Latest news with #9thCircuitCourt
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court denies student's right to wear 'only two genders' T-shirt at school
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a middle-school student's claim he had a free-speech right to wear a T-shirt stating there are "only two genders." Over two dissents, the justices let stand a ruling that said a school may enforce a dress code to protect students from "hate speech" or bullying. After three months of internal debate, the justices decided they would not take up another conservative, culture war challenge to progressive policies that protect LGBTQ+ youth. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a 14-page dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas. He said the case "presented an issue of great importance for our nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech because it expresses a viewpoint the schools disfavor." Liam Morrison, a 7th grader from Massachusetts, said he was responding to his school's promotion of Pride Month when students were encouraged to wear rainbow colors and posters urged them to "rise up to protect trans and gender non-confirming students." Two years ago, he went to school wearing a black T-shirt that said "There are only two genders." Read more: Supreme Court splits 4-4, blocking first religious charter school in Oklahoma A teacher reported him to the principal who sent him home to change his shirt. A few weeks later, he returned with the word "censored" taped over the words "two genders" but was sent home again. The T-shirt dispute asked the Supreme Court to decide whether school officials may limit the free expression of some students to protect others from messages they may see as offensive or hurtful. In March, the court voted to hear a free-speech challenge to laws in California and 21 other states that forbid licensed counselors from using "conversion therapy" with minors. That case, like the one on school T-shirts, arose from appeals by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group. It has already won free-speech rulings that allowed a cake maker and a website designer to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings despite state laws that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation. On April 22, the court sounded ready to rule for religious parents in Montgomery County, Md., who seek the right to have their young elementary children "opt out" of the classroom use of a new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks. The T-shirt case came before the court shortly after President Trump's executive order declaring the U.S. government will "recognize two sexes, male and female," not "an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity." While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on T-shirts and the 1st Amendment, lower courts have upheld limits imposed by schools. In 2006, the 9th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision upheld school officials at Poway High School in San Diego who barred a student from wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality is shameful." The appeals court said students are free to speak on controversial matters, but they are not free to make "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation.' Other courts have ruled schools may prohibit a student from wearing a Confederate flag on a T-shirt. In the new case from Massachusetts, the boy's father said his son's T-shirt message was not "directed at any particular person" but dealt with a "hot political topic." In their defense, school officials pointed to their policy against "bullying" and a dress code that says "clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification." Lawyers for the ADF sued on the student's behalf and argued the school violated his rights under the 1st Amendment. They lost before a federal judge in Boston who ruled for school officials and said the T-shirt "invaded the rights of the other a safe and secure educational environment." The 1st Circuit Court agreed as well, noting that schools may limit free expression of students if they fear a particular message will cause a disruption or "poison the atmosphere" at school. Read more: Supreme Court will hear free-speech challenge to 'conversion therapy' bans in California, Colorado The Supreme Court's most famous ruling on student rights arose during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Warren Court ruled for high school students who wore black arm bands as a protest. In Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court said students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, [they] must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint." The justices said then a symbolic protest should be permitted so long as it did not cause a "substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." The attorneys for Liam Morrison contended he should win under that standard. "This case isn't about T-shirts. It's about public school telling a middle-schooler that he isn't allowed to express a view that it differs from their own," said David Cortman, an ADF attorney in the case of L.M vs. Town of Middleborough. 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.
Los Angeles Times
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court denies student's right to wear ‘only two genders' T-shirt at school
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a middle-school student's claim he had a free-speech right to wear a T-shirt stating there are 'only two genders.' Over two dissents, the justices let stand a ruling that said a school may enforce a dress code to protect students from 'hate speech' or bullying. After three months of internal debate, the justices decided they would not take up another conservative, culture war challenge to progressive policies that protect LGBTQ+ youth. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed a 14-page dissent joined only by Justice Clarence Thomas. He said the case 'presented an issue of great importance for our nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech because it expresses a viewpoint the schools disfavor.' Liam Morrison, a 7th grader from Massachusetts, said he was responding to his school's promotion of Pride Month when students were encouraged to wear rainbow colors and posters urged them to 'rise up to protect trans and gender non-confirming students.' Two years ago, he went to school wearing a black T-shirt that said 'There are only two genders.' A teacher reported him to the principal who sent him home to change his shirt. A few weeks later, he returned with the word 'censored' taped over the words 'two genders' but was sent home again. The T-shirt dispute asked the Supreme Court to decide whether school officials may limit the free expression of some students to protect others from messages they may see as offensive or hurtful. In March, the court voted to hear a free-speech challenge to laws in California and 21 other states that forbid licensed counselors from using 'conversion therapy' with minors. That case, like the one on school T-shirts, arose from appeals by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group. It has already won free-speech rulings that allowed a cake maker and a website designer to refuse to participate in same-sex weddings despite state laws that barred discrimination based on sexual orientation. On April 22, the court sounded ready to rule for religious parents in Montgomery County, Md., who seek the right to have their young elementary children 'opt out' of the classroom use of a new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks. The T-shirt case came before the court shortly after President Trump's executive order declaring the U.S. government will 'recognize two sexes, male and female,' not 'an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity.' While the Supreme Court has yet to rule on T-shirts and the 1st Amendment, lower courts have upheld limits imposed by schools. In 2006, the 9th Circuit Court in a 2-1 decision upheld school officials at Poway High School in San Diego who barred a student from wearing a T-shirt that said 'Homosexuality is shameful.' The appeals court said students are free to speak on controversial matters, but they are not free to make 'derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation.' Other courts have ruled schools may prohibit a student from wearing a Confederate flag on a T-shirt. In the new case from Massachusetts, the boy's father said his son's T-shirt message was not 'directed at any particular person' but dealt with a 'hot political topic.' In their defense, school officials pointed to their policy against 'bullying' and a dress code that says 'clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation, or any other classification.' Lawyers for the ADF sued on the student's behalf and argued the school violated his rights under the 1st Amendment. They lost before a federal judge in Boston who ruled for school officials and said the T-shirt 'invaded the rights of the other a safe and secure educational environment.' The 1st Circuit Court agreed as well, noting that schools may limit free expression of students if they fear a particular message will cause a disruption or 'poison the atmosphere' at school. The Supreme Court's most famous ruling on student rights arose during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Warren Court ruled for high school students who wore black arm bands as a protest. In Tinker vs. Des Moines, the court said students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, [they] must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.' The justices said then a symbolic protest should be permitted so long as it did not cause a 'substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.' The attorneys for Liam Morrison contended he should win under that standard. 'This case isn't about T-shirts. It's about public school telling a middle-schooler that he isn't allowed to express a view that it differs from their own,' said David Cortman, an ADF attorney in the case of L.M vs. Town of Middleborough.
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Yahoo
New Hampshire woman facing drug charges after child overdoses on fentanyl
A New Hampshire woman is facing drug charges in connection with an investigation into a fentanyl overdose involving a child, authorities announced over the weekend. Karrie McMurray, 45, of Nashua, is slated to be arraigned later this month in Nashua's 9th Circuit Court on charges of possesion of a Class B drug and four counts of dealing in or possessing a prescription drug, according to the Nashua Police Department. Officers responding to a home in the city on June 27, 2024, found an unconscious juvenile who had overdosed on Fentanyl, police said. The child regained consciousness after receiving life-saving measures at the scene and was taken to a local hospital. Police didn't mention if McMurray is related to the child. McMurray was released on $250 cash bail. Anyone with information on the incident is urged to contact Nashua police at 603-589-1665. This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available. Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court revives family's claim to recover Pissarro painting stolen by the Nazis
The Supreme Court on Monday revived a family's claim to recover a painting that had been hung in a Berlin apartment in 1939 and was stolen by the Nazis. In a brief order, the justices overturned the 9th Circuit Court for the second time and said the fate of the Claude Pissarro painting should be decided under the terms of a new California law that protects the rightful heirs of art that was lost during the Holocaust. Repeatedly, a federal judge in Los Angeles and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had ruled the Spanish museum that had lawfully obtained the painting, called "Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon. Effect of Rain," more than 30 years ago had a rightful claim to own it. But this legal conclusion over property transfers ran into the moral claim that stolen art work from the Holocaust era must be returned. In 2000, Claude Cassirer, a San Diego resident, was astonished to learn that the painting that he remembered from the Berlin apartment was hanging in a museum in Madrid. Read more: A shocking turn: Nazi-looted Pissarro painting won't return to Jewish family After trying successfully to have it returned by the museum, he filed a lawsuit in 2005 in federal court in Los Angeles that has been carried on by his family. Claude Cassirer died in 2010; his wife, Beverly, in 2020. Last year, the California Legislature changed the state's law in response to the case. "For survivors of the Holocaust and their families, the fight to take back ownership of art and other personal items stolen by the Nazis continues to traumatize those who have already gone through the unimaginable,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said when he signed the bill into law. 'It is both a moral and legal imperative that these valuable and sentimental pieces be returned to their rightful owners, and I am proud to strengthen California's laws to help secure justice for families.' In response, lawyers for David Cassirer, the couple's son, appealed to the Supreme Court and urged the justices to vacate, or set aside, the 9th Circuit's latest ruling. The court did just that on Monday. It granted the appeal and told the 9th Circuit to reconsider the case under the new California law. 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.
Los Angeles Times
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court revives family's claim to recover Pissarro painting stolen by the Nazis
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday revived a family's claim to recover a painting that had been hung in a Berlin apartment in 1939 and was stolen by the Nazis. In a brief order, the justices overturned the 9th Circuit Court for the second time and said the fate of the Claude Pissarro painting should be decided under the terms of a new California law that protects the rightful heirs of art that was lost during the Holocaust. Repeatedly, a federal judge in Los Angeles and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had ruled the Spanish museum that had lawfully obtained the painting, called 'Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon. Effect of Rain,' more than 30 years ago had a rightful claim to own it. But this legal conclusion over property transfers ran into the moral claim that stolen art work from the Holocaust era must be returned. In 2000, Claude Cassirer, a San Diego resident, was astonished to learn that the painting that he remembered from the Berlin apartment was hanging in a museum in Madrid. After trying successfully to have it returned by the museum, he filed a lawsuit in 2005 in federal court in Los Angeles that has been carried on by his family. Claude Cassirer died in 2010; his wife, Beverly, in 2020. Last year, the California Legislature changed the state's law in response to the case. 'For survivors of the Holocaust and their families, the fight to take back ownership of art and other personal items stolen by the Nazis continues to traumatize those who have already gone through the unimaginable,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said when he signed the bill into law. 'It is both a moral and legal imperative that these valuable and sentimental pieces be returned to their rightful owners, and I am proud to strengthen California's laws to help secure justice for families.' In response, lawyers for David Cassirer, the couple's son, appealed to the Supreme Court and urged the justices to vacate, or set aside, the 9th Circuit's latest ruling. The court did just that on Monday. It granted the appeal and told the 9th Circuit to reconsider the case under the new California law.
