Judge issues preliminary injunction against IU 'expressive activity' policy
Protesters hold hands as the Indiana State Police stand in a line in the background April 27, 2024, at Dunn Meadow in Bloomington. (Jacob Spudich /The Indiana Daily Student)
A federal judge has blocked Indiana University's 'expressive activity' policy, issuing a preliminary injunction against the educational institution's 2024 rule on Thursday.
Protesters across the country, many of them college students, rallied in support of Palestine near the end of the 2024 school year. At protests on IU's Bloomington campus, police arrested 57 protesters at a pro-Palestine encampment following a last-minute rule amendment concerning temporary structures in Dunn Meadow that reversed a long-standing policy.
Later that year, in November, the university implemented a new policy that required prior approval for daytime campus protests and banned activities occurring between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana responded by filing suit on behalf of students, faculty members and others who wished to protest against the school in the future.
IU releases review of April protest activity and enforcement
According to the rule, an expressive activity can include protests, speeches, petitions and 'all other unapproved conduct and activities otherwise prohibited' by school policy or law. Plaintiffs argued that the new language restricted activity during nighttime hours even if it wasn't disruptive while university officials maintained that its police department was too short-staffed to allow for overnight protests.
Determining that the case would likely succeed in court and potentially violated the First Amendment, U.S. Southern District of Indiana Judge Richard L. Young ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
'In sum, the Policy likely burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further the University's interest in public safety and thus lacks narrow tailoring,' ruled Young.
'IU's policy would apply to activities such as peaceful candlelight vigils, silently holding a sign, or even wearing a t-shirt that protests world events. The First Amendment does not allow a governmental entity to prohibit all forms of expression during certain hours of the day. We're pleased that the Court agreed,' said Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director.
pidecision
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
19 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Appeals Court Rules San Diego's Yoga Ban Is Unconstitutional
SAN DIEGO—The city of San Diego's ban on yoga classes in public parks and beaches was ruled unconstitutional on June 4 by a federal appeals court that found such classes are protected by the First Amendment. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling states city officials had not shown any 'plausible connection between plaintiffs teaching yoga and any threat to public safety and enjoyment in the city's shoreline parks.'
Miami Herald
29 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Ukraine Braces for Putin's Retaliation
A NATO official has echoed President Donald Trump's warning that his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin will seek revenge for Ukraine's drone strikes on Russia's military airfields. Following his phone call with the Russian president, Trump said Putin "will have to respond" to the attack on airfields, which Kyiv said damaged 41 aircraft including heavy bombers and A-50 spy planes. As Trump's envoy has warned the strikes risked escalation in the war, an unnamed NATO official told The Moscow Times that Russia would take "retaliatory actions" against Ukraine for its "Spiderweb" drone operation. Experts have told Newsweek that, in response, Putin is likely to step up drone and missile attacks. Newsweek has contacted the Kremlin and the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry by email for comment. Ukraine heralded the strikes on Russian airfields as far away as Siberia as a blow to Russia's military capabilities. Pro-Russian Telegram channels have expressed anger at the lack of protection at the sites, but the comments by Trump and his envoy will add to anticipation over what Putin will do in response. Trump said on the social-media platform Truth Social on Wednesday that, during his phone call with Putin, the leaders had discussed Ukraine's attacks on airplanes. The U.S. president said Putin said "very strongly" that he would have to respond to Kyiv's drone attacks without specifying what this would be nor whether he had urged restraint. Trump's special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, had earlier told Fox News that Ukraine's attack on "part of their national survival system, which is their … nuclear triad," had significantly increased the risk of escalation. An alliance official told The Moscow Times before NATO's defense ministers meeting in Brussels that Putin will use the attacks to justify additional heavier strikes and stall negotiations. Cédomir Nestorovic, academic co-director at the ESSEC Institute for Geopolitics & Business, told Newsweek that, in response, Russia could launch massive drone attacks on Ukraine, but probably not the Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile that Putin has boasted about, nor any nuclear missiles. Aurélien Colson, from the same institute, told Newsweek that Putin's response will be primarily military, but his options are limited to missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities. Zev Faintuch, head of research and intelligence at security firm Global Guardian, told Newsweek that Ukraine's attack might slow the massive aerial bombardments of the major Ukrainian cities. However, the only way to bring the Russians to the negotiating table would be to halt their advances on the battlefield, he added. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said Wednesday that Putin used his call with Trump, in which they also discussed the train derailments in Russia that Moscow blamed on Kyiv, to portray Ukraine falsely as uninterested in peace and as a bad actor. President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social: "President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields." A NATO official said to The Moscow Times: "There will certainly be retaliatory actions that Russia will take. And there will be defensive things that Russia will do." Aurélien Colson, academic co-director at the ESSEC Institute for Geopolitics & Business, said: "(Putin) will probably launch another larger air attack on Ukrainian cities and infrastructures, through missiles and drones," adding that "going nuclear at the tactical level is excluded," due to China's opposition to such a move. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said on Wednesday: "Putin's statements to Trump are also likely aimed at distracting from Russia's own disinterest in negotiations and continued preparations for a prolonged war effort." Amid speculation over how Putin might respond to his worst week of 2025, the Russian president told his senior officials on Wednesday that he was no longer interested in negotiating with Ukraine, saying, "How can we negotiate with those who rely on terror?" Tatiana Stanovaya, founder of R. Politik, a political analysis firm focused on Russia, posted on X, formerly Twitter, that Western audiences may view Ukraine's attacks as strengthening Kyiv's negotiating position, but the effect "will likely be the opposite." Stanovaya said such attacks will only reinforce Putin's determination to dismantle the Ukrainian state and that he will respond "by becoming more hard-line and less compliant." Related Articles Welcome to the Age of Dumb Kissinger | OpinionTrump Set to Square Off With New German Chancellor Merz on Trade, UkrainePutin Suffers His Worst Week of 2025Putin Tells Trump the Kremlin 'Will Have to Respond' to Ukraine Attack 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court backs Catholic Charities' push to object to state taxes on religious grounds
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for a Catholic Charities chapter in Wisconsin to secure an exemption from certain state taxes in a decision that could expand the type of religious entities entitled to tax breaks under the First Amendment's protections for religion. It was the latest in a series of decisions from the Supreme Court in recent years that have sided with religious groups on everything from public funding for sectarian schools to allowing coaches to offer private prayers on the field after high school football games. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion,'' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for a unanimous court. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one. When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny,' she added. The Catholic Charities Bureau and four affiliate organizations had claimed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment's religious protections by denying exemptions from the state's unemployment taxes. Churches already receive that exemption and so the question for the justices was, in essence, whether religiously affiliated entities that don't perform traditionally religious functions – such as services – should also qualify. The bureau describes itself as the 'social ministry arm of the Diocese of Superior' of Wisconsin and says that it carries out a 'wide variety of ministries for the elderly, the disabled, the poor,' and others. Wisconsin had argued that Catholic Charities had been participating in its unemployment insurance program without complaint since 1971. Forty-seven states and the federal government include exemptions from unemployment taxes for religious organizations similar to Wisconsin's, suggesting the court's decision could have an impact beyond the Badger State. The Trump administration sided with Catholic Charities, and it was concerned a broad ruling might affect the similar federal law. The Justice Department told the court it interprets federal law to exempt Catholic Charities and similar groups. Justice Clarence Thomas, a member of the court's conservative wing, wrote separately to argue in favor of a doctrine of 'church autonomy' that would further insulate religious institutions from taxes and government regulations. Thomas argued that the state court went too far by looking into how Catholic Charities was structured. 'The First Amendment's guarantee of church autonomy gives religious institutions the right to define their internal governance structures without state interference,' Thomas wrote. 'Perhaps the most important feature of today's ruling is that there was not a majority to take up the issue Justice Thomas wrote separately to underscore—whether regulations governing the tax-exempt status of religious organizations implicates, in Thomas's words, 'the First Amendment's guarantee of church autonomy,'' said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. 'By deciding this case (unanimously) on narrower grounds, the Court saves the much more fraught question of the extent to which the First Amendment does require church autonomy—and what that would mean for all kinds of local, state, and federal regulations—for a future case.' The majority concluded that Wisconsin's law, as interpreted by the state's top court, discriminated between religions because the groups performing the charity work did not proselytize – even though the group's faith bars practitioners from doing so. 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination,' Sotomayor wrote for the court. 'Wisconsin's exemption, as interpreted by its Supreme Court, thus grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices,' she wrote. Though technical, the case raised fundamental questions about the ability of courts to look behind the pulpit to assess the religiosity of certain organizations. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed the attorney representing Catholic Charities in March by asking whether a vegetarian restaurant might be entitled to an exemption from state taxes in the group's view if its owners claimed they were following a religious tenet against eating meat. Along those same lines, a question lurking behind the case was how it might apply to religiously affiliated hospitals. Approximately 787,000 employees work for six multibillion-dollar Catholic-affiliated health care systems, according to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which filed a brief supporting the state. The Service Employees International Union, which also backs the state, estimated that more than a million workers are employed by religiously affiliated organizations. The conservative justices on the Supreme Court have in recent years blurred the line that once clearly separated church from state in a series of rulings siding with religious entities. They have done so in part on the theory that some government efforts intended to comply with the First Amendment's establishment clause have been overbroad and discriminated against religion. The court has expanded the circumstances under which taxpayer money may fund religious schools, for instance, it allowed a public high school football coach to pray on the 50-yard line and ruled that Boston could not block a Christian group from raising a flag at City Hall. But in this case, liberal Justice Elena Kagan signaled during the argument that she, too, had concerns with the idea that courts might take it upon themselves to second guess what sorts of activities might count as religious. It was clear in March that a majority of the justices were alarmed by the decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which concluded that the work Catholic Charities performed was 'wholly' secular. 'Such services can be provided by organizations of either religious or secular motivations, and the services provided would not differ in any sense,' the majority wrote. In a dissent, two Wisconsin justices said that the court's decision 'looks through a seemingly Protestant lens to deem works of charity worthy of the exemption only if accompanied by proselytizing – a combination forbidden by Catholicism, Judaism, and many other religions.' By choosing which religions may benefit from the break, the dissent said, the state court's interpretation violated the First Amendment. Catholic Charities argued that its employees would continue to have unemployment coverage but that it would be provided by a church-affiliated entity rather than the state. The group's opponents say employees in other workplaces may not be so lucky and have noted that the state cannot guarantee that those plans will pay out when employees lose their jobs. This story has been updated with additional details.
