Latest news with #UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Suspect charged with federal hate crime after attacking pro-Israel group in Boulder
DENVER (KDVR) — A suspect is facing a federal hate crime charge after he allegedly threw Molotov cocktails that injured pro-Israel demonstrators in Boulder, according to a criminal complaint. A criminal complaint filed by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado charges the suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, with one count of a hate crime offense involving the actual or perceived race, religion, or national origin — a crime that holds no more than 10 years' imprisonment; five years' supervised release; $250,000 fine; $100 Special Assessment. 8 injured in Boulder attack; suspect charged with federal hate crime: Live Updates According to the complaint filed on Sunday, Soliman allegedly threw two Molotov cocktails into a pro-Israel crowd while yelling 'Free Palestine,' which caused burn injuries to eight victims. When Soliman was arrested, the complaint said authorities found a black plastic container with a yellow top nearby with at least 14 unlit Molotov cocktails that were made of glass wine carafe bottles or Ball jars with gasoline and red rags. A backpack weed sprayer, potentially containing a flammable substance, was also found near the container. A 2015 silver Toyota Prius registered to Soliman was also found nearby with red material like the rags found in the black plastic container, a red gas container and paperwork with the words, 'Israel,' 'Palestine,' and 'USAID.' After he was arrested, the document said Soliman admitted to planning the attack for over a year and targeting what he refers to as a 'Zionist group,' Run for Their Lives, which calls attention to Israeli hostages held in Gaza. FBI: Pearl Street suspect was from El Paso County Soliman said he was waiting for his daughter to graduate before the attack. He said he found the group through Facebook posts, stating that they met every Sunday afternoon at the corner of 8th and Pearl Street. The complaint said he researched how to make Molotov cocktails, purchased the ingredients and made them. Soliman said, 'he hated the Zionist group and did this because he hated this group and needed to stop them from taking over 'our land,' which he explained to be Palestine,' according to the complaint. He also said he wanted to kill all Zionist people, wished they were all dead and would 'do it' again. The complaint said that Soliman lives in Colorado Springs with his wife and five children. After his arrest, Soliman's wife brought an iPhone 14 that she said belonged to Soliman and was used by other family members. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Can Schools Ban This 'There Are Only Two Genders' Shirt? Supreme Court Declines To Hear Free Speech Case
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a case from a minor whose Massachusetts middle school refused to let him wear a shirt that said "THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS," reinvigorating the debate about how much latitude public schools have to restrict students' speech in the classroom. The plaintiff—a 12-year-old 7th grader at the time of the incident, identified as L.M. in the lawsuit—was booted from class in 2023 and sent home from Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, after he refused to change clothes. When he came back wearing a shirt that said "THERE ARE CENSORED GENDERS"—the same shirt but with "CENSORED" written across a piece of tape—he was sent to meet with the principal, who said he could keep the shirt in his backpack or in the assistant principal's office. He obliged and returned to class. When L.M. first sued, alleging a First Amendment violation, Judge Indira Talwani of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the school likely acted within its rights and thus denied his request for a preliminary injunction. "School administrators were well within their discretion to conclude that the statement 'THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS' may communicate that only two gender identities—male and female—are valid, and any others are invalid or nonexistent," she wrote, "and to conclude that students who identify differently, whether they do so openly or not, have a right to attend school without being confronted by messages attacking their identities." At the core of the case, and those like it, is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the 1969 Supreme Court precedent in which the justices ruled 7–2 it was unconstitutional when an Iowa school suspended students who wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. "It can hardly be argued," wrote Justice Abe Fortas, "that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker, however, came with a caveat. Schools can seek to stymie expression that causes, or could potentially cause, a "substantial disruption," a test that courts have struggled with for decades. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit heard L.M.'s case next, this tension was at the center of the opinion. The shirt here was analogous to the Tinker armbands in that its message was expressed "passively, silently, and without mentioning any specific students," the judges wrote. But it diverged, the court said, in that it "assertedly demean[ed] characteristics of personal identity, such as race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation." (Jason Carroll, the assistant principal, said there was concern that L.M.'s shirt "would be disruptive and would cause students in the LGBTQ+ community to feel unsafe.") The court responded with a two-prong test it said was in line with Tinker. A school may censor passive expression if it "is reasonably interpreted to demean one of those characteristics of personal identity, given the common understanding that such characteristics are unalterable or otherwise deeply rooted" and "the demeaning message is reasonably forecasted to poison the educational atmosphere due to its serious negative psychological impact on students." It's ironic that the court would rely on the notion of a "common understanding" to buttress its decision when considering that a hefty majority—65 percent as of 2023—of American adults believe there are only two gender identities. It is not a particularly contentious point, despite it often being portrayed that way. That such a basic statement could be seen as too offensive—regardless of whether someone identifies as gender-nonconforming—is not an encouraging stance for any institution to take, much less one devoted to education. That is especially relevant here, however, as Nichols Middle School allowed students to challenge the idea that there are only two genders. You don't need to agree with the student's shirt to support his right to contribute to that conversation. The First Amendment protects unpopular speech, after all—something school administrators should understand, given that their position is, in reality, the unpopular one in society today. It's for that reason that, in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the school had violated the First Amendment's shield against viewpoint discrimination. "If a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity, then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues," he wrote. "If anything, viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable because young children are more impressionable and thus more susceptible to indoctrination." The post Can Schools Ban This 'There Are Only Two Genders' Shirt? Supreme Court Declines To Hear Free Speech Case appeared first on
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Sean ‘Diddy' Combs accused of keeping list of showbiz enemies
Sean 'Diddy' Combs has been accused of keeping a list of showbiz enemies. The rapper, 55, is continuing to face damning testimonies as his trial for sex trafficking and racketeering continues in New York following a Memorial Day break. Capricorn Clark, a former assistant to Combs, took the stand on Tuesday (27.05.25) to say Combs maintained a 'list of celebrity enemies', including Suge Knight and Curtis Jackson, 48, better known as 50 Cent, among a list of enemies. She added she overheard Combs discussing firearms during a conversation about 50 Cent, shortly after a press event at MTV. Capricorn told the court: 'He said, 'I don't like the back and forth, I don't like that. I like guns.'' While Combs has publicly denied having a feud with his fellow rapper, 50 has frequently criticised him on social media. And on Tuesday, following Clark's testimony, the rapper posted on Instagram: 'Wait a minute PUFFY's got a gun, I can't believe this I don't feel safe.' The post was accompanied by an AI-generated image of himself on a film set. Combs has denied all charges brought against him, and so far his case, now in its third week, has seen testimony from multiple high-profile witnesses, including former employees, artists and collaborators. Scott Mescudi, 40, known professionally as Kid Cudi, has already testified Combs broke into his Hollywood Hills home in 2011 after discovering he was dating singer Cassie Ventura. He alleged weeks later, his car was set on fire, and he told the court: 'It was clearly an intimidation tactic.' Dawn Richard, 40, a former member of the girl group Danity Kane, and Cassie Ventura, 37, the trial's main accuser, have also delivered testimony implicating Combs in a pattern of controlling and violent behaviour. Combs' legal team maintain he is not guilty of sex trafficking or racketeering. Other high-profile names mentioned so far during his trial include Michael B Jordan, 37, Barack Obama, 62, and Britney Spears, 42, though none of them have been accused of any wrongdoing. The trial continues at the United States District Court in Manhattan, with Combs facing life in prison if convicted.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's EO targeting Big Law firm WilmerHale goes against Founding Fathers' vision, federal judge rules
President Donald Trump's executive order targeting Big Law firm WilmerHale was ruled unconstitutional. In his ruling, District Judge Richard Leon said the EO was a form of "coercion" against the firm. Three different judges have ruled that Trump's orders against Big Law firms are illegal. A district court judge declared President Donald Trump's executive order targeting the Big Law firm WilmerHale unconstitutional. In his ruling, federal Judge Richard Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said the executive order against WilmerHale was a form of "coercion" against the firm to "suppress WilmerHale's representation of disfavored causes and clients." "I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional," Leon wrote. "Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!" The decision marks the third straight victory for law firms suing the Trump administration over the executive orders targeting them. Judges have also blocked executive orders targeting Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block. A final decision for Susman Godfrey, the fourth and most recent firm to sue the administration, remains pending, although a judge has already placed a restraining order preventing the implementation of Trump's order. Earlier in May, WilmerHale's attorneys said the Trump administration suspended the security clearances of two of its lawyers. Judge Leon's order on Tuesday requires government agencies to "immediately take any and all steps necessary to nullify and reverse any implementation" of Trump's order. "The Court's decision to permanently block the unlawful executive order in its entirety strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients," a spokesperson for WilmerHale told Business Insider. "We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients." Representatives for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. The federal government can appeal Judge Leon's decision, in which case the proceedings will be heard in the court of appeals. Any subsequent appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court. In the now-blocked executive order, Trump specifically singled out attorney Aaron Zebley, a WilmerHale employee who served as a top aide in Robert Mueller's special counsel's office, which investigated Trump's ties to Russia in 2016. The order described WilmerHale's decision to hire Zebley after his participation in the federal probe as "weaponization of the justice system." WilmerHale hired the superstar conservative lawyer Paul Clement to defend the firm in its suit against the Trump administration. In his ruling, Judge Leon wrote that it is "obvious" that enforcing Trump's order against WilmerHale would be "contrary to the public interest." "The WilmerHale Order violates the separation of powers by attempting to usurp the Judiciary's authority to resolve cases and sanction abuses of the judicial process," Jude Leon wrote. "'A scheme so inconsistent with accepted separation-of-powers principles' must fall." Read the original article on Business Insider
Business Insider
6 days ago
- Business
- Business Insider
Trump's EO targeting Big Law firm WilmerHale goes against Founding Fathers' vision, federal judge rules
A district court judge declared President Donald Trump's executive order targeting the Big Law firm WilmerHale unconstitutional. In his ruling, federal Judge Richard Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said the executive order against WilmerHale was a form of "coercion" against the firm to "suppress WilmerHale's representation of disfavored causes and clients." "I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional," Leon wrote. "Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!" The decision marks the third straight victory for law firms suing the Trump administration over the executive orders targeting them. Judges have also blocked executive orders targeting Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block. A final decision for Susman Godfrey, the fourth and most recent firm to sue the administration, remains pending, although a judge has already placed a restraining order preventing the implementation of Trump's order. Earlier in May, WilmerHale's attorneys said the Trump administration suspended the security clearances of two of its lawyers. Judge Leon's order on Tuesday requires government agencies to "immediately take any and all steps necessary to nullify and reverse any implementation" of Trump's order. "The Court's decision to permanently block the unlawful executive order in its entirety strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients," a spokesperson for WilmerHale told Business Insider. "We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients." Representatives for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. The federal government can appeal Judge Leon's decision, in which case the proceedings will be heard in the court of appeals. Any subsequent appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court. In the now-blocked executive order, Trump specifically singled out attorney Aaron Zebley, a WilmerHale employee who served as a top aide in Robert Mueller's special counsel's office, which investigated Trump's ties to Russia in 2016. The order described WilmerHale's decision to hire Zebley after his participation in the federal probe as "weaponization of the justice system." WilmerHale hired the superstar conservative lawyer Paul Clement to defend the firm in its suit against the Trump administration. In his ruling, Judge Leon wrote that it is "obvious" that enforcing Trump's order against WilmerHale would be "contrary to the public interest." "The WilmerHale Order violates the separation of powers by attempting to usurp the Judiciary's authority to resolve cases and sanction abuses of the judicial process," Jude Leon wrote. "'A scheme so inconsistent with accepted separation-of-powers principles' must fall."
