Sexy Friends Toronto

update - Trump DoJ purges more Jan 6 prosecutors

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
81,806
110,958
113
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — Professors and students at the University of Alabama testified on Thursday that a new an anti-diversity, equity and inclusion law has jeopardized funding and changed curriculum, as a federal judge weighs whether the legislation is constitutional before the new school year begins.



The new state law, SB129, followed a slew of proposals from Republican lawmakers across the country taking aim at DEI programs on college campuses. Universities across the country have shuttered or rebranded student affinity groups and DEI offices.

The law prohibits public schools and universities from using state funds for any curriculum that endorses or compels assent to viewpoints about eight “divisive concepts” related to race, religion, gender identity and religion. Instructors are also prohibited from encouraging a person feel guilt because of those identities. Schools are still allowed to facilitate “objective” discussions on those topics, according to the law.

Dana Patton, a political science professor at the University of Alabama, was one of six professors and students who sued the school and Republican Gov. Kay Ivey in January, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on educators’ speech. The lawsuit also argued that the law unconstitutionally targets Black students because it emphasizes concepts related to race and limits programs that benefit Black students.



Shortly after the law took effect in October, Patton said that school officials told her that five students had made complaints suggesting that the interdisciplinary honors program she administered had potential conflicts with the new legislation. The program focuses on social justice and community service.

University officials said a “powerful person” in the state Capitol was behind the five student complaints, Patton testified.

The complaints alleged the program “promoted socialism” and focused on “systematic racism" and “producing engaged global citizens as opposed to patriotic Americans,” according to evidence presented at the hearing. The complaints also said students “feel unsafe” because “the leadership of the program has a clear view of the world from a divisive perspective."

“I was completely shocked, stunned," Patton said.

After weeks of meetings where Patton exhaustively laid out the content of her courses to administrators, she said she was introduced to Alabama Republican Rep. Danny Garrett at a school football game.


Garret told her that “we need compromise here” because the legislators involved in the complaints are “tenacious” and “not going to let this go.” He then sent her links to work he had done with Black Democratic state legislators after the death of George Floyd to address racial tension.

Patton said the conversation “very much felt like a threat” because Garrett is the chair of the Alabama House Ways and Means Education Committee, which is one of two legislative committees that oversees the university's funding.

The tenured professor said she has since removed some course material from her syllabus and is no longer posting slides of her lectures online, out of fear that her lessons might be misinterpreted.

Garrett declined to comment on the pending litigation.

University lawyer says law hasn't caused harm

Jay Ezelle, the defense attorney for the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, said the school had an obligation to investigate if students complain about being tested on an opinion, not on a performance.


“If that’s violated, the university has to investigate, correct?” Ezelle asked during cross-examination.

He added that the law had not created any measurable harm against the plaintiffs, because no faculty had been terminated or formally disciplined, and school administrators had sourced private funding for some affinity groups, who still have access to campus facilities.

Professors said they had to remove class assignments

Other professors testified that they felt compelled to pull class assignments or stop offering classes altogether based on Patton’s experience, as well as formal instruction from the university about the “risks” of testing students on divisive concepts.

Rising senior Sydney Testman said she lost her scholarship because it was tied to her job at the Social Justice Advocacy Council, which was terminated after the anti-DEI legislation went into effect.


“No one wants to say it's disproportionately affecting Black people,” she said. “The vibes are kind of 'everyone fend for yourselves.'”

Federal U.S. Chief Judge R. David Proctor said the case will largely hinge on whether classroom speech is protected under the First Amendment and whether the state has a right to influence curriculum. Proctor will also consider if the six students and professors who brought the lawsuit against the University of Alabama have been harmed by the new law.

He said he will make a decision in time for Alabama schools to have “clarity by the start of school.”

___

Riddle is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Safiyah Riddle, The Associated Press

Federal judge weighs whether Alabama's anti-DEI law threatens First Amendment
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
81,806
110,958
113
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled in favor of parents seeking to opt their children out of public school instruction that conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs.

The case, brought by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, sought a guaranteed exemption from the classroom reading of storybooks with LGBTQ themes, including same-sex marriage and exploration of gender identity.

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson cast the dissenting votes in the 6-3 decision.


MORE: Supreme Court leans toward parents in dispute over LGBTQ storybooks in school


Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said in the decision that refusing to allow parents to opt-out their kids from instruction that "poses a very real threat of undermining their religious beliefs and practices" violates the First Amendment protections for religious exercise.

The Montgomery County Board of Education's "introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion," Alito wrote.

The court found that the parents are also likely to succeed in their lawsuit over free-exercise claims, and have shown they are entitled to a preliminary injunction while their lawsuit proceeds.

In her dissent, Sotomayor accused the court of inventing a "constitutional right to avoid exposure to subtle themes contrary to the religious principles that parents wish to instill in their children."


A U.S. Supreme Court police officer stands watch outside of the Supreme Court, June 26, 2025, in Washington.
Mariam Zuhaib/AP
She also reproduced in full one of the books at the heart of the dispute -- "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," an illustrated children's book about a gay couple and their niece -- in the appendix of her dissent. Alito accused the book of advancing a "specific, if subtle, message" about marriage -- that two people, regardless of their sex, can get married so long as they love each other -- that is "contrary to the religious principles that the parents in this case wish to instill in their children."

"The majority's myopic attempt to resolve a major constitutional question through close textual analysis of Uncle Bobby's Wedding also reveals its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist. They are part of virtually every community and workplace of any appreciable size," Sotomayor wrote in her dissent while blasting Alito for his interpretation of the book. "Eliminating books depicting LGBTQ individuals as happily accepted by their families will not eliminate student exposure to that concept. Nor does the Free Exercise Clause require the government to alter its programs to insulate students from that 'message.'"

In 2022, after introducing several LGBTQ-themed books into its language arts curriculum, the Montgomery County school board allowed parents to opt out if the content was deemed objectionable as a matter of faith. One year later, officials reversed course and said the opt-out program had become unwieldy and ran counter to values of inclusion.


The parents alleged that use of the books in an elementary school curriculum -- without an opportunity to be excused -- amounts to government-led indoctrination regarding sensitive matters of sexuality. The school board insisted the books merely expose kids to diverse viewpoints and ideas.

Pending the completion of the legal challenge, the school board "should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction," Alito wrote.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during oral arguments in April that it was poised to establish a right of parents to opt out for sensitive subjects, saying it should be common sense.


MORE: SCOTUS limits nationwide injunctions, partial win for Trump on birthright citizenship


Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty who argued the case on behalf of the parents seeking the opt-out, called the ruling an "historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America."

"Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission," Baxter said in a statement. "Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents -- not government -- have the final say in how their children are raised."

An attorney representing the authors of some of the books involved in the case called the ruling "a deeply disappointing blow to the right to read under the First Amendment."

"It is a fundamental betrayal of public schools' duty to prepare students to live in a diverse and pluralistic society," attorney Elly Brinkley, with U.S. Free Expression Programs, said in a statement. "By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools."

Brinkley said opt-outs for religious objections "will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold."


President Donald Trump called the ruling a "tremendous victory for parents" during a White House press briefing Friday.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, during the briefing, thanked the Supreme Court for the decision, saying that restoring parents' rights to decide their child's education "seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight."

"Now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct," Blanche said.

 
  • Angry
Reactions: Valcazar

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
81,806
110,958
113
The Supreme Court on Friday granted a partial stay of nationwide injunctions issued against President Donald Trump's executive order to effectively end birthright citizenship, handing Trump a win amid his showdown with federal judges who've blocked parts of his second-term agenda.

The 6-3 opinion came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The court's three liberal justices dissented.

The court, however, said it was not deciding whether the executive order from Trump was constitutional, rather focusing on whether a single judge has the authority to issue universal injunctions.

"Government’s applications for partial stays of the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue," the opinion read.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tru...ing-nationwide-injunctions/story?id=123272280

Trump took a victory lap in a rare appearance in the White House briefing room shortly after the decision came down.

"Amazing decision, one we're very happy about," Trump told reporters.

"This morning the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch," he said.


However, legal challenges will continue to Trump's Day 1 order to deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to unlawful immigrants or those on a temporary immigrant status, as the court did not rule on the merits of the cases.

The individual plaintiffs in these cases remain protected under the injunctions issued.

"Prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship," Barrett said. "Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete."


Trump can move forward immediately, though, with developing plans to implement the birthright citizenship order -- which will not take effect for 30 days.


MORE: What to know about birthright citizenship as Supreme Court weighs blocks on Trump's order to end it


Friday's decision is a boost for Trump in his crusade against nationwide injunctions that have blocked some of the executive actions he's taken so far in his second term.

Supporters of nationwide injunctions say they serve as an essential check to potentially unlawful conduct and prevent widespread harm. Critics say they give too much authority to individual judges and incentivize plaintiffs to try to evade random assignment and file in jurisdictions with judges who may be sympathetic to their point of view.


The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen the morning before justices are expected to issue opinions in pending cases, in Washington, June 14, 2024.
Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters
Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her blistering dissent aloud from the bench, criticizing the court's majority.

"No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates," Sotomayor wrote. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from lawabiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship."

"The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief," she added. "That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent."

Sotomayor accused the Trump administration of "gamesmanship" and said with this ruling the Supreme Court's majority "plays along."

"Every conceivable source of law confirms, birthright citizenship is the law of the land," she wrote in dissent.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately to underscore, in his view, the narrowness of the decision, insisting that class-action claims are still available and that the Supreme Court itself can and likely will review lower courts along the way with respect to scope of relief from an alleged illegal government policy.

Kavanaugh also noted that the Administrative Procedures Act remains an avenue for plaintiffs to bring challenges to presidential policies on a nationwide basis.

Reaction to the ruling was largely split along party lines, with Republicans calling it a win for the administration while Democrats expressed serious concern that Trump's actions could go unchecked.

"The Supreme Court’s decision to limit courts of their long-held authority to block illegal executive actions is an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote on X. "By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution -- it’s defacing it."

 
  • Angry
Reactions: Valcazar

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
81,806
110,958
113
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Friday fired at least three prosecutors involved in U.S. Capitol riot criminal cases, the latest moves by the Trump administration targeting attorneys connected to the massive prosecution of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Those dismissed include two attorneys who worked as supervisors overseeing the Jan. 6 prosecutions in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington as well as a line attorney who prosecuted cases stemming from the Capitol attack, the people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

A letter that was received by one of the prosecutors was signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi. The letter did not provide a reason for their removal, effective immediately, citing only “Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States,” according to a copy seen by The Associated Press.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment Friday evening.

The terminations marked yet another escalation of norm-shattering moves that have raised alarm over the Trump administration’s disregard for civil service protections for career lawyers and the erosion of the Justice Department’s independence from the White House. Top leaders at the Justice Department have also fired employees who worked on the prosecutions against Trump and demoted a slew of career supervisors in what has been seen as an effort to purge the agency of lawyers seen as insufficiently loyal.


Trump’s sweeping pardons of the Jan. 6 rioters have led to worries about actions being taken against attorneys involved in the massive prosecution of the more than 1,500 Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol as lawmakers met to certify President Joe Biden’s election victory. Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of all of them on his first day back in the White House, releasing from prison people convicted of seditious conspiracy and violent assaults on police.


During his time as interim U.S. attorney in Washington, Ed Martin in February demoted several prosecutors involved in the Jan. 6 cases, including the attorney who served as chief of the Capitol Siege Section. Others demoted include two lawyers who helped secure seditious conspiracy convictions against Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio.

 
  • Angry
Reactions: Valcazar

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
35,736
69,819
113
Supreme Court allows Trump to partially enforce order restricting birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court on Friday in a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines allowed President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country, for now, by curtailing judges’ ability to block the president’s policies nationwide.
Ruling that three federal district judges went too far in issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump’s order, the high court’s decision claws back a key tool that plaintiffs have used to hamper the president’s agenda in dozens of lawsuits.
But it does not yet definitively resolve whether Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship are constitutional, a hefty legal question that could ultimately return to the justices.
For now, however, the justices narrowed the lower court rulings to only block Trump’s order as applied to the 22 Democratic-led states, expectant mothers and immigration organizations that are suing.
Signed on his first day in office, Trump’s order curbs birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil if they don’t have at least one parent with permanent legal status. The sweeping restrictions upend the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, long recognized to only have few exceptions.
Every court to directly confront the legality of Trump’s order so far has found it likely unconstitutional. The administration went to the Supreme Court on its emergency docket to narrow nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Greenbelt, Md., Seattle and Boston.
The cases will now return to the lower courts for further proceedings as Trump’s order partially goes into effect. The parties could bring the case back to the justices once the appeals courts issue their final rulings.
In a rare move, the high court agreed to hear oral arguments in the case, despite typically handling emergency applications solely based on a round of written briefing. The arguments took place in May, a special session scheduled after the normal window that ended in April.
The Trump administration raised alarm about the dozens of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges since the president’s inauguration, a sharp rise that the Justice Department insisted demonstrates judicial overreach intruding on Trump’s authority.
Trump’s critics, however, have pushed back, saying the smattering of court injunctions reflects that the president has been acting lawlessly on birthright citizenship and other areas.
So many of these could be their own threads.
 
Toronto Escorts