NY mom files lawsuit against school after son allegedly punished for defending 'two genders'
The mother of a middle school student in New York is taking legal action after her son was allegedly disciplined for saying that there are two genders.
According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York on Thursday, "A.B.," a middle school student at East Aurora Middle School, was suspended by the school for five days in March and was told that part of the reason for the suspension was because he expressed his belief there were only two genders.
The court filing, which does not identify the mother or student, states that A.B. made this comment in November, but no disciplinary action was taken against him at the time. However, the complaint says A.B. was given a disciplinary notice in March that "vaguely" accused him of "violent conduct" and his prior statement about gender was cited as "part of the rationale for his punishment."
A.B. did not disrupt school activities or target any specific individual with his gender remark, the filing claims.
According to the complaint, A.B. was charged with violating the student code of conduct, which prohibits speech that "demeans" or "denigrates" others "if it presents a reasonable foreseeable risk of disruption."
"The Defendants' claim that A.B.'s words constituted 'violence' was a pretext to justify retaliation against him for expressing a viewpoint that school officials disfavored," the complaint states.
The school and district are accused in the lawsuit of retaliating against the student's First Amendment rights and violating his right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
The complaint claims that school officials were "motivated by a desire to retaliate" against the student's comment, months after he expressed his views, because President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January recognizing "two sexes, male and female."
"So here you've got an educational institution that still wants to charge a kid for saying what the President of the United States has now said is the official government policy of the United States," the mother's lawyer, R. Anthony Rupp III, told Buffalo News.
Rupp said in the same report that the district is seeking a longer suspension for the student's gender comment and two other comments the student made, which are not mentioned in the lawsuit.
The mother's legal team is seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and for the school officials to expunge any disciplinary record related to A.B.'s protected speech.
The complaint was filed by an unnamed East Aurora Middle School parent, "J.S." on behalf of her minor child, "A.B.," and lists East Aurora Middle School Principal Matthew Brown and East Aurora Union Free School District Superintendent Brian Russ as defendants.
Brown and Russ did not return requests for comment.
The plaintiff's attorney, R. Anthony Rupp III, did not return a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Shelburne man found guilty for threatening judge
A Coos County jury found a Shelburne man guilty of charges in connection to threatening to harm a judge as part of his ongoing divorce proceedings. Carlos Dorego, 57, was found guilty of two felony counts of improper influence following a one-day jury trial, according to a news release from the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office. Dorego had his bail revoked and is being held by the Coos County Sheriff's Department 'to await sentencing,' according to the release. Sentencing is set for 1:30 p.m. July 10. During the trial, prosecutor David Lovejoy presented evidence that Dorego on Feb. 14, 2024, sent unsolicited text messages to the personal cellphone of a New Hampshire Circuit Court judge. The messages both threatened harm to the judge and sought to improperly influence the judge in connection with his ongoing divorce proceedings in family court in Berlin. Improper influence is a class B felony, which is punishable by up to 7 years in the New Hampshire State Prison and a $4,000 fine. Dorego's lawyer, Leif Becker, said his client threatened both a professional complaint and civil suit against the judge, which he says is a constitutionally protected activity under the First Amendment. "It was undisputed that the texts made no explicit request of the judge to change any element of his underlying divorce matter," Becker said. Becker also argued against the two indictments that alleged the same conduct. Issues in the case are expected to be addressed in both trial court and on appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Abrego Garcia back in US to face federal charges
BALTIMORE — Kilmar Abrego Garcia is back in the U.S. to face a federal indictment in Tennessee accusing him of transporting across the country hundreds of people who had entered the U.S. illegally. The sprawling two-count indictment alleges the Beltsville resident conspired with others for nearly a decade to transport people, as well as narcotics and firearms 'on occasions,' in over 100 trips from Texas to Maryland and other states. It marks a surprising turnaround in the mistakenly deported Maryland man's legal saga after months of litigation seeking to bring him back. Since being deported to a Salvadoran mega-prison in March, the Trump administration has defied a judge's orders to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. or communicate their efforts to do so. Experts have warned of a ongoing constitutional crisis due to the Trump administration's failure to grant Abrego Garcia a hearing or abide by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis' rulings. Justice Department officials said at a Friday afternoon news conference that they believed Abrego Garcia's indictment and return made the matter moot. 'Abrego Garcia has landed in the U.S. to face justice,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said at a Friday afternoon news conference. She said that El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who has previously refused to release Abrego Garcia, had agreed to return the 29-year-old after being presented with an arrest warrant. Abrego Garcia is charged in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee with conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain and unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain.' In a filing to keep Abrego Garcia detained in the U.S., the Justice Department said that his potential sentence, if he is convicted, 'goes well beyond the remainder of [his] life.' Abrego Garcia was stopped by Tennessee's highway patrol in 2022, while transporting eight people. Officers suspected that the matter 'was a human trafficking incident,' according to a Department of Homeland Security document, though Abrego Garcia was not initially detained or charged. That traffic stop appears to be at least part of the basis for the indictment, which was filed under seal in late May and cites the encounter. The indictment also accuses Abrego Garcia of being a member of MS-13. Since his deportation in March, which Xinis ruled was illegal, Abrego Garcia has been held in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center as well as in a smaller prison in Santa Ana. Trump administration officials had said that he was 'never coming back' to the U.S., despite a Supreme Court ruling affirming Xinis' order to facilitate his return. For months, the Trump administration has tried to publicly justify Abrego Garcia's removal, repeatedly accusing him of presenting a public danger. In April, Bondi posted a series of documents on X, including a 2019 'gang field interview sheet' from Prince George's County Police that cited a Chicago Bulls hat and a shirt as being 'indicative of the Hispanic gang culture.' The only other piece of corroborating evidence was a confidential source, according to the document, and members of the public have called the integrity of the police officer who authored the report into question. The 2019 investigation led to an immigration hearing, in which a judge decided Abrego Garcia could remain in the U.S. because 'it was more likely than not' he would be subjected to gang violence if deported. On X, Congressman Andy Harris, a Trump ally and the lone Republican in the Maryland congressional delegation, said that returning Abrego Garcia, whom he called an 'already deported illegal alien criminal,' to the U.S. is 'a waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars,' implying that he will be deported again after he stands trial. Maryland Democrats said that Abrego Garcia's return, despite under criminal charges, was a victory. In a statement Friday afternoon, U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democrat who first traveled to El Salvador to visit Abrego Garcia, said that the Trump administration has 'finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights.' 'As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man, it's about his constitutional rights – and the rights of all,' Van Hollen said. 'The administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along.' 'Kilmar Abrego Garcia should not have been deported,' U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat, said. 'Even the Supreme Court demanded this President follow the law and return him to the U.S. It is right that due process will be afforded to him.' In an interview Friday on CNN, Maryland U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin said he did not know any Democrats who've defended Abrego Garcia's conduct because to this point, he has not been charged with a crime. However, Raskin said since his deportation, Abrego Garcia has been entitled to a proper court procedure. 'It's not a moral question, it's a legal question,' the Montgomery County Democrat said. To accentuate his point, Raskin compared Abrego Garcia's case to Trump's criminal prosecution last year in New York. 'He had every element of due process along the way,' Raskin said of the president. Democratic Rep. Glenn Ivey, who also traveled to El Salvador to see Abrego Garcia but was denied access, said in a CNN interview Friday that the Maryland father's return was likely due to the White House 'getting a lot of heat' about his case. 'It's good they could bring him back, and hopefully they'll bring back the other 250 plus Venezuelans and others who are in this odd status of deportation, even though they haven't done anything or been convicted of any criminal activity,' said Ivey, who represents the Maryland district where Abrego Garcia resides. Shortly after the indictment was unsealed, the Justice Department asked for Xinis to dissolve a preliminary injunction ordering Abrego Garcia's return, adding that the 'underlying case should be dismissed.' In that case, Xinis recently permitted the plaintiffs to seek sanctions against the U.S. government. She had not made any new rulings as of Friday afternoon. _____ (Baltimore Sun reporters Hannah Gaskill, Luke Parker and Ben Mause contributed to this story.) _____
Yahoo
2 hours 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'
