Latest news with #FifteenthAmendments
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks parts of Mississippi ban on DEI in public schools
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A federal judge has blocked portions of Mississippi's ban on diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools from being enforced while a lawsuit against it is underway. The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate on Monday seek to prohibit public schools from discussing a list of 'divisive concepts' related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation and national origin. They would also prevent public schools from maintaining programs, courses or offices that promote DEI or endorse 'divisive concepts,' and ban diversity training requirements. The preliminary injunction does not block other portions of the law, including those that prevent schools from giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, color or national origin and that penalize students or staff for their refusal to embrace DEI concepts. The law, which took effect in April, aims to prevent public schools from 'engaging in discriminatory practices' by banning DEI offices, trainings and programs. Any school in violation of the act could lose state funding. A group of teachers, parents and students is suing the state, arguing that the law violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Wingate wrote in his ruling that he finds the law to be at odds with the First Amendment and the public interest of the state. 'It is unconstitutionally vague, fails to treat speech in a viewpoint-neutral manner, and carries with it serious risks of terrible consequences with respect to the chilling of expression and academic freedom,' he wrote. Wingate also granted the plaintiff's request to add class action claims to the lawsuit, meaning the injunction will apply to teachers, professors and students across the state. The plaintiff's lawyers sought the addition after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June limited the ability of federal judges to grant sweeping injunctions. Jarvis Dortch, the executive director of the ACLU of Mississippi, which is helping litigate the case, said he was thankful for Wingate's stance. 'The Court sees the law for what it plainly is — an attempt to stop the proper exchange of ideas within the classroom," Dortch said in a statement. Wingate's ruling follows a temporary restraining order he granted to the plaintiffs in July. At an Aug. 5 hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued the law is too confusing, leaving parents, teachers and students wondering what they can and cannot say and whether they could face consequences as a result of their speech. Cliff Johnson, a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School and Mississippi director of the MacArthur Justice Center, testified that he and his students often discuss what could be considered 'divisive topics.' Johnson said he did not believe the law would allow him to teach about the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the court case that paved the way for the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII; portions of the Civil Rights Act; or the murders of Emmett Till and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'I think I'm in a very difficult position. I can teach my class as usual and run the serious risk of being disciplined, or I could abandon something that's very important to me,' Johnson testified. 'I feel a bit paralyzed.' The Mississippi Attorney General's Office argued that public employees do not have First Amendment rights. 'They are speaking for the government and the government has every right to tell them what they need to say on its behalf,' said Lisa Reppeto, an attorney at the state attorney general's office. She added that the First Amendment does not give students the right to dictate what their school does or does not say. Reppeto also said the consequences of the law are aimed at the schools — not students or teachers — and that the plaintiffs' 'argument is not consistent with what is in the statute.' Solve the daily Crossword
NBC News
a day ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Federal judge blocks parts of Mississippi ban on DEI in public schools
A federal judge has blocked portions of Mississippi's ban on diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools from being enforced while a lawsuit against it is underway. The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate on Monday seek to prohibit public schools from discussing a list of "divisive concepts" related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation and national origin. They would also prevent public schools from maintaining programs, courses or offices that promote DEI or endorse "divisive concepts," and ban diversity training requirements. The preliminary injunction does not block other portions of the law, including those that prevent schools from giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, color or national origin and that penalize students or staff for their refusal to embrace DEI concepts. The law, which took effect in April, aims to prevent public schools from "engaging in discriminatory practices" by banning DEI offices, trainings and programs. Any school in violation of the act could lose state funding. A group of teachers, parents and students is suing the state, arguing that the law violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Wingate wrote in his ruling that he finds the law to be at odds with the First Amendment and the public interest of the state. "It is unconstitutionally vague, fails to treat speech in a viewpoint-neutral manner, and carries with it serious risks of terrible consequences with respect to the chilling of expression and academic freedom," he wrote. Wingate also granted the plaintiff's request to add class action claims to the lawsuit, meaning the injunction will apply to teachers, professors and students across the state. The plaintiff's lawyers sought the addition after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June limited the ability of federal judges to grant sweeping injunctions. Jarvis Dortch, the executive director of the ACLU of Mississippi, which is helping litigate the case, said he was thankful for Wingate's stance. "The Court sees the law for what it plainly is — an attempt to stop the proper exchange of ideas within the classroom," Dortch said in a statement. Wingate's ruling follows a temporary restraining order he granted to the plaintiffs in July. At an Aug. 5 hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued the law is too confusing, leaving parents, teachers and students wondering what they can and cannot say and whether they could face consequences as a result of their speech. Cliff Johnson, a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School and Mississippi director of the MacArthur Justice Center, testified that he and his students often discuss what could be considered "divisive topics." Johnson said he did not believe the law would allow him to teach about the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the court case that paved the way for the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII; portions of the Civil Rights Act; or the murders of Emmett Till and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. "I think I'm in a very difficult position. I can teach my class as usual and run the serious risk of being disciplined, or I could abandon something that's very important to me," Johnson testified. "I feel a bit paralyzed." The Mississippi Attorney General's Office argued that public employees do not have First Amendment rights. "They are speaking for the government and the government has every right to tell them what they need to say on its behalf," said Lisa Reppeto, an attorney at the state attorney general's office. She added that the First Amendment does not give students the right to dictate what their school does or does not say. Reppeto also said the consequences of the law are aimed at the schools — not students or teachers — and that the plaintiffs' "argument is not consistent with what is in the statute."
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks parts of Mississippi ban on DEI in public schools
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A federal judge has blocked portions of Mississippi's ban on diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools from being enforced while a lawsuit against it is underway. The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate on Monday seek to prohibit public schools from discussing a list of 'divisive concepts' related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation and national origin. They would also prevent public schools from maintaining programs, courses or offices that promote DEI or endorse 'divisive concepts,' and ban diversity training requirements. The preliminary injunction does not block other portions of the law, including those that prevent schools from giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, color or national origin and that penalize students or staff for their refusal to embrace DEI concepts. The law, which took effect in April, aims to prevent public schools from 'engaging in discriminatory practices' by banning DEI offices, trainings and programs. Any school in violation of the act could lose state funding. A group of teachers, parents and students is suing the state, arguing that the law violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Wingate wrote in his ruling that he finds the law to be at odds with the First Amendment and the public interest of the state. 'It is unconstitutionally vague, fails to treat speech in a viewpoint-neutral manner, and carries with it serious risks of terrible consequences with respect to the chilling of expression and academic freedom,' he wrote. Wingate also granted the plaintiff's request to add class action claims to the lawsuit, meaning the injunction will apply to teachers, professors and students across the state. The plaintiff's lawyers sought the addition after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June limited the ability of federal judges to grant sweeping injunctions. Jarvis Dortch, the executive director of the ACLU of Mississippi, which is helping litigate the case, said he was thankful for Wingate's stance. 'The Court sees the law for what it plainly is — an attempt to stop the proper exchange of ideas within the classroom," Dortch said in a statement. Wingate's ruling follows a temporary restraining order he granted to the plaintiffs in July. At an Aug. 5 hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued the law is too confusing, leaving parents, teachers and students wondering what they can and cannot say and whether they could face consequences as a result of their speech. Cliff Johnson, a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School and Mississippi director of the MacArthur Justice Center, testified that he and his students often discuss what could be considered 'divisive topics.' Johnson said he did not believe the law would allow him to teach about the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the court case that paved the way for the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII; portions of the Civil Rights Act; or the murders of Emmett Till and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'I think I'm in a very difficult position. I can teach my class as usual and run the serious risk of being disciplined, or I could abandon something that's very important to me,' Johnson testified. 'I feel a bit paralyzed.' The Mississippi Attorney General's Office argued that public employees do not have First Amendment rights. 'They are speaking for the government and the government has every right to tell them what they need to say on its behalf,' said Lisa Reppeto, an attorney at the state attorney general's office. She added that the First Amendment does not give students the right to dictate what their school does or does not say. Reppeto also said the consequences of the law are aimed at the schools — not students or teachers — and that the plaintiffs' 'argument is not consistent with what is in the statute.' Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
11-08-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Raw politics now drives enforcement at the Justice Department's Civil Rights division
The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department has hit a new low in manipulating federal law enforcement to further the president's political schemes. On July 7, 2025, the DOJ wrote the Texas governor a letter pressuring him to re-gerrymander Texas's already discriminatory congressional map. Texas obliged, triggering a potential nationwide race to the bottom as states seek to imitate Texas's gambit or counteract it with their own gerrymandering. In June 2025, with the president's tiny House majority at risk in the midterm elections, the Trump White House asked Texas to redraw the Texas congressional map to yield more Republican House seats. Less than a month later, the head of the Civil Rights Division followed up with the Texas governor, claiming that four majority-minority districts were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The DOJ's letter demanded that Texas redistrict, or the DOJ could sue. Normally, before advancing a serious and difficult charge like racial gerrymandering, the Civil Rights Division conducts a careful preliminary investigation. It seeks information from the state and consults with voters and advocates. Here, it appears, no meaningful inquiry occurred, which is not surprising. There were only three lawyers left in the Voting Section. The rest were driven out by the new leadership's hostility to civil rights and anyone who had tried to protect them. The legal rationale in the letter, moreover, was feeble; it argued that under a recent Fifth Circuit ruling in Petteway v. Galveston County, coalition districts, where different minority groups combine to form a majority, 'run afoul [of] the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.' That is not even close to the court's holding. The court interpreted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to allow discrimination claims by a racial minority that has a majority in a district, but not claims by minority groups that join together to form a majority. The case does not address racial gerrymandering, much less suggest that 'coalition districts' violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The sham legal rationale could not camouflage that the DOJ was instructing Texas to dismantle congressional districts where minority voters held a majority. The Supreme Court has suggested that deliberately breaking up coalitions with minority voters raises 'serious questions under both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.' Previously, the DOJ and private plaintiffs (including the Texas NAACP, represented by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law) sued Texas alleging that its 2021 redistricting plan discriminated against people of color — notinfavorof them. When the case was tried in May and June 2025, the state's witnesses, despite damning statistical evidence, repeatedly denied under oath that race played any role in its redistricting. Nevertheless, DOJ's racial accusations led the governor to include redistricting in a special legislative session on July 21. And the governor said explicitly that he was targeting coalition districts — a purposeful, focused effort to reduce representation of minority voters. Strikingly, in the ongoing litigation on the 2021 redistricting plan, the DOJ dropped its discrimination claims in March 2025, six months after the Pettewaydecision on coalition districts. In doing so, the department never even hinted that the Democratic, majority minority districts it disparaged in the July 7 letter were racially gerrymandered to favor minorities. So, what happened between March and July 7 to prompt such extraordinary new allegations of racial gerrymandering in the 2021 plan? Plainly, not an investigation. Nor any change in the law. Pettewaywas old news. And not any significant factual revelations. The only relevant intervening event was Donald Trump's call for redistricting in Texas to help him politically in the House in November 2026. The Civil Rights Division's attempt to further the president's political scheme was sordid and reprehensible, especially given Texas's long history of racial discrimination in voting. At least since Watergate, the Justice Department has tried to insulate its legal judgments from political influence and to shield investigatory decisions from partisanship. Attorney General Edward Levi, appointed by President Ford to restore the Justice Department's integrity after Watergate, warned that: 'Nothing can more weaken the quality of life or more imperil the realization of the goals we all hold dear than our failure to make clear by words and deed that our law is not an instrument of partisan purpose.' Apparently, the current leadership of the Civil Rights Division does not agree. They appear to regard themselves as White House staffers executing Donald Trump's personal agenda, even extending that role to nonpartisan career employees. The political manipulation reflected in the July 7 letter and its inversion of the Division's anti-discrimination mission reflects this approach. And there is no reason to believe the malfeasance will stop with Texas or redistricting, as Trump seeks new ways to undermine the electoral system. The approach is wrong and destructive. It demeans standards that have guided the department for at least 50 years. It undermines the department's credibility and effectiveness. And it threatens our democracy. As Attorney General Levi warned, the law cannot be 'an instrument of partisan purpose.' The Justice Department must reclaim its independence. Robert N. Weiner is the Voting Rights Project director at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. He was previously senior counsel in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NAACP lawsuit alleges Fayette County's electoral map discriminates against Black voters
The NAACP's Legal Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit against Fayette County, alleging its electoral map is racially discriminatory. The Legal Defense Fund, alongside Donati Law, filed the suit Feb. 27 in the Western District of Tennessee's Western Division. The defendants also include the Board of County Commissioners, the Election Commission Board and Administrator of Elections Joshua Tapp. The suit claims that the most recent map drawn in 2021 "intentionally dilutes Black voting power," violating Section 2 of Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. 'The County Commission map denies Black Fayette County residents' access to political representation,' said Elton Holmes, president of the Fayette-Somerville Branch of the NAACP. 'It's unacceptable in 2025 that the Commission is an all-white body given the demographics, voting patterns, and other ways that Black voters experience life in Fayette County. We must fight against all efforts to limit Black voters' voice in Fayette County's political bodies.' Fayette County's Election Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. DESOTO COUNTY NEWS: Could ACLU win Voting Rights Act lawsuit against DeSoto County? Breaking down the case Despite the population of the county being more than 25% Black, none of the 19 county commissioners are Black or were the Black-preferred candidates. The Legal Defense Fund said the commission also rejected alternative proposed plans that "would have lessened the racially discriminatory impact that community members and some County Commissioners repeatedly raised." 'The Fayette County Commission is not meeting the needs of Black residents in Fayette County,' said Christine Woods, one of five individual plaintiffs in the case. 'Without representation on the County Commission, our priorities have long been ignored, including concerns regarding our public schools, economic development, and access to resources like the Bernard Community Center." Fayette County's current map, known as the District 7 Split Modified Plan, was adopted by a vote of 10-8. The suit states that Republican County Commissioner Terry Leggett, who voted against the plan, reportedly voiced his concerns after the vote, stating that there would be a case for a lawsuit. "[The County Commission] chose not to listen to the attorney that we paid $10,000 of taxpayer money to get advice [from, and] went against his advice to select this map that clearly discriminates against the African-American community," Leggett said. With the 2022 defeat of Sylvester Logan, a Black incumbent Commissioner in District 5, the county is without a Black commissioner for the first time in more than 20 years, according to the suit. Jacob Wilt is a reporter for The Commercial Appeal covering DeSoto County, as well as Dining in the Memphis area. You can reach him at This article originally appeared on Memphis Commercial Appeal: NAACP claims Fayette County districts discriminate against Black voters
