LEAD Public Schools granted temporary injunction following proposed zoning change
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — A Nashville-based charter school network has been granted a temporary injunction after filing a lawsuit against Metro Nashville Public Schools (MNPS), claiming the school board violated contracts.
The lawsuit stems from a vote made by MNPS to change LEAD Cameron Middle School from a 'Zoned' school for those in the Glencliff area to a 'Choice' school, meaning students would have been zoned to Margaret Allen School Middle School in the 2025-2026 school year.
DEC. 2024 | Charter schools file lawsuit against MNPS after zoning change
If the vote remained in place, parents would have had to apply if they wanted their child to remain in the charter school, according to a previous News 2 report.
Officials with LEAD Public Schools said the temporary injunction means LEAD Cameron will 'remain a zoned middle school for the 2025-26 school year.'
'The court's decision affirms LEAD's position that the rezoning plan was not only in breach of our charter agreement, but also not in the best interest of LEAD Cameron students and families,' wrote LEAD Public Schools in a statement.
| READ MORE |
The charter network added that they pursued legal action because they believed the proposed rezoning would have negatively impacted students.
According to LEAD Public Schools, the injunction is temporary and there will be a final decision made at a later date.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
30 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
As Trump Comes for Your Social Media, It's Time You Consider What's Worth Sharing
Agents of the Trump administration are increasingly using social media posts to crack down on immigrants, tourists, and even some U.S. citizens. Last month, a leaked document showed the State Department had crafted a new standard for reviewing the social media accounts of any foreign students planning to attend or even visit Harvard University. Legal immigrants may have benefits denied based on social media activity, and people expressing opinions or acting contrary to Trump are being detained at airports. Whether you're a U.S. citizen or not, it's time you reexamine how much of yourself you're willing to show publicly online. Amid the ongoing travel turmoil that's made several countries institute warnings to foreign citizens planning trips to the U.S., I was looking for ways to make it more difficult for governments to use my social posts against me. That's when I was invited to use Block Party. It's not, by its nature, a politically charged app. With a $25 annual subscription, Block Party uses a browser plugin to help rein in your privacy settings on your various social media accounts with a simple checklist and easy-to-follow, step-by-step guides. Privatizing your social media accounts helps keep big tech from building data profiles based on your activity, which it then uses for targeted advertising, but it may not be enough to completely deter a visit from Customs and Border Protection as you muscle through airport security after coming to the States. [Editor's note: Getting thrown into another bin for targeted advertising isn't great either, but it's better than getting thrown into Guantanamo.] At the very least, it may make the jobs of federal agencies—or anybody looking for dirt on you based on your online activity—a little harder. For the time being, that might be enough to help you avoid being held up by U.S. officials for hours in an airport. Trump Widens the Targets of Social Media Scrutiny You can simply delete your profiles, but as somebody who still needs to remain active on social media, Block Party is one of the better options I've personally used to get into the weeds of my accounts' esoteric privacy settings. It even helps you find settings in some apps to keep AI from scraping your posts. Still, changing all your settings may not be enough to avoid all scrutiny. According to a Politico report on the leaked State Department document, the U.S. government imagines foreign students' lack of a social presence or privatized social media 'may be reflective of evasiveness and call into question the applicant's credibility.' The Trump administration may ascribe this same standard to U.S. citizens. Already, there are concerning examples of agents targeting supposed Trump opponents. Left-wing influencer Hasan Piker said in May that he was detained and questioned for hours by Homeland Security after he came back to Chicago from France. In April, immigration agents detained Michigan-based attorney Amir Makled at an airport for more than an hour as he returned home from the Dominican Republic. The attorney was representing Columbia University students who had protested against the war in Palestine. Makled said feds requested he hand over his phone, and after 90 minutes of questioning, he eventually complied. The situation is growing more constrained for non-citizens traveling to the U.S. Every individual has to decide for themselves what precautions they need to take when traveling as a citizen or non-citizen alike. Sophia Cope, the senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Gizmodo it's not an easy decision, and some people planning to visit the U.S. may be better off choosing a different destination. However, despite U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's proclamation that privatizing social media was somehow an indication of 'evasiveness,' it's still a good idea to privatize your socials before crossing the border to the U.S. And it's not just protesters who need to think long and hard about what thoughts of theirs are shared online. Nonprofit and government staff now have to consider whether their public presence necessitates drastic culling of their online profiles. 'We've definitely been seeing an uptick in interest given the activities of the government recently,' Tracy Chou, the founder and CEO of Block Party, told Gizmodo in a video interview. After Trump's inauguration, she said she's received interest from both current and former government workers from multiple federal agencies, afraid their previously innocuous social media posts could be used as ammunition for right-wing groups. Government workers weren't just trying to avoid the eyes of Trump and DOGE. Chou gave an example of people who worked in the Department of Justice's civil rights division who were trying to avoid attacks from right-wing groups online. Some Apps Make It Easier to Avoid Social Media Scrutiny You can find a loose gaggle of tutorials online for turning on social media privacy settings, but even an experienced user will be surprised by just how many settings there are to limit. You may also want to look into subscriptions such as DeleteMe or Kanary, which work to eliminate information data brokers have on you and remove data from some websites. Block Party is more concerned with restricting the data big tech companies can garner from your social accounts. Privacy settings for most apps are arcane—often deliberately so—and even if you're trying to privatize an account, you can still miss something. Block Party currently works with X, LinkedIn, Facebook, Venmo, Instagram, Reddit, Strava, YouTube, Bluesky, and Google. Additionally, Block Party will only impact the mobile versions of TikTok and Snapchat. Chou said her team is planning to support more apps in the future. The app operates as a browser plugin that offers a checklist for your social accounts. Some settings can be done for you with the tap of a button, but various settings will take some attention on your part. On LinkedIn, Block Party can automatically turn off settings to 'represent company,' a sneaky setting used for sponsored ads about your employer. If I want to change the number of apps connected to my YouTube account, I have to click a link through the app and disable them manually, then mark the task as 'done.' Even using Block Party, the process of tuning all your socials is time-consuming. After you're done, you may realize how many features of these apps depend on your private data. Block Party recommends you change YouTube settings to limit viewing history. Suddenly, I can't see which videos I've watched, making it harder to return to a YouTube essay I paused before going to sleep. This is the trade-off for privacy. You simply won't be able to use your apps in the same ways you used to. There Is No Panacea for Privacy Nina Jankowicz, the cofounder of The American Sunlight Project, which advocates against online disinformation, said she has started to advise people to lock down their social media not just for the sake of avoiding targeted ads, but to keep from being targeted by the government. She said she offers Block Party free to staff, but even that may not be enough in this age, where her activities as an advocate are receiving more and more scrutiny. Jankowicz said she started bringing a burner cell phone when she travels through and to the U.S. Beyond massaging your social accounts, travelers need to start considering device security. Turning off biometric log-in when you travel is a good start, as experts say law enforcement has less legal liability to unlock your device if they flash your Face ID at your mug. You should avoid saving WhatsApp or Messenger chats to the cloud in case government agents manage to bypass phone security. VPNs, which help hide your IP address and keep you anonymous when online, are also good to have on hand. The fact of the matter is, U.S. officials have the legal ability to detain people at the airport, but as Cope stressed, the U.S. is not legally allowed to keep citizens from entering the U.S. without probable cause. Non-violent political opinions posted to social media still don't meet grounds for an arrest just because Trump is in office. At the same time, Trump's administration has continued to ignore court decrees, and his flaunting of the law may turn on American citizens as well. For now, it's best you know your rights. Refusing to hand over a phone to officers could delay you, but you're only legally required to establish your identity, not to share your phone with anybody. Again, knowing your rights can still lead to delays. 'If there's anything remotely controversial, I would delete that post, privatize the account, or even shut down the account,' Cope said. 'I want to emphasize again it's each individual person's choice, but I think for me, I'd rather not have the government have this particular data point or set of data points about me.' The U.S. already knows what kind of chilling effect this abuse of social media has had on protest efforts. When I asked Jankowicz whether privatizing your social media can make it harder to organize, she responded bluntly: 'Yes.' 'Researchers are a lot more reticent to be on things like Signal group chats or on email chains and message boards,' she said. 'The toll it takes on attempting to muster a collaborative response on anything that's happening to the community is really difficult.' Privatizing your social media can't be a panacea for your travel anxieties, especially if you still want to use these apps to communicate with friends or organize for causes you care about. The best it can do is make a government operator's job harder, and since there are so many accounts to monitor, you may slip through the dragnet. As time goes on, Trump will rely more on technology from firms like Palantir to compile a wider database on every citizen based on government data, according to a recent report from The New York Times. Whether you use apps like DeleteMe and Block Party in tandem or you go out and prune your posts and public persona, get ready for a far more constrained online existence.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Why are administrative judges trying to help China steal American technology?
A panel of judges is openly defying Trump administration policy — and effectively allowing a Chinese firm to keep stealing an American semiconductor technology used in everything from self-driving cars to satellites. These judges are not members of the judicial branch. They are executive branch employees, and the Trump administration has the authority to overrule their dangerous decision. It should do so immediately to protect American workers and uphold the rule of law. But the administration will also need to implement broader reforms — and work with Congress to codify them — to prevent rogue administrative judges from helping Chinese companies pilfer U.S. intellectual property in the future. The administrative patent judges in question work for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a powerful part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. They just sided with Innoscience, a Chinese firm locked in a years-long legal battle with Efficient Power Conversion, a California-based semiconductor innovator. Efficient Power Conversion accused the Chinese firm of stealing its patented technology and selling knockoff chips. It took its case to the U.S. International Trade Commission, which investigates trade violations and protects American industries from unfair competition. After a 16-month investigation — including a trial, depositions, and expert testimony — the commission found that Innoscience had indeed stolen the technology and that Efficient Power Conversion's patent was valid. As a result, the commission barred the Chinese firm from selling the infringing chips in the U.S. And after its mandatory review period, the White House allowed the ruling to stand. That should have settled the matter. But separately, Innoscience challenged Efficient Power Conversion's patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which ultimately invalidated key claims in the patent. This ruling handed Innoscience fresh ammunition to challenge the import ban and try to resume flooding the U.S. market with stolen technology. This is a direct assault on American innovation and the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on Chinese intellectual property theft. Worse still, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should never have taken the case. The first Trump administration issued guidance barring the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from reviewing patents already being litigated in parallel forums. This policy was designed to protect smaller American companies from being overwhelmed by duplicative litigation across multiple venues. Put simply, patent disputes should be handled in court, or at the International Trade Commission, or at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — but not all three. That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration reversed the policy. This gave Innoscience an opening to request a Patent Trial and Appeal Board review in 2023. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board accepted — and in 2024, proceeded with a review of Efficient Power Conversion's patent, even though the International Trade Commission had already completed its exhaustive trial and was days away from issuing its final decision. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, applying lower evidentiary standards than a court, invalidated the patent. It issued its ruling on March 18, 2025 — weeks after the second Trump administration had reversed Biden's policy and reinstated the original rules, which on its own should have blocked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from acting. The director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can reverse this decision. That should happen immediately. Overturning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 's ruling would align with the commission and block the theft of a vital American technology. But righting this one wrong isn't enough. The system that allowed this must be reformed to prevent future abuses. That means putting the new Patent Trial and Appeal Board guidance through the formal rulemaking process, thus making it harder for a future administration to reverse it arbitrarily. Even more important: Congress must act. Bipartisan legislation like the PREVAIL Act would bar duplicative Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenges and hold it to the same evidentiary standards as federal courts. As a member of the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, I know how important it is to protect our innovation from theft by our most determined adversary. Passing this law would reaffirm America's commitment to its inventors, send a clear message to China, and stop unelected bureaucrats from hijacking trade enforcement. America's economic security depends on innovation. We can't afford to let the Chinese Communist Party and other foreign adversaries sabotage our innovators. Nathaniel Moran represents the 1st District of Texas and is a member of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Michigan House backs off major cuts to university funding while passing education budget bills
The Michigan House of Representatives worked late into the evening to pass an overhauled university funding budget that reduced its massive cuts to operational funding but still penalized Michigan State University and the University of Michigan | Screenshot Michigan House Republicans passed their last few education budget bills late into the evening on Thursday, using an all-night session to make major changes to the university funding budget in order to garner support. The House had initially planned to slash operational funding for each institution across the board in House Bill 4580, sponsored by state Rep. Greg Markkanen (R-Hancock). That would have resulted in a $828.1 million decrease in overall operational funding. Meanwhile, the House also planned to cut state funding to Michigan State University and University of Michigan in Ann Arbor to penalize them for not producing enough Michigan-based graduates. The House noted that operational cuts to those universities were due in part to their large endowments, cutting 50% of funding from MSU and up to 75% of funding from U of M. Another big factor in the House Appropriations Committee-produced university budget bill, which was sent to the floor on Wednesday, was its boilerplate language indicating the different ways it would penalize universities for 'woke' policies. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The House planned to withhold funding if universities allowed transgender women to play women's sports, created common area spaces or held gatherings that separated people by sex or race, or continued to push diversity, equity and inclusion-based programming or initiatives. What passed the entire chamber – albeit along party lines – was a much different funding model. The $828.1 million operational funding cut was out and replaced with a $51.6 million decrease, meanwhile still cutting the same amount of general fund dollars from university operational funding at $1.2 billion. That softened the blow a bit for other universities but MSU and U of M still took a hit in the House-passed version. Instead of taking a percentage of state funding away from those flagship state universities, the House made a $291 million reduction in operational funding across the board just for those two universities. MSU's state funding was to be reduced by $56.6 million, or an 18% reduction, and U of M's state funding was to be reduced by $234.4 million, a 65% reduction. The House-passed plan redistributes that to the other 13 state universities, with $22 million of those general fund dollars going to the state's tuition grant program, $13.3 million for Native American tuition waiver payments and a $13 million payment to the seven universities that participate in the Michigan Public School Employee Retirement System. The DEI and women's sports boilerplate language remained, however, as did the House's plan to shift a significant portion of school aid fund dollars for public schools to higher education. Also passing late Thursday evening was the community college budget, House Bill 4579, which the chamber moved unchanged from its committee reported version. Community colleges in the House budget would receive $456.6 million with zero general fund dollars, resulting in a decrease of $5.56 million, or 1.2%. The House on Wednesday passed House Bill 4576, funding the Department of Education, public schools, and House Bill 4577, funding Michigan's K-12 public schools, and House Bill 4578, funding the Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement and Potential. The K-12 budget passed Wednesday was also rife with boilerplate language that would target DEI programs and initiatives and wrapped school meals and other vital student success programs into per-pupil funding. Democrats argue costs for those services – like funding for at-risk students – would come out of classroom dollars that students and teachers need. The road ahead at the bargaining table between the Democratic-controlled state Senate and Gov. Grecthen Whitmer could be difficult to predict, considering the dynamics in play with divided government and the fact that Whitmer and state House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) have been talking about budget items and road funding for the last several months, said Andrea Bitely, founder of Bitely Communications. Bitley in an interview with Michigan Advance said that both Hall and Whitmer hold each other's political fates in the palm of their hands. 'Hall holds Whitmer's fate when it comes to what her final success story is,' Bitley said. 'She started off with a really bumpy ride. Her numbers for the first few years were not great, and the pandemic shifted that. Now she's one of America's most well-known and popular governors. But she wants to end on a high note.' Whatever her next moves, Hall and House Appropriations Chair Rep. Ann Bollin (R-Brighton) are coming to the negotiating table this year with a wholly different way to fund public schools, a reduced university funding model and with several political pressure points in the culture war-tinted boilerplate language. 'He's coming to the table with something that's not ideal for her, or a lot of the interest groups that she works closely with that are her prime supporters,' Bitely said. 'There are a lot of stakeholders that are mad [about the House education budgets].' What the differing plans offer between the Senate, the House and the executive office recommendations is a chance to have a true negotiation, Bitely added. 'This is honestly giving everybody the opportunity to come to the negotiating table and work this out,' she said. 'There are going to be true negotiations because everyone wants something in this budget. Whitmer wants more roads money, she wants education money. Hall also wants roads money, but wants it in a different way than she does. But he also wants education money.' Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) was much harder to predict. 'She's been the outlier in everything over the past 100 days or so,' Bitley said. 'She's kind of the wild card because Whitmer and Hall have obviously been working together for a multitude of reasons. They are the ultimate frenemies. And we know that Matt Hall right now is working better with Whitmer and Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan than Winnie Brinks or [Democratic minority House leader and state Rep. Ranjeev Puri of Canton]. That's where we're at in Michigan's political world.'
