Settlement pending in Pride Center v. ISU lawsuit
A 'resolution in principle' has been reached in the Pride Center of Terre Haute's lawsuit against Indiana State University regarding Pride Fest.
The ACLU of Indiana filed the suit Feb. 11 in U.S. District Court on behalf of the Pride Center.
The lawsuit asserted that ISU was violating the First Amendment rights of the Pride Center, and it asked the court to order ISU to allow the Pride Center to hold Pride Fest 2025 on campus in August of this year, similar to past years.
The lawsuit alleges that ISU, without the The Pride Center's knowledge, secured an agreement from the city of Terre Haute to hold Pride Fest at Fairbanks Park, a city park off campus, in 2025.
The Pride Center, a nonprofit organization serving LGBTQ+ individuals in and around Vigo County, held Pride Fest on the ISU campus in both 2023 and 2024.
A March 24 court filing stated that 'a resolution in principle has been reached' between the parties. A telephone status conference is scheduled for Friday, but it will be vacated if the parties notify the court of a final resolution of the matter.
ACLU of Indiana had no additional comment Wednesday. The Tribune-Star has sought comment from the university.
The festival was sponsored each year by ISU, according to an ACLU news release earlier this year. It was staged in the Quad, an open area on the ISU campus designated for 'expressive activity' by both ISU policies and Indiana law.
The complaint alleges that ISU's refusing to allow Pride Fest 2025 to be held on ISU property again is a violation of the university's own policies and the Constitution.
In the suit, the Pride Center alleges that an on-campus site is essential to the purpose of the festival as a way to demonstrate to new students that ISU is a welcoming campus.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Misusing the National Guard — Trump's LA interference with local policing
Always looking to provoke a crisis, Donald Trump has federalized 2,000 soldiers of the California National Guard against the wishes of the state's governor to put down a rebellion in Los Angeles that doesn't exist. And Trump is acting counter to federal law in doing so, which is no surprise for him. After demonstrators gathered in L.A. to protest ICE raids, some idiots in the crowd threw rocks at the immigration law enforcement officers. That's a crime and is not free speech. But the president used the sporadic violence, which was quickly quelled, to overstep his legal authority. On Saturday, he issued a directive claiming: 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Then, latching on to his own word 'rebellion,' he invoked a federal statute, 10 U.S. Code § 12406, covering the National Guard. The law is brief. It says that 'Whenever 1) the United States is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; 2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or 3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' There's no invasion, there's no rebellion and ICE is able to carry out its functions. And there is no lawlessness in the streets of L.A. that can't be contained by the local L.A. County sheriff's department, which has almost 10,000 sworn and armed deputies and the LAPD, which has almost 9,000 sworn and armed cops. If those law enforcement professionals need help, California Gov. Gavin Newsom could activate the National Guard. But Newsom didn't call up the Guard for backup because the soldiers weren't needed. That Trump went around Newsom, who he 'cleverly' calls 'Newscum,' is something that hasn't been done in 60 years, when Lyndon Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard in 1965 because segregationist Gov. George Wallace wouldn't protect civil rights demonstrators. There, Wallace was trying to defy the federal courts and the federal government. This is nothing like that. Trump says 'It's about law and order,' but he's the one who is going against the law and against regular order. And he's also talking about bringing in active duty Marines from nearby Camp Pendleton. That is also against the law, 18 U.S. Code § 1385. This statue is just a single sentence: 'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' 'Posse comitatus,' or 'posse' for short, are non-law enforcement persons acting as such. The military cannot be so used on the word of even the president. Trump should relent and demobilize the Guardsmen he wrongly brought into L.A. and let local and state officials secure the streets. _____
USA Today
38 minutes ago
- USA Today
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest | Opinion Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest. Show Caption Hide Caption Australian journalist shot with a rubber bullet in Los Angeles Australian journalist from 9News, Lauren Tomasi, was shot with a rubber bullet while reporting from the protests in Los Angeles. President Donald Trump and his band of faux-macho nogoodniks keep poking the city of Los Angeles, hoping it will squeal and create the kind of violent theater that gives right-wing media its life force. First they sent in the National Guard to address predominantly peaceful anti-ICE protests, but the sprawling city failed to adequately burn. Now they're sending in U.S. Marines to get the job done. It's an intentional, dangerous and wholly unnecessary provocation. And based on how Trump and other Republicans have reacted to the ongoing protests, we should all be clear on the administration's new rules for protesting in America. Rule No. 1: No protesting unless it's something Trump wants you to protest For those who engage in liberal activities like reading and 'seeing things with your own eyes and believing they're real,' it might seem odd that the man who praised Jan. 6 insurrectionists as "great patriots" and then pardoned them all has the gall to call LA protesters 'insurrectionists.' Technically, there's nothing about the California protests that would make them an insurrection, while everything about the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, an effort to overturn a free-and-fair election, made it an actual insurrection. But that kind of fact-based thinking is now illegal, and protesters in Los Angeles and elsewhere need to understand that the First Amendment only applies to things Trump and Republicans want to hear. As border czar Tom Homan said on June 9 about the LA protesters: 'I said many times, you can protest. You get your First Amendment rights. But when you cross that line, you put hands on an ICE officer, or you destroy property or ICE says you impede law enforcement … that's a crime. And the Trump administration is not going to tolerate it.' Opinion: Trump lied about LA protests to deploy the National Guard. He wants violence. Correct. Unless you're a pro-Trump protester. In which case, breaking into a federal building, beating the snot out of police officers and destroying property is patriotic and easily pardonable. Rule No. 2: Protesters can only use American flags Video of California protesters waving flags from Mexico and other countries really upset a number of Republicans who have apparently never been in Boston on St. Patrick's Day. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said: 'This is an American city, and to be able to have an American city where we have people literally flying Mexican flags and saying 'you cannot arrest us' cannot be allowed.' If those protesters were waving a good old-fashioned American flag, it would be an entirely different story. But in Trump's America, flag choice matters. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called out 'left-wing radicals carrying foreign flags.' Vice President JD Vance declared on social media: 'Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers.' MIND THE FLAGS, PEOPLE! The rule seems pretty clear. Your First Amendment right only allows you to carry an American flag, unless you are a Trump supporter during an actual insurrection, in which case you can carry a Confederate flag, replace an American flag with a Trump flag or use an American flag on a pole to beat a police officer. Opinion: Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy Rule No. 3: No spitting on or disrespecting law enforcement officers In response to some LA protesters allegedly spitting on authorities, Trump declared on social media June 9: ' 'If they spit, we will hit.' This is a statement from the President of the United States concerning the catastrophic Gavin Newscum inspired Riots going on in Los Angeles. The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. These Patriots are told to accept this, it's just the way life runs. But not in the Trump Administration. IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' Some might respond to this by saying, 'But the Jan. 6 insurrectionists whom you pardoned en masse did a lot more than just spit. They brutally attacked police officers, physically injuring more than 140 of them.' To which Trump would probably say: 'Shut up. Your First Amendment rights are hereby revoked!' Or he might say what he actually said when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters after he was inaugurated Jan. 20: 'These are people who actually love our country, so we thought a pardon would be appropriate.' To clarify, the people who Trump thinks love this country, demonstrated by them loving him, are allowed to express that love by defacing a federal building they broke into and viciously assaulting police officers. People who Trump thinks don't love the country, demonstrated by them exercising their First Amendment right to protest things he doesn't want them to protest, will be beaten up for spitting. Follow Trump's protesting rules, or he'll call in the troops It's clear as mud, folks. Americans across the country should feel free to get out and protest, as long as it's for the right reasons and done in a way that aligns completely with the beliefs of Republicans and the Trump administration. Anything outside of that and they'll call in the National Guard. And the Marines. And, I guess, the flag police? Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
2 hours ago
The ACLU demands the US release and return a Dominican woman living legally in Puerto Rico
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- In late May, a 47-year-old woman from the Dominican Republic was detained by police in Puerto Rico after she entered a municipal building seeking a permit to sell ice cream on the beach to support herself. Upon being turned over to federal agents, the Dominican woman presented her passport, driver's license and work permits that proved she was living in the U.S. territory legally, her attorney Ángel Robles and the American Civil Liberties Union of Puerto Rico, said Monday. Despite the documents presented, authorities recently transferred her to Texas as part of a federal crackdown on migrants living illegally in U.S. jurisdictions. The woman, whose first name is Aracelis, has not been fully identified because she is a victim of domestic violence. Aracelis is among hundreds of people who have been detained in Puerto Rico since large-scale arrests began in late January, surprising many in the U.S. territory that has long welcomed migrants. Robles and the ACLU demanded Aracelis' release and return to Puerto Rico. 'It's outrageous,' Robles said in a phone interview. 'No charges have been filed against her, and she is not in the system.' Because her name does not appear in a federal database, Robles' request for a bond hearing was denied. 'This case is one of unspeakable abuse,' said Annette Martínez Orabona, the ACLU director in Puerto Rico. The case has fueled already simmering anger against the administration of Puerto Rico Gov. Jenniffer González Colón and local authorities who have been working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to arrest those believed to be living illegally in the U.S. territory. In a letter sent Monday to the governor and the island's justice secretary, the ACLU accused Puerto Rico's government of violating the Constitution and local laws by providing ICE and U.S. Homeland Security with confidential information on nearly 6,000 immigrants. It also accused ICE of using that data to go on a 'fishing expedition' that it called 'arbitrary and abusive.' A spokesman for Homeland Security Investigations did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In Puerto Rico, undocumented immigrants are allowed to open bank accounts and obtain a special driver's license. The ACLU in Puerto Rico also accused González Colón's administration of not providing protocols to local government agencies for how to deal with such requests from the federal government. The ACLU requested, among other things, that Puerto Rico's government issue an executive order barring public agencies from collaborating with ICE subpoenas not accompanied by a court order. A spokeswoman for the governor did not immediately return a message for comment.
