ISU sued for blocking pride festival
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (WTWO/WAWV) — Tuesday morning, the ACLU of Indiana filed a suit in the U.S. District Court against Indiana State University (ISU) on behalf of The Pride Center of Terre Haute (The Pride Center) after the university allegedly refused to allow the Pride Center's Pride Fest 2025 on ISU's campus.
The Pride Center is a non-profit organization that works to create a positive impact on the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals in and around Vigo County.
In 2023 and 2024, The Pride Center held its Pride Fest on ISU's campus, but in 2025 the ACLU of Indiana said 'without The Pride Center's knowledge, ISU secured an agreement from the city of Terre Haute to hold Pride Fest at a city park off-campus in 2025.'
ACLU says Loogootee Pride Fest is back on
In previous years, the festival was held in the 'Quad' on ISU's campus, and the ACLU of Indiana said this open area is designed for 'expressive activity' by both ISU and Indiana Law.
The ACLU of Indiana claims moving the festival off campus is in violation of both the university's own policies and the Constitution.
'ISU's failure to provide Pride Fest an on-campus location is directly related to the message of inclusivity, equality, and support conveyed by all Pride festivals. It is clear that the university is censoring Pride Fest because of its support of the LGBTQ+ community. The Pride Center has a First Amendment right to hold their festival in the Indiana State University Quad – a space explicitly designated as a place for free expression,' said the ACLU of Indiana Legal Director Ken Falk in a press release regarding the suit.
Rich Lowry speaks with WTWO after ISU cancels his Speaker Series event
The Pride Center also alleges that an on-campus site is essential to The Pride Festival as it is a way to show new students that ISU is a welcoming campus.
'The University's denial of a reservation for Pride Fest is part of a recent pattern of ISU preventing or discouraging actions and events that are intended to support the LGBTQ+ community,' said the ACLU of Indiana
WTWO/WAWV has reached out to ISU, the ACLU of Indiana and The Pride Center for comment.
A representative with Indiana State University has told WTWO/WAWV that the university is not able to comment on pending litigation.
We are still waiting for responses from the ALCU of Indiana and The Pride Center.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth Fumbles Basic Question on Trump Deploying Marines to L.A.
Donald Trump ordered 700 Marines to Los Angeles, and the defense secretary can't explain what authority enabled him to do so. In a terse exchange with Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin Wednesday, Pete Hegseth couldn't cite any portion of the Constitution that might allow the president to send troops to engage U.S. citizens. 'Just specifically, Mr. Secretary, what is the authority that the administration is using to deploy active-duty Marines to California neighborhoods? What authority?' Baldwin asked. 'Senator, the president has constitutional authority in order to support—' Hegseth began, before Baldwin interjected, asking for a specific 'provision of the Constitution' that gave Trump such power. But Hegseth wasn't able to, instead asking Congress to offer their blind faith that the administration had pre-verified the constitutionality of such an action. 'I'd have to pull up the specific provision, but our Office of General Counsel, alongside our leadership, has reviewed and ensured in the order that we set out that it's completely constitutional for the president to use federal troops to defend federal law enforcement,' Hegseth said. 'I'd like to know the specific constitutional statutory authority,' Baldwin pressed. 'The president made it clear that he relied on Section 12406 of Title 10 with regard to the National Guard troops. I need to know the authority that he is relying upon in terms of active-duty Marines being deployed to California neighborhoods.' Baldwin then asked Hegseth if he would follow up to provide the exact statute, to which he responded that there's 'plenty of precedent' in administering active duty troops to 'support law enforcement.' 'I'm not disputing that,' Baldwin said. 'I am just asking you to cite the authority under which the active duty Marines are being deployed to California.' Hegseth insisted that the appropriate statute was cited in the executive order, and then promised to follow up with Baldwin's office. Trump's decision to send hundreds of Marines to the City of Angels is expected to cost U.S. taxpayers $134 million, defense officials revealed Tuesday. Their presence—per the White House—is intended to support ICE agents as they conduct mass deportation raids of the city while thousands of locals protest the president's agenda. But the order itself appears to violate the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law dating back to 1878 that forbids the government from using the military for law enforcement purposes. The White House could have bypassed the military doctrine by invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to utilize the military during periods of rebellion or mass civil unrest, but had not done so by the time of the order. (Trump has openly discussed leveraging the nineteenth-century law to enact his agenda since his inauguration.)
Los Angeles Times
32 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump lawyers call California effort to block L.A. military deployment a dangerous ‘stunt'
The Trump administration argued in federal court Wednesday that any judicial intervention to curtail its deployment of military troops to Los Angeles would endanger federal immigration agents and undermine the president's authority to keep American cities safe. Attorneys for President Trump called California's request Tuesday for a temporary restraining order barring those deployments a 'crass political stunt endangering American lives' amid violent protests over immigration raids in the city. If granted, they wrote, a restraining order would prevent Trump 'from exercising his lawful statutory and constitutional power' as commander in chief to ensure federal facilities and personnel are protected and that the nation's immigration laws are adequately enforced. 'There is no rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law,' they wrote. 'And the President has every right under the Constitution and by statute to call forth the National Guard and Marines to quell lawless violence directed against enforcement of federal law.' Hindering the administration's deployment of troops, the attorneys argued, 'would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous.' The administration was responding to California's request Tuesday that U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer issue a restraining order blocking Trump's and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's deployments of thousands of state National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to L.A. The troops were deployed without the request or approval of Gov. Gavin Newsom or city leaders, who have called their presence unnecessary, politically motivated and a move to increase tensions on the streets, rather than reduce them. Trump and other administration officials have defended the deployments as necessary, and in their filing Wednesday, the president's attorneys argued that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents had been targeted in violent attacks and that federal facilities had been damaged and defaced. They also said that local police had acknowledged things had spun out of control and that their response had been inadequate to restore order. Trump's attorneys included with their opposition a written declaration from Ernesto Santacruz Jr., field office director for ICE's enforcement and removal operations unit in Los Angeles. He described how federal agents faced violence from protesters during a raid in the Garment District, near a Home Depot store in Paramount, and at a secure ICE processing facility downtown. Santacruz said federal immigration officials were also having their personal information spread by protesters online, and that efforts by the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the California Highway Patrol to restore order and address the threats on the street were inadequate. 'Even with the LAPD, LASD, and CHP all engaged in the ensuing law enforcement activities, I believe the safety of local federal facilities and safety of those conducting immigration enforcement operations in this area of responsibility requires additional manpower and resources,' Santacruz wrote. The administration's arguments, if adopted by the court, could have implications elsewhere. Similar demonstrations against immigration raids have erupted in San Francisco and Santa Ana and across the country, including in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, New York and Seattle. More protests were scheduled to coincide with a large military parade in Washington on Saturday. Newsom and California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta first filed a lawsuit over the L.A. deployments Monday, arguing they are unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment — violating state sovereignty and clear federal law limiting the use of military forces for domestic policing, including the Posse Comitatus Act. They said Tuesday that a restraining order was necessary on an emergency basis to prevent 'imminent, irreparable harm' to the state, arguing that the Trump administration intended for the military troops to 'accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles.' Bonta said Trump was using military personnel as 'a political pawn' to 'create a confrontational situation.' Newsom said the federal government was turning the military against American citizens in a way that 'threatens the very core of our democracy.' Trump, he said, was 'behaving like a tyrant, not a President.' Constitutional scholars and members of Congress also have raised concerns about the executive branch deploying military assets to quell street protests, suggesting such tactics are most commonly used by authoritarian strongmen and dictators. A coalition of 18 other state attorneys general issued a statement Wednesday backing Bonta and California's lawsuit, saying Trump's decision to deploy troops without the consent of California's leaders was 'unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic.' 'The federal administration should be working with local leaders to keep everyone safe, not mobilizing the military against the American people,' said the statement, which was joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Vermont. In their response to California's restraining order request Wednesday, the president's attorneys said the military forces in L.A. would not be directly engaged in policing, and that state officials had offered zero evidence to suggest otherwise. 'Neither the National Guard nor the Marines are engaged in law enforcement. Rather, they are protecting law enforcement, consistent with longstanding practice and the inherent protective power to provide for the safety of federal property and personnel,' Trump's attorneys wrote. A hearing on the state's request for a restraining order is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Thursday. The outcome could potentially affect how federal resources are deployed at future demonstrations in L.A. and beyond, including in coming days. The administration has said immigration raids will continue in L.A. and nationwide. Trump has warned that any protesters who show up at the military parade in Washington will be 'met with heavy force.' The parade is for the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, according to the administration, but critics have derided it as an authoritarian show of strongman power by Trump — whose birthday is also Saturday.
Vox
39 minutes ago
- Vox
The enormous stakes in a new Supreme Court case about Trump's mass firings
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Demonstrators protest against mass layoffs outside the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2025. Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg/Getty Images In late May, a federal court handed down an order pausing President Donald Trump's plans to fire a simply astonishing amount of federal workers. As Judge Susan Illston explains in her opinion, the proposed cuts are so sweeping that they would effectively shut down multiple federal programs. To give just a few examples, Santa Clara County, one of the plaintiffs in this suit, runs a preschool program for 1,200 children that is funded by a federal grant that expires at the end of June. But the county is unable to renew that grant because the federal employees who manage that grant 'have now all been laid off and their San Francisco office closed.' The county argues that without the grant, it may need to lay off 100 early learning employees. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has 222 workers that research health hazards facing mine workers, but the Trump administration plans to fire 221 of them. Retirees are unable to reach the Social Security Administration due to layoffs, potentially making benefits inaccessible to many. According to Illston, 'one individual got through to a representative only after eleven attempts to call, each involving hours on hold.' And things will likely get much worse if the Trump administration can fully move forward with their planned firings as outlined in the case. The plaintiffs in this case, now known as Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, claim that the Department of Energy 'proposed cuts of up to 50% of [the] agency's workforce.' The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they claim, plans to eliminate its entire office that 'monitors lead exposure in children.' The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the plaintiffs claim, plans to cut 93 percent of its staff. And this is just a small sampling of what is coming if Trump gets his way. The president's budget called for more than 100,000 cuts — and many agencies' plans for mass layoffs are not yet public. Related A major Trump power grab just reached the Supreme Court Judge Illston's order is now before the Supreme Court. Trump's lawyers asked the justices to block Illston's decision earlier this month. Because the case arises on the Court's 'shadow docket,' a mix of emergency motions and other matters that get decided on an expedited basis, the Court could rule on Trump's request at any time. Many of Trump's legal arguments will be familiar to anyone who has followed his second-term litigation strategy. When Trump loses a case in a lower federal court, his lawyers often argue that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear that case, and that the case must be shifted to a different forum — often a forum that cannot actually give the plaintiffs the relief that they seek. And so Trump's brief claims that many of the AFGE plaintiffs' challenges to the proposed mass firings must be heard by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an agency that is currently incapable of hearing these disputes because it lacks a quorum — two of the board's three seats are vacant. The Trump administration also points to a statute permitting the US Office of Personnel Management to 'prescribe regulations for the release of competing employees in a reduction in force,' claiming that this law authorizes the sweeping mass firings contemplated by Trump. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, primarily argue that Trump's proposed firings are so widespread that they would fundamentally transform the federal government in ways the president cannot do on his own. 'Whatever one's view on the proper size and scale of government,' their brief argues, 'that vision may not be imposed by unilateral executive order, without engaging in the dialogue and cooperation with Congress that the Constitution requires and that Presidents have historically pursued.' This argument will be familiar to anyone who followed the many fights over executive power during the Obama and Biden administrations. In those fights, the Republican justices frequently ruled that, when the executive branch attempts to do something that is too ambitious, the courts must block it — even in some cases where the executive's action was authorized by a broadly worded federal statute. The Republican justices even invented a brand new legal doctrine, known as 'major questions,' which provides that the executive may not make new policies of 'vast 'economic and political significance'' without an extraordinarily specific act of Congress authorizing that policy. The stakes in the AFGE case, in other words, are even broader than the immediate dispute over whether Trump can fire so many government workers that entire federal programs cease to function. The case also will reveal whether the rules that the GOP justices invented to constrain Democratic presidents like Obama and Biden also apply to Republican presidents like Trump. A brief history of the Republican justices' approach to separation of powers In 2014, President Barack Obama announced a bold new plan to allow as many as 4.3 million undocumented immigrants to live and work in the United States. The Obama administration justified this policy by stringing together a list of several different legal authorities. The executive, for example, has 'prosecutorial discretion' to decide which undocumented immigrants law enforcement should prioritize, and which immigrants it should leave alone — a principle that an 8-1 Supreme Court reaffirmed as recently as 2023. So the Obama administration argued it was merely instructing law enforcement not to prioritize the millions of immigrants that would benefit from its new program. Meanwhile, federal regulations dating back to the Reagan administration permitted immigrants who are deprioritized in the way contemplated by Obama's policy to seek authorization to work in the United States. A separate federal law permitted them to receive Social Security and Medicare benefits (assuming that they otherwise qualified for these programs). The law, in other words, was fairly clear that the Obama administration could offer any individual undocumented immigrant a temporary right to live in the United States, to work here, and to receive certain benefits. All that Obama's 2014 policy sought to do was make this same offer to millions of immigrants at a time. The Supreme Court never formally struck down this program — when it reached the justices in a case known as United States v. Texas (2016), Republican Justice Antonin Scalia had recently died and the Court was split 4-4 between Democrats and Republicans. So the justices split down the middle in the Texas case, leaving a lower court order that blocked the program in effect. But it was clear from the oral argument why the Republican justices found this program objectionable. Chief Justice John Roberts worried that, under the Obama administration's legal argument, the president could 'grant deferred removal to every…unlawfully present alien in the United States.' Justice Samuel Alito fretted that Obama could have simply announced that 'we're just not going to remove anybody.' Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that there must be 'limits' to the president's 'discretion,' and that when a program gets too big it becomes a 'legislative, not an executive act.' All of these concerns were rooted in a similar theory of the separation of powers. Even when federal law seemed to authorize the president to take a particular action, the Republican justices all seemed to believe that, at some point, that action becomes too ambitious for the president to do on his own. When this line is crossed, the president must persuade Congress to enact a new law which authorizes the president's proposed policy. The Court formalized this theory in its major questions doctrine cases, which established that the Court 'expect[s] Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast 'economic and political significance.'' Again, the idea was that, at some point, a policy proposed by the executive branch crosses a line where it becomes too ambitious for the president to implement on his own authority — and the president must seek Congress's permission before moving forward. Under President Joe Biden, the Republican justices applied this major questions doctrine quite rigidly. In Biden v. Nebraska (2023), for example, the Court struck down a Biden administration plan that would have forgiven hundreds of billions of dollars in federal loans. These justices did so, moreover, despite a federal law which gave the secretary of education sweeping authority to 'waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs…as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency' such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, even though Congress had broadly authorized the secretary to forgive federal loans, the Republican justices balked at the Biden administration's attempt to use this power on such a grand scale. Trump's mass firings should also fit within this framework. No one really questions that the federal government may fire some federal workers that it deems to be inefficient or unnecessary. But the sort of mass firings contemplated by Trump are at least as ambitious and transformative as the immigration program in Texas or the student loans program in Nebraska. And the firings would certainly have great political and economic significance. Related Your weather forecast is about to get a lot worse The Trump administration has already attempted to dismantle entire federal agencies, such as the US Agency for International Development. And Trump's executive order calling for mass firings explicitly contemplates eliminating entire agencies or their 'subcomponents.' The scope of many agencies' proposed layoffs are not yet public, but, as both Illston's opinion and the AFGE plaintiffs' brief lays out, the information that is public suggests many agencies will be gutted. It should go without saying that the Department of Energy, for example, would have to cease much of its existing work if it fired half of its workers.
