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

New Report Likens Texas Solitary Confinement to Torture

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

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

— Haley Samsel (@haley_samsel) April 27, 2017

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

What do banned airport leggings and messed up immigration policies have in common? They are both stirring up some controversy, topping the list of stories our readers couldn’t get enough of last week. ICYMI, catch up on these top stories with Law Street’s best of the week below!

Seattle Joins the Sanctuary Cities Fight

Seattle sued the Trump Administration on Wednesday over its strict immigration policies, and its threats to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. Arguing that the administration’s warnings are unconstitutional, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said federal authorities “cannot force our local police officials to be involved in federal immigration activities.”

United Prevents Girls Wearing Leggings from Boarding Flight

United Airlines is receiving criticism, after it was reported that two young girls were prohibited from boarding a flight because they were wearing leggings. The girls were reportedly traveling from Denver to Minneapolis when three of them were stopped for their outfits. One changed out of the leggings and was let on the flight, and the other two were prohibited from boarding.

The Other Border: Pushback Against Illegal Immigration in Canada

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.

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.

United Airlines is receiving criticism, after it was reported that two young girls were prohibited from boarding a flight because they were wearing leggings. The girls were reportedly traveling from Denver to Minneapolis when three of them were stopped for their outfits. One changed out of the leggings and was let on the flight, and the other two were prohibited from boarding. Shannon Watts, a woman who was boarding a separate flight, tweeted about the incident:

1) A @united gate agent isn’t letting girls in leggings get on flight from Denver to Minneapolis because spandex is not allowed?

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) March 26, 2017

2) She’s forcing them to change or put dresses on over leggings or they can’t board. Since when does @united police women’s clothing?

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) March 26, 2017

3) Gate agent for flt 215 at 7:55. Said she doesn’t make the rules, just follows them. I guess @united not letting women wear athletic wear?

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) March 26, 2017

United responded to the tweets Watts sent, indicating that the girls were in violation of its “Contract of Carriage” which includes a provision that passengers be “properly clothed.” But the concept that adolescent girls wearing leggings is improper sparked outrage on social media.

A 10-year-old girl in gray leggings. She looked normal and appropriate. Apparently @united is policing the clothing of women and girls. https://t.co/RKsIFoE8pq

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) March 26, 2017

@shannonrwatts Hey, @united, you know how this ends, right? Images of women in leggings tagging you on social as they fly your competition.

— Jenn (@jennvzande) March 26, 2017

@washingtonpost leggings? Like the ones in your advertisement @united hmmmmm… pic.twitter.com/EfIlBRMlEY

— OLIVIA FOX RADIO (@Oliviafoxradio) March 26, 2017

For the record, the girl wearing the leggings was TEN YEARS OLD. Good luck to @united explaining why she looked too sexual.

— Dana Schwartz (@DanaSchwartzzz) March 26, 2017

@united Leggings are business attire for 10 year olds. Their business is being children.

— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) March 26, 2017

United has since stated that the girls were flying as “pass riders,” which are usually family members of United employees. Apparently, those designated as pass riders are held to a stricter dress code that specifically includes a ban on spandex. A local outlet, 9News, spoke to Jonathan Geurin, a spokesperson for United, about this special pass rider dress code:

Pass riders have a stricter dress code to board. The three people involved in the incident did not meet the criteria for pass riders.

Pass riders are considered representatives of United and that extends to the dress code requirements. Casual attire for pass riders is allowed as long as it is in good taste for the environment.

As an example, Guerin says flip flops are not allowed for pass riders.

9NEWS asked to see the dress code policy for pass riders. Guerin says the information is part of an internal policy and will not be released at this time.

But that concept seems odd–it’s hard to believe that anyone would have mistaken pre-teen girls for employees, or assumed that they represented United just because they may have been related to an employee. United has announced that it’s looking into the policy and the complaint, but many were left with a bad taste by the incident. After all, leggings are normal travel attire for many women–and that’s certainly not the airline’s business.

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 United Prevents Girls Wearing Leggings from Boarding Flight 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 Loses One GOP Elector

On December 19, the electors will cast their votes to officially make Donald J. Trump the President-elect. Usually this process is just a formality, but this year, there’s talk of some electors defying their states’ wishes. One Texas elector, Christopher Suprun, penned an op-ed in the New York Times explaining why he will not be casting his vote for Trump. He offers many reasons–including Trump’s lack of experience–and makes some apt “Star Wars” references, saying:

He has surrounded himself with advisers such as Stephen K. Bannon, who claims to be a Leninist and lauds villains and their thirst for power, including Darth Vader. ‘Rogue One,’ the latest ‘Star Wars’ installment, arrives later this month. I am not taking my children to see it to celebrate evil, but to show them that light can overcome it.

Suprun finished up his piece by explaining that he hopes other electors will join him to support Ohio Governor John Kasich. We’ll have to see if Suprun’s argument gets any others to flip.

via GIPHY

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: December 6, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.