The transgender community is often targeted by hate crimes at greater levels thananyone else under the LGBTQAI+ umbrella but the true scope of the epidemic is far from understood due to dramatically low rates of reported hate crimes. The current study seeks to understand the relationship between transgender people and authorities through an indepth analysis of historical and current trends in reporting GIB hate crimes. In conjunction, I apply the notion of regional identity to hypothesize which US region(s) will have the highest rates of GIB inclusive policies based on their historical identities and socio-political underpinnings. I posit the Pacific, Mountain, New England, and Mid Atlantic (West and Northeastern) regions will have the highest rates of protection for transgender people from 2013-2019. Additionally, I assert there will be a moderate (0.2- 0.4 correlation coefficient) to high (0.4+ correlation coefficient) correlation between GIB inclusive policies and reported rates of violence. A simple linear regression found a high correlation (.934) between regional political identities and their rate of enacted GIB policies. Furthermore, based on the annual report data provided by the FBI, the regions with the highest tallies of GIB inclusive policies were the same regions with the highest rates of reported GIB hate crimes with an average of 0.537 over a seven-year time span. This study provides evidence that regional socio-political underpinnings directly affect policy enacted regarding GIB protections and that those policies are aligned with higher rates of reported violence.

The concepts of animal rights and animal welfare are often used interchangeably, but it is important to recognize their distinctions when conceptualizing an argument about animal welfare laws. The animal rights approach is the more radical, as its advocates advance the belief that humans should not use any products from of created by animals. On the other hand, animal welfare advocates set out to improve the legal structure that protects animals from suffering and push for more humane treatment. It is important to the movement to have laws that clearly define cruel acts and impose punishments to deter people from violating these laws. In order to make the laws better, we must examine where and how the laws are deficient before we can understand how to improve them. This paper will analyze why humans have an obligation to protect all animals from unjust and harmful cruelties inflicted, with a specific focus on Phoenix and Arizona's legal framework of anti-cruelty laws. The evaluation of these laws and how they are enforced exposes a disparity in our accountability to animals and our approach to their ultimate protection.

In this paper, I first explain the legal theory which leads up to Obergefell v. Hodges, and then analyze Obergefell v. Hodges itself. My analysis leads me to conclude that the legal reasoning, or the argument used to come to the decision, is flawed for it relies too heavily upon public opinion and is a legislative action of the Supreme Court. Therefore, I offer three alternatives: each of which improve upon the legal reasoning in different ways. Furthermore, my analysis of these three arguments\u2014and particularly the Free Exercise Argument\u2014leads me to postulate that there is in fact a Freedom to Practice embedded in the penumbral, or unstated, rights of the United States Constitution. While the full extent of the implications of such a right must be explored in another paper, I establish the legal reasoning for the freedom by four routes, showing that although precedent has yet to materialize, there are several arguments for the freedom.