Latest news with #FirstCircuitCourtofAppeals
Daily Mail
29-07-2025
- Daily Mail
Mom who claims woke school hid 13-year-old's gender transition suffers crushing court defeat
A mom in Maine suffered a crushing defeat in court following claims that a woke school hid her child's gender transition from her and their family. Amber Lavigne, of Wiscasset, discovered a chest binder in her 13-year-old child's room when the then-eighth grader was at a school dance in December 2022. Yet, an appeal for the lawsuit Lavigne launched against the school in 2023 has dismissed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Lavigne's child said, at the time, that the binder - a garment used to flatten the chest of the wearer - was bought for them by a social worker named Sam Roy at Great Salt Bay School in Damariscotta. In her appeal, Lavigne argued that her claims 'sufficiently establish the existence of a policy or custom of withholding... the district court erred in declining to address the first element of municipal liability, and her allegations established that the Board violated her right to direct the education of her child.' According to documents, the court concluded in her appeal that 'Lavigne's allegations fail to plausibly show that either the Board had a policy of withholding or that the Board later ratified the individual defendants' decision to withhold information from Lavigne.' The court furthered that Lavigne did not provide 'sufficient' evidence to argue of a policy or custom for withholding and concealing information. 'None of [Lavigne's] allegations support the inference that the Board maintained an unwritten custom or policy of withholding information from parents,' court documents said. 'Without this factual support, Lavigne's contention that the school acted pursuant to an unwritten "blanket policy, pattern, and practice of intentional withholding and concealment of such information from all parents" is based solely on her "information and belief".' The mother and her lawyers demanded, at the time of the initial lawsuit, a 'full investigation into Mr. Roy's decision to give a 13-year-old girl an undergarment without notice, consent or involvement of her mother.' They also claimed the school's actions broke the Fourteenth Amendment by blocking Lavigne's fundamental constitutional right to control and direct the education, upbringing, and healthcare decisions of her daughter,' Adam Shelton, a lawyer at Goldwater, wrote in a letter. The school district was further accused by Lavigne of withholding and concealing her child's transition, including the use of a name and pronouns that were not assigned to the child at birth. The law firm argued that although students have confidential access to mental healthcare through school, social transitioning is 'not protected by statutory confidentiality'. 'The "social transitioning" of Ms. Lavigne's daughter without her notice, consent, or involvement in the process alone violated her constitutional rights,' the letter said. 'But even if secrecy were required by Maine law, such secrecy would still violate Ms. Lavigne's constitutional rights. Ms. Lavigne has a clearly established constitutional right to control and direct the education, upbringing, and healthcare decisions of her child. The actions of the School, school employees, and the District have violated that right.' Lavigne pulled her child from the school, allowing her daughter to cut her hair short but still referring to her by feminine pronouns. The mother told National Review that she believes her daughter is still her daughter at heart and that she acts femininely when she's not thinking about it. She added that she was not opposed to her daughters eventual transition, and said: 'If she at 18 starts taking testosterone and decides to mutilate her body, am I going to express to her some concerns? Absolutely,' she told the National Review. 'Am I going to write my kiddo off? Never in a million years. This is my baby girl. At the end of the day, I'm not going to destroy my relationship with my child to be right.' 'At the end of the day, she is who she is,' the mother said. 'If she thinks she's going to live a more fulfilled life as a male, that's up for her to decide as an adult. At 13, it's up to me to safeguard my child against doing things to her body that she can't reverse.'
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump admin appeals federal judge's decision rejecting ban of foreign Harvard students
The Trump administration appealed a preliminary injunction that was granted to Harvard on Monday evening, after the federal government attempted to ban Harvard foreign students from entering the country to study, according to a Friday evening filing. The case will now go to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs wrote in her Monday decision that the government's efforts were 'misplaced' to 'control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints.' 'To make matters worse, the government attempts to accomplish this, at least in part, on the backs of international students, with little thought to the consequences to them or, ultimately, to our own citizens,' Burroughs said. The preliminary injunction was in response to President Donald Trump issuing a proclamation that invoked national security powers to bar Harvard's international students from entering the country to study. Trump also directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider stopping the processing of Harvard student visas. Read more: Judge rules Trump can't invoke national security powers to ban foreign Harvard students Burroughs previously ruled in the university's favor for a separate preliminary injunction on June 20, allowing Harvard to host international students. The pair of injunctions effectively replaces two temporary restraining orders on those issues that were granted in May and June. Burroughs still needs to rule on the legality of the case, but the injunctions provide a pause until that happens. At the same time as the cases are moving through federal court, Trump boasted last week of a 'mindbogglingly HISTORIC' deal with Harvard University. The reported deal is on the back of months of battling between the two parties, where the Trump administration has claimed the university failed to protect Jewish students, particularly in the wake of the war in Gaza. Meanwhile, Harvard has claimed the government aims to wreak 'havoc' on the institution, 'throwing into disarray every aspect of campus life,' the university's legal team wrote in a request for a temporary restraining order. Since the battle between the two, international students and U.S. students have been considering transferring to other universities. About 27% of Harvard's undergraduate and graduate students are international, according to 2024 to 2025 data. Harvard international students have been wrongly detained at Boston Logan Airport and denied visas, according to Maureen Martin, Harvard's director of immigration services, in a court filing. The Trump administration, in a lengthy 44-page brief, stated its opposition to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in the case. 'That Harvard has now become the subject of an immigration related enforcement action is neither discriminatory nor retaliatory. It reflects considered enforcement discretion directed to address well-founded national-security concerns, which courts cannot question,' the federal government wrote. The battle over international students started when the Department of Homeland Security said it was revoking a key certification that allows Harvard University's international students to study there. The institution was offered an ultimatum by the Trump administration to lose the certification or give up information about its foreign student population. Quickly after, Judge Burroughs granted a temporary restraining order. Rubio later stated that the U.S. would begin revoking the visas of some Chinese students and increase vetting of social media accounts of student visa applicants. Following the revocation attempt, Trump issued a proclamation that barred Harvard's international students from entering the country to study. He also directed Rubio to consider stopping the processing of Harvard student visas. A temporary restraining order from Burroughs blocked that, and the State Department ordered embassies around the world to resume processing Harvard University student visas. Harvard has a separate lawsuit in reaction to the federal government freezing or cutting nearly $3 billion in federal funding, citing antisemitism at Harvard. 'In the Trump Administration, discrimination will not be tolerated on campus. Federal funds must support institutions that protect all students,' the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services wrote in May as it cut $60 million in grants to Harvard. A new Boston-area college president is named amid financial strain and a resignation Harvard subpoenaed in Ivy League tuition price-fixing investigation Should Harvard enter into a deal with the Trump administration? Lawsuit: MIT professor harassed Israeli researcher, Jewish student as president stood by Harvard Kennedy's backup plan for foreign students: Study online, or in Canada Read the original article on MassLive.
NBC News
20-06-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Judge again blocks Trump administration from halting Harvard's enrolling international students
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Friday again blocked the government's attempt to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll international students. U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued the preliminary injunction, after granting a temporary restraining order against the administration. In her decision, Burroughs directed the Trump administration to 'immediately' prepare guidance to alert officials to disregard original notice and to restore 'every visa holder and applicant to the position that individual would have been absent such Revocation Notice.' She asked for that to be done in next 72 hours. Because of this injunction, the Trump administration is also blocked from altering or terminating Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification. The Trump administration is likely to appeal this ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision comes after the Trump administration in May attempted to terminate Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which allows the school to enroll international students on the F-1 and M-1 student visas. The school sued the government the next day, and was granted a temporary restraining order by Burroughs shortly afterward. In a separate proclamation released earlier this month, Donald Trump said he would deny visas to foreign students who were looking to come to the U.S. with the purpose of attending the Ivy League university. The school hit back, amending its May lawsuit and asking the court to halt the proclamation's enforcement, which Burroughs swiftly granted. During a hearing on the injunction, Ian Heath Gershenger, an attorney for the university, accused the administration of 'using international students as pawns,' and singling out Harvard. Department of Justice attorneys focused on the administration's national security concerns, saying they did not trust Harvard to vet thousands of international students. An attorney for the Trump administration previously said that it does not have the same concerns in regards to other schools, but that could change. For months, the government has been entrenched in a tug-of-war with the Ivy League university. In April, the administration's Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced that they would be cutting more than $2 billion in grants after the school rejected its demands, which included restricting the acceptance of international students who are 'hostile to the American values and institutions.' Harvard quickly sued the administration and accused it of seeking 'unprecedented and improper' control of the school. As tensions escalated, the administration weeks later further asked all federal agencies to end their contracts with Harvard — an amount totaling $100 million. The administration's targeting of the prestigious university has drawn backlash from critics and free speech advocates, and support for the school from fellow institutions. Earlier this month, two dozen universities filed an amicus brief in support of the school, arguing that the funding freeze would impact more than just Harvard, due to the interconnectedness of scientific research, and would ultimately hinder American innovation and economic growth. And a group of 12,041 Harvard alumni, including prominent names like Conan O'Brien and author Margaret E. Atwood, filed a separate brief describing the withholding of funds as a 'reckless and unlawful' attempt to assert control over the school and other higher education institutions.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge Lifts Buffer Zone Outside Karen Read Trial
A ban on protests within a 200-foot 'buffer zone' outside a Massachusetts courtroom was lifted by the judge in Karen Read's trial Thursday, opening the door to quiet demonstrations in the public areas outside the building.'Quiet, offsite demonstrations on public property, in areas and at times that do not interfere with trial participants' entrance into or exit from the Courthouse, and that do not interfere with the orderly administration of justice, and that are not intended to influence any trial participants in the discharge of their duties are specifically outside the scope of the Buffer Zone restrictions,' Judge Beverly Cannone wrote in a decision released Thursday. Cannone had ordered the buffer zone, she said, to prevent protesters from intimidating jurors and witnesses and making so much noise as to disrupt the proceedings. A federal judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the buffer zone, finding that a group of protesters was unlikely to be able to show that its First Amendment rights outweighed the right to a fair the protesters' lawyer, Mark Randazza, told the First Circuit appellate court last week that his clients would agree to remain silent, protest only on streets and sidewalks off courthouse property and stay away when jurors entered and left the courthouse. 'The First Amendment is back from vacation in Massachusetts,' Randazza said in a statement. 'After treating courthouse sidewalks like North Korea with better landscaping, the First Circuit reminded everyone that free speech doesn't take vacations just because one judge or police department is offended.' Cannone reversed herself after the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Per Curiam in which jurists urged a reconsideration. "Read's case has become something of a cultural phenomenon. It has drawn headlines, controversy, and, as relevant here, throngs of demonstrators near the Norfolk County Courthouse (the "Courthouse"). The prior behavior of some of those demonstrators - including loud protests and the display of materials directed toward trial participants - frames a potential conflict between the state court's effort to conduct a fair trial and demonstrators' right to express their views," the court wrote. Read, 45, is charged with hitting her Boston cop boyfriend John O'Keefe, with her SUV and leaving him to die in a snowbank after a night of drinking. Her Los Angeles defense attorney Alan Jackson insists that O'Keefe died after a fight with another cop inside the house of another officer where his body was found and then framed Read. The controversy swirling around the case intensified when text messages from the lead police investigator in the case, Massachusetts State Police Trooper Michael Proctor, wrote in a group text that included his supervisors that he had searched Read's phone for nude photos of her. He also called her 'whackjob cunt,' ridiculed her for having a chronic illness, made disparaging comments about her body and said that he hoped she would kill herself. He was fired in March. On Thursday, jurors heard evidence about whether it was possible that O'Keefe was punched in the face prior to his body being found in the snow. Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello, a Commonwealth of Massachusetts medical examiner, testified during cross-examination that she did not find any injuries on O'Keefe's body consistent with being struck by a vehicle. 'You did not include in your autopsy in any fashion, any discussion of whether Mr. O'Keefe's injuries were consistent with a motor vehicle accident, did you?' a member of Read's defense team Robert Alessi asked. 'I did not,' Scordi-Bello answered.'Did you evaluate it at all in your autopsy?' Alessi said. 'Whether Mr. O'Keefe had any injuries consistent with a motor vehicle accident?' 'Yes, I did examine his lower extremities,' Scordi-Bello said. 'That is protocol in any case of suspected impact with a motor vehicle. So I did examine his legs and I did not see any evidence of an impact site.' O'Keefe's manner of death was ultimately listed as undetermined after Scordi-Bello was unable to come to a homicide ruling based on available evidence at the time of the in the case is in its fourth week. Jurors were sent home on Tuesday after Read fell ill.
Hans India
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
David Souter, Retired Supreme Court Justice and Symbol of a Bygone Era, Dies at 85
Retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter, whose unexpected shift from conservative appointee to reliable liberal voice marked a turning point in American judicial politics, has died at the age of 85. Appointed in 1990 by Republican President George H.W. Bush, Souter defied expectations by siding with the court's liberal wing on major decisions throughout his nearly two decades on the bench. His legacy lives on not only through the cases he helped shape, but in the cautionary tale his career became for future Republican judicial nominations. Souter's tenure is widely seen as the reason the GOP became far more rigid in vetting Supreme Court nominees. His liberal rulings, especially in key social cases, gave rise to the phrase "no more Souters"—a rallying cry that reshaped how justices are chosen. That shift has helped solidify the current conservative supermajority, which in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade. Though current justices occasionally diverge from partisan expectations—Chief Justice John Roberts, for example—none have mirrored Souter's ideological journey. In a statement following Souter's death, Roberts praised his former colleague: 'Justice David Souter served our Court with great distinction for nearly twenty years. He brought uncommon wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service... He will be greatly missed.' Following his retirement in 2009, Souter returned to New Hampshire and continued to serve the judiciary by hearing cases on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. His retirement, during President Barack Obama's first term, enabled the appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reinforcing a now-rare moment of ideological transition. Obama's other nominee, Justice Elena Kagan, replaced John Paul Stevens—another Republican appointee who ultimately aligned with the liberal bloc. Today's court reflects a more hardened partisan divide. It is now rare, if not unthinkable, for a justice to retire under a president from the opposing party, a sharp contrast to Souter's era. As ideological battle lines continue to shape judicial appointments, David Souter remains a quiet but profound reminder of a time when unpredictability was still possible on the nation's highest court.
