Minnesota PreLaw Land @minnesotaprelawland - Tumblr Blog

Elon Musk and Tesla Board Members Face Suit from Shareholders

By Cory Baker, University of Minnesota Crookston, Class of 2023

July 2, 2021

One of the most prominent and iconic Silicon Valley companies, Tesla, is under fire for its inability to control CEO Elon Musk. This company prides itself on limiting the world's reliance on fossil fuel consumption by producing innovative renewable energy solutions. Tesla’s business model has developed a successful venture into the electric vehicle, solar roofs, and solar panel industries. However, with an eccentric CEO who irrationally expresses his ideas over social media platforms, one shareholder has seen enough. Recently investor Chase Gharrity brought about a derivative lawsuit against its CEO Elon Musk and its board of directors for “accuses the electric vehicle maker’s board of failing to rein in Musk’s behavior online, even as he has repeatedly violated a 2018 settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission.”.[6] The suit was filed under Delaware Chancery Court and unsealed on March 11th, 2021 “claiming Musk has exposed the company to billions in potential liability and market losses”.[6]

Mr. Gharrity is but a representative for Tesla and personally doesn’t gain anything from the suit but rather defends the interests of the company. Corporations are legal entities separate from their owners and owned by the shareholders who invest in them. Through the articles of incorporation, the shareholders are responsible for appointing a board of directors who then appoint the officers to run the day-to-day operations.[5] Under a derivative suit, the shareholders bring about a complaint “on behalf of a corporation when the corporation has a valid cause of action but has refused to use it”. [2] Without them the company and its board of directors would not be held liable for actions or inactions that damage the company in any way. This suit focuses on a fiduciary duty that the directors and officers had towards Tesla. These fiduciary duties can be broken up into the duties of care, loyalty, good faith, confidentiality, prudence, and disclosure.[1]

The actions taken by Mr. Gharrity stem from a previous suit against both Tesla and Musk filed by the SEC in 2018. At the time Elon Musk was both the chairman of the board and the CEO, which gave him tremendous influence over the Tesla corporation. With a strong Twitter presence, Elon Musk was charged with securities fraud due to a misleading tweet regarding Tesla’s share price and its ability to go private. “The SEC’s complaint alleged that, in truth, Musk knew that the potential transaction was uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies. Musk had not discussed specific deal terms, including price, with any potential financing partners, and his statements about the possible transaction lacked an adequate basis in fact.”[8] After making that tweet Tesla’s stock price rose by 6% over the day.

The SEC also charged Tesla with “failing to have the required disclosure controls and procedures relating to Musk’s tweets… nor did it have sufficient processes in place to that Musk’s tweets were accurate or complete”.[8] The suits ending in settlements for both Tesla and Elon Musk who neither denied nor admitted to the claims. The following actions were agreed upon by both parties.

1. “Musk will step down as Tesla’s Chairman and be replaced by an independent Chairman. Musk will be ineligible to be re-elected Chairman for three years.

2. Tesla will appoint a total of two new independent directors to its board.

3. Tesla will establish a new committee of independent directors and put in place additional controls and procedures to oversee Musk’s communications;

4. Musk and Tesla will each pay a separate $20 million penalty. The $40 million in penalties will be distributed to harmed investors under a court-approved process.” [8]

Within the derivative suit, Mr. Gharrity references a tweet like that of the 2018 situation that led to the SEC settlement. However, in this case, instead of an upward movement in price, Elon triggered a downward pressure on the stock by 10%. This occurred in May of 2020 when Elon Musk stated on Twitter that the stock was too high and that he was claiming to sell “almost all of his physical possessions and won’t own a house”.[4] Various investors believe that Mr. Musk was reacting to the Coronavirus pandemic and turned to Twitter as a coping mechanism.[4] This would seem like a violation of the settlement, however, the SEC has not confirmed it.

Even though he has allegedly “continued to issue tweets without the required pre-approval,” set about in the rules.[6] A contempt claim in 2019 triggered the SEC to tighten the rules of his past settlement. In this tweet, he suggested a production volume that was inaccurate and need not met the pre-approval from Tesla’s lawyers. Elon Musk is pushing the limits of the SEC with these actions and has made comments such as “I want to be clear, I do not respect the SEC. I do not respect them.”[7] This derivative suit illustrates his attitude toward these regulations and motivates the shareholders to do what they believe is best for the Tesla Corporation.

______________________________________________________________

Cory Baker is a Finance major at the University of Minnesota Crookston with an interest in corporate law and he plans to attend law school to receive a JD. His dream job would be to work as a securities attorney for the SEC or with a firm handling mergers and acquisitions, bankruptcy, and corporate governance. Cory currently lives in Montana with his dog and immediate family.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Cornell Law School. (2021a). Fiduciary Duty. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Fiduciary_Duty

[2] Cornell Law School. (2021b). Shareholder derivative suit. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shareholder_derivative_suit

[3] Gharrity vs. Musk et al. (2021). Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/CONFCOMPLAINTChaseGharrityvElonMusketalDocketNo20210199DelChMar08?1620676593

[4] Hull, D. (2020). Tesla Falls as Musk Says Stock Too High in 2018-Style Tweets. Bloomberg Law. Retrieved from https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/tesla-falls-after-musk-says-stock-too-high-in-2018-style-tweets

[5] Justia. (2021). Shareholder derivative lawsuits. Retrieved from https://www.justia.com/business-operations/business-disputes/shareholder-derivative-lawsuits/

[6] Leonard, M. & Ramonas, A. (2021). Musk, Tesla Board Sued Over Tweeting in Violation of SEC Deal (2). Bloomberg Law. Retrieved from https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/musk-tesla-board-sued-over-tweeting-in-violation-of-sec-deal

[7] Neate, R. (2019). Elon Musk could face contempt charge over 'inaccurate' Tesla tweet. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/25/elon-musk-tesla-judge-contempt-sec

[8] U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2018). Elon Musk Settles SEC Fraud Charges; Tesla Charged with and Resolves Securities Law Charge. Retrieved from https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226

Evaluation of Legislative Change in Policing One Year After Murder of George Floyd

By Abbigail Rothschild, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Class of 2022

June 17, 2021

One year after the horrific murder of George Floyd in the heart of Minneapolis that sent ripples throughout the United States, sparking protests and social movements nationwide, the initial impact and optimism for the formulation of social change in terms of racial equity has led to various recognizable legislative changes, but is quickly losing its prevalence on the political agenda of many. The declining concern has been characterized by receding initiatives and claims of political leaders and members of office, as well as blocked or weakened policing changes by mostly republicans, citing the city’s crime surge as reason not to pass significant reform bills.

Despite an initial accountability package that was passed last summer following the murder of George Floyd, Mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, continues to be criticized for not doing enough for police reform. The work to reform the Minneapolis Police Department has been clouded by a focus on a rising crime rate over the past year, that despite the surge following the death of George Floyd, is an issue many major US cities have grappled with throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, back in June of 2020, a pivotal advancement was made with the House of Representatives passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, which details “a wide range of policies and issues regarding policing practices and law enforcement accountability.” A few of the key components in the bill enhance existing enforcement mechanisms such as: lowers the criminal intent standard—from willful to knowing or reckless—to convict a law enforcement officer for misconduct in a federal prosecution, limits qualified immunity as a defense to liability in a private civil action against a law enforcement officer, and grants administrative subpoena power to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in pattern-or-practice investigations.Additional provisions also include creating standards for law enforcement agencies for their officers to complete training on racial profiling, implicit bias, and the duty to intervene when another officer uses excessive force.1

The Act, H.R. 7120, cleared the House of Representatives in the heat of the Black Lives Matter protests in summer 2020, but the legislation was stalled in the Senate. Even in the House, the vote was a close 220-212 with no Republican support as well as two Democrats voting no.

Following the guilty verdict of Derek Chauvin, the officer charged for the murder of George Floyd, and while deliberations among the aforementioned police act were underway, President Biden made a public statement describing his support for the passing the legislation, stating, that to deliver real change, we must have accountability when law enforcement officers violate their oaths, and we need to build lasting trust between the vast majority of the men and women who wear the badge honorably and the communities they are sworn to serve and protect. We can and must have both accountability and trust in our justice system.2

Vice President Kamala Harris was in agreement with President Biden, stating that while the verdict brings us a step closer, the fact is there is still much work to do.3 With the potential for this work to manifest itself in the form of federal police reform, the continued hesitation at the level of Congress has persisted, where Democrats and Republicans ideas about the exhaustiveness of new policies concerning policing differ greatly. The differing agendas of Democrats and Republicans on how America reached these outcomes and how to address them federally, has led to stalled reform, leaving municipalities at every level of government to enact their own form of legislation, mostly concentrated in blue states. With 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, lawmakers introduced 2,000 bills surrounding police reform within the past year.4 The passing of federal legislation could provide necessary consistency among the nation concerning standards for policing.

______________________________________________________________

1. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7120

2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/25/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-the-first-anniversary-of-george-floyds-murder/

3. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/04/20/vice-president-harris-on-verdict-we-feel-a-sigh-of-relief-but-we-still-have-work-to-do.html

4. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/27/990580272/with-slow-progress-on-federal-level-police-reform-remains-patchwork-across-u-s

McDonalds Sued For Racial Discrimination By former Franchisee

By Ben Lambert, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Class of 2021

March 3, 2021

McDonalds, the beloved American fast food powerhouse is now being sued for their alleged racist policies towards black franchisees. Herb Washington, a current franchisee and former professional baseball player for the Oakland Athletics, is the man who filed the lawsuit. He claims that McDonalds forces black franchisees to operate stores in undesirable locations, as well as give more financial help to white franchisees. The lawsuit also says that McDonald's purposely reduced advertising to Black communities, which in turn impact Washington's sales and hurt his store along with other black owned locations.

Mr. Washington is a long-time owner of a significant number of stores in the McDonalds franchise. At one point, he even owned more stores than any other black franchisee. Here is what the company had to say in response to the complaints made by Mr. Washington.

"This situation is the result of years of mismanagement by Mr. Washington, whose organization has failed to meet many of our standards on people, operations, guest satisfaction and reinvestment.”

"His restaurants have a public record of these issues, including past health and sanitation concerns, and some of the highest volumes of customer complaints in the country."

Washington combatted these statements by suggesting that McDonalds never would have let him own such a high number of stores for such a long period of time if he was doing such a bad job.

The lawsuit points out a major trend of the last couple decades. Since 1998, the number of black McDonald's franchisees dropped from 377 to 186. It also says black-owned restaurants average $700,000 less in sales annually than white-owned ones. These numbers are worrisome for McDonalds and may point to some sort of discrepancy in the way that white and black owners are treated at the company. This suit comes just months after a similar one was filed by a group of 52 black former franchisees who claimed that McDonalds was being racially discriminating to them as well.

McDonald’s has come out and said that they are looking into Washington's claims and will respond accordingly. They also released a video to their employees saying that the claims in the suit are untrue and reassuring their workers that they are not racist. McDonalds is a known supporter of BLM and their low prices do help people in low income areas so whether the company really does have systematic racism is yet to be determined.

______________________________________________________________

1. “Black McDonald's Owner Sues for Racial Discrimination.” BBC News, BBC, 16 Feb.2021, www.bbc.com/news/business-56088823.

2. Lucas, Amelia. “McDonald's Seeks Dismissal of Racial Discrimination Lawsuit by Former Franchisees.” CNBC, CNBC, 23 Oct. 2020, www.cnbc.com/2020/10/23/mcdonalds-seeks-dismissal-of-racial-discrimination-lawsuit.html.

Over 30 Lawsuits Filed Against Robinhood After GameStop Stocks Restricted

By Ben Lambert, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Class of 2021

February 5, 2021

Popular stock trading app Robinhood is being sued by at least thirty different parties due to the recent events involving GameStop, AMC, and other companies which has gone viral all over the news and social media outlets. Robinhood is designed to help everyday people engage in stock trading and has arguably become the most successful outlet in this field. Recently, some of their users found an opportunity to take advantage of the system and perform what they call a “pump and dump.” This means that a group of people collude to hype up a stock, artificially increase its share price, and then sell at a profit. This strategy is not illegal, but it is a scheme designed to increase the wealth of a group of people at the expense of others and could have consequences in the economy that many people do not understand. In response to the pump and dump scheme Robinhood restricted the stocks of the companies involved causing many of the traders to lose money and squandered the opportunity to make more money off of these stocks.

Many believe that this is a classic case of corruption and the “elites” not allowing the “little guy” to have economic success. Robinhood defended their actions by releasing a statement saying that it was a “risk-management decision” undertaken in the face of “extraordinary circumstances” but its users are not buying it. In addition to facing extreme backlash from everyday citizens, politicians, athletes, etc. they could have to answer for their actions in the court of law or by coming to some sort of financial agreement with its users who have been affected by this. Lawsuits have already been filed in New York, New Jersey, California, Texas, Florida, and other states in the form of class-action suits where one man claims he lost as much as 220,000 dollars due to his inability to sell his GameStop stocks.

These lawsuits will try to attack Robinhood in many different ways as people are claiming all sorts of grievances with the company. An example of this is some of the lawsuits point out that Robinhood users could only trade the affected stocks as the share price for GameStop fell, in turn benefiting the short sellers. Another Suit claims all the major stock trading platforms engaged in a conspiracy and violated antitrust laws by preventing retail investors from buying the stocks. Although these claims are supported by many people around the country, it will be extremely difficult for these cases to reach the courtroom due to the Robinhood user agreement that every user must sign, which states that the company has the power to stop stock buys without any prior notice. Nonetheless, the events that unfolded have opened the eyes of many to how the financial system really works and on the other hand, no matter how elaborate or how simple a get rich quick scheme is, it is unlikely to consistently work. It is yet to be seen whether the lawsuits filed against Robinhood will actually come into action but regardless of those results stock trading will forever be changed in the eyes of the public.

______________________________________________________________

1. PCMag. “Robinhood Faces over 30 Class-Action Lawsuits for Blocking GameStop Stock, Others.” Mashable, Mashable, 2 Feb. 2021, mashable.com/article/robinhood-gamestop-stock-block-lawsuits/.

2. Robertson, Adi. “Robinhood Is Facing Dozens of Lawsuits over GameStop Stock Freeze.” The Verge, The Verge, 1 Feb. 2021, www.theverge.com/2021/2/1/22254656/robinhood-gamestop-stonks-trade-freeze-class-action-lawsuits.

3. “GameStop, AMC Stock Prices Stabilize After Tuesday Selloff.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 3 Feb. 2021, www.wsj.com/livecoverage/amc-gamestop-silver-stock-market-updates.

Trump’s Former Lawyer Sued By Dominion Voting For 1.3 billion Dollars

By Ben Lambert, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Class of 2021

February 2, 2021

Donald Trump’s former lawyer Rudy Giuliani is being sued by Dominion voting for defamation. The suit was filed as a response to the allegations that Giuliani made about the company. He claimed on multiple occasions that the election results were fraudulent and stated that Dominion was partly responsible, along with the leaders of the political left, for a rigged election. Dominion is seeking $1.3 billion from Giuliani due to the damages done to their reputation and the presence of threats coming in many forms to their employees. These threats are a result of the narrative started by Donald Trump which Giuliani supported despite the absence of proof for any fraud in the election.

In their lawsuit, Dominion stated the following, "Just as Giuliani and his allies intended, the Big Lie went viral on social media as people tweeted, retweeted, and raged that Dominion had stolen their votes. While some lies -- little lies -- flare up on social media and die with the next news cycle, the Big Lie was different…The harm to Dominion's business and reputation is unprecedented and irreparable because of how fervently millions of people believe it." Social media has become a very important tool for politicians to push their agenda, but the consequences that come with this form of social media use have started to come to light. Just days after the White House is invaded due to belief in the claims that Trump made about election fraud on social media, his lawyer is now thrown into the fire as well for supporting his client on these claims. It is worth noting that Trump is now banned from many social media platforms, a move that is very controversial as it has become a freedom of speech issue.

Giuliani does not seem deterred though. He released a statement following the suit saying, "Dominion's defamation lawsuit for $1.3B will allow me to investigate their history, finances, and practices fully and completely…The amount being asked for is, quite obviously, intended to frighten people of faint heart. It is another act of intimidation by the hate-filled left-wing to wipe out and censor the exercise of free speech, as well as the ability of lawyers to defend their clients vigorously." This case clearly has some political motivation as Giuliani refers to the left wing as “hate-filled” and it would not be surprising to see him reference political motives in his defense if this goes to trial.

In court, Dominion has a tall task ahead of them as they have to prove that Giuliani intended to damage the company’s reputation and that his actions are directly responsible for any damage done to the company. Giuliani does get to see in some ways a preview of what is to some in his case as 3 weeks prior to his lawsuit, Dominion sued a different pro-Trump lawyer, Sidney Powell, for the exact same thing. When asked by reporters if the company would sue Donald Trump as well, a representative of Dominion voting said that they won’t rule anyone out.

______________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: Palácio do Planalto

Keystone Pipeline: An Early Win For Environmental Lawyers Under Biden’s Administration

By Alyssa Medin, St Olaf College Class of 2024

January 26, 2021

Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States and within his first few days in The Oval Office, he has signed into law many reversals of the previous administrations VIA executive orders. These legal changes will extensively mold the environmental regulatory landscape of the United States.

The Keystone XL Pipeline is owned by a Canadian company called TransCanada and intended to bring oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast, cutting across farmlands, Native American Reservations, areas of endangered species, and many states with varied stances on pipeline construction. Former President Trump signed a permit to allow the pipeline to break ground in 2017. As per his first day in office, Joe Biden has stopped the building of this major pipeline; the pipeline has many legal implications, ranging from eminent domain battles to Native American’s land ownership and the possible violations of environmental laws.

For many in the path of destruction, the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline becomes an issue of eminent domain. Unfortunately, it is often difficult for small farmers and individual land-owners to fight against proposed pipelines or other company-based proposals due to their lack of funds. Jeremy Hopkins, an attorney specializing in eminent domain issues, describes the unbalanced nature of these cases: “The company decides where they’re going to put the pipeline, the rights they’re going to take. No ordinary buyer has that kind of power” [1]. Thus, the hopelessness of legal action on an individual level for the Keystone XL Pipeline shows that eminent domain law is often fortified in favor of large companies.

However, the power of large groups in making change regarding eminent domain can also be found through Nebraska’s extensive protests aimed at deterring the Keystone XL Pipeline from being build. In this regard, Nebraska passed the Major Oil Pipeline Sitting Act to regulate the placement of major oil pipelines, which states: “Nebraska has the authority as a sovereign state to protect its land and natural resources for economic and aesthetic purposes for the benefit of its resident and future generations by regulation through approval or disapproval of major oil pipeline sitting” [2]. Thus, the governor reserved the right to evaluate all proposed pipelines, although the document elucidates that pipelines are necessary for the Nebraskan economy.

Surprisingly, The Keystone XL Pipeline also becomes a question of previous treaties reserving land for Native American tribes. This is mainly due to its trajectory through the home of tribes such as the Yankton Sioux Tribe, The Rosebud Sioux Tribe, and the Fort Belknap Community. According to the Native American Rights Fund, “In granting the right-of-way, the BLM failed to analyze and uphold the United States’ treaty obligations to protect the Tribes lands and natural resources. The government failed to even evaluate an alternate route to avoids tribal treaty lands” [3]. As a result, Biden’s decision to reject the pipeline is seen as a sign of respect towards the Native American community.

Finally, environmental lawyers and activists alike have stepped up to the task of fighting against this pipeline for the benefit of the environment. There are numerous possible opportunities for environmental detriment from the Keystone XL Pipeline, including the pollution of land and water from any leaks, which could in turn effect the people, crops, and animals (including endangered species) on the extensive path of the pipeline. There are many regulations in place that attempt to protect the water and land, so, this pipeline’s defeat is a win for environmentalists.

Unsurprisingly, the pipeline has become a major issue of national political contest in both Canada and the United States. Biden ran his campaign on clean energy and ambitious climate goals, thus stopping the pipeline became a centerpiece for immediate change. Moreover, from the Canadian perspective, PM Justin Trudeau has long considered this pipeline to represent a ‘balance’ between economic needs for the country, and the oil-rich region of Alberta, and the future of sustainability in the country. He sees it as a give and take process, thus he will use the country’s revenue from oil usage to fund sustainable practices.

In the first press briefing of the new administration on January 20th, the press secretary revealed that Biden’s first planned call to another country will be to discuss this decision with President Trudeau of Canada, since the pipeline pertains to the two countries.

______________________________________________________________

Alyssa Medin is a student of Philosophy, Political Science, and Management at St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN.

______________________________________________________________

“Jane Kleeb vs. the Keystone Pipeline.” The New York Times, 2014, Web, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/jane-kleeb-vs-the-keystone-pipeline.html.

“Major Oil Pipeline Sitting Act.” Nebraska Public Services Commission, 2011, Web, https://psc.nebraska.gov/sites/psc.nebraska.gov/files/doc/MOPSA.pdf.

“Keystone XL Pipeline.” Native American Rights Fund, Web, p.1, https://www.narf.org/cases/keystone/.

Photo Credit: shannonpatrick17

Census In 2020 May Harm Minnesota’s Representation In Congress

By Alyssa Medin, St Olaf College Class of 2024

January 12, 2021

In this article, the issue of the census is discussed, as demographic data for the country is coming to finalization and the prospect that Minnesota may lose a seat in the house is becoming clear. Parallels are drawn between results of the 1920 Census, following the Spanish Influenza Pandemics, and the 2020 census, following the COVID-19 Pandemic; particularly, states with heavily rural populations tended to lose more seats in the censuses following a pandemic.

April 1st, 2020 was the annual Census Day, a holiday in which people across the nation submit data, via the internet or in person, to show the size of their households, where they live, and other demographic information. This information, crucial to determining everything from local funding of infrastructure to the number of seats a state has in the House of Representatives, was in jeopardy this year as the COVID-19 Pandemic ravaged the country. It is crucial to analyze the effects of the pandemic on our census canvassing, especially in comparison to the 1920 census following the influenza pandemics of 1918-1920.

First, it is critical to understand the legality of the census and the origins of its existence, as well as the scope of its influence. Since 1970, the census has been used under the authority of the Constitution (Title 13). Title 13 ensure that information collected through the census is private and can not be used in court. The employees of the Census Bureau must swear their confidentiality, ensuring that census data is used only for statistical and demographic purposes [1]. The Census data is used to determine the number of seats a state has in Congress and the Electoral College, meaning it influences the representation it is awarded based on population, and how much money they will receive from the federal government. No Taxation Without Representation is a value constitutionally upheld by the Census that began with the founding fathers of our nation.

According to the Report of the Director of the Census, 1920 was a difficult year for the census due to many factors:

“Because of the fact that the rate of increase in the population of the United States has been materially smaller for the past decade than for any preceding one in the history of the country (this decline being due primarily to the almost complete cessation of immigration in 1914, and to a less extent to the ravages of the influenza pandemics and the effects of the way) many cities and towns have been disappointed with the census figures and have filed protests questioning their accuracy” [2, emphasis added].

A larger-than-usual sum of money was allocated towards re-canvassing and ensuring the accuracy of census data in this year of much loss and population decline, a phenomenon that may repeat after the census of 2020. Most of these allegations of miscounting were found to be untrue, which provided legal verification of the census collection process for a costly premium.

Already, Minnesota is facing major fiscal and governmental issues resulting from their census data; most importantly, Minnesota may lose one of their 8 seats in Congress. Currently, Minnesota is about 25,554 people short of maintaining the current number of seats they have in Congress [3]. Party members are assuming that lawsuits will follow the release of final numbers for the state, which Donald Trump is insisting are released without further delay. If there is any insight to glean from previous years (such as 1920), it is that:

1. Extensions on counting are not new nor unheard-of. The Census Bureau’s request for an extension has precedent from 1920’s delays, which resulted from a similar difficulty of function due to national crises.

2. Lawsuits that necessitate re-canvassing or other verification methods have seldom yielded different results in previous years [2].

Minnesota has not lost a seat in Congress since 1960, meaning that the outcome of this census could lead to drawn-out political and legal action over the redistricting of the state. Considering that each county has a unique political makeup, it will be critical to prevent gerrymandering – the unfair manipulation of electoral constituency boundaries for the purpose of giving one party the upper hand. Politicians are preparing for this likely partisan battle over apportionment in the state, given that any recounts are not fruitful.

Although it is difficult to prove causation, the rural areas of the country may be suffering in a COVID-era Census, as they did after the influenza of 1918-1920. According to the United States Census Bureau, 1920 saw a 15% population growth, despite the long-lasting pandemics and other causes of strife, yet the urban areas grew 29% while rural areas grew by only 3.2% [4]. With a dwindling rural population, one must consider the exacerbated effects of the pandemics in both 1920 and 2020: rural areas simply did not and do not have equal access to medical care or vaccination during and following a major health crisis. The staggering rural population, possibly made worse by the pandemics, led to notable changes in the census of 1930. From 1910-1920, there were no population changes strong enough to trigger re-apportionment, yet the effects of urbanization were clear in 1930. The Midwestern region was the clearest indication of said effects, wherein there was a 4.2% decline in congressional representation in the House following the 1930 census. The Northeast and the West saw no change and immense growth, respectively.

The effects of COVID-19 on the national demographics have yet to be analyzed or published, but if history is any indication, the rural regions with limited access to medical care will show large population changes. As a result, congressional representation will likely shift more rapidly towards favoring the urban populations, as seen with the seat that will be lost in Minnesota this year. This will negatively impact not only Minnesota but other areas of the Midwest and South.

______________________________________________________________

Alyssa Medin is a student of Philosophy, Political Science, and Management at St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN.

______________________________________________________________

[1] “Title 13, U.S. Code.” United States Census Bureau, 17 Dec 2020, Web, https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/privacy_confidentiality/title_13_us_code.html.

[2] “Annual Report of the Director of the Census to the Secretary of Commerce for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1920.” United States Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau, p. 24, https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1920_Annual.pdf.

[3] Bierschbach, Briana. “Minnesota on the Edge of Losing Congressional Seat after Chaotic Census Count.” Star Tribune, 30 Dec 2020, Web, https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-on-the-edge-of-losing-congressional-seat-after-chaotic-census-count/573499242/?refresh=true.`

[4] “Apportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives.” United States Census Bureau, pp. 8-10, https://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/CPH-2-US.PDF

Washington D.C Protests Lead to Invasion of Capitol Building

By Ben Lambert, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Class of 2021

January 12, 2021

The year 2021 is off to a wildly unprecedented start as protests have broken out in Washington D.C that have led to rioters taking over the capitol building. These rioters, fueled by the results of the 2020 election, engaged in violent and extreme activities such as looting, fighting with police officers, public indecency, and expressions of racism. Although President Trump has not directly called for this type of action, he is widely blamed for these events as he frequently put out irresponsible messages on social media and at press conferences that would lead people to believe that the election was fraudulent and that a social upheaval might be the only choice available to these people.

The rioters were right wing extremists not representative of most people in the republican party. Many of the leaders of the Republican party have come out and spoken against the actions that were committed including Senator Martha Blackburn who called the events “undemocratic” and referred to the riots as a crime that has to be stopped. Because of the extreme nature of the people involved in the riot, racial issues seem to be another reason for their behavior as a noose was found hanging on the premise along with confederate flags, white supremacy symbols, and even the reenacting of the death of George Floyd was done by rioters on the steps of the capitol building.

As a result of the riots, 4 people have been confirmed dead, 50 police officers were injured, 69 arrests have been made, and the costs of the damages done by the rioters will surely be very high. Despite the chaos, the ceremonial certification of Joe Biden to become President continued on despite being delayed for several hours during the riot. The riot is believed to be in response to this particular event because of the timing of the events and the fact that most of the participants came from all over the country which also leads authorities to believe this was a planned event.

Washington D.C is now in a state of emergency for the next 15 days and a curfew has been implemented that if broken, has legal consequences. Many believe that these events will continue in D.C and possibly in other places around the country. The violence and destruction seen in the George Floyd protests are still fresh in the minds of many and the fear is that a similar state will be reached in the country in the next few days.

An issue that has many people upset is the seeming unequal treatment for these protesters and the protesters in the George Floyd protests. Many believe that race is the main reason for the discrepancy in numbers of arrests, deaths, and injuries that took place at the protests. Whether or not this was the reason will be debated over and over on media outlets.

______________________________________________________________

1. Cauterucci, Christina. “Republican Leaders Issue Meek Statements in Response to Capitol Siege.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 6 Jan. 2021, slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/republican-leaders-issue-meek-statements-capitol-siege.html.

2. Hayes, Mike. “Washington DC Election Protest: Live Updates.” CNN, Cable News Network, 7 Jan. 2021, www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/washington-dc-election-riots/index.html.

3. Julian E. Barnes and Mark Mazzetti. “Live Updates: Pro-Trump Mob Breaches Capitol, Halting Vote Certification.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-protests.

4. Moore, Elena. “U.S. Capitol Locked Down As Trump Supporters Breach The Building.” NPR, NPR, 6 Jan. 2021, www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/06/954028436/u-s-capitol-locked-down-amid-escalating-far-right-protests.

Walmart Sues The United States Government

By Alyssa Medin, St Olaf College Class of 2024

December 23, 2020

On October 20th of 2020, Walmart Inc decided to sue the US government after learning that a lawsuit may be dealt to them by the Justice Department. This is the latest development in the ongoing lawsuits against major pharmaceutical companies by the US Government. The government claims that these companies are violating the Controlled Substance Act, which regulates the manufacturing and sale of substances such as OxyContin1. In this article, I will review a brief history of the lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and Walmart, then discussing the recent updates regarding Walmart’s suit and the implications for the management of the Opioid Crisis.

46,802 people in the U.S. died from an opioid overdose, and health care providers across the country wrote prescriptions for opioid pain medication at a rate of 51.4 prescriptions dispensed per 100 people2.

2007-2008 Walmart settlements in which they promised to improve their controls of Opioid prescriptions in accordance with the Controlled Substance Act3.

August 31, 2018 Donald Trump officials say that the Department of Justice will not prosecute Walmart despite Texas District Court prosecution efforts4.

September 2018 Ivanka Trump visits the Mesquite, Texas Walmart. This shows the Trump Administration’s willingness to protect the company5.

May 2020 Lawsuit against CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens, Giant Eagle, and Walmart for failing to sufficiently monitor controlled substance orders; defense argues that the liability under the Controlled Substance Act lies ultimately with health care practitioners6. The accusations against Walmart for this suit will be considered below.

November 24, 2020 Perdue Pharma LP pleaded guilty to fraud and kickback conspiracies related to their marketing and distribution of OxyContin7. They must now pay $8.34 Billion.

After Walmart’s suit was announced, Attorney General William Bar and the DEA administer Timothy Shea could not be reached for comment. This case deals with the limitations and expectations of the Controlled Substance Act, which Walmart claims they have followed. Is the health care provider responsible or the pharmacist? Both?

The United States Government claims that pharmacists filled prescriptions that should have raised red flags. The case is now pending trial in the US District Court of Eastern Texas.

“The pharmacists who dispensed those opioids had told the company they didn’t want to fill the prescriptions because they were coming from doctors who were running pill mills. They pleaded for help and guidance from Walmart’s corporate office… An opioid compliance manager told an executive in an email, gathered during the inquiry and viewed by ProPublica, that Walmart’s focus should be on ‘driving sales.’”8

Mounting evidence has led some to even believe that a criminal case could be made regarding Walmart’s malfeasance. Looking at the photos below, there are numerous accusations laid out regarding the corporate inaction and failure to uphold the regulatory requirements for meeting the standard of care under the CSA.

Here, the court documents demonstrate Walmart’s responsibility as both distributer and a pharmacy during the years stated, which are two areas that are liable under the CSA.

Shown above is a direct statement by the prosecution of the alleged violations by Walmart in the case that is pending before the District Court in Ohio.

So Why is Walmart Filing a Pre-Emptive Suit?

Attempts like Walmart’s recent pre-emptive suit have been executed before when a company is in hot water. This new lawsuit may be an attempt for Walmart to reach a quick settlement and minimize the damage on the company’s name. What’s Walmart’s defense for all of the mounting allegations?

The company claims that supposed requirements are not backed up by current law. They are taking the Government to court to clarify the requirements of the CSA, as “pharmacists are not required to second-guess a licensed doctor's decision about a prescription, and… pharmacists are not required by the law to document in writing why filling a prescription was appropriate”9.

Penultimately, Walmart contends that pharmacists can fill prescriptions so long as they are from licensed doctors, thus they have not broken any laws and further regulation by the government will put patients at risk. “The company argues in the lawsuit that the federal government was placing it in an untenable position because pharmacists face professional and legal risks—and potential harm to patients—if they reject prescriptions, but face federal liability if they do fill them and the government determines they shouldn’t have.”10

Finally, in a press release, Walmart claims that the allegations against them are rooted in the government hoping to appear as if they are tackling the health crisis. As stated by the Walmart representative, “certain DOJ officials have long seemed more focused on chasing headlines than fixing the crisis. They are now threatening a completely unjustified lawsuit against Walmart, claiming in hindsight pharmacists should have refused to fill otherwise valid opioid prescriptions that were written by the very doctors that the federal government still approves to write prescriptions”11

This case and other legal action against the pharmaceutical industry is a major step towards corporate responsibility in the Opioid crisis of the United States. At the end of the day, it will come down to an evaluation of the duties of pharmacies as compared to the duties of health care providers and doctors.

______________________________________________________________

Alyssa Medin is a student of Philosophy, Political Science, and Management at St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN.

A Bill Of Rights For College Athletes

By Grace Paulson, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Class of 2023

December 23, 2020

Most everyone enjoys watching a college sports game with friends. Nothing beats sitting with a bunch of friends and cheering on a winning team, but what do the athletes have to show for their hard work? If they are lucky, they might have some championship titles or a couple thousand Instagram followers, but that is it. Previously, college athletes were not allowed any monetary compensation for playing at the colligate level, including outside sponsorships.

Earlier this year, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) ruled that it would allow for student-athletes to profit off their name and image, so long as they do not receive any payment from the university itself. The NCAA also forbids any use of school related logos and trademarks. But how can a collegiate athlete properly profit off his image when the university, including logos, is such a big part of his identity as an athlete? Many athletes have struggled with this issue over the years, and the Senate finally acknowledged the problem this past Thursday.

On Thursday, Senate Democrats proposed a bill that would “establish a federal commission to supervise college athletics and to grant student-athletes extensive compensation rights, including profit-sharing.” ¹ Essentially there would no longer be restrictions on student athletes using their names, images, and likeness for profit. Just like professional athletes, college athletes would be able to sign endorsement deals with companies free of consequences. In the past, actions such as signing deals with outside companies could lead to eligibility problems. Now, with the possible enactment of this bill, athletes have the power to do whatever they want with their image, including signing with a shoe or apparel brands that conflict with their university’s sponsor.

The bill also intends to set up a federal commission, under which nine presidential appointed members will work to resolve disputes and investigate wrongdoings within the industry. The bill is also set to

“allocate 50 percent share of the profits to Division I student athletes.” ¹ The catch is that this part of the bill only applies to revenue-producing sports. It really depends on the particular university which sports produce the most revenue; however, football, men’s and women’s basketball, and baseball are among the more popular of the revenue earning sports. This means only a select few will benefit from this part of the bill. However, there are many other parts that benefit all college athletes.

With the amount of athletes that get injured each year while playing, the bill is set to “require schools to contribute annually to a medical trust fund to cover the cost of medical care for injuries related to an athlete’s sport.” ¹ Recovery is timely and expensive, and the proposers of the bill want to ensure all athletes receive the medical care they need, not just the ones that can financially support themselves thanks to lucrative endorsement deals. Additionally, schools would be required to honor financial scholarships so long as the student maintains a 2.2 GPA.

Ultimately, this bill would ensure that the rights of collegiate athletes are protected. Something that should have been done a long time ago. As one Senator put it, “This isn’t radical thinking- it's just the right thing to do.” ¹

______________________________________________________________

1. Graziano, Daniel. “US Senate Democrats Introduce 'College Athletes Bill of Rights'.” Jurist, 18 Dec. 2020, www.jurist.org/news/2020/12/democratic-senators-introduce-college-athletes-bill-of-rights/.

2. Lotspeich, Thomas. “Paying Student-Athletes Would Ruin College Sports.” Voyager, ghsvoyager.com/4917/sports/paying-student-athletes-would-ruin-college-sports/.

Lil Wayne Faces Up To 10 Years After A Police Search Of His Private Jet

By Ben Lambert, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Class of 2021

December 21, 2020

Lil Wayne, formally known as Dwayne Michael Carter Jr, is known for his illustrious rap career. He has had immense success since starting his career in 1999, winning five Grammys, eleven BET Awards, and four Billboard Music Awards. Wayne is beloved by many and has impacted hip hop culture in America as much as any other artist in the last two decades. Even former President Barack Obama has expressed appreciation for his music, comparing him to Lebron James while delivering a speech in Manhattan, back in 2009.

As the famous saying goes, “all great things must come to an end” and this story seems to follow that notion. In December 2019, following a tip from an anonymous source that Wayne may be using his private jet to transport drugs. The rapper’s jet was searched by police during a layover in Miami. According to police reports, the officers determined that he was under the influence of illicit narcotics and proceeded to search the plane where they found a gold-plated pistol in Wayne’s luggage. They also found over $250,000 in cash and suspected that he was in possession of a number of illegal drugs including cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, and marijuana. Despite these findings, the officers allowed him to leave the scene. The rapper was arrested at a later date but was released after paying a $250,000 bail.

Lil Wayne is no stranger to run-ins with the law. His first charge came in 2007 when he was convicted in the state of New York on weapon and drug charges. For this, he was sentenced to eight months in prison. His next charge was just a year later also for weapons and drugs, but he only served 36-month probation then. Because of these instances, along with his incident last December, he has now been charged with illegal possession of a weapon as a convicted felon. Despite allegations and reports of drugs being found, he has not been faced with any drug charges.

Wayne’s recent court appearance (December 11, 2020) for his conviction last December, ended with him pleading guilty to the charges. He will have a court hearing on January 28th that will determine the severity of his punishment which includes the possibility of up to ten years in prison. His lawyer, Howard Srebnick, has released a statement saying that there are no allegations that he ever fired the weapon or threatened to use it. Srebnick also says that Wayne is in no way a dangerous person or a threat to society. Because of this, Srebnick believes that this case should be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has taken notice of this case and even gave an appellate opinion in support of Lil Wayne. In this opinion, she states that “Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying (a convicted felon) from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment." The Supreme Court has not yet come out with a decision on whether or not to take his case, but Wayne and his lawyer are hoping to see the charges dropped.

______________________________________________________________

Rao, Sonia. 2020. “Lil Wayne Charged with Possessing a Firearm as a Convicted Felon.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/artsentertainment/2020/11/17/lil-wayne-firearm-federal-charge/.

2. (TNS), Jay WeaverMiami Herald. 2020. “Rapper Lil Wayne Charged in Miami with Possessing Gun as a Convicted Felon.” The Bakersfield Californian. https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/national/rapper-lil-wayne-charged-in-miami-with-possessing-gun-as-a-convicted-felon/article_7f4743a3-aa7a-57ca-b119-70c78c4a1e78.html (December 16, 2020).

3. “Lil Wayne Faces up to 10 Years in Jail on Weapons Possession Charges.” 2020. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/nov/18/lil-wayne-faces-up-to-10-years-in-jail-on-weapons-possession-charges (December 16, 2020).

4. Dosani, Rishma. 2020. “Lil Wayne Faces 10 Years in Prison as He 'Pleads Guilty to Gun Charges'.” Metro. https://metro.co.uk/2020/12/14/lil-wayne-faces-10-years-in-prison-as-he-pleads-guilty-to-gun-charges-13749755/ (December 16, 2020).

Photo Credit: Megan Elice Meadows

Is It Constitutional To Allow A Transgender Male To Use The Male Restroom?

By Grace Paulson, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Class of 2023

December 15, 2020

For an era that preaches acceptance, 2020 has still had its fair share of bumps in the road from the George Floyd case to the immigrant crisis in the south. It is no secret that many United States citizens have differing views on what should be accepted in today’s day and age, and the Parents for Privacy V. Barr case demonstrates just that.

Recently, an Oregon school district ruled in favor of implementing a Student Safety Plan. The plan stated that students could use any bathrooms in school sanctioned buildings that he or she identified with sexually. This plan was enacted after an individual who was biological female but publicly identified as a boy requested to use the boy’s locker room and bathroom. As expected, there was some backlash as a result of this ruling. Cisgender boys began to voice their concerns about exposing themselves and going to the bathroom while the transgender student was there. Once parents became aware of this new plan, they too began to voice their concerns about how this ruling interfered with the morals and religious beliefs of some. Several parents of students alleged that the “public school district violated Title IX, as well as several constitutional rights of students and of parents, when it allowed transgender students to use school bathrooms.” ¹

Title IX specifically states, “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” ¹ Some parents and students insisted that sharing a private space with a transgender individual leads to a hostile environment that could in turn lead to sexual harassment. However, since there are no claims or proof of sex harassment related to the situation, the court dismissed the parents’ claim. Since the start of the Student Safety Plan, no student has been deprived of his or her right to privacy nor education.

In addition, the parents’ claimed that the plan violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment states that, “no state shall deprive any person of life liberty, of property, without due process of law.” ¹

In addition, there is a clause that “protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” ¹ In this case, the parents argued that one liberty protected by this clause is the right to certain areas of privacy. One should note, though, that the school did provide alternative options for students who did not want to share bathrooms and locker rooms with the transgender student. Ultimately, the court dismissed the claims attesting he violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It ruled that “the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide high school students with a constitutional privacy right not to share restrooms or locker room with transgender students whose sex assigned at birth is different than theirs.” ¹ The Amendment refers more to government intrusions of one’s personal privacy rather than a transgender student using a bathroom different from his or her assigned gender at birth.

Ultimately, the district and school ruling in favor of the transgender student did not breach any Constitutional or Federal laws. The transgender student was simply fighting for the very same rights the parents and cisgender students were. He wanted to be able to truly express who he was without judgement. In the end, is that not what every individual wants?

______________________________________________________________

1.) “Parents for Privacy v. Barr, No. 18-35708 (9th Cir. 2020).” Justia Law, 2020, law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/18-35708/18-35708-2020-02-12.html.

2. Bracho-Sanchez, Dr. Edith. “Transgender Teens in Schools with Bathroom Restrictions Are at Higher Risk of Sexual Assault, Study Says.” CNN, Cable News Network, 6 May 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/health/trans-teens-bathroom-policies-sexual-assault-study/index.html.

Photo Credit: Kaldari

Texas Attorney General Helps Trump Fight Supposed Election Fraud

By Ben Lambert, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Class of 2021

December 11, 2020

As of today, President Donald Trump has filed over 56 lawsuits in response to the election results. Trump, along with others part of the Republican Party are claiming that there have been instances of voter fraud that led to the outcome of the election. Many believe that these lawsuits are an attempt by Trump to garner national attention and prolong the transition process for his opponent Joe Biden. However, the latest lawsuit to be filed was not filed by Trump himself. This time it was by the state of Texas.

Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, filed directly with the supreme court earlier this week. Paxton’s goal is to contest the election results of four battleground states: Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He claims that these states made unconstitutional changes to the election process due to COVID-19, which in turn, influenced the results. If this lawsuit succeeds, it would reverse the outcome of the election as current elect, Biden would not have the 270 electoral votes required to become president. The lawsuit would then call for one of two options: let state legislators decide who won the election or have the house of representatives take a vote for who the president should be which would almost guarantee Trump a win due to the higher number of Republicans in the house.

Since the lawsuit was filed, 17 other Republican Attorney Generals have supported the case along with Trump himself who has asked the supreme court if he could join the lawsuit. Another move that Trump has made to gain traction was asking Texas senator Ted Cruz to argue the lawsuit in front of the supreme court. This is a very intelligent move by Trump as Senator Cruz is the former Texas Solicitor General, a position that specializes in arguing a state’s high-profile cases before the Supreme Court.

This type of lawsuit is unique because it is between states which means this case is able to skip all lower courts and go straight to the supreme court. Although it is unlikely that the supreme court will take this case, Trump would have an advantage in the supreme court as there are 6 conservative justices compared to just 3 liberal justices. Considering that 44 of his previous 56 lawsuits pertaining to the election have been denied already, it is most likely that this case will be denied as well due to the lack of evidence that any voter fraud took place.

The Supreme Court is giving the four battleground states until 3:00 P.M. on Thursday to respond to this lawsuit. Once that happens the Supreme Court will either let Texas rebut these responses or jump to the decision to take the case or not. If the case is taken, much concern will arise from the Democratic Party and its supporters. If it is rejected, it will likely be the last attempt by Trump to change the election results and the transition can begin.

______________________________________________________________

1. Vogue, Ariane de, and Dan Berman. 2020. “Explaining the Supreme Court Lawsuit from Texas and Trump.” CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics/trump-texas-supreme-court-election/index.html.

2. Vladeck, Steve, and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. 2020. “17 States and Trump Join Texas' Lawsuit. It's Still a Doomed Supreme Court Stunt.” NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/17-states-trump-join-texas-lawsuit-it-s-still-doomed-ncna1250603 (December 11, 2020).

3. Platoff, Emma. 2020. “Trump, Republicans Pin Hopes on Texas Lawsuit to Overturn Election Results, but Legal Experts Say It's a Long Shot.” The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/09/texas-lawsuit-election-trump/ (December 11, 2020).

4. Engel, John. 2020. “Sen. Ted Cruz Told President Trump He Would Argue Texas' Election Lawsuit.” KXAN Austin. https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/sen-ted-cruz-told-president-trump-he-would-argue-texas-election-lawsuit/ (December 11, 2020).

5. Williams, Pete, and Nicole Via y Rada. 2020. “Trump's Election Fight Includes over 50 Lawsuits. It's Not Going Well.” NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-s-election-fight-includes-over-30-lawsuits-it-s-n1248289 (December 11, 2020).

Photo Credit: Alice Linahan Voices Empower

Cannabis On The Road To Legal Federalization

By Grace Paulson, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Class of 2023

December 9, 2020

For decades, it has been debated whether or not cannabis should be legalized and decriminalized. While it is not federally legalized quite yet, the federal government has recently taken steps in the direction of decriminalization.

On December 4th of this year, the House of Representatives passed The Marijuana Opportunity and Expungement Act. The purpose of the bill would be “to decriminalize and deschedule cannabis, to provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of certain cannabis offenses, and for other purposes.” ¹ In simpler terms, it would be removed from the Schedule 1 controlled substances list.

Currently, cannabis is considered a Schedule 1 drug, meaning that the drug “has a high potential for abuse” and “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” ² If an individual is found in possession of a Schedule 1 drug, like cannabis, her or she can be put in jail for up to 20 years and be fined one million dollars for their first offense. If the individual is a repeat offender, her or she can receive anywhere from 30 years to life in prison if death or serious bodily injury occurs and up to a 2 million dollar fine. ³ However, despite its Schedule 1 status, 47 states have reformed states laws related to cannabis. 11 states have even passed laws to legalize recreational use of cannabis. With the recent changes in state laws, it was time for the federal government to take a second look at its stance on cannabis.

According to the Bill the House of Representatives recently passed, over 600,000 individuals are arrested annually for cannabis related charges, costing taxpayers a whopping $3.6 billion a year. The bill even goes on to explain how historically people of color have been disproportionately impacted by the Schedule 1 categorization of cannabis. ¹ Because of the reasons above and the recreational legalization in over 10% of the country, the House of Representatives decided to remove cannabis’ Schedule 1 status, decriminalizing it. If the Sentate passes the Bill, no later than a year after this it is passed, all juvenile delinquency arrests related to cannabis will be expunged. Federal cannabis offenses will not be expunged as easily, however. Individuals with Federal cannabis charges may request a sentencing view hearing, but are not insured that his or her sentencing will change. ¹

With the possible decriminalization of cannabis, the government has voted to set up an Opportunity Trust Fund and several grant programs to “provide eligible entities with fund to administer services for

individuals most adversely impacted by the War on Drugs.” ¹ Whether than means freed inmates or businesses in directly affected by cannabis is unclear. In addition, by decriminalizing cannabis, individuals will be able to participate in the manufacturing and selling of cannabis. The Equitable Licensing Grant Program has been put into place to help provide funds “to develop and implement equitable cannabis licensing programs that minimize barrier to cannabis licensing.” ¹ Most people will have the opportunity to work with cannabis if they so choose to.

Cannabis still has a long way to go before it will be fully accepted with in the United States. It still has plenty of legal obstacles to face, but its toughest challenger by far will be the stigma that is associated with it.

______________________________________________________________

1. Nadler, Jerrold. “Text - H.R.3884 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): MORE Act of 2019.” Congress.gov, 3 Dec. 2020, www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3884/text.

2. “Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act.” Section 812, www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/812.htm.

3. “Drug Scheduling and Penalties.” Drug Scheduling and Penalties | Campus Drug Prevention, www.campusdrugprevention.gov/content/drug-scheduling-and-penalties.

4. Neavling, Steve. “Historic House Vote to Decriminalize Marijuana Postponed as Moderates Pump the Brakes.” Cleveland Scene, Cleveland Scene, 29 Sept. 2020, www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2020/09/21/historic-house-vote-to-decriminalize-marijuana-postponed-as-moderates-pump-the-brakes. (photo)

High Profile Case Ends In High Profile Fashion

By Ben Lambert, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Class of 2021

December 4, 2020

In May 2020 news broke that Deandre Baker, a former first-round pick for the New York Giants, along with another NFL player, Quinton Dunbar of the Seattle Seahawks, had both been arrested and charged with four counts of armed robbery. This seemed like a dire and quick end for the promising young career of Baker as he was then cut by the Giants and placed on the commissioner’s exempt list.

Three eyewitnesses claimed that Baker and Dunbar stole money, watches, and other valuables at a house party in Florida after a fight broke out. The witnesses also claimed that Baker and Dunbar committed the robberies while armed with semi-automatic weapons. Because of the severity of these allegations, the charges against Baker would put him behind bars for a minimum of ten years. Subsequently, the charges against Dunbar were dropped due to insufficient evidence. With polar opposite punishments handed out to Baker and Dunbar, something seemed to be off. To present a case based on no other type of evidence besides eyewitness accounts is already very challenging to do in court. Then on top of that, they decide to only prosecute one of the offenders. This all seemed very odd, but the events that followed were even more shocking than this dramatically unequal punishment.

This case turned out to be even more complex than originally thought. William Dean, the lawyer who represented the alleged victims in the case, would end up being charged with extortion after evidence was found of him requesting around $800,000 from Baker to split among his clients. The key eyewitnesses in the case also recanted their original statements and admitted that Baker was not involved in the incident, while also admitting to being paid to lie about his involvement in the incident. Evidence shows that Dean told Baker that as long as “the money was right” his clients would not proceed with the charges that were put up against Baker. Due to this scandalous behavior, the charges were dropped against Baker as the three eyewitnesses in the case were deemed untrustworthy. William Dean has since been arrested in Broward County and will face a new court case now as a possible charged criminal.

Baker’s attorney, Bradford Cohen, told reporters that from the beginning, he knew that this case was about extortion. He believes that the case never should have been filed in the first place due to the faulty evidence and shaky claims that it was based on. The fact that a celebrity was involved may have been a contributing factor in the court’s decision to proceed with the charges despite not having a particularly strong case.

Since the incident, Baker has now signed with the defending super bowl champions, the Kansas City Chiefs, where he will be a part of their practice squad.Although this is not the same position that he was in a year ago as a starting corner, he will get another shot to prove that he belongs in the NFL.

________________________________________________________________

1. Raanan, Jordan. “All Charges Dropped against Former New York Giants CB DeAndre Baker.”ESPN, ESPN Internet Ventures, 16 Nov. 2020, www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/30330519/all-charges-dropped-former-new-york-giants-cb-deandre-baker.

2. Press, Associated. “Seahawks' Quinton Dunbar Won't Be Prosecuted in Armed Robbery.” king5.Com, KING, 7 Aug. 2020, www.king5.com/article/sports/nfl/seahawks/seahawks-quinton-dunbar-not-charged-robbery/281-6a63e3ec-353f-4624-8a2f-10459418a845.

3. Ismay, John, and Ken Belson. “Florida Lawyer Charged With Extorting N.F.L. Player in Robbery Case.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Nov. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/sports/football/william-dean-extortion-giants-seahawks.html.

4. Dunleavy, Ryan, and Paul Schwartz. “DeAndre Baker's Armed Robbery Charges Dropped after Alleged Extortion Attempt.” New York Post, New York Post, 17 Nov. 2020, nypost.com/2020/11/16/deandre-bakers-robbery-charges-dropped-after-alleged-extortion-attempt/.

Photo Credit: All-Pro Reels

McDonald’s Faces Legal Charges for Racial Discrimination

By Grace Paulson, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Class of 2023

November 25, 2020

With the gain in popularity of the Black Lives Matter Movement, the concept of racial discrimination has become quite a hot topic. Many companies have come under fire for the mistreatment of African Americans simply because of the color of their skin. Unfortunately, the beloved McDonald’s franchise is no exception to this.

September 1

In the beginning of September, 52 black former franchisees filed a complaint in the Chicago federal court against McDonald’s. All 52 franchisees “have accused McDonald’s of ‘systematic and covert racial discrimination.’” ¹ Many people probably thought that this was an issue of refusing an individual of color service, but this lawsuit is much more complex than simply refusing service. The franchisees believe that McDonald’s purposely placed their restaurants in neighborhoods known to have high-crime rates and be economically depressed. Being located in such places has led to lower sales and an average of only $2 million a year. This may still seem like a lot of money, but it is anywhere from $700,000 to $900,000 less than the company’s national average. In addition, the former store owners are arguing that “McDonald’s retaliated against Black franchisees who rejected being placed in high-crime communities; denied them financial support and assistance often afforded to White franchise owners; unfairly graded Black-owned operations, which led to poor internal reviews and pushed out those franchisees; and misled Black entrepreneurs into purchasing franchises in challenging locations.” ¹

McDonald’s has denied these accusations and are vocal about how committed it is to equal opportunity for all its franchisees. The franchisees are asking for compensation for the damages they experienced in relation to McDonald’s racist actions. They are demanding that each franchisee be awarded $4 million to $5 million per store. Between all 52 franchisees, there is a total of 200 locations, meaning that McDonald’s could see a loss of $800 million to $1 billon if the court chooses to side with the franchisees.

October 28

Nearly two months after the first lawsuit, McDonald’s faced its second discriminatory lawsuit. Yet again, McDonald's is being accused of placing black franchisees in less economically successful neighborhoods than their white counterparts. In addition, the two brothers, James and Darrell Byrd, who filed the suit claim that due to the location of their stores they have higher operating costs, such as an increase in security. Similar to the first lawsuit, the brothers are asking for $5 million per store in reparations. These two are not the only black franchisees owners that have looked at taking legal action against McDonalds. Just over a fourth of all current black franchisees have sought out legal help at the same law firm the Byrd brothers did. McDonald’s has denied these claims as well. Contradicting the Byrd brothers’ claim, McDonald’s stated that, “For years, McDonald's has invested in Jim and Darrell Byrd’s franchises, providing significant financial support to address their rent defaults, failure to pay suppliers and delinquent tax bills.” ²

The Future

Since these lawsuits are both still in the early stages, it is hard to tell how the court will side. If the court does find means of racial discrimination, McDonald’s will legally be held responsible to pay for the damages experienced by the franchisees. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is “illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sex.” ³ Section 703 specifically states that, “to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” ⁴ It can be hard to decipher what is discrimination and what is not, but thanks to sections like these, courts have a jumping point for their arguments. Justice is possible for those who face discrimination simply for the color of their skin, including the 52 plus black franchisees.

________________________________________________________________

1. Denham, Hannah. “52 Former Franchisees Accuse McDonald's of Racial Discrimination in Lawsuit.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 3 Sept. 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/01/mcdonalds-franchisees-discrimination-lawsuit/.

2. Fickenscher, Lisa. “McDonald's Slapped with Second Discrimination Suit by Black Franchisees.” New York Post, New York Post, 30 Oct. 2020, nypost.com/2020/10/29/mcdonalds-slapped-with-second-discrimination-suit-by-black-franchisees/.

3. Canada, Chelsea. Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace, www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/employment-discrimination.aspx. 4. “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964.

5. Gali, Sivaditya. “Mc Donald's.” SlideShare, 23 Oct. 2014, www.slideshare.net/sivaditya/mc-donalds-40633985.

Oregon Paves Way Out Of The National Drug Crisis

By Ben Lambert, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities Class of 2021

November 20, 2020

On November 3rd, the state of Oregon passed Ballot Measure 110 by a 59% vote. This policy, also known as the Drug Decriminalization and Addiction Treatment Initiative, decriminalizes the possession of all drugs including cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. The reasoning behind this policy is compelling, but it is still unexpected to see implemented in the U.S. From now on, rather than giving jail time for possession, users will be given the option to either pay a fine or will be eligible for an assessment at an addiction recovery center.

With the number of drug convictions each year in America, many could agree that laws against drug use are outdated and ineffective in creating a safer society and a more just legal system. Instead of looking at drug use as a criminal act, Americans are quickly shifting to the idea that it is an illness, and rather than being punished, drug abusers should seek help without fear of criminal charges.

On the other hand, this advanced drug policy could have negative effects as some people are bound to take advantage of the system. Although rehabilitation centers are not glorious vacations, they are a more effective treatment than a prison cell. Oregon’s initiative for drug decriminalization may take away the negative consequences of drug use that have previously deterred people from drug use. The goal of government policies should not be to scare people away from getting the help they need but to claim responsibility for a national drug crisis and act in the best interest of its citizens. However, whether this policy will be effective and helpful for its citizens is yet to be concluded.

Although Oregon is the first U.S state to implement such a progressive policy, several countries in Europe have already done so and seen positive results. In 2000, Portugal decriminalized the use of hard drugs and saw a decrease in deaths from drug use. Additionally, they saw an increase in the number of people receiving help for drug addiction. This is exactly what the state of Oregon is trying to accomplish. A common misconception is that decriminalization is the same as legalization. In this case, police officers will not just simply ignore drug use when they see it as they do when a drug is legalized, Rather, their approach would change from trying to make an arrest, to helping the addict recover successfully. A big picture outlook: this could really benefit the relationship between communities and police officers as many current drug laws certainly create a divide.

It has been nearly 40 years since Oregon became the first state to decriminalize the possession of marijuana, although highly progressive for their time, that policy has turned out to be very effective and positive for the nation as a whole. Oregon may be on to something again. Due to the national drug crisis, it would be wise for policymakers all around America to pay close attention to Oregon’s bold and progressive move to lessen drug addiction. If this is half as effective as planned, other states will not be able to ignore this liberating step forward.

________________________________________________________________

1.Selsky, Andrew. “Oregon Leads the Way in Decriminalizing Hard Drugs.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 4 Nov. 2020, apnews.com/article/oregon-first-decriminalizing-hard-drugs-01edca37c776c9ea8bfd4afdd7a7a33e.

2. Kim, Allen. “Oregon Becomes the First State to Decriminalize Small Amounts of Heroin and Other Street Drugs.” CNN, Cable News Network, 9 Nov. 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/11/09/politics/oregon-decriminalize-drugs-trnd/index.html.

3. Baker, Damare. “Drug Decriminalization Advocate Praises New Oregon Law as 'Huge Knock' on Drug War.” TheHill, The Hill, 15 Nov. 2020, thehill.com/hilltv/rising/525840-drug-decriminalization-advocate-praises-new-oregon-law-as-huge-knock-on-drug.

4. Lennard, Natasha. “Oregon's Decriminalization Vote Might Be Biggest Step Yet to Ending War on Drugs.” The Intercept, 4 Nov. 2020, theintercept.com/2020/11/04/oregon-drugs-decriminalization/.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Minnesota PreLaw Land