update - Fed judge cites Kari Lake for contempt for disobeying order that she preserve Voice of America
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Court blocks Louisiana law requiring schools to post Ten Commandments in classrooms
A panel of three federal appellate judges has ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in each of the state’s public school classrooms is unconstitutional.
apnews.com
The ruling Friday marked a major win for civil liberties groups who say the mandate violates the separation of church and state, and that the poster-sized displays would isolate students — especially those who are not Christian.
The mandate has been touted by Republicans, including President Donald Trump, and marks one of the latest pushes by conservatives to incorporate religion into classrooms. Backers of the law argue the Ten Commandments belong in classrooms because they are historical and part of the foundation of U.S. law.
“This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education,” said Heather L. Weaver, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “With today’s ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.”
The plaintiffs’ attorneys and Louisiana disagreed on whether the appeals court’s decision applied to every public school district in the state or only the districts party to the lawsuit.
“All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the U.S. Constitution,” said Liz Hayes, a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs.
The appeals court’s rulings “interpret the law for all of Louisiana,” Hayes added. “Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.”
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she disagreed and believed the ruling only applied to school districts in the five parishes that were party to the lawsuit. Murrill added that she would appeal the ruling, including taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
The panel of judges reviewing the case was unusually liberal for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a court with more than twice as many Republican-appointed judges, two of the three judges involved in the ruling were appointed by Democratic presidents.
The court’s ruling stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who said the law violates First Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion.
The ruling also backs an order issued last fall by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision.
Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed the mandate into law last June.
Landry said in a statement Friday that he supports the attorney general’s plans to appeal.
“The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws — serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms,” Landry said.
Law experts have long said they expect the Louisiana case to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, testing the court on the issue of religion and government.
Similar laws have been challenged in court.
A group of Arkansas families filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month challenging a near-identical law passed in their state. And comparable legislation in Texas currently awaits Gov. Greg Abbott’s signature.
In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose.
And in 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.
Interesting, you have to split hairs now.
On the one hand you are against attacks on the courts and the law but on the other hand you support what the ICC and ICJ have stated are apartheid, extermination and genocide.
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to fast-track a legal challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs, rejecting a motion to expedite the case and delaying consideration despite pressure from affected companies.
Why It Matters
Trump announced a slate of tariffs in April as part of "Liberation Day," which the president promised would reshape global trade to be more favorable to the United States. The tariffs affected nearly every U.S. trading partner and triggered global market turmoil.
Trump ultimately backtracked on his initial announcement after saying that many of the countries impacted by the tariffs had reached out to negotiate. The U.S. tariff policy has continued to evolve over the following two months.
The U.S. Court of International Trade then blocked Trump's tariffs, which were in turn stayed by a federal appeals court, which allowed the tariffs to remain in place while legal proceedings played out.
What To Know
Chicago-based toy companies, including Learning Resources Inc., challenged Trump's tariffs and scored an early win in the lower courts; however, the administration has appealed the decision, which is pending in the appeals courts.
In the initial challenge, the company argued that Trump had illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law that bypassed Congress, which alone holds the authority to enact tariffs. Despite winning the initial challenge, the tariffs remain in effect while the appeals are being processed.
The companies, in a bid to find a quick resolution and relief from the tariffs, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court to take up the case ahead of any decision from an appeals court—a long shot for any legal challenge.
The Supreme Court on Friday returned with a decision not to fast-track the case, as per the appeal, and instead allowed the lower court to make its decisions first.
Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg said tariffs and uncertainty are taking a major toll on the company, telling the Associated Press that prices are rising and manufacturers "absolutely do not have a choice," adding that a "sense of dread" pervades.
The administration continues to defend its use of tariffs by arguing that emergency powers give the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies, and officials have argued that the country's trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency.
Supreme Court hands Donald Trump a legal win over tariffs
Why It Matters
Trump announced a slate of tariffs in April as part of "Liberation Day," which the president promised would reshape global trade to be more favorable to the United States. The tariffs affected nearly every U.S. trading partner and triggered global market turmoil.
Trump ultimately backtracked on his initial announcement after saying that many of the countries impacted by the tariffs had reached out to negotiate. The U.S. tariff policy has continued to evolve over the following two months.
The U.S. Court of International Trade then blocked Trump's tariffs, which were in turn stayed by a federal appeals court, which allowed the tariffs to remain in place while legal proceedings played out.
What To Know
Chicago-based toy companies, including Learning Resources Inc., challenged Trump's tariffs and scored an early win in the lower courts; however, the administration has appealed the decision, which is pending in the appeals courts.
In the initial challenge, the company argued that Trump had illegally imposed tariffs under an emergency powers law that bypassed Congress, which alone holds the authority to enact tariffs. Despite winning the initial challenge, the tariffs remain in effect while the appeals are being processed.
The companies, in a bid to find a quick resolution and relief from the tariffs, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court to take up the case ahead of any decision from an appeals court—a long shot for any legal challenge.
The Supreme Court on Friday returned with a decision not to fast-track the case, as per the appeal, and instead allowed the lower court to make its decisions first.
Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg said tariffs and uncertainty are taking a major toll on the company, telling the Associated Press that prices are rising and manufacturers "absolutely do not have a choice," adding that a "sense of dread" pervades.
The administration continues to defend its use of tariffs by arguing that emergency powers give the president the authority to regulate imports during national emergencies, and officials have argued that the country's trade deficit qualifies as a national emergency.
Supreme Court hands Donald Trump a legal win over tariffs
A Palestinian activist who participated in protests against Israel has been freed from federal immigration detention after 104 days.
Mahmoud Khalil, who became a symbol of President Donald Trump ’s clampdown on campus protests, left a federal facility in Louisiana on Friday. The former Columbia University graduate student is expected to head to New York to reunite with his U.S. citizen wife and infant son, born while Khalil was detained.
Palestinian activist and former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, center, speaks after his release from federal immigration detention in Jena, La., Friday, June 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Matthew Hinton)© The Associated Press
Here’s a look at what has happened so far in Khalil’s legal battle:
The arrest
Federal immigration agents detained Khalil on March 8, the first arrest under Trump’s crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel’s devastating war in Gaza.
The La Salle Detention Facility is seen in Jena, La., Friday, June 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Matthew Hinton)© The Associated Press
Khalil, a legal U.S. resident, was then taken to an immigration detention center in Jena, a remote part of Louisiana thousands of miles from his attorneys and his wife.
The 30-year-old international affairs student had served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists at Columbia University who took over a campus lawn to protest the war.
The university brought police in to dismantle the encampment after a small group of protesters seized an administration building. Khalil was not accused of participating in the building occupation and wasn’t among those arrested in connection with the demonstrations.
But images of his maskless face at protests, along with his willingness to share his name with reporters, made him an object of scorn among those who saw the protesters and their demands as antisemitic.
The legal fight
Khalil wasn’t accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia.
However, the government has said noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the U.S. for expressing views the administration considers to be antisemitic and “pro-Hamas,” referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Khalil’s lawyers challenged the legality of his detention, arguing that the Trump administration was trying to deport him for an activity protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified Khalil’s deportation by citing a rarely used statute that gives him power to deport those who pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
The initial ruling
Immigration Judge Jamee E. Comans ruled in April that the government’s contention was enough to satisfy requirements for Khalil's deportation.
Comans said the government had “established by clear and convincing evidence that he is removable.”
Federal judges in New York and New Jersey had previously ordered the U.S. government not to deport Khalil while his case played out in court.
Khalil remained detained for several weeks, with his lawyers arguing that he was being prevented from exercising his free speech and due process rights despite no obvious reason for his continued detention.
Release granted
Khalil was released after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be “highly, highly unusual” for the government to continue detaining a legal U.S. resident who was unlikely to flee and hadn’t been accused of any violence.
“Petitioner is not a flight risk, and the evidence presented is that he is not a danger to the community,” he said. “Period, full stop.”
During an hourlong hearing conducted by phone, the New Jersey-based judge said the government had “clearly not met” the standards for detention.
Speaking Friday outside the detention facility, Khalil said, “Justice prevailed, but it’s very long overdue. This shouldn’t have taken three months.”
Legal fight continues
The government filed notice Friday evening that it’s appealing Khalil’s release.
The Department of Homeland Security said in a post on the social platform X that the same day Farbiarz ordered Khalil’s release, an immigration judge in Louisiana denied Khalil bond and “ordered him removed.” That decision was made by Comans, who is in a court in the same detention facility from which Khalil was released.
“An immigration judge, not a district judge, has the authority to decide if Mr. Khalil should be released or detained,” the post said.
Farbiarz ruled that the government can’t deport Khalil based on its claims that his presence could undermine foreign policy. But he gave the administration leeway to pursue a potential deportation based on allegations that Khalil lied on his green card application, an accusation Khalil disputes.
Khalil had to surrender his passport and can’t travel internationally, but he will get his green card back and be given official documents permitting limited travel within the U.S., including New York and Michigan to visit family, New Jersey and Louisiana for court appearances and Washington to lobby Congress.
Khalil said Friday that no one should be detained for protesting Israel’s war in Gaza. He said his time in the Jena, Louisiana, detention facility had shown him “a different reality about this country that supposedly champions human rights and liberty and justice.” In a statement after the judge’s ruling, Khalil’s wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, said she could finally “breathe a sigh of relief” after her husband’s three months in detention.
The judge’s decision came after several other scholars targeted for their activism have been released from custody, including another former Palestinian student at Columbia, Mohsen Mahdawi; a Tufts University student, Rumeysa Ozturk; and a Georgetown University scholar, Badar Khan Suri.
Bruce Shipkowski, The Associated Press
What to know about activist Mahmoud Khalil and his release from immigration detention
Mahmoud Khalil, who became a symbol of President Donald Trump ’s clampdown on campus protests, left a federal facility in Louisiana on Friday. The former Columbia University graduate student is expected to head to New York to reunite with his U.S. citizen wife and infant son, born while Khalil was detained.
Palestinian activist and former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, center, speaks after his release from federal immigration detention in Jena, La., Friday, June 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Matthew Hinton)© The Associated Press
Here’s a look at what has happened so far in Khalil’s legal battle:
The arrest
Federal immigration agents detained Khalil on March 8, the first arrest under Trump’s crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel’s devastating war in Gaza.
The La Salle Detention Facility is seen in Jena, La., Friday, June 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Matthew Hinton)© The Associated Press
Khalil, a legal U.S. resident, was then taken to an immigration detention center in Jena, a remote part of Louisiana thousands of miles from his attorneys and his wife.
The 30-year-old international affairs student had served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists at Columbia University who took over a campus lawn to protest the war.
The university brought police in to dismantle the encampment after a small group of protesters seized an administration building. Khalil was not accused of participating in the building occupation and wasn’t among those arrested in connection with the demonstrations.
But images of his maskless face at protests, along with his willingness to share his name with reporters, made him an object of scorn among those who saw the protesters and their demands as antisemitic.
The legal fight
Khalil wasn’t accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia.
However, the government has said noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the U.S. for expressing views the administration considers to be antisemitic and “pro-Hamas,” referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Khalil’s lawyers challenged the legality of his detention, arguing that the Trump administration was trying to deport him for an activity protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified Khalil’s deportation by citing a rarely used statute that gives him power to deport those who pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
The initial ruling
Immigration Judge Jamee E. Comans ruled in April that the government’s contention was enough to satisfy requirements for Khalil's deportation.
Comans said the government had “established by clear and convincing evidence that he is removable.”
Federal judges in New York and New Jersey had previously ordered the U.S. government not to deport Khalil while his case played out in court.
Khalil remained detained for several weeks, with his lawyers arguing that he was being prevented from exercising his free speech and due process rights despite no obvious reason for his continued detention.
Release granted
Khalil was released after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be “highly, highly unusual” for the government to continue detaining a legal U.S. resident who was unlikely to flee and hadn’t been accused of any violence.
“Petitioner is not a flight risk, and the evidence presented is that he is not a danger to the community,” he said. “Period, full stop.”
During an hourlong hearing conducted by phone, the New Jersey-based judge said the government had “clearly not met” the standards for detention.
Speaking Friday outside the detention facility, Khalil said, “Justice prevailed, but it’s very long overdue. This shouldn’t have taken three months.”
Legal fight continues
The government filed notice Friday evening that it’s appealing Khalil’s release.
The Department of Homeland Security said in a post on the social platform X that the same day Farbiarz ordered Khalil’s release, an immigration judge in Louisiana denied Khalil bond and “ordered him removed.” That decision was made by Comans, who is in a court in the same detention facility from which Khalil was released.
“An immigration judge, not a district judge, has the authority to decide if Mr. Khalil should be released or detained,” the post said.
Farbiarz ruled that the government can’t deport Khalil based on its claims that his presence could undermine foreign policy. But he gave the administration leeway to pursue a potential deportation based on allegations that Khalil lied on his green card application, an accusation Khalil disputes.
Khalil had to surrender his passport and can’t travel internationally, but he will get his green card back and be given official documents permitting limited travel within the U.S., including New York and Michigan to visit family, New Jersey and Louisiana for court appearances and Washington to lobby Congress.
Khalil said Friday that no one should be detained for protesting Israel’s war in Gaza. He said his time in the Jena, Louisiana, detention facility had shown him “a different reality about this country that supposedly champions human rights and liberty and justice.” In a statement after the judge’s ruling, Khalil’s wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, said she could finally “breathe a sigh of relief” after her husband’s three months in detention.
The judge’s decision came after several other scholars targeted for their activism have been released from custody, including another former Palestinian student at Columbia, Mohsen Mahdawi; a Tufts University student, Rumeysa Ozturk; and a Georgetown University scholar, Badar Khan Suri.
Bruce Shipkowski, The Associated Press
What to know about activist Mahmoud Khalil and his release from immigration detention
