(Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

In the latest move by Louisiana to plow ahead with looser gun laws, the state legislature passed a measure that would criminalize journalists for publishing information about gun owners. Under House Bill 8, which now goes to Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) for his signature, those who “release, disseminate, or make public” any information contained in a handgun permit or about the identity of the permit-holder, including journalists, may be subject to a $10,000 fine and/or six months in jail.

The law comes in response to anger over the publication by a local New York newspaper of the names and addresses of gun permit holders. But as Mother Jones reports, the law goes beyond most others that merely forbid the release of gun permit information, to one punishing journalists for publishing it, in likely violation of the First Amendment.

The seminal Supreme Court case upholding the New York Times’ publication of the Pentagon Papers said government attempts to impose a “prior restraint” on journalists’ reporting is unconstitutional. And while some First Amendment scholars concede an argument could be made that this law does not impose prior restraint but merely punishment after the fact, even that sort of First Amendment restriction would have be accompanied by an unusually compelling justification for so severe an infringement on First Amendment rights.

“I find it very ironic that the very people who screamed the loudest about attempts to limit their Second Amendment rights are here eager to limit my First Amendment rights,” newspaper editor Carl Redman said during a May 7 hearing.

Other bills passed by both houses of the Louisiana legislature this week would allow for lifetime gun permits, and allow off-duty officers to carry their weapons onto college campuses.

The state Senate is set to consider four additional gun bills Monday, including one to nullify federal gun law that even its sponsor admits is likely unconstitutional. The state passed a constitutional amendment by ballot initiative last November that arguably makes state gun rights even broader than the Second Amendment.

A Florida honor student who was expelled and faced possible felony charges for a science experiment gone awry has not only been cleared of charges, she’s heading to space camp thanks to a former NASA employee.

Sixteen-year-old Kiera Wilmot combined household cleaner and aluminum foil in an eight-ounce water bottle on school grounds on April 22, curious to see what would happen. The chemical reaction “created a pop that sounds like a firecracker and smoke,” but no students were injured nor does there appear to have been property damage. At the suggestion of Florida Assistant State Attorney Tammy Glotfelty and after her science teacher said she had not sanctioned the experiment, the responding officer arrested Wilmot and charged her with possessing or discharging weapons or firearms at a school sponsored event or on school property and possessing any destructive devices — both felonies she would have been tried for as an adult. Pursuant to her school’s zero tolerance policy, Wilmot was also expelled at the time of the incident.

But last week the criminal charges against Wilmot were dropped following significant media coverage and an online petition that attracted nearly 200,000 signatures, upset that the arrest was the equivalent of criminalizing curiosity. She remains banned from her school, but her family is in discussions with the administration about a possible reinstatement.

Wilmot’s story caught the eye of Homer Hickman, an 18-year NASA veteran and author of the memoir “Rocket Boys,” later adapted into the film “October Sky.”  Hickman had his own brush with law enforcement during his teens. Hickman and several friends were led away from his high school in handcuffs for allegedly starting a forest fire, but his physics teacher and principal cleared him of wrongdoing.

Hickman said he “couldn’t let this go without doing something,” and while he’s not a lawyer, he could at least “give her something that would encourage her” and settled on purchasing her a scholarship to the United States Space Academy, a five-day college accredited course offered through the University of Alabama-Huntsville. After learning Wilmot has a twin sister, he raised additional funds so they could attend together in July.

While Hickman attended school long before the advent of zero tolerance policies, since then kids who make mistakes have increasingly faced criminal charges for what amount to disciplinary violations, particularly minority students like Wilmot.

This afternoon, the Senate confirmed Sri Srinivasan to the staunchly conservative United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans already have a plan to prevent anyone else from being confirmed to this powerful court while Obama is in the White House. Obama pulled this one confirmation off because the Srinivasan nomination was practically an act of trolling. Srinivasan clerked for a Republican judge and a Republican justice. He is unquestionably one of the best Supreme Court advocates in the country. And his nomination enjoys the support of Republican legal stars such as Paul Clement, Bush v. Gore attorney Ted Olson, and anti-Clinton inquisitor Ken Starr. Had Senate Republicans filibustered this nomination, it would have been difficult for them to deny allegations that they are acting in bad faith.

In no small part because of Srinivasan’s stellar legal credentials, the New Yorker’s Jeff Toobin claimed that “if Srinivasan passes this test and wins confirmation, he’ll be on the Supreme Court before President Obama’s term ends.” This claim is premature. At the very least, court watchers — and the President himself — should have some idea what Srinivasan thinks about the law before he joins the most powerful Court in the land, and Srinivasan’s views are largely unknown. After some time on the DC Circuit, Srinivasan may indeed emerge as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court. In the mean time, here are ten other possible candidates that could appeal to a Democratic president:

1. Paul Watford

Ninth Circuit Judge Paul Watford was among President Obama’s most outstanding appointees during his first term. A former clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Watford is in his mid-40s and thus has many years of eligibility left for the Supreme Court. Like Srinivasan, Watford spent much of his career at a large law firm, so he should ideally spend enough time as a court of appeals judge that his views on important legal issues are clear. Nevertheless, he is likely to be near the top of any Democrat’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

2. Jane Kelly

Eighth Circuit Judge Jane Kelly began her career with the kind of credentials that all but guarantee a lucrative career to lawyers who want one — a Harvard Law degree and a United States Court of Appeals clerkship. Yet she chose to spend nearly two decades as a federal public defender instead. She also experienced an unusually easy confirmation process due to a personal tie to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). In a perfect world, she would spend some time as an appeals court judge becoming more familiar with the civil side of her docket, but the sort of attorney who passes up huge law firm salaries to ensure that criminal defendants receive excellent representation would be a welcome addition to the Supreme Court.

3. Alison Nathan

Appointing a federal district judge like Alison Nathan directly to the Supreme Court is unusual, but Judge Nathan’s experience as a trial judge would be a helpful addition to a Court that currently only has one former trial judge, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Nathan is a former law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens, and a former Associate White House Counsel. She would also be the first openly gay justice if confirmed to the Supreme Court.

4. Kamala Harris

Supreme Court observers ignore SCOTUSBlog’s Tom Goldstein at their peril, so we will not make that mistake by leaving out his views regarding the next Supreme Court nominee. Last year, Goldstein named Harris as an “ideal nominee” based on her youth, qualifications, and that fact that she would diversify the Supreme Court’s bench. One way she would add diversity is by becoming the only former elected official on the nation’s highest Court, a perspective that could make her particularly effective in pushing back against misguided election decisions such as Citizens United.

5. Goodwin Liu

California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu had a rough ride as a nominee to the Ninth Circuit, largely due to spurious claims that he would use a seat on the bench to, in Grassley’s words, make America more like “communist-run China.” Since joining California’s highest court, Justice Liu has instead emerged as “a paragon of judicial restraint,” in one law professor’s words. While Senate Republicans are unlikely to consider this fact if the president nominates someone that they once filibustered, a successful round of filibuster reform could remove that obstacle.

6. Deval Patrick

The Massachusetts governor is not just a successful politician, he is also a Harvard Law grad, former U.S. Court of Appeals law clerk, and former head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Like Harris, Patrick would bring an elected official’s perspective to the Court, and his civil rights background would provide a counterbalance to Justice Antonin Scalia, who recently labeled the Voting Rights Act a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

7. Pam Karlan

Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan is a constitutional scholar, a leading expert on voting rights and a top Supreme Court advocate. In the wake of voter ID laws, early voting restrictions, voter purges, barriers to voter registration, and other efforts to suppress voting, Professor Karlan would be an ideal candidate to restore the Supreme Court’s respect for the franchise. Additionally, Karlan is in a long-term committed relationship with a woman, so she would add this perspective to the bench as well.

8. Paul Smith

Paul Smith may be the nation’s preeminent gay rights litigator, having argued and won Lawrence v. Texas before the Supreme Court. He also argued a pair of challenges to partisan gerrymanders that were halted by the five conservative justices on the Supreme Court. As a justice himself, Smith would be the ideal candidate to write an opinion declaring such gerrymanders unconstitutional once and for all.

9. Neal Katyal

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal has the distinction of being on the correct side of the most important constitutional issues to arise in the last two presidencies. As the Obama Administration’s top litigator, Katyal defended the Affordable Care Act in multiple courts of appeal against partisan lawsuits seeking to undermine it. And he convinced the Supreme Court to place an important limit on President Bush’s attempt to isolate Guantanamo detainees from the law in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

10. Tom Perez

Senate Republicans wasted no time in opposing Tom Perez, the Labor Secretary nominee given the task of cleaning up the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division after the Bush Administration left it in a shambles, once President Obama nominated Perez to the cabinet. Nevertheless, Perez’s background in civil rights and labor policy would help balance the conservative justices who turned their backs on Lilly Ledbetter’s right to equal pay for equal work. And, so long as Democrats control the Senate, a filibuster of Perez’s nomination could only be sustained if Senate Democrats allow it.

As Congress fails to make progress on reforming the nation’s gun laws, state legislatures have filled the void. A number of states around the country, and not just deep-blue ones, have taken steps to crack down on gun violence. Even some very conservative states have defeated National Rifle Association (NRA) supported bills that would have significantly weakened state gun laws.

Here’s a run-down of ten instances of state progress that were in some cases mere proposals as recently as this January:

1. Colorado. A purple state with a strong gun culture, Colorado nevertheless enacted universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines.

2. California. Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed legislation at the beginning of May that would provide $24 million for confiscating illegally owned weapons that the police have identified, but hasn’t had the resources to seize. California is also considering thirty-odd measures strengthening the state’s gun violence prevention measures.

3. Georgia. The Georgia legislature killed a bill at the end of the last legislative session that would have allowed concealed carry in churches, courthouse, and college campuses.

4. Maryland. Maryland enacted one of the most sweeping new gun laws in the country, including an assault weapons ban, restrictions on magazine size, and a requirement that all gun purchasers get a license and submit a fingerprint sample.

5. Rhode Island. The Ocean State’s legislature is considering an omnibus gun bill, supported by its governor, Lincoln Chafee (I), that would set up a police registry of guns to better track crime guns as well as make it harder to get a concealed carry permit.

6. Delaware. In early May, Governor Jack Markell (D) signed a universal background check bill into law.

7. Wyoming. The Wyoming legislature, which can be quite hostile to gun regulation, voted down a bill authorizing teachers to carry guns.

8. New York. New York strengthened its already strong gun laws, including stricter assault weapon and high capacity magazine bans.

9. Connecticut. Connecticut also passed a comprehensive package that included universal background checks for bullets as well as guns, as well as an assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions.

10. Nevada. Just this Wednesday, the Nevada Senate passed a universal background checks bill that would require a check on all private sales.

While several states have also loosened their gun laws after Newtown — and a few advanced laws so extreme that they are almost certainly unconstitutional – the above examples prove that the NRA’s stranglehold over the gun conversation isn’t nearly as tight as some believe, and that concerted effort at the state level can have significant effects on the gun policy landscape.

Most people are aware of the ongoing conflict between federal and state laws on marijuana. While marijuana remains flatly prohibited and subject to criminal punishment under federal law, 19 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, and two have legalized recreational marijuana. The most pressing and well-known issue for medical marijuana dispensaries and the customers who rely upon them for medical relief is threats of prosecution and asset forfeiture from federal officials. Many dispensaries, facing jail time, eviction, or seizure of real estate, have opted to shut down entirely.

But what is less known is that even those dispensaries that haven’t been targeted for federal prosecution or have thus far survived it are subject to fundamental legal obstacles to operating their business. These obstacles discourage potential marijuana distributors and growers from applying for licenses, and make it more likely that they will operate at least partially under the table and outside the legal system.

1. Medical marijuana businesses can’t open a bank account. Banks that do business with marijuana distributors are considered money launderers, so dispensaries cannot bank or access other bank services legally if they are open about their status as a marijuana dispensary. Even those who have skirted this by opening accounts in their personal names or being vague about the nature of the account have had their accounts terminated, often jumping from bank to bank. One Colorado state bank known for allowing dispensary clients terminated more than 300 accounts after the Department of Justice warned in 2011 that they would pursue money laundering charges. Without a bank account, dispensaries have no good means of even paying employees, let alone storing their money or paying their exorbitant taxes (see below). Washington State officials who contacted banks about their position said they are waiting from a statement from Attorney General Eric Holder on the federal government’s response to two ballot initiatives legalizing recreational marijuana before they reconsider their position. Some dispensaries are trying to form their own banking cooperative to skirt these restrictions.

2. Medical marijuana businesses have scant access to loans. Because of the same banking regulations that bar bank accounts, marijuana dispensaries that are open about their purpose typically can’t take out loans from traditional financial institutions or the Small Business Administration — eliminating the major sources of funding for most small businesses. But they may also have difficulty borrowing funds from nontraditional lenders, including the sorts of “angel investors” that have popped up in the industry. An Arizona ruling last year on an attempt to enforce a loan to a medical marijuana dispensary refused to enforce the loan contract, because the money was for an illegal purpose under federal law.

3. Medical marijuana entrepreneurs can’t open a credit card account, and many are blacklisted from any credit card use. “Over the past two years, Amex and other major credit card companies – including Visa and MasterCard – have distanced themselves from the medical marijuana industry, refusing to process transactions at dispensaries and closing merchant accounts for MMJ centers,” Medical Marijuana Business Daily reported last week. Now business owners are learning that they have been added to a “merchant match list,” which makes it almost impossible for that person to open an account for any other unrelated business, stifling many entrepreneurs who might want to dip their toe into the marijuana industry. This blacklist can even affect businesses in which one owner with a minority stake in the company is on the list. Without access to loans, dispensary owners who enter the business because of a passion or expertise about medical cannabis rather than financial means will be all-the-more reliant upon partners and investors, who may be deterred from entering a business that will tar their credit eligibility.

4. The IRS won’t let marijuana businesses deduct any of their business-related expenses. Although the IRS is happy to take marijuana dispensaries’ money, a tax code provision that bans any tax deductions related to “trafficking in controlled substances” has made their business very expensive. While some IRS rulings have held that expenses unrelated to marijuana distribution might be deducted, that ruling has been construed narrowly, and leaves most marijuana businesses with a hefty bill and few permissible deductions. After the owner of the largest U.S. dispensary lost his challenge to the 2011 IRS rule, he said, “I see only two outcomes here. Either this IRS assessment has to change or we go out of business. There really isn’t a middle ground for us.” Thus far, this dispensary and others continue to operate.

All of these obstacles stem from the same federal ban under the Controlled Substances Act that enables criminal prosecution or asset forfeiture against marijuana businesses, and even if federal officials stopped prosecuting dispensaries altogether, these issues would chill state attempts to make dispensation of medical and/or recreational marijuana above-board, regulated for health and safety, and taxable. All of these issues could be resolved by legislation that eliminates federal penalties for those actions that comply with state marijuana laws.

Last November, Florida voters endured massive lines and chaotic polling places largely thanks to a barrage of election law changes pushed by Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) and other GOP lawmakers. Republicans slashed the number of early voting days in half, changed ballot length restrictions to add lengthy and frivolous constitutional amendments to 12-page ballots, restricted voter registration, and tried to purge mostly minority voters from the voting rolls.

On Wednesday, Scott signed a bill to reverse his own election laws by restoring early voting days and ballot limits, among other measures.

Though Scott initially insisted he “did the right thing” by implementing these laws, vehement backlash and plummeting approval ratings prompted the governor to embrace election reforms:

The new bill extends early voting from 8 days to 14, extends early voting hours from 8 to 12 hours a day, and expands polling places to include courthouses, civic centers, stadiums, convention centers, fairgrounds and government-owned senior and community centers to keep up with crowds.

It also seeks to make ballot length more manageable by restricting constitutional amendments to a maximum of 75 words, and loosens some of the restrictions on when voters have to file provisional ballots.

It also permits county supervisors to hold early voting on the Sunday before the election, “respecting the ‘souls to the polls’ tradition of many black churches,” as reported by the Florida Current.

The bill moves back Florida’s primary elections from January to the first Tuesday allowed by Democratic and Republican National Committees to avoid penalties.

And lastly, the bill imposes $25,000 fines for failing to fix voting machines, something that reportedly snarled elections in Palm Beach County, according to the Sun Sentinel.

Shortly after the election, prominent GOP members admitted many of the new election laws intentionally tried to make it harder for Democrats to vote. These vote-suppressing efforts largely succeeded; the long lines discouraged at least 201,000 Floridians from voting, while black and Latino voters waited nearly twice as long as whites.

Senator William “Mo” Cowan (D-MA), the most junior member of the U.S. Senate, has only been in office for about three-and-a-half months, but has already witnessed minority obstruction of on background check legislation, a measure to mitigate budget sequestration, and nominations for Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Labor, CIA director, EPA administrator, and federal judges. In an exclusive interview Wednesday, Cowan told ThinkProgress that the Senate’s requirement for a three-fifths super-majority needs to be eliminated.

Noting that he was stunned to learn, on his arrival in the Senate, of the “60 vote majority” needed to do business in 100-member Senate, Cowan said the rules need to be fixed:

COWAN: My view on it is this: I appreciate and respect the rules and the negotiations that led to that, but it’s currently getting in the way of too much of what we’re trying to get done — and need to get done. I think that when they’re important issues, be it nominations or legislation… that we need to have a chance to have votes, get to the issues, have real debate, and make decisions. I respect the role of the minority, I don’t believe in the majority rolling over the minority, but I don’t believe that’s what you get with a 50-vote threshold.

Noting that he does not believe there is any discriminatory intent, Cowan added that the effect of Senate Republican obstruction could be preventing diversity in government — such as stalled Labor Secretary-nominee Tom Perez. He added that the 60-vote threshold is “keeping the Senate from functioning effectively and efficiently in the work the American people need [it] to do.

Listen to the audio:

Appointed to the Senate by Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) to temporarily fill the vacant seat of Secretary of State John Kerry, Cowan brings a unique perspective: he has never run for the office and is not a candidate for election. On June 25, Bay State voters will elect a new Senator to fill the remaining 18 months of Kerry’s term. Kerry had been hesitant about cloture reform.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is reportedly considering a move prevent a minority of Senators from blocking confirmation of presidential appointees.