Latest news with #ExecutiveOrder14168
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Skeptical California federal judge grills Trump DOJ over anti-trans & anti-DEI orders
A federal judge in California expressed sharp skepticism Thursday as the Trump administration defended executive orders that LGBTQ+ advocates say censor speech and threaten life-saving services. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. In San Francisco A.I.D.S. Foundation v. Trump, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar heard arguments from Lambda Legal and the Department of Justice over three executive orders targeting so-called 'gender ideology' and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. The plaintiffs, a coalition of nine LGBTQ+ and HIV-focused nonprofits, are asking a judge to issue an injunction to halt enforcement. 'To me, that sounds incredibly vague,' Tigar told DOJ attorney Pardis Gheibi, according to Courthouse News Service, after she declined to clearly define what counts as 'gender ideology.' Under questioning, Gheibi admitted that asking a client their pronouns or providing all-gender restrooms could violate the orders if federally funded. The lawsuit stems from a series of executive orders signed by President Donald Trump during his first week back in office this January. Among them was Executive Order 14168, titled 'Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism,' which mandates that the federal government recognize only two sexes—male and female—and prohibits federal grantees from affirming transgender identities. Two additional orders dismantled DEI grant programs and barred federally funded entities from applying 'equity-based' hiring, education, and health care practices. LGBTQ+ organizations immediately warned that the moves were designed to erase trans people from public life. Related: San Francisco AIDS Foundation and other LGBTQ+ groups bring new lawsuit against anti-trans executive orders Lambda Legal's Camilla Taylor argued the orders violate the First Amendment by chilling protected speech and the Fifth Amendment by targeting transgender people. 'Even if what plaintiffs are doing is promoting unlawful DEI activities, that is protected First Amendment activity—unless it rises to incitement,' she said, according to the Bay Area Reporter. San Francisco AIDS Foundation CEO Dr. Tyler TerMeer told The Advocate earlier this year that the orders had created panic among clients, with some fearing the loss of housing, HRT, or HIV medications. 'For us, the only option was to fight,' he said. Tigar did not rule from the bench. 'Nothing I say indicates how I will rule,' he said, per Courthouse News. A written decision is expected in the coming weeks.
Chicago Tribune
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Group files federal complaint over Deerfield transgender student using locker room
Deerfield Public Schools District 109 is in the national crosshairs, with a conservative group filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) accusing the district of forcing middle school students to change into gym clothes in front of a transgender student. The incident previously gained national attention after the mother of one of the students, Nicole Georgas, went on Fox News to criticize the district over the alleged incident. She also spoke during a school board meeting to demand that locker rooms and bathrooms be designated for either biological males or biological females, arguing there is 'already a gender-neutral option.' In a previous statement, the district said students are not required to change into gym clothes in front of others in locker rooms and have 'multiple options to change in a private location if they wish.' The district said its policies and procedures, including those related to students' use of locker rooms, are in line with state laws, the Illinois School Code and guidance from the Illinois State Board of Education. 'District 109 is committed to providing a learning environment where all students and staff are respected and supported,' the statement said. Conservative nonprofit America First Legal (AFL) announced Tuesday it had filed a complaint with the criminal section of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, urging it to conduct a criminal investigation into District 109 and its administrators over the alleged incident. A DOJ spokesman declined comment, but a department source with knowledge of the complaint confirmed it was submitted. Attempts to reach the Illinois State Board of Education for comment were unsuccessful. AFL claims the district violated Title IX and President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14168, called 'Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.' AFL was founded in 2021 by Stephen Miller, a senior Trump advisor. According to AFL's allegations, the district's policy of allowing the transgender student to use the girls' bathroom and locker room led to a protest by a group of teenage girls who refused to change for gym class. AFL claims school administrators 'admonished (the students), and threatened them with discipline for 'misgendering' the boy and refusing to change for PE.' 'Shockingly, the school administrators, including the superintendent of student services, and the assistant principal, entered the girls' locker room and used their authority to intimidate the girls into changing in front of the boy,' the AFL said. In the release, Ian Prior, an AFL senior counsel, claimed the students' 'First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights' had been 'sacrificed at the altar of radical transgender madness and the woke government bureaucrats that view the Constitution as nothing more than toilet paper' and district officials 'should face the long arm of our Justice Department.' Protestors on both sides of the controversy were expected at Thursday evening's school board meeting, with Moms For Liberty Lake County and several LGBTQ organizations expected to advocate for support. Kristal Larson, who is the executive director of the LGBTQ+ Center Lake County, Avon Township's clerk and a transgender woman, said during a transgender visibility event last month that there is 'a lot of anger' and 'concern' over what has been happening in Deerfield. 'There's fear that other schools may be targeted in the same way, and that Lake County can become unsafe,' Larson said. But the controversy over the unidentified transgender student's bathroom and locker room use goes far beyond Lake County's, and even the state's, borders, Larson added, saying the transgender community has been a target of the new presidential administration. Executive orders from the Trump administration seek to stop transgender, nonbinary and intersex people from changing their gender markers on passports or serving in the military, force transgender women in federal prisons to be housed with men and bar them from participation in female sports. The orders also attempt to end gender-affirming care for transgender people younger than 19, and prohibit federal spending on the promotion of 'gender ideology.' 'Across the country, ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women's domestic abuse shelters to women's workplace showers,' Trump wrote in an executive order. The Deerfield controversy has attracted attention from unusual places. Last month, District 109 put out a statement saying it was aware members of the community had received communications asking them to complete a survey about Deerfield schools, which they clarified were not from the district. In the statement, the district said it was not aware of who was distributing the survey. In late March, Dave Nayak, a Chicago-area politician and former Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for the District 20 seat and said he had turned on the 'radical left,' announced he had commissioned a survey from conservative pollster group M3 about the district's transgender policies, ultimately calling for the district to change its policies.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge agrees with artists that NEA funding policy is likely unlawful, but says too soon to intervene
The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island building is seen in downtown Providence. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current) A federal judge chose not to stop the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) from examining how or if it will institute President Donald Trump's January executive order forbidding federal subsidizing of 'gender ideology' when it comes to awarding grants. But Senior District Judge William E. Smith agreed with the arts organizations suing the federal government on several points, including that the NEA will likely violate the First Amendment if it goes through with broad, ideological restrictions on the projects it funds. Still he said it was too early to intervene as the agency plans to announce how or if it will follow the order on April 30. 'This is the rare case where the balance of the harms and equities plus the public interest caution against the extraordinary relief requested,' Smith wrote in his 47-page decision released Thursday night. The four groups that brought suit — Rhode Island Latino Arts, The Theater Offensive, National Queer Theater, and Theatre Communications Group — all intended to apply for grants for LGBTQ+ projects. The plaintiffs were represented by the national American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Rhode Island in the case filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. 'The opinion makes clear that the NEA cannot lawfully reimpose its viewpoint-based eligibility bar,' Vera Eidelman, an ACLU senior staff attorney, said in a statement Thursday. 'Though it falls short of the relief we were seeking, we are hopeful that artists of all views and backgrounds will remain eligible for the support and recognition they deserve.' The plaintiffs sought to stop the NEA from applying Executive Order 14168 to its grantmaking procedures. In early March, the NEA had initially implemented the order by requiring grant applicants to check a box confirming that their work did not promote gender ideology — an impossibility, the plaintiffs argued, given their organizations' showcasing of LGBTQ+ narratives and performers. There was also the possibility that LGBTQ+ content might fail to meet eligibility criteria under the new laws and be barred categorically. But the NEA quickly removed the allegiance checkbox, and by March 17 had issued a memo stating it would cease rollout of the order for the time being. It also extended the application deadline for the current grant cycle. The agency expects to complete its internal review of the order by April 16 ahead of its public April 30 announcement. That doesn't help plaintiffs, who needed to apply for the grant cycle's new deadline of Monday, April 7, to keep their production timelines intact. 'The court's decision will leave our clients in a state of censorial limbo,' Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, said in a statement Thursday. Emilya Cachapero, co-executive director of national and global programming at Theatre Communications Group, was 'disappointed' by the decision, she said in a statement, and pointed to wider implications: 'This moment is about more than a single grant cycle — it's about the future of artistic freedom in this country.' According to court documents, Rhode Island Latino Arts and Theatre Communications Group testified that they were considering axing LGBTQ+ themes from upcoming productions to better secure grant funding — effectively self-censoring to avoid the executive order's mandates. 'We shouldn't need to negotiate for the right to support and uplift all artists — including transgender and nonbinary artists,' Marta V. Martinez, executive director of Rhode Island Latino Arts, said in a statement. 'This order fails to bring us the clarity we need to apply for funds for projects that allow Latinx artists, especially those who are queer, trans, or nonbinary, to show up as their whole selves without fear of erasure or censorship.' In his ruling, Smith wrote that maneuvering to stop the NEA during its administrative process meant that granting relief would be premature — and it would not soothe much for the plaintiffs, as they no longer 'faced a potential harm of civil, criminal, or administrative penalties for making false statements' since the compliance pledge has been removed from the application. 'If the Court enjoins the NEA from imposing an eligibility bar at this juncture, it will in effect short circuit the ongoing administrative review process set to conclude in a matter of days,' Smith wrote. That would not be ideal, the judge thought, as it 'would rob the NEA of the opportunity to make its own considered decision.' The agency may conclude that the executive order is incompatible with the statute that authorizes its existence and duties, and may need congressional approval to take effect within the NEA. 'For the Court to intercede and mandate this outcome would raise obvious separation-of-powers concerns,' Smith wrote. 'Once the NEA completes its process, Plaintiffs may well return to the Court for relief — or, if the NEA declines to adopt the EO in any way, they may drop the curtain on this action altogether,' the judge concluded in his ruling. Plaintiff Giselle Byrd, executive director of The Theater Offensive, said in a statement she was ready to wait for the NEA's decision — and return to court if necessary: 'Time is our greatest ally. … If this executive order is reimposed, we will be back in court and fighting against the unlawful attack on the First Amendment. We do not walk away silently against injustice and silence will not protect us.' Smith's refusal of the plaintiffs' request was not exactly a siding with the federal defendants — something his thorough decision makes clear, with arguments from the March 27 motion hearing explored in detail by the judge. The attorneys had sparred over whether NEA-funded projects constitute private speech — which is guarded by the First Amendment — or government speech, which lacks such protections. Smith conceded that the law is dense and nuanced in cases that define what speech is or isn't. But he agreed with the ACLU that the NEA subsidizes private works, and is not a vehicle for official sentiments. LGBTQ+ theater groups have day in court over endangered arts funding 'It seems clear that the NEA's grantmaking process was designed to facilitate private speech, and not to promote a governmental message,' he wrote. 'NEA-funded art is therefore protected under the First Amendment; and where, as here, the government has imposed a viewpoint-based condition on the receipt of those funds, there is a clear First Amendment violation.' But Smith did agree with the U.S. Department of Justice's argument that NEA grants are competitive. 'Plaintiffs must make choices that hopeful grant applicants make all the time about what to propose in their application, to enhance their chances of success. The Court cannot make the process free of difficult choices,' Smith wrote. The NEA also eschewed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Smith agreed with the ACLU, when they initially adopted the executive order and created extra eligibility requirements for applicants. But he disagreed that the NEA was 'arbitrary and capricious' in its carrying out of the order, as the ACLU had argued. The eligibility bar, Smith argued, is not problematic because of vagueness — it is problematic because it actively encourages the NEA to discriminate against certain kinds of applicants. 'If anything, the eligibility bar severely narrows the discretion of NEA personnel in deciding which projects to approve, and that is precisely why it likely violates both the APA and the First Amendment,' Smith wrote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NEA suspends rule after ACLU files lawsuit contesting ‘gender ideology' ban
Lynette Labinger, who is representing four plaintiffs in a suit against the National Endowment for the Arts, is seen with Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, at a press conference on March 6, 2025. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current) Arts organizations applying for grants from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) don't have to confirm that their potential projects won't 'promote gender ideology' — at least for the time being, while litigation is pending. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Rhode Island announced last Friday evening that its court challenge, filed against the NEA last Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, was at least temporarily successful in suspending an ideological pledge for grant applicants. Prompting the lawsuit in part was that potential grantees would need to tick a box verifying their proposals would not clash with the tenets outlined in an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office, titled 'Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.' 'Artists and artist organizations can move forward on preparing and presenting proposals for critically needed NEA grants without being forced to subscribe to a principle that may be contrary to their core beliefs and mission,' Lynette Labinger, the ACLU of RI's cooperating attorney on the case, said in a statement Friday. The NEA policy page which sought to align the agency's funding policy to the executive order has been updated since the lawsuit's announcement to read: 'PLEASE NOTE: Pending the outcome of litigation in the United States District Court of Rhode Island…The NEA is not currently requiring any grantee to make any 'certification' or other representation pursuant to Executive Order 14168.' The four plaintiffs in the suit are Rhode Island Latino Arts, National Queer Theater, The Theater Offensive, and the Theater Communications Group. The groups argued last Thursday that the new rules would force the groups to assert values incompatible with the basic premises of their arts organizations, many of which highlight queer and LGBTQ+ stories. But the ACLU of RI said the NEA has not yet agreed to remove the eligibility criteria for funding, and that projects which are viewed as having unfavorable viewpoints might still not be funded. 'We will continue to seek urgent relief against the NEA's unconstitutional bar on projects that express messages the government doesn't like, but this is a huge step towards initial relief. We won't stop fighting until these new requirements are struck down for good,' Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney at the ACLU, said in a statement. Eidelman advised organizations that they could still apply for 'Part 1 of the NEA application on March 11 without having to agree to a certification that could have compromised their values or their vision.' Applicants can also note their objection to the new certification procedure. The ACLU wants to see a preliminary injunction on the funding prohibition ahead of the final grant deadline on March 24. A court hearing is scheduled for March 18. Labinger said at a March 6 press briefing that the lawsuit identifies the federal preference for one perspective over another as 'viewpoint discrimination,' which may violate the First Amendment. 'Our lawsuit points out that that is contrary to the statute that created the NEA, it is arbitrary and capricious, the standard of 'promoting gender ideology' is unknown, and therefore vague and inapplicable,' Labinger said. 'Also it's apparently saying that it's okay to be anti- gender ideology, but not for it. If that's what 'promoting' is, that's what we call viewpoint discrimination.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks Trump's transfer of transgender women to men's prisons
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has blocked the Trump administration from forcibly transferring transgender women in federal custody to men's prisons, ruling that the move likely violates their constitutional rights and would expose them to serious harm. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction Monday, halting the implementation of Trump's Executive Order 14168, which mandates that federal agencies recognize only two sexes—male and female—and requires the Bureau of Prisons to house inmates based solely on their sex assigned at birth. Lamberth had previously issued a temporary restraining order to protect three incarcerated transgender women from imminent transfer. The latest ruling expands that protection to nine additional plaintiffs who, according to court filings, were 'rounded up by BOP officials' and told they would be immediately transferred to men's prisons and have their gender-affirming healthcare terminated. In his order, Lamberth said that the government had failed to justify its actions. 'Summarily removing the possibility of housing the plaintiffs in a women's facility, when that was determined to be the appropriate facility under the existing constitutional and statutory regime, demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits of the plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim,' he wrote. Related: Trans inmate sues over Trump's 'two sexes' order The government argued that placing the women in low-security men's facilities would ensure their safety. But Lamberth rejected that claim, noting that federal reports and prison data confirm that transgender women face 'a significantly elevated risk of physical and sexual violence' when housed in men's facilities. The government's attempt to use general statistics to justify the transfers, he wrote, 'do not disaggregate assaults against transgender inmates from overall rates of assault.' The judge also emphasized that the dangers these women faced extended beyond physical violence. The mere act of placing them in a men's prison, he wrote, 'will exacerbate the symptoms of their gender dysphoria, even if they are not subject to physical or sexual violence in their new facility—whether because they will be subject to searches by male correctional officers, made to shower in the company of men, referred to as men, forced to dress as men, or simply because the mere homogeneous presence of men will cause uncomfortable dissonance.' Trump's executive order, signed on his first day back in office, has been at the center of a legal and political firestorm. Branded as an effort to 'restore biological truth to the federal government,' the sweeping order bars federal recognition of transgender and nonbinary identities, eliminates gender-affirming care in federal prisons and mandates that housing placements be based strictly on sex assigned at birth. The ruling underscores the growing legal challenges facing the Trump administration as it attempts to dismantle rights and protections for transgender people systematically. The New York Times reports that the Bureau of Prisons has already begun implementing new policies in accordance with Trump's order, ending gender-affirming medical care for trans inmates, banning the use of preferred pronouns, and prohibiting the purchase of gender-affirming undergarments.
