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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Los Angeles Times
35 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge blocks administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing anti-diversity and anti-transgender executive orders in grant funding requirements that LGBTQ+ organizations say are unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said Monday that the federal government cannot force recipients to halt programs that promote diversity, equity and inclusion or acknowledge the existence of transgender people in order to receive grant funding. The order will remain in effect while the legal case continues, although government lawyers will likely appeal. The funding provisions 'reflect an effort to censor constitutionally protected speech and services promoting DEI and recognizing the existence of transgender individuals,' Tigar wrote. He went on to say that the executive branch must still be bound by the Constitution in shaping its agenda and that even in the context of federal subsidies, 'it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous.' The plaintiffs include health centers, LGBTQ+ services groups and the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Historical Society. All receive federal funding and say they cannot complete their missions by following the president's executive orders. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, said in 2023 it received a five-year grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to expand and enhance sexual health services, including the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. The $1.3 million project specifically targets communities disproportionately affected by sexual health disparities. But in April, the CDC informed the nonprofit that it must 'immediately terminate all programs, personnel, activities, or contracts' that promote DEI or gender ideology. President Trump has signed a flurry of executive orders since taking office in January, including ones to roll back transgender protections and stop DEI programs. Lawyers for the government say that the president is permitted to 'align government funding and enforcement strategies' with his policies. Plaintiffs say that Congress — and not the president — has the power to condition how federal funds are used, and that the executive orders restrict free speech rights. Har writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California will sue Trump over 'unlawful, unprecedented' National Guard deployment
California officials on Monday said they would file a federal lawsuit over the mobilization of the state's National Guard during the weekend's immigration protests in Los Angeles, accusing President Trump of overstepping his federal authority and violating the U.S. Constitution. As thousands of people gathered in the streets to protest raids and arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Trump mobilized nearly 2,000 members of the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said Trump was sowing chaos in the streets for political purposes. Read more: The legal issues raised by Trump sending the National Guard to L.A. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the lawsuit will accuse Trump and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of violating the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power. Bonta and Newsom will ask a federal judge to set aside the "unlawful, unpredecented" deployment of the National Guard. "Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President's authority under the law, and not one we take lightly," Bonta said in a statement. The California lawsuit follows days of protests and some violent clashes between protesters, local police and federal officials following the ICE raids. Local officials have decried vandalism and burglaries during the protests, but have defended the right of Angelenos to peacefully demonstrate against the Trump administration's immigration enforcement. Trump officials said the military mobilization is legal under Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which gives the president the authority to call up the National Guard if there is "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." Such a move is exceedingly rare. The last time the White House sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators in 1965. Bonta's office said the last time that Title 10 was invoked was 1970, when President Nixon mobilized the National Guard to deliver the mail during a U.S. Postal Service strike. Trump has said that the mobilization was "a great decision" necessary to "deal with the violent, instigated riots in California," and that if he hadn't mobilized the forces, "Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated." Tom Homan, the Trump administration's "border czar," said the action was "about enforcing the law" amid assaults on federal authorities. "We're not going to apologize for doing it," Homan said. "We're stepping up." On Saturday, Newsom's office sent a formal letter to the Trump administration asking it to rescind its deployment of troops. The letter described the mobilization as "a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the state from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required." In interviews and social media posts, Newsom put a finer point on it, saying the escalating tensions that followed the National Guard mobilization was "exactly what Donald Trump wanted." Newsom has warned that the executive order that Trump signed applies to other states as well as to California, which will "allow him to go into any state and do the same thing." This is a breaking story and will be updated. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
First on CNN: More than 12,000 Harvard alumni unite to support university legal challenge
Thousands of Harvard University alumni have signed on to a legal message of support for their alma mater, CNN has learned, an unprecedented effort to back the school as it challenges the Trump administration's decision to halt more than $2.2 billion in federal funding. More than 12,000 Harvard alumni – from the class of 1950 to the just-graduated class of 2025 – added their signatures to an amicus brief, a legal document sent by a third party to a lawsuit offering the court additional information about the case. The brief, first reported by CNN, was submitted to the court on Monday. The signatories come from a range of backgrounds, united by a Harvard degree and concern for the future of their alma mater: a Wisconsin beer brewer, comedian Conan O'Brien, an Ohio fighter pilot, author Margaret Atwood, a South Dakota tribal leader and Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healy, among other prominent members of communities across the country and globe. The group claims it's the largest known alumni brief from a single school in history. And the alumni involved believe it's a historic moment as Harvard defends itself – and in turn, potentially sets a precedent for other colleges and universities amid a major clash over academic freedom, federal funding and campus oversight. Harvard sued the Trump administration in April over its decision to freeze federal funding and has asked for an expedited final decision in the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for July 21. 'As alumni, we are deeply alarmed by the Government's reckless and unlawful attempts to assert control over the core functions of Harvard and its fellow institutions of higher education. Without due process or any recognizable basis in law—and with complete disregard for the freedoms the Constitution secures and the constraints it imposes—the Government has embarked on a campaign to deploy every power at its disposal to damage Harvard,' the brief says. It continues, 'The Government's end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think, and act, and to claim for itself the right to dictate who may enjoy those freedoms. As alumni, we attest that Harvard's true greatness resides in the ways we share these values and exercise these freedoms.' The White House did not respond to CNN's request for comment on the brief. Anurima Bhargava, a documentary filmmaker, civil rights lawyer and Harvard alumna who has helped lead the effort, told CNN in an interview that it marks a moment of solidarity across traditional divides. 'We are educated in part so that we can be safeguarders of liberty and democracy. And that is certainly what we all feel like is an important stand to take in this time,' Bhargava said. She continued, 'It's about our education, not only at Harvard – it goes so far beyond Harvard to 'what are our abilities in every kind of school and college and university to be able to voice and to think and to learn freely without the kind of interference that we're seeing from the government.'' Bhargava said there were 'many' alumni who wanted to sign the brief but did not, for fear of retaliation from the administration. Efforts to target Harvard began even before President Donald Trump returned to office, with his allies arguing they're cracking down on antisemitism on campus amid the Israel-Hamas war. But the administration's actions extend to a broader agenda – and a belief inside the White House that it's a winning political issue for the president. 'We unequivocally condemn antisemitism and every other form of discrimination and hate, which have no place at Harvard or anywhere else in our society. Yet charges of antisemitism—particularly without due process and proper bases and findings by the Government—should not be used as a pretext for the illegal and unconstitutional punishment and takeover of an academic institution by the Government. Indeed, most of the Government's demands on Harvard have little or nothing to do with combating antisemitism, or any other kind of bias and discrimination, on campus,' the brief states. The university is now engaged in multiple legal battles with the Trump administration, which has launched several investigations into the school. White House officials and Education Secretary Linda McMahon have kept the door open to negotiating with the school, but the administration is not currently in talks.
