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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
The legal issues surrounding Trump's use of troops to suppress protests
Here is a closer look. Advertisement What did Trump's order do? Trump called up National Guard troops to be put under federal control, issuing an order late Saturday that authorized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to use them to protect immigration enforcement agents, buildings and functions from interference by protesters. As justification, the White House cited recent protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The order called for at least 2,000 National Guard troops to be deployed for at least 60 days. Trump also authorized Hegseth to use regular federal troops 'as necessary' to augment the work of the federalized National Guard units. The National Guard consists of military forces in the state, largely part-time troops who have separate, full-time civilian jobs. Normally, each state's governor controls its National Guard, directing it to deal with a disaster or civil disorder. But under certain circumstances, federal law allows the president to take control. Advertisement On its face, deploying active-duty troops into an American city is an escalation because they fight war full time and, unlike a National Guard, may come from anywhere around the country. Legally, both federalized National Guard forces and active-duty troops are federal troops, under the control of the defense secretary and the president. What are the rules of engagement? This is unclear. For now, the federalized troops appear to have limited authority, Stephen I. Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor, wrote in analyzing the order over the weekend. It says the troops can protect ICE agents and federal buildings against attacks by protesters, but it does not authorize them to carry out immigration raids or police the city's streets in general. But Trump's order did not specify any standards for when troops would be able to use force -- such as arresting people or shooting them -- if his administration deemed a protest to threaten federal personnel, property or functions. Notably, Hegseth has railed against military lawyers who promoted what he saw as unduly restrictive rules of engagement aimed at protecting civilians in war zones. He has fired the top judge advocate general lawyers who give advice on legal constraints. And his remarks since Saturday have not signaled restraint. On social media, Hegseth called protests against ICE in Los Angeles 'violent mob assaults' intended to prevent the removal of migrants living in the country illegally who he said were engaged in an 'invasion.' Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project, said Sunday that 'no matter who carries the gun or what uniform they wear, it's important to remember that the Constitution -- and in particular the First Amendment -- applies and troops' conduct is governed by strict constitutional limits.' Advertisement Is it legal to use federal troops on U.S. soil? Usually it is not, but sometimes it can be. Under an 1878 law called the Posse Comitatus Act, it is normally illegal to use federal troops on domestic soil for policing purposes. But an 1807 law, the Insurrection Act, creates an exception to that ban for situations in which the president decides that 'unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States' make it 'impracticable' to enforce federal law. Trump's order criticized the protests as violent and said they threatened to damage federal immigration detention facilities. 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws,' it added, 'they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.' But he did not invoke the Insurrection Act. What legal authority did Trump cite? Trump invoked a statute, Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, that allows him to call National Guard members and units into federal service under certain circumstances, including during a rebellion against the authority of the federal government. The call-up statute does not, on its face, appear to confer any authority to use any kind of federal troops -- whether they be federalized National Guard members or active-duty Marines -- in the ways Trump has authorized. But Trump also referred to 'the authority vested in me as president by the Constitution,' which may suggest his administration believes he can claim inherent constitutional power as the commander in chief to use troops on U.S. soil in those ways. During the Vietnam War, William Rehnquist, then a lawyer for the Justice Department before being confirmed to the Supreme Court, wrote memos for its Office of Legal Counsel saying that presidents had inherent power to use troops to prevent anti-war protesters from obstructing federal functions or damaging federal property in the District of Columbia and at the Pentagon. Advertisement Using troops in such a protective capacity would not violate the Posse Comitatus Act, Rehnquist argued at the time. But there was no definitive court test of that idea. Moreover, the nation's capital and the campus of the Pentagon are both federal enclaves, unlike the businesses in Los Angeles where ICE agents are carrying out raids. Must a state's governor consent to federal troops? Not always. But Section 12406 says that orders for National Guard call-ups 'shall be issued through the governors of the states.' One of the state's complaints is that Hegseth ignored that provision, notifying the general in charge of California's National Guard without going through Newsom. The Insurrection Act would provide a separate basis for federalizing California's National Guard or for using active-duty troops without going through a governor. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday that his office had been studying that law should Trump try to invoke it, but he insisted that local authorities were 'completely prepared' to address any developments. Using federal troops on domestic soil outside military bases for policing purposes has happened only in rare and extraordinary circumstances, and doing so over the objection of a state's governor is even more unusual. The last time a president used federal troops for domestic policing purposes was in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to suppress widespread riots in Los Angeles after a jury acquitted police officers who had been videotaped beating a Black motorist, Rodney King. But in that instance, California's governor, Pete Wilson, and Los Angeles' mayor, Tom Bradley, asked for federal assistance. Advertisement Presidents have not used federal troops without the permission of state governors since the Civil Rights Movement, when Southern governors defied court orders to desegregate public schools. Which troops is Trump using? For now, the National Guard troops have come from the California National Guard, while about 700 Marines joining them are normally based at Twentynine Palms in California, according to U.S. Northern Command. But Trump directed Hegseth to 'coordinate with the governors of the states' -- plural -- in identifying which units to call into federal service. That raises the possibility that Hegseth could send troops from a Republican-controlled state, further heightening the political tensions. Another possibility is that the administration envisions expanding the use of troops to other parts of the country. Trump's order is not limited to Los Angeles, stating instead that troops must protect immigration enforcement operations at any 'locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.' What is the status of the court challenge? The state filed a lawsuit Monday evening. It argued that the Trump administration had violated the procedure required by the National Guard call-up statute in bypassing Newsom. It also argued that local law enforcement could handle policing the protests, and by sending federal troops into the fray, Trump was trammeling states' rights protected by the 10th Amendment. It reserves to the states those governing powers that the Constitution does not bestow on the federal government. The Justice Department has not yet responded to the lawsuit and declined to comment. As events unfold, there could also be lawsuits on behalf of protesters, invoking individual rights such as First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and assembly. Advertisement This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
California files lawsuit over Trump's ‘unlawful' deployment of national guard
California on Monday filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing the US president of 'unlawfully' federalizing the state's national guard to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. Donald Trump's extraordinary deployment of troops to Los Angeles exceeds federal authority and violates the 10th amendment in an 'unprecedented usurpation' of state powers, according to the court filing. 'The Governor of the State of California and the State of California bring this action to protect the State against the illegal actions of the President, Secretary of Defense, and Department of Defense to deploy members of the California National Guard, without lawful authority, and in violation of the Constitution,' the complaint states. Previewing the suitearlier on Monday, the attorney general, Rob Bonta, said the move 'trampled' the state's sovereignty, overriding objections by the governor, Gavin Newsom, and going 'against the wishes of law enforcement on the ground'. Bonta said the legal action will ask the court to declare Trump's deployment of the guard unlawful and will seek a restraining order to halt the use of its troops to manage the protests. 'We don't take lightly to the president abusing his authority and unlawfully mobilizing California national guard troops,' the attorney general said during a virtual news conference on Monday. The announcement came hours before the US military said it was activating a battalion of 700 marines to Los Angeles to protect federal property and personnel. On Monday evening, Newsom said he had been informed that Trump was deploying an additional 2,000 national guard troops to the city. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly did not address specifics of the lawsuit, saying in a statement that California should 'prosecute the anti-Ice rioters' and accusing the governor of being 'more focused on saving face than protecting law enforcement and holding criminals accountable'. 'As the president said, Newsom should thank him for restoring law and order,' Kelly said. Democratic officials have argued that local law enforcement agencies had been adequately managing the protests, which began on Friday in response to a series of immigration enforcement operations across the LA area. 'This was not inevitable,' Bonta said, arguing that the demonstrations had largely dissipated by the time Trump, on Saturday, announced his plans to assert federal control over at least 2,000 national guard troops for at least 60 days, which Bonta said inflamed the situation. On Sunday, roughly 300 California national guard troops arrived in Los Angeles, prompting an outpouring of anger and fear among residents. Trump's call-up order 'skipped over multiple rational, common sense, strategic steps that should have been deployed to quell unrest and prevent escalation', he said. Newsom has accused Trump of intentionally sowing chaos, claiming Trump 'wants a civil war on the streets' and appealing for protesters not to give the administration the spectacle of violence it is hoping to stoke. 'This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,' Newsom said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. 'Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach. This is beyond incompetence – this is him intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities, and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' On Sunday, Newsom formally requested that Trump rescind his order and return command of the guard to his office. In a letter to the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, the governor's legal affairs secretary, David Sapp, argued there was 'currently no need' for such intervention by the federal government and that local law enforcement was capable of 'safeguarding public safety'. In the court filing, California alleges that Hegseth acted 'unlawfully' by circumventing the governor when he ordered the national guard into federal service. 'Trump and Hegseth jumped from zero to 60,' Bonta said. 'Bypassing law enforcement expertise and evaluation, they threw caution to the wind and sidelined strategy in an unnecessary and inflammatory escalation that only further spurred unrest.' In a rhetorical back and forth between Newsom and Trump, longtime political foes who clashed repeatedly during Trump's first administration, Trump said he endorsed a threat by his 'border czar' Tom Homan to arrest Democratic leaders in California if they impeded law enforcement, including Newsom. 'Gavin likes the publicity but I think it would be a great thing,' Trump told reporters on Monday. Related: Los Angeles faces fourth day of protests as Trump deploys 2,000 national guard Newsom responded to the taunt on X, formerly Twitter, calling Trump's support for the arrest of a sitting governor 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'. The Trump administration has said that the immigration protests in Los Angeles amount to a 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the United States government. The order does not invoke the Insurrection Act, the 1807 law that allows the president to deploy US soldiers to police streets during times of rebellion or unrest. Instead, it cites a rarely used section of federal law, known as Title 10, that allows the president to federalize national guard units in circumstances where there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. 'There was no risk of rebellion, no threat of foreign invasion, no inability for the federal government to enforce federal laws,' Bonta said. He told reporters his office had studied the Insurrection Act and was prepared to respond should Trump later invoke it as a legal authority to deploy the US military. 'We're prepared for all of it,' he said. The statute has been invoked only once in modern history, Bonta noted, in 1970, when president Richard Nixon mobilized the nationalguard to deliver the mail during a strike by the postal service. The last time a president activated the national guard without a request from the state's governor was in 1965, when president Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. In 1992, George HW Bush sent troops to LA to calm widespread civil unrest following the acquittal of four white police officers for brutally beating Black motorist Rodney King. But in that case both the California governor and the mayor of Los Angeles requested the federal intervention.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
DOGE's Supreme Court victory is a huge loss for Americans' privacy
The six justices comprising the far-right majority on the Supreme Court just radically endorsed a sweeping intrusion into the privacy of hundreds of millions of Americans by the Department of Government Efficiency or 'DOGE,' without so much as the pretense of a justification. One must seriously wonder what their endgame really is, because it's not about upholding the law. With the exception of a reference to the Treasury Department, the Constitution says nothing about federal agencies. Congress creates them pursuant to its Article I powers to legislate. But Congress did not pass any legislation creating the Department of Government Efficiency. It was declared into existence by President Trump via executive order when he took office in January. What's more, for the real federal agencies that Congress actually creates, Article II of the Constitution mandates that their officers — the agency heads or 'secretaries' — must be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. The outgoing 'head' of DOGE, Elon Musk, was neither. Congressionally created agency heads are also confined to the job descriptions established under a governing statute for each particular agency. For DOGE, Trump directed the actual federal agencies to create 'DOGE Teams' to 'coordinate their work' with Musk and to 'advise their respective Agency Heads on implementing the President's DOGE Agenda.' This kind of uber-power over agencies is constitutionally unprecedented. The point of mandating Senate confirmation of agency heads is of course to enable elected representatives of the people to gather information about a candidate's qualifications and possible disqualifying characteristics, such as conflicts of interest that would make it difficult or impossible for an officer to neutrally exercise the duties of their office. According to an April report from Senate Democrats, Musk and his companies faced upwards of $2.37 billion in legal liability stemming from 65 pending or potential federal investigations, regulations and litigation across 11 agencies relating to his companies — including Tesla, SpaceX and Neuralink. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reported in February that Musk would simply 'excuse himself' if a conflict of interest arose. That cynical strategy failed. In firing tens of thousands of federal employees, including over a dozen inspectors general, Musk managed to muck around with numerous agencies that regulate him — such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is now nearly defunct, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This is grossly inappropriate self-dealing. A lawsuit filed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees complained that Musk's DOGE team members were violating a slew of federal laws, including the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Social Security Act, the Tax Revenue Act of 1976 and the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014. The Privacy Act protects citizens' sensitive data unless government access is 'for a necessary and proper purpose' and mandates that 'adequate safeguards' be in place 'to prevent misuses of this information.' Information cannot even be shared between agencies without the consent of the people whose personal data is implicated. In April, a federal judge in Maryland agreed that Trump's unfettered data-collection effort was legally dubious, finding that the pretense that it was necessary to detect 'fraud, waste and abuse' was not enough to overcome the myriad statutory protections for individual Americans' private data. The judge issued an order temporarily enjoining DOGE from harvesting unlimited amounts of information from the Social Security Administration — which may include birth dates, addresses, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers, tax return information, bank account information, credit card numbers, employment and wage histories, citizenship and immigration records, and detailed medical records. Trump's executive order requires agencies to give the DOGE teams 'full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems.' The lawsuit is thus a standoff between Trump's roving DOGE snoops and the rule of law itself. In a terse order issued without full briefing or oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts — on behalf of the six conservative justices in the majority — sided with DOGE, reversing the district court's temporary injunction and allowing Musk's minions to access a treasure trove of personal data while the district court's decision is on appeal. Normally, when a district court issues an order, that order holds while it is appealed (absent some finding of exceptional circumstances). In this case, DOGE was positioned to possibly get what it wants down the line, either from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit or from the Supreme Court in due course, while the case makes its way through the system. In the meantime, the status quo of keeping statutory protections in place for regular Americans would stand — just like it has under every president before Trump. Instead, Roberts found that it is DOGE — not the American people — that would irreparably suffer if the legal questions are given time to percolate on appeal. DOGE gets the goods immediately. If the plaintiffs manage to secure a ruling affirming the district court on appeal many months from now, thus undoing the Supreme Court's stay, the damage will already have been done. The data is already breached. There is no longer a remedy. To justify his decision, Roberts properly cited the four-part test for granting a temporary stay of an injunction: Trump must show that he will likely win under the various federal laws that otherwise protect the data, that he'd be irreparably damaged without a stay, that the stay will not 'substantially injure' other parties (like Americans who want their personal data to remain secure) and that a stay is in the broader public interest. The wrinkle is that Roberts didn't bother to actually analyze any of these factors. He just summarily concluded they were satisfied. Too bad for the plaintiffs — and too bad for the American people, whose personal data is now in the hands of DOGE and anyone else it cares to share it with. Roberts simply reasoned that the DOGE team must get access to the records 'for those members to do their work.' In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that 'the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The majority nonetheless is 'jettisoning careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.' Since the landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court's job has included holding the other branches of government accountable to federal statutes. By baldly eschewing its constitutional role while hiding behind a veneer of legitimacy, today's conservative majority is much like DOGE, the entity it put above the law: a fake. Kimberly Wehle is author of the book 'Pardon Power: How the Pardon System Works — and Why.'
