Starting August 1, Wisconsin technology company Three Square Market will inject microchips between its employees’ thumbs and index fingers. The program is not mandatory, but so far, more than 50 of the 80 employees at the company’s River Falls headquarters have volunteered.

The microchips are about the size of a grain of rice. They use radio frequency identification technology (RFID), which the Food and Drug Administration approved for human use in 2004. Once an employee gets a chip, they will be able to access the building, pay for items, and log in to computers with a wave of the hand.

The procedure is reportedly quick, painless, and free to volunteers–the company will pick up the $300 tab per procedure.

“Eventually, this technology will become standardized, allowing you to use this as your passport, public transit, all purchasing opportunities, etc.,” said Three Square Market CEO Todd Westby in a company blog post.

Some people, however, are more skeptical of the technology. Dr. Alessandro Acquisti, professor of information and technology at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, is concerned about potential  security breaches. Three Square Market insists that the chips are encrypted, but Dr. Acquisti explained to the New York Times that encryption “is a pretty vague term which could include anything from a truly secure product to something that is easily hackable.”

The chip is not currently equipped for GPS tracking, but that doesn’t mean Three Square Market won’t add it in the future. Dr. Acquisti worries that the chips could one day track employees’ lunch and bathroom breaks without their permission.

“Once they are implanted,” he warns, “it’s very hard to predict or stop a future widening of their usage.”

This is the first time a U.S.-based company has chipped its employees, but globally, the practice isn’t new. Epicenter, a Swedish startup, tagged its employees with the same technology back in 2015. So far, the program has been successful–Epicenter holds monthly events and parties where specialists can chip employees at no cost.

“People ask me, ‘Are you chipped?’ and I say, ‘Yes, why not,'” said Fredric Kaijser, Epicenter’s chief experience officer, in an interview with CNBC. “And they all get excited about privacy issues and what that means and so forth. And for me it’s just a matter of I like to try new things and just see it as more of an enabler and what that would bring into the future.”

Judging by the high number of volunteers, the workers at Three Square Market are equally willing to “try new things.” Software engineer Sam Bengston signed up right away.

“In the next five or 10 years,” he told the New York Times, “this is going to be something that isn’t scoffed at so much, or is more normal. So I like to jump on the bandwagon with these kind of things early, just to say that I have it.”

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wisconsin Tech Company Offers to Implant Microchips in its Employees appeared first on Law Street.

When Pokémon Go debuted last summer, the mobile game spread across the world–as of April 2017, more than 65 million people were playing, according to Business Insider. The game got people to exercise outside as they pursued Pokémon, but there were also some safety issues because of its augmented reality style.

Milwaukee County enacted an ordinance in February to curb the presence of Pokémon Go-style games in the city. According to the ordinance, game developers would be required to apply for a permit for augmented reality games, like Pokémon Go, to be played in parks.

But last week, U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller halted the ordinance because he said it may violate the First Amendment. Stadtmueller issued a preliminary injunction that the county cannot enforce the measure until a lawsuit between the county and Candy Lab Inc., which develops augmented reality games, is finished.

Candy Lab Inc. filed the lawsuit in response to the county’s ordinance, according to a local Fox affiliate. Under the county’s order, companies must also obtain a “certificate of insurance” worth $1 million of “general liability coverage,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Milwaukee County board supervisor Sheldon Wasserman filed the ordinance because the county was struggling to police activity in parks that doubled as “Pokémon centers” or “Pokémon gyms” for the game. The main issues included “traffic congestion, parking issues, littering, damaged turf, risks to natural habitats, lack of restrooms, and noncompliance with park system operational hours,” according to a report by Milwaukee County Parks. 

Milwaukee County is by far the largest in Wisconsin, home to over 16 percent of the state’s population. Other areas of the country have also experienced safety issues stemming from the game, which can distract people as they walk at night. Last year, three University of Maryland students were robbed at gun point on campus in a one-hour span while playing the game, according to the Baltimore Sun.

The federal judge wasn’t swayed by the public safety issues, however. Instead, Stadtmueller recommends that the county allocate resources to remedying the issue instead of putting the pressure on the companies:

Rather than prohibit publication of the game itself, the County could address its concerns by directly regulating the objectionable downstream conduct. … This might include aggressively penalizing gamers who violate park rules or limiting gamers to certain areas of the park. Such measures would assuage the alleged evils visited upon the parks by gamers while stifling less expression than the Ordinance does.

One issue Stadtmueller brought up in his decision was how broad the restrictions were. For a law such as this to be constitutional, he said, it must be narrowly-tailored to the specific issue and content neutral. The judge didn’t feel that was the case. Stadtmueller believes the current restrictions are too “vague” and provide too much censorship power to government officials, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The county claims that the games can’t be considered speech, according to a local Fox affiliate. But Stadtmueller said the plot, characters, and dialogue make the game an expression of free speech.

Despite the decision, Wasserman is still committed to fighting for the ordinance. He said he is particularly intrigued by the groundbreaking nature of the case and the potential ramifications.

“I’ve also been told by the lawyers that this case is getting so hot, and that it brings up so many constitutional questions, that this has the potential to go all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Wasserman said.

Only 10 years ago it would have seemed impossible that people would walk around with their phones catching virtual Pokémon and visiting parks or buildings to battle other gamers. But now that is a reality local governments are facing.

Whichever direction the court proceeds, it will have a ripple effect across the gaming and mobile application industry. Because of the initial injunction, though, Pokémon Go fans can rejoice and continue to enjoy the application wherever, and whenever, they want.

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 Federal Judge Strikes Down Milwaukee’s Pokémon Go Law appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it will hear an appeal regarding political gerrymandering, in what legal experts say could be the most consequential such case in decades. It could alter the tradition of political parties redrawing voting districts for their political advantage. The case, Gill v. Whitford, concerns Wisconsin’s legislature and its gerrymandering efforts in 2011.

In 2010, Republicans gained control of Wisconsin’s legislature for the first time in four decades. After the census, they redrew the state’s voting districts, and in 2012, despite winning less than 50 percent of the vote, Republicans captured 60 of the legislature’s 99 seats. In 2014, Republicans won 52 percent of the vote and increased their state assembly majority to 63 seats.

It is a common practice for state legislatures to redraw voting districts to confer an advantage on the governing party. Redistricting commonly takes place after the once-a-decade census is conducted. The Supreme Court has never struck down districts because of partisan advantage. However, it has, as recently as this year, nixed districts that were devised in order to dilute the vote of minority populations.

In May, the Supreme Court struck down two districts in North Carolina, affirming a lower court’s decision that the Republican-controlled legislature drew the map to dilute the influence of African-American voters.

Last November, a federal district court ruled that Republicans’ 2011 gerrymandering effort in Wisconsin crossed a line and was unconstitutional. In a 2-1 ruling, the court found that the districts were drawn in order to minimize the influence of Democratic votes, and were “designed to make it more difficult for Democrats, compared to Republicans, to translate their votes into seats,” the majority opinion concluded.

“Although a majority of the [Supreme Court] has suggested that states can violate the Constitution if they draw legislative districts primarily to benefit one political party, the justices have never been able to identify the specific point at which states cross the constitutional line,” Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst and law professor at the University of Texas School of Law, told CNN. “In this case, a lower court held that Wisconsin had indeed crossed that line.”

According to the plaintiffs in Gill v. Whitford, Republicans in Wisconsin accomplished their politically-motivated gerrymandering via two techniques: packing and cracking. Packing is fairly self-explanatory: the state legislature stuffs the opposition party’s voters into a single district, thus diluting each individual vote. Cracking is the practice of spreading opposition votes in districts where the governing party enjoys a majority, keeping those votes out of districts that could swing either way.

In a statement released Monday, Wisconsin’s Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel said the state’s redistricting was constitutional. He said: “I am thrilled the Supreme Court has granted our request to review the redistricting decision and that Wisconsin will have an opportunity to defend its redistricting process.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post Supreme Court Will Hear Wisconsin Partisan Gerrymandering Case appeared first on Law Street.

Terrorist Targets Muslims in London, Muslim Girl Killed in Virginia

Late last night, a van rammed into people leaving a mosque in Finsbury Park in North London. One person died and 10 were injured in what police are investigating as a terror attack, as it was “quite clearly an attack on Muslims.” A white, 48-year-old man has been arrested and is being investigated for attempted murder. According to eyewitness reports, the man who died collapsed after the van hit people–it’s not clear whether his death was a direct result of the attack. The attacker struck just as people were leaving the mosque after evening prayers and breaking their Ramadan fast. Eyewitnesses said the man got out of the van after hitting people and said, “I want to kill Muslims,” repeatedly. He tried to flee the scene, but several people held him to the ground until police arrived.

This quote at #FinsburyPark station by @TfL is a fitting reminder that in tragedy we become a more unified, stronger force always pic.twitter.com/1Htakvuy2p

— Yasmina (@animsche) June 19, 2017

Also yesterday, a 17-year-old Muslim girl was found beaten to death in a pond in Virginia. The girl, identified as Nabra Hassanen, was reported missing after leaving a mosque in the early morning hours. She was with her friends on their way to get food after prayers, when two men with baseball bats started attacking them. In the chaos that followed, Nabra disappeared. Her body was found later that afternoon. A 22-year-old man was arrested. Although police aren’t investigating this murder as a hate crime, there is evidence to suggest that there has been a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States–according to CAIR, there was a 44 percent increase just from 2015 to 2016.

if you believe muslim women face less violence in the west, youve been blinded. nabra, 17, murdered with baseball bat last night in virginia pic.twitter.com/zlZJclJ3qT

— Amani (@xoamani) June 19, 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 19, 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:

People are Outraged at “Stealthing”

There’s a name for a man removing a condom during sex without his partner’s consent: stealthing. The phenomenon is reportedly on the rise in the U.S., according to a new study by Alexandra Brodsky in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. Rape victims’ organizations say this kind of behavior needs to be classified as rape. And a lot of people are outraged that this is a “thing.”

Given that “stealthing” puts a victim at risk of pregnancy or disease, and that many people only consent to sex with a condom, this is “experienced by many as a grave violation of dignity,” the study says. And according to Sandra Paul, who is a specialist in sexual crimes, this could amount to legal rape. “There has to be some agreement that a condom is going to be used or there is going to be withdrawal. If that person then doesn’t stick to those rules then the law says you don’t have consent,” she said.

It’s both affirming and terrible to write about an under-acknowledged form of gender violence and hear a chorus of “me, too” in response

— Alexandra Brodsky (@azbrodsky) April 24, 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 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein took on a pretty big project over Thanksgiving weekend–a Wisconsin recount effort. Trump won a narrow, upset victory in Wisconsin. But Stein raised money to look into that victory–citing concerns of election tampering, perhaps from Russian nationals. Now, the Clinton campaign has lent its support–although officials from the campaign don’t seem particularly optimistic.

Stein went after Wisconsin first, given that the deadline to file for a recount was on Friday. She now promises to file in Pennsylvania and Michigan, two other swing states that narrowly went for Trump. In order to support her efforts, Stein has raised more than $5 million (more, CNBC ironically points out, than she raised for her entire presidential campaign).

The margins were indeed thin in those states. According to the New York Times:

In Wisconsin, Mr. Trump leads by 22,177 votes. In Michigan, he has a lead of 10,704 votes, and in Pennsylvania his advantage is 70,638 votes.

But, those are still larger margins than have ever been overcome in a recount. Marc Elias, a lawyer for the Clinton camp explained the campaign’s reasoning for participating, but the statement was decidedly somewhat pessimistic that the recount would change anything:

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount.

President-elect Donald Trump was (unsurprisingly) quite unimpressed with Stein’s effort. He called it a “scam” and said “the results of this election should be respected instead of being challenged and abused, which is exactly what Jill Stein is doing.” But as Elias said: “now that a recount is underway, we believe we have an obligation to the more than 64 million Americans who cast ballots for Hillary Clinton to participate in ongoing proceedings to ensure that an accurate vote count will be reported.” We’ll have to see if Stein’s efforts unearth any new news.

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 Recount Effort Underway in Wisconsin, Clinton Camp Now Participating appeared first on Law Street.

Have you just recently recovered from the creepy news story about the urban legend Slenderman? Not so fast. The Wisconsin case, in which two 12-year-old girls tried to kill a third girl by stabbing her 19 times in 2014, is far from over. And a new HBO documentary features the trial, which has picked back up again recently. The two girls, Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier, are now 14 and are being charged as adults for first-degree homicide. This means they could serve 65 years in prison, if found guilty. But on Friday the court is scheduled to discuss psychological evaluations of the girls, which could give them a chance for a lighter sentence.

This comes at the same time that HBO is announcing its release of a documentary about the case, called “Beware The Slenderman.” It is said to focus on “the court’s deliberation whether the girls should be tried as adults or children.” The trailer is sure to send chills down your spine.

The first trailer for @HBO doc “Beware the Slenderman” is as creepy as the story it tells https://t.co/86ILbr9McI pic.twitter.com/2x18FNeGk5

— Paste Magazine (@PasteMagazine) November 11, 2016

The girls’ victim Payton Leutner was a classmate. They lured her into the woods reportedly convinced that they had to kill her, otherwise the tall, faceless man known as Slenderman would come and kill their families. According to the girls, they wanted to prove to people that Slenderman was real, and if they sacrificed a human, they would be rewarded with being his proxies and living in his mansion. Fortunately, Leutner survived by crawling out of the woods to the street, where a passing cyclist helped her to safety.

Geyser and Weier’s defense attorneys have tried to have their cases moved to a juvenile court, but the motions were denied in August due to the degree of premeditation. According to the state, they had planned the deed for months, lied to the victim by telling her to not move and that they would get help, and started to flee from law enforcement. As a last resort to try to get the girls a more lenient sentence, their defense attorneys entered pleas of not guilty because of mental disease or defect in the late summer. On Friday, the conclusions of the psychologists who have evaluated the girls will be discussed in court.

Anissa Weier appears via video, Morgan Geyser appears in person as the Slender man case moves ahead pic.twitter.com/mpoeNd7GyJ

— Myra Sanchick (@myrasanchick) November 11, 2016

Entering a plea of insanity essentially means that the defendant asserts that at the time of the crime she was affected by a mental disease that prevented her from knowing right from wrong. If found guilty under those conditions, the defendant would normally be sent to a state mental hospital for treatment. Geyser has already been diagnosed with an early onset of schizophrenia. According to doctors, she was traumatized after the attack and talked to hallucinations of Slenderman in her cell.

After a suicide attempt, Geyser has spent the past six months at a mental health institute where she doesn’t get to read, draw, or even wear her glasses, much to her mother’s distress. Weier is committed to a juvenile detention center on a $500,000 bail and has recovered from a ”shared delusional belief” since she was separated from Geyser. Both girls’ parents are trying to lower the bail so that they can go home and be under house arrest.

Reality is scarier than fiction in the trailer for HBO’s Slenderman doc https://t.co/4dSpivmn73 pic.twitter.com/Ln0zcUMBux

— The A.V. Club (@TheAVClub) November 11, 2016

A fact that could work in the girls’ favor is that they may have truly believed they didn’t have any other choice than to kill Leutner, since they thought their families would die unless they did. This, according to the defense, should mean that the girls only should be charged with attempted second-degree homicide. Lawyers have asked that the girls’ trials be conducted separately and with a jury from another county.

In the meantime, popular culture is still dwelling on the online myth of Slenderman that has affected so many young people and many believed the 6^th season of “American Horror Story” would feature the faceless character. That didn’t happen, but it is not far-fetched to think that he will show up somewhere else soon.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post The Slenderman Case is Still Going On and HBO Made a Documentary About It appeared first on Law Street.

A particularly tasty fight is cooking in Wisconsin–there’s a lawsuit currently making its way through the court system over a law in the state that bans people from selling homemade baked goods.

The lawsuit was filed by three farmers, who are represented by the Institute for Justice. The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit that “fights against unreasonable government restrictions on individuals’ economic liberty.” Selling homemade baked goods, such as cookies, breads, and muffins, is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or six months in prison. This means that bakers aren’t allowed to sell their goods at places like fairs or farmer markets.

The law refers particularly to baked goods made in home kitchens–bakers could rent out commercial kitchens, but that’s an incredibly pricey option and there aren’t necessarily a lot of commercial kitchens in parts of rural Wisconsin.

The Institute for Justice explained on its website the motivation to take on the case, stating:

Wisconsin’s home-baked-good ban has nothing to do with safety. The state bans home bakers from selling even food the government deems to be ‘not potentially hazardous’ such as cookies, muffins and breads. The state also allows the sale of homemade foods like raw apple cider, maple syrup and popcorn, as well as canned goods such as jams and pickles. In addition, the state allows nonprofit organizations to sell any type of homemade food goods at events up to 12 days a year.

The ban is purely political. Commercial food producers like the Wisconsin Bakers Association are lobbying against a ‘Cookie Bill’—which would allow the limited sale of home baked goods—in order to protect themselves from competition. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, who owns his own commercial food business, even refused to allow the Assembly to vote on a Cookie Bill last session, despite bipartisan support.

This fight isn’t just playing out in the courts–it’s also making its way through the legislature. There’s a “Cookie Bill” that would loosen the law and allow people to sell up to $7,500 in baked goods each year, as long as the name and address of the baker are clearly labeled. The lawsuit, however, is hoping to strike down the ban altogether. Whether the bill passes or the ban gets overturned, bakers in Wisconsin may soon have something to cheer about.

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 Farmers Sue Wisconsin Over Ban on Selling Baked Goods appeared first on Law Street.

An 82-year-old Wisconsin woman just took being a nosy neighbor to a whole new level. According to a local CBS News station, the woman called the Brown Deer Police Sunday night to report that her neighbors were chanting “ISIS is good, ISIS is great” while having sex.

I’m just going to let that marinate for a second.

This woman dialed 911 because she believed her neighbors “non-traditional” sexual proclivities constituted a declaration of terrorist intentions. The police, however, didn’t seem too convinced that there was any immediate danger, telling the woman to call back if she heard more chanting or anything else unusual.

When asked on Twitter about the incident, Brown Deer Police Chief Kass replied, “maybe taking see something, say something a little too far?”

@Eric_Steckling @BrownDeerWIPD @CBS58 maybe taking see something say something a little to far?

— Chief Kass (@browndeerchief) December 22, 2015

Once social media got wind of the story, several users began coming up with their own hilarious explanations for the possible chant.

@CBS58 @robdelaney No sex. I was enjoying My McDonalds Sweet tea and moaning “Ice is… is good”. And yes I have a slight stutter. — Derek Rowe (@KentuckyBlacc) December 22, 2015

@Boiler2015 @CBS58 who DOESN’T yell ISIS is good during sex?? Settle down grandma! — Bentzburgh (@Bentzburgh) December 22, 2015

@CBS58 @AdrianChen How dare someone steal my safeword. — emily nussbaum (@emilynussbaum) December 22, 2015

@dhambrick63 @CBS58 true story, there are women named Isis in America… — DocBeerio (@docbeerio) December 22, 2015

All jokes aside, this poor old lady was probably just trying to do her civic due diligence. Maybe next time she’ll think twice before trying to cockblock her neighbors by calling the cops.

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 Woman Calls Cops On Neighbors For Chanting “ISIS is Good” During Sex appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Governor Scott Walker became the first candidate to drop out of the running for the Republican presidential nomination. His departure from the primaries has led to a wide range of reactions, from utter shock, to great relief, to unoriginal jokes. No matter your opinion on this small town Colorado native turned runner up student government president turned college dropout, there is no doubt that he was a solid candidate. An exciting one? No, but a solid one. His position on some of the most important issues to Republican primary voters were almost uniformly in line. He held tenure for three terms as governor in a swing state while only being recalled one little time. Moreover, his position on the core issue of this recall, bargaining rights for public unions, made him a conservative hero, and thrust him onto the national stage. Perhaps most importantly, Walker rides Harley Davidson motorcycles and is a good Midwestern Christian. So how did this walking, talking embodiment of rice cakes become the quickest failed campaign in modern politics?

Well, people watched him talk. If you were to describe Scott Walker as a candidate, he would appear to be one of the strongest candidates. Unfortunately, as we watched him drowned out by bigger voices in two straight debates, it was hard to see such strengths. The constant coverage of these two debates ensures that voters do not forget about his dismal performances. Due to the incredibly long span of time in which primaries are held, candidates must hold on to the excitement and support that they originally garnered. Just ask Hillary Clinton about how hard that is.

In addition to their length, primary campaigns require millions of dollars, which means many devoted supporters and maybe a billionaire donor here and there. In any other election season, with these issues still remaining, Scott Walker would be a candidate who sticks around until the end of the primaries. Unfortunately for him, this election’s primary voters have no interest in a run-of-the-mill establishment governor. This is a group of voters who have dealt with eight years of a wildly liberal Obama administration intent on limiting religious liberty, weakening America’s stance in the world, and involving government in every facet of our lives. Or at least that’s what many primary voters feel has been the case. Changing the course of this country would require someone who is willing to think outside the box and speak his mind. Scott Walker didn’t seem to fit the bill for those voters.

Scott Walker’s exit from the Republican primaries is a case study in everything wrong with American politics. In the age of a 24-hour news cycle intent on telling its viewers who is winning at every moment in primaries that run for over a year, require millions of dollars in funding, and are decided by radical primary voters who reward borderline racist and Islamophobic speech with huge campaign donations and poll boosts, solid candidates become unelectable. And that is how a candidate who was originally the front-runner at his announcement abruptly spiraled into dismal poll numbers and eventually dropped out. Here’s to hoping Scott Walker finds more success as a bedtime audio book narrator. Or maybe a NyQuil spokesperson.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did Scott Walker Really Drop Out of the Presidential Race? appeared first on Law Street.

This week, let’s venture to some northern states to see what entertainment they can provide with their dumbest laws. I’ll begin with North Dakota, a state famous for Fargo–both the city and the Coen Brothers’ film–and as a favorite spot for Lewis and Clark. North Dakota must love dry peas and lentils, as it decided to make a state version of the national Dry Pea and Lentil Council. North Dakota decreed, furthermore, that all members of the council be North Dakota citizens. In Devil’s Lake, New Year’s Eve celebrations had better not include a fireworks show, as shooting them off after 11:00pm is illegal.

South Dakota has even fewer verifiable dumb laws than its counterpart. Many websites claim that a law exists requiring horses to wear pants when entering the Fountain Inn. I couldn’t find anything to back this up, which is unfortunate because that would be rather hilarious.

As someone who has witnessed the terrors of Minnesota mosquitoes first hand, I am not the slightest bit surprised that the state has officially declared the insect to be a public nuisance. Specifically, the law states that “the abatement or suppression of mosquitoes of any kind, whether disease bearing or merely pestiferous, within any or all areas of the state, is advisable and necessary for the maintenance and betterment of the health, welfare and prosperity of the people.” Good riddance!

In Minnesota, always make sure you have a specific purpose before standing around in a certain location. It is illegal there to stand around any building without a good reason to be there. That law makes me wonder what exactly constitutes a good reason. What if you are waiting for a friend? Observing the architecture of the building?

There are many city-specific stupid laws in Minnesota. In Cottage Grove, one may not land an airplane, hot air balloon, or other similar craft in a city park. Makes sense. We wouldn’t want any accidents between planes and park-goers! Residents of Cottage Grove may have a hard time figuring out when to water their lawns. Here’s some insight: “residents of even numbered addresses may not water their plants on odd-numbered days excluding the thirty-first day where it applies.”

If you and your friends are considering taking an alleyway as a shortcut in Minneapolis, think again. There, alleyways may not be used by pedestrian traffic.

Minnetonka lawmakers must like the phrase “public nuisance,” as both driving with dirty tires and placing tacks on the sidewalk are considered to be such. I can’t even imagine how hard they would throw the book at individuals throwing tacks onto a sidewalk from the window of a car with dirty tires.

Last but certainly not least for this post: Wisconsin.

Wisconsin residents like to know what they are consuming in restaurants, and the law makes it easy for that to occur, at least when it comes to butter. In fact, at one point, margarine was illegal in the Badger State. Now margarine can only be used in place of butter if it is specifically requested by the customer. Wisconsin is seriously obsessed with butter–in prisons statewide, only the real thing may be served.

Camping in a wagon on a public highway is illegal in Wisconsin, but if you really have a hankering to do so, don’t fret too much as the fine is only ten dollars. If you do see livestock while on the highway, however, be sure to yield as livestock have the right of way on all public roads across the state.

Up next are Missouri and Illinois, so stay tuned for more dumb laws!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumbest Laws in the United States: Dakotas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, two 12-year-old girls, Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier, were arrested for stabbing their friend 19 times in hopes of appeasing a mythological character known as “Slenderman.”

The girls had allegedly been plotting the attack for months. They invited the victim to a sleepover the night before, and took her into the woods the next day, where the crime occurred. The girls allegedly stabbed the victim 19 times, missing an artery in her heart by just a millimeter. The victim then crawled to a road where she was found by a cyclist. Her condition was said to be stabilizing as of June 4.

In this case, under Wisconsin law, the girls are being tried as adults- meaning they will not be tried in juvenile court, which is the “default” for most minors who are arrested. Instead, they will face prison terms with the potential to extend far beyond their 18th birthdays.

In Wisconsin, juveniles over the age of 10 who are suspected of homicide have to be charged as adults. This law was enacted in 1996, as a way to curb violence among young people. The girls, if convicted, will face up to 60 years in prison- meaning at most, they will not be released until they are 72.

At least one of the girl’s attorneys is petitioning to have the case moved to juvenile court, but it could take months for a judge to decide whether or not that will happen. So while the fate of these girls is being called into question, here are factors that may influence how the trial plays out:

1. Mental Health

The girls claimed they stabbed their friend in order to appease a fictional character known as “Slenderman.” Originating in 2009, this character was created and depicted online in stories and pictures. The character is often depicted as being very tall, thin, and not having a defined face. The girls allegedly carried out this stabbing to get the approval of this character, and thought he had a mansion in the woods where the crime took place.

If their legal teams can prove these girls are deranged in some way, it could help their case. And if these preteens honestly believed in this character, and then acted so violently in its name, it could point to signs of mental illness. At this point, we do not have any information about whether the girls had histories of other violent actions. But if the court deems them unfit to stand trial by reason of mental insanity, they may be heading to a psychiatric hospital rather than prison.

2. Premeditation

If the girls had been planning the attack for several months, it could be a strike against them in the eyes of the jury- planning implies intent, and would show that the girls had multiple opportunities to re-think their plan. It shows this was not a freak act committed by two young girls who were not thinking clearly. Careful planning and consideration would definitely add weight to the homicide charges these girls are facing. During police interrogations, the girls said they went back and forth before one of them actually stabbed the victim. And one of the girls went so far as to say she had no remorse for committing the crime. All of these things would make a jury weary at giving these girls a second chance.

3. Age

This could be both harmful, and helpful. If the girls claim they committed this crime in order to appease this mythological figure- a jury could easily say they are old enough to know real from fake. After all, most states allow 12-year-olds to legally babysit younger children, so they are deemed to be at least somewhat responsible. It is an excuse that may work for a 6-year-old, but these girls have had plenty of time to learn right from wrong- and there is no gray area for stabbing a “friend” 19 times.

On the other hand, 12-year-olds cannot even drive, and these girls were in middle school. If they have a compassionate jury, it is possible they would rather see the girls given a second chance at reform rather than being locked up for life after one terrible act. After all, a lot of people are fed up with how punitive, rather than rehabilitative, the prison system is.

It seems like the best case scenario for the girls is if the case is moved to juvenile court. But with the media attention and violence associated with the case, that is unlikely to happen. Determining the girls’ motive and intent will be critical when a jury deliberates this case. The victim is alive to tell the story, the girls have apparently told their side to the police, and the weapon was collected. Unless they are found to be unfit to stand trial, the girls are probably going away for a long time.

[Star Tribune] [Boston Globe] [NBC]

—

Molly Hogan(@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [ mdl70 via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cold-blooded Killers, or Stupid Preteens? A Jury Will (Probably) Decide appeared first on Law Street.

In my search for a news story today, I came across what looked like an interesting topic. A trial is set to begin in Fort Hood, TX, regarding a prostitution ring that was supposedly set up by a Fort Hood sergeant who has yet to be charged. On trial is Master Sergeant Brad Grimes, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is accused of participating in the prostitution ring.

Conspiring to pay for sex is without a doubt a crime, and if Grimes did so, he deserves to be punished as the court sees fit. But what sparked my interest, and a bit of surprise, was that Grimes was also charged with adultery.

That got me thinking: am I woefully ignorant of current laws, or do I just not see adultery charges that often?

So, I looked it up, and what I found was an incredibly wide-ranging set of laws, and a number of strange cases. Let’s start with the most extreme derivations. In Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, adultery is a felony. Technically speaking, in Michigan, you could be sentenced to life in prison for cheating on your spouse, as Judge William Murphy in the Michigan Court of Appeals noted in 2007.

Then there are states that are not nearly as harsh. Of the 23 states that still have adultery laws on the books (Colorado abolished theirs earlier this year), most classify it as some type of misdemeanor. This means that in most of these states, an adultery conviction would result in a fine.

A slim majority of states don’t have any adultery laws on the books at all. And it’s important to note that in those that do, actual trials or charges rarely develop. In Massachusetts, one of the states that does classify adultery as a felony, no one has been convicted of it since 1983. Even in that case, the punishment was only two $50 fines, one for the woman who committing adultery and one for the man with whom she was sleeping. If anything, adultery comes up during custody or divorce battles.

In the military, adultery laws are taken more seriously. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not specifically contain adultery as a crime, but does have Article 134, which “prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline”. The Manual for Court Martial expands Article 134 to include examples of specific offenses, and does contain adultery. The penalty for adultery can include up to a year in confinement, and/or dishonorable discharge.

According to this Slate article, standalone charges for adultery are rare. They’re usually piled on with other misconduct charges, such as lying to a superior. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be damaging—in 1997, Lt. Kelly Flynn made headlines when she was dishonorably discharged after lying about sleeping with the husband of one of her coworkers.

That brings us back to Grimes. He was charged with adultery in conjunction with other charges, and really, my point here is not to diminish the conspiracy to pay for sex charges he is also facing. My point is that I was shocked to see an adultery charge listed at all. Off the top of my head, I don’t think I can think of a popular prime-time drama in which adultery does not incur. In fact, there have been entire shows that pretty much revolve around it—Desperate Housewives, anyone? Maybe I’m just cynical, but I’ve always seen adultery as a personal act in which a decent proportion of our population engages—not a potential felony. Now I’m not trying to say that adultery is an ok thing to do, or morally acceptable. But the truth of the matter is that it happens. The percentage of married women reporting affairs in the last two decades was around 15% in 2013, for men it was around 21%. Grimes probably deserves the sentence he will receive. But our archaic adultery laws also deserve a look.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Harsh Agrawal/www.chromoz.com via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Adultery in the US: Do You Know the Laws? appeared first on Law Street.

The state of Wisconsin has a law that has been dubbed the “cocaine mom” law. The idea, in theory, is supposed to protect fetuses from mothers who have drug or alcohol problems and may harm their unborn children. The law contains specific language that the provisions in this law are only supposed to be used in a situation in which a mother may harm her child to a severe degree. In addition to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota have these laws in place, while 20 other states have tried and failed to pass them.

A New York Times article by Erik Eckholm published earlier this week explored the horrifying implications of this law. The editorial focused on the story of a twenty-eight year old woman named Alicia Beltran. Fourteen weeks into her pregnancy she went in for a prenatal checkup. She was honest with her doctor about an addiction to Percoset, a prescription painkiller. She had kicked that addiction a few months before. She had also briefly taken a medication called Suboxone, which is intended to help addicts kick their addictions. It is safe even for pregnant women. She borrowed it from a friend, and did not have a prescription for it, because she could not afford one. But she waned herself off of it a few days before she even went in for pre-natal care.

After explaining her situation to her doctor, she took a urine test that showed only traces of Suboxone, which she had disclosed to her doctor. Later tests showed no drugs in her system. The physician’s assistant she had seen for her check-up report told her that if she wanted to continue to take Suboxine, that she should get a prescription. That decision was backed up by the OBGYN Beltran had also briefly seen at the clinic. Beltran explained that she no longer intended to take the drug, and that a prescription would not be necessary.

The physician’s assistant was concerned about the patient, and reported Beltran. A few days after her check-up appointment, a social worker showed up at her door. For Beltran, that was when the real nightmare began. The social worker said that she needed to restart Suboxine to prevent her from taking any other drugs, or be court-ordered to do so. Beltran explained that she did not want to restart Suboxine, and that she was not at risk for restarting her Percoset addiction. She admits that the social worker upset her deeply, and when she slammed the door, she said something about considering an abortion.

A few days after this incident, a sheriff showed up at Beltran’s door and placed her under arrest. She was brought to court, and the terrified young woman was introduced to a lawyer that had been assigned to her unborn fetus. She asked for a lawyer for herself, but wasn’t given one. She was then remanded to a 78-day stay at a drug addiction facility to treat a problem that, as later urine tests showed, she simply did not have. She reports that she was given an option between the treatment facility and jail.

Now, Beltran is fighting back. She is part of a federal suit that aims to declare the Wisconsin “cocaine mom” unconstitutional. Lynn M. Paltrow, Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women told the New York times about the ramifications of these types of laws, saying “this is what happens when laws give officials the authority to treat fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as if they are already completely separate from the pregnant woman.”

The future of this case in court may have interesting effects on the large and vast fetal personhood argument that has been occurring for the past few years all across the United States. If the Federal Court decides that a woman can be held against her will in the name of protecting a fetus; namely that the life of a fetus supersedes the rights of a mother—that decision could have an important effect on the forward movement of fetal personhood cases nationwide. On the flip-side, if they rule that the law is unconstitutional, that precedent could be used as an argument to block fetal personhood efforts in some states.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [alenka_getman via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post “Cocaine Mom” Law’s Horrifying Effects appeared first on Law Street.