FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE: THE CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS AND CHICAGO CUBS - PLAYER SALARIES AND THE EFFECT ON WINNING CHAMPIONSHIPS

By Nick Ustaski

On June 15th 2015, the Chicago Blackhawks defeated the Tampa Bay Lighting and won their 3rd Stanley Cup in 6 seasons. In the salary cap era of the National Hockey League this has never been done before and the Chicago Blackhawks, to many, are being called a dynasty. Winning the Stanley Cup in 2010, 2013, and 2015, the Chicago Blackhawks have established themselves as the most recently successful sports team in the city of Chicago. Unlike the Blackhawks, the Chicago Cubs have failed to win a major championship in Major League Baseball. The Cubs have not made the MLB playoffs since the 2008 season and -most importantly- have not won a World Series championship since 1908. The Cubs not winning a baseball championship in 105 years is an embarrassing record for a professional sports team. With the recent success of the Blackhawks and failures of the Cubs, it is interesting to examine both teams’ salary/payroll structures as established by their various leagues and see how much each of their players are making and its effect on winning.

For the Chicago Blackhawks, the NHL is under a salary cap system, which is strictly adhered to by teams in the National Hockey League. The cap also changes every year depending on the value of the Canadian and American dollar.  For the 2014-2015 NHL season, the cap was $69 million with the league floor minimum being $51 million. For next year’s season, 2015-2016, Commissioner Gary Bettman has not released an actual number for the salary cap, but it is estimated at $73 million. For a team like the Blackhawks, this presents a big legal problem. The Blackhawks top players, Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane have matching contracts with a $10.5 million a year deal, while there are other players like Marian Hossa, Patrick Sharp, Brent Seabrook, and Duncan Keith each in the $5+ million range. These six players alone, for example, take up $40 million of the salary, half of the salary the hawks have available for next season. The Blackhawks, as a professional hockey team, are obligated by law to adhere to the rules of the salary cap system. With six players taking up so much space, the Blackhawks general manager will have to be creative to keep his core group of players together as well as working on resigning players, such as Brandon Saad, to a larger contract extension. Saad is a restricted free agent and, unless he is signed to a new contract sheet, he will be subject to arbitration. At arbitration, both sides present their requested amounts to a third party who ultimately makes the decision of how much that player makes. As you can see from this information, the Blackhawks will likely have a few new faces on the roster next season when attempting to win their 4th cup in 7 years and continue to be a dynasty.

The Chicago Cubs and MLB have no salary cap, which makes it interesting to compare the Cubs and Blackhawks and their recent success in their own sports. The highest-paid players on the Cubs are Jon Lester, who takes home $20 million a year, and Miguel Montero, who makes $12 million per year. Even though the Cubs’ payroll is only the 12th-highest payroll the MLB at $116,264,024, the players have made and continue to make more than those on the Blackhawks today. Yet the highest-paid players on the ‘Hawks, Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane, for example, each have 3 Stanley Cup rings, while there is no member currently on the Cubs who was even on the 2008 playoff Cubs roster. The Cubs have entered a rebuilding stage and some argue they have copied the model created by the Blackhawks of building through the draft and signing players in free agency for the right price. If this trend continues, the Cubs -in theory- should continue to get better and better and finally bring the city of Chicago a championship from a baseball team on the north side. The Blackhawks will have to make adjustments to their roster because of salary cap issues, but if they are a true dynasty they will continue to succeed and keep winning championships for the city of Chicago.

The New Immigrant- Effects of the Executive Action

View fullsize

On November 20, 2014, President Obama addressed the country and finally delivered on his long outstanding commitment to “fix the broken immigration system.”  However, he had to do so under his presidential authority to take Executive Action, which does not offer the same protections as laws that are passed by Congress.  This was a measure taken by the President after the House of Representatives refused to vote on an immigration bill that was passed by the Senate nearly a year and a half ago.  Based on the initiatives of the Executive Action, projections show that approximately 4.9 million undocumented individuals may be eligible for lawful status that were not previously eligible. 

The initiatives include the following: 1) expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program by eliminating the restriction on individuals over the age of 31 and pushing back the continuous residence in the U.S. requirement to January 1, 2010 ; 2) creating a new program called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability for parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents who have resided in the country continuously since January 1, 2010 and are not a priority for removal; and 3)  expanding the provisional waiver of unlawful presence to include spouses, sons or daughters of lawful permanent residents and sons and daughters of U.S. citizens to be eligible for a provisional waiver if a visa is available.

The actions taken by the President have caused controversy in the media and received extensive criticism by members of the Republican party who insist that the president’s actions exceeded the scope of his authority and were unconstitutional.  There have been threats to block funding of the programs and challenge the executive action in the Supreme Court.

 History shows that numerous presidents in the past have taken executive action to address immigration issues, many in an attempt to keep families together.  The major difference of President Obama’s action is that it targeted a historically large number of undocumented individuals who will qualify for a work permit and deferred action for a period of three years.

For those who benefit from the initiative to expand the program for the provisional waiver of unlawful presence, the action will provide an easier path to lawful permanent residence because they will not have to depart the country in order to apply.    Importantly, the Executive Action will also clarify the meaning of “extreme hardship” that must be demonstrated for approval of a waiver, which has been a highly scrutinized term that has caused many families to be torn apart.  Given the goals of the executive action it is likely that the clarification of extreme hardship will lead to a higher number of waiver approvals. 

So the question remains did President Obama do anything to fix the immigration system? The short, but complicated answer is, yes.  He took action that will result in more undocumented individuals obtaining lawful permanent resident status through the provisional waiver.  He also took action that will result in thousands of individuals who are currently in removal proceedings to be eligible for relief who would have otherwise been deported.  This will result in the unity of more families, the ability of undocumented individuals to obtain a driver’s license and more opportunity to obtain employment. However, the action is not the immigration reform that many had hoped for.  It does not provide a path to lawful permanent resident status for those granted deferred action, nor a path to citizenship and the policy could be taken away after President Obama serves his final term.  Overall, this executive action was a major step in the right direction to fix the immigration system.  It will benefit more undocumented individuals than any other action taken by a President in the history of our country and provide more families with economic and social stability.

Loved One Detained By Immigration? Here's What You Need To Know.

View fullsize

If your loved one has recently been detained by immigration authorities the first issue to address is whether he or she is eligible for a bond.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement will assign an immigration officer to the detainee’s case, who will determine whether or not to set a bond.  However, some individuals will not qualify for release from detention because they are ineligible for bond under the Immigration and Nationality Act.  The most common reasons that one would be ineligible for bond include: felony conviction for crime involving moral turpitude, conviction for a drug or firearm offense, or conviction for a violent crime.

If mandatory detention does not apply then ICE can set a bond, or refuse to issue a bond, and the detainee will usually be calendared for a bond hearing before the Immigration Judge.  Often the bond amount set by ICE will be high, and it will be necessary to request a hearing for bond redetermination before the Immigration Judge.  The length of time for the bond hearing to occur varies, but typically can take one to three weeks.  If you immediately retain an attorney to file a motion for a bond hearing, the hearing is likely to be scheduled sooner. 

At the bond hearing, the detainee will have to demonstrate to the Immigration Judge that they are not a danger to the public and will appear for all scheduled hearings. This can be done by presenting evidence of family ties to dependent lawful residents, employment, and ties to the community. Individuals that are eligible for relief from removal generally have a better chance of receiving a bond.  Having a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, child or immediate relative usually increases one’s chances of being eligible for relief from removal.

The lowest amount of bond that the Immigration Judge can set is $1,500.  Typically, if an individual has convictions for offenses such as Driving Under the Influence, misdemeanor offenses, or multiple offenses for driving without a license, the Immigration Judge may increase the bond amount.  Most local bondsmen do not cover immigration bonds, but there are some that operate nationwide.  They will expect to receive a non-refundable payment of at least 10 to 15 percent of the total bond in addition to sufficient property as collateral to cover the remainder.

Bond hearings are held at the Immigration Court in you region and some are also accessible via televideo conference. The person setting the bond should make sure they are certain that the detainee will appear at all scheduled immigration hearings, because if they fail to appear the bond money will likely be forfeited.  The Immigration Court will return the bond to the individual who posted it at the conclusion of the immigration proceedings or the departure of the detainee.

 Overall, the immigration bond process is complicated and can be intimidating to those who are unfamiliar with the law.  You should consult with an experienced immigration attorney to develop a strategy to pursue your loved one’s release.

The Levels of Relationship Scrutiny

View fullsize

 All is not fair in Love and Law....

Hello, everyone! Two of the most confusing things to engage in are the practice of law and romantic relationships. Since these two things (my legal practice and my relationship) are the sources of most of my own personal confusion, I began to think about how they were related started to view my relationship through a Constitutional Law lens, and my girlfriend as the Chief Justice of our Supreme Courtship (isn’t that normally the case?).

In “Con Law” (as law students like to call it), there are three levels of scrutiny that courts use to decide the validity of a law in the eyes of the Constitution: rational basis; intermediate scrutiny; and strict scrutiny.

When a law’s validity is subject to the rational basis test, the law must be “rationally related” to a legitimate government interest to be held constitutional. So, points A and B should logically lead you to point C. For example, the government deciding to instate a 55mph speed limit on public highways because slower driving will decrease the amount of high-speed accidents. Pretty simple.

Likewise, if your significant other judges you under a rational basis level of scrutiny, chances are you have it pretty easy. There isn’t much second-guessing involved in what you are doing and why you are doing it. Essentially, you have the green light to do whatever you want because your reasoning generally makes sense to your partner.

Intermediate scrutiny is the second-toughest level of scrutiny. Under this test, a judge decides if a law is constitutional by determining whether the law  is “substantially related” to an “important” purpose (whatever that means). Without getting into semantics, the takeaway from intermediate scrutiny should be that the purpose of the law must be more important than merely legitimate, and the means of achieving that purpose must be more closely related to achieving that goal than only showing some indicia of “rational” logic. A better way to put it would be to say that if there were three roads that all led to the pot of gold, under intermediate scrutiny you cannot pick the scenic route. This type of scrutiny is saved for important issues, like laws that touch upon gender.

In a relationship, if your decisions are judged under intermediate scrutiny then this means that your significant other has their eye on you. You still have the benefit of the doubt when push comes to shove, but you better not stray too far away from the line. This may manifest itself in the form of “playing hard to get”, or being questioned as to why you must use their iPad to look up the score, instead of going upstairs to use your own. This level presents a challenge, but not one that’s insurmountable.

And -last but not least- there’s strict scrutiny. Under this level of review, the law’s means must be narrowly-tailored to achieve a “compelling” end.  Narrowly-tailored means that the means by which the end is achieved must be the least-restrictive way to achieve that compelling governmental purpose…aka, the only way. This level is very stringent because it is saved for laws that touch on very sensitive issues such as religion, race, ethnicity, and fundamental rights.

If your significant other judges your Supreme Courtship using strict scrutiny, then this means you are constantly under a microscope, and you bare the burden of proving that your decisions are the absolute best way of achieving your purpose. Think of your significant other questioning why you drove instead of taking the train, why you chose a blue tie instead of a red one, why you are coming home at 6:45 instead of 6:30. For some people, this type of standard is great for them because it keeps them at the top of their game, but to many this can be an extremely stressful and tiring environment to be in. In a nutshell, if you can operate in strict scrutiny you are either a glutton for abuse or you are one smooth operator. If you recognize you are in this situation and you are neither of those two…RUN!

*Please do not confuse this information as legitimate relationship advice, as lawyers are not known for managing relationships well.*

3 Things to Think About Before Filing for Divorce

Marriage Counseling. Do you still have feelings for your spouse? The divorce process can be long, tedious, and costly. Not understanding what went wrong or not resolving lingering emotions before the divorce may end up costing you not only more money, but also more pain.  Unresolved feelings may cause both you and your spouse to fight for every last issue in the divorce decree (marital property division, custody arrangements, etc.), regardless how insignificant. These types of disagreements only draw out the divorce process, making it more difficult for all parties involved.  If you doubt the divorce and/or are restless about the decision, marriage counseling could -at worst- save you future emotional and financial grief by helping both of you come to terms with break-up or it could wind up saving your marriage.

What Do You Envision for the Future? Do you see yourself finally living your dream, free of whatever marital struggles were weighing you down? Or is it impossible to even imagine life outside of your marriage? Regardless of the answer, if you have children and you plan on retaining or splitting custody, your future plans should include remaining in-state.  Courts have long upheld the “best interest of the child” test when determining custody arrangements, and plans to move your children out of their schools, activities, and away from friends are hard to justify. Be sure to consider your children’s futures when making plans of your own.

Finances. With or without children, it is important to remember that a divorce does not equal financial freedom.  In fact, research shows that divorce drops a person’s wealth by 77%, and not just for men. Contrary to stereotypes, men’s wealth is only slightly higher than women’s wealth after divorce. Even if your financial situation seems stable before divorce, it is important to examine your overall finances from a larger perspective.  Often, people forget about minute costs that are new to post-divorce life (transportation for children, furniture, etc.).  Be sure to have a financial plan in place before filing.

Bonus: Lawyer Up! The sooner you engage with an attorney, the better. Be sure to have some questions written down and come prepared to ask them. It’s your life, and your attorneys are there to help you through the process.

Blog Coming Soon!

Stay tuned for our first blog post. Smith Lopez Cunningham is excited to be contributing to the Chicago legal blogging community and serving the citizens of Chicago. We specialize in DUI Defense, Immigration, Family Law, and Personal Injury matters. Check back soon for updated information.