be the perfect addition to your next Turkey-day. And should you meet the president, consider Justin Trudeau’s a less inflammatory technique for resisting the Trump grip of death.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Defend Against the Infamous Trump Handshake appeared first on Law Street.

The resignation of Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser and the subsequent revelations that Trump aides communicated with Russia during the campaign have raised a lot of questions in Washington. Clearly some sort of relationship exists between Russia and Trump–or at least his orbit of advisers and aides. But how deep does it go? How nefarious does it get? And, perhaps most importantly, what will happen next?

For one, the FBI is continuing to review the communications between Flynn and Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak. Flynn was pressured to resign after he misled Vice President Mike Pence about the content of his calls with Kislyak (they talked about U.S. sanctions, but Flynn told Pence they did not).

It is unclear if Trump, or any other top administration officials, directed Flynn to discuss the sanctions with Kislyak, or if Flynn acted of his own accord. But Trump, for one, is not happy about the leaks coming out of his administration:

The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by “intelligence” like candy. Very un-American!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2017

On Tuesday, top Senate Republicans hinted that they would be calling for an investigation into the relationship between Trump, his aides, and Russia. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said a probe is “highly likely.” Two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), also called for an investigation.

“We are aggressively going to continue the oversight responsibilities of the committee as it relates to not only the Russian involvement in the 2016 election, but again any contacts by any campaign individuals that might have happened with Russian government officials,” Burr said on Tuesday.

Republican Senators John Cornyn (TX) and Roy Blunt (MO) echoed the call for a Senate investigation, which would likely include a subpoena for Flynn to testify. Republicans in the House, however, struck a different tone Tuesday.

“I’ll leave it up to the administration to describe the circumstances surrounding what brought [Flynn] to this point,” said Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI).

Ryan did not call for a House Intelligence Committee investigation.

The decision to launch a House investigation into the Russia-Trump Administration relationship is unilaterally controlled by one man: Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the House Intelligence Committee Chairman. In contrast with many of his Republican colleagues, his counterparts in the Senate, and Democrats, Nunes sees a bigger problem than Trump’s potential Russia ties.

“I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” Nunes said on Tuesday, referring to the FBI’s recording Flynn’s call with Kislyak. “The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.”

In other words, Nunes likely won’t be launching a House probe any time soon.

The opaque, yet unmistakable, ties between Trump and Russia first came to light in the summer of 2016. In July, he flippantly implored Russia to dig deeper into Hillary Clinton’s emails. In August, his campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort, quit amid reports about his past business dealings with Ukrainian government officials who were backed by the Kremlin. And in the waning months following Trump’s election win, U.S. intelligence officials concluded that Russia–perhaps directed by President Vladimir Putin–interfered in the election with the goal of netting Trump a victory.

Then, just over a week before Inauguration Day, reports of a salacious dossier on Trump compiled by a former British intelligence officer began to leak. The dossier claimed that Trump and his campaign colluded with Russian officials during the campaign in their hacking of Democratic operatives’ emails.

While U.S. intelligence officials have made some progress on corroborating the claims in the dossier, nothing too incriminating has been confirmed yet. They are continuing to probe the dossier, as well as Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), never one to mince words, called Russian interference in the U.S. “very disturbing” in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Wednesday. He added: “Any Trump person who was working with the Russians in an unacceptable way also needs to pay a price.”

Stay tuned to find out what happens next.

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 and Russia: What Will Happen Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Tomorrow, in the nation’s capital, people will have a taste of what the city would be like without a vital part of its community. Immigrants across the city will either skip work or walk out of work to participate in “A Day Without Immigrants,” as The Washingtonian reported.

“A Day Without Immigrants” is meant to put the economic significance of the immigrant community on full display and to protest President Donald Trump’s recent immigration policies. The protest comes during a time in which stories about ICE raids have been reported across the country, including one instance in which a Mexican immigrant in Seattle who had previously been protected from deportation under the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy was detained by ICE agents.

According to The Washingtonian, multiple well-known restaurants such as Compass Rose, Bar Pilar, and Pearl Drive Oyster Palace will stand in solidarity with their employees who are protesting, and will possibly close if they are too short-staffed.

Speaking to The Washingtonian, Compass Rose owner Rose Previte said, “We’re just going to go with what we have that day and tell customers, ‘This is what happens when immigrants don’t come to work.’”

Multiple restaurants and restaurant owners have taken to social media to highlight their solidarity with the striking workers.

In solidarity with our immigrant tribe we will close for the day on Thursday for our staff to join in #ADayWithoutImmigrants.

— Busboys and Poets (@busboysandpoets) February 15, 2017

In support of our people & #ADayWithoutImmigrants Thurs 2/16 we will not open @jaleo DC CC MD, @zaytinya or @oyameldc #ImmigrantsFeedAmerica

— José Andrés (@chefjoseandres) February 14, 2017

Staff & customers from around the world are integral to our business & community. Kitchen will be closed Thursday #ADayWithoutImmigrants

— Ivy and Coney (@ivyandconey) February 15, 2017

Public and charter schools in the District will not be participating in the protest and will function on normal hours, according to The Washington Post. However, schools expect many of their teachers and staff members to participate in the protest.

Per The Washington Post:

The chief of schools for D.C. Public Schools, John Davis, sent a note to principals in the school system saying that while many people may participate in the boycott, school will continue as normal and staff and students are expected to be in attendance.

‘We highly value and are committed to fostering a learning environment where staff and students feel safe and secure and we respect the right to self-expression and peaceful protest,’ the letter says.

Some restaurants that have announced their solidarity with their staff members–like Meridian Pint, which is located in the Columbia Heights neighborhood–are located in areas of D.C. that have a high concentration of Latino immigrants.

The protest was spread through social media and flyers that have appeared around the city.

“A Day Without Immigrants” is similar to the “Day Without Latinos” rally held in Wisconsin yesterday. These rallies aren’t the first immigrant-focused protests that have taken place since President Trump’s inauguration. Earlier this month, Yemeni-owned bodegas around New York City shut down in protest of the travel ban.

For those targeted by the latest Republican divide & conquer, look around and remember this: you are not alone. @daywithoutlatinos pic.twitter.com/1vuF6QZ6Oa

— Chris Larson (@ChrisJLarson) February 13, 2017

In addition, on Friday, a “General Strike Against Trump” is taking place in cities across the country.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post D.C. Will Have “A Day Without Immigrants” Protest Tomorrow appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, nearly 200,000 Californians were asked to evacuate their homes after workers at the Oroville Dam noticed the emergency spillway was severely damaged. The spillway was activated in response to rapidly rising water levels in the Oroville reservoir. While the dam was never in danger of collapsing, the failure of a vital failsafe and the subsequent mass evacuation serves as a reminder of the dire state of American infrastructure.

In its 2013 Report Card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s infrastructure a D+, citing “a significant backlog of overdue maintenance across our infrastructure systems” and “a pressing need for modernization.” While both Democrats and Republicans recognize the need to improve the nation’s infrastructure, there is debate on how these public works projects should be carried out. Any comprehensive infrastructure program must work to consider and shape long term environmental conditions.

The Oroville Dam overflow is demonstrative of how existing infrastructure is unsuited to changing climatic conditions. Since 2011, the state of California has been battling an intense drought and Oroville was not immune. However, snow melt and heavy rainfall over the past week caused water levels in the Oroville Reservoir to rise rapidly.

https://twitter.com/erbrod/status/831151275387531265

There is indisputable causal evidence linking climate change, drought conditions, and floods. According to the Climate Reality Project, as global temperatures rise, the atmosphere is able to hold more moisture at a given time. This leads to less regular but more intense downpours. Infrequent rain leads to more frequent droughts. When downpours finally occur over drought stricken land, the unsaturated soil is unable to absorb the deluge, meaning much of the water simply runs off into streams, rivers, lakes and oceans.

The Oroville Dam incident is just one example of how climate change is expected to exacerbate weather conditions. The Department of Transportation has released a number of reports in which it identifies climate change as a major threat to infrastructure. The country’s crumbling infrastructure is incapable of withstanding extreme weather conditions and future projects must acknowledge these climatic realities. Furthermore, the prioritization of certain infrastructural policies over others could either ease or worsen the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

President Donald Trump’s infrastructure plan promises $1 trillion worth of investment, places an emphasis on mass transit and high speed rail projects, and includes a plan for a modest increase in green energy investment. Nonetheless, the president might struggle to get congressional approval for his plan as it will likely not sit well with some of his fellow Republicans. The Republican establishment has traditionally called for smaller infrastructural spending packages and has resisted the expansion of public transport and green energy projects. Even if Trump’s infrastructure plan gets the green light, any gains made in public transport and green energy are likely to be offset by his overt hostility toward the environment and environmentalist work. The Untied States’ aging infrastructure is unequipped to deal with climate change, and the president refuses to admit climate change is an issue.

While it can be easily ignored, infrastructure shapes everything from socioeconomics to environmental conditions. The Oroville Dam incident reminds us that while investment in infrastructure is a necessity, new projects must not only by equipped to tolerate extreme climatic conditions, but should also work as tools that mitigate anthropogenic environmental impacts.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oroville Dam Overflow: The Environment and Failing Infrastructure appeared first on Law Street.

From the Nashville sit-ins in the 1960s to the Memphis sanitation workers’ strikes, Tennessee has a rich history of practicing civil disobedience in the form of nonviolent protests. And recently, Tennessee has seen a resurgence of nonviolent protests. On Inauguration Day, a group of Tennesseans chained themselves to the state capitol. About 15,000 people marched in downtown Nashville on the day of the Women’s March. And, this past July, hundreds of Black Lives Matters protesters spilled onto the interstate, stopping traffic. But in response to this civic action, a Tennessee lawmaker introduced a road block bill that grants drivers who “[exercise] due care” immunity from civil liability if they injure a protester or demonstrator who is blocking traffic.

According to Tennessee’s WTVC News Channel 9, state Senator Bill Ketron, who introduced the bill, said in a statement, “we believe that citizens have the right to protest. There is a procedure for peaceful protests and the purpose of that process is to protect the safety of our citizens. Protesters have no right to be in the middle of the road or our highways for their own safety and the safety of the traveling public.”

There are two distinctions in the bill that should be noted. The first is that if a person takes purposeful or willful action to injure a protester, they will not be granted immunity from civil liability. The second distinction is that the law does not grant immunity from criminal prosecution.

Tennessee lawmakers said that this bill was introduced to protect both drivers and protesters. As the Epoch Times points out, states like North Dakota have introduced similar legislation. If Tennessee’s bill passes, it will go into effect this summer.

At first glance, these kinds of bills aren’t erroneously offensive. But at the heart of these bills, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the core principles of civil disobedience.

Protesters and demonstrators do not simply block roads for the sake of inconveniencing people who are just trying to have a normal commute. Blocking traffic is a visceral statement that reminds people that some lives are inherently inconvenient–that some lives come with inherent roadblocks simply based on trivialities like the color of someone’s skin or who a person loves. Blocking traffic impedes the inexplicit conveniences that privilege bestows.

We can look at Tennessee’s road-block bill uncynically. We can hold the belief that the bill was introduced with the best of intentions–with the belief that these lawmakers truly want to look after the safety of the public. But we can also maintain the perspective that the bill ignores the principles of non-violent protests and continues to allow people to abrogate their responsibility to help society progress toward moral justice in service of letting them go on with their lives as if everything is as it should be, and nothing is wrong.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why Tennessee’s Road Block Bill Wouldn’t Actually Keep People Safe appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel refused to reinstate President Donald Trump’s seven-country travel/immigration/Muslim/DEFINITELY-NOT-A-BAN ban.

The decision was an unmitigated loss for Trump. And what does President Trump usually do when things don’t go his way?

He has his communications team release a measured and coherent statement reiterating the White House’s position on the issue.

Just kidding.

He tweets about it.

So, after the decision was announced, Trump vented his frustrations on the beautifully insufferable and addictive cesspool that we call Twitter.

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

And then….well…see for yourself:

“oh no, not court” —judges

— both are equally bad (@caseyjohnston) February 10, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT WHERE WE ALREADY ARE BUT A DIFFERENT COURT SHUT UP NO YOU’RE STUPID!

— Stephen Colbert (@StephenAtHome) February 10, 2017

Saying “SEE YOU IN COURT” after losing a court case is like yelling “LET’S TAKE THIS OUTSIDE” after you just lost a fight outside.

— Adam Conover (@adamconover) February 10, 2017

“I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT!” is really the worst thing to yell after you just lost in court

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) February 9, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT! I HOPE THAT BALIFF WITH THE PUPPET OF HIMSELF IS THERE. I LOVE THAT PUPPET! CRACKS ME UP! pic.twitter.com/SdVJBwJAkG

— Jake Fogelnest (@jakefogelnest) February 10, 2017

And then he tweeted…..
“SEE YOU IN COURT”
After just LOSING IN COURT‼️ pic.twitter.com/RZrku9Pp1C

— Dory (@Dory) February 10, 2017

Nap, then therapy, where I will very likely be told to stay off twitter. SEE YOU IN COURT

— Dan Harmon (@danharmon) February 10, 2017

An all caps “I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT” is the whitest thing to ever happen in black history month.

— Akilah Hughes (@AkilahObviously) February 10, 2017

{loses in checkers} SEE YOU IN CHECKERS

— Charles Finch (@CharlesFinch) February 9, 2017

trump: “SEE YOU IN COURT!”
court: pic.twitter.com/tNNKsLqq9S

— Giuliana (@Princessofwifi) February 10, 2017

My teacher: F
Me: SEE YOU IN COURT!

— Lexi (@lexi4prez) February 10, 2017

“See you in court” sounds like dialogue from a bad tennis movie. “See you in court. There’ll be no love. Except for your score. Loser!”

— Michelle Wolf (@michelleisawolf) February 10, 2017

me if Beyoncé doesn’t sweep the grammys https://t.co/5JiXwFeIys

— Matt Bellassai (@MattBellassai) February 10, 2017

TRUMP: SEE YOU IN COURT

JUSTICE: pic.twitter.com/85mQSKUK5Z

— jake (@jakebeckman) February 10, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT, DONALD. pic.twitter.com/yqIhRjDClC

— Michael Skolnik (@MichaelSkolnik) February 9, 2017

“SEE YOU IN COURT” is what the rich white villain in a dance crew movie yells after he loses a rec room turf battle to a bunch of teens.

— Miles Kahn (@mileskahn) February 9, 2017

And now

*sips martini*
*rolls up sleeves*
*removes earrings*
*takes another sip*

LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT COMMA pic.twitter.com/BRz3g44WJM

— Benjamin Dreyer (@BCDreyer) February 10, 2017

Twitter is so beautiful sometimes. Watching this entire mess reminded me of something. Last night, I just couldn’t put my finger on it, but I suddenly had a revelation this morning.

I want to remind you all of a true classic in American cinema: “Air Bud.”

If you will recall, “Air Bud” is the story about a golden retriever, who is later renamed “Buddy,” who runs away from his abusive owner, a professional clown who is also an alcoholic (this movie has many layers). He then forms a relationship with a teenaged boy who just lost his father in a plane crash. Basically, Bud and the teenage boy form a bond and it’s really beautiful. Oh, also, Bud can play basketball. And he becomes famous. Again, many layers to this film. Anyway, Buddy’s old owner tries to get him back and, in a very tense scene, confronts his dog’s new owners. Check it out starting at 19:49 below:

Welp. There it is. “I’LL SEE YOU IN COURT.” Who knew “Air Bud” could be so relevant in 2017.

If you’re interested, you can watch the full movie on a random afternoon on the Freeform channel (formerly ABC Family), probably. Or in your old VHS collection. Either one is a sure fire bet.

There’s no telling what Trump means exactly by “SEE YOU IN COURT,” but today, during a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump said “We’ll be doing something very rapidly having to do with additional security for our country, you’ll be seeing that sometime next week. In addition, we will continue to go through the court process and ultimately I have no doubt that we’ll win that particular case.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Twitter Goes in on “See You In Court” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s important to keep in mind that someone is always having a worse day than you. Yesterday, that someone was Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). Chaffetz, who is also the chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, was flooded by a chorus of boos and chants at a town hall he hosted in his district last night.

WATCH: Jason Chaffetz being greeted with “Do Your Job!” chants at town hall. Per CNN, he left the town hall an hour early @jasoninthehouse pic.twitter.com/8uw7cbwjcW

— Yashar (@yashar) February 10, 2017

Chaffetz’s experience at the town hall was probably jarring for him for a whole multitude of reasons, but mostly because his day seemed to be going pretty well up until that point. Yesterday afternoon, Chaffetz gained bi-partisan praise for condemning Kellyanne Conway for promoting Ivanka Trump’s Nordstrom fashion line in an interview on “Fox & Friends.” Conway seemingly violated an executive branch regulation that prohibits employees from using their position “for their own private gain, for the private gain of friends . . . or persons with whom they are affiliated in a non-government capacity.”

Speaking to reporters on the Hill, Chaffetz said Conway’s comments were “clearly over the line, wrong, wrong, wrong, and unacceptable.” Later, Chaffetz tweeted a letter he, along with Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, sent to the White House and the Office of Government Ethics, calling for recommendations for disciplinary action against Conway.

What she did was wrong, wrong, wrong. Here is our bi-partisan letter to the White House and OGE. #Donteverdothis https://t.co/zqeYhcttMB

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) February 9, 2017

So, Chaffetz was probably feeling pretty good about himself after all that. Of course, all good things must come to an end. After a visit to the Utah State Senate, Chaffetz made his way over to his town hall meeting at Brighton High School, which, according to an event Facebook page, was not advertised by Chaffetz and changed locations multiple times because of large interest. While Chaffetz did not officially promote the event, multiple left-leaning groups like the Wasatch Socialist Party set up event pages that led to an outpouring of protestors and attendees, according to Utah’s KUTV news reporter Chris Jones.

The auditorium, which seats 1,100, was filled to capacity while about 1,500 people stood outside the school, chanting and holding up signs.

Several thousand people outside of Brighton HS. Who couldn’t get into @jasoninthehouse town hall. #utpol pic.twitter.com/gtARJu9mSf

— Chris Jones (@jonesnews) February 10, 2017

Auditorium for Cong Chaffetz Town hall packed. Police say 1000 outside. Now chanting, “You work for us!” @UtahIndivisible @IndivisibleTeam pic.twitter.com/R9iDakiWrZ

— Kyung Lah (@KyungLahCNN) February 10, 2017

This was all before the actual event started. During the event, Chaffetz was grilled by multiple attendees over a wide range of subjects, from Bears Ears National Monument, to public lands, to the Trump Administration, to Betsy DeVos, to immigration.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, most of Chaffetz’s answers were drowned out by boos and chants like “Vote him out!” and “Do your job!” At one point, a frustrated Chaffetz said “If you want me to answer the question, give me more than five seconds to do it.”

But, nevertheless, Chaffetz’s frustrated constituents persisted, with attendee after attendee hitting their representative with tough questions. One notable grilling came from a grade-school girl:

Utah Congressman Chaffetz gets totally owned by 10 year old girl’s sick burn about science, refuses to answer her question & crowd goes wild pic.twitter.com/FxKUM2TklY

— Aaron Stewart-Ahn (@somebadideas) February 10, 2017

And another came from an ex-teacher:

At rowdy town hall, ex-teacher asks Chaffetz — chair of House oversight — “what’s your line in the sand” for Trump? pic.twitter.com/8U7IkpZtsS

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) February 10, 2017

And another came from a cancer survivor who shared her story about the help she received from Planned Parenthood:

Cancer survivor — who relies on Planned Parenthood for care — asks Chaffetz: “Why are you trying to take [it] away?” pic.twitter.com/yexjMZ7wz6

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) February 10, 2017

And another–well, you get the idea.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, the town hall lasted 75 minutes, which, according to multiple reports, was 40 minutes shorter than the event was supposed to be. Over the past couple of years, Chaffetz has been no stranger to public criticism. As Oversight Committee chairman, Chaffetz has received flack for relentlessly harping on Hillary Clinton’s connections with the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. He was also widely derided for taking to his Instagram to post a picture with a caption that many people saw as petty and unclassy:

So pleased she is not the President. I thanked her for her service and wished her luck. The investigation continues.

A photo posted by Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) on Jan 20, 2017 at 12:31pm PST

He is also known to have a dim understanding of how charts work:

Chaffetz was also widely criticized this past election for his flip-flop on President Donald Trump. After the Access Hollywood video was released, Chaffetz told Utah’s Fox 13 News that he couldn’t vote for Trump and look his daughter in the eye. Nineteen days later, presumably after looking his daughter in the eye, Chaffetz went on to say he would be voting for Trump, but would not be endorsing him:

I will not defend or endorse @realDonaldTrump, but I am voting for him. HRC is that bad. HRC is bad for the USA.

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) October 27, 2016

Chaffetz has yet to comment on what transpired last night.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Jason Chaffetz Flooded by Boos at Town Hall Meeting appeared first on Law Street.

Starbucks announced Tuesday that it would offer free legal advice to employees regarding President Trump’s immigration executive order.

In a letter to employees, the company announced that the legal support for employees and family members would be provided via a new Immigration Advisory Program, set up in partnership with Ernst & Young. The letter stated that the company would be “leading with humanity” through the action.

Since its signing, the executive order has created massive confusion throughout the country after its hasty implementation and vague language left it unclear who exactly would be affected. As a result, many major U.S. corporations have pushed back against the order, as it would likely impact many of their employees.

Starbucks is proving to be one of the companies at the front and center of this corporate resistance. Last month, CEO Howard Schultz announced a plan to hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years. In the letter to employees, Schultz additionally affirmed his support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, affordable healthcare for all employees, and the continuation of company business partnerships in Mexico. The letter demonstrated the company’s forceful opposition to many of the new administration’s main policies.

The company’s recent actions have not sat well with some Trump supporters–protestors made plans to boycott the brand as a result of its refugee hiring initiative. However, the #BoycottStarbucks trend also had the opposite effect, drumming up more support for the company.

Conservatives: #BoycottStarbucks

Me: pic.twitter.com/vTGvaWKkaf

— (@goIdenflower) January 31, 2017

Uber, Microsoft, Amazon, and many other big names in the tech industry have also vowed to provide immigration-related legal advice in the wake of the order. However, as BuzzFeed News notes, Starbucks stands out among the rest as an employer of predominantly low-wage workers.

Meanwhile, after a fairly political Super Bowl this past weekend and wave of anti-Trump retail boycotts, it’s clear that corporate America will continue to be pressured to take a stance on the current administration and its policies.

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 Starbucks is Offering Immigration-Related Legal Advice to its Employees appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter is riddled with parody accounts, but one in particular has been helping people laugh through their fears for the past week. The parody account “Future CNN” has been offering people a kind of respite from the craziness of the news–giving us a look into what the future may hold for CNN’s coverage.

The account tweets images of made-up future CNN chyrons that are as hilarious as they are jarringly accurate. The chyrons poke fun at Trump’s, shall we say, “impulsiveness,” CNN’s coverage/panels, and the general insanity we’ve seen in politics over the past couple of weeks.

The account first tweeted last Monday, and since then it has gained the attention of some prominent political reporters and actual CNN employees, including “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter.

Here’s a sample of the account’s tweets:

pic.twitter.com/XirE9EIpvM

— FutureCNN (@FutureCNN) January 30, 2017

pic.twitter.com/SoemTPaRd8

— FutureCNN (@FutureCNN) January 31, 2017

pic.twitter.com/faTZIns0Vc

— FutureCNN (@FutureCNN) February 1, 2017

pic.twitter.com/BJ9JjrkRyx

— FutureCNN (@FutureCNN) February 3, 2017

pic.twitter.com/vwAAWwmcWT

— FutureCNN (@FutureCNN) February 3, 2017

pic.twitter.com/Nf3dMZEONV

— FutureCNN (@FutureCNN) February 7, 2017

It might be helpful to remind people that this is a parody account. Also, it is helpful to remind people that Twitter is free. And horrible. And also beautiful, but, you know, in a kind of horrible way.

You can follow “Future CNN” at @FutureCNN

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “Future CNN” is Helping People Laugh Through Their Fears on Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

Some people read books to escape from the harsh truths of reality. And some people (or, apparently, a lot of people) read books to better discern the totalitarian threat of the current political environment, I guess?

Much has been said about George Orwell’s “1984” returning to the top of Amazon’s best sellers list, but another dystopian fiction novel has since joined it. This week, Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” hit Amazon’s best sellers list at number two, with “1984” dropping down to the third slot from the top spot it held after the #alternativefacts controversy late last month.

Considered as somewhat of a “feminist ‘1984,’” “The Handmaid’s Tale” is set in a dystopian future where a totalitarian state run by religious zealots, the Republic of Gilead, has replaced America. In Gilead, women are property, a large number of them are infertile, and they are placed in a caste system where their worth is determined by their ability to bear children, race, and class. As warfare rages on throughout the country, fertile women are put in camps and trained to be “Handmaids,” who are tasked with bearing the children of rich white men. Sounds like a fun and breezy read, no?

Like “1984,” which has been banned and challenged many times by school boards since its publication, “The Handmaid’s Tale” has been caught up in similar controversy. Most recently, in 2014, the book was banned by a school board in Pennsylvania because of the novel’s profanity and graphic sexual references. In 2012, according to the Winston-Salem Journal, two mothers in Guilford County, North Carolina attempted to ban the book from schools because of its extreme view of Christianity.

On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Russell Perreault, head of publicity for Anchor Books, which now publishes “The Handmaid’s Tale,” said that sales of the book shot up 60 percent in the last year and, since the election, sales increased by 200 percent.

While some of the book’s success can be attributed to the impending April premiere of the Hulu show based on the novel (Hulu premiered the show’s second trailer during last Sunday’s Super Bowl), it’s not out of the question to consider the book’s renewed prominence could be connected to an increase in political anxiety.

This spike in sales for “The Handmaid’s Tale” is similar to the sales numbers posted by “1984.” According to CNNMoney, which spoke to a Penguin spokesman, Penguin reprinted 75,000 copies of “1984” the week after the inauguration–which is a significantly larger reprint than normal for the novel. This upsurge in sales for “1984” is similar to but larger than the spike that sales of the novel saw in the midst of the NSA surveillance scandal in 2013.

Following this gloom and doom of the future reading trend, Sinclair Lewis’ cautionary novel “It Can Happen Here” as well as Aldous Huxley’s even more cautionary novel “Brave New World” can be found further down the Amazon best sellers list. However, it should be noted that the children’s books “Llama Llama I Love You” and “Love from the Very Hungry Caterpillar” sit at fifth and sixth on the list, so do not despair, for children’s reading habits have not been affected…yet.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “The Handmaid’s Tale” and “1984” Sit at Top of Amazon’s Best Sellers List appeared first on Law Street.

Refugees from around the globe, and visa-holders from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia can once again travel to America–for the time being, at least. The window of relief came courtesy of James Robart, a federal district court judge in Seattle, Washington. On Friday, Robart granted a temporary restraining order on President Donald Trump’s recent executive order travel ban, which barred travelers from the seven aforementioned countries–refugees and visitors alike–for various amounts of time.

Trump responded to the injunction by taking the case to federal appeals court–and by tweeting:

The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

While tweeting obviously does not have constitutional authority to overturn the opinion of a federal judge, an appeals court does. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco did not re-instate the travel ban; instead it ordered the Trump Administration to file a brief defending the executive order by Monday at 3 p.m. In its emergency motion filed with the appeals court, which was denied, the administration wrote:

The injunction contravenes the constitutional separation of powers; harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the nation’s elected representative responsible for immigration matters and foreign affairs; and second-guesses the President’s national security judgment about the quantum of risk posed by the admission of certain classes of aliens and the best means of minimizing that risk.

However the appeals court decides to rule on the motion, the losing side, either the Trump Administration or the states of Washington and Minnesota, which filed the initial lawsuit, will likely bring their case to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, Trump continues to lash out at the “so-called judge” Robart, Trump’s surrogates were dispatched to defend him, and Republican and Democratic politicians responded to the president’s apparent disrespect for the judicial branch.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Vice President Mike Pence said Trump has “every right to criticize the other two branches of government.” He added that Trump and millions of Americans “want to see judges that will uphold the law and recognize the authority the president of the United States has under the Constitution to manage who comes into this country.”

In its emergency motion, the administration cited the Immigration Act of 1952 (amended in 1965) as “the framework for deciding which aliens may enter and remain in the United States.” This law, the administration said, gives the executive branch the authority to determine who is welcome to come to America, for refuge or for a visit.

The 1965 law was passed to undo America’s past quotas on immigrants from certain countries, notably Arabs, Africans, and European Jews fleeing the Holocaust. The law broadly established the current procedure for resettling refugees and welcoming immigrants, and the Trump Administration is likely to point to it as proof of the president’s authority to make immigration-related decisions.

As Trump continues to decry the federal courts (“just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril,” he tweeted on Sunday), Democrats and some Republicans are defending judicial authority. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said its “best not to single out judges,” and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), on ABC’s “This Week,” said: “We have people from three different branches of government who take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said Trump “is not a dictator,” and that the Founding Fathers “wanted a strong Congress for the very reason that most of these kinds of things should be done within the scope of lawmaking. This is done within the scope of executive power.” In the coming days, weeks and, most likely, months, federal courts, including the Supreme Court, will test the checks-and-balances system the founders established centuries ago.

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’s Going on with Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

There was a lot going on last night during the Super Bowl. But caught up in the hysteria–somewhere between people pointing out the game’s eery similarities to this past year’s election, the Tom Brady roasting, the Tom Brady adoration, the Lady Gaga jumping gifs, and the commercials that every American loves to hate or hates to love–a ton of people donated a ton of money to various organizations and charities around the country.

Using the hashtag #AGoodGame, people took to Twitter to pledge to donate a certain amount of money every time their team scored a touchdown or a field goal.

Watching #SuperBowl w/ democracy, civil rights, & environment in mind. #AGoodGame for @ACLU @PPact @splcenter @AWIOnline @NatlParkService pic.twitter.com/SZBYScSnah

— Amber Baillon (@Vambaillon) February 5, 2017

$100 to ACLU, $50 to Planned Parenthood and $50 to Standing Rock Sioux. #AGoodGame #SuperBowl @joshgondelman Thanks for the inspiration!

— Kristen Callisto (@HaleiwaHoney) February 6, 2017

5 Brady sacks = $100 to @splcenter, & $100 to @AlbanySAFEProj to help support survivors of sexual assault and DV #AGoodGame @joshgondelman https://t.co/9Ud0OdEtAn

— Bear Brian (@Brian___H) February 6, 2017

I have paid off my #AGoodGame promise to @SavetheChildren. My math looks like this: pic.twitter.com/komMvvdQ3h

— Owen King (@OwenKingwriter) February 6, 2017

#AGoodGame Donating to Boston area women’s shelter @RosiesPlace pic.twitter.com/09WfXr8T94

— Estelle Nickleby (@estenickleby) February 6, 2017

#AGoodGame was started by comedian Josh Gondelman, a writer for “Last Week Tonight” and a lifelong Patriots fan, who, on Thursday, tweeted his intention to support his team while rejecting the politics of some of the organization’s members.

I’ve been a Patriots fan for my whole life but I am way off on the political spectrum from much of the organization. https://t.co/3p3oVKzwkW

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

I’d like to be able to cheer for the team I grew up loving without cheerleading the Trump administration. Is this anyone else?

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

My friend @emma_sandoe and I thought that maybe people who feel ambivalent could donate to a good cause for every Pats FG or TD.

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

It seems like a practical way to do a little good without staging a (small and ineffective) boycott of the Super Bowl.

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

If you have political Patriots fan ambivalence, maybe pledge a little money to a good cause when they score using the hashtag: #AGoodGame

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

Because of Tom Brady’s garbage politics, I’m donating $100 for every Patriots TD and $50 for every FG to the @NAACP_LDF. #AGoodGame

— Josh Gondelman (@joshgondelman) February 3, 2017

The politics of some of the members of the Patriots organization has been a running sub-plot in the NFL this season. In September, a “Make America Great Again” hat was seen in the Patriots’ superstar quarterback Tom Brady’s locker. Brady has also made comments that have quietly alluded to his support of  President Donald Trump.

In November, Patriots coach Bill Belichick was criticized for sending a letter to Trump congratulating him on a “tremendous campaign” and touting him “the ultimate competitor and fighter.”  Additionally, Patriots owner Robert Kraft has described Trump as a “a very close friend” and was seen at Trump Tower a week after the election ended.

In an interview with Esquire, Gondelman said he would have felt “weird” not acknowledging the relationship these members of the Patriots have with Trump. “I have this large social media reach, and fortunately a little money I could donate to a good cause,” Gondelman said, “So it just felt like to do that would be putting my money where my mouth is.”

While donation totals from #AGoodGame have not been collected yet, last night’s surge of generosity follows a trend that has sprung up in response to some of Trump’s policies. At the end of the weekend Trump’s polarizing travel ban took effect, CNN’s Brian Stelter reported that the ACLU had received 356,306 donations totaling over $24.1 million–five times more than the organization usually receives in a whole year. Planned Parenthood also has seen a rise in donations. According to The Atlantic, Planned Parenthood received 80,000 donations in the three days after the election.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Anti-Trump Super Bowl Donation Campaign Raises Money for Various Organizations appeared first on Law Street.

With tensions rising in America, shade levels have been rising in direct proportion. A tiny bit of this shade and subtly savagery is coming from former official Obama White House photographer Pete Souza’s Instagram account.

Souza, who was also the official White House photographer for the Reagan White House, has been taking to his new Instagram account (the account he used during the Obama administration is now archived) to post photos from his time with the Obama White House, while also throwing some shade at President Donald Trump.

Many people and outlets have pointed out Souza’s shade, from people on Twitter to CNN and Teen Vogue.

Omg you need to follow @PeteSouza on Instagram. The subtle trump shade…these captions are SAVAGE. #ObamaLegacy #whitehouse44 pic.twitter.com/xxLOEQv8qH

— Vallari Ajgaonkar (@VallAjgaonkar) February 2, 2017

Ain’t no shade like Pete Souza shade cus Pete Souza shade has amazing composition and lighting. https://t.co/QuBl7er9AT

— The Happy Feminist (@HappyFeminist) February 2, 2017

I am living for @PeteSouza‘s instagram trolling

— Megan Hess (@mhess4) February 3, 2017

Let’s take a little dive into this man’s glorious new Instagram feed, and rank his pointed posts by shade and savagery.

#5: Immigration Ban Posts

Many people criticized President Trump’s immigration ban last weekend that incited protests in different airports across the country. This criticism has been direct and heated. But Souza is far too shady to directly address the situation. Instead, Souza just posted two pictures relating to the refugee situation to respond. The first: a picture of Obama with a young refugee. The second: a picture of a six-year-old boy, Alex, who was so concerned about the well-being of a Syrian refugee that he wanted him to be his brother.

Why do these posts take last place on the list? Well, that’s because, while they’re perfectly shady, they’re a little too heart-tugging and emotional to be petty enough to be characterized as “savage.” Hundreds of stories have been written about the immigration ban and its effects on not only refugees but on American citizens, and these posts from Souza point to the perceived human costs associated with Trump’s executive order. These posts are a perfect introduction to the shade that Souza is throwing on Instagram, but they aren’t totally indicative of how subtly biting Souza’s posts can get.

Talking with a young refugee at a Dignity for Children Foundation classroom in 2015.

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 29, 2017 at 5:16am PST

Remember Alex, the six-year-old boy who wrote President Obama a letter about the Syrian boy photographed in the ambulance. Alex visited the Oval Office with his family the day after the election. "Dear President Obama, Remember the boy who was picked up by the ambulance in Syria? Can you please go get him and bring him to [my home]? Park in the driveway or on the street and we will be waiting for you guys with flags, flowers, and balloons. We will give him a family and he will be our brother. Catherine, my little sister, will be collecting butterflies and fireflies for him. In my school, I have a friend from Syria, Omar, and I will introduce him to Omar. We can all play together. We can invite him to birthday parties and he will teach us another language. We can teach him English too, just like my friend Aoto from Japan. Please tell him that his brother will be Alex who is a very kind boy, just like him. Since he won't bring toys and doesn't have toys Catherine will share her big blue stripy white bunny. And I will share my bike and I will teach him how to ride it. I will teach him additions and subtractions in math. And he [can] smell Catherine's lip gloss penguin which is green. She doesn't let anyone touch it. Thank you very much! I can't wait for you to come! Alex 6 years old "

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 30, 2017 at 2:37pm PST

#4: Australia 

Now we’re getting into slightly more savage territory.

This Souza post shows Obama sharing a hearty and chummy laugh with the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia at the ASEAN gala dinner last September.

Talking with then Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand, left, and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia last September at the ASEAN gala dinner.

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Feb 2, 2017 at 2:21pm PST

Did Souza post this just because he thought the lighting was particularly good in this shot? Absolutely not. This was posted in the midst of the new Trump-Australia feud and after The Washington Post reported that the phone call between Trump and Turnbull was somewhat contentious.

Per The Washington Post:

. . . President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refu­gee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.

At one point, Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladi­mir Putin — and that “this was the worst call by far.”

The beauty of this post lies in how subliminal it is. This is a technique that we will see Souza employ for numbers 3 and 2 of our ranking.

#3/#2 (Tie): Mexico and Merrick Garland

We have a tie. We have this tie because these two posts are uniquely shady in their own ways, thus making it impossible to choose which one is superior to the other.

Let’s begin with the Merrick Garland post.

Merrick Garland. Just saying.

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 31, 2017 at 5:28pm PST

For context, Merrick Garland is, of course, the Obama Supreme Court nominee who never received a Senate confirmation hearing. Many people have cried foul over this because Garland was respected by politicians on both sides of the aisle. And last week Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court.

What makes this post so great is the fact that Souza posted this picture of Obama and Vice President Joe Biden with Garland a couple of hours before Trump announced his pick for SCOTUS nominee. The other thing that makes this post great is the simplicity of the caption, especially the second part. “Just saying.”

Just saying. 

This caption is also 100 times better if you read Just saying the same way André 3000 says “Just playin'” after he describes his very specific (read: petty) hope that a pretty but stuck up young woman (Caroline) will speed in her car on the way to the club trying to hurry up to “get some” baller or singer (or somebody like that) and while driving try to put on her makeup in the mirror but because of her inability to multitask she will crash, crash, crash into a ditch.

We then move on to the picture that Souza posted of Obama drinking tequila with Mexico’s president Enrique Peña Nieto.

This one is for Grover. President Obama sampling some tequila with President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico in 2013. @heygrover

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 31, 2017 at 6:18pm PST

This one is pretty self-explanatory. It’s no secret that Trump has a dicey relationship with Nieto (see: border wall). Things seemed to have reached a kind of boiling point the other day when The Washington Post reported that Trump had a heated phone call with Nieto, who canceled a planned meeting with Trump. Then, The Associated Press reported that Trump told Nieto that “he was ready to send U.S. troops to stop “bad hombres down there” unless the Mexican military does more to control them.”

The whole situation with the relationship between Trump and Nieto would make this post go pretty high on the list, but what truly makes it so perfectly shady is what is maybe an unintended feature of the picture. If you will notice, Obama bears a striking resemblance to an insanely popular meme/gif. Click this link to see if you can make the rainbow connection.

#1: Then It Was on Day One…

Congratulations, you’ve made it to the end.

The absolute shadiest/pettiest/subtly savage post Souza has made came on the very first day of Trump’s presidency when Souza took a moment to comment on some of the aesthetic changes to the Oval Office.

I like these drapes better than the new ones. Don't you think?

A photo posted by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Jan 21, 2017 at 7:36pm PST

The drapes that hang behind the Resolute desk are now gold, which isn’t much of a surprise because, if you didn’t know, our president is Donald Trump.

Captured this last night as @POTUS @realDonaldTrump sits at his desk in the Oval Office for the first time in the @WhiteHouse. #POTUS45 pic.twitter.com/BObUKXwIir

— Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) January 21, 2017

Why does this post take the number one spot? Because the whole thing is about drapes. That’s it–drapes. How petty do you have to be to go after a man’s choice of drapes? And imagine how shady you have to be to go after the drapes of the man who replaced your former boss.

Also, this was posted on Day 1 of Trump’s presidency. Day. 1.  This is a day after anarchists took to the streets to set a limo ablaze and bust the window of a Starbucks and the same day millions of women around the globe marched in protest of the new president and his problematic views and behavior, and this man was ruthless enough to take to his Instagram account to go in on the new president’s new drapes. Souza is audacious. This is like if “I don’t know her” were an Instagram post. This is why this post is and will always be the most petty/shady/savage post Souza will ever make on Instagram.

There are no signs that Souza will stop posting his shadiness on Instagram any time soon. Not only does he post pictures with captions that comment on our current political situation, but he also posts a ton of pictures that are objectively beautiful that were taken throughout his career as a photographer.

It’s just too bad that Souza is no longer around the Obamas to take a better-framed and less-grainy photo of this iconic moment in the life of the former president of these United States:

Obama’s on vacation with the hat backwards. He’s never coming back. pic.twitter.com/RUakcwwgtT

— Philip Lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) February 1, 2017

You can follow Pete Souza on Instagram @petesouza.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post A Profile in Shade: A Ranking of Pete Souza’s Instagram Posts appeared first on Law Street.

If you were living under a rock last week, Beyoncé announced she’s pregnant with twins! But that’s probably not all that you missed. Trump’s hiring freeze could affect lawyers, a mosque attack in Quebec left six dead, and we’ve got a guide to finding the best value law school for you. ICYMI, check out the best of the week below!

How to Find the Best Value Law School for You

Each year, tens of thousands of law school students graduate, take the bar (or choose not to), and look for work. But law school is not cheap, and it’s no secret that a lot of students take out massive student loans in order to finance their education. According to the most recent data from the American Bar Association, average debt for a student who attends a private institution is $122,158, and average debt for a student who attends a public law school is $84,600. Check out our guide on how to find the best value law school for you.

How Will Trump’s Hiring Freeze Affect New Lawyers?

On January 23, President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all government hiring. The move drew criticism from those who argue the freeze would disrupt crucial government services and programs. The freeze prohibits every federal agency, excluding those related to the military, public safety, and public health, from hiring new employees.

Attack at Quebec Mosque Leaves Six Dead, Five in Critical Condition

A shooting at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada on Sunday evening left six people dead, and over a dozen people injured; at least five are in critical condition. Witnesses said two gunmen, both dressed in black, entered the mosque and began firing indiscriminately into the crowd of worshippers. Early Monday morning, police said they took two men into custody, but a few hours later, said one of the suspects was a witness, and the other is now considered the sole gunman.

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.

During his campaign, President Donald Trump promised to create 25 million new jobs over the coming decade, many of which he claimed would come from the revival of U.S. manufacturing. Trump is firm in his belief that low taxes and protectionist trade policies will create the jobs he promised, in spite of the fact that jobs in manufacturing have been in steady decline for decades. However, even if manufacturing does return to U.S. shores, automation means longterm blue-collar job growth, as prophesied by Trump, is unlikely. Trump is by no means ideologically suited to oversee the inevitable march towards automation.

Protectionists on both the left and right argue that free trade has allowed companies to expand profit margins by moving their manufacturing bases to the global south, where labor costs are significantly lower, and finished products exported to the global north for consumption avoid the costs of high tariffs. As manufacturing automates and the cost of labor becomes irrelevant, the global south will lose comparative advantage. China’s shift towards automation and their drive to create a consumer economy is indicative of the dwindling labor advantage in the global south.

Increasingly, it will make sense for firms to establish automated factories closer to their consumer base as a means of cutting transportation costs. Therefore, manufacturing could be returning to the U.S. irrespective of Trump’s policies. However, the return of manufacturing to the U.S. would not necessarily imply the preservation of existing blue-collar jobs or the creation of new ones.

The degree to which automation replaces human employees remains to be seen, but continued automation is generally considered inevitable. At the current rate, a jobless future could be a reality for many. But current policies would leave them destitute. Discussions surrounding automation have prompted many to argue in favor of reinventing social programs. Social programs that ensure a Universal Basic Income (UBI), a college education, healthcare, and housing are necessary if increasingly automated societies hope to ensure the wellbeing of all. However, such policies would be in diametric opposition to Trump’s economic perspectives.

Over the past few months, Trump has promised to slash government spending–particularly on social services. Trump believes welfare programs will be irrelevant in his “dynamic booming economy” where taxes are low, tariffs are high, and jobs are plentiful. However, if the president truly hopes his people are able to find long term employment in manufacturing, or any other industry, he had better think about developing skilled workers by investing in public schools and free college tuition. More likely, Trump will lead the “race to the bottom,” regardless of whether or not he revives U.S. manufacturing. Automation is a reality Trump has not considered, nor is he ideologically suited to do so.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Trump Prepared for Automated Manufacturing? appeared first on Law Street.

On November 30, 2016, the Colombian Congress ratified a long awaited peace deal between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). After 52 years of fighting and months of negotiations in Havana, Cuba, FARC agreed to permanently put down arms and reinvent itself as a mainstream political party. America’s involvement in the conflict is longstanding. While President Barack Obama’s promises of aid were integral to the action plan for peace, policy shifts under President Donald Trump could jeopardize peace in Colombia.

The Alliance

Colombia is widely considered America’s strongest ally in Latin America. The alliance between the two states is built on Colombia’s entrenched and complex domestic conflict. Though first motivated by an ideological war with communism, the partnership would come to be defined by the U.S.’s war on drugs. President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971. Rather than addressing domestic demand for drugs, the U.S. government chose to wage war against those producing and trafficking drugs. As a result, Colombia became a focal point for the U.S.’s anti-drug policies. For decades, the Colombian government has received American military and financial support.

Over the years, American interference has undoubtedly contributed to the escalation and complication of the conflict in Colombia. Less than a decade ago, the U.S. was engaging in covert operations against FARC leaders, often in violation of international law. However, in a rare move away from traditional security approaches, the Obama Administration began pushing for peace between the Colombian government and FARC as early as 2009.

In 2015, after a turbulent fews years, Colombian and FARC representatives hammered out the details of a deal which was ultimately defeated in a referendum. A slightly reworked deal was approved by the Colombian congress in late November. The U.S. took the backseat throughout the negotiation process, but a $450 million aid package from the Obama administration was crucial for peace.

A Shifting Stance?

Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, Senior Associate for the Andes at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), said that the aid package was necessary for peace. The primary purpose of the package is to develop alternative livelihoods for coca growers. Under Trump, there is no guarantee that this aid package will arrive as promised, if at all. The Trump Administration has already placed all ongoing foreign aid under review. Trump has also taken direct action on specific aid packages. In his first week, Trump halted a $221 million aid package to the Palestinian Authority and reinstated the “Mexico City Policy,” which bans federal funding to international groups that work to endorse pro-choice policies or provide services related to abortion. There is no guarantee that the money promised under Obama will be delivered under Trump.

The Trump Administration clearly intends to impose conservative policies on foreign aid. Whether or not the Trump Administration will cut off aid to Colombia remains to be seen, and the White House has said little on the matter. However, when asked about the peace deal during his confirmation process, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson expressed his support for the long-standing militaristic policy known as Plan Colombia. He went on to say he “would review the details of Colombia’s recent peace agreement, and determine the extent to which the United States should continue to support it.” Tillerson’s expressed support for Plan Colombia and his ambiguous stance on the peace deal are cause for concern.

Tillerson’s reluctance to commit to peace in Colombia not only puts the deal with FARC in doubt but it could jeopardize future peace talks. While the agreement between FARC and the Colombian government is a major step on the road to peace, these two actors do not encapsulate the conflict. The conflict in Colombia involves a variety of right-wing paramilitary and leftist guerrilla groups. Though FARC has been the major and ever-present belligerent in the conflict, there are more hurdles to jump before Colombia can guarantee total peace. Preliminary peace talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN), another leftist revolutionary group, are already underway. Even if the Trump administration chooses not to obstruct the deal with FARC, the Colombian government may not be able to rely on the kind of support it received from the Obama Administration when looking ahead.

Finally, it is important to note why the first draft of the peace deal with FARC was narrowly defeated in the referendum. Though less affected by the war than those living in rural conflict zones, urban Colombians voted down a deal that they believed to be far too lenient on the guerrillas. Were Trump to oppose the current peace deal, he may well find support from a sizable portion of Colombians who feel their government should not be negotiating with FARC or any other rebel group. This move would not be unthinkable considering Trump’s rhetoric concerning terrorist groups has been unapologetically aggressive, and both FARC and the ELN remain on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

If Trump is unwilling to continue Obama’s move away from traditional security policies in Colombia, the peace process in Colombia could stall. Even if Trump upholds existing deals and promises between the U.S., Colombia, and FARC, the Colombian government may have to conduct future peace negotiations without American financial or diplomatic support.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does Trump Mean for Peace in Colombia? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that blocks people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days. All refugees will be barred for 120 days, Syrian refugees are blocked indefinitely. Thousands of people have hit the nation’s airports and city centers to protest Trump’s order. Business and religious leaders have spoken out against the travel ban. Congressmen–Democrats and many Republicans–have decried the move. But still, there are many people in America who are frightened, and there are plenty who support the executive order.

According to a recent Reuters poll, nearly half (49 percent) of the country supports the order. It’s largely split by party lines. A majority of Republicans (over 75 percent) support the ban, while roughly 20 percent of Democrats do. The poll, which gathered responses from 453 Democrats and 478 Republicans, also found that 31 percent of respondents say the ban makes them feel “more safe.” About one quarter said it makes them feel “less safe.”

Cheryl Hoffman, a 46-year-old living in Sumerduck, Virginia, told Reuters that she understands America is a nation built on immigration. “But I’m worried that refugees are coming in and being supported by my tax dollars,” she said. For some, however, Trump’s order is more than a penny-saving decision. It’s about keeping Muslims out of the U.S.

“Every story about a Muslim immigrant is that they are as American as apple pie,” Sal Oliva, a hotel worker and Uber courier from Staten Island, New York told The New York Times. “But I’m sorry, Islam is no friend of L.G.B.T. people.” Oliva, who is gay, added: “When Islam meets gay people in Somalia or wherever, they get thrown off the roof. And you expect them to be different when they move here? You can’t expect people to absorb our values.”

The Reuters poll also found that most Americans (56 percent) do not support preferential treatment for persecuted Christian minorities who live in the seven countries affected by the order. Trump contends the order has nothing to do with religion, and is not a “Muslim ban,” as many critics have been calling it. “This is not about religion,” Trump said in a statement on Friday. “This is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

Michael Bower, a 35 year-old who lives in Seattle, thinks the outrage over the order is a bit much. “Let’s just take a breather,” Bower told The New York Times. “Take a little time out. Let’s get the smart people in here and formulate a plan.” According to polling, nearly half of the country agrees.

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 How Many Americans Support Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

Iran’s defense minister confirmed on Wednesday what the U.S. and Israel suspected earlier this week: Iran conducted a missile test over the weekend. Iran has launched missile tests since it struck a nuclear agreement with the U.S. and other world powers last summer, but this was the first to occur under President Donald Trump. At an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, delivered an urgent diatribe, calling the missile launch “absolutely unacceptable.”

“The United States is not naïve,” Haley said after the meeting. “We’re not going to stand by. You’re going to see us call them out as we said we would, and you are also going to see us act accordingly.” What, if any, concrete steps the U.S. can take to reign in Iran is unclear. But the council said it would refer the case to its sanctions committee; it did the same after Iran’s missile test last year, which resulted in no further action. 

Iran’s latest missile launch, which according to U.S. officials traveled over 600 miles before exploding, could signal a new tenuous chapter in the Iran-U.S. relationship. During Trump’s first week, he issued an executive order that incensed Iran and many of its Middle Eastern neighbors. The order suspends the U.S. refugee program for 120 days–refugees from Syria will be barred indefinitely–and keeps citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries (including Iran) from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days.

Last summer, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, along with five other world powers, struck a contentious deal with Iran. Under the deal, sanctions on Iran were lifted, and Iran scaled back its nuclear program. Iran could still use nuclear power for energy purposes, however. Trump has questioned the deal, raising speculations about whether he will enforce it more strictly or abandon it entirely. During his confirmation hearing, James Mattis, the newly confirmed defense secretary, said that while the deal is flawed, the U.S. should stick to it.

Iran contends its missiles are not equipped to carry nuclear warheads, so its test does not violate the agreement or a subsequent UN resolution that directed Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.” Iran’s foreign minister said the tests are “exclusively for legitimate defense.” National Security Advisor Michael Flynn responded on Wednesday: “As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

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 How Will the U.S. Respond to Iran’s Latest Missile Test? appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Finance Committee Republicans took matters into their own hands to confirm two of President Donald Trump’s nominees.

In an effort to advance Trump’s nominees for Treasury secretary and secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services–Steven Mnuchin and Congressman Tom Price–the Republicans on the panel of the Senate Finance Committee voted in a surprise meeting on Wednesday morning to change the procedural rules that outlined that Democrats must be in attendance to vote on the nominees.  With this rule change, Mnuchin and Price were approved by the committee in a 14-0 vote, allowing for the nominations to go to the full Senate for approval.

Where are @SenateFinance Dems this morning? Standing with the ppl of OH and others hurt by the abusive practices of Mnuchin’s bank. pic.twitter.com/AvLpnxyJko

— Sherrod Brown (@SenSherrodBrown) February 1, 2017

This move comes a day after Democrats on the panel of the Senate Finance Committee staged a boycott of Mnuchin and Price’s hearings, which presented an obstacle considering the standing rule was that at least one Democrat had to be present in order for any votes to take place. The boycott was led by Senators Sherrod Brown and Roy Wyden in an effort to push for more vetting of both Mnuchin and Price, both of whom the senators claim gave misleading testimonies and responses during the committee hearings about their investments and foreclosure practices, respectively.

.@sensherrodbrown on why Senate Dems boycotting Price and Mnuchin committee votes. https://t.co/qr5oT2gOHX

— Andrew Rafferty (@AndrewNBCNews) January 31, 2017

The Democratic senators outlined their concerns and request for further questioning in a letter sent to the committee’s chairman, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, this morning.

Here are the questions @SenateFinance Democrats want answers to from Price & Mnuchin pic.twitter.com/jo2NOyq484

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) February 1, 2017

Talking to reporters on Tuesday afternoon, Hatch relayed his annoyance with the boycotting senators. “I’m very disappointed in this kind of crap . . . This is the most pathetic thing I’ve seen in my whole time in the United States Senate,” Hatch said.

Even after the rule change and the approval of Trump’s two nominees, Hatch still took time to go after the committee’s Democrats for their boycott, telling reporters that the boycott was “unprecedented obstruction” and a “cheap political ploy.” However, the boycott might not be as unprecedented as Hatch claims it to be, considering, as many have pointed out, the Republicans boycotted in 2013 to block the confirmation of Gina McCarthy as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The rule change and verbal sparring in the media between Finance Committee members just adds to the rising tension between members of Congress. Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted no on the confirmation of Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary, who is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s wife. Earlier today, things got contentious between Democratic Senator Al Franken and GOP Senator John Cornyn during a Judiciary Committee meeting when Cornyn took exception to Franken calling out absent GOP Senator Ted Cruz. In addition, Democratic senators on the Environmental and Public Works Committee–taking a cue from their colleagues on the Finance Committee–have staged a boycott of the vote to confirm Scott Pruitt as the head of the EPA.

Al Franken calls out absent Ted Cruz & Cruz’s GOP colleague John Cornyn objects. Franken: “Well, he should be here.” pic.twitter.com/zjMBDhshnJ

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) February 1, 2017

And this is only Day 12 of Trump’s presidency.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans Change Finance Committee Rules to Push Through Nominees appeared first on Law Street.

While President Barack Obama’s time in office has now come to a close, his environmental legacy has the potential to last far beyond his eight years as president. The Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to protect and defend the environment, championing several initiatives. Some key accomplishments, however, include the establishment of more national monuments than any other president, signing the historic Paris Climate Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, banning drilling in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean, and unveiling the Clean Power Plan. Additionally, Obama raised fuel-efficiency standards, invested in green energy, and created the Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators. Whether these policies stand the test of time, however, may depend heavily on the actions of future administrations.

National Monuments

While Obama’s time in office was winding down, he was still designating sites as national monuments. On January 12, 2017, Obama named five new national monuments. That brought his total number during his presidency to 34—more than any other president. Moreover, in December 2016, he created two national monument sites in Utah and Nevada. The Bears Ears National Monument, which protects 1.35 million acres of land in southwest Utah and two geological formations, was particularly controversial; five Native nations had petitioned Obama to grant federal monument protections to the area.

“Bears Ears” Courtesy of Bureau of Land Management : License: (CC BY 2.0)

Over the course of his time in office, Obama utilized the Antiquities Act–a law signed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906–multiple times to create the monuments. The Act gives the President of the United States the authority to set aside land to protect important historic, cultural, and ecological sites without approval from Congress. In total, Obama protected more than 550 million acres. That is more than double the amount that Roosevelt, a well-known conservationist, conserved himself.

A large portion of the land Obama protected is covered by water. He created and expanded several large national marine monuments. One notable monument is the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Monument, a large collection of coral reefs, underwater preserves, and tiny islands roughly 1,000 miles off the coast of Hawaii. Bush had originally established the monument in 2009 at 55.6 million acres; Obama then expanded it by 261.3 million acres in 2014. Obama also quadrupled the size of Hawaii’s Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, which is home to more than 7,000 species of wildlife, many of which are endangered.

Ban on Arctic and Atlantic Drilling

In addition to the significant acreage of water Obama protected as national monuments, his administration also banned arctic drilling. Using the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Obama withdrew hundreds of millions of acres of federally-owned land in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean from new offshore and gas drilling in December 2016. The Act allowed for Obama to act unilaterally, but no president has ever utilized the law to permanently protect land. In particular, large portions of the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic and canyons in the Atlantic from Massachusetts to Virginia are now off-limits to oil exploration.

“Sea Ice in the Chukchi Sea” Courtesy of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center : License: (CC BY 2.0)

The Atlantic Ocean already had a five-year moratorium in place, and the protection of the canyons means that most of the eastern seaboard will not be drilled for oil. The seas in the Arctic are a habitat for several endangered species, including species that are candidates for an endangered species listing, and the canyons protected are largely recognized as biodiversity hotspots. If the ban is upheld by the courts, about 98 percent of the waters in the Arctic would be protected from oil exploration and drilling. In a presidential memorandum, Obama stated that these areas are extremely vulnerable to oil spills and have irreplaceable value for marine animals, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and scientific research–making the Arctic Waters a prime area for protection

Paris Climate Agreement

The Paris Climate Agreement was the first of its kind–a global consensus to combat the effects of climate change. Its central aim is to strengthen the response to threats of climate change and keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. The agreement also aims to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by limiting the burning of fossil fuels and assist in preventing further floods, droughts, catastrophic storms, and rising sea levels.

In a rare moment of consensus, both the U.S. and China ratified the agreement, formally committing the world’s two biggest economies to curb climate change. The terms allow countries to determine independently which strategies will be most successful in attaining climate goals. While some of the aspects are binding and some are not, Obama’s ratification of the deal demonstrated a bold move by his administration to make protecting the planet a priority in years to come.

Clean Power Plan

President Obama’s most historic environmental initiative, perhaps, is the Clean Power Plan, which is designed to aggressively shrink America’s carbon footprint. The plan outlined the first national standards to specifically address pollution from power plants. In particular, the plan cuts significant amounts of carbon pollution and other pollutants from power plants that are responsible for soot and smog that have an adverse effect on human health. The plan is long-term, allowing companies to remain in business while making the changes needed to comply with the new standards.

The Supreme Court issued a “stay” in February 2016,  temporarily halting the plan from moving forward. However, it is set to be fully in place by 2030, with carbon pollution 32 percent below 2005 levels, sulfur dioxide pollution 90 percent lower, and nitrogen oxides 72 percent lower. This reduction in greenhouse gases is specifically aimed at combating the dangerous effects of such pollution on the climate. Additionally, the entire plan itself is expected to contribute a variety of positive economic effects–climate benefits of roughly $20 billion, health benefits in the $14-$34 billion range, and total net benefits of approximately $26-$45 billion.

“Power plant” Courtesy of Spiros Vathis : License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

What’s Next?

Despite the great measures Obama undertook to protect the environment, it is quite possible that some of his environmental policies will be overturned by a new administration. The ban on drilling may or may not be able to be overturned by President Trump, but a Republican-controlled Congress could move to rescind the withdrawal of federal lands from oil and gas exploration. However, such a move might not be successful, given a close reading of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

National monuments have never been removed by a subsequent president, but President Trump has reportedly stated that he is open to the idea of doing so. As for the Paris Climate Agreement, Trump has made it clear that he wants to withdraw America’s participation in the historic deal. Arguments that the agreement will be disastrous for the economy and American industry are at the forefront of opponents’ minds. While Trump considers withdrawing the U.S. from the agreement, China, India, Germany, the EU, and the UK have all reaffirmed their commitments to curb emissions. China’s President, Xi Jinping, even stated that removing the U.S. from the agreement will endanger future generations. Furthermore, if other countries continue to invest heavily in clean energy, then money, jobs, and technology are sure to stream into those industries, perhaps leaving the U.S. behind.

The fate of the Clean Power Plan also hangs in the balance under the new administration. Many opposed to the plan have already urged President Trump to sign an executive order that rescinds the rule and tell the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to enforce it. However, attorneys general from a variety of states have noted that “history and legal precedent strongly suggest that such an action would not stand up in court.” The plan is also vulnerable to the Congressional Review Act, which would allow Congress to nullify the regulations. For now, the Clean Power Plan remains in limbo.

Overall, most of Obama’s environmental legacy will be decided by the courts, not by a particular administration. With more than 100 judicial vacancies across the country as Trump takes office, along with a vacant Supreme Court seat, the courtroom is going to be the arena in which environmental policies could be dismantled. In particular circuits with more than one vacant seat, specific areas of environmental regulation may be rolled back immensely; for example, the Second Circuit has become a critical arena for determining water regulation under the Clean Water Act and the Ninth Circuit has a profound impact on endangered specifies. Environmental groups are already preparing to take any anti-climate policies or actions to court, along with attorneys general from multiple states.

Conclusion

Obama’s presidency was clearly focused on environmental protection and combating catastrophic effects of climate change in the coming years. As commander-in-chief, Obama did an extensive amount of work to ensure the environment is viable and sustainable far into the future. Whether his efforts will be unraveled in the new Trump Administration and Republican-controlled legislative branch, however, is yet to be seen. Overall, Obama’s actions certainly elevated the environment and climate change to a much higher level of importance, and his environmental legacy may have him remembered as one of the top environmental presidents in history.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Look Back at the Obama Administration’s Environmental Legacy appeared first on Law Street.

From documenting human rights abuses in China to investigating political corruption scandals in Nigeria, Voice of America (VOA) often serves as the only source of global news in nations with restrictive press freedoms. Aired in more than 100 countries, translated in 61 languages, and seen by over 278 million viewers worldwide, today VOA is the largest provider of multilingual content aimed at promoting democratic interests abroad. However, recent structural changes within the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the independent agency responsible for overseeing U.S. government information services, may result in VOA becoming more of a household name in 2017.

A new provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2017 fiscal year has replaced the BBG’s bipartisan nine-member board with a single CEO selected by the president. The BBG supervises not only VOA, but also Television Martí, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. Certain political analysts now worry that President Donald Trump could potentially capitalize on the provision and use the BBG’s vast network to combine his television background and foreign policy interests. According to Politico, “Trump is finally getting his Trump TV–financed by taxpayers to the tune of $800 million per year.”

Voice of America’s Origins

Originally VOA began as an alternative to Nazi and Japanese wartime propaganda in 1942. However, under the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, the network was forbidden from broadcasting in the United States until 2013 out of fears that it would inundate Americans with propaganda. Despite the ban being lifted during Obama’s presidency, speculations over VOA’s autonomy stem from such historic origins.

Nowadays, VOA claims that it functions as “surrogate media” in countries where state-run media supersedes the free press. Former president Gerald Ford tried to honor the agency’s editorial independence in 1976 by enacting a VOA public charter. To distance the agency from claims of propaganda, the bill solidified VOA’s commitment to promoting freedom of the press and transparent reporting on American foreign policy, according to the VOA website.

Along those lines, the BBG launched in 1994 after the International Broadcasting Act passed. Designed to function as an editorial “firewall” between American policymakers and journalists, the board was founded to prevent the State Department, White House, and other agencies from interfering with the news agency. As previously mentioned, historically the BBG has been comprised of nine members tasked with preserving the “accuracy, balance, comprehensiveness and objectivity” of the United State’s transnational media operations. Originally it was part of the U.S. Information Agency, but it became an independent agency in 1999 with the legislation of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.

Criticisms & Legal Changes Threatening Editorial Independence

From allegations of ineffective public diplomacy to a poorly managed $750 million budget of taxpayer dollars, the BBG is no stranger to criticism. In 2012, the board was ranked as one of the most poorly managed federal government agencies to work for due to its “hostile board dynamics,” and opponents claim the BBG fails to compete with Russia’s RT or Qatar’s Al Jazeera. According to one report, the former nine-member council was “incompetent, useless, and perhaps fatally broken” due to unqualified board members not taking the job seriously.

The new provision, which passed by a 92-7 vote in the Senate led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA), replaces the board of directors with a presidential-appointed CEO who will serve a three-year term and report directly to the White House. A Washington Post article speculates that checks and balances may be eliminated by placing power into the hands of an individual chosen by the highest authority. With Trump officially in office, the story raises the concern that he could take advantage of the new amendment to elect another representative from the transpiring alt-right movement (or even elect an official with close ties to the Kremlin) to oversee the BBG.

Roots for Concern in Trump’s Administration.

According to NPR, Trump’s “attitude toward the press veers wildly depending on the favorability of the treatment he receives.” Trump, who is known for lashing out at mainstream media outlets for critical coverage, set an alarming standard when he selected Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. The appointment left many Americans fearful of what President Trump could accomplish with the spokesman of the alt-right movement as his lead accomplice, according to a New York Times article. Bannon previously served as executive chairman of hyper-conservative Breitbart News, whose columns “reflect abhorrence for so-called mainstream media organizations” such as CNN. Watchdog groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League condemned Trump’s decision based on Bannon’s platform of white nationalism and accusations of anti-Semitism.

After choosing Bannon, President Trump is expected to appoint a divergent political figure to represent  U.S. media abroad as the head of the BBG. Whoever Trump ends up appointing as the new CEO will have the ability to hire and fire media personnel at will, in addition to controlling the budget with unparalleled authority. Although the prospective CEO is also expected to choose their own five-member cabinet, they won’t have any statutory power. Skeptics from the Washington Post are saying that VOA could someday rival the Kremlin in terms of lack of oversight.

“Congress unwittingly just gave President-elect Trump unchecked control of all U.S. media outlets,” said Michael Kempner, a Democratic member of the board who was appointed by President Barack Obama and was a Hillary Clinton donor. “No president, either Democrat or Republican, should have that kind of control. It’s a public jewel. Its independence is what makes it so credible.”

Conclusion

While credible concerns have arisen over VOA’s new Trump leadership, “Trump TV” may in fact already be here. Conservative media outlet Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN) is often referenced using the moniker after live streaming nearly all of Trump’s events and extensively covering his campaign. In December, the new 24-hour network announced it will have access to White House press briefings, raising questions about whether President Trump intends to circumvent traditional media by allowing a non-credentialed reporter to ask questions during briefings. Regardless, Trump still has the BBG and VOA in his pocket. While VOA never managed to fulfill its potential as an American propaganda tool before, it very well could under Trump’s presidency.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Will Voice of America Become ‘Trump TV’? appeared first on Law Street.

When Donald Trump signed an executive order that banned travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, it came as a shock to most people. All of a sudden, families were stranded abroad, students couldn’t return to school, and refugees from war zones were denied entry. But immigration lawyers had suspected this was coming, based on rumors from the White House, and had already begun to prepare. Last Wednesday, a group of lawyers from the Urban Justice Center called for additional attorneys who could volunteer at airports where refugees were scheduled to arrive, in case an order like the one that came on Friday was announced. When that exact thing happened, lawyers willing to volunteer headed to airports across the country.

In New York, Andre Segura, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) arrived at JFK International Airport and said that one section of the airport was completely flooded by lawyers. “There were attorneys from numerous major law firms, nonprofits, all working together,” he said. “I’ve never seen that immediate coming together of teams to start filing actions to try to protect people.” Thousands of Americans protested outside airports, as lawyers were inside trying to talk to family members of detained travelers and offer their legal services pro bono. Many of these lawyers didn’t sleep all night and didn’t eat. Pictures on social media showed them sitting on floors, with laptops and phones connected to the airport’s power outlets.

Please RETWEET this tweet

Lawyers volunteering their time & knowledge to help free those wrongfully detained at #JFK #MuslimBan pic.twitter.com/Zat5mVToci

— #HeWillNotDivideUs (@HWNDUS) January 29, 2017

On Saturday night, Federal Judge Ann Donnelly announced that people with valid visas could not be sent back to where they came from, as there “is imminent danger” that there will be “substantial and irreparable injury” if they are sent back. Big crowds of people had gathered outside the courthouse and cheered the decision, but the lawyers’ work had just started. The judge’s ruling only specifically said not to send travelers back, but did not say that the detained were free to enter the U.S.

On Sunday, Customs and Border Protection Agents defied the court order, according to several congressmen and lawyers. “Four members of Congress asked CBP officials to enforce a federal court order and were turned away,” wrote Representative Don Beyer on Twitter. In New York, an Iranian Fulbright scholar was put on a plane to be sent back to Iran several hours after the airports had received orders to stop sending people away. She was forced onto an airplane, where she asked the crew to let her out but was ignored. The plane started preparing for takeoff before attorneys finally managed to persuade officials to let the woman out. Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, said on Sunday that CBP agents handcuffed people, forced them onto departing airplanes, and tried to make detainees surrender their green cards.

As New Yorkers we have no tolerance for intolerance and that’s what we’re going to stand up and say. pic.twitter.com/1b85T3bD6h

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) January 29, 2017

One of the most difficult tasks for the lawyers was to determine how many people were in custody, as customs officials wouldn’t provide an answer, despite pressure from congressmen and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office. This meant that the lawyers needed to improvise most of their work, handwriting signs stating “immigration lawyer” in the hope that family members of detained people would approach them for help. Many lawyers were also shocked by what they were witnessing. “I’ve never seen anything like this in my practice. Maybe if we look back to Chinese exclusion laws in the 1800s,” said one of the volunteer lawyers, Jonathan Mulligan.

I repeat: A FIVE YEAR OLD BOY was detained and kept from his mother at a US airport. In our name. And Team Trump wonders why the outcry?

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) January 29, 2017

Some volunteer lawyers were physically at the airports, but other lawyers worked on litigation from their offices. “I was sitting at my desk working on a template habeas petition that could be used by lawyers at airports all around the country,” said Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director of the ACLU. Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrant Rights Project, said getting together the paperwork that led to the judge’s stay was not an easy task; they didn’t have anything prepared in advance but had to rush to get something together when Trump’s order came.

And even after the judge’s order, confusion ruled at airports. On Monday it was still unclear how many people remained detained. Although the Department of Homeland Security claimed that everyone had been released, attorneys say that claim is impossible to verify, as the department still hasn’t released a list of names. Judge Donnelly also ordered government attorneys to hand the ACLU a complete list of names of those who were detained, but they have yet to comply. In Washington D.C., some lawyers who were told there were no detainees left at the airport suspect that they have secretly been taken to detention centers, despite the court order.

We are being told there aren’t any there. We also believe they are being taken to detention facilities. Updates when we get them. https://t.co/zuCHaLD9yE

— Mirriam Seddiq (@mirriam71) January 30, 2017

But a tweet by the volunteer group at JFK suggests that only one person was still in custody late Sunday night. Though those numbers are not officially confirmed, it seems hopeful, largely thanks to the hard work of these lawyers.

Lawyers at #NoBanJFK still going strong. #NoBanUSA#NotOnOurWatchpic.twitter.com/AfMh3LU112

— NoBanJFK (@nobanjfk) January 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post Lawyers Rush to Help Travelers as Confusion Continues appeared first on Law Street.