North Carolina school district to issue apology, pay $20K to student suspended over 'illegal alien' comment
The family of a North Carolina high school student suspended for using the term "illegal alien" is slated to receive a $20,000 payment and a public apology under a proposed settlement, according to The New York Post.
The outlet reported Thursday that the settlement was reached to remove all references to racial bias from now-17-year-old Christian McGhee's record, provide compensation and issue a public apology "for the mischaracterization of racial bias."
"The Proposed Settlement provides C.M. with monetary compensation intended to defray the costs of his new school, which is private and charges annual tuition," according to the document.
The settlement is now pending a judge's approval.
North Carolina Student Sues School Board After Suspension For Using The Term 'Illegal Alien'
McGhee's lawyer, Liberty Justice Center attorney Dean McGee, told the Carolina Journal that a motion had been filed on Friday, asking the court to approve a settlement to resolve the matter.
Read On The Fox News App
"Because Christian is a minor, a court hearing is required before the settlement can become final," he explained.
"We'll have more to say after that hearing, but we're pleased to take this important step toward clearing our client's name."
The teen received a three-day suspension last year after asking his teacher if a conversation in class was centered around "spaceship aliens" or "illegal aliens who need green cards" after he returned to the classroom from the restroom.
A Latino student present in the class reportedly "joked" that he was going to "kick Christian's a--," leading the teacher to escalate the situation to the assistant principal.
The comment was ultimately deemed racially insensitive by the school administration, which the family disputes, and prompted a year-long legal battle.
Ny Mom Files Lawsuit Against School After Son Allegedly Punished For Defending 'Two Genders'
McGhee and his family maintained his innocence throughout.
McGhee's mother Leah, who was behind the legal push against the district, joined "Fox & Friends" last year to air some of her grievances concerning the matter.
"Christian was suspended three days, out of school suspension. He missed several very important track meets, and, since that time, we have removed him from the school," McGhee told Fox News' Ainsley Earhardt.
"We have asked the school to handle this privately for weeks. I have emailed the school board for four weeks. I've had no response from the school board, and since… we had no resolution, we had no other choice but to file a lawsuit and take this public."
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture
Dean McGee, the family's attorney, argued at the time that the United States government uses the term "illegal alien," which is clearly defined in Webster's Dictionary, and has no racial specification.
The lawsuit centered on McGhee's First Amendment rights.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Davidson County School District for comment on the proposed settlement, but did not immediately receive a response.
Fox News' Bailee Hill contributed to this report.Original article source: North Carolina school district to issue apology, pay $20K to student suspended over 'illegal alien' comment
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EXCLUSIVE: Legal institute celebrates SCOTUS decision, declares 'religious liberty is alive and well'
EXCLUSIVE: A legal organization whose mission it is to defend the religious liberty of Americans has called the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling in favor of the Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) "a huge moment for religious liberty in America," and a clear rejection of government overreach into religious life. "This was not a hard call," Tiffany Dunkin, a legal fellow and attorney with the First Liberty Institute, emphasized in an interview with Fox News Digital, citing Thursday's unanimous SCOTUS decision to strike down Wisconsin's attempt to withhold a religious tax exemption because the CCB does not proselytize or serve only Catholics. "What Wisconsin was doing… they were saying that the Catholic Charities was not a religious institution because they did not proselytize or serve people of their own faith," Dunkin explained. Supreme Court Rules Wisconsin Unconstitutionally Discriminated Against Christian Charity "What they were doing was deciding what it means to be religious," she added. "And the First Amendment prohibits the government from doing that." The case, Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, questioned whether faith-based nonprofits that provide public services are "religious enough" to receive the same benefits as churches or houses of worship. Read On The Fox News App Catholic Charities, affiliated with the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, provides critical care services for people with disabilities and mental health needs. Wisconsin argued those acts were not "primarily religious." The Supreme Court disagreed. Scotus Rulings This Term Could Strengthen Religious Rights Protections, Expert Says Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing the opinion for the court, stated clearly that the government has no authority to assess or rank the religious nature of charitable work. Dunkin said the consequences of the ruling go far beyond Wisconsin. "This is actually a pretty ongoing problem across the country," she noted. "It's not just Wisconsin. First Liberty Institute represents Dad's Place in Bryan, Ohio… they're saying that because you're running a 24-7 homeless shelter, you're not [religious]." Other clients of Plano, Texas-based First Liberty in Colorado and Arizona have faced similar arguments from local governments, which question whether providing food, clothing or shelter to those in need is inherently religious. "Even though there are churches doing this kind of work, the governments are saying, 'Well, you're not religious enough,'" Dunkin said. The court's language in the ruling, Dunkin pointed out, "affirms what the Supreme Court has said for nearly a century," that the government cannot choose which expressions of faith are valid. "This sends a great message to people of all religions and all charitable organizations," she said. "The government… cannot intrude into telling you exactly what you can and can't do, whether you're religious or not religious, in order to receive a government benefit or participate in society." Had SCOTUS ruled the other way, Dunkin warned, it would have "grave implications" for religious charities and ministries nationwide. "It would allow the government to step into the religious doctrine of all faiths more than our Founding Fathers ever intended," she said. "The government cannot step in and get involved in deciding and picking and choosing between one type of religious activity and another." When asked what this means for churches and ministries on the ground, Dunkin's answer was clear: "They should feel emboldened to continue to do what they feel called to do by their religious faith… especially in a charitable sense." And for those who may see this as a one-off legal win? Not so fast. "I see this really as two different things," she said. "One, an affirmance of what the First Amendment has always stood for… but of course, going forward, we do hope and we're encouraged that religious liberty in America is alive and well. And of course, First Liberty Institute is here to continue to fight for that."Original article source: EXCLUSIVE: Legal institute celebrates SCOTUS decision, declares 'religious liberty is alive and well'
The Hill
40 minutes ago
- The Hill
Appeals court lets Trump block AP from some White House spaces for now
A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the Trump administration may ban the Associated Press from the Oval Office and other limited spaces for now, pausing a judge's order to return the wire service's access. In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden's April 8 order deeming AP's exile from the press pool, a small group of journalists who document the president's movements and statements in and around the White House, unlawful. The White House's exclusion of AP stemmed from the outlet's refusal to use the term Gulf of America in its popular stylebook. '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 wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Gregory Katsas, both appointees of President Trump. 'The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' The judges said that, without a stay, the government would suffer irreparable harm because the injunction 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces.' McFadden, a Trump appointee, ordered the Trump administration to reinstate AP's access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and other small spaces that hold a limited number of officials and journalists. The AP's spot in the president's press pool has traditionally been secured daily, both at the White House and when the president is traveling. Its reporters are usually granted access in a tradition dating back decades. 'The AP and the district court again lean heavily on the history of the press pool as an institution,' Rao wrote. 'But the AP cannot adversely possess a seat in the Oval Office, no matter how long its tradition of access.' The panel did not pause the portion of McFadden's order restoring AP's access to the East Room, noting that it does not share the 'hallmarks' of spaces like the Oval Office. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Cornelia Pillard said that participation in the press pool or broader White House press corps has never been conditioned on a news organization's viewpoint 'until now.' '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,' the Obama appointee wrote. The Justice Department had argued that the spaces from which the White House sought to exclude the AP are not a press facility like the Brady Press Briefing Room and are intended for the president's personal use. Plus, presidents have the 'personal autonomy' to decide to whom they reveal their minds. Charles Tobin, a lawyer for the AP, argued that the White House can't single out an outlet for exclusion from the pool based solely on its viewpoints, though he acknowledged that it's the president's prerogative to revoke AP's daily spot in the press pool. After McFadden ruled in the AP's favor, the White House removed the spot typically reserved for wire services from the press pool, instead making those outlets eligible for selection as part of the pool's daily print-journalist rotation. Patrick Maks, a spokesperson for AP, said in a statement that 'we are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options.' The Hill requested comment from the White House.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
White House ban on Associated Press can continue, appeals court rules
A federal appeals court will allow the White House to exclude the Associated Press from access to the Oval Office, Mar-a-Lago and Air Force One if it chooses, according to a new court order in the ongoing legal battle over press access. The decision hangs on a court finding that some White House spaces are not open to the broader public or large groups of press, and so the White House can choose which journalists it chooses to admit. A lower court judge previously blocked the administration from excluding the Associated Press, and the appeals court has sided with the White House at this time. The decision could bring about more appeals over the White House press corps and its access around the president. 'These restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' DC Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote Friday. 'No one suggests the Oval Office is a traditional public forum such as a park or sidewalk held in trust for expressive activity.' The court, in a split 2-1 decision Friday, didn't include excluding the AP from the larger East Room space. CNN has reached out to the White House and AP for comment. The AP has claimed the White House is discriminatory against it because of a First Amendment-protected viewpoint –specifically not changing its editorial style guide to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, as President Donald Trump has directed. CNN's Brian Stelter and Samantha Waldenberg contributed to this report.
