Journal of Civil Rights & Economic Development

Keeping the "Benefit" in Benefit Corporations: How and Why New York State Should Continue to Foster and Develop Benefit Corporation Legislation

Keeping the "Benefit" in Benefit Corporations: How and Why New York State Should Continue to Foster and Develop Benefit Corporation Legislation

A corporation’s director leans back in his chair as he meets with his fellow directors. He surveys the New York City skyline stretched across the windows of the conference room and begins discussing possible options for the corporation to pursue.

This corporation is not deciding whether to offer new stock options to its shareholders. In fact, it is not even deciding on a new methodology to maximize shareholder wealth at all. There are no hiring or firing decisions to be made in this meeting; no cunning ploys at achieving some sort of tax break; and no promotion of a new advertising campaign. Perhaps this corporation will provide more jobs to underemployed areas of the community; or maybe it will create sustainable energy. As a result, this corporation will create a general public benefit by making a material positive impact on society and the environment. This corporation is a benefit corporation.

The Most Discriminatory Laws You’ve Never Heard Of

The Most Discriminatory Laws You’ve Never Heard Of

The Supreme Court recently decided in favor of same-sex marriage in the long awaited case of Obergefell v. Hodges. As a supporter of LGBT rights, this decision makes me uneasy. I worry this decision will be seen as the end of the gay rights movement. Mission accomplished, time to go home. The gay rights movement has been so focused on marriage rights that other discriminatory laws have been overlooked or ignored. My hope is that instead, the decision will be a stepping stone towards eradicating these laws across the nation.

Delivering Gideon: Giving Birth to Humane Immigration Laws

Delivering Gideon: Giving Birth to Humane Immigration Laws

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” – Emma Lazarus

“We don’t detain pregnant women.” That was the initial response of an El Paso, Texas immigration detention center officer back in 2013 when asked about the number of pregnant detainees in immigration detention centers, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. This was obviously false because in response to a Fusion.net Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request regarding pregnant women detained, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agency provided data that 13 pregnant women were detained in Texas and at least 559 were detained in six facilities throughout the U.S. since 2012. Pregnant detainees may be shackled, and sometimes even forced to give birth while shackled, depending on the state. This still occurs despite an official 2010 ICE policy that states pregnant women “shall not be restrained absent truly extraordinary circumstances,” and “restraints are never permitted on women who are in active labor or delivery.”

Time For A Change: The NFL’s Non-Existent Policies on Human Trafficking During the Super Bowl

Time For A Change: The NFL’s Non-Existent Policies on Human Trafficking During the Super Bowl

Human trafficking is the illegal movement of people, typically for the purposes of forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation. For example, imagine a young girl, being kidnapped off the street, drugged by pimps, and sold for sex. Sex trafficking is prevalent around major sporting events like the Super Bowl. In fact, on February 2, 2015, the evening after the Super Bowl, Football Hall of Famer Warren Sapp was arrested in Arizona for allegedly soliciting a prostitute and assaulting two women. According to reports, Sapp was at a bar at the Renaissance Hotel in downtown Phoenix where he started talking to two women (ages 23 and 24). Sapp invited the two women to his hotel room. While in his room, Sapp threw $100 bills at the women as they danced for him. After his arrest, Sapp reported to the police that he paid $300 to each woman for sexual acts and that he had recorded the events on his phone.

Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing: Prioritizing Free Speech over Safety in McCullen v. Coakley

Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing: Prioritizing Free Speech over Safety in McCullen v. Coakley

Written by Jacqueline Ahearn

On June 27, 2014, abortion clinic protestors stepped victoriously over the brightly painted yellow lines surrounding clinics, shaking signs and pamphlets and approaching all who ventured near. This was the first time since 2000 that protestors could engage patients with impunity, held back only the day before by a buffer zone law which had protected people entering the clinic. Clinics reported higher rates of no-shows that day and in the weeks that followed, and for over a month, the Supreme Court decision of McCullen v. Coakley left clinics without recourse to prevent harassment of their patients.