Even when Jeffrey Skilling was first sentenced for conspiring in one of the largest corporate fraud schemes in modern history, he received less jail time than some low-level drug offenders sentenced to harsh mandatory minimums. But this week, Skilling reached a deal with the Department of Justice to cut his 24-year sentence to as little as 14 years, in exchange for abandoning the onslaught of appeals he has launched at his own expense. Reuters reports:

The agreement … could result in Skilling’s freedom in late 2018, with good behavior.

In exchange, Skilling, 59, who has long maintained his innocence, agreed to stop appealing his conviction. The agreement would also allow more than $40 million seized from him to be freed up for distribution to Enron fraud victims.

A resentencing became necessary after a federal appeals court upheld Skilling’s conviction but found the original sentence too harsh.

Once ranked seventh on the Fortune 500 list of large U.S. companies, Enron went bankrupt on December 2, 2001 in an accounting scandal that remains one of the largest and most infamous U.S. corporate meltdowns.

Thousands of workers lost their jobs and retirement savings, and images were beamed around the globe of staff carrying possessions out of Enron’s downtown Houston office tower, past the company’s “crooked E” logo.

Even in 2006, when Skilling was first sentenced, his legal defense was deemed one of the most expensive in history at $65 million, and in the years since he has taken his case to the Supreme Court and back on appeal after appeal. By settling, the Department of Justice not only saved itself the considerable expense of continuing this legal battle; it also gets access to the more than $40 million in seized assets Skilling had previously not agreed to surrender. As a consequence of these negotiations, Skilling’s sentence is even more disparate from the 25-year-plus sentences of drug defendants charged for low-level offenses like selling their own pain pills to an undercover informant.

If Skilling’s reduced sentence is approved by a judge during his June hearing, as is likely, Skilling will nonetheless not have had an ideal run with the criminal justice system. His lawyers made a persuasive argument that the statute initially used to convict him was overly broad. And his sentence was disproportionately high relative to alleged Enron scandal mastermind Andrew Fastow, who got only six years in prison after he testified against both Skilling and Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay. But more severe versions of these problems plague countless criminal defendants, who, rather than having the leverage to shorten their sentence or the legal resources to take down a statute, are coerced into plea deals under threat of draconian prison terms.

Last year, a Texas judge issued a temporary order permitting cheerleaders at a Texas high school to display banners emblazoned with Bible verses and other religious messages during football games. On Wednesday, the same judge made that order permanent. As a result, signs such as this one will continue to be a regular fixture at these public high school football games:

As ThinkProgress previously explained, this case is troubling in no small part because these cheerleaders are receiving favorable treatment compared to another Texas cheerleader who alleged that she was raped. In the alleged rape case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a cheerleader could be required to cheer for her alleged rapist because in her “capacity as cheerleader, [she] served as a mouthpiece through which [her school] could disseminate speech namely, support for its athletic teams.” Public school cheerleaders, according to the Fifth Circuit, speak on behalf of their government-run school when they cheer.

But, in the Supreme Court’s words, the “First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” If cheerleaders are speaking on behalf of their public school, then they cannot display religious banners because doing so is not neutral on the subject of religion.

Admittedly, the decision this week came from a state court judge, while the Fifth Circuit is a federal court, so the Fifth Circuit’s decision is not binding on the Texas judge. Nevertheless, the Constitution’s requirement for church/state separation is binding upon state court judges. And, at the very least, alleged rape survivors should not face less favorable laws than everyone else.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) acknowledged Friday that it had improperly flagged groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny if they contained common Tea Party keywords in their names. Rather than addressing the real problem of political committees masquerading as 501(c)(4) groups to evade public disclosure laws, this approach instead delayed the process for several groups purely on the basis of their names.

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, noted that the number of 501(c)(4) group applications doubled between 2010 and 2012. As a result of this influx, she explained, low-level workers at the agency’s Cincinnati office had flagged about 300 applications for additional review based on a keyword search. None had their status revoked or denied and the IRS apologized for the mistake.

While it unclear whether the IRS workers intentionally targeted conservative groups — an agency spokesman did not immediately respond to a ThinkProgress request for the complete list of keywords used — the office revealed that two of the terms on the list were “Tea Party” and “patriot.” As such, about 75 Tea Party groups were singled out for additional scrutiny.

The spike in 501(c)(4) groups comes after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision that outside groups may make unlimited political expenditures. Since then, some 501(c)(4) organizations have begun abusing the system. Though groups engaged in some political activity may qualify as “social welfare groups” and receive tax-exempt status under this section of the tax code, electioneering cannot be their predominant activity.

Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, for example, told the IRS that any political ads run by the group would be “limited in amount” and “would not constitute the group’s primary purpose.” Campaign finance reform advocates have argued that, in light of more than $70 million in “independent expenditure” ad spending, the group’s primary purpose is clearly campaign activity. But rather than register with the Federal Election Commission as a political committee, Crossroads GPS continues to claim that it is not such a group and need not publicly identify its funders.

Yesterday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed a bill that would have allowed in-person early voting in his state for 14 days prior to elections. Christie’s veto statement claimed that expanding the franchise in this way would be too expensive and also that early voting “risks the integrity and orderly administration of our elections by introducing a new voting method and process.” He also claims that the state’s current system allowing early voters to vote by mail is sufficient.

Christie’s claim that limiting early voting to mail in ballots will preserve the “integrity” of elections is, if anything, the opposite of true. According to the New York Times, mailed ballots are “less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show. Election officials reject almost 2 percent of ballots cast by mail, double the rate for in-person voting.” Moreover, while in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent, fraud in mailed ballots is “vastly more prevalent.”

There is another possible explanation for Christie’s veto, however. One empirical study shows that voters who vote by mail are “more likely to be Republicans” and another shows that they are more likely to be “politically conservative.” Admittedly, there is also a study from the 1990s claiming that in-person earlier voters tend to be demographically similar to voters who vote by mail, but it is likely that this study’s findings have been displaced by events. The Obama campaigns made turning out early voters to the polls a major focus of their get out the vote effort, and voter drives that bring black voters to the polls on early voting days are now common in African-American churches.

Zombie Industries, the company behind an “ex-girlfriend” mannequin that bleeds when shot, announced yesterday that it will discontinue the target and redesign it to have green skin in order to make it appear less like a real woman. In an interview with the Huffington Post, the company’s CEO added that he is disappointed that “people’s feelings were hurt.”

Earlier this week, online retailer Amazon announced that it would no longer sell the ex-girlfriend shooting mannequin. Zombie Industries also makes a green zombie target that resembles President Obama.

Yesterday, Cuyahoga County, Ohio prosecutor Thomas McGinty announced that he may seek the death penalty against Ariel Castro, the man who allegedly kidnapped, raped and beat three women and held them captive for about a decade. The basis for seeking the death penalty is charges that Castro forced one of his captives to miscarry by starving and punching her. Under Ohio law, “unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy” is considered murder.

As a constitutional matter, there is nothing improper about treating involuntary termination of another’s pregnancy as a very serious crime. The Supreme Court’s decisions recognize “the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State.” This is a right that belongs to the pregnant woman, not to monsters who would violently impose their wishes upon a woman. So even if the alleged miscarriages in this case occurred before “viability,” Castro will find little comfort in the Court’s abortion decisions. Nor should he. It is tough to imagine a more depraved act than intentionally abusing a woman until she miscarries.

The question of whether Castro may receive the death penalty, however, risks turning this trial into a proxy fight over whether a woman has the right to choose abortion. In Kennedy v. Louisiana the Supreme Court held that, with the exception of certain “offenses against the state” such as treason or espionage, “the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim’s life was not taken.” Quoting a previous decision that presented a similar issue, the Court explained that death is an “excessive penalty” for a criminal who “does not take human life.”

Abortion foes are already using Castro’s trial as a vehicle to express their opposition to reproductive freedom — just witness this National Review piece comparing the right to choose to “the logic of slavery, not of individual liberty” — it is inevitable that many of these same foes will clamor for Castro to be killed by the state in the hopes of creating a precedent establishing that a fetus is a “human life.”

To be clear, the legal question of whether a fetus is a “human life” for purposes of determining whether Castro may receive the death penalty is distinct from the legal question of whether a fetus is entitled to “personhood,” a term often used by the most rigid opponents of reproductive choice. There is no guarantee that a court decision permitting Castro to be executed will implement Todd Akin’s stance on abortion. But fine legal distinctions are unlikely to deter personhood advocates from using Castro’s case as an opportunity to advance their broader agenda.

A Missouri bill that would make all federal gun laws “null and void” and criminalize enforcement of those laws was sent to Gov. Jay Nixon (D) Thursday, after it overwhelmingly passed the House this week by a vote of 118-36. If the bill is signed into law by the state’s Democratic governor, Missouri would become the second state to enact a nullification law that is clearly unconstitutional. After the enactment of a Kansas law containing similar provisions, Attorney General Eric Holder sent Kansas officials a letter warning that the Department of Justice would take Kansas to court over the issue. The bill also contains several other provisions to relax state gun laws. Fox News reports:

In addition to declaring federal gun laws unenforceable, the bill would allow concealed weapons to be carried by designated school personnel in school buildings. It would allow appointed “protection officers” to carry concealed weapons as long as they have a valid permit and register with the state Department of Public Safety. The officers would also be required to complete a training course.

The bill would also allow people with a firearms permit to openly carry weapons less than 16 inches in length even in localities that prohibit open-carry of firearms.

Privacy rights of gun owners have been a hot topic this legislative session after lawmakers learned the state Highway Patrol shared the list of concealed weapons permit holders with a federal agent in the Social Security Administration.

The legislation passed Wednesday would prevent people from publishing any identifying information on gun owners. A person who publishes such information would be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. It also would prevent doctors or nurses from being required to ask patients about firearm ownership.

The measure would also lower the minimum age required to obtain a concealed weapons permit from 21 to 19.

The bill’s nullification provision not only declares invalid all laws that ”infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.” It also specifically states that several existing federal gun laws are void, including the Gun Control Act of 1968, even though that law merely sets forth the basic licensing system and list of prohibited gun purchasers and sellers that is now in place, and has not been deemed to violate the Second Amendment. The law also makes enforcement by federal officials a misdemeanor, and creates a private cause of action for Missouri citizens who are the subjects of federal enforcement to file a lawsuit for damages.

The bill even prohibits laws that impose “registration” and “confiscation” of guns, even though the failed bill in Congress to simply expand background checks would have included a provision explicitly banning a gun registry, and making its implementation punishable with jail time  –  a point that even gun rights organizations made during the National Rifle Association’s recent conference. But this is not the only recent Missouri bill to take an extreme and untenable position. The state Senate recently voted to entirely defund the state’s driver’s license bureau, citing gun confiscation worries, and both houses passed a bill to thwart a nonbinding United Nations resolution on sustainable resource development that conspiracy theorists warn will take away their freedom.