nebraskaprelaw-blog

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Plastic Bag Bans: What does it look like for cities like Omaha?

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

April 16, 2018

In May, Omaha’s city council and Mayor Jean Stothert were engaging in conversations about reducing the number of plastic bags in the city. City Council President Ben Gray and Councilman Pete Festersen have been exploring options including a plastic bag ban or requiring  area grocers and small retailers to charge consumers for plastic bags. These proposals are being raised as the city is putting together parameters for the next 10-year wast collection contract.

On Wednesday, March 28th, Mayor Stothert weighed in by stating that she is “‘more willing’ to support a ban on plastic bags than charging for them.” Mayor Stothert did note that she would like to see more information including how the ordinance would be written before making any kind of commitment. However, she said that “for the face value of it right now, rather than charging 10 cents for a bag, I’d rather see a ban on those types of bags.” [1]

Following the mayor’s statement, Council President Gray said that “What I’m finding is that most places are doing an outright ban. It seems like, to me, that would be the best way to go.” The Omaha World Herald reported that bans on plastic bags have already been in see in cities like

Austin, Texas, and Seattle, Washington. [1]

As the City Council and Mayor Stothert continue to investigate possibilities to reduce plastic bags, they will without a doubt look to the ordinances adopted in those cities like Austin. The city’s plastic bag ban can be found in Austin’s City Code, Title 15, Chapter 15-6, Article 7. Austin began their plastic bag ban in March 2013. The bag ban is split into four sections: Definitions, Regulations, Exemptions, and Hardship Variance. The ordinance includes very detailed definitions of “carryout bag” and “reusable carryout bag” while adopting a section on exemptions to further explain which bags would still be permitted for use including “laundry dry cleaning bags, door-hanger bags, newspaper bags, or packages of multiple bags intended for use as garbage, pet waste, or yard waste” and “bags provided by pharmacists or veterinarians to contain prescription drugs or other medical necessities.” [2]

Based on the language of Austin’s city ordinance, their plastic bag ban was stimulated for the purpose of increasing recycling efforts and education surrounding those programs. What happens in that absence of plastic bags in a city like Austin? The ordinance aimed to replace single-use plastic bags by allowing for business establishments to “provide or sell reusable carryout bags to its consumers or any person” as long as those reusable bags meet certain requirements. [2]

In the years that followed Austin’s implementation of the ban in 2013, a 2015 report by Austin’s Resource Recovery Department showed that Austin’s residents helped “reduce overall consumption by about 197 million single-use bags per year.” [3] While Austin had almost five times fewer individual plastic bags per pound of recycling, there was little difference found in weight comparison because of a high concentration of heavier reusable bags. This was due to the regulation that retailers give away or sell reusable bags that are recyclable and must be at least .004 includes thick. [3] Despite the reports suggestion that the city remove the regulation that defines the thickness of reusable bags, that guideline remains.

According to the San Francisco Department of the Environment, the city of San Francisco also implemented a plastic bag ban for retail stores and food establishments beginning in October 2013. Called the Checkout Bag Ordinance, the ordinance prohibits all single-use checkout plastic bags and establishes a mandatory charge of 10 cents per checkout bag provided if they meet certain requirements for recyclability. The exemptions listed in the Checkout Bag

Ordinance for San Francisco closely mirror those adopted in Austin. [3]

The National Conference for State Legislatures lists six cities with plastic bag bans and fees as notable including: Austin, Texas; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, Washington. [5] As Omaha’s City Council continues to deliberate options for reducing single-use plastic bags in the city, it will be interesting to see whether Omaha, Nebraska joins that growing list of cities.

________________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Nohr, Emily. “Ban Plastic Bags? Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert Willing to Consider It.” Omaha.com, Omaha World Herald, 29 Mar. 2018, www.omaha.com/news/metro/ban-plastic-bags-omaha-mayor-jean-stothert-willing-to-consider/article_d75aa3a0-e7b1-5c7a-972f-4fbeb6fd681e.html.

[2] “Austin Texas Code of Ordinances.” Municode Library, City of Austin, Texas, library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT15UTRE_CH15-6SOWASE_ART7CABA&searchText=.

[3] Whitson, Tyler. “Plastic Bag Ban Working to an Extent, Says Report.” Austin Monitor, 12 June 2015, www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2015/06/plastic-bag-ban-working-extent-says-report/.

[4] “Checkout Bag Ordinance.” SF Environment, San Francisco Department of the Environment, 13 July 2017, sfenvironment.org/checkout-bag-ordinance.

[5] “State Plastic and Paper Bag Legislation.” National Conference of State Legislatures, 5 July 2017, www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/plastic-bag-legislation.aspx.

Photo Credit: F. Kesselring, FKuR Willich - F. Kesselring, FKuR Willich

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Autonomous Vehicles: The Cars of the Future and the Laws Surrounding Them

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

April 3, 2018

While flying cars were once deemed the cars of the future, that view has recently shifted with many turning their attention to autonomous vehicles or self-driving cars. As technology continues to develop, states and local governments are enacting legislation to address what their impact could be on the road.

The National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL) reports that since 2012, at least 41 states and D.C. have considered legislation related to autonomous vehicles. The NCSL claims that twenty-two states and Washington D.C. have enacted legislation relating to self-driving vehicles while governors in ten states have issued executive orders. [1]

Recently, self-driving cars made headlines when a test car from Uber Technologies Inc. hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona earlier this month. Uber had been testing autonomous vehicles in the state of Arizona. While there was a driver in the vehicle, the test car was in autonomous mode when it struck and killed Elaine Herzberg on March 18, 2018. Dash cam videos show that the vehicle did not slow down or change course prompting many to question the safety of self-driving vehicles. [2]

In immediate response to the incident, Uber’s communication team took to Twitter to state that they had suspended their testing of self-driving vehicles in four cities: San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Phoenix and Toronto. [2] The state of Arizona also took action following the accident with Governor Doug Ducey suspending testing in the state. Arizona had first welcomed autonomous vehicle tests through an executive order issued by Governor Ducey in August 2015. The order directed different agencies to “undertake any necessary steps to support the testing and operation of self-driving vehicles on public roads within Arizona” [1]. The order also established a Self-Driving Vehicle Oversight Committee and enabled pilot programs at elect universities. March 1, 2018 brought a second executive order to add changes to the original order in an effort “to keep pace with emerging technology.” [1] Following the deadly incident, however, Governor Ducey suspended Uber’s autonomous vehicle testing programs in the state, writing a letter to Uber CEO Dara Khosrowski on March 26, 2018. Governor Ducey wrote “I found the [dash cam] video to be disturbing and alarming, and it raises many questions about the ability of Uber to continue testing in Arizona… In the best interests of the people of my state, I have directed the arizona Department of Transportation to suspend Uber’s ability to test and operate autonomous vehicles on Arizona’s public roadways.” [3]

The following day, Uber announced that they will not immediately continue their self-driving car program in California. Their current permit from the California Department of Motor Vehicles is set to expire on March 31, but the company stated they will not renew their permit in California. [3] Uber is seemingly taking a step back from autonomous vehicles, but what could this most recent accident mean for the future of self-driving cars? Another recent accident in California involving a Tesla is made headlines in March. The National Transportation Safety Board is currently investigating the fatal crash in California to see whether the semi-automated driving system was engaged. [4]

These accidents are increasingly raising questions about the safety of automated driving systems. In September 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration revealed a new policy to help guide the safe development of highly autonomous vehicles (HAVs). [1] However, in the world of quickly evolving technology, these policies and legislation seem to have a hard time keeping up.

_______________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law.

________________________________________________________________

[1] “Autonomous Vehicles | Self-Driving Vehicles Enacted Legislation.” National Conference of State Legislatures, 26 Mar. 2018, www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx.

[2] Johnson, Alex. “Arizona Governor Suspends Uber Self-Driving Car Tests After Fatal Accident.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 26 Mar. 2018, www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/arizona-suspends-uber-self-driving-car-tests-after-fatal-accident-n860256.

[3] Wren, Ian. “Arizona Suspends Uber's Self-Driving Vehicle Testing After Fatal Crash.” NPR, NPR, 27 Mar. 2018, www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/27/597331608/arizona-suspends-ubers-self-driving-vehicle-testing-after-fatal-crash.

[4] Spector, Mike. “Federal Safety Investigators Examine Another Fatal Tesla Crash.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 27 Mar. 2018, www.wsj.com/articles/federal-safety-investigators-examine-another-fatal-tesla-crash-1522190135.

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

New Decision in ACLU Nebraska’s Lawsuit Over Prison System

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

January 26, 2018

In August of 2017, the state of Nebraska Department of Correctional Services was hit with a lawsuit on the overcrowding of prisons. The nearly 90-page lawsuit alleged that prison conditions were violating the rights of inmates causing the “needless suffering and death of inmates” along with unsafe conditions for staff. [1]

The suit claimed that prisoners are “consistently deprived of adequate health care, including medical, dental, and mental health care, and denied accommodations for their disabilities.” [2] Plaintiffs were named as Hannah Sabata, Dylan Cardeilhac, James Griswold, Michael Gunther, Angelic Norris, R.P. (a minor), Isaac Reeves, Zoe Rena, and Brandon Sweetser. The parties were incarcerated individuals who ACLU claims were denied their right to access healthcare in their correctional facilities.

For example, Sabata was named as a 24-year-old female prisoner in the Nebraska Correctional Center for Women (NDCS) who is a person with a disability as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and 29U.S.C. § 705(9)(B). [2] Sabata has schizophrenia and is HIV positive. During her time at NDCS, the suit claims she experienced lapses in delays in receiving her prescription medication and was frequently isolated due to her schizophrenia.

ACLU named “extreme overcrowding” as the primary cause of the state’s problem behind bars. The Omaha World Herald reports that “the most recent information posted on the state website, Nebraska’s state prisons, designed to hold 3,275 inmates, instead held 5,228, which is 159.6 percent capacity.” [1] Under Nebraska law, the governor can declare a state of emergency if the inmate population exceeds 140 percent, but current Governor Pete Ricketts and his predecessor, Dave Heineman, declined to do that. [1]

Sabata v. NDOC filed in the U.S. District Court in August 16, 2017 was met with opposition with the state filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in November. Their argument stating that the the 11 inmates named “lacked legal standing and hadn’t incurred injuries.” [3] U.S. District Judge Robert Rossiter disagreed, saying that “being denied parole due to criteria that improperly discriminate against those with disabilities would be an actual injury.” [3]

However, parts of ACLU’s lawsuit are being dismissed. Rossiter ruled on January 16, 2018 that state agencies can’t be sued directly. While the claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act can proceed, ACLU will not be able to sue the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services or the Nebraska Board of Parole. Instead, they will move forward with civil-rights claims against prisons director Scott Fakes, parole administrator Julie Micek and the prisons director of health services Harbans Deol. [3]

 _______________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Hammel, Paul. “ACLU of Nebraska Files Lawsuit over Prison Overcrowding, Says Conditions Violate Inmates' Rights.” Omaha.com, Omaha World Herald, 16 Aug. 2017, www.omaha.com/news/crime/aclu-of-nebraska-files-lawsuit-over-prison-overcrowding-says-conditions/article_485863a0-c12c-516e-a3c7-9f51d4ecfa42.html.

[2] “Sabata v NDOC Complaint.” ACLU Nebraska, 15 Aug. 2017, https://www.aclunebraska.org/sites/default/files/sabata_v_ndoc_complaint.pdf.

[3] “Most of ACLU's Lawsuit Against Nebraska Prisons Advances.” US News, 17 Jan. 2018,

www.usnews.com/news/best-states/nebraska/articles/2018-01-17/most-of-aclus-lawsuit-against-nebraska-prisons-advances

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Alabama Senate Race And Legal Challenges

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

January 15, 2018

The 2017 race to fill an Alabama Senate seat was one that drew national media attention for a number of reasons, including sexual assault allegations against Republican candidate Roy Moore. A contentious race ended in a victory for Democrat Doug Jones, but Moore’s battle was far from over as he sought to challenge the decision in court.

 On December 27th, Moore filed a lawsuit to block the state from certifying Jones as the winner of Alabama’s special election citing voting fraud. In a statement announcing the lawsuit, Moore said “This is not a Republican or Democrat issue as election integrity should matter to everyone.” [1] Moore lost the election by a margin of 1.5 percent or fewer than 21,000 votes. His complaint declared irregularities in the election, including claims that voters were brought in from other states and citing the higher-than-expected voter turnout for the special election. [2]

Although a state court judge was quick to deny Moore’s lawsuit after the announcement, many Nebraskans were surprised to see an Omaha company caught up in the Alabama suit. In the complaint filed, Election Systems & Software was named. This Omaha company provides “voting machines, election management systems, and services to support elections” all across the United States. [3] With the company based in election technology and processes since 1979, Election Systems & Software seemed a valid option to take aim for his complaints. Moore claimed that “‘it is believed’ that the company and others contract with Alabama counties to tabulate and store voting records or evidence. [4]

The Omaha Herald reports that Moore’s spokeswoman, Janet Porter, also referenced Election Systems & Software in a CNN interview, saying “You’ve got this private company out of Omaha, Nebraska, that has all the votes and the voter images, and no one’s allowed to see them” with the intention of echoing Moore’s claims of election fraud. [4]

The lawsuit was dismissed largely in part due to investigations that had already been conducted by the Alabama Secretary of State’s Office. Despite Moore’s efforts to delay or block Jones’ victory, Jones was sworn into office as Alabama’s newest senator on January 3rd, 2018.

________________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Nelson, Louis. “Roy Moore Loses Lawsuit Seeking New Election.” POLITICO, 28 Dec. 2017, www.politico.com/story/2017/12/28/roy-moore-lawsuit-alabama-race-doug-jones-319544.

[2] “Update: Democrat’s Victory in Alabama Certified by State.” WREG.com, News 3, 28 Dec. 2017, wreg.com/2017/12/28/roy-moore-files-complaint-to-block-alabama-senate-result/.

[3] “Company Overview of Election Systems & Software, LLC.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=96810.

[4] Moring, Roseann. “Omaha-Based Voting Equipment Company Caught up in Alabama Senate Candidate Roy Moore's Allegations of 'Election Fraud'.” Omaha.com, Omaha World Herald, 28 Dec. 2017, www.omaha.com/news/politics/omaha-based-voting-equipment-company-caught-up-in-alabama-senate/article_17255fcc-ec1c-11e7-a4ec-13e010e496bf.html.

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Net Neutrality: Legal Challengers Come Forward Following FCC Vote

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

December 25, 2017

The Internet was in an uproar over last week’s decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to repeal net neutrality. On December 14th, the FCC led by chairman Ajit Pai, voted 3 to 2 to repeal the Obama-era guidelines for Internet providers. [1] There is much already to be read on the issue of net neutrality and what this repeal may mean for American consumers, namely the regulation of high-speed internet delivery by the federal government and the ability of service providers to block or charge for certain websites or content.

           As the New York Times reports, it will take weeks for the repeal to go into effect. [1] But the battle on the legal front is just beginning. Among those promising a fight are Democratic legislators on Capitol Hill and public interest groups including Public Knowledge and the National Hispanic Media Coalition. [1] Gaining the most media attention, however, is New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Schneiderman released a statement on the day before the FCC vote that shared analysis of the public comments process used in the net neutrality decision. His results showed that more than two million comments were made using stolen identities. The FCC denied Schneiderman’s request to delay the vote for further investigation which is why Schneiderman is choosing to take action. He stated “Pai pushed through the repeal of net neutrality despite public opposition, despite our request for an investigation, and despite the terrible consequences.We can’t stand by and watch one of the greatest tools for democracy ever created be turned into a private playground for the rich.” [2]

           Schneiderman is planning to lead a coalition of attorney generals in legal action against the FCC. Attorney General Bob Ferguson of Washington will be joining him [4] including others from Oregon, Illinois, Iowa, and Massachusetts.

           Although there have been no official reports or documents released from this forming coalition, analysts are predicting the course of the arguments. It is believed that opponents of the FCC are expected to make two main arguments. One approach is “likely to target the FCC’s legal reasoning for undoing the net neutrality rules, and the other will concentrate on the decision-making process that led to the vote, which some critics claim had been ‘corrupted.’” [3]

           It seems likely that Schneiderman and his coalition will be questioning the procedures taken by the FCC in their decision. Schneiderman stating that “We're suing because the FCC today broke essentially all the rules of administrative procedure… Agencies aren't just allowed to make any arbitrary decision.” [3]

________________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Kang, Cecilia. “F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Dec. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html.

[2] Houser, Kristin. “Exclusive: N.Y. Attorney General on Why He Refuses to Let Net Neutrality Die.” Futurism, 16 Dec. 2017, futurism.com/net-neutrality-ny-attorney-general/.

[3] Fung, Brian. “The Net Neutrality Lawsuits Are Coming. Here’s What They’Re Likely to Say.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 19 Dec. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/19/the-net-neutrality-lawsuits-are-coming-heres-what-theyre-likely-to-say/?utm_term=.27c278343361.

[4] “AG Ferguson Announces Lawsuit to Come on Net Neutrality” Washington State Office of the Attorney General, 14 Dec. 2017, www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-announces-lawsuit-come-net-neutrality.

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Nebraska’s Reinstated Death Penalty: ACLU Files Two Related Lawsuits

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

December 5, 2017

ACLU of Nebraska is challenging the state’s reinstated Death Penalty in more ways than one.

In November 2016, Nebraska voters were faced with a veto referendum on their ballot known as the Nebraska Death Penalty Repeal Veto Referendum or Referendum 426. 60% of voters voted to repeal Referendum 426, which resulted reinstating the death penalty in Nebraska. [1]

Now, one year later, ACLU of Nebraska has filed a lawsuit asking for the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services to reveal the suppliers of recently acquired lethal injection drugs. Because of a public records request in 2015, the public discovered a “botched purpose of lethal injection drugs” [2] that cost state taxpayers $54,000. In November, the state announced that it had successfully attained four drugs to carry out an execution. However, the source of those drugs have not been revealed with the Department of Corrections citing “attorney-client privilege.” [2] ACLU of Nebraska disagreed and argued in their lawsuit that the state violated the Nebraska Public Records Act by not releasing that supplier information.

While this lawsuit was filed on December 1st, ACLU of Nebraska also filed a lawsuit on December 4th in an effort to block the executions of the 11 men currently on Nebraska’s death row. ACLU of Nebraska charged that the death penalty repeal that was passed by the State Legislature prior to the referendum, was in effect long enough to “convert the death sentences for the 11 men to life in prison.” Their argument is that the referendum to restore the death penalty was only applicable for future punishments. [3]

Many individuals and organizations have questioned Governor Pete RIcketts’ involvement in Referendum 426. It is public knowledge that Ricketts was one of the leading financial supporters on the death penalty push with with donations amounting $300,000. With Ricketts personal contributions and the contributions of his parents (TD Ameritrade founder) combined, the total accounts for 30 percent of the $1.45 million raised by Nebraskans for the Death Penalty. [3]

An Omaha World Herald article reported that the ACLU claims that the governor “‘exhausted’ his executive powers when he vetoed the repeal law passed by lawmakers, and that his subsequent steps to back a referendum that restored the death penalty were unlawful ‘legislative’ activities that are reserved, via the separation of powers clause, for the State Legislature.” [3]

Executive Director Danielle Conrad of ACLU Nebraska said that these legal actions “reflect the ACLU’s commitment to defend the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions, and is in step with the organization’s long-running opposition to the death penalty.” [3] With the mounting pressure on the state to release information on the supplier of lethal-injection drugs, increasing criticism on the governor’s role in the referendum, and questioning unclear sentences for the men on Nebraska’s death row, the ACLU of Nebraska is certainly not backing down from that claim.

_________________________________________________________________Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law. 

________________________________________________________________

[1] “Nebraska Death Penalty Repeal, Referendum 426 (2016).” Ballotpedia, ballotpedia.org/Nebraska_Death_Penalty_Repeal,_Referendum_426_(2016).

[2] Hammel, Paul. “ACLU of Nebraska Files Lawsuit to Force State to Identify Supplier of Lethal Injection Drugs.” Omaha.com, 2 Dec. 2017, www.omaha.com/news/nebraska/aclu-of-nebraska-files-lawsuit-to-force-state-to-identify/article_9a2f7cf8-d6ab-11e7-b69b-67d791eb2b46.html.

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Media Mega-merger on Halt: AT&T Faces Lawsuit from Department of Justice

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

November 14, 2017

A surprising new move on a deal that has spent a year in the making. In October 2016, AT&T Inc. and Time Warner Inc. announced their plans for a megamerger of the two top television and programming providers. DirecTV Inc. and parent company, AT&T Inc., are America’s largest distributor of “traditional subscription television” while Time Warner owns the top “TV networks, including TNT, TBS, CNN, and HBO” [1]. However, plans for the $108 billion merger came to a swift halt on November 20, 2017 in a lawsuit against AT&T Inc., DirecTV Inc., and Time Warner Inc. by the United States Department of Justice.

The reason for the lawsuit springs from antitrust enforcement efforts led by Makan Delrahim, head of the antitrust department in the Department of Justice. He stated that “This merger would greatly harm American consumers” adding that “It would mean higher monthly television bills and fewer of the new, emerging innovative options that consumers are beginning to enjoy.” [2]

Delrahim’s statement echoes the threats the Department of Justice identifies in the complaint section of United States of America v. AT&T Inc., DirecTV Inc., and Time Warner Inc. The Department of Justice was moved to action by what they identify as a violation of Section 1 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. [1] This code covers the acquisition by one corporation of stock of another. Stating that:

No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly. [3]

The Department of Justice claims that AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner is aimed to “substantially… lessen competition” as AT&T could “use its control of Time Warner’s popular

programming as a weapon to harm competition” and “hinder its rivals by forcing them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars more per year for Time Warner’s networks.” [1]

In the interest of keeping innovative options available and bills lower for American families, the Department of Justice filed the suit and took up arms in what is predicted to be a ferocious battle against AT&T.

Bloomberg reports that this lawsuit is the second in six years that AT&T has faced; the first was a 2011 suit against AT&T’s dropped deal to acquire T-Mobile. [2] This current lawsuit could set the precedent in future consolidations in the field of media.

________________________________________________________________Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law. ________________________________________________________________

[1] United States of America v. AT&T Inc., DirecTV Inc., and Time Warner Inc. 20 Nov. 2017, assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4254900/ATT-Antitrust-Complaint.pdf.

[2] Forden, Sara, and David McLaughlin. “AT&T Sued by U.S. Seeking to Block Merger With Time Warner.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 20 Nov. 2017, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-20/at-t-is-said-to-face-u-s-antitrust-lawsuit-over-time-warner.

[3] “15 U.S. Code § 18 - Acquisition by One Corporation of Stock of Another.” Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/18.

Photo Credit: Luismt94

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Omaha’s Median Ordinance: Keeping Omaha Safe or Targeting Panhandlers?

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

November 14, 2017

The Omaha City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 24th introduced a newly approved city ordinance aimed at “reducing panhandling and improve safety conditions at key intersections across the community” [1] that was met with little dispute. In a 6 to 1 vote, the council approved a proposal that bans people from conducting activities on medians that are designated as the most dangerous and busiest intersections in the city.

Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert praised the vote by stating “This ordinance addresses public safety and the risk to everyone who uses our city streets.” [1] According to Assistant Public Works Director Todd Pfitzer, more than 70 medians on the city’s list of most-dangerous intersections could qualify under the new ordinance. [2] The department is expected to start prioritizing the list within the next month with the ordinance going into effect 15 days following the October 24th vote. However, the rule will not be enforced until after signs are posted at those designated individual intersections.

 The ordinance was proposed in a response to complaints about panhandlers across the metro area. However, the ordinance does not specifically mention panhandling to avoid the constitutional question about First Amendments rights. In the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, the court ruled in a unanimous decision on city ordinances restricting free speech. [3] Although the original case was about an ordinance restricting where signs for religious services could be displayed, the decision is now being used to take down panhandling laws in cities across the United States.

Opposition of Omaha’s new city ordinance called the ordinance a “ruse to target panhandlers.” [2] Others argue that this ordinance will not be enough to stop the city’s panhandlers stating that these individuals could just move to other parts of the intersection or to new intersections in the city. There are also questions as to how effectively this new ordinance can be enforced when signs are finally posted. [1]

Councilman Vinny Palermo was the only opposing vote, saying that the ordinance is “not solving the actual problem at hand” [2] which is poverty.

________________________________________________________________Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law. ________________________________________________________________

[1] “Omaha City Council Approves Median Ban.” KETV News, KETV, 24 Oct. 2017, www.ketv.com/article/omaha-city-council-approves-median-ban/13085931.

[2] Nohr, Emily. “Omaha Council Approves Ordinance to Ban Pedestrians from Medians at Busy Intersections.” Omaha.com, Omaha World Herald, 26 Oct. 2017, www.omaha.com/news/metro/omaha-council-approves-ordinance-to-ban-pedestrians-from-medians-at/article_6780aade-b8f1-11e7-9b84-b73bdc4c9cf0.html.

[3] Wogan, J.B. “The Unexpected Reason Panhandling Bans Are Being Struck Down Across the Country.” Governing Magazine, 25 July 2017, www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-panhandling-homeless-supreme-court-reed-gilbert.html.

“Reed et al. v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona et al.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2014/13-502.

Photo Credit: The Photographer

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

The Underserved Law Opportunities Program

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

September 27, 2017

“Minority group members have historically been underrepresented in the legal profession. The law school population (as well as the legal profession) does not reflect accurately the vibrant and expanding racial and ethnic population in our society.” —Law School Admission Council [1]

A new partnership program from the University of Nebraska College of Law and the University of Nebraska Omaha aims to open new doors for underrepresented populations in the field of legal work and education. The Underserved Law Opportunities Program (ULOP) welcomed their first participating undergraduate students this fall semester in their pipeline program who plan to pursue a career in law.  Richard Moberly, interim dean of the Nebraska College of Law shared that “Nebraska has a need for bilingual attorneys and attorneys who will practice law in the public interest. This is an important step toward meeting that need.” [2]

A study by Saint Louis University School of Law professor Aaron Taylor found that in the early 2010s, the percentage of black and Hispanic students attending law schools were increasing, but not at the most prestigious schools. Taylor found that minority students fared worst at law schools ranked in the top 20 percent for LSAT scores. The ABA Journal reported that Taylor “credits the lower-tier schools with helping improve the diversity of the legal profession. But he says prestige schools should also do their part.” [3]

John Hopkins University speaks to the importance of having minority voices represented in the legal field by stating the following: “The legal system, which greatly values and benefits from multicultural perspectives, acknowledges the importance of diverse legal representation. A law career provides a singular opportunity to effect change both on an individual level—by representing the interests of a client—and on a global level—by setting policy or establishing a precedent in the governmental or business arenas.” [4] They also acknowledge the increase of minority participation in most law schools but urge that more can be done and should be done.

The University of Nebraska College of Law and University of Nebraska Omaha’s new ULOP program is one of the many ways that John Hopkins encourages institutions to help make legal professions more inclusive communities that yield valuable different perspectives. They are not the only ones involved, however. The Law School Admissions Council has an established Minority Affairs Committee which has “spent in excess of $3 million on projects designed to increase the number of minority men and women who attend law schools.” [4] The American Bar Association and the Association of American Law Schools have requirements in place that call for the provision of full opportunities for members of minority groups to help relieve shortages of minority lawyers. [4]

As Nebraska’s ULOP program gains traction in its first year, a community will be watching and waiting to see the impact that it may have for the state and for participating students, many of whom are first-generation college students. [2]

________________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law.

________________________________________________________________

[1] “Diversity in Law School.” Racial-Ethnic Minority Applicants, Law School Admission Council, www.lsac.org/jd/diversity-in-law-school/racial-ethnic-minority-applicants.

[2] “Law Partnership Targets Underrepresented Students.” Nebraska College of Law, University of Nebraska Lincoln, 7 Mar. 2017,law.unl.edu/node/1005/.

[3] Weiss, Debra Cassens. “Law School Diversity Improves, but Not at Most Prestigious Schools.” ABA Journal, 12 Feb. 2015, www.abajournal.com/news/article/law_school_diversity_improves_but_not_at_most_prestigious_schools.

[4] Minorities in Law. John Hopkins University, studentaffairs.jhu.edu/preprofadvising/pre-law/advising/minorities-in-law/.

Photo Credit: Nebraska College of Law

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Churches Seek Hurricane Harvey Relief: Lawsuit Against FEMA

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

September 13, 2017

With Hurricane Irma poised to strike the United States in the coming days and the devastation left in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, the nation has turned its attention to the states of Florida and Texas particularly with disaster relief efforts. In the wake of Hurricane Harvey in Texas, three churches filed a lawsuit against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and administrator William Long on September 4, 2017. Harvest Family Church, Hi-Way Tabernacle, and Rockport First Assembly of God sued FEMA in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston. Why? The churches claim that FEMA acts unconstitutionally and discriminatorily to deny funding to places of worship. [1]

The Washington Post reports on the damage caused but the severe storms. The First Assembly of God lost “its steeple, roof and church van, while the other two churches were severely flooded.” The Hi-Way Tabernacle is reportedly a FEMA staging center and shelters up to 70 people and distributes more than 8,000 emergency meals. [2] Despite that, the churches currently do not qualify for financial aid from FEMA. According to the lawsuit, FEMA “categorically excludes houses of worship from equal access to disaster relief grants because of their religious status.” The suit explains that “The churches are not seeking special treatment; they are seeking a fair shake.” [3]

A recent 2017 Supreme Court decision, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, established that “otherwise available public benefits cannot be withheld from religious entities simply due to their status as religious entities—and that attempts to withhold such benefits are a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.” [1] This is the decision that the Texas churches are looking to use as the basis of their legal argument in Harvest Family Church, Hi-Way Tabernacle, and Rockport First Assembly of God v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, William B. Long, Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. On the Trinity Lutheran case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that “The exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.” [2] Will the District Court in Houston agree?

On September 8th, 2017 President Trump voiced his opinion on the issue via Twitter stating that “Churches in Texas should be entitled to reimbursement from FEMA Relief Funds for helping victims of Hurricane Harvey (just like others).” [2]

The churches “need to know now whether they have any hope of counting on FEMA or whether they will continue to be excluded entirely from these FEMA programs” [2] as they prepare for the long road of recovery before them.

________________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Kalmbacher, Colin. “Churches Sue FEMA Over Policy Excluding Them From Disaster Relief Funds.” Law News, 4 Sept. 2017, lawnewz.com/high-profile/churches-sue-fema-over-policy-excluding-them-from-disaster-relief-funds/.

[2] Moyer, Justin. “Trump Tweets Support for Texas Churches Seeking FEMA Money after Harvey; Lawsuits Already Filed.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 8 Sept. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/09/07/texas-churches-damaged-during-harvey-sue-fema-for-federal-funding-denied-houses-of-worship/?utm_term=.b8b0c5a6b359

[3] “Harvest Family Church, Hi-Way Tabernacle, and Rockport First Assembly of God v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, William B. Long, Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency” U.S. District Court, 4 Sept. 2017, https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/Harvest-Family-Church-v.-FEMA-complaint-file-stamped.pdf.

Images:

“Hurricane Harvey: Woodlands Church, Houston's First Baptist Church Open Doors to Those Affected by Flooding.” The Gospel Herald, 29 Aug. 2017, www.gospelherald.com/articles/71311/20170829/hurricane-harvey-woodlands-church-houstons-first-baptist-open-doors-those.htm.

Moyer, Justin. “Trump Tweets Support for Texas Churches Seeking FEMA Money after Harvey; Lawsuits Already Filed.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 8 Sept. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/09/07/texas-churches-damaged-during-harvey-sue-fema-for-federal-funding-denied-houses-of-worship/?utm_term=.b8b0c5a6b359.

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

A Star’s Assault Case: Mueller v. Swift

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

August 23, 2017

Only days into a court battle between ex-radio DJ David Muller and pop star, Taylor Swift, the young female singer has won a key victory. On August 12th, a US District Judge dismissed Muller’s lawsuit against Swift for $3 million dollars, ruling that Swift was not liable as Muller had failed to prove that she set out to get him fired. [1] A few days later, Swift won her sexual assault lawsuit against Mueller when a Denver jury reached a unanimous verdict over whether she was sexually assaulted by the radio host. [5]

Mueller’s initial lawsuit and Swift’s countersuit have gained noticeable media attention surrounding events from 2013. Swift claimed that Muller groped her at a 2013 concert when she posed with the DJ and his girlfriend for a photo. During the concert, Mueller and his girlfriend were escorted out and, days later, the radio station fired Mueller following a complaint filed by the singer. Following Mueller’s filing of the suit, Swift brought counterclaims against Muller for the “torts of assault and battery.” [2] As BBC News reports, Swift is seeking “a symbolic $1 in damages, which she has pledged to donate to charity.” [1] However, District Judge William Martinez dismissed Mueller’s 2015 claim that Swift’s allegation “had cost him his job and damaged his professional reputation.” [3] The case continued with the decision reached on August 15th with Swift winning that $1 in damages in the sexual assault case.

The case began with a challenging jury selection as often seen in high-profile, celebrity cases. Potential jurors filled out a 15-page questionnaire with questions over “whether they had ever been inappropriately touched, falsely accused or considered themselves fans of Taylor Swift.” [3]As the trial continued, evidence of support behind the young star was evident as seen in the windows of buildings across the street from the Colorado courthouse.

Swift may have even earned herself some new fans through the trial as she has been praised for her “‘sharp, gusty, and satisfying’ testimony over allegations of sexual assault” [4]. Swift wanted the trial to serve as “an example to other women” and fired back at Mueller’s attorney with sharp responses like “I am not going to allow your client to make me feel like it is any way my fault, because it isn’t.” [5] She has been praised for not backing down when defense lawyers attempted to undermine the credibility of an alleged victim. Slate magazine’s Christina Cauterucci wrote that “For young fans of Swift's, hearing a beloved artist speak candidly about the emotional damage of sexual assault and stand up to a courtroom of men trying to prove her wrong could be a formative moment for their developing ideas of gender, sex, and accountability.” [6]

The days following the decision landed Swift in headlines for the symbolic $1 she sought in damages. She has pledged to donate to organizations that help to defend sexual assault victims that may not have the same privileges as she does. In a statement, Swift said “I acknowledge the privilege that I benefit from in life, in society and in my ability to shoulder the enormous cost of defending myself in a trial like this.” [6] With big stars like Swift coming forward to speak out against sexual assault, some have suggested that she will be an inspiration for other women but also for other colleagues in the music industry.

________________________________________________________________

[1]“Taylor Swift Assault Case: Judge Throws out DJ's Lawsuit.” BBC News, BBC, 12 Aug. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40908982.

[2] “Mueller v. Swift Et Al, No. 1:2015cv01974 - Document 137 (D. Colo. 2017).” Justia Law, law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2015cv01974/158300/137/.

[3] Savage, Mark. “Taylor Swift Groping Trial: What You Need to Know.” BBC News, BBC, 8 Aug. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40860525.

[4] Savage, Mark. “Taylor Swift Wasn't Backing down in Court.” BBC News, BBC, 11 Aug. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40885437.

[5] Flanagan, Andrew. “Taylor Swift Wins Sexual Assault Lawsuit Against Former Radio Host.” NPR, NPR, 14 Aug. 2017, www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2017/08/14/543473684/taylor-swift-wins-sexual-assault-lawsuit-against-former-radio-host.

[6] “Taylor Swift Sexual Assault Case: Why Is It Significant?” BBC News, BBC, 15 Aug. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40937429.

Photo Credit: By Jana Zills - Taylor Swift, CC BY 2.0,

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Sexual Assault by Former Day Care Worker Leads to La Petite Academy Lawsuit: Jane Doe No. 1 and No. 2 vs. La Petite Academy and Mark Mays

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

August 10, 2017

Day care centers are expected to be safe atmospheres for young children during a parent’s working hours. The Center for American Progress reports that almost one-quarter or 23.4 percent of children under the age of five are in some form of “organized child care arrangement” including day cares in the United States. [1] With so many trusting their children to care outside of the home, something like a sexual assault charge for childcare employees can truly shake up a community and the confidence of parents.

Mark Mays, a former employee of La Petite Academy, a day care facility in Omaha, was sentenced to 26 to 60 years in prison on June 25, 2017. This was after Mays was found guilty “on two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child and two counts of manufacturing child pornography” [2]. According to Fox News, Mays admitted to sexually assaulting young children at several day cares and schools between 2011 and 2015. [3] In accordance with state law, Mays must serve 16 years in prison before he is eligible for parole or, in the absence of parole, he will serve 33 years before release.

On July 26, two lawsuits filed against Mays and La Petit Academy by nationally known attorney, Jeff Herman, caused a stir. Jane Doe v. La Petite Academy, Inc. and Mark Mays was filed in the district court of Douglas County. Herman reported that in this case, there were rules believed to be broken stating that “If they [La Petite Academy] contacted the schools and did background checks, they would know he was not rehirable” [3]

In Jane Doe 2v. La Petite Academy, Inc. and Mark Mays, the factual allegations outlines Mays’ employment by both Saint Andrew’s Children’s Enrichment Center and Millard Public Schols Kids Network childcare program. He was previously fired from both positions for “repeatedly crossing boundaries with children by putting kids on his lap” and even “giving his address to a young girl and inviting her to his home” [4]. The suit claims that in 2015, “La Petite hired Mays without performing any investigation of his prior employment” and that La Petite did not act accordingly to dismiss Mays after incidents were reported to the day care administrators. [4]

The lawsuit argues that “La Petite owed a duty to Jane Doe to use reasonable care to ensure Jane Doe’s safety, care, health, and well-being, including protecting her from sexual assault or abuse.” [4] The document calls for a jury trial in the action to address the complaint and award damages to the families. Unfortunately, as Herman stated “these babies and families will have to live with this for the rest of their lives” and no amount of money will make up for that. [3] Regardless, he claimed that he could envision an award of over $10 million dollars depending on jury decision. [2]

In a statement, La Petite Academy said that “We can’t comment on pending litigation… but we take our responsibility very seriously. Our staff undergoes state-mandated background checks. Our employment practices and strict protocol of care meet or exceed state and federal requirements.” [3] With Mays’ employment history outlined in Jane Doe 2v. La Petite Academy, Inc. and Mark Mays, however, it is difficult to see how the day care provider missed such crucial red flags in the former employee’s background check requirements to put the safety and well-being of children at risk.

________________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law.

________________________________________________________________

[1]Glynn, Sarah Jane. “Fact Sheet: Child Care.” Center for American Progress, 31 Oct. 2012, www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2012/08/16/11978/fact-sheet-child-care/.

[2] Cole, Kevin. “Nationally Known Attorney Files Lawsuits Against La Petite Daycare After Former Employee's Sex Assault Conviction.” Omaha.com, Omaha World Herald, 26 July 2017, www.omaha.com/news/crime/nationally-known-attorney-files-lawsuits-against-la-petite-daycare-after/article_9b5c4252-715a-11e7-b7f1-477a1da85243.html.

[3] Dortch, Winnie. “La Petite Academy Now Face Two Lawsuits after Employee Sexually Abuse Children.” KPTM, Fox 42 News, 25 June 2017, fox42kptm.com/news/local/la-petite-academy-now-face-two-lawsuits-after-employee-sexually-abuse-children.

[4] “Jane Doe 2 v. La Petite Academy, Inc. and Mark Mays” 24 July 2017, http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Complaint+(Jane+Doe+2).pdf.

Images:

Dortch, Winnie. “La Petite Academy Now Face Two Lawsuits after Employee Sexually Abuse Children.” KPTM, Fox 42 News, 25 June 2017, fox42kptm.com/news/local/la-petite-academy-now-face-two-lawsuits-after-employee-sexually-abuse-children.

“Jane Doe 2 v. La Petite Academy, Inc. and Mark Mays” 24 July 2017, http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Complaint+(Jane+Doe+2).pdf.

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Whiteclay Battle Continues: Nebraska Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in August

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

July 25, 2017

The legal battle over the future of Whiteclay, Nebraska is far from over. On July 10th, the State Attorney General’s office submitted their legal brief to upholding the beer store closings. Legal briefs on behalf of the beer stores are due July 31 with the Nebraska Supreme court expecting to hear oral arguments on August 29th. [1]

Whiteclay, Nebraska is an unincorporated village with a population on 12. The village has no law enforcement of its own and relies on a local county sheriff’s office and the Nebraska State Patrol for policing. The lack of police authority was problematic for the village where street people, alcoholism, and violent behavior was common. This was due to the four liquor stores that occupied Whiteclay that was reportedly selling over 42 million cans of beer over the course of the last 10 years. Overwhelming business for the beer stores were dependent on customers from neighboring, alcohol-free Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. [2]

Most Nebraskans are familiar with Whiteclay over the legal chaos and media attention from April 27th, 2017. The State Liquor Control Commission made the decision to revoke the licenses of Whiteclay stores earlier in April due to public health and safety concerns. They claimed that evidence showed “an epidemic pattern of alcohol-related criminal activity and public intoxication that should be an embarrassment to the State of Nebraska.” [2] But on the morning of April 27, Lancaster County District Judge Andrew Jacobsen issued a ruling revoking the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission’s (NLCC) decision claiming that it violated the constitutional rights of the beer store owners. That same afternoon, Nebraska Attorney General Peterson appealed the order to the Nebraska Court of Appeals on behalf of the NLCC which reinstated the original revocation of the Whiteclay store licenses. [3]

The Whiteclay liquor stores have remained closed since April 30, 2017 when their licenses were left to expire, but the legal battle is still yet to come. In the 28-page legal brief filed on Monday, the Attorney General’s office outlined three main arguments in support for the NLCC decision to revoke licenses. The Omaha World Herald reports that those arguments were:

1.     Lack of jurisdiction from the district judge because not all parties were formally notified of the appeal of the NLCC’s order

2.     Failure of the district judge to review the NLCC’s official hearing record before voiding the decision

3.     Error in the claim of the district judge that the NLCC had exceeded its legal authority [1]

The Attorney General’s office, the NLCC has the power to protect the “‘health, safety, and welfare’ of citizens by denying the sale of alcohol in areas that lack adequate law enforcement.”  Andrew Snyder, the attorney representing Whiteclay stores, has argued that the question of law enforcement can be raised “only when a liquor license is first issued, and, absent a major change, cannot be used to deny the renewal of the licenses.” [1] But the concerns of safety and wellness was something that the NLCC felt that they could not overlook. The Nebraska Legislature recognized the issue of public health in Whiteclay and, on April 27, passed LB 407 to create a Whiteclay Public Health Emergency Task Force to “examine public health implications of alcohol sales in Whiteclay, Nebraska… and surrounding areas, including the neighboring Pine Ridge Reservation.” [4]

Snyder has been quoted saying “The LCC can’t get away with side-stepping the law just because it’s politically expedient.” [3] Efforts against Whiteclay’s liquor store sales have been led by Native American activists and advocates for years and, now, the Nebraska Legislature and NLCC seem to finally be on board in putting a stop to what has been called the “skid row of the plains.” [1] However, both sides will have to wait a little longer to see how the Nebraska Supreme Court will will weigh in during August.

________________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law. _______________________________________________________________

[1] Hammel, Paul. "Whiteclay's Liquor-related Problems Rival 'Chicago in the Roaring Twenties,' State Tells Nebraska Supreme Court."Omaha.com. Omaha World Herald, 12 July 2017. 16 July 2017. <http://www.omaha.com/news/nebraska/whiteclay-s-liquor-related-problems-rival-chicago-in-the-roaring/article_95fade90-e3d6-5531-9d6f-ec0731fb3433.html>.

[2] Pluhacek, Zach. "Whiteclay 'Should Be an Embarrassment' to Nebraska, State Lawyers Say."JournalStar.com. Lincoln Journal Star, 11 July 2017. 16 July 2017. <http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/whiteclay-should-be-an-embarrassment-to-nebraska-state-lawyers-say/article_a474f818-678b-5361-8061-6c5324155b86.html>.

[3] Herrera-Schlichting, Rebekka and Roger Holmes. “Courtroom Chaos: Whiteclay Liquor Licenses Renewed and Revoked in the Same Day.”The Wounds of Whiteclay. University of Nebraska Lincoln. 16 July 2017. <http://www.woundsofwhiteclay.com/_home.html>.

[4] "LB 407." Nebraska Legislature. 16 July 2017. <http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=31214>.

Images

Herrera-Schlichting, Rebekka and Roger Holmes. “Courtroom Chaos: Whiteclay Liquor Licenses Renewed and Revoked in the Same Day.”The Wounds of Whiteclay. University of Nebraska Lincoln. 16 July 2017. <http://www.woundsofwhiteclay.com/_home.html>.

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Sovereign Immunity: Devastating Misrepresentation Leads to Complaint Dismissal

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

July 17, 2017

In July 2010, parents Jill B. and Travis B. opened their arms and their homes to adopting a child, named as K.D.M. in the case Jill B. & Travis B. v. State. Jill B. claims to have asked Jodene Gall, a state children and family services specialist, about K.D.M’s background, particularly if the child had been a victim of sexual assault. Gall responded that there was no such concerns or history despite being aware of allegations that K.D.M. had been sexually abused and “had a history of sexually acting out.” [1] About 5 months after K.D.M. had been placed in the parents’ care, Jill B. and Travis B. learned that K.D.M. had sexually abused their child.

In 2015, a Gage County judge had dismissed the lawsuit because of “an exception in the State Tort Claims Act for claims based on misrepresentation and deceit by state employees.” [1] But now in 2017, the couples suit has been heard by the Nebraska Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court took up the question of whether foster parents should be able to sue the state for an employee lying about a child's history of sexual abuse. Under Nebraska Health and Human Services policy, the parents should have been told about the boy's history.

In the case analysis provided by the Nebraska Supreme Court, the parents’ “principal assignment of error asserts that the district court erred in finding their claim fell within the ‘[m]isrepresentation [e]xception’ of the State Tort Claims Act… the parties argue both misrepresentation and deceit.” [2] They disagreed with the decision of the district court to dismiss their complaint due to immunity of the State and continued the fight in the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Jill B. & Travis B. v. State investigates the idea of sovereign immunity from the State Tort Claims Act. The rule of sovereign immunity was one that was challenged for decades, but a 1967 decision by a divided Nebraska Supreme Court prompted legislative action that resulted in the 1969 State Tort Claims Act. [2] The Lincoln Journal Star reports on Justice William Cassel’s illustration of how sovereign immunity works through an example. If there are two vehicles being driven for work purposes, one by a state employee and the other by an employee of a corporation, there are situational differences in liability due to the existing State Tort Claims Act. He explains that, in the example of driven vehicles, “If either driver gets distracted and negligently injures someone, both are liable… But, if they both get enraged and intentionally run someone down, causing injury, only the corporation would be liable. The state would be immune… because the Legislature set out exclusions for injuries intentionally caused” due to select reasons outlined in the State Tort Claims Act. [1]

As previously mentioned, the district court had initially dismissed Jill B. and Travis B.’s complaint as they considered the State immune from such suit due to specific language in the State Tort Claims Act (shown in the image) that says “sovereign immunity is not waived for claims ‘arising out of… misrepresentation, deceit.’” [2] In the final decisions of both the district court and the Supreme Court, attention was focused on those reasons of misrepresentation and deceit as they best described the situation of the state employee giving false information to the parents. The employee consciously and intentionally deceived the Plaintiffs (parents) and because “the Plaintiff’s case rose out of that State employee’s misrepresentation, Plaintiff’s claims were barred” [2] by the Supreme Court in their June 30, 2017 decision.

Although the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the judgement of the district court, they concluded that the Nebraska Legislature may “wish to consider whether the rationale underlying the intentional torts exception, at least to misrepresentation and deceit, continues to justify preservation of the State’s sovereign immunity” as these questions about sovereign immunity raised through the suit were suited to be addressed by the legislative body. [2] It is certainly a difficult decision to balance legal protection for the State with justice to claimants like Jill. B and her family, but there have been recent calls to action and even criticism that sovereign immunity goes too far. However, the case decision made it clear that this is a question for the Nebraska Legislature and not the courts.

________________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law. _______________________________________________________________ 

[1] Pilger, Lori. "Court Answers If State Can Be Sued for HHS Worker Lying about Foster Child's History of Sexual Abuse."JournalStar.com. Lincoln Journal Star, 30 June 2017. 15 July 2017. <http://journalstar.com/news/local/court-answers-if-state-can-be-sued-for-hhs-worker/article_3b0fe433-3fda-51d4-9eda-c1f061192d00.html>.

[2] "Jill B. v. State."Justia Law. 30 June 2017. 15 July 2017. <http://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/2017/s-15-778.html>.

Images:

"4 Apply to Replace Nebraska Supreme Court Justice." KRVN Radio. 11 June 2015. Web.<http://krvn.com/regional-news/4-apply-to-replace-nebraska-supreme-court-justice/>.

"Jill B. v. State."Justia Law. 30 June 2017. 15 July 2017. <http://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/2017/s-15-778.html>.

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Borrower Defense Rule: Massachusetts Et Al v DeVos

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

July 10, 2017

           A burden carried by over 44 million borrowers nation-wide, student debt is both shocking and unfortunately all too familiar for many. According to the Institute for College Access and Success, students at public 4-year institutions and private non-profit 4-year institutions acquire an average debt of $26,235 in Nebraska. [1] It is a topic warranting extensive and concerning conversations, not just in the state, but across the nation. But what happens when student debt rises from colleges that acted unfairly and fraudulently?

           July 6th brought a new development to the topic of student debt relief in the form of a lawsuit over the “Borrower Defense Rule.” 18 states—Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia—filed suit against the Department of Education and Education Secretary, Betsey DeVos. [2] The Borrower Defense Rule was adopted in November 2016 by the Obama administration and is a type of loan forgiveness where eligible students may be forgiven for “federal student loans used to attend a school if that school misled them or engaged in other misconduct in violation of certain laws” [3]. This was instated after the failure of two big for-profit college chains, Corinthian Colleges and ITT Technical Institutes, who were accused of preying on veterans and other nontraditional students.

           Before the policy was set to take effect on July 1, the Education Department moved in June 2017 to rescind the Borrower Defense Rule. DeVos was a critic of the rules and proposed the establishment of a new rule-making committee as the what was created was “a muddled process.”The attorney generals of the opposing states, led by Massachusetts, claim that the “delay of the rule unlawful and to order the agency to implement it. The states say they have pursued ‘numerous costly and time-intensive investigations and enforcement actions against proprietary and for-profit schools’ that violated consumer protection laws” [2] and seek to have

the rules reinstated in the Federal District Court in Washington.

           In Massachusetts Et Al v DeVos, the cause of action (or justification for the lawsuit) were listed as the following: Failure to adhere to procedures required by law when promulgating regulations, failure to employ the requisite legal standard, failure to provide an adequate justification, and failure to offer reasoned analysis for recession of the rule. The Education Department has yet to issue a response on the lawsuit, only commenting that they were actively reviewing it within their own legal department. Meanwhile Massachusetts attorney general, Maura Healey, claimed that “Her [Secretary DeVos’] decision to cancel vital protections for students and taxpayers is a betray of her office’s responsibility and a violation of federal law”

[4].

           As the suit claims, for-profit institutions are driven by profit goals and there is actually relatively little spent on education or instruction with revenue instead spent on “marketing, advertising, recruitment, and admission staffing” which results in fraudulent or misleading claims and misconduct in some cases. Despite the expense of pursuing a degree at a for-profit institution, students often face “high default rates on their loans and high unemployment rates after leaving school” which only contributes to the financial burden of these students. [4] Borrower defense rules are a protection for students who may be unfairly exploited by for-profit schools that would affect thousands across the nation.

           The Department of Education claimed that there were currently around 16,000 borrower defense claims that were being processed. DeVos stating that “promises made to students under the current rule will be promises kept” and that “some borrowers should expect to obtain discharges within the next several weeks.” [2] However, some students claim to have been kept waiting for those promised federal loan discharges. The New York Times reported on two student borrowers, Meaghan Bauer and Stephano Del Rose, who have recently filed a lawsuit against the New England Institute of Art for misleading information about graduates’ earnings and job prospects. Bauer and Del Rose submitted applications for loan forgiveness two years prior and results are still pending. [4] Although a response from the Department of Education over Massachusetts Et Al v DeVosis expected in the weeks to come, students like Bauer and Del Rose most likely won’t be as lucky with a swift response from the department.

________________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law. _______________________________________________________________

[1] “State by State Data: Nebraska.”The Institute For College Access and Success. 07 July 2017. <http://ticas.org/posd/map-state-data#overlay=posd/state_data/2016/ne>.

[2] Chappell, Bill. "18 States Sue Betsy DeVos And Education Dept. Over Delay Of Borrower Defense Rule." NPR. 06 July 2017. 07 July 2017. <http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/06/535776573/18-states-sue-betsy-devos-and-education-dept-over-delay-of-borrower-defense-rule>.

[3] “Borrower Defense to Repayment.” Federal Student Aid. 09 Feb. 2017. 07 July 2017. <https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/borrower-defense#who-qualifies>.

[4] Cowley, Stacy. "18 States Sue Betsy DeVos Over Student Loan Protections." The New York Times. 06 July 2017. 07 July 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/business/dealbook/massachusetts-betsy-devos-lawsuit.html>.

/.latest_citation_text

Images:

Chappell, Bill. "18 States Sue Betsy DeVos And Education Dept. Over Delay Of Borrower Defense Rule." NPR. 06 July 2017. 07 July 2017. <http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/06/535776573/18-states-sue-betsy-devos-and-education-dept-over-delay-of-borrower-defense-rule>.

https://twitter.com/betsydevos

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

A New Protest Tool Featuring “The Handmaid’s Tale”

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

July 8, 2017

Earlier this year, Hulu released an original series based on the book, Margaret Atwood’s 1985 literary classic “The Handmaid’s Tale”. The story follows themes of power, sexuality, and feminism in the totalitarian dystopia of Gilead. CNN’s Saba Hamedy credits the Hulu series to sparking protests across the United States including Texas and Ohio. In most recent news, Planned Parenthood volunteers participated in a protest inspired by “The Handmaid’s Tale” on June 27, 2017 against the proposed GOP healthcare bill on Capitol Hill. Participating protestor Elena Lipsiea shared that “We deduced to dress in the ‘Handmaids’-inspired costumes because the novel/television series presents a dystopia where women’s bodies are not their own.” Lipsiea and others involved in the protest believe the proposed bill would take away certain rights to health care, especially for women. [1]

But a protest on Capitol Hill was only the latest in a string of “The Handmaid’s Tale” protests:

Texas – In May 2017, women protested multiple anti-abortion bills on the state’s legislative calendar at the Texas state Capitol. Protestors held signs outlining the history of abortion restrictions passed in the states since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling in 1973. [2]Roe v. Wade declared a woman’s right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment in a 7-2 decision. The landmark case was filed by Norma McCorvey (known in court documents as Jane Roe) against Henry Wade, a Dallas County district county, on a Texas law that prohibited abortion expect in the case of saving a woman’s life. [3] Despite Roe v. Wade determining the legality of abortion nationwide, many states have passed laws that are said to restrict women’s access to the procedure and other health services. One such proposed bill in Texas’ state legislature is SB 258 introduced by Senator Huffines that would require fetal tissue to be cremated or buried by law in Section 171, Health and Safety Code. [4] Opposition claims that measures like SB 258 place “unnecessary burdens” on women. Although the bill was voted through the Texas State Senate on March 30, 2017, progress was impeded in the House.

Ohio – A similar silent protest in the Ohio State Legislature took place in early June 2017. Several women dressed in the red robes and white bonnets of “The Handmaid’s tale” story to object Senate Bill 145 sponsored by Ohio’s Republican Party. The bill aims to “criminalize and create civil action for dismemberment abortion” [5] where dismemberment abortion is defined in Sec 2919.15 as seen below. BBC News reports that proponents of the bill claim that that SB 124 would be an end to “what they describe as inhuman and brutal dismemberment abortions” with the exception of when a mother’s life is in danger. However, opponents of the bill say that this is “an attempt to block access to a common and safe abortion method” and that it affects women’s ability to seek and obtain access to abortion processes. [5] On June 28, 2017, the Ohio State Senate passed SB 145 with 24 yea and 9 nay votes and was introduced to the Ohio State House a day later, where it currently sits.[6]

Missouri – Eleven women protested a budget proposal in the Missouri Capitol that would limit abortion funding in early May 2017. The budget proposed to end funding for health clinics and care centers that provide abortions or refer women to centers to receive abortions. One protestor carried a sign that said “‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ is not an instruction manual.” [7] This is followed by recent abortion regulations passed in the Missouri State House in June of 2017. The legislation is headed back to the Senate due to changes, but the proposed bill would tighten abortion regulations including “provisions to require annual inspections of clinics and give the state attorney general new authority to prosecute violations of abortion laws.” [8]

This recent surge of popularity in the 1985 novel, “The Handmaid’s Tale” has become a part of recent pop culture phenomenon and is influencing political movements on national and state levels of legislature. For protesters who are fighting against abortion restrictions in states and for groups like Planned Parenthood, the iconic look of Atwood’s protagonists—the handmaids dressed in white bonnets and striking red robes—have become a powerful and unmistakable tool. It will be interesting to see if this particular trend sparked by literature will continue or whether a new novel or Netflix movement will take its place as a protesting tool in months to come.

________________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Hamedy, Saba. "'Handmaids' Descend upon Hill to Protest Health Care Bill." CNN. Cable News Network, 27 June 2017. 30 June 2017.

[2] Greenwood, Max. "Women Wear 'Handmaid's Tale' Costumes during Protest against Texas Anti-abortion Bills." The Hill. 09 May 2017. 30 June 2017. <http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/332565-reproductive-rights-advocates-protest-texas-bills-in-the-handmaids-tale>.

[3] "Roe v. Wade Fast Facts." CNN. Cable News Network, 23 Apr. 2017. 30 June 2017. <http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/us/roe-v-wade-fast-facts/index.html>.

[4] Huffines. "SB 258." Texas Legislature. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 June 2017. <http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/pdf/SB00258I.pdf#navpanes=0>.

[5] "'Handmaid's Tale' Protest at US Ohio Abortion Bill." BBC News. 13 June 2017. 30 June 2017. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40264004>.

[6] "Senate Bill 145." Ohio Legislature. 30 June 2017. <https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-status?id=GA132-SB-145>.

[7] "Women Dressed in 'Handmaid's Tale' Garb Protest at Capitol."US News. 3 May 2017. 1 July 2017. <https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2017-05-03/women-dressed-in-handmaids-tale-garb-protest-at-capitol>.

[8] Ballentine, Summer. "Missouri House Passes Law to Tighten Abortion Regulation."US News. 20 June 2017. 1 July 2017. <https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2017-06-20/missouri-house-defeats-abortion-ban-with-emergency-exception>.

Images:

Hamedy, Saba. "'Handmaids' Descend upon Hill to Protest Health Care Bill." CNN. Cable News Network, 27 June 2017. 30 June 2017.

"The Handmaid's Tale: Season 1 Official Trailer." Hulu. 30 June 2017.

Huffines. "SB 258." Texas Legislature. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 June 2017. <http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/pdf/SB00258I.pdf#navpanes=0>.

Greenwood, Max. "Women Wear 'Handmaid's Tale' Costumes during Protest against Texas Anti-abortion Bills." The Hill. 09 May 2017. 30 June 2017. <http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/332565-reproductive-rights-advocates-protest-texas-bills-in-the-handmaids-tale>.

"Senate Bill 145." Ohio Legislature. 30 June 2017. <https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-status?id=GA132-SB-145>.

[nebraskaprelaw-blog]

Employment, Religion, & Schools: An Examination of Religious Garb Bans in Nebraska and Pennsylvania

By Sapphire Andersen, University of Nebraska at Omaha Class of 2016

June 30, 2017

The question of religious freedom in public school systems is an ongoing and often controversial conversation that has spanned the century. A conversation that, as I discovered recently, was still continuing on the Nebraska state legislature floor in the spring of 2017. This latest discussion was concerning LB62 introduced by Senator Scheer (District 19) to “eliminate provisions prohibiting the wearing of religious garb by teachers in public schools.” [1]

As shown in the image above [1], the legislative bill was aimed to repeal a 1919 Nebraska law that was originally enacted at a time of open discrimination against Catholics. The Lincoln Journal Star reported that the ban of religious garb was backed by white supremacist, anti-Catholic groups like the Ku Klux Klan during the early 1900s. However, Nebraska was not alone in adopting such legislation during this time period. Similar policies were adopted in 36 other states and, since then, Nebraska has become the 35th state to repeal the ban in March 2017. [2]

Pennsylvania is that final 36th state and has yet to repeal the statue, although there have been repeated attempts to do so in past years. Pennsylvania’s 1949 Act 14 or Section 1112 of the School Code (shown below) is a renewal of a law passed originally in 1895 that banned teachers from wearing religious garbs and insignias. [3]

As the Pennsylvania law states, public school teachers are not allowed “any dress, mark, emblem, or insignia indicting the fact that such teacher is a member or adherent of any religious order, sect, or denomination” and is penalized through employment suspensions. Public administrators are under significant pressure to comply with Section 1112 of the School Code as violations can result in a misdemeanor offense, fines, or even dismissal. The law was upheld in a 1990 court challenge, U.S. v. Board of Education, where Section 1112 was disputed on the grounds of inhibiting Title VII (anti-discrimination employment law) rights. Alima Delores Reardon was a Muslim woman and a substitute teacher in Pennsylvania who wore a head scarf in accordance with her practice to cover her entire body in public, excluding her face and her hands. In 1984, she reported three separate occasions in which she was informed by school principles that she could not teach in her religious clothing in accordance to Pennsylvania’s Garb Statute, despite having taught without incident in prior years. In their decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the Title VII religious discrimination claim and declared that the schools had acted in accordance with Pennsylvania state law. [4]

Reardon’s story aligns closely with that of Sister Madeleine Miller of Norfolk, Nebraska. Miller was denied a substitute teaching position by the Norfolk area public school district because she was required to hear a habit by her Catholic order when in public. Miller did not challenge in the court of law, but instead sought support in the state legislature. Senator Scheer, who represents Norfolk in the Nebraska legislature, introduced LB62 in January 2017 to repeal the ban on religious garbs in schools on Miller’s behalf. The senator disputed that “School districts shouldn't be bound by an outdated, unconstitutional ban that could be applied to other Christian teachers who wear cross pendants or bracelets in school, or Jewish teachers who wear skullcaps” [2]

Nebraska’s religious garb ban—Chapter 79, Sections 898 and 899—reveals strikingly similar language and sanctions to that of Pennsylvania’s. The law makes any violation a criminal misdemeanor offense, and says teachers who violate the law must be suspended for one year at the time of the first offense and must be permanently disqualified from teaching at the second offense. [5]

There was certainly concern at the time of the ban’s enactment—and some voiced disagreements in 2017—that, by allowing a teacher to wear religious garb, teachers could be 

introducing their own religion and beliefs in the public school classroom and influencing students. In Nebraska, Scheer’s LB62 was met with majority support by the legislature and from organizations including the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) of Nebraska, Nebraska State Education Association, Nebraska Catholic Conference, and Nebraska Family Alliance and Thomas More Society. However, the Lincoln Journal Star reported on two specific letters of opposition from Nebraska citizens arguing against LB62 as it would “allow religious influence to subtly creep into schools.” [2] The bill also met outspoken opposition on the legislative floor from Senator Ernie Chambers (District 11) who believes that “all displays of religion are inappropriate in public school classrooms.” [6] The measure passed on March 23, 2017 with a 39-5-5 vote with 39 “yes” votes, 5 “no” votes, and 5 members not voting. LB62 was approved by Governor Ricketts on March 27, 2017. [1]

Religious neutrality must be maintained in public school systems, but should teachers be allowed to freely express their religious beliefs and practices in these classroom environments through their clothing? While appearance may not necessarily dictate one’s teaching abilities, would it be a distraction in the classroom? An opportunity for proselytization? Nebraska has decided that “We have come a long way in our society” as Senator Scheer stated and that the repeal of the 1919 ban is a step in the right direction in 2017. [2] Perhaps we will see Pennsylvania follow in the steps of the 35 states—Nebraska now included—that have come before them.

________________________________________________________________

Sapphire Andersen is a graduate of the University of Nebraska at Omaha with a double major in English and Political Science. She plans to pursue a career in law.

________________________________________________________________

[1] "LB62 in the 105th Legislature."Nebraska Legislature. 21 June 2017. <http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/search_by_keyword.php>.

[2]Zach Pluhacek. "Nebraska Encouraged to Repeal Ban on Religious Garb in Classrooms."JournalStar.com. Lincoln Journal Star, 23 Mar. 2017. 21 June 2017. <http://journalstar.com/legislature/nebraska-encouraged-to-repeal-ban-on-religious-garb-in-classrooms/article_31597197-a187-5596-bde3-e0994f9ac6bf.html>.

[3]"1949 Act 14."Pennsylvania General Assembly. 22 June 2017. <http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType>.

[4] "United States of America, Appellant in No. 89-1694, v. Board of Education for the School District of Philadelphia;and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.united States of America v. Board of Education for the School District of Philadelphia;and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.appeal of Board of Education for the School District of Philadelphia, 911 F.2d 882 (3d Cir. 1990)."Justia Law. 23 June 2017. <http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/911/882/143984/>.

[5] “Nebraska Revised Statute 79-898, 79-899.” Nebraska Legislature. 22 June 2017.http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=79-899

[6]Staff, AP. "Nebraska Lawmakers Pass Bill to Repeal Religious Garb Ban."AP News. Associated Press, 23 Mar. 2017. Web. 23 June 2017. <https://www.apnews.com/138dcdf856194fc4937a47718e9782f1>.

Images:

"LB62 in the 105th Legislature."Nebraska Legislature. 21 June 2017. <http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/search_by_keyword.php>.

"1949 Act 14."Pennsylvania General Assembly. 22 June 2017. <http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm?txtType>.

“Nebraska Revised Statute 79-898, 79-899.” Nebraska Legislature. 22 June 2017.http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=79-899