Latest news with #FirstAmendment
CBS News
37 minutes ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Judge backs teachers in Florida pronoun law challenge, but outcome might hinge on higher court's ruling in Georgia case
A U.S. district judge Wednesday said a 2023 Florida law restricting pronouns that transgender teachers can use to identify themselves violates a federal civil-rights law — but the outcome of the issue might ultimately hinge on an appeals-court ruling in a Georgia case. U.S. District Judge Mark Walker sided with Hillsborough County teacher Katie Wood and a Lee County teacher, identified as Jane Doe, in finding that the state law discriminates in violation of what is known as Section VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That section bars employment discrimination because of a person's "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The Florida law requires teachers to use pronouns that align with their sex assigned at birth. As an example, Walker wrote, the law led Wood, a transgender woman, to erase her pronouns and title on a classroom whiteboard and begin using the title "Teacher" instead of "Ms." with her students. Walker wrote that the state law "alters the terms and conditions of plaintiffs' employment. Compliance … means plaintiffs, transgender teachers, are forbidden from using their preferred pronouns and titles with students. Noncompliance can result in disciplinary violations, which in turn can lead to suspension or revocation of plaintiffs' teaching certifications or termination." "Therefore, because compliance with (the law) is a condition of plaintiffs' employment, and because (the law) discriminates based on sex with respect to the terms and conditions of plaintiffs' employment, it violates Title VII," Walker wrote. But while finding improper discrimination, Walker paused further action in the case as the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers a Georgia case, known as Lange v. Houston County. Walker wrote that the outcome of the Georgia case, which involves an alleged Title VII violation against a transgender employee of a sheriff's office, could be "determinative" in the Florida teacher case. "Judicial economy demands that this court (Walker) decline to issue an injunction or try the issue of damages at this juncture and stay this case pending resolution of the en banc rehearing in Lange," he wrote, using a term for a rehearing by the full appeals court. Walker last year issued a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the pronoun law against Wood because he said it violated her First Amendment rights. But a divided panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court on July 2 overturned the injunction. The panel's majority said Wood "cannot show, with respect to the expression at issue here, that she was speaking as a private citizen rather than a government employee" when she interacted with students in her classroom. As a result, it concluded that the state restrictions did not violate her speech rights. The overturning of the preliminary injunction, however, did not end the lawsuit, which names as defendants the Florida Department of Education, other state education agencies and officials, the Hillsborough County School Board and the Lee County School Board. Walker on Wednesday ruled on motions for summary judgment, which involve issues that can be resolved without going to trial. Armed with last month's appeals-court opinion, Walker rejected the plaintiffs' First Amendment arguments, while leaving unresolved issues about whether the teachers' equal-protection rights were violated. The pronoun restrictions were part of a series of controversial measures that Gov. Ron DeSantis and Republican lawmakers have approved in recent years that focus on transgender people — and have drawn legal challenges. For example, they passed a measure aimed at preventing minors from receiving puberty blockers and hormone therapy to treat gender dysphoria.
Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana AG Rokita steps up Butler, Notre Dame DEI investigations with new legal demands
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is demanding more information from the University of Notre Dame and Butler University as his office ramps up its pre-litigation investigation into whether the colleges' diversity, equity and inclusion practices are illegal. Earlier this summer, Rokita's office sent letters to Notre Dame, Butler and DePauw University in which he requested a bevy of internal DEI information and argued such practices and policies are a form of racial discrimination. Now, in letters sent this month, Rokita is issuing a civil investigative demand, which is a legal tool the attorney general can use to collect information prior to litigation. "On behalf of the people of Indiana, a full investigation is warranted to ensure that racial discrimination is not practiced in our institutions of higher education," Rokita said in a new release. He said the two universities failed to "address in any meaningful way" the questions included in his initial request for information in May. In the release, he said publicly available materials are "troubling" and "raise serious questions" whether they are in compliance with discrimination law. DePauw's response to the office's request is still being reviewed, the release said. IndyStar has requested comment from Notre Dame and Butler. In his Aug. 6 letter to Notre Dame — a Catholic university — Rokita said its religious mission does not give it "a license to discriminate on the basis of race, and the critically important First Amendment right to free exercise of religion." Rokita was more scathing and explicit in his Aug. 13 letter to Butler, which doesn't have a religious affiliation. "The state of Indiana has a 'fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education,'" Rokita's Butler letter reads. "I aim to vindicate that interest by helping ensure that institutions of higher education in our state do not practice racial discrimination of any kind in their admissions, hiring, or other functions." His office is additionally investigating whether the univeristy has violated two consumer protection laws, the Indiana False Claims Act and the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act — threats that were not weighed against Notre Dame. Rokita is the first attorney general in the country to publicly threaten legal challenges using a university's nonprofit status over differences on "culture war" issues — following the lead of U.S. President Donald Trump's feud with Harvard University. A flurry of recent federal and state executive orders seek to strip DEI from the government's vernacular. One particular Indiana law prohibits public institutions from taking actions based on an individual's "personal characteristic," such as race, religion, color or sex. These types of civil demands are typically a precursor to litigation, which Rokita has floated as a possibility. Notre Dame must respond to the new demands by Aug. 27 and Butler by Sept. 3. Rokita's assistant chief deputy, Blake Lanning, previously told IndyStar that the office could seek targeted court injunctions to halt policies and practices it believes to be illegal. Nonprofit organizations such as these universities exist to provide a public benefit, Lanning said, and in turn, they receive tax benefits. If an organization's actions are antithetical to its purpose, he said, the attorney general's office has legal grounds to act. However, the Indiana attorney general's powers are focused on operational changes, so the office cannot revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status and force an organization to pay state taxes, such as corporate income, property and sales taxes. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judges debate Georgia's ban on giving snacks, water to voters
The Brief A panel of federal appeals court judges heard oral arguments over Georgia's ban on providing food and water to voters waiting in line outside their polling place. In 2023, a judge restricted part of the state's election bill, saying that the provision that bars people from offering food and drink within 25 feet of any person in line is probably unconstitutional because that zone is tied to the location of voters. Civil rights groups argue that the law shuts off expressive conduct and violates the First Amendment. The state argued that it was necessary to prevent voter distraction and intimidation. A federal appeals court is debating whether Georgia's ban on providing food and water to voters waiting in line violates the First Amendment. In court on Wednesday, the groups behind the lawsuit asked the panel of three judges to uphold a lower court's ruling that part of the restrictions were probably unconstitutional. The backstory The ban is just one piece of SB 202, a 98-page bill containing dozens of changes to state voting law passed in 2021. Other changes included shortening the time to request a mail ballot, rolling back the COVID-19 pandemic-driven expansion of ballot drop boxes and reducing early voting before runoff elections. Voting rights groups, who have filed a lawsuit challenging multiple parts of the law, argued that the provision infringes on their free speech rights and should be blocked. In 2022, a judge declined to restrict the ban, saying that, while the groups may prevail in part of their challenge, it was too close to the November general election to block any part of the provision. One year later, the judge chose to temporarily block one aspect of the restrictions, saying that the provision that bars people from offering food and drink within 25 feet of any person in line is probably unconstitutional because that zone is tied to the location of voters and could stretch thousands of feet from the polling place. As part of that ruling, US District Judge J.P. Boulee also stopped the requirement that voters put their birthdates on the envelopes of their absentee ballots. What they're saying During oral arguments, the debate centered on whether passing out snacks and water should be protected under the constitutional right to free speech. Attorney Davin Rosborough, who is representing the civil rights groups, told the judges that the sharing of food or drinks was a form of speech. "[The law] absolutely shuts off this form of expressive conduct," he said. "It absolutely prevents the voters." He said that the testimony they provided as evidence showed that the act was encouraging and did not show an attempt to sway voters to any political message. The other side The state had argued that the provision was necessary to protect against conditions at polling places that could raise worries over potential illegal campaigning or voter distractions. "The reason you have a buffer zone is because you don't want a situation where people get in line to vote and they are accosted by a bunch of confusing, distracting, and possibly intimidating things," Solicitor General Stephen Petrany said. He said there was no specific reason that distributing food and drinks would constitute freedom of speech that should be protected. "We want people to be able to stand in line and be basically unobstructed," he said. What's next The arguments are expected to take months before a final decision is made. The Source Information for this article came from oral arguments and previous FOX 5 reporting. Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
2 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Judge refuses to block Alabama school DEI ban
U.S. District Judge David Proctor declined to impose a preliminary injunction that bans diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, along with the teaching of 'divisive concepts,' in public schools and universities. The judge ruled the University of Alabama professors and students did not meet the standard for a preliminary injunction after they argued the new law violates their First Amendment rights. The case will continue but the law will remain in place for now. The Alabama law, which went into affect last October, prohibits schools from hosting or funding DEI programs and says 'divisive concepts' such as making one feel guilty or complicit about past or present actions because of their race or ethnicity. The judge argued this law does not prohibit professors from teaching these subjects, but 'it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.' 'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' the judge wrote in his decision. The professors argued they have changed lessons plans due to the law and that it violates their academic freedom.
Canada News.Net
3 hours ago
- Business
- Canada News.Net
YouTube launches U.S. trial of AI system to detect underage users
SAN BRUNO, California: YouTube will start testing an AI-driven age verification system in the U.S., using artificial intelligence to determine whether a logged-in viewer is an adult or a minor based on their viewing habits. The pilot, initially affecting only a small portion of U.S. users, could expand nationwide if the technology proves as accurate domestically as in other countries. The system will operate only for users signed into their accounts and will assess age regardless of the birth date entered during registration. If flagged as under 18, a viewer will be subject to the same restrictions YouTube already applies to minors. These include content limitations, privacy warnings, reminders to take breaks, and limits on video recommendations. The platform also blocks personalized ads for users under 18. Viewers incorrectly flagged as minors can verify their age by submitting a government-issued ID, a credit card, or a selfie. "YouTube was one of the first platforms to offer experiences designed specifically for young people, and we're proud to again be at the forefront of introducing technology that allows us to deliver safety protections while preserving teen privacy," James Beser, YouTube's director of product management, wrote in a blog post. Users can still watch videos without logging in, but some content will be automatically restricted unless they provide proof of age. The move comes amid increased political pressure for online platforms to better protect children from inappropriate content. That pressure intensified in late June when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Texas law aimed at preventing minors from viewing pornography online. While platforms like YouTube have begun tightening age checks, some companies argue that the responsibility should lie with major app store operators Apple and Google—an approach that both have resisted. The new system also raises concerns among privacy and free speech advocates. Groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy & Technology warn that mandatory age verification could intrude on personal privacy and infringe on First Amendment rights. YouTube, which Google has owned for nearly two decades, says the AI-based system is designed to balance youth safety with privacy protections while limiting the need for intrusive personal data collection.
