FREE BRITNEY B!T¢H!

This piece was inspired by a recent “Netflix and Chill” session taken by our managing partners.  

The New York Times Presents: Free Britney, currently streaming on HULU (not Netflix, but “HULU and chill” just doesn’t sound right), provides background on Britney Spears’ conservatorship that has been in place since 2008.

Conservatorship is the appointment of a representative to handle the personal and/or financial affairs of an adult, where a court decides that the such an appointment is necessary in order to protect that person’s health or to prevent the waste or exploitation of that person’s financial fortune. In Illinois, conservatorship is officially referred to as “adult guardianship”.  

At Cunningham Lopez we encourage our clients and their loved ones to have a proper will, trust, and durable powers of attorney in place so that if an adult guardianship is required, which is in any instance where a person is alive but unable to make decisions for themselves, then the injured person can pick and choose their own adult guardians (or conservators), or specifically eliminate who he or she does not wish to be appointed.

Unfortunately, Britney did not have such directives in place and her father, from whom she is estranged, was appointed her conservator. He now receives compensation from Britney’s earnings and, until recently, controlled every aspect of her life, including who she could spend time with, talk to, where she could perform, and how much she was to be paid for any performance.

In Illinois, the conservatee is referred to as the “ward of the court”. The ward is entitled to his/her own legal representation. To remove the adult guardianship, the ward needs to show the court that she has the capacity to perform the tasks necessary for the care of her person or the management of her estate by clear and convincing evidence- the second highest standard of proof behind “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

 This can be shown by evidence such as a report from a physician, psychiatrist, witnesses, and/or the court-appointed representative, a.k.a the guardian ad litem. Interestingly enough, the New York Times piece does not discuss whether or not a court investigator was appointed, and if so- what their position on the need for a conservatorship is, or the appropriateness of Spears’ father as conservator is.

While a judge ultimately has the discretion to decide whether or not the guardianship is necessary and under what terms it should operate, having both medical backing and the support of the guardian ad litem gives the ward the best chance at termination of the guardianship . (Having an attorney who is not intimidated by the magnitude of the circumstances and understands the process is certainly a big plus).

Call Cunningham Lopez to ensure you have durable powers of attorney, a trust, and/or a will in place to avoid the complications that Britney has experienced. Call us now if you need assistance establishing or terminating a guardianship here in Illinois.

DACA IS BACK!...FOR NOW

After years of attempts by the current Presidential administration, it seems that DACA is here to stay. On December 4, 2020, a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to fully reinstate Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Qualified individuals are safe from deportation and can pursue work authorization for the time being.  

On December 7, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have posted notices on their websites stating, effective December 7, 2020, USCIS is accepting first-time requests for consideration of deferred action under DACA based on the terms of the DACA policy in effect prior to September 5, 2017, and in accordance with the Court’s December 4, 2020 order.  

People who meet the following criteria may apply for initial consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA):

·      are under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012;

·      came to the U.S. while under the age of 16;

·      have continuously resided in the U.S. from June 15, 2007 to the present;

·      entered the U.S. without inspection before June 15, 2012, or individuals whose lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012;

·      were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making the request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;

·      are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or armed forces;

·      have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor, or more than three misdemeanors and do not pose a threat to national security or public safety. 

Cunningham Lopez is currently taking consultations while we await more specific direction from DHS and USCIS on whether or not the old or new forms will be used for applications. We anticipate that DHS and USCIS will be very busy with DACA applications in the new year, and applications are handled on a first come-first serve basis. Call us now if you would like to get started and move to the front of the line.

Después de años de intentos por parte de la actual administración presidencial, parece que DACA llegó para quedarse. El 4 de diciembre de 2020, un Tribunal de Distrito de los EE. UU. Para el Distrito Este de Nueva York ordenó al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) restablecer por completo la Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA). Las personas calificadas están a salvo de la deportación y pueden solicitar una autorización de trabajo por el momento.

 El 7 de diciembre de 2020, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional y Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los EE. UU. Los Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los EE. UU. (USCIS) y el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) publicaron avisos en sus sitios web que indican que, a partir del 7 de diciembre de 2020, USCIS está aceptando Solicitudes por primera vez para consideración de acción diferida bajo DACA basadas en los términos de la política de DACA en vigor antes del 5 de septiembre de 2017 y de acuerdo con la orden del Tribunal del 4 de diciembre de 2020.

 Las personas que cumplan con los siguientes criterios pueden solicitar la consideración inicial de la acción diferida para las llegadas en la infancia (DACA): 

• tienen menos de 31 años al 15 de junio de 2012; 

• llegó a los Estados Unidos cuando era menor de 16 años; 

• ha residido continuamente en los Estados Unidos desde el 15 de junio de 2007 hasta el presente; 

• ingresó a los EE. UU. Sin inspección antes del 15 de junio de 2012, o personas cuyo estatus migratorio legal venció el 15 de junio de 2012; 

• estuvieron físicamente presentes en los Estados Unidos el 15 de junio de 2012 y en el momento de realizar la solicitud de consideración de acción diferida con USCIS; 

• está actualmente en la escuela, se ha graduado de la escuela secundaria, ha obtenido un GED o ha sido dado de baja honorablemente de la Guardia Costera o las fuerzas armadas; • no ha sido condenado por un delito mayor, un delito menor significativo o más de tres delitos menores y no representa una amenaza para la seguridad nacional o la seguridad pública. 

Cunningham Lopez está recibiendo consultas mientras esperamos instrucciones más específicas del DHS y USCIS sobre si se utilizarán o no los formularios antiguos o nuevos para las solicitudes. Anticipamos que DHS y USCIS estarán muy ocupados con las solicitudes de DACA en el nuevo año, y las solicitudes se manejan por orden de llegada. Llámenos ahora si desea comenzar y pasar al frente de la línea.

Legal Problems for The Real Housewives of New Jersey Cast Member Shows Important Difference Between Green Card Holders and U.S. Citizens

In most instances, reality television portrays the furthest thing from what reality for the cast members is actually like, and very seldom gives true insight into how the real world actually works. Unfortunately, Real Housewives of New Jersey star Joe Guidice’s recent legal battles with the IRS, and now with immigration illustrates an accurate lesson on the difference in lawful permanent residence and being a U.S. citizen.

For most lawful permanent residents, also known as green card holders, the hard part is done. The phrase lawful permanent resident is very straightforward in that your permission to stay in the United States is no longer temporary, in theory. Another perk is that green card holders can also travel outside the United States with little fear of not being allowed to return, subject to some exceptions.

HOWEVER, lawful permanent residents are not impervious to deportation. If a green card holder breaks certain immigration laws they can be deported. One of the most common reasons for which green card holders are deported is being convicted of certain crimes, specifically crimes involving moral turpitude (or “CIMT”s).  If convicted of a CIMT, a green card holder may be subject to deportation. Some of these crimes, such as driving under the influence, can constitute a CIMT depending on whether or not the conviction is a misdemeanor, felony, or aggravated felony.

Joe Giudice was convicted and sent to jail for bankruptcy fraud- a CIMT, and is now facing removal. Although Joe, who is now 46 years old, emigrated from Italy to the United States as a child, has held a lawful permanent resident card for almost his entire life and has raised his family in the U.S., ICE has still initiated removal proceedings against him. If ICE is successful, Giudice could be deported prior to his March 2019 anticipated release date from prison.

If you have been a lawful permanent resident in the United States for more than 5 years, or if you obtained lawful permanent residency through marriage and have had it for at least three years, you might qualify for naturalization. Naturalization is the process of becoming a U.S. citizen. Whether or not you become a citizen through naturalization or by birth, you cannot be deported (with the exception of becoming denaturalized).

Additional perks of citizenship that are not afforded to lawful Permanent Residents are 1) the right to vote; 2) receiving federal benefits; 3) obtain financial aid; and 4) the power to give derivative citizenship to their children.

If you believe that you or someone you know is eligible for naturalization and would like to learn more, contact Cunningham Lopez LLP for information or assistance.

Military Service Can Simplify Green Card Process for Family Members

The Trump administration’s zero tolerance policy toward immigration has affected a lot of mixed immigration status families in the United States. One category of mixed status families who are still protected are the undocumented relatives of U.S. military servicemen and military veterans. In a recent case, Alejandra Juarez, the wife of Temo Juarez- an Iraqi war veteran, and mother of two U.S. citizen children, was ordered removed after being questioned during a routine traffic stop, despite her marriage to her husband who was a naturalized U.S. citizen who put his life on the line during the Iraqi war. The Juarez’s were eligible to take advantage of what is known as the “Parole in Place” program.

In 2013, the Obama administration implemented the Parole in Place program, allowing certain undocumented people with relatives who were in the military or are veterans to adjust their status to permanent resident while remaining inside the United States. Most people who entered the United States without inspection or permission would need to leave the U.S. for an interview at a consulate in their home country in order to become permanent residents; this is known as “consular processing”. 

Many people do not start an immigration process to become permanent residents because they are afraid of the uncertainty that comes with consular processing. Upon leaving the U.S. for their interview, many people who entered the U.S. become inadmissible for re-entry.  Many people therefore need an additional waiver (for re-entry) with their immigration petition to pardon certain inadmissibility grounds, such as unlawful presence, crimes, etc.  Most waivers are limited to certain undocumented people and the burden of proof is very high, which adds more stress to already an uncertain and difficult situation.

The Parole in Place program therefore eliminates a huge obstacle for many family members of U.S. active military or veterans by allowing them to seek permanent residency inside the U.S. and without the need to leave for an interview in their home country.

In 2016, the Parole in Place expanded from just allowing unmarried minor children, spouses, and parents of military and vets to now also allowing adult children, as well as their spouses, to take advantage of the program.  The purpose of the policy is designed to reduce the “stress and anxiety” of military family members and veterans who are worried about the immigration status of their family members in the United States. A person who is given Parole in Place has the ability to get a work authorization card and is eligible for adjustment of status.

While the expansion is still in place, it can be removed with just the stroke of a pen through the President’s executive order authority. The program is not automatic and potential candidates must apply. If you think you qualify for Parole in Place, or have friends or family who you believe could benefit, call our office at (312) 419-9611 to talk to one of our immigration attorneys.

Another Win for Cunningham Lopez LLP

Cunningham Lopez LLP has successfully obtained another Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, I-601A.  Attorney Geraldine Arruela was able to obtain an I-601A waiver for Ms. L, a woman from Mexico who had two Lawful Permanent Resident parents who were faced with potentially losing their daughter to the 10 year-bar.   

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) created the three-year, ten-year, and permanent bars on admission to the United States.  Depending how long an individual has been present in the United States without authorization, the individual can trigger the three or ten-year bar once they voluntarily depart the country.  The creation of these bars has made it very difficult for individuals who need to consular process to obtain a lawful permanent resident card because these individuals would trigger the bar once they depart for their consulate interview.

Prior to 2013, an individual who needed a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence had to leave the United States and wait many months outside of the United States to wait for a decision on the waiver.  Since 2013, United States and Immigration Services has allowed certain individuals who only need a waiver for unlawful presence to file a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver (I-601A) forgiving the three or ten-year bar while still in the United States.  On August 29, 2016, the I-601A waiver has expanded to anyone who is statutorily eligible for a waiver of unlawful presence waiver and who has a Lawful Permanent Resident parent or spouse for immigrant visas, employment-based immigrants, and diversity visa immigrants. 

An individual filing an I-601A waiver must demonstrate extreme hardship to their qualifying relative (Lawful permanent resident parent or spouse or a U.S. citizen parent or spouse).  There is no concrete definition for what “extreme hardship” means and an immigration attorney must look at every case individually to determine the best strategy.  Some of the factors that are considered are the presence of a lawful permanent resident or United States citizen spouse or parent in this country; significant conditions of health; the qualifying relative’s family ties outside the United States; the conditions in the country or countries to which the qualifying relative would relocate and the extent of the qualifying relative’s ties in such countries; the financial impact of departure from this country. 

Our client has to consular process to obtain her lawful permanent resident card as she entered unlawfully and will trigger the 10-year bar once she departs for her consulate interview.  Attorney Arruela filed an I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, using Ms. L’s U.S. citizen son to expedite the I-130 petition.  Once the I-130 petition was granted, Attorney Arruela filed an I-601A waiver based on Ms. L’s Lawful Permanent Resident parents showing extreme hardship to both of her parents.  In this case, Ms. L’s Lawful Permanent Resident parents would suffer extreme hardship if Ms. L had to depart to Mexico as she is the primary caretaker and financial provider.  Unfortunately, Ms. L’s parents have many medical issues and rely on their daughter for all their daily needs.  Additionally, Ms. L’s parents will suffer extreme hardship if they relocate with their daughter to Mexico since there is a lack of suitable medical clinics and hospitals in their hometown in Mexico.

Attorney Arruela was able to craft arguments around Ms. L’s specific circumstance and we are happy to announce the approval of Ms. L’s I-601A waiver.  At Cunningham Lopez LLP we provide big firm results with a personal, small firm approach.  Ms. Arruela’s attentiveness and dedication to this case was a great example of our firm's values.  

IMMIGRATION, REFORM, AND THE AMERICAN DREAM

As Americans, we pride ourselves on our home being “land of the free”, and we broadcast the idea of living the dream- the “American dream”, that is, having a nice home on with a white picket fence, darling children, and a golden retriever in the yard. We advertise this as the American way and encourage the rest of the world to do the same. Yet, when others travel from their home countries to find this dream for themselves, many are denied. As a result, many people cross borders without inspection and remain in the U.S. on undocumented status.

What can the U.S. do to gain better control of this problem? Back in November of 2014, President Barack Obama implemented new and innovative forms of relief for immigrants in the United States who were otherwise subject to deportation. Many had been living in the United States for many years, raising families and giving birth to U.S. citizens, as well as working hard, paying taxes, and building their dreams.

President Barack Obama’s immigration reform consists of three simple methods for the U.S. to regulate immigration in more efficient manner than the previous, outdated standing policies. First, President Obama sought to increase activity within border patrol units to safely secure our borders. Secondly, to allow immigrants without criminal backgrounds to apply for U.S. citizenship. Lastly, to create a system of security by implementing routine background checks to promote safety in U.S. communities.

Although these proposals seem manageable, some don't believe they will work; this indecision is reflected in the United States’ Supreme Court’s stance on the issue as well. The Court recently voted on the President’s immigration reforms and were unable to reach a decision, with the vote being split with a 4-4. This Court’s standstill could result in up to 4 million immigrants being deported back to their home countries, without consideration for how long they have lived in the U.S. or if they have U.S.-born children.

Does the Supreme Court’s standstill affect you or your loved ones? If so, each case and client is unique, and the immigration attorneys at SmithLopezCunningham LLP will assess your individual circumstance to provide you with the most fitting legal options available.

INMIGRACIÓN, LA REFORMA Y EL SUEÑO AMERICANO

Como Americanos, nos enorgullecemos que nuestro país es "tierra de la libertad", y transmitimos la idea de vivir el "sueño americano", que es, tener una casa linda con una cerca blanca, queridos hijos, y un mascota en el patio. Anunciamos esto como la manera americana y animamos al resto del mundo a hacer lo mismo. Sin embargo, cuando los demás viajan desde sus países de origen para encontrar este sueño por sí mismos, muchos son negados. Como resultado, muchas personas cruzan las fronteras sin inspección y permanecen en los EE.UU. en condición de indocumentados.

¿Qué puede hacer los EE.UU. para obtener mejor control de este problema? En noviembre de 2014 el presidente Barack Obama implementó nuevas e innovadoras formas de alivio para los inmigrantes en los Estados Unidos que eran de otro modo sujetos a la deportación. Muchos habían estado viviendo en los Estados Unidos durante muchos años, formando familias y dando a luz a ciudadanos estadounidenses, como también trabajando duro, pagando impuestos y construyendo sus sueños.

La reforma migratoria del presidente Barack Obama consiste en tres simples métodos para que los EE.UU. regule la inmigración de manera más eficiente que las políticas anteriores. Primero, el Presidente Obama trató de aumentar la actividad con las unidades de la patrulla fronteriza para garantizar seguridad de nuestras fronteras. Segundo, propuso permitir a los inmigrantes sin antecedentes penales aplicar por la ciudadanía Americana. Por ultimo, presentó la implementación de controles rutinas de chequear antecedentes criminales para promover la seguridad en las comunidades.

Aunque estas propuestas parecen adaptables, algunos no creen que van a funcionar; esta indecisión se refleja en la postura de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos. La Corte recientemente votó en las reformas de inmigración del presidente y fueron incapaces de llegar a una decisión, con el voto dividido un 4-4. El paro de esta Corte podría resultar en hasta 4 millones de inmigrantes siendo deportados a sus países de origen, sin tomar en cuenta el tiempo que han vivido en los EE.UU. o si tienen hijos nacidos en EE.UU.

¿Te afecta a ti o a tus seres queridos el paro de la Corte Suprema? Si es así, cada caso y cliente es único, y los abogados de inmigración en SmithLopezCunningham LLP evaluarán sus circunstanciasm personales para ofrecerle las opciones legales más adecuadas.

Immigration and the 2016 Presidential Election

By: Nick Ustaski

The 2016 United States Presidential election is going to be one of the most interesting elections in recent years not only because there is an abundance of interesting candidates, but because there is really no distinctive frontrunner for either political party at this point in time. GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has probably made the biggest splash in both the news and talks of possible presidential candidates, particularly his comments about immigration to the United States from Mexico. Since the initial settlements in North America centuries ago, immigration has and always will be a representation and part of the United States and its history. Every American has immigrant ancestry and the question in most recent years is when does the United States finally block immigration, legals or illegals, into the country completely. Donald Trump has taken a truly radical stand as a presidential candidate when he declared that illegal immigration needs to end and that it is corrupting the United States. Trump believes Mexico’s leaders have been taking advantage of the US because illegal immigrants exploit the system and send millions of dollars back to their country and not using it in the United States. Trump’s policy is based on three center points: building a wall at the Mexican border as a way to increase enforcement, ending birthright citizenship, and prioritizing American workers with restricted legal immigration. There are many that disagree with Trump’s plan, but he has gained some support from others who believe it is time for this change to happen in America. U.S. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama endorsed Trump’s plan and said, “This is exactly what America needs.” Trump’s plan essentially says that immigrants hurt the American economy. The end goal for Trump is to have Americans back at work instead of using foreigners and putting special interests ahead of Americans like many politicians actually do. Trump himself said, “We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own.” With an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country along with future illegals and legal immigrants, the United States is approaching a crossroads with an issue that will need to be addressed.

Immigrants do of course make the United States such a culturally diverse place to live. Many immigrants come to the United States seeking a fresh start or for many other reasons; each individual has a different reason for wanting to come here. Just like the American ancestors centuries ago, the United States has been a place where people could come and live in peace and be free. Whether it is time for immigration for illegals and legals to end is going to be a heavily debated issue in the near future. Donald Trump has put himself as a GOP frontrunner as a result of his drastic immigration policies it will be interesting to follow how the other candidates respond. Today, the Democratic Party and most of the Republican Party have abandoned American workers in favor of special interests and seek cheap foreign labor, Trump is arguing to change that. Whether the majority of American citizens agree will be decided in the next several months and mostly importantly on Election day, November 8th, 2016.

Thank you for visiting our firm’s website in which we do specialize in immigration law and following my legal blog posts this summer.

- Nick Ustaski

The Wrigley Field Rooftops and the Chicago Cubs: Can Their Legal Issues Be Resolved?

By Nick Ustaski

July 31, 2015

When a person visits the city of Chicago or the Chicagoland area, Wrigley Field is often a destination many tourists and locals continue to go see not only because it houses a professional baseball organization, but because of its historic values. Wrigley Field was first built in 1914 as Weeghman Park and in 1916 became the home of the Chicago Cubs baseball team. In 1927, Wrigley Gum company owner William Wrigley purchased the field and team and the rest is history. Unfortunately for the Cubs and many fans, this history has not been a good one as the Cubs have not won a world series since 1908 and Wrigley Field has never won a world series at all.  Flash forward to the 2000’s; both the city of Chicago and the Cubs are a hot spot and popular destination. The area surrounding Wrigley Field is now called Wrigleyville and has become a famous neighborhood in Chicago. Having a professional baseball team play in one of your neighborhoods is a unique aspect to Chicago, but to have Wrigleyville surround the field is something truly special. Another unique aspect to Wrigley Field and the topic of this legal discussion is the Wrigleyville Rooftops because there is truly nothing like in the rest of sports. In no other sport or baseball field are there rooftops that are so high outside a stadium that allows spectators to watch from outside the baseball field itself. It is truly a historic site to see these buildings surround the field, which makes Wrigley field so special and unique. Since 1914, people have come to Wrigley Field not even as Cubs fans to watch a game and just to take in the experience either sitting inside Wrigley or watching from outside the stadium in the rooftops. However in 2002, the first steps to make major changes to Wrigley Field began forever altering “the friendly confines”, a nickname given to the field for its welcome attitude of all fans.

In 2002, the Chicago Cubs organization filed a lawsuit against the different owners and facilities of the Wrigleyville Rooftops for copyright infringement. Since these owners and operators charged admission for fans to use their facilities and to watch the games, the Cubs asserted that the rooftop operators were essentially stealing a copyrighted Major League Baseball game. Eventually in 2004, many of the rooftop owners settled with the Cubs and agreed to pay a percentage of their gross income for the Cub’s official endorsement. When the Rickett’s family, the Cubs current owners, purchased the team they decided it was finally time to make upgrades to the historic Wrigley Field and bring it into the modern era. This year 2015 was a great change for those who live in the Wrigleyville area and for Cubs’ fans as the Rickett’s family themselves purchased more of the rooftop buildings surrounding the stadium. Some of the rooftops owners were ok with selling to Ricketts, as they believe the rooftops are truly an expansion of the field and it is right the Cubs owner’s right owns them. However, the three rooftops privately owned are resisting a buyout. Each of the remaining owners has sued the team in federal court for the recent actions it’s owners have taken. But in today’s sporting world, owners are also looking for a way to expand their team’s revenue. The Cubs for example, are rumored to desire a plaza, nearby hotel, and street fairs similar to those seen around other teams in the MLB. The Cubs have already taken the initial steps of their renovations with fixed up outfield bleachers and for the first time in Wrigley field’s vast history electronic scoreboards in left and right field.

These scoreboards are what have brought this legal issue to national attention. They are so big that they completely block the view of many of the Wrigley Field Rooftop view of the game. This is a smart strategy by the Rickett’s family to cut off potential revenue from the rooftops that they do not control. However, it does also hurt a part of the history of Wrigley Field and its uniqueness. An electronic scoreboard and video board do help bring the field in the modern era, but it does take away apart that made Wrigley Field so special and unique. The rooftop owners have now filed a lawsuit accusing the team of violating the terms and agreement of their revenue-sharing contract and attempting to create a monopoly on the market for Cubs game tickets. This is of course in response to the scoreboards from the Wrigley Field renovation project as mentioned above. The legal debate here has been going on since the initial settlement in 2004, but has recently regained momentum the past few weeks. The rooftop owners believe it is unfortunate that they were forced to take another legal action against the Cubs, but believe that the Wrigley Field renovations are greatly hurting them. In the end, it comes down to money and whether or not the Cubs owners want to continue to change Wrigley Field, altering a baseball field with such rich history and historic past connected to Cubs fans and the city of Chicago.  

Same-Sex Marriage and Equality Under The Law

By Nick Ustaski

A few weeks ago the first major Supreme Court landmark decision in the United States since the 1964 passing of the Civil Rights act occurred in the United States when the court decided with a 5-4 vote to grant the right of same-sex couples to marry. The case Obergefell v. Hodges ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex married couples and denial of recognition of the marriages violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. June 26th 2015 will forever be a historic day in United States history and law. Before the Supreme Court decision, 37 states and the District of Colombia had legalized gay marriage, now every American has been granted the right no longer varying state by state. Throughout the United States, cities, people, and groups all celebrated the passage of an act that truly altered human nature and equality in the United States. Parades and celebrations in cities like San Francisco, Washington D.C., and our very own Chicago made national headlines and showed how much support and happiness the act’s passage has caused. The Supreme Court justices, who voted on the decision, each had various opinions on the issue, but in the end it received a majority vote. The same sex marriage debate has grown in popularity in the recent years. President Barack Obama called the decision a victory for America. With this good news for those who consider themselves a same-sex couple, there is of course opposition. Many of the religious churches see same-sex marriage as a violation of their churches’ beliefs, while other Americans are strongly opposed to the idea. From a legal standpoint, this decision not only affects a same-sex couples’ right to marry, but truly alters the legal field for cases like this. With the legalization of gay marriage, those who identify under it are now legally protected and open to the same benefits as a male-female married couple. 

Same-sex couples receiving these benefits need to be treated exactly as a couple who is male and female. The legal field will now have to accept these individuals’ newly granted federally protected rights and alter how the situations are approached. These new benefits can range from employment, tax differentials, and many more. For example, employers will now have to review all of their benefit plans to ensure compliance with the new applicable federal law. How this issue proceeds in the future could drastically change many fields of law and employment. After years of case law starting in the 1970’s, the U.S. Supreme Court, like it has done in the past, were the ones who ultimately made the decision on how the issue affects the United States. With the ruling, American social society will be altered and the future of this issue and conflicts that arise from it are a topic that will forever be connected with the law.

THE CONFERDERATE FLAG AND ITS LEGAL IMPLICATIONS ON AMERICAN SOCIETY

By Nick Ustaski

It took another domestic incident for United States lawmakers to again spark the serious debate of whether or not southern states should have the legal right to fly the flag of the Confederate States of America. The Confederate States of America was formed in the 1860’s and went to war with the Union creating the most deadly U.S. domestic war in history where literally in some cases “brothers killed brothers”. The United States of America faced its first domestic threat in the U.S. Civil War, a war that was fought over the disagreement in many issues between the northern and southern states particularly the issue of slavery. The Confederate states were dependent on slavery for economic reasons, but it was also a great part of its social and political structure. When the war started in 1861, the Confederacy officially seceded from the United States as a unified, separate state. The Civil War lasted 4 long years, but finally came to an end in 1865 with Robert E. Lee’s surrender to future President Ulysses S. Grant. Days after the surrender, John Wilkes Booth, a southern loyalist assassinated U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s assassination is just one example showing angry that never became resolved from the Civil War. Slavery was legally abolished in 1865 with the passage of the 13th amendment of the U.S. constitution. Racism and African American civil rights were a topic that dominated the 19th and 20th centuries, the peak being the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s. All of these social and political turmoil’s whether it being racism, hate crime, southern beliefs, or white supremacy each still play a prevalent role in an ever changing American society.  

Last week a man who claimed to be a white supremacist innocently murdered members of an historic African American church. This incident made nationwide news and sparked outrage throughout the United States from people of all races. The shooting incident stirred much debate in the past few days about the uses of the confederate flag, as the flag was present at the shooting and the gunman associated himself with it. This debate includes questions like: should people have the right to display the symbol of the anti-bellum flag and is it legal to do so? The freedom of speech protection provided by the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution makes it so that American people can have the confederate flag on their own property. Whether the flag can be displayed in a public space is an entire different legal argument.  The legality of having a confederate flag in public areas depends upon whether the public space is designated as a public form, limited public forum, or nonpublic forum. The U.S. government can only intervene in this issue if it achieves significant government interest. However, it is ultimately up to the individual states to determine whether they believe they flag should be displayed in public spaces. In 2000 for example, civil rights activists lobbied to have the confederate flag removed from the capital building in South Carolina. South Carolina is a state that has great pride in its confederate history and ancestry. Another piece of legal legislation, the South Carolina Heritage Act made it so Confederate history and historical elements could not be removed.

The South Carolina example above shows that many southern states wish to have the Confederacy remembered as part of their state’s history and it is not a right of the U.S. federal government to take away that right. The Confederacy, despite its bad implications, it still a part of the United States history. This is what angers many southerners in the debate of the use of the flag. Why should the south have to take away a part of their ancestry after all isn’t the U.S. supposed to be a “united” states of America? From a historical perspective, the flag should remain under its current restrictions and legislations, however the flag does anger many African Americans and civil rights activists even to this day. Some African Americans may see the flag as a reminder of their ancestors history as slaves and a gruesome war that finally lead to the legal abolition of slavery in the United States. Many white supremacist southerners may use the Confederate flag to represent the old south, a time where the white race dominated and viewed the African American not as equals, but as slaves. Some white southerners may even feel disgraced by the flag; it is really up for interpretation. Seeing the flag still flown today (no less on a state capitol building) continues to anger individuals and the murders of innocent African American this week again sparked the heat of this debate. Current South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley radically changed the Confederate Flag debate when she called for the flag’s removal from the capitol just days ago. South Carolina is one of the strongest states in its history that has favored the use of the flag to represent Southern heritage.  It will take two thirds of the state legislature to agree and approve to remove the flag from the capitol and move it to another appropriate location. Whether this issue can be agreed upon is something to watch in the next few weeks. If South Carolina changes its Confederate flag legal policies, than many other southern states are likely to follow. This debate more interestingly will probably carry into the 2016 Presidential election and become a major topic of discussion, as it is an issue that literally divides the country.

The Civil War created a divide in the United States and the repercussions of that divide are still a ripple effect in American society today. President Obama himself and his administration believe that the Confederate flag has a place in America and that place is in a museum not being displayed everyday to the American public. Whatever is ultimately decided in this debate will have to be decided by a court of law.