The First Amendment was upheld in 2025 session, but the debate continues
(Stock photo by)
Their intentions were good.
Shielding kids from so-called 'sexually explicit' materials. Ensuring our children's education is aligned with values that uphold morality. Permitting chaplains to fill the gaps for mental health support at our public schools.
Let's think about the children, they said. Let's protect the children!
But good intentions don't always equate to good legislation, as we saw during the 2025 legislative session with bill after bill that pushed ideological principles, imposed Christian doctrines and would have done little more than chip away at our First Amendment rights.
Since the First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, these 45 words have been integral to democracy. It protects our fundamental rights to free expression and speech, to practice religion or no religion at all, and to protest our government, among other rights.
Upholding these rights is the sworn responsibility of our elected leaders. But the culture warriors among our state legislative assembly seemed wholly unconcerned. And that's extremely alarming!
Take Senate Bill 2307, for example. Legislators narrowly passed this bill that sparked contentious debate in committee hearings and on the legislative floor, with much of the discussion focused on fears that children might discover library books featuring teenagers in same-sex relationships or depicting families with two dads or two moms.
If community members don't want to engage with certain ideas or topics – or let their kids engage with certain ideas or topics – they don't have to. Substituting state control for parental judgement is not the answer. In fact, that's censorship. And once you allow the government to censor someone else, you're also giving the government the power to censor you or something you like later.
Similarly, religious freedom was up for debate this year, too.
Not long ago, religious freedom was largely viewed across the ideological and political spectrum as a bedrock value of American democracy that transcended partisan agendas. Every individual and family — not politicians or the government — get to decide for themselves what religious beliefs, if any, they adopt and practice. But in statehouses across the county, religious freedom debates are now at the epicenter of the culture wars as some believe certain Christian ideals should be reflected in political decisions.
North Dakota lawmakers attempted to require public schools to post prescribed copies of the Ten Commandments in public school and university classrooms and other school spaces with House Bill 1145 and they wanted to encourage local school districts to allow taxpayer-funded chaplains in our public schools with House Bill 1456.
As enshrined in the First Amendment, however, religious freedom includes two complementary protections: the right to religious belief and expression and a guarantee that the government neither prefers religion over non-religion nor favors particular faiths over others. These dual protections are supposed to work hand in hand, allowing religious liberty to thrive and safeguarding both religion and government from the influences of the other.
The ACLU's opposition to these bills doesn't mean we don't believe protecting children or ensuring their education is guided by strong moral values isn't important. It's just that parents already have the right and ability to do so. And what's right for one family may not be right for another. That's not up for someone else to decide.
Fortunately, Gov. Kelly Armstrong vetoed Senate Bill 2307, and an attempt to override the veto failed. House Bills 1145 and 1456 failed, too. Protecting our First Amendment rights like this is essential for a vibrant and open society where individuals can express themselves freely, hold the government accountable and participate in the democratic process.
But just because the 2025 legislative session is over doesn't mean the fight for our First Amendment rights in North Dakota is over. Far from it. The state legislature isn't the only place these debates are happening. We're seeing similar efforts at local community library boards, school boards and city councils across the state, too. You can bet the culture warriors among our legislative body will try again during the 2027 session, too.
We know that attacks on our First Amendment rights won't stop – and the American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota is prepared to continue the fight.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Veterans, supporters hold D-Day demonstration in Longmont
A group of demonstrators gathered at Sixth Avenue and Main Street in Longmont on Friday, the anniversary of D-Day, to advocate for veterans' jobs, benefits and health care under the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs at a time when VA jobs have come under threat of significant cuts by the Trump administration. It's been 81 years since that fateful day when U.S. troops invaded Normandy in 1944, and some local protesters say they are still fighting for the same rights and protections that were promised to U.S. veterans back when the federal government first passed the GI Bill. Longmont Community Drummers members Mary Rose, right, and Ann Hartzler, not pictured, play as demonstrators wave and hold signs during a rally to recognize the 81st anniversary of D-Day and to support veterans at Sixth Avenue and Main Street in Longmont on Friday. (Matthew Jonas/Staff Photographer) Protesters huddled together on the sidewalk, holding American flags and signs that said 'Support Our Veterans' and 'Protect the VA.' Some of them played drums. Several cars driving past the busy intersection honked their horns or rolled down their windows to lend a whoop or cheer. Mary Kathleen Rose, a Longmont resident and local activist, brought her drum set and said she was out protesting to help drive change in the country. Richard Kellog, a veteran who served in the Air Force during the 'secret war' in southeast Asia, was among the demonstrators. Kellog benefits from VA medical care, a disability pension and the college education he received through the GI Bill. Kellog said he knows many veterans who are already being negatively affected by cuts to the VA, like the roughly 6,000 or more veterans whose firings have already reportedly hit. Due to labor cuts, the VA isn't as responsive as it needs to be, he argued. And he fears it will only get worse — he is particularly concerned about losing the pensions that he depends on. Lyn Lowry, a local organizer, said she came out to rally for all the veterans who are on the verge of losing the benefits they fought so hard to gain. Despite the VA already being short-staffed, they've cut people, she argued. One piece of collateral damage from VA staff cuts could include necessary medical research, according to Lowry, such as treatment for combat soldiers with severe wounds. 'These people fought for us. We've made a promise to them, and we need to keep that promise,' she said. But across the street, a smaller group of protesters felt differently. Jann Ertl, a Longmont resident since 1944 and counter-protester, sported a Vietnam Veteran baseball cap and a jumbo-sized Donald Trump sticker poking out of the front pocket of his button-up shirt. 'As you can see, I feel a little differently than these other people do,' he said with a grin, pointing to the protesters across the street and then back at the MAGA sticker in his shirt pocket. 'With all these anti-Trumpers out here, I thought I would kind of stand out here and talk to people about all of the good things that Trump is doing.' 'Well, the way I look at it, Trump has a beautiful wife. He has lots and lots of money. He has lots of real estate and golf courses and things that will help him in his future life. But what he doesn't have is notoriety. He doesn't care about fame,' Ertl said. He argued Trump will be the best president the United States has ever had because of his unique ability to get his agenda passed, referencing Trump's 1987 book, 'The Art of the Deal.' On a local level, Ertl said, he'd like to see a new governor come in and cut out wasteful state spending, too. 'When you drive around here in Longmont, you see all kinds of projects going on that the state should not be paying for,' he said, referencing the Colorado 119 Commuter Bikeway Project that's currently underway, with construction estimated to wrap up sometime in 2027, as an example. 'It's right down the middle of this very, very busy highway. People are going to get killed on that bicycle path,' he said. Ertl is a Vietnam veteran and has had partial vision loss. 'The VA takes very good care of me,' he said. But they are often wasteful, he said, adding a personal example of an eye doctor insisting he get new glasses because they are covered by the VA, when his current glasses are perfectly fine. 'That's true waste,' he said. 'I've lived in Colorado since 1944, so you can guess how old I am. I'm a world traveler, and I think Trump knows what he's doing, and it's going very well for us.' Across the street, friends Portia Buchanan and Ana Johnson came out to Friday's rally to fight against hate, they said. Johnson comes from a family of veterans, many of whom served in World War II. She brought with her a sign that had photos of all of the veterans in her family tree, pointing out faded photographs of her Aunt Opal, an Air Force nurse; her Uncle Bill, a paratrooper; her cousin Robert, who was killed in Vietnam. 'Veterans are a big deal in my family, and what the current government is doing is pretty terrible to our veterans,' she said, citing information on a flyer from that 1.2 million veterans live in SNAP-dependent households and that 80,000 VA jobs are potentially on the chopping block. An estimated 30% of federal employees are veterans, according to a report on 2023 data by the Partnership for Public Service, a significantly higher figure than the estimated 5% of veterans in the overall civilian labor force. 'I'm very concerned because all of these people served to defend our democracy. Now it's time for us to do everything we can to fight for our democracy,' Johnson said.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Reprises One of the Worst Things He Did in His First Term
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Donald Trump won the presidency in part on promises to deport undocumented immigrants with criminal records. But his earliest executive orders—trying to undo birthright citizenship, suspending critical refugee programs—made clear he wants to attack legal immigrants, too. In our new series, we'll track the Trump administration's attempts to exclude an ever-growing number of people from the American experiment. One of President Donald Trump's defining moments during his first term was a travel ban against Muslim-majority countries. Now in his second term he's reprised that policy, introducing a new travel ban on Wednesday night that bars nationals of 12 countries from entering the U.S. starting on Monday. That announcement came on the heels of the administration's assault on international students, banning them from enrolling at Harvard University. The State Department is also looking to revoke Chinese students' visas while also pausing all upcoming interviews for international students scheduled to study here in a few short months. Meanwhile, the government's legal defense has taken a beating in the case of the migrants unlawfully deported to El Salvador—and, separately, a Maryland man who was wrongfully sent there is now headed back to the U.S. Here's the immigration news we're keeping an eye on this week: After ordering the secretary of state to come up with a list of countries that pose national security threats to the U.S., Trump made it official: We have a new travel ban. Starting on Monday, people from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen will be restricted from entering the U.S. Nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela will also be partially restricted from entering the country. The order says that admitting people from these countries would be 'detrimental' to U.S. interests for varying reasons: It claims they have 'deficient' vetting and screening information of their citizens, 'significant' terrorist presence, and a high 'visa-overstay rate,' and they do not cooperate when the U.S. government deports their nationals. On Truth Social, the president shared a video explaining the new travel ban and cited the recent attack in Colorado, where an Egyptian man threw Molotov cocktails at people participating in a march for Israeli hostages. The suspect was an Egyptian national who had overstayed his visa but had applied for asylum. (Egypt is not on the travel ban list). Immigration authorities also arrested his wife and five children with the intention of deporting them—all of them are Egyptian nationals who were part of the same asylum application—but a federal judge has temporarily blocked that move. There are some exceptions, including green card holders, dual citizens, certain athletes traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup and Olympics, Afghans who worked for the U.S. government and are holders of a special immigrant visa, and close relatives of U.S. family members and diplomats. Taken all together, the American Immigration Council estimated the 19 countries listed in the travel ban have populations of over 475 million people. They are predominantly Muslim and African, reminiscent of Trump's 2017 travel ban, which was challenged in court before the Supreme Court ultimately let a revised version stand. 'The latest travel ban will have devastating consequences for tens of thousands of people,' said Elora Mukherjee, clinical law professor at Columbia University and director of the school's Immigrants' Rights Clinic. 'Resulting in family separations, harming refugees and asylum-seekers, and throwing the lives of prospective international students who intended to study in the U.S. into disarray.' It's been more than two months since over 260 immigrants were accused of being members of foreign gangs, forced onto planes and summarily deported to El Salvador, with no notice, evidence, or court hearing. The Trump administration has been defending their deportation in a messy legal battle that took a new turn this week: U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg ordered the federal government to offer each deportee a court hearing. The Trump administration deported these men within roughly 24 hours of the president signing an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Though these men are no longer on American soil, Boasberg's most recent order grants them class-action certification so they can still sue the Trump administration over violations of their due process rights. That's significant because throughout this legal battle, the Trump administration has argued the men are completely under the custody of El Salvador now and the U.S. government's hands are tied. Boasberg acknowledged that but affirmed that none of the plaintiffs were granted habeas corpus—a Constitutional right allowing anyone to contest the legality of their detention—before being shuttled on to a plane and deported to El Salvador, so the federal government must 'fix its legal wrongs.' Even the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration had violated their due process rights and declared that immigrants are entitled to them under the Fifth Amendment. Boasberg's order will force the Trump administration to come before a judge with any and all evidence they have indicating that each deportee is in fact a member of a foreign gang. (Court documents indicate the evidence is nothing short of thin.) Then on Friday, another big development dropped: ABC News reported that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man the Trump administration admitted was deported in error to El Salvador, was on his way back to the U.S. He's been at the heart of the Trump administration's legal battle over the Alien Enemies Act, with the Supreme Court ordering the federal government to 'facilitate' his release from El Salvador's custody. That hard-fought moment arrived Friday, but at the same time a two-count indictment was also revealed against Abrego Garcia. It alleges that he participated in a conspiracy to transport undocumented migrants through the U.S., though Abrego Garcia has not yet responded to the new charges. The Trump administration has been pulling all the levers it can find to limit entry of international students at college campuses around the country. Harvard has been in the president's crosshairs ever since it refused to accept a list of demands from the administration and sued the federal government. The Trump administration retaliated by announcing it was cutting off Harvard's ability to enroll international students. A federal judge blocked that order and it's currently being hashed out in court. Secretary of State Marco Rubio jumped in to announce he had instructed U.S. embassies and consulates around the world to stop processing any new student visa appointments. In an internal cable viewed by Politico, Rubio said the State Department is taking a closer look at the existing screening process of student visitors and would develop new guidance in the coming days—it's not clear if it's been issued yet or not. Rubio also announced he would be 'aggressively' revoking visas of Chinese students specifically who are currently studying in the U.S., targeting 'those with connections to the Chinese Community Party or studying in critical fields.' The new action prompted over 30 higher education groups to come together and send a letter to Rubio, noting that in the 2023–24 academic year there were over 1 million international students in the U.S., which resulted in $44 billion worth of nationwide economic impact. Over the last few weeks, the Trump administration has deployed a new strategy in pursuit of the president's mass deportation goals. Undocumented immigrants will show up to court hearings in an effort to follow the rules and find a way to remain in the U.S. legally. But as they stand before a judge, they learn that the government has dropped their immigration case. As they go home, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents ambush them and promptly arrest them. Historically, ICE has avoided immigration enforcement at and around courthouses, especially over noncriminal proceedings, because they want to encourage people to follow proper immigration procedure. However, under the law, they are technically allowed to make arrests in federal courthouses. And that's exactly what's been happening over and over again around the country, in Chicago, San Francisco, New York City and Phoenix. A similar situation happened to Carol Mayorga, an undocumented immigrant from Hong Kong whose legal name is Ming Li Hui. Mayorga came to the U.S. on a tourist visa 20 years ago, but she's remained here ever since. She became a mother of three children and is a waitress at a local diner in a rural Missouri farming town. During a routine appointment to renew her work authorization, Mayorga was detained for hours, then shackled and transported to a Missouri jail. She remained there for over a month, while her community rallied support to push for her release. The diner where she was employed raised over $20,000 for Mayorga and her children, garnering a story in the New York Times about how the largely Trump-supporting community was questioning his deportation policies in cases like Mayorga's. 'I voted for Donald Trump, and so did practically everyone here,' said a friend of Mayorga's. 'But no one voted to deport moms. We were all under the impression we were just getting rid of the gangs, the people who came here in droves.' This week, Mayorga was finally released from jail after ICE determined she was eligible for the Deferred Enforced Departure program, which applies to certain residents of Hong Kong. It's only valid until February 2027, and Mayorga still has a deportation order against her.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘We Are Taking Away Elon's Friends'
The MAGA right has responded to the explosive feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk largely with pleas for the American president and world's richest man to reconcile, if only for the greater good of Republican Party dominance. That doesn't seem like that's going to happen anytime soon considering the attacks Musk leveled against Trump on Thursday, Trump's media tour bashing Musk on Friday, and the fact that White House staff and the president's proxies are actively pressuring people who've been allies to both to pick a side in MAGAland's ongoing divorce proceedings. 'We are taking away Elon's friends,' a senior Trump administration official bluntly tells Rolling Stone. 'If he wants them back, he will need to kiss Donald Trump's ass harder than he's ever kissed anybody's ass before in his entire life.' This official adds: 'Even then, it's not a given he gets to come back from this.' On Thursday, another source with knowledge of the matter told this magazine that Trump White House staff had already started making phone calls and sending messages to certain high-profile allies (big donors in the party, conservative luminaries, and so forth) of both Trump and Musk, demanding they choose pick sides in this melodrama — adding that it would likely be the easiest choice they'd ever make. 'Nobody even has to ask me; it's no choice at all: I am Team Trump all the way. He is my friend and he's my president,' says Darrell Scott, a Cleveland, Ohio-area pastor who has advised Trump on different matters and initiatives ever since 2016. 'What some people don't understand about Trump is that he is a very gregarious person. But when he needs to be the boss, he can switch to that mode pretty quickly. And I don't think Elon was able to deal with that … Now, he's probably got a lot of people in his ear about this right now. All I've done since this all blew up on Thursday so far is send him a text, telling him: 'Be encouraged.'' It appears that the administration's high-school-cafeteria-style pressure campaign and popularity contest is — even at its very infancy — working out for them. Another Trump official notes that since this all exploded into full public display on Thursday, members of Trump's government and inner sanctum have been inundated with messages from outside allies and collaborators in the business, media, and political elite stressing their allegiance to the 45th and 47th U.S. president. The onrush of fealty is getting so intense that some of the messages, according to this administration official, include lines like: 'In case the president didn't see my text…' and 'Elon is dead to us.' But the Trump administration's response may ultimately involve more than just a pressure campaign for the duo's mutuals to choose a side. The president personally threatened on Thursday to cancel Musk's government contracts, and MAGA diehards like Trump's former top strategist Steve Bannon have called for Musk's immigration status to be investigated, and even for the government to seize control of Musk's company. The Trump team at least seems open to the idea of reopening federal probes into Musk's empire. 'THIS ADMINISTRATION COULD ALWAYS START THE INVESTIGATIONS AGAIN,' one senior Trump appointee messaged Rolling Stone after the Tesla and SpaceX billionaire, who ruffled (to say the least…) his share of feathers while serving as the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), turned on the president. It is unclear how many of these important 'friends' the world's richest person will be able to hold on to in the near and long term — but so far, it's not looking too great for him. (On Friday night, Musk started deleting his posts criticizing Trump.) Right-wing influencers, meanwhile, have been divided in their response to the breakup. Most of them have lamented that Trump and Musk are fighting while urging them to figure out a way to reconcile, while some have dug in on one side of the feud or the other. 'Broooos please noooooo. We love you both so much,' rapper, outspoken Hitler fan, and on-and-off Trump ally Kanye West posted to Musk's social media site X. Bannon, for his part, told Politico that he's 'going to fucking war' against Musk. The former Trump official is not showing Musk a hint of empathy, despite the fact that Bannon once went through his own (albeit temporary) excommunication from Trumpworld's upper crust. Furthermore, influential MAGA commentator @catturd2 has been lashing out at commentators sympathetic to Musk, as well as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who said Trump must respond to Musk's allegation that the president's name appears in the government's files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Pro-Musk X user Ian Miles Cheong, meanwhile, wrote in a post that Trump should be impeached and replaced with Vice President J.D. Vance, who has been sympathetic to tech industry figures like Musk. Musk replied, 'Yes,' to the post calling for Trump's removal. Vance and other top Trump administration figures are, of course, making clear where their allegiance lies. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads,' the vice president wrote. 'I'm proud to stand beside him.' More from Rolling Stone Trump Finally Brings Back Illegally Deported Man - to Indict Him Trump Says He's 'Totally' Focused on Policy ... While Calling Reporters to Bash Musk Right-Wingers Are Struggling to Cope With the Trump-Musk Feud Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
