Federal judge extends block on Idaho gender-affirming care ban in prisons
Protestors on April 2, 2024, dropped 48,000 handmade hearts — meant to represent LGBTQ Idahoans, in protest of anti-LGBTQ legislation — down the rotunda of the Idaho State Capitol Building. (Kyle Pfannenstiel/Idaho Capital Sun)
A federal judge extended a temporary legal block, preventing Idaho from enforcing a new law that would block people in prisons from accessing state-funded gender-affirming health care.
Judge David Nye last week extended a preliminary injunction blocking Idaho from enforcing the 2024 state law for all people in Idaho prisons diagnosed with gender dysphoria and receiving hormone therapy.
The Idaho Legislature in 2024 passed the law through House Bill 668. Nye has blocked the law from being enforced against people in Idaho prisons in response to a lawsuit brought by ACLU of Idaho.
Around 60 to 70 patients in Idaho Department of Correction custody have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, according to documents released in the lawsuit last year.
Idaho's law 'clearly violates Idahoans' Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by denying access to standard, life-saving health care,' ACLU of Idaho Legal Director Paul Southwick told the Idaho Capital Sun in a statement. 'Everyone deserves bodily autonomy and access to necessary medical care, regardless of their gender or incarceration status.'
The judicial blocks only last 90 days under limits by federal law. Boise State Public Radio first reported on the extended legal block.
The Idaho Attorney General's Office could not be immediately reached for comment.
Separately, a federal judge recently blocked federal prisons from enforcing an executive order by President Donald Trump that would've blocked gender-affirming care for people incarcerated in federal prison who have gender dysphoria, Bloomberg Law reported.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Robison et al. v. Labrador prelminary injunction ruling 6-2-25
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with Smith & Wesson, blocks Mexico's $10B suit against gunmakers over cartel violence
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies' business practices have fueled tremendous cartel violence and bloodshed. The unanimous ruling tossed out the case under U.S. laws that largely shield gunmakers from liability when their firearms are used in crime. Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson — which still produces guns in Springfield, Massachusetts — had appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations in which the companies themselves are accused of violating the law. But the justices found that Mexico hadn't made a plausible argument that the companies had knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked into the country. 'It does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion. Mexico had asked the justices to let the case play out, saying it was still in its early stages. Asked about the case during her daily news briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pointed to another suit the country filed in 2022 against five gun shops and distributors in Arizona. 'There are two trials,' she said. 'We're going to see what the result is, and we'll let you know.' The case the Supreme Court tossed Thursday began in 2021, when the Mexican government filed a blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. Smith & Wesson moved its headquarters and much of its operations from Springfield to Tennessee, but the company retains about 1,000 employees at its plant in Western Massachusetts. Operations that remain in Springfield include its forge, metal working, machining, finishing the assembly of Colt 1911-style handguns and revolver assembly. On Thursday, Mark Smith, Smith & Wesson president and CEO, said in a statement that the court's unanimous decision 'shutting down this ridiculous lawsuit' represented 'a big win for Smith & Wesson, but our industry, American sovereignty and, most importantly, every American who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights.' 'This suit, brought by Mexico in collaboration with U.S.-based anti-Second Amendment activist groups, was an affront to our nation's sovereignty and a direct attack on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,' Smith said in the statement. He called it the latest attack on the firearms industry 'in a blatant abuse of our legal system to advance their anti-constitutional agenda. 'To all American patriots — you can rest assured that Smith & Wesson will always stand and fight for your constitutional rights at every turn,' Smith said. Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels every year. The Mexican government says at least 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. The companies reject Mexico's allegations, arguing the country's lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they're responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence. The trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation applauded the ruling, adding that gunmakers work with U.S. authorities to prevent gun trafficking. 'This is a tremendous victory for the firearm industry and the rule of law,' said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel. A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly breaking laws in their business practices. That exception has come up in other cases, including in lawsuits stemming from mass shootings. Families of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gunmaker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed. The families eventually secured a landmark $73 million settlement with Remington, the maker of the rifle. The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't appear to affect similar cases, said David Pucino, legal director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. 'All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice,' he said. Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
UMass Amherst designated ‘hostile campus' by Council on American Islamic Relations
AMHERST — The Council on American-Islamic Relations and its Massachusetts chapter has named the University of Massachusetts Amherst a 'hostile campus,' after its response to pro-Palestinian protests last spring and the year before. In a statement from the council on Tuesday, the group said UMass Amherst made discriminatory sanctions against students during their protests of the war in Gaza and demonstrated a 'pattern of neglect in addressing anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian harassment.' The council is the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization. In its response, the university said in an email on Thursday that the council's claims are 'riddled with significant inaccuracies.' A spokesperson for the Islamic council did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Twenty-two universities were deemed hostile if they created a 'dangerous environment for anti-genocide students,' the council said in its statement. Harvard University in Cambridge is the only other Massachusetts school to get the hostile designation this year. Students, faculty and staff were encouraged to file a 'Report a Hostile Campus' form if they wanted the council to look into complaints reported about a university. Some of the claims against the university stem from an October 2023 protest when 57 demonstrators were arrested for protesting the war in Gaza and the university's investments in Raytheon, a weapons manufacturer. Last April and early May, students continued to protest the war, one of a number of protests around the country. A May 7 protest at UMass Amherst led to the arrests of 130 students and faculty. Participants, including community members, shortly thereafter called for the resignation of Javier Reyes, the university's then-newly minted chancellor, after he invited police to dismantle and disperse the demonstrations. In February, it was revealed that Reyes was interviewing for work elsewhere, with less than two years on the job in Amherst. Throughout the summer and into the fall, students faced academic and legal repercussions for participating in the protests. At the end of the summer, Reyes' Campus Demonstration Policy Task Force released a report on the university's updated policies and practices around student protests. The task force was made up of students, faculty and university leadership. Then in January, an independent review of the university's response to the May 7 protest and arrests found that campus administration 'acted reasonably,' but could have done more to protect its relationship with students. The Islamic council recently said in a civil rights report on unconstitutional crackdowns that Islamophobia 'continues to be at an all-time high across the country,' and 'viewpoint discrimination against those speaking out against genocide and apartheid was a key factor in many cases.' Last April, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights also began investigating the university after a 49-page complaint filed by Palestine Legal, alleging that the university had not been responsive to student reports about anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab discrimination on campus. UMass said in its statement on Thursday that the federal Office of Civil Rights is still investigating the complaint. The Department of Education's press office has not yet responded to a query from The Republican on the state of the inquiry. In its emailed response to the 'Hostile Campus' designation, UMass said many of the Islamic council's claims are 'false,' according to Emily Gest, associate vice chancellor for news and media relations at the university. For example, she said the organization's claims that UMass Amherst created a ban on 'tents, face coverings and essential protest materials' improperly linked users to an article about UMass Boston, a sister school. 'UMass Amherst has no such policies and is an entirely separate campus,' the statement said. Gest clarified that, at UMass Amherst, there is a review process for erecting any structures, including tents. Another erroneous claim made by the organization was that police used Tasers and pepper spray on the protesters, Gest said. The university said, 'No Tasers, pepper spray or any other crowd-dispersal tools were used in any demonstration response." The university also said it did not 'criminalize peaceful demonstrations.' "As the university has stated on multiple occasions over the past year, 'Nobody's right to free speech or right to peacefully assemble was infringed upon. The university's decision to engage law enforcement was based entirely on safety.' The fortified encampments, constructed of 2,000 pounds of wood and fencing installed by demonstrators, were not protected speech," the statement said. A final claim by the Islamic organization said three students were 'banned from studying abroad, leaving them scrambling for housing and alternative academic options' also was partially informed. The International Programs Office revoked eligibility for some students to study abroad for the upcoming winter/spring terms because of the disciplinary actions against them, but those were all dealt with prior to the study abroad period. 'No student received a study abroad ban and (were) fully eligible to apply for study abroad once any disciplinary sanctions were resolved,' the university said. Lawmakers decry FirstLight dam's 300-gallon oil spill into Conn. River Island Spice food truck catches fire, rendered unusable, owner says Religion Notes: June 5, 2025 Springfield first in the state to propose regulations banning 'gas station weed' Read the original article on MassLive.
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Police consider whether 'King of the Hill' actor's sexual orientation played a role in his killing
HOUSTON (AP) — Investigators are looking into whether the sexual orientation of 'King of the Hill' voice actor Jonathan Joss played a role in his shooting death in Texas, authorities said Thursday, walking back a previous statement about the potential motive. Joss' husband has claimed the person who killed the actor yelled 'violent homophobic slurs' before opening fire outside his home in San Antonio on Sunday night. A day after the shooting, San Antonio police issued a statement saying they had found 'no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Mr. Joss' murder was related to his sexual orientation.' But during a news conference on Thursday, San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said the statement was 'premature' and that whether Joss' sexual orientation played a role in the shooting 'is part of the investigation.' 'I will own that and simply say again that we simply shouldn't have done that. It was way too early in the process for any statement of that nature to be issued,' McManus said. The police chief said many in the LGBTQ+ community 'are feeling anxious and concerned' after Joss' shooting and that 'a lot of it has to do with that premature statement.' 'The loss of Jonathan Joss was tragic, most heavily felt by the LGBTQ+ community,' McManus said. Texas does not have separate hate crimes charges. But if homophobia is found to have been a motive in the shooting, that could result in a harsher sentence at trial under the state's hate crimes law. 'We gather the facts, and we give those facts to the district attorney's office. And then that hate crime designation is determined at sentencing,' McManus said. The actor's home burned down in January. Joss' husband, Tristan Kern de Gonzales, has said that they were checking mail there Sunday when a man approached them, pulled out a gun and opened fire. In a statement, de Gonzales said he and Joss had previously faced harassment, much of it 'openly homophobic.' Sigfredo Ceja Alvarez, who is a neighbor of Joss, is charged with murder in the shooting. Ceja Alvarez has been released on a $200,000 bond. Ceja Alvarez's attorney, Alfonso Otero, did not immediately return an email seeking comment Thursday. McManus said police had been called to Joss' home and his neighborhood about 70 times over the past two years related to 'neighborhood type disturbances.' 'Sometimes (Joss) was the caller. Other times, the neighbors were calling on him,' McManus said. The San Antonio Police Department's mental health unit as well as a unit known as SAFFE that works with residents to help prevent crime 'had extensive engagements with Mr. Joss, making repeated efforts to mediate conflicts and connect him with services that he may have needed,' McManus said. The January fire at Joss' home is still being reviewed by arson investigators, McManus said. Joss lost all his belongings in the blaze and his three dogs were killed. Actors who worked with Joss, along with friends and fans have honored Joss' memory with tributes. 'His voice will be missed at King of the Hill, and we extend our deepest condolences to Jonathan's friends and family,' the show's creators and producers — Mike Judge, Greg Daniels and Saladin Patterson — said in a statement on the animated series' Instagram page. ___ Follow Juan A. Lozano:
