Appeals court overturns order to reinstate LSU law professor, but case continues
BATON ROUGE, La. (Louisiana First) — The First Circuit Court of Appeal ruled Tuesday that Louisiana State University is not required to reinstate law professor Ken Levy following his suspension over political comments made in class.
The appellate court granted part of LSU's request to overturn a Jan. 30 temporary restraining order issued by a district judge, which had ordered Levy's reinstatement. The ruling states that the district court's order was improperly issued without a full evidentiary hearing.
'A temporary restraining order, when in mandatory form and commands the doing of something, may not issue without a full evidentiary hearing and should not issue on an ex parte application,' the court wrote in its decision.
While the appellate court vacated the portion of the order requiring Levy's immediate reinstatement, it denied LSU's request to dismiss the broader case. A hearing is still scheduled for Feb. 10, where further arguments will be presented.
Levy was removed from the classroom on Jan. 16 following student complaints about political remarks made during a discussion on First Amendment issues. He later sued LSU, arguing that his suspension violated his constitutional rights, including free speech, academic freedom, and due process.
The case remains ongoing as the legal battle over Levy's suspension continues.
Louisiana AG calls for LSU law professor to be disciplined after Trump election comments
Bipartisan bill would cap credit card interest rates at 10%
White House begins migrant flights to Guantanamo Bay
President Donald Trump to attend Super Bowl LIX
Michael Jordan's son, Marcus, arrested after allegedly fleeing Florida police: reports
Live: Pros breakdown Super Bowl defense, matchups and 'Inner Excellence'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Idaho rethinks LGBTQ rights as laws, symbols, and support face pushback
Stories by Idaho Statesman journalists, with AI summarization This collection of stories examines recent efforts by Idaho lawmakers and officials to restrict LGBTQ rights in public spaces, marriage, sports, education, and community symbols. State legislators advanced a resolution to revoke same-sex marriage rights and praised decisions by Boise State's women's volleyball team to opt out of matches involving transgender athletes. Businesses like Micron and St. Luke's have pulled back public support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs, with St. Luke's employees voicing disappointment over the decision not to fly the Pride flag during Pride Month. Boise officials kept flying the Pride flag at City Hall despite a new law banning non-government flags, and city leaders debated how to navigate the law's lack of penalties. At the Nampa Public Library, a youth club flyer led to public disputes, while statewide book bans faced lawsuits over their impact on LGBTQ content and First Amendment rights. Read the stories below. Boise State has forfeited two volleyball games against San Jose State this season, including one that was scheduled for Thursday. | Published November 19, 2024 | Read Full Story by Shaun Goodwin 'Unfortunately ... there are Republican factions that have infiltrated Idaho who only support constitutional rights if they are in alignment with what they believe.' | Published November 23, 2024 | Read Full Story by Carolyn Komatsoulis 'This is yet another example of the extreme wing of the Republican Party ginning up divisive social issues in order to create problems where none exist,' said Idaho's Democratic leadership. | Published January 7, 2025 | Read Full Story by Ian Max Stevenson Idaho voters should have enough self-respect to punish this abuse of government power at the ballot box. | Opinion | Published February 5, 2025 | Read Full Story by Bryan Clark Boise 'will continue' to fly the Pride flag outside City Hall, a spokesperson said. She did not answer a question about whether the city knew that it was illegal. | Published April 11, 2025 | Read Full Story by Sarah Cutler Idaho companies like Micron and St. Luke's face growing political pressure on diversity-related initiatives. | Published June 2, 2025 | Read Full Story by Angela Palermo We don't approach this viewpoint from a political or personal value system. We approach it from the lens through which we healthcare workers view every patient encounter... | Opinion | Published June 2, 2025 | Read Full Story by Undersigned St. Luke's employees The Trump administration has been rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. | Published May 31, 2025 | Read Full Story by Carolyn Komatsoulis Laws like this one can be problematic, a lawyer said. | Published June 5, 2025 | Read Full Story by Carolyn Komatsoulis The summary above was drafted with the help of AI tools and edited by journalists in our News division. All stories listed were reported, written and edited by McClatchy journalists.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump hails court ruling allowing White House to restrict AP access
President Trump celebrated a federal appeals court's ruling that allows the White House, for now, to restrict The Associated Press (AP) from the Oval Office and other limited spaces when reporting on the commander-in-chief. 'Big WIN over AP today,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked, in a 2-1 decision on Friday, an early April order from a district court judge that allowed the AP to regain its access to key White House spaces. The ruling blocked an April 8 order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden that found that the news wire's exclusion from the press pool, a small cadre of reporters reporting on the president's whereabouts, was unlawful. 'The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' Judge Neomi Rao said in the Friday opinion, joined by Judge Gregory Katsas. AP's spokesperson Patrick Maks said the organization is 'disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options.' The White House's decision to exclude the AP originated from the news wire not wanting to use Gulf of America in its industry stylebook. The three-judge panel did not halt the part of McFadden's April order that provides AP access to the East Room. Judge Cornelia Pillard said in her dissent that being able to be in the press pool never relied on the news outlet's viewpoint until this year. 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' Pillard wrote. Days after McFadden ruled in favor of AP in April, the White House removed a spot in the press pool normally occupied by wire services.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
NFL, NFLPA continue to hide ruling from collusion grievance
The NFL benefits from an endless stream of bright, shiny objects. Even in the offseason, there's always something to distract fans and media from taking a closer look at something the powers-that-be are trying to hide. As it relates to a significant collusion grievance that resulted in a 61-page written ruling from an arbitrator, both the NFL and the NFL Players Association continue to conceal the document. Advertisement The grievance focused on the refusal to give fully-guaranteed contracts to specific veteran quarterbacks — with primary focus on Lamar Jackson, Russell Wilson, and Kyler Murray. The arbitrator found, we're told, that the NFL encouraged teams not to give those players fully-guaranteed contracts. However, the evidence presented regarding the impact of this approach on the three quarterbacks at the heart of the case wasn't strong enough to trigger damages. So it was a mixed result. The NFLPA won, to the extent that evidence of collusion was found. The NFL won, to the extent that no money was awarded to any of the players. But neither side felt sufficiently good about the outcome to disclose it. The NFL danced around it in January. The NFLPA has said nothing about it, either. If this dispute had played out in court, the ruling would be a matter of public record. The NFL and NFLPA have created a private system for resolving disputes. And while the arbitrators who handle such matters typically insist on confidentiality while the cases are pending, there's nothing that prevents either the league or the union from publishing the ruling. Advertisement From the Super Bowl to the Scouting Combine to free agency to the draft to OTAs, it's been easy to forget about the 61-page collusion grievance ruling. A ruling that apparently contains something they don't want us to see. So what can it be? It could be (and we're not saying it is) that the evidence in the case includes some frank and candid internal communications that one side doesn't want to see the light of day — and that the other side has gone along with that. It also could be that the two sides were at one point actively negotiating redactions to the 61-page order to ensure that such frank and candid internal communications would not be communicated externally. Whatever the explanation, there's an important document that the NFL and the NFLPA are hiding from everyone. Despite the private nature of the arbitration agreement, pro football is an inherently public entity. It has millions of customers. It finagles billions in taxpayer money. It has a federal antitrust exemption that results in significantly more valuable TV rights. The NFL should be expected to release this document. The union should be, too. But with no one pressuring them to do it, they can jointly continue to hide behind the various bright, shiny objects that will continue to keep us properly distracted.
