Federal judge blocks parts of Mississippi ban on DEI in public schools
The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate on Monday seek to prohibit public schools from discussing a list of "divisive concepts" related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation and national origin. They would also prevent public schools from maintaining programs, courses or offices that promote DEI or endorse "divisive concepts," and ban diversity training requirements.
The preliminary injunction does not block other portions of the law, including those that prevent schools from giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, color or national origin and that penalize students or staff for their refusal to embrace DEI concepts.
The law, which took effect in April, aims to prevent public schools from "engaging in discriminatory practices" by banning DEI offices, trainings and programs. Any school in violation of the act could lose state funding.
A group of teachers, parents and students is suing the state, arguing that the law violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Wingate wrote in his ruling that he finds the law to be at odds with the First Amendment and the public interest of the state.
"It is unconstitutionally vague, fails to treat speech in a viewpoint-neutral manner, and carries with it serious risks of terrible consequences with respect to the chilling of expression and academic freedom," he wrote.
Wingate also granted the plaintiff's request to add class action claims to the lawsuit, meaning the injunction will apply to teachers, professors and students across the state. The plaintiff's lawyers sought the addition after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June limited the ability of federal judges to grant sweeping injunctions.
Jarvis Dortch, the executive director of the ACLU of Mississippi, which is helping litigate the case, said he was thankful for Wingate's stance.
"The Court sees the law for what it plainly is — an attempt to stop the proper exchange of ideas within the classroom," Dortch said in a statement.
Wingate's ruling follows a temporary restraining order he granted to the plaintiffs in July.
At an Aug. 5 hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued the law is too confusing, leaving parents, teachers and students wondering what they can and cannot say and whether they could face consequences as a result of their speech.
Cliff Johnson, a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School and Mississippi director of the MacArthur Justice Center, testified that he and his students often discuss what could be considered "divisive topics."
Johnson said he did not believe the law would allow him to teach about the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the court case that paved the way for the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII; portions of the Civil Rights Act; or the murders of Emmett Till and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
"I think I'm in a very difficult position. I can teach my class as usual and run the serious risk of being disciplined, or I could abandon something that's very important to me," Johnson testified. "I feel a bit paralyzed."
The Mississippi Attorney General's Office argued that public employees do not have First Amendment rights.
"They are speaking for the government and the government has every right to tell them what they need to say on its behalf," said Lisa Reppeto, an attorney at the state attorney general's office.
She added that the First Amendment does not give students the right to dictate what their school does or does not say.
Reppeto also said the consequences of the law are aimed at the schools — not students or teachers — and that the plaintiffs' "argument is not consistent with what is in the statute."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
2025 SCOTUS Decisions That Could Affect Your Wallet
While the Supreme Court is the highest power of America's judicial branch, it might not be thought of as a force that dictates economic policy. However, many of the Court's decisions — particularly those related to the tax system — can definitely have an impact on your wallet. Check Out: Also See: As Shane Lucado, attorney and founder/CEO of InPerSuit, told GOBankingRates, 'When the Supreme Court turns policy into precedent, it rattles risk forecasts, freezes capital and creates trillions in downstream effects that are rarely accounted for in the headlines. … That ripple affects capital markets within hours, pricing strategies within days and litigation exposure within weeks.' Below are a few cases from the highest court's 2024-25 term, as well as cases from the upcoming term, that could affect your wallet. Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission In this case, SCOTUS unanimously decided that the state of Wisconsin had violated the First Amendment when it denied tax exemptions to the Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB). Initially, Wisconsin had denied tax exemption because the CCB, while a religious organization, did not actively proselytize Catholicism. SCOTUS ruled that denying tax exemptions to religious organizations that choose not to proselytize is a form of discrimination and a violation of First Amendment rights. Bishop James Powers said the ruling enables the church 'to continue serving those in need.' On a larger scale, the decision could cause revenue losses for states as a result of more nonprofit organizations being able to claim religious tax exceptions (which increases the taxpayer burden of others), as well as allow for costly litigation against states that similarly discriminate against organizations like the CCB. According to a 2021 Tax Foundation study, religious exemptions already cost the federal government — and thus taxpayers — $2.4 billion annually. See More: Also Read: Commissioner v. Zuch On June 12, 2025, SCOTUS ruled to limit taxpayer access to the U.S. Tax Court. Essentially, the Tax Court cannot oversee IRS collection disputes once the debt has been settled — such as through a refund offset, as happened in this case. Taxpayers must challenge refund offsets in federal district court instead — which can cost a lot more and be prohibitive for people without the financial means to advance such a legal challenge. Chad D. Cummings, attorney and CPA at Cummings & Cummings Law, told GOBankingRates that the decision 'gives the IRS a procedural advantage by allowing it to cut off Tax Court review through internal adjustment. As a result, taxpayers will have less time to request hearings or file petitions, making early engagement with counsel and prompt filing of Tax Court petitions more critical than ever.' Discover More: D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security This is an instance in which SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing for the White House's continued push for the deportation of undocumented immigrants. Specifically, the SCOTUS ruling undoes a lower court order that blocked Trump's administration from deporting undocumented immigrants to other countries (not their countries of origin) without first allowing the immigrants to make the case that such deportations might lead to persecution or death. While a clear victory for Trump and the Department of Homeland Security's continued efforts to curtail undocumented immigration, these mass deportations also could have a deleterious impact on the average American's wallet. As the Herman Legal Group has reported, an increase in immigration enforcement typically leads to labor shortages, specifically in the fields of agriculture, construction, restaurants and hospitality, housing and cleaning, and factories and manufacturing. Such labor shortages create decreased production and disrupted supply chains. The ultimate result of all that? Consumers pay more for groceries, for meals at a restaurant, for construction costs and more. The Herman Legal Group suggests the loss of immigrant workers could lead to 'federal and state tax losses in the range of $25 billion annually due to the departure of workers, reduction in consumer spending and the closure of immigrant-owned businesses.' Trump's recently passed spending bill earmarks as much as $170 billion for immigration and border security — a cost that taxpayers will shoulder for the rest of the decade. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo In this case, SCOTUS overturned a previous 1984 ruling, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, holding that courts are no longer required to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws. Only judges can decide what laws mean, in an effort to prevent bureaucrats from shaping the laws. This could create a wave of costly litigation challenging various previously established federal regulations, especially in the realms of health care, labor, consumer rights and environmental protection. It also could lead to reductions in the enforcement of things like worker safety, healthcare and student loans. As the Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School of Law has noted, the ruling 'will impact the work of federal agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, likely making it more difficult for such agencies to pass important regulations that protect public health.' This could lead to increased healthcare costs or even expensive lawsuits if legally actionable public health outbreaks were to occur. Moore v. United States In Moore v. United States, SCOTUS ruled that the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (a one-time tax on foreign company profits) is constitutional, even if the taxpayer never receives income from the profits being taxed. Chad D. Cummings, attorney and CPA, made clear to GOBankingRates that this ruling 'cements existing MRT liabilities and underscores the necessity of maintaining liquidity for tax obligations that may arise without a corresponding cash distribution. … Individuals with substantial foreign holdings, closely held businesses or large investment portfolios should view this as a prompt to revisit tax strategies now, before similar measures are enacted that could impose significant, unexpected financial obligations.' Find More: TikTok Inc. v. Garland By unanimous decision, SCOTUS upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. At its core, this SCOTUS decision will force ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok, to sell off the social media platform. If ByteDance does not sell, TikTok will be permanently banned in the U.S., making it inaccessible in America to over 170 million users (including many influencers who profit from the app). President Trump has continually extended the deadline, which is currently Sept. 17, 2025. A TikTok ban could be devastating to the social media influencers who have monetized the platform. A recent Ziprecruiter study found that the average successful American TikTok influencer makes approximately $132,000 per year via the app. In America in 2023, TikTok reportedly generated approximately $16 billion in revenue. Speaking to GOBankingRates about other consequences of a TikTok ban, Sapana Grossi, managing partner in venture capital at the Shah Grossi Law Firm, said TikTok's absence would be especially hard on micro-brands, 'because it will be much more expensive to operate.' 'When the platform went down for a short time earlier this year, the ad prices on other platforms spiked almost immediately,' Grossi said. 'For example, the price for impressions on Meta shot up by 10%. Based on that experience, we know that a ban could raise advertising costs significantly and make it almost impossible for micro-brands, or brands that entirely rely on TikTok's algorithm, to stay in business.' Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment In the Supreme Court's upcoming session (which begins in October), the Court will hear Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. Sony (among others) has sued Cox Communications, accusing the telecommunications giant of enabling copyright infringement via its customers, some of whom engage in illegal file sharing while utilizing Cox's internet service. Sony maintains Cox has not done enough to prevent such criminality across its broadband service. Even if Cox wins, the case will be a costly one, forcing the company to potentially spend millions to defend itself. Yet if it loses, Grossi told GOBankingRates, 'Customers should expect to pay more as (Cox) will likely offset their increased expenses. (Cox) would essentially be acting as online police and monitoring accounts aggressively …(cutting) off households and public networks due to illegal activity by someone on the network. 'As a result, (Cox) will have to invest in larger compliance staff, monitoring/filtering software, and in-house legal departments to deal with a rise in litigation. It's very likely they will try to recover these costs through a quiet steady climb through higher monthly rates, administrative fees and reconnection charges. … Such fees rarely disappear, which means that a broad ruling here could lock in higher internet costs for years to come.' Cox's current internet connection plans range from $50 to $100 per month — whether those prices remain the same could hinge on this case. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety This 2025-26 session case seeks to determine whether a person may sue a government official — rather than the governmental body that official works for — over violations of federal law regarding the religious rights of incarcerated criminals. The case stems from Damon Landor, a practicing Rastafarian who was forced by his prison's warden to have his dreadlocks cut off. As a result, Landor has argued in federal court that his religious rights were violated by the warden. If Landor were to win, it's possible that the taxpayer burden could be increased to cover the legal defense costs of government officials. Currently, the Prison Policy Initiative estimates the total U.S. government cost of prisons and jails to be $80.7 billion yearly. Also See: Louisiana v. Callais Louisiana v. Callais is a 2025-26 redistricting case that will dictate the state of Louisiana's congressional map going forward by deciding whether the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in 2024 is a Constitutional violation or if it upholds the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. After the 2020 census, Louisiana drafted a congressional map with six districts. Black voters made up the majority of only one district in that map, despite the fact that approximately one-third of Louisiana voters are Black. A new map was drawn in 2024, adding a second majority-Black voting district. This case could have serious political implications, both for Louisiana and other states. Redistricting and gerrymandering is already a deeply contentious issue, with the makeup of congressional maps having the power to determine the outcomes of local, state and national elections. The financial impacts could be wide ranging. If Black voters are underrepresented, it could lead to less funding for healthcare, social services, etc., in their districts. Uncertainty around voting rights can affect investor sentiment in areas perceived as politically unstable. And the taxpayer costs of these political battles continue to add up. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission Another case of major financial import is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, in which SCOTUS will decide to uphold or strike down its 2001 ruling in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. That ruling upheld federal limitations on political parties with regards to campaign advertising. If SCOTUS were to strike down the original ruling, political party influence on elections could increase by a substantial margin, with far fewer constraints on political advertising. Like the aforementioned Louisiana v. Callais, this is a case that has the power to sway presidential elections, which in turn could dictate the economic future of the nation. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 5 Old Navy Items Retirees Need To Buy Ahead of Fall 7 Tax Loopholes the Rich Use To Pay Less and Build More Wealth This article originally appeared on 2025 SCOTUS Decisions That Could Affect Your Wallet
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Potential Trump Supreme Court pick rails against ‘cultural elites' in drag ban reversal dissent
There are no current vacancies on the Supreme Court. But the Donald Trump White House has said that it wants judges in the mold of the high court's two oldest justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. A new dissent that name-checks both justices is a reminder that one front-runner for any vacancy that emerges could be Judge James Ho, whom Trump previously appointed to a federal appeals court. In his dissent, Ho invoked conservative talking points, like transgender sports participation, and railed against 'cultural elites.' The case decided Monday concerned Spectrum WT, an LGBT+ student organization at West Texas A&M University. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit split 2-1 in ruling for the group that had raised a free speech claim. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Trump appointee of mifepristone case fame, denied the group a preliminary injunction, reasoning that the First Amendment didn't apply to the drag show. The appellate panel majority reversed the district judge, with George W. Bush appointee Leslie Southwick writing the opinion, joined by Clinton appointee James Dennis. Southwick wrote that Kacsmaryk 'erred in concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.' The panel majority said the plaintiffs' drag show is protected constitutional expression. In his dissent, Ho argued that a 2010 Supreme Court precedent called Christian Legal Society (CLS) v. Martinez, which went against a student group that wanted to exclude gay people while receiving school funding, should've led the appellate panel to rule against the plaintiffs in this case. Writing that he disagrees with the CLS decision even as he's bound by it, Ho said he 'will not apply a different legal standard in this case, just because drag shows enjoy greater favor among cultural elites than the religious activities at issue in CLS.' Obviously, the majority did not explain its ruling that way. One of the ways it sought to distinguish this case from the CLS case was by writing, 'Instead of the significant interference with the right of expressive association that the Supreme Court permitted there, the university here was interfering with the expressive activity itself, the speech.' At any rate, one implication of Ho's dissent is that the majority did the untoward thing he valiantly refused to do: apply a double standard in service of some undefined 'cultural elites.' Lawyers and judges generally bolster their points by citing authorities, but Ho didn't do so there, nor did he explain which 'elites' he was talking about. Perhaps we are supposed to understand implicitly — and perhaps we do. Though one wonders how 'elite' is the group if it needs to wage a legal battle to put on a show? Ho's 'cultural elites' remark was just the beginning, however. He added to his dissent's culture-war complaints by positing that 'if university officials allow men to act as women in campus events like drag shows, they may feel compelled to allow men to act as women in other campus events as well — like women's sports.' The judge conceded that drag shows and women's sports 'might seem, on first blush, to have little to do with one another.' But he proceeded to make the case, citing sources that included a book that worried, 'If we accept that people can change genders — or even if we don't but agree to be 'polite' and call a man 'she' — then why shouldn't 'she' be allowed to play women's sports or bathe naked in an all-women's space? Why shouldn't 'she' be allowed to enter women's abuse houses or be transferred to a women's prison? Why accept one lie and not the whole thing?' (To be clear, Ho included that full quote in his dissent.) He also leaned on Alito's dissent in the CLS case, which was joined by Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and the late Antonin Scalia. Ho separately cited Thomas' concurrence in the recent Skrmetti case approving a gender-affirming care ban for minors, specifically where Thomas noted 'several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class.' Ho used the justice's observation to bolster his point that 'judges should not blindly trust experts in education, anymore than we should in any other field.' It was the appeals court judge's latest display of his willingness — and apparent eagerness — to step into any vacancy that Thomas or Alito might one day leave. If such a vacancy emerges, then so does the prospect of encountering Ho's writings in Supreme Court opinions for decades to come. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks parts of Mississippi ban on DEI in public schools
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A federal judge has blocked portions of Mississippi's ban on diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools from being enforced while a lawsuit against it is underway. The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate on Monday seek to prohibit public schools from discussing a list of 'divisive concepts' related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation and national origin. They would also prevent public schools from maintaining programs, courses or offices that promote DEI or endorse 'divisive concepts,' and ban diversity training requirements. The preliminary injunction does not block other portions of the law, including those that prevent schools from giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, color or national origin and that penalize students or staff for their refusal to embrace DEI concepts. The law, which took effect in April, aims to prevent public schools from 'engaging in discriminatory practices' by banning DEI offices, trainings and programs. Any school in violation of the act could lose state funding. A group of teachers, parents and students is suing the state, arguing that the law violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Wingate wrote in his ruling that he finds the law to be at odds with the First Amendment and the public interest of the state. 'It is unconstitutionally vague, fails to treat speech in a viewpoint-neutral manner, and carries with it serious risks of terrible consequences with respect to the chilling of expression and academic freedom,' he wrote. Wingate also granted the plaintiff's request to add class action claims to the lawsuit, meaning the injunction will apply to teachers, professors and students across the state. The plaintiff's lawyers sought the addition after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June limited the ability of federal judges to grant sweeping injunctions. Jarvis Dortch, the executive director of the ACLU of Mississippi, which is helping litigate the case, said he was thankful for Wingate's stance. 'The Court sees the law for what it plainly is — an attempt to stop the proper exchange of ideas within the classroom," Dortch said in a statement. Wingate's ruling follows a temporary restraining order he granted to the plaintiffs in July. At an Aug. 5 hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued the law is too confusing, leaving parents, teachers and students wondering what they can and cannot say and whether they could face consequences as a result of their speech. Cliff Johnson, a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School and Mississippi director of the MacArthur Justice Center, testified that he and his students often discuss what could be considered 'divisive topics.' Johnson said he did not believe the law would allow him to teach about the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the court case that paved the way for the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII; portions of the Civil Rights Act; or the murders of Emmett Till and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'I think I'm in a very difficult position. I can teach my class as usual and run the serious risk of being disciplined, or I could abandon something that's very important to me,' Johnson testified. 'I feel a bit paralyzed.' The Mississippi Attorney General's Office argued that public employees do not have First Amendment rights. 'They are speaking for the government and the government has every right to tell them what they need to say on its behalf,' said Lisa Reppeto, an attorney at the state attorney general's office. She added that the First Amendment does not give students the right to dictate what their school does or does not say. Reppeto also said the consequences of the law are aimed at the schools — not students or teachers — and that the plaintiffs' 'argument is not consistent with what is in the statute.' Solve the daily Crossword
