Mediaboss Marketing

In 2019, someone called the police on Elijah McClain a 23-year-old Black man from Aurora, Colorado because they thought he looked sketchy wearing a ski mask in August. McClain had anemia, which caused him to feel cold even in warm weather.

Though he was doing nothing wrong, the police subdued him with a dose of ketamine that proved fatal. The story is an encapsulation, according to Jamelia Morgan, of what happens far too often when people of color with disabilities encounter law enforcement.

Race and disability should not become pathways to police violence, she said. Thats at the core of our agenda: preventing a confluence of racism and ableism from impacting the day-to-day lives of people, especially people of color with disabilities.

Morgan, a professor at Northwesterns Pritzker School of Law, recently launched the Center for Racial and Disability Justice (CRDJ), which will promote justice for people of color, people with disabilities and people at the intersection of those identities.

In an interview with Northwestern Now, Morgan describes her motivation for founding the center, explains the relationship between race and disability and lays out her vision for the centers work going forward: Im excited about the possibility of powerful and effective collaboration with Chicagos rich ecosystem of activists and organizations to enact change, she says.

Why did you decide to pursue a career in law?

I grew up in Los Angeles in the early 1990s; I was seven when Rodney King was beaten by LAPD officers, spurring the LA uprisings. My interest in being a lawyer stems from some of the social movements of that period and their focus on policing and Black communities. Its sobering, of course, to note that were still dealing with many of the same issues.

As a Black woman, I also had family members who were impacted by the criminal legal system. To me, lawyers seemed to be the only people with a handle on that system who were able to secure justice in some cases. So, after growing up amid injustice, I had a desire to use the law as a means of responding to community harm.

What led you to found the CRDJ?

Before law school, I read Michelle Alexanders book, The New Jim Crow. That book gave voice to things that Id experienced regarding people caught up in the criminal justice system; its impact within Black communities; and the racial caste system in America. So, from my first days practicing law, I was thinking about the barriers and injustices that my clients were facing.

In law school, I participated in legal clinics that gave me the chance to defend clients for the first time. We interviewed and filed lawsuits on behalf of a number of individuals with disabilities who were incarcerated in Connecticut under conditions that failed to meet their medical and mental health needs, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

That work sparked my interest in disability law and inspired me to take a class on the topic, which opened a whole new perspective on anti-discrimination law. That became the framework which continues to inform my work today.

Why do you see disability justice, criminal justice and racial justice as intertwined?

The intersection stems from a combination of public policy that has failed low-income people with disabilities and the criminalization of mental illness. For decades, there has been a lack of investment in a robust healthcare system and infrastructure to meet the needs of people with chronic health conditions like mental health needs who cant afford quality healthcare.

When people lack support systems, they often end up in emergency situations where they need crisis care services. This often leads them to encounter police officers instead of trained mental health personnel. Many of the people who have been killed in encounters with law enforcement have had psychiatric diagnoses or disabilities.

Finally, we know that theres both a lack of investment and an over policing problem in many Black and Latinx communities. So, people of color with disabilities are disproportionately likely to have encounters with law enforcement for multiple reasons. This is incredibly troubling.

When you think about stories like Elijah McClains, what broader issues do you see at play?

This story illustrates what happens so often to Black men with disabilities: Theyre marginalized in two different ways. Its imperative that we think about how Black men are rendered vulnerable to policing, and why their identity is constructed as threatening, confrontational or noncompliant. Disability can result in non-normative expressions and behaviors which are in turn constructed as a basis for criminalization. In McClains case, there were clear violations of the Fourth Amendment, but we need to think broadly about the pathways that led to his killing.

Why do you feel its appropriate and important to have the center here in Chicago?

Chicago has a very rich history of organizing for Black movements. Its been the home of many leading racial justice organizations that have been thinking critically about the intersection of law and social change for decades, including important work to combat police violence. The disability rights movement has also always had a home here, with some leading organizations headquartered in the city.

Efforts are underway here to redirect law enforcement away from mental health crisis situations and instead have trained mental health personnel respond to reduce the risk of violence. Much work remains to be done in this and other areas, such as expanding the ability of people with disabilities to live independently. Many institutionalized disabled people who could live independently in the community are still fighting for the ability to do so via lawsuits. Im excited about what we can accomplish on these issues by working with community partners.

Where are you hoping to take the center over the next few years?

For now, weve kept our vision broad: Were interested in tackling all issues at the intersection of racial and disability justice in a way that promotes human thriving for all people of color. Were currently developing our strategic priorities, a process that I hope will incorporate community voices. But in our first year, were going to focus on three specific areas.

The first is crisis care. Because of the criminalization of disability, and psychiatric disabilities in particular, we need better ways of responding when people experience mental health crises. Well be weighing in with policy briefs and legal scholarship in that area.

The second area is healthcare discrimination. Were working with a team of terrific doctors at the Feinberg School of Medicine on research dealing with ableism and disability-based discrimination in healthcare settings. Implicit bias can affect the provision of services, so well be working on ways to develop more inclusive clinics. For example, we can educate and raise awareness among instructors through things like licensing or educational requirements.

The third and final area of focus is access to the courts. Well conduct research and develop technical manuals to support the creation of accessible courtrooms where not only criminal defendants, but civil litigants are able to access and understand court documents. The physical space of the court also needs to be accessible to all persons with disabilities. Were looking for a jurisdiction that will allow us to use one courthouse as the demonstration site for an inclusive and accessible courtroom experience.

Continue reading here:
Preventing racism and ableism from impacting people's daily lives - Northwestern Now

Nearly a half-century before Rahul Gandhi, his grandmother, former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, too, was disqualified from Parliament also as a consequence of a court decision. The comparison, however, ends here.

Indira was disqualified by a single-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which found her guilty of corrupt electoral practices in the elections of 1971. The decision by Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha which was stayed and subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court would be the trigger for Indira to declare the Emergency, which would change the politics of India forever.

The case was filed by the Lohiaite leader Raj Narain of the Samyukta Socialist Party after he was defeated by Indira in the election to the Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat in March 1971. Raj Narain challenged Indiras election on grounds of alleged corrupt practices under Sections 123(5), 123(6), 123(3), and 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which relate to the hiring of vehicles for the purpose of ferrying people to polling booths, exceeding the election expenditure limit, appealing for votes on the basis of religion, and using government functionaries for the furtherance of her election prospects respectively.

Narain alleged that Indira, along with her former Officer on Special Duty (OSD) and election agent, Yashpal Kapur, had spent more than the amount prescribed under Section 77 of the RP Act, read with Rule 90 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.

Justice Sinha found Indira guilty of corrupt practices under Section 123(7) of the RP Act. The misuse of police and Army personnel, judges, magistrates, and gazetted officers falls under the ambit of this subsection.

The court observed that Indira had used the services of Kapur, along with the Rae Bareli District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police to set up a stage, loudspeakers, and barricades for her election campaign. Indira had appointed Kapur her election agent after he had resigned from the Prime Ministers Secretariat on January 13, 1971, well before she started her campaign, but the Secretariat had not notified his resignation until January 25 of that year. Also, on January 7, when he was still a gazetted officer, Kapur had given speeches in favour of Indira.

The court concluded that Section 123(7) had indeed been violated and on June 12, 1975, ruled that Indira was guilty of having committed corrupt practice by having obtained the assistance of gazetted officers in furtherance of her election prospects.

Consequently, the Prime Minister was disqualified from Parliament, and from holding any elected post, for six years from the date of the decision.

Indira appealed her disqualification before the Supreme Court. The court was on vacation at the time, and on June 24, 1975, a single-judge Vacation Bench of Justice V R Krishna Iyer gave a partial stay on the High Courts order. It allowed Indira to continue as PM, but barred her from voting in parliamentary proceedings and said she could not draw her MPs salary. (Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) vs Raj Narain & Anr)

The day after the SCs interim order, on June 25, 1975, Indira declared a National Emergency on grounds of internal disturbance under Article 352 of the Constitution. During the period of the Emergency, Indiras government passed the Thirty-Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, which introduced Article 329A, which said that the elections of the Prime Minister and the Speaker cannot be challenged in a court of law.

On November 7, 1975, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by then CJI A N Ray unanimously upheld Indiras 1971 election, setting aside the rulings of the Vacation Bench and the Allahabad High Court.

Article 329A was omitted by the Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978, passed by the Janata government.

View post:
As Rahul Gandhi has to leave Lok Sabha, remembering Indira Gandhis disqualification 48 years ago - The Indian Express

I knew that arming teenagers with the ability to understand the difference between hearsay exemptions and exceptions would boomerang on me as a parent already locked in daily arguments about truth-telling. And yet, thats what my husband and I did once our children were old enough to participate in high school mock trial competitions.

Our past lives as prosecutors and civil defense attorneys gave us some measure of cool with our children, who were already dispensing advice to middle school classmates about the constitutionality of school disciplinary measures.

But my transition to corporate work and my husbands later focus on municipal law eventually made our careers too abstract for them. Mock trial gave the four of us a common language, which my husband and I were desperate to rediscover with two teenagers who were busy figuring out how to carve out a distinct space for themselves outside their parents world. I originally thought wed find that connection through music, but we are never going to convince our children of the objective superiority of 90s hip-hop and R&Band attempts to do so only made us feel old. (We did gain some credibility with them by pointing out the direct connections between rap lyrics and the quest for racial justice.)

My husband and I both speak courtroom, but adding angsty, awkward and unintentionally hilarious teenagers to our world enhanced our appreciation for the industry and our children. Our son was clinical in his approachhe wanted to understand the rules of the game and then happily went off to play it. Our daughter was initially much more wary about getting involved in the family business, even though she is instinctively prone to passionate argument, if life experience was any guide. Given her enthusiasm for writing and her gift for satire, she poked fun at and reveled in the geekiness and the hyperspecificity of the mock trial universe, to the point where she is now writing a screenplay about the experience.

So, while our childrens interest in participating in this sport (my word) was not a surprise, I was somewhat self-aware that this would awaken the stage mother in methey had to win, given their parents backgrounds, right?

Having competed in, coached and judged mock trial and moot court competitions throughout high school and law school, I appointed myself lead counsel for the childrens legal education. We explored the hypothetical contours of the rules of civil and criminal procedure and walked through scenarios that compelled the introduction of character evidence. We distinguished a defendants traits that are pertinent to an alleged crime from other crimes, wrongs and acts that are admissible to prove motive, opportunity and other limited issues.

The sessions backfired immediately. Our children quickly pointed out that leading questions on cross-examinations echoed the way we questioned them, and they challenged that we were improperly using their prior bad acts against them. I received my comeuppance as a working mother when our son told me he wasnt available for a call because he was in trial.

During the pandemic, we found ourselves dressed similarly in suit jackets, dress shirts and pajama bottoms as we argued about who would get the good room for oral argument. (Our children were not persuaded that real cases and actual adversarial proceedings should be given priority.) Opening statements echoed throughout the house.

But life lessons quickly surfaced too. Practicing lawyers and judges presided over rounds, and our children learned that a sustained objection may mean that while the objection was technically correct, the judge may still disagree on the objecting partys interpretation of the rule or argument. Being right on the law did not equate with winning the case; there are no appealsonly pivots in the theory of ones case.

It was undeniably gratifying that the children would seek our counsel on at least some things. Because of her newfound interest, our daughter even decided to clerk for me when I judged one round in a law school classroom outfitted as a courtroom. She was pleased to sit next to me on the bench to track evidentiary objections and exhibit admissions. I leaned into the opportunity to require her to call me Your Honor, even if it was only for several hours.

I learned to cheer them on as an actual parent and not rise from my seat in the audience to address an objection they missed. I was nervous before each fictional murder or negligence case, and I celebrated and mourned outcomes as if actual criminal convictions and liability findings were at stake.

Losses stayed with us for weeks, and we talked about alternative ways to approach the trials well past competitions. Our children shocked and amused us by seeking our unsolicited advice and, in the same breath, schooling us on trial strategy. It was admittedly eye-opening to hear about how they leverage emojis and social media posts as evidence.

I expected that our childrens appreciation for moot court to lag behind mock trial, which often had the guilty-pleasure appeal of a scripted reality television show. In contrast, moot court simulates formal appellate argument and can feel like an often-interrupted soliloquy in a play. Lawyers present legal arguments to a panel of judges with no witness testimony.

There isnt another high school extracurricular activity that tests a teens simultaneous ability to speak extemporaneously, to weather frequent interruptions from judges, to gauge from verbal queues and body language when a line of inquiry had ended, and to pick up where they left off in their argument.

Teens unsurprisingly feel strongly about the lyrical way the Supreme Court describes which First and Fourth Amendment rights teenagers shed when they arrive at the schoolhouse gate. The exercise of having teenagers defend their rights to adultswhile pretending to be experienced appellate lawyersmade for even more passionate and sometimes comical arguments as they tried to distance themselves from the teens and children they are.

Moot court personalized their understanding of the Constitution better than any civics lesson, as they argued about the intersection and divergence of constitutionality, fairness and justice.

These experiences brought me and my husband back to the early years of our practicewe fell in love with the courtroom and with each other at around the same time, and sharing our affinity for our work with our children felt like the logical next chapter of our own narrative.

Perhaps we should not have been surprised that the best way for our children to get better acquainted with who we are aside from being their parents was to enable them to understand our own approach to litigation. Some families play tennis together; we apparently get revved up by arguing about who has met their burden of proof.

Although we have enough jokes about the world having too many lawyers, one could argue that the world can never have enough good advocates. As I watch our children argue a pretrial motion or deliver a closing argument, I am filled with optimism for the future of the profession.

Anna Newsom is executive vice president and chief legal officer for Providence St. Joseph Health, a Catholic, nonprofit health system serving the Western United States. She previously held several leadership roles at the Travelers Companies and was a partner at the law firm Mendes & Mount. She started her legal career as a prosecutor in the Bronx district attorneys office in New York.

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at Your Submissions, Your Voice.

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journalor the American Bar Association.

Read more from the original source:
A real defense of fake trials and a love letter to my family - ABA Journal

The House of Delegates on Saturday passed legislation that would bar police from detaining individuals simply because they smelled of marijuana.

With the Houses 98-34 vote, attention shifts to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, which is expected to consider the legislation in the next two weeks.

House Bill 1071 states that marijuanas odor alone gives police neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause to suspect someone of criminal activity. The smell, however, could still be a factor in an officers reasonable suspicion during a traffic stop that a person was driving while impaired by marijuana.

The General Assemblys consideration of HB 1071 arises amid the coming legalization of possession of up to 12 grams of marijuana. Maryland voters approved the possession of a personal amount of the drug by individuals age 21 and above in a referendum last November.

Under the approved referendum and related law, which take effect July 1, possession of between 12 and 20 grams of marijuana will be punishable by a $250 civil fine. Possession of more than 20 grams will be a criminal misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison and a $1,000 fine.

Currently, possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana is a civil offense punishable by a $100 fine unless the drug is being used for legal medicinal purposes.

House consideration of HB 1071 also follows a pre-referendum Maryland Supreme Court decision last year that upheld the authority of police to briefly detain and question people smelling of marijuana without violating their constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure, though possession of less than 10 grams of the drug is not a crime.

Assistant Maryland Public Defender Michele Hall cited the courts decision in In Re: D.D. in telling legislators that HB 1071 is needed because marijuana will still be illegal if possessed in large quantities and thus its smell could still enable police to detain and question individuals.

Legalization alone did not fix this problem, Hall told the House Judiciary Committee this month.

As long as odor supports Fourth Amendment intrusion, Marylanders legally engaging in the cannabis market are at risk, added Hall, who argued in vain for D.D. before the high court.

Alleging odor of cannabis alone is nothing more than a blank check for police to intrude upon a persons right to privacy in the hopes of finding something criminal, and the Fourth Amendment requires more.

HB 1071 has also drawn strong support from the American Civil Liberties Unions Maryland chapter.

Marijuana odor stops and searches not only pose serious risk to peoples Fourth Amendment rights, they enable racial profiling and dangerous and unnecessary police interactions, Yanet Amanuel, the chapters public policy director, told the Judiciary Committee this month.

This is why it is critical that the legislature must step up and ensure that the law and police practices are consistent with the reason you all said you support legalization of marijuana and, most importantly, the law reflects the will of the people, Amanuel added. Marylanders should not fear police interactions because of a lingering odor of a now legal substance.

But William Katcef of the Maryland States Attorneys Association said the constitutional issues of probable cause and reasonable suspicion should be left to judges to determine, not legislators.

I dont think that we should have the General Assembly make the determination as to what constitutes reasonable suspicion or what constitutes probable cause, Katcef told the Judiciary Committee. I think the courts should decide.

The Judiciary Committee sent the bill to the House floor on a 15-6 vote Wednesday.

Del. Charlotte Crutchfield, D-Montgomery, is chief sponsor of HB 1071, which would go into effect July 1. The bill was not cross-filed in the Senate.

Read the rest here:
MD politics: House passes bill removing marijuana smell as ... - Maryland Daily Record

Click hereto watch the video.

WASHINGTON U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today spoke on the Senate floor about the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act, his new bipartisan bill that would establish a risk-based process to identify and mitigate foreign-adversary threats to American information and communications technology. Thune noted that its time to update our laws to ensure that we are able to confront the national security threats posed by foreign-adversary technology, such as TikTok.

Thune today penned an op-ed with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) in FoxNews.com about the RESTRICT Act.

Thunes remarks below (as prepared for delivery):

Mr. President, theres been a lot of talk about TikTok in the halls of Congress lately, and with good reason.

Because its become increasingly clear that TikTok poses serious national security concerns.

TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are Chinese-owned entities with ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

And after a Chinese spy balloon floated over our country a few weeks ago, I think its obvious to everyone that the Chinese Communist Party is hostile to the interests of the United States and spies on American citizens.

And I can think of few better or easier ways to spy on American citizens or manipulate American public opinion than to make use of a popular app that is used by over 100 million Americans.

In the United States, of course, we have the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to protect the data Americans provide to apps from being seized by the government.

But the Chinese Communist Party has no such restraints.

In fact, Chinese law requires social media and technology companies to provide information including individually identifiable personal information to the Chinese government when asked.

So there is no legal framework in China to effectively protect TikTok users or users of any China-based app from having their personal information turned over to the Chinese Communist Party.

And there are already concerning signs that TikTok users personal information is not secure.

It was reported last year that China-based employees of ByteDance had repeatedly accessed private data from TikTok users in the U.S., despite TikToks claim to the contrary.

And in December 2022, it was found that ByteDance employees inside China used the app to obtain the locations of journalists who worked on stories highlighting TikToks national security risks.

This obviously has implications for Americans personal security and privacy.

And it raises troubling questions about how the Chinese Communist Party could use TikTok for its own ends, whether thats using personal data to develop sources for espionage or manipulating content to advance the Communist Partys agenda.

Mr. President, TikTok is not the first time technology from a hostile nation has posed a serious security concern.

Before there was TikTok, we had to engage in a protracted effort to remove technology from Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE from our telecommunications networks after U.S. security officials raised concerns that much of Huaweis and ZTEs equipment was built with backdoors giving the Chinese Communist Party access to global communications networks.

The digital age has come with enormous benefits, but it also comes with substantial new threats not least the threat of a hostile foreign government exploiting communications technology for nefarious purposes.

And that threat increases substantially when were talking about technology from hardware to social media apps produced by companies in hostile nations and affiliated with hostile governments.

In recent years, a number of foreign companies in the information and communications technology space many of them subject to the control of hostile governments have gained significant market share.

Current law provides some remedies for confronting the dangers these companies present.

For example, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, can block attempted investments from foreign companies if these investments are determined to present a national security risk.

But the authorities the federal government currently has were fashioned in a pre-digital age, and therefore not designed for the specific threats posed by digital technology controlled by foreign-adversary nations.

And as a result the federal government is limited in what it can do in situations like the one we currently face with TikTok.

What is needed is a comprehensive framework for responding to national security risks posed by foreign-adversary-owned digital technology whether thats TikTok, or some other app, or mobile phone technology, or internet hardware.

While CFIUS has the ability to address some risks, the reality is that the mere presence of a technology from a foreign adversary in the United States does not trigger CFIUS review.

For a tech platform that does not acquire, merge with, or invest in a U.S. company, CFIUS review does not apply.

So, for example, WeChat, the other Chinese-controlled app that President Trump sought to ban back in 2020, is apparently not subject to CFIUS review.

Legislation is necessary to fill this important gap in authority.

Thats why earlier this month Democrat Senator Mark Warner chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and I introduced the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act, or the RESTRICT Act which now has the support of 18 senators from both parties.

Our legislation would create a comprehensive process based at the U.S. Department of Commerce for identifying and mitigating foreign threats to information and communications technology products and services.

I want to emphasize that the authorities of the RESTRICT Act only apply to six foreign-adversary countries: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.

Under our bill, the Department of Commerce would review any information and communications technology product from these countries that is deemed to present a possible security threat, with an emphasis on products used in critical telecommunications infrastructure or with serious national security implications.

And the secretary of commerce would be required to develop a range of measures to mitigate the danger posed by these products, up to and including a complete ban on the product in question.

The bill would also ensure transparency by requiring the commerce secretary to coordinate with the director of national intelligence to provide declassified information on why any measures taken against foreign-adversary-owned technology products were necessary.

Importantly, the RESTRICT Act also requires the secretary of commerce to act within 180 days after initiating a review.

A common complaint about the ongoing CFIUS review of TikTok is that it has been open-ended and taken years to complete.

By comparison, the RESTRICT Act requires quick action to take the necessary steps to mitigate an undue risk from technology of a foreign-adversary nation.

Mr. President, there is bipartisan acknowledgment that TikTok poses a national security risk.

And the RESTRICT Act provides a framework for confronting both current and future risks.

Im grateful to both Republican and Democrat colleagues for joining Senator Warner and me to introduce this bill.

Its time to update our laws to ensure that we are able to confront the national security threats posed by foreign-adversary technology.

And I look forward to working with colleagues from both parties, in both chambers, to advance the RESTRICT Act and get it to the presidents desk.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

See more here:
Thune Discusses Bill to Combat National Security Risks From ... - Senator John Thune