Summary: Fifteen states are suing the Trump Administration for ending the DACA program. 

After President Donald Trump revealed his decision to stop the DACA program in six months, fifteen states and the District of Columbia sued the government, saying the order was motivated by prejudice against Mexicans.

“Ending DACA, whose participants are mostly of Mexican origin, is a culmination of President’s Trump’s oft-stated commitments — whether personally held, stated to appease some portion of his constituency, or some combination thereof — to punish and disparage people with Mexican roots,” the federal lawsuit filed in Brooklyn said.

On Wednesday, New York, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit stating the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA was discrimination.

Legal experts told The Boston Herald that this argument will be hard to prove.

“It might be able to muck up the works, maybe push off the effective date of the repeal, but I don’t see litigation being successful in the same way as the travel ban,” Kari Hong, an immigration expert at Boston College Law School, said.

As proof of Trump’s bias against Mexicans, the lawsuit cited his previous statement that Mexican immigrants were rapists and criminals and his action of pardoning former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio was infamous in the state for targeting Latinos, and he was convicted of contempt for continuing to racially profile despite being ordered not to.

Washington state’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson said that the end of DACA is a racial issue. He was also involved in the lawsuit to fight against Trump’s previous travel ban from Muslim majority countries.

“Ask yourself one question: If the overwhelming majority were Caucasians, does anybody really think he (President Trump) would have taken the action he took?” Ferguson said.

The attorney generals who filed the DACA lawsuit are all Democrats, and these states all have thousands of DACA participants living in the area.

Earlier this summer, another group of attorneys generals from conservative states banded together and threatened to sue Trump if he didn’t end the program.

DACA is a program that gives people who were brought to the United States illegally as children the chance to stay in this country through a school or work program. Program participants are known as Dreamers and are mostly teenage to young adult age and are students, employees, or military members.

On Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave a press conference and said that DACA will end in six months and Congress must come up with another solution by this time. New applications to the program will not be accepted, but the 800,000 Dreamers already in it may renew their visas for another two years as long as they apply by October 5.

Critics of DACA said that it violates the Constitution and people who came here unlawfully should not be allowed to stay just because they were here for a long time. Proponents of DACA said that it was cruel to deport people back to a country that they never knew.

But whatever moral side people stand on this issue, deporting the Dreamers may be an unwise move financially. According to CNBC, ending DACA can cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars in the next decade. This loss is because of lost labor and the paychecks the Dreamers earn and pay taxes on. The economies of Florida, Texas, and California are especially vulnerable because of their high concentration of Dreamers.

A study by Mark Zuckberg’s think tank found that 91% of DACA participants are employed, and research from the Center for American Progress found that the U.S. economy would lose $433 billion over the next ten years if DACA workers were to be deported.

While certain Republican states fought Trump to end DACA, some high-profile GOP congressmen such as John McCain, Orrin Hatch, and Paul Ryan have openly said Trump should reconsider his decision.

“I actually don’t think we should do that,” Ryan said last week. “This is something that Congress has to fix.”

• President Trump Orders End to DACA 
• Sheriff Joe Arpaio Convicted of Contempt 

What do you think of DACA? Let us know in the comments below.

The post 15 States File DACA Lawsuit against Trump Administration first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Dairy buyers in sixteen states are eligible for money from a class action settlement. 

Got milk? Then get cash! According to ABC News 10, any person who bought milk in one of 16 states at any moment in the past 13 years may be eligible to receive cash. The money is part of a recent class-action lawsuit settlement that alleged dairy co-ops tried to reduce the size of their herds in order to raise dairy prices.

Dairy product buyers in Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, or Wisconsin are eligible to apply for their portion of the $52 million settlement.

Dairy products include milk, cottage cheese, butter, and other fresh milk products; and buyers must have purchased them indirectly from the defendants, meaning the goods were bought at a store or retailer. The class action settlement money is meant for consumers and not resalers.

According to the official Bought Milk website, “Individuals may receive between $45 to $70, entities may receive between $1260-$1960.” The payout is dependent on how many individuals sign up to claim their cash, and the deadline to submit the form is January 31.

When asked about how much he thought individuals would actually receive back, UW-Madison agricultural economist Robert Cropp told ABC 10, “Depends on how many people apply. But I don’t think we’re looking at very many bucks.”

Defendants National Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperatives Working Together (CWT), Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Land O’Lakes, Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark, Inc. settled the antitrust class action lawsuit for $52 million, but they denied all wrongdoing. They were accused of colluding and prematurely slaughtering cows in order to raise the price of goods.

The class action plaintiffs were represented by the law office of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

If you purchased milk in one of the aforementioned states any time from 2003 until now, you can submit a claim here. You may also contact the law office at info@boughtmilk.com.

Photo courtesy of BT.com

• Related: Uber’s CEO Faces Antitrust Charges
• Related: NCAA Must Pay $45M Antitrust Settlement 
• Related: Two Men Charged after Sex with Cows 

What do you think of this lawsuit and settlement? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Milk Buyers May Be Eligible to Receive Lawsuit Settlement Money first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: The state of Vermont is moving closer to legalizing marijuana with the creation of Senate Bill 95 by David Zuckerman.

A new bill was submitted on Tuesday that could make Vermont the first state to legalize recreational marijuana via the state’s legislature, according to The Huffington Post.

The legislation, which is Senate Bill 95, would legalize the use, possession and sale of the drug in Vermont for people 21 and older.

No more than one ounce of marijuana can be possessed by adults in Vermont. The law would also allow for no more than nine plants, two mature and seven immature, for personal use. Any personal cultivation must be kept indoor in a secured area.

To read more about marijuana, click here.

Non-residents of Vermont would be allowed to purchase no more than one-quarter of an ounce from a licensed shop.

The law would also have an excise tax of $40 per ounce of marijuana flower, $25 for each immature cannabis plant sold by a cultivator and $15 per ounce of any other type of marijuana product.

Of the revenue acquired by the state from taxing marijuana 40 percent would go to public education programs about using drugs, substance abuse treatment services, academic and medical research of marijuana and law enforcement.

It would still be illegal to smoke the drug in public and a Marijuana Control Board would be created to enforce regulations.

The sponsor of the bill, Senator David Zuckerman, said, “One can experiment with alcohol, as many do, and use marijuana, as many do, and turn out to be a positive and productive member of our society. Certainly, I’ve not hidden the fact that I recreationally used while I was in college, and yet I turned out to be a productive business person.”

To read more legal news stories, click here.

Medical marijuana has been legal in the state for more than ten years now, which is what Zuckerman said helped the dialogue with this legislation.

Governor Peter Shumlin will likely sign the legislation into law if it passes all the required votes. In January, Shumlin said the following:

“My bias on legalization is toward legalization. Let’s remember, we have this conversation and we pretend that you can’t get marijuana now. In the real world, folks, if you want to get marijuana in Vermont, we’re in Lala Land if we’re pretending you can’t. The question is how do we move to a smarter approach that doesn’t promote addiction, that doesn’t promote abuse and really accepts the reality.”

To read more about Vermont, click here.

Matt Simon, the New England political director for reform group Marijuana Policy Project, said, “Vermont legislators have a great opportunity to show leadership by passing a marijuana regulation bill in 2015, and they should seize it. Most Vermonters understand that marijuana is objectively safer than alcohol, and they know it makes no sense to punish adults who choose to use the safer substance.”

Will this legislation become law in Vermont? Use our poll to cast your votes.

Source: Huffington Post

The post Vermont Moving Closer to Legalization of Marijuana first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A bill signed by Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin on 8 May gives Vermonters the right to be informed about genetically modified food. The law will take effect on July 1, 2016 and enjoys support from many consumer groups and lawyers. However, it may face challenges from the food industry.

Shumlin said that the state has set up a ‘food fight fund’ to take online donations to help defend the law from litigation expected from opponents.

The law brings Vermont in step with more than 60 other countries that require labeling of genetically engineered foods. It also sets the stage for over 20 other states that are currently considering mandatory labeling for GMO foods.

Consumer groups and lawmakers supporting the mandatory labeling law claim that there is no scientific consensus on whether or not genetically engineered crops are safe, and consumers should be enabled to easily distinguish products containing GMOs so they can avoid them if they wish.

“Vermonters will have the right to know what’s in their food. We are pro-information. Vermont gets it right with this bill,” said Shumlin, in a speech during the signing ceremony.

Consumer backlash against GMOs has already led an increasing number of U.S. food companies to start using non-genetically modified ingredients for their products. But, consumer sentiment is not going down well with makers of genetically modified corn, canola, soya beans and other crops. They are fighting mandatory labeling of GMOs.

According to the largest biotechnology trade association, Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), the food costs for an average household would rise as $400 per year due to mandatory labeling, and it is not required.

Organizations like BIO, whose members include Monsanto Co, Dow AgroSciences and a unit of Dow Chemical Co, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association are supporting a proposed federal law that aims to nullify  Vermont’s labeling law and any other mandatory labeling of GMOs in the United States.

Click Here for Law Jobs in Vermont

The post Vermont Becomes First U.S. State to Mandate Labeling of GMO Foods first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

It’s called the “Vermont 3-2.” Two schools, the University of Vermont and Vermont Law School are working together to combine resources to offer students the option to receive their undergrad degree in 3 years instead of the traditional 4, and their law degree in 2 instead of the traditional 3. This is one of the first programs in the states to try such a program, and UVM has said it aims “to reduce the cost of higher education.”

‘‘This would give both institutions a way not only to potentially significantly reduce costs for students who would take advantage of the program, but also, we think, it could very well position both institutions to take better advantage of opportunities in the marketplace,’’ UVM spokesman Enrique Corredera, according to Boston.com.

Such an initiative has already been praised by U.S. Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., who has recently legislated towards college affordability.

“I applaud UVM and Vermont Law School for this innovative and practical idea to make higher education more affordable for Vermonters,” said Welch’s statement. “Keeping the doors to college open for all students will require this brand of leadership and innovation from higher education administrators nationwide.”

The program is inspired in part by the shared values of the universities. As Vermont Law Professor Cheryl Hanna said, “One of the really great things about working with UVM on this project is that we’re the number one ranked environmental law school in this country and they really are the environmental university.”

UVM President Tom Sullivan agreed with this sentiment, saying they “share a commitment to environmentalism, sustainability and innovation,” and that they have collaborated on various other programs and conferences.

Whether the 3-2 model will work, and will be imitated elsewhere is at the moment uncertain; but with the strain on the legal education market right now, many deans are perking their ears to hear alternatives to the traditional 3 years of law.

The post UVM and Vt. Law School Offer Joint Degree: 7 Years of Education in 5 first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Prior to the new law, possession of up to two ounces of marijuana resulted in six months in jail for a first offense and up to two years in jail thereafter.

Shumlin said, “This change just makes common sense … Our limited resources should be focused on reducing abuse and addiction of opiates like heroin and meth rather than cracking down on people for having very small amounts of marijuana.”

The new law also would treat possession of less than 5 grams of hashish in the same manner as would treat possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. People younger than the age of 21 caught with small amounts of marijuana or hashish would be treated in the same manner as underage in possession of alcohol. They will be referred to a court diversion program meant for first-time offenders.

However opponents of the law claimed that decriminalizing marijuana would affect public health. David Evans, special adviser to the Drug Free America Foundation said, “It’s a very unfortunate trend, the public perception of the dangers of marijuana has not caught up with the science … when the science is more apparent to everybody, they’re going to be very sorry for what they did.”

Other states that treat possession of small amounts of marijuana with a civil penalty include California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island.

In Washington and Colorado, recreational use of marijuana is now permitted but being regulated by law.

The post Vermont Begins Decriminalizing Possession of Marijuana first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Governor Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, observed while signing the law, “Vermonters who face terminal illness and are in excruciating pain at the end of their lives now have control over their destinies. This is the right thing to do.”

The law removes legal penalties for doctors who prescribe medication to assist terminally ill patients seeking end their lives voluntarily. However, Vermont doctors can prescribe such medication only for legal residents of the state.

The law would be adapted in degrees and for the first three years, patients requesting death-inducing drugs would have to make the request thrice. Also, both the primary physician and a consulting physician will have to agree that the patient is capable of making an informed decision and also suffering from a terminal illness.

From July 1, 2016, the process and practice of prescribing death-inducing medicine will be supervised by professional practice standards.

Supporters of the law claim that the law can now help patients avoid years of needless suffering in cases like bone cancer or other terminal illnesses. However, opponents of the law remain skeptic and hold that the presence of the law can encourage terminally ill patients to go for assisted suicide without exhausting all options. Opponents are also apprehensive that the law can cause people to choose death rather than continue to be a burden on their families.

Kathryn Tucker, director of legal affairs at Compassion and Choices said in a statement that, “Vermont’s law reflects another normalization of the practice of aid in dying in the practice of medicine.”

Edward Mahoney of True Dignity Vermont, a group opposing the law, said, “We now have state-sanctioned suicide in Vermont … If the state won’t protect Vermonters, we will try.”

The post New Vermont Law to Allow Doctors Assist in Suicide first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The case, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC et al v. Shumlin et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 12-707 has become a rallying point for testing the powers of state governments versus the federal government when it came to protecting residents from nuclear hazards.

Already other states including New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Utah have filed amici on behalf of Vermont, being equally concerned over the issue.

And here’s the issue.

Entergy Corp has a nuclear power plant running in Vermont. In January 2010, Entergy itself identified a radioactive tritium leak at the plant. Following news of the leak, the Vermont state Senate voted against a proposal to keep the plant running.

In March 2011, the tsunami in Japan and the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant sent concerns soaring, and in the same month, despite Vermont Senate voting against continuing operation of the nuclear plant, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the license of the plant through 2032.

After obtaining the license from the federal authorities, Entergy Corp sued Vermont seeking an injunction to continue operating. Under ordinary course of events the plant’s certificate was scheduled to expire in March 2012, but by January, U.S. District Judge J. Garvan Murtha ruled in favor of Entergy and granted an injunction blocking the state from shutting down the nuclear reactor.

The judge decided that the two state laws enacted on radiological safety concerns of residents were superseded by the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, and the judge also blocked enforcement of a state regulation that required Entergy to enter power-purchase deals with Vermont retail utilities at below-market rates.

While other states and a number of environmental groups have filed briefs in support of Vermont’s submissions, Entergy is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Nuclear Energy Institute.

On Monday, David Frederick, the attorney representing Vermont in the matter told the court of appeals, “There’s clearly a role for the federal government to play, but states have the final say in whether to allow nuclear energy in their boundaries.”

In opposition, on behalf of Entergy, lawyers argued that the federal Atomic Energy Act empowers the federal government as the sole authority when it comes to the regulation of safety at nuclear plants – and states do not have any say in the matter.

The post Vermont Testing State’s Rights to Shut Down Nuclear Reactor first appeared on JDJournal Blog.