ReportWire

Tag: discrimination

  • Claudette Colvin, who refused to give up bus seat at start of civil rights movement, dies at 86

    MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Claudette Colvin, whose 1955 arrest for refusing to give up her seat on a segregated Montgomery bus helped spark the modern civil rights movement, has died. She was 86.

    Her death was announced Tuesday by the Claudette Colvin Legacy Foundation. Ashley D. Roseboro of the organization confirmed she died of natural causes in Texas.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmr@=G:?[ 2E 286 `d[ H2D 2CC6DE65 ?:?6 >@?E9D 367@C6 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^E@52J:?9:DE@CJ^5646>36C`Qm#@D2 !2C6 7@C 2=D@ C67FD:?8 E@ 8:G6 FA 96C D62E @? 2 D68C682E65 3FD]k^Am

    kAmr@=G:? 925 3@2C565 E96 3FD @? |2C49 a[ `hdd[ @? 96C H2J 9@>6 7C@> 9:89 D49@@=] %96 7:CDE C@HD H6C6 C6D6CG65 7@C H9:E6 A2DD6?86CD] r@=G:? D2E 😕 E96 C62C H:E9 @E96C q=24< A2DD6?86CD] (96? E96 H9:E6 D64E:@? 3642>6 7F==[ E96 3FD 5C:G6C @C56C65 q=24< A2DD6?86CD E@ C6=:?BF:D9 E96:C D62ED E@ H9:E6 A2DD6?86CD] r@=G:? C67FD65]k^Am

    kAm“|J >:?5D6E H2D @? 7C665@>[” r@=G:? k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^C24:2=:?;FDE:464=2F56EE64@=G:?2=232>2>@?E8@>6CJd_bb26_6b_hg`4b_a_a4cbaega6e`_acQmD2:5 😕 a_a` @7 96C C67FD2=k^2m E@ 8:G6 FA 96C D62E]k^Am

    kAm“$@ x H2D ?@E 8@:?8 E@ >@G6 E92E 52J[” D96 D2:5] “x E@=5 E96> E92E 9:DE@CJ 925 >6 8=F65 E@ E96 D62E]”k^Am

    kAmpE E96 E:>6 @7 r@=G:?’D 2CC6DE[ 7CFDEC2E:@? H2D >@F?E:?8 @G6C 9@H q=24< A6@A=6 H6C6 EC62E65 @? E96 4:EJ 3FD DJDE6>] p?@E96C q=24< E66?286C[ |2CJ {@F:D6 $>:E9[ H2D 2CC6DE65 2?5 7:?65 E92E ~4E@36C 7@C C67FD:?8 E@ 8:G6 FA 96C D62E E@ 2 H9:E6 A2DD6?86C]k^Am

    kAmxE H2D E96 2CC6DE @7 !2C6 E96 7:?2= 42E2=JDE 7@C E96 J62C=@?8 |@?E8@>6CJ qFD q@J4@EE] %96 3@J4@EE AC@A6==65 E96 #6G] |2CE:? {FE96C z:?8 yC] :?E@ E96 ?2E:@?2= =:>6=:89E 2?5 😀 4@?D:56C65 E96 DE2CE @7 E96 >@56C? 4:G:= C:89ED >@G6>6?E]k^Am

    kAmr@=G:? H2D @?6 @7 E96 7@FC A=2:?E:77D 😕 E96 =2?5>2C< =2HDF:E E92E @FE=2H65 C24:2= D68C682E:@? @? |@?E8@>6CJ’D 3FD6D] w6C 562E9 4@>6D ;FDE @G6C 2 >@?E9 27E6C |@?E8@>6CJ 46=63C2E65 E96 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^>@?E8@>6CJ3FD3@J4@EE2??:G6CD2CJ6G6?ED4:G:=C:89EDgcc3`432aaef75e_5b_a“7dhe5b6537Qmf_E9 2??:G6CD2CJk^2m @7 E96 qFD q@J4@EE]k^Am

    kAm|@?E8@>6CJ |2J@C $E6G6? #665 D2:5 r@=G:?’D 24E:@? “96=A65 =2J E96 =682= 2?5 >@C2= 7@F?52E:@? 7@C E96 >@G6>6?E E92E H@F=5 492?86 p>6C:42]”k^Am

    Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    By KIMBERLY CHANDLER – Associated Press

    Source link

  • Gov. Ron DeSantis Calls for Special Session in April to Redraw Florida’s Congressional Districts

    ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said Wednesday he plans to call a special session in April for the Republican-dominated legislature to draw new congressional districts, joining a redistricting arms race among states that have redrawn districts mid-decade.

    Even though Florida’s 2026 legislative session starts next week, DeSantis said he wanted to wait for a possible ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais could determine whether Section 2, a part of the Voting Rights Act that bars discrimination in voting systems is constitutional.

    “I don’t think it’s a question of if they’re going to rule. It’s a question of what the scope is going to be,” DeSantis said at a news conference in Steinhatchee, Florida. “So, we’re getting out ahead of that.”

    Congressional districts in Florida that are redrawn to favor Republicans could carry big consequences for President Donald Trump’s plan to reshape congressional districts in GOP-led states, which could give Republicans a shot at winning additional seats in the midterm elections and retaining control of the closely divided U.S. House.

    Nationwide, the unusual mid-decade redistricting battle has so far resulted in a total of nine more seats Republicans believe they can win in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio — and a total of six more seats Democrats expect to win in California and Utah, putting Republicans up by three. But the redrawn districts are being litigated in some states, and if the maps hold for 2026, there is no guarantee the parties will win the seats.

    In 2010, more than 60% of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting the drawing of district boundaries to unfairly favor one political party in a process known as gerrymandering.

    Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – December 2025

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • South Dakota Hotel Owner Found Liable for Discrimination Against Native Americans

    SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — The owner of a South Dakota hotel who said Native Americans were banned from the establishment was found liable for discrimination against Native Americans on Friday.

    A federal jury decided the owner of the Grand Gateway Hotel in Rapid City will pay tens of thousands of dollars in damages to various plaintiffs who were denied service at the hotel. The jury awarded $1 to the NDN Collective, the Indigenous advocacy group that filed the lawsuit.

    The group brought the class-action civil rights lawsuit against Retsel Corporation, the company that owns the hotel, in 2022. The case was delayed when the company filed for bankruptcy in September 2024. The head of the company, Connie Uhre, passed away this September.

    “This was never about money. We sued for one dollar,” said Wizipan Garriott, president of NDN Collective and an enrolled member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. “It was about being on record for the discrimination that happened, and using this as an opportunity to be able to really call out racism.”

    Uhre posted on social media in March 2022 that she would ban Native Americans from the property after a fatal shooting at the hotel involving two teenagers whom police identified as Native American. She wrote in a Facebook post that she cannot “allow a Native American to enter our business including Cheers,” the hotel’s bar and casino.

    When Native American members of the NDN Collective tried to book a room at the hotel after her social media posts, they were turned away. The incident drew protests in Rapid City and condemnation from the mayor as well as tribes in the state.

    In Friday’s decision, the jury also ruled in Retsel’s countersuit against NDN Collective that the group had acted as a nuisance in its protests against the hotel, awarding $812 to the company.

    The Associated Press reached out to the defense attorneys for comment.

    Rapid City, a gateway to Mount Rushmore, has long seen racial tensions. At least 8% of the city’s population of about 80,000 identifies as American Indian or Alaska Native, according to census data.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – December 2025

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Brigitte Macron Defends ‘Clumsy’ Sexist Slur Against Feminist Protesters

    PARIS (AP) — France’s first lady has defended her use of a sexist slur to denounce feminist protesters, saying the comments were “clumsy” but made in private when “I didn’t see that someone behind me was filming.”

    Speaking to online media outlet Brut, Brigitte Macron acknowledged in a video interview published Monday evening that her language had been “very direct.” But she said she’d been trying to reassure French actor Ary Abittan when she described feminist protesters who disrupted one of his shows as “dirty b – – – – – s.”

    That scene was filmed earlier this month. She was in discussion backstage at the Folies Bergère theatre in Paris with Abittan, an actor and humorist previously accused of rape who was about to give a performance. The previous night, feminist campaigners had disrupted his show with shouts of “Abittan, rapist!” Brigitte Macron asked Abittan how he was feeling. When he said he was feeling scared, she replied with the derogatory and sexist reference to the women, adding: “We’ll toss them out.”

    The comments triggered a backlash, including from campaigners against sexual and sexist violence, and political opponents of her husband, President Emmanuel Macron.

    In her interview with Brut, Brigitte Macron said in the relatively rare public declaration that “I completely understand” that some people were shocked, but added that “it absolutely wasn’t meant to be public” and that she’d not been speaking as the French leader’s spouse.

    “I am not always the wife of the president of the Republic. I also have a private life and this was a private moment. I am sorry if I hurt women victims. It’s them and just them that I am thinking of,” she said.

    “I certainly wouldn’t have used those terms in public,” she said.

    But she also criticized protesters for targeting Abittan, saying that she “cannot bear that a performance is interrupted. Someone is on stage. He is trying to give everything that he can give. How does he carry on afterward? What is the meaning of this censorship being placed on artists? It’s something that I don’t understand. We aren’t judges.”

    Magistrates terminated the investigation of the 2021 rape allegation against Abittan because of a lack of evidence in 2024, a decision then confirmed on appeal in January. Activists with the feminist campaign group “Nous Toutes” (“All of Us”) disrupted his show to protest what it described as “the culture of impunity” around sexual violence in France.

    Asked by Brut if she regretted her comments, Brigitte Macron said: “I cannot regret speaking. I don’t want to regret. It is true that I am the wife of the president of the Republic, but I am also myself above anything. And when I am in private, it’s true that I can let myself go in a way that is absolutely not adequate but I needed to reassure him.”

    “I reassured him certainly in a way that was clumsy. But I had no other words at my disposal at that moment. And regardless, I think we have a right to speak and the right to think.”

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – December 2025

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • For Trump, “Fostering the Future” Looks a Lot Like the Past

    By putting the religious rights of potential foster parents above the civil rights of L.G.B.T.Q. youth, a new executive order reënacts the original sin of the child-welfare system.

    Kristen Martin

    Source link

  • Judge bars Trump from immediately cutting funding to the University of California

    The Trump administration cannot immediately cut federal funding to the University of California or issue fines against the school system over claims it allows antisemitism or other forms of discrimination, a federal judge ruled late Friday in a sharply worded decision.

    U.S. District Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction sought by labor unions and other groups representing UC faculty, students and employees. She said they had provided “overwhelming evidence” that the Trump administration was “engaged in a concerted campaign to purge ‘woke,’ ‘left,’ and ‘socialist’ viewpoints from our country’s leading universities.”

    “Agency officials, as well as the President and Vice President, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune,” she said.

    She added, “It is undisputed that this precise playbook is now being executed at the University of California.”

    Messages sent to the White House and the U.S. Department of Justice after hours Friday were not immediately returned.

    President Donald Trump has decried elite colleges as overrun by liberalism and antisemitism.

    His administration has launched investigations of dozens of universities, claiming they have failed to end the use of racial preferences in violation of civil rights law. The Republican administration says diversity, equity and inclusion efforts discriminate against white and Asian American students.

    The University of California is facing a series of civil rights investigations, according to Lin’s ruling.

    In one case, the Trump administration over the summer demanded the University of California, Los Angeles pay $1.2 billion to restore frozen research funding and ensure eligibility for future funding after accusing the school of allowing antisemitism on campus. UCLA was the first public university to be targeted by the administration over allegations of civil rights violations.

    It has also frozen or paused federal funding over similar claims against private colleges, including Columbia University.

    UC is in settlement talks with the administration and is not a party to the lawsuit before Lin, who was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, a Democrat. An email to the school system after hours on Friday was not immediately returned.

    University of California President James B. Milliken has said the size of the UCLA fine would devastate the UC system, whose campuses are viewed as some of the top public colleges in the nation.

    The administration has demanded UCLA comply with its views on gender identity and establish a process to make sure foreign students are not admitted if they are likely to engage in anti-American, anti-Western or antisemitic “disruptions or harassment,” among other requirements outlined in a settlement proposal made public in October.

    The administration has previously struck deals with Brown University for $50 million and Columbia University for $221 million.

    Lin cited declarations by UC faculty and staff that the administration’s moves were prompting them to stop teaching or researching topics they were “afraid were too ‘left’ or ‘woke.’”

    “The undisputed record demonstrates that Defendants have engaged in coercive and retaliatory conduct in violation of the First Amendment and Tenth Amendment,” she wrote.

    Lin’s injunction bars the administration from cancelling funding to the University of California based on alleged discrimination without giving notice to affected faculty and conducting a hearing, among other requirements.

    CBS Bay Area

    Source link

  • Opinion | What Does ‘White Guilt’ Mean in 2025?

    Victim politics gave us pro-Hamas activism and a powerful reaction in the form of Donald Trump, argue Shelby Steele and his son, Eli.

    Tunku Varadarajan

    Source link

  • Music Review: Florence + the Machine’s ‘Everybody Scream’ wrestles with greatness and mortality

    During his acceptance speech for best actor at this year’s Screen Actors Guild Awards, Timothée Chalamet made known his desire to be remembered as “one of the greats.” A few years earlier, Chalamet starred in Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of “Little Women,” in which his character demonstratively asks his future wife, “What women are allowed into the club of geniuses, anyway?”

    “Everybody Scream,” Florence + the Machine’s sixth album, is a response to that familiar, gendered notion. Across its 12 tracks, Florence Welch contends with both her desire for greatness and the constraints she understands to have been put on her as a female artist.

    It’s unclear if Welch had Chalamet’s viral speech in mind when writing, “One of the Greats,” the album’s lead single. But what is apparent in her brooding feminist treatise are grievances about sexism and male entitlement. “It must be nice to be a man and make boring music just because you can,” she belts over gothic synths and strings. But it’s a bit funny, too: “Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan, you’re my second favorite frontman.”

    Welch collaborated with Mark Bowen of IDLES for much of the record, as well as Mitski and Aaron Dessner of The National. Sometimes the collaborations create a haunting sound, but most of “Everybody Scream” is packed with the band’s signature orchestral pop, an ornate arrangement of strings, synths, guitars, pianos and percussion.

    Perhaps to a fault, “Everybody Scream” isn’t sonically dissimilar from what fans of Florence + the Machine have come to expect. But in a lyrical shift, Welch meditates heavily on mysticism and witchcraft throughout, something she turned to after suffering a nearly fatal ectopic pregnancy in 2023. The 39-year-old later revealed that she performed with a burst fallopian tube during her last tour and had to undergo emergency surgery.

    “I sit in salt water/Call in a vision of my daughter/Light a candle/Place my grief upon the altar,” her voice vibrates over haunting background vocals and an eerie electric guitar on “You Can Have It All.”

    The record is reminiscent of Halsey’s 2021 concept album, “If I Can’t Have Love, I Want Power,” where femininity and motherhood are juxtaposed with influence, respect and violence.

    There’s a similar rawness to Welch’s poetry, as she grapples with mortality and ambition. But, like life, it’s also accompanied by the mundane. “Downloading ‘Revelations of Divine Love’ on my phone/Trying to read but getting distracted/Trying to live but feeling so damaged,” she sings on “Perfume and Milk,” one of the more austere songs on the album.

    As a concept, “Everybody Scream” is stellar. There’s a sonic and thematic unity to the album and its Halloween release makes perfect sense.

    ___

    “Everybody Scream,” by Florence + the Machine

    Three and a half stars out of five.

    On repeat: “Sympathy Magic” and “Witch Dance”

    Skip it: “Music By Men”

    For fans of: witchy women, spooky season, second-wave feminism

    Source link

  • Opinion | Hamas, Free Speech and Arizona University

    The anti-Israel encampments on the quad are mostly gone, but we’re starting to learn what happened behind the scenes when universities let antisemitism run rampant on campus. Records recently obtained from the University of Arizona show the school’s faculty threw in with pro-Palestinian protesters in the months after Oct. 7, 2023.

    Arizona-based researcher Brian Anderson issued the Freedom of Information Act request in May 2024 for university communications on such keywords as “Israel,” “Palestine,” “Gaza,” “Hamas,” “Anti-Semitism” and “Jewish.” Mr. Anderson says the school refused the request until his lawyer sent a demand letter. It later produced nearly 1,000 documents with many names redacted. The university didn’t respond to our request for comment.

    The emails reveal that on Oct. 11, 2023, then-Arizona President Robert Robbins issued an unequivocal statement addressing “the horrendous acts of terrorism by Hamas in Israel.” Mr. Robbins called the massacre “antisemitic hatred, murder, and a complete atrocity” and called out Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) for “endorsing the actions of Hamas.”

    For that moment of principled clarity, Mr. Robbins was criticized by the faculty. On Oct. 12, faculty chair Leila Hudson received an email from a professor (name redacted) who expressed “concern” that “President Robbins email and others’ smears are chilling SJP dissent.” (Mr. Robbins had noted that while SJP didn’t speak for the university, the group has “the constitutional right to hold their views and to express them in a safe environment.”)

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    The Editorial Board

    Source link

  • When the Government Stops Defending Civil Rights

    In January of this year, however, shortly after Trump was sworn into office, the D.O.E. abruptly froze investigations into thousands of cases of alleged race and sex discrimination, including the case involving Blunt’s son. Linda McMahon, Trump’s Secretary of Education, lifted the freeze in March. A week later, the D.O.E. announced that it was closing seven of the O.C.R.’s twelve regional offices and firing around half of its roughly five hundred and fifty employees, as part of a broader “reduction in force” at the agency. In response, Public Justice, a nonprofit legal organization based in Washington, and attorneys at Glenn Agre Bergman & Fuentes sued the D.O.E., claiming that the drastic cuts would make it impossible for the agency to fulfill its statutory obligation to enforce civil-rights laws and would deprive children across the country who had been subjected to discrimination of a “meaningful path to relief.” One of the plaintiffs in the case was Tara Blunt, who, by this point, had withdrawn her son from public school and enrolled him at a private academy, despite the financial strain this imposed on her family. “I felt we didn’t have a choice—for his physical safety and his mental health,” she told me recently. “Every day, he would come home and say, ‘They made fun of my hair,’ ‘they called me this,’ ‘they called me that.’ He would say, ‘My heart hurts,’ or ‘I can’t take this anymore.’ ”

    Victims of racist bullying are not the only children whom the evisceration of the O.C.R. has harmed. Another plaintiff in the lawsuit filed by Public Justice is Karen Josefosky, a resident of Troy, Michigan, whose ten-year-old son has a severe, potentially life-threatening allergy to dairy products. In 2023, this condition, which qualified as a disability, turned him into the target of abuse and ridicule. “Allergies are dumb!” one student exclaimed while pouring milk on Josefosky’s son’s lunch. On another occasion, a group of students tripped him to the ground, put a cheese crown made of paper on his head, and then taunted him with actual cheese. Because her son’s allergy could be triggered by mere contact with dairy products and because the harassment continued despite her complaints, a pediatrician advised Josefosky to keep him home. She decided to pull him out of school—and then filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights, which handles thousands of disability cases every year. After reviewing the evidence, a thick binder of documents that Josefosky had collected, O.C.R. investigators told her that her son’s case was a slam dunk. “They said, ‘Your case is so clear—this is one of the easiest cases we’ve ever seen,’ ” she recalled.

    After the O.C.R. got involved, the school agreed to enter a facilitated mediation. But, after Trump was elected, the agency stopped responding to Josefosky’s e-mails, and the mediation effort stalled. Josefosky and her husband, Glenn, consulted a private attorney, who confirmed what they’d feared, which is that the shuttering of the O.C.R.’s regional offices had caused their son’s case to be set aside. (The lawyer, Elizabeth Abdnour, told me that an O.C.R. official informed her that, essentially, “nothing is happening right now—we’re shut down.”) Last spring, Karen Josefosky, who is a teacher, started homeschooling her son, which she said has prevented him from falling behind academically but which she knows cannot furnish him with the social benefits that attending school can provide. “He doesn’t have community,” she said, through tears. Her son, she added, was so shaken by the harassment that he had started trying to hide his allergies, which could put his safety at risk. “He’s been traumatized,” she said.

    In May and June, a U.S. district court issued overlapping injunctions staying the D.O.E.’s reduction in force and directing it to return the O.C.R. employees who had been fired to work. But the Trump Administration delayed complying with the orders, reinstating only eighty-five of the dismissed workers while appealing the decisions. On September 29th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit paused the injunction pertaining specifically to the O.C.R., citing an emergency order issued by the Supreme Court that granted the Trump Administration permission to proceed with large-scale dismissals at the D.O.E. Two weeks ago, the eighty-five O.C.R. investigators who had been reinstated were laid off again, among them the senior manager who described that second firing as a gut punch. (On Tuesday, a judge issued a preliminary injunction in a related case, though it remains unclear how the decision will affect the latest wave of O.C.R. terminations.) Like Karen Josefosky, the senior manager has a son with a disability, and she expressed concern that parents of children like her own may now have no way to protect them from mistreatment. “My child has been harassed on the basis of his disability in the past,” she said. “I think about what it would have been like for him if I had not had the expertise that I have. That’s what parents are going to be left with, especially people who don’t have the resources to file a lawsuit. The most vulnerable are going to suffer the most.”

    Until recently, the complaints that the D.O.E.’s Office for Civil Rights investigated came primarily from students and families who contacted the agency at their own volition, reporting the harm they’d experienced—people like Karen Josefosky and Tara Blunt. Under Trump, the focus has shifted to investigations that have been generated internally, such as the announcement, in March, that forty-five universities across the country were being targeted for their “race-exclusionary” graduate programs. All the universities on the list—Duke, Cornell, Emory, George Mason—were being investigated for discrimination allegedly experienced by white students because of D.E.I. efforts. More recently, the O.C.R. threatened to cut federal funding to public schools in New York, Chicago, and Northern Virginia unless they stopped giving transgender and nonbinary students access to bathrooms and athletic programs consistent with their identity, which the Administration argues is a violation of Title IX, the law that bars sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational programs. (The Fairfax and Arlington County School Boards sued the Department of Education in August, noting that several courts have ruled that Title IX requires granting transgender students such access. A district judge dismissed their cases, but the school districts have since appealed the decision.) The Administration has also launched an unprecedented campaign to punish universities for allegedly failing to combat antisemitism on campuses where protests against the war in Gaza took place—charging them with compromising the safety of Jewish students, who have been singled out for protection that the members of other groups apparently don’t merit.

    The directed investigations that now dominate the O.C.R.’s agenda are “purely political,” the senior manager who’d been fired told me. Some conservatives would argue that this agenda has always been partisan, shaped by the woke ideology of the Democrats. But is protecting children with disabilities from discrimination really a partisan cause? Or investigating schools that have failed to protect teen-age girls from abuse? “Access to feeling safe in an educational setting is not a partisan issue,” said Amanda Walsh, the deputy director of external affairs at the Victim Rights Law Center, a nonprofit that represents victims of sexual assault, including students who have been subjected to Title IX violations such as sexual harassment and violence. (The center is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed by Public Justice against the D.O.E.) “Sexual assault is not a partisan issue,” Walsh continued. “The clients that we serve are both Democrats and Republicans, and most of them are kids and students. I think the safety of our kids in K-12 schools and of students in university settings is one of the few values a lot of people can agree on.”

    Eyal Press

    Source link

  • Minnesota Supreme Court rules USA Powerlifting discriminated against trans athlete

    Advocates on Wednesday celebrated a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that found USA Powerlifting violated the state’s Human Rights Act in barring a transgender woman from competition.

    The state Supreme Court in its ruling said that “USA Powerlifting’s policy at the time of the decision was to categorically exclude transgender women from competing in the women’s division” and reversed part of an appeals court ruling on the issue.

    JayCee Cooper is a transgender athlete who was denied entry into two women’s competitions in 2018. She sued, arguing that doing so amounted to discrimination and violated Minnesota’s Human Rights Act.

    USA Powerlifting argued its policy wasn’t because of her transgender status, but because she had “strength advantages.”

    “The court found USA Powerlifting liable for discrimination,” Gender Justice Legal Director Jess Braverman said. “In other words, that when it comes to discrimination, public accommodation, you cannot bar transgender women from women’s sports teams, and that is a huge victory. We are so proud.”

    The Supreme Court did send one issue — a business discrimination claim Cooper made — back to lower court proceedings. But Braverman said the outcome of those proceedings would not affect the settled issue of discrimination in public accommodations.

    “JayCee Cooper won on public accommodations. That’s not changing no matter what,” Braverman said. ” … Even if we took the business claim to its end and even if USA Powerlifting were successful on that, they would still lose on public accommodations and be liable to her for discrimination.”

    WCCO has reached out to USA Powerlifting for comment but has not heard back.

    A statement from Minnesota House Republicans called the state Supreme Court’s ruling “another setback in the fight to protect girls’ sports.”

    This story will be updated.

    WCCO Staff

    Source link

  • Former Cal State San Bernardino administrator awarded $6 million for gender discrimination

    A Los Angeles jury has awarded $6 million to a former Cal State San Bernardino administrator who alleged she was subjected to “severe or pervasive” gender harassment that her attorneys claim is systemic across the Cal State system.

    Attorney Courtney Abrams, who represented Anissa Rogers, the former associate dean at Cal State San Bernardino’s Palm Desert campus, said in a statement that the jury award Monday, Oct. 20, represented  “a resounding rejection of CSU’s long-running denials of gender bias within its ranks.”

    “Dr. Rogers stood up not only for herself, but also the other women who have been subjected to gender-based double-standards within the Cal State system,” Abrams said following the three-week trial before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter.

    Problem ‘systemic’

    Rogers and Clare Weber, the former vice provost at the Palm Desert campus, sued Cal State San Bernardino President Tomas Morales, Jake Zhu, the former dean of the Palm Desert campus, and the Board of Trustees of the California State University system, which comprises 23 campuses statewide and is the largest four-year public university system in the United States, employing nearly 56,000 faculty and staff.

    DAVID BAUMAN — STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

    Cal State San Bernardino President Tomas Morales, on Wednesday, Mar. 16, 2016.

    The lawsuit, filed in March 2023, alleged a pattern and practice of discrimination and sexual harassment against female employees in the CSU system in violation of the state’s Equal Pay Act. Rogers and Weber claim they were either forced to resign or fired for speaking out against mistreatment of and pay disparity for female employees.

    “This case exposed what women inside Cal State have been saying for years: the mistreatment of women within the Cal State system is not just a series of one-off incidents; the problem is systemic and structural,” said Andrew Friedman of Helmer Friedman, an attorney who represented Rogers in the lawsuit.

    In an email Tuesday, Oct. 21, CSUSB spokesman Alan Llavore said: “We were disappointed by the verdict reached by the jury (Monday) morning, and we will be reviewing our options to assess next steps.” He declined further comment.

    Officials at the California State University Office of the Chancellor in Long Beach also declined to comment.

    Forced out

    Rogers, who was hired as associate dean at the Palm Desert campus in August 2019, alleged in the lawsuit that on Oct. 15, 2021, she fielded multiple complaints from female employees who attended a “coffee with the dean” meeting Zhu hosted in which two male department heads berated a female administrator for about a half-hour. Zhu allegedly witnessed the conduct but did nothing.

    Rogers confronted Zhu about what happened the same day after hearing about it from the other employees who attended the meeting. Zhu, according to the lawsuit, subsequently targeted Rogers for termination, pretextually complaining about vacation time she took and for attending an event at her daughter’s college that he initially approved.

    On Jan. 1, 2022, Rogers, according to the lawsuit, was “constructively terminated” when she was forced to resign her position.

    Evidence presented at trial showed that in addition to Rogers, several other current and former CSUSB employees brought forth complaints that Zhu treated women worse than men, but neither the university’s human resources department nor its Title IX offices ever launched an investigation into the allegations, said David deRubertis of The deRubertis Law Firm in Studio City, who served as the lead trial attorney for Rogers.

    Weber alleges in the lawsuit that she wrote to Morales in July 2022 raising concerns that female vice provosts at the university were being paid less than their male counterparts. She said she was one of the lowest paid vice provosts in the CSU system, despite her large assignment portfolio. She called the alleged practice “highly offensive, totally discriminatory, and retaliatory.”

    Weber, according to the lawsuit, asked Morales to put an end to the alleged practice and requested an investigation into her concerns. The next day she was fired.

    Zhu retires

    Two months after Rogers and Weber filed their lawsuit, CSUSB announced Zhu was retiring, commending him for, among other things, being “instrumental in moving the Palm Desert campus forward” and growing the campus to meet the needs of students in the Coachella Valley.

    Zhu testified during trial that his retirement was unrelated to the lawsuit, and that he wanted to take care of his ailing mother and spend more time with his children, who were getting older, deRubertis said.

    He said evidence at trial showed that allegations of female employee mistreatment by Zhu were brought up during a faculty meeting at the Palm Desert campus on Sept. 20, 2022, and that CSUSB Provost Rafik Mohamed and Morales already were planning to replace him due to so-called “leadership issues” before Zhu decided to retire.

    Problems ignored

    DeRubertis argued during trial that the gender-based mistreatment of Rogers was “an inevitable result” after CSUSB ignored a climate survey suggesting a culture of fear, intimidation, gender-based mistreatment and bullying at the university. The survey recommended that the university adopt an anti-bullying policy and an audit of HR practices and policies.

    Morales acknowledged during trial that neither recommendation was implemented, deRubertis said.

    In May 2017, Cal State San Bernardino’s faculty voted 181-113 to express no-confidence in Morales, sharply criticizing him for failing to address issues raised in the campus climate survey the previous year.

    The no-confidence vote and faculty senate resolution was a point of contention in the lawsuit, which described the resolution as “scathing.” It noted that within there years of Morales’ appointment as university president, 89% of the faculty, staff and administrators who were surveyed reported that the climate had become worse, and that Morales had failed to implement the bulk of the recommended changes.

    “President Morales continues to be unwilling to acknowledge the severity of the problems of fear and distrust among employees,” according to the lawsuit.

    Weber’s case, which was separated from Rogers’ case at trial, is expected to go to a jury next year.

    Joe Nelson

    Source link

  • Ex-Amazon driver sues civil rights agency for dropping her case following Trump’s executive order

    NEW YORK — NEW YORK (AP) — A former Amazon delivery driver has filed a lawsuit accusing a federal civil right agency of abruptly and unlawfully abandoning her sex discrimination case and others like it following an executive order from President Donald Trump.

    The lawsuit filed by the former Colorado driver demands that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission resume investigating her claims that Amazon discriminates against female drivers by failing to provide adequate bathroom breaks.

    The lawsuit is the latest example of workers and others scrambling to find recourse as federal agencies abandon their cases in response to Trump’s shake-up of the country’s civil rights enforcement infrastructure.

    The EEOC, which enforces civil rights laws in the workplace, decided last month to discharge any complaints based on “disparate impact liability,” which holds that policies that are neutral on their face can be discriminatory if they impose unnecessary barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups.

    The EEOC’s decision came in response to an executive order in April directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of disparate impact liability. The Trump administration argues that disparate impact assumes any racial or gender imbalance in workplaces is the result of discrimination and leads to practices that undermine meritocracy.

    The former driver, Leah Cross, filed a motion Tuesday asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to stay the EEOC’s new rule prohibiting investigations and enjoin the agency from enforcing it.

    The EEOC has already dropped its sole lawsuit arising from a disparate impact liability charge, a case alleging that the Sheetz convenience store chain’s background check practices discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants.

    Separately, the agency has dropped lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers and subjected new complaints to a higher level of scrutiny, following Trump’s executive order declaring that the government would only recognize two unchangeable sexes.

    It’s unclear how many worker complaints involving disparate impact liability or LGBTQ+ workers have been sidelined by the EEOC. In her lawsuit, Cross demanded that the EEOC, which handled more than 88,000 discrimination charges in 2024, give the court a list of the disparate impact liability charges it has shut down.

    The EEOC referred questions about the lawsuit to the Department of Justice, which declined to comment.

    Cross, who worked as a driver from August to November 2022, filed her EEOC charge two years ago, arguing that the company’s delivery schedules make it nearly impossible for drivers to find time to use bathrooms. An EEOC investigator told her lawyers last month it was closing her case because of the disparate impact rule, according to the lawsuit.

    Amazon declined to comment on Cross’ case but referred The AP to its policies around its drivers, who deliver packages in Amazon-branded vehicles but work indirectly for the company through third-party companies called Delivery Service Partners. Amazon says its technology builds routes that ensure time for two 15-minute rest breaks and a 30-minute meal break. The company also said its Amazon Delivery app provides a list for drivers to see nearby restroom facilities and gas stations.

    But in an interview with The AP, Cross said it was so hard for to her stop for breaks that she had to pack a Shewee — a portable urination device for women — as well as a change of pants “in case I ended up accidentally urinating on myself.”

    Cross’ lawsuit against the EEOC argues that the agency is legally obligated to investigate all charges based on disparate impact liability, which Congress codified in the 1991 Civil Rights Act.

    The EEOC “isn’t allowed to throw away an entire category of charges without looking into their facts just because the president doesn’t like the type of discrimination those charges are based on,” said Karla Gilbride, an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group, one of the organizations that filed the lawsuit.

    Gilbride was the EEOC’s general counsel until she was fired in January along with two Democratic commissioners in a purge that cleared the way for the Trump administration to root out diversity and inclusion programs, roll back protections for transgender workers and elevate religious rights. ________

    The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    Source link

  • Federal Lawsuit Challenges Private School That Gives Preference to Native Hawaiians

    HONOLULU (AP) — A lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. court in Honolulu challenges an admissions policy of a wealthy and prestigious private school that gives preference to applicants who are Native Hawaiian.

    A leading opponent of affirmation action launched a campaign last month to test the policy’s legality and stop Kamehameha Schools from favoring Hawaiians. It’s part of a movement to expand the legal definition of racial discrimination in education, which comes on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action in college admissions and is bolstered by the Trump administration’s war against diversity, equity and inclusion.

    Now, they’re targeting scholarships, academic programs and admissions policies tied directly or indirectly to race.

    The lawsuit was expected after Students for Fair Admissions — led by Edward Blum, a leading opponent of affirmative action — set up a website posing the question, “Is your child barred from Kamehameha Schools based on ancestry?”

    The lawsuit doesn’t include any named or anonymous plaintiffs other than Students for Fair Admissions. But the complaint says the group has members who are “injured by Kamehameha’s discrimination,” and members who are “ready and able” to apply to the private school system, which has an endowment valued at more than $15 billion.

    A Kamehameha spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press seeking comment on the lawsuit.

    Trustees said previously they are confident the policy aligns with established law.

    Kamehameha Schools was founded by the will of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the great-granddaughter of King Kamehameha I. When she died in 1884, her will directed the establishment of schools that give preference to Native Hawaiians.

    Each year, the number of applications exceeds the number of spaces by as much as 17 to 1, depending on the campus and grade, according to the Kamehameha website. Alumni and parents of current students say a Kamehameha education is highly desirable because it’s affordable, offers stellar academics and is grounded in the culture of Hawaii’s Indigenous people.

    “Nothing about training future leaders, or preserving Hawaii’s unique culture, requires Kamehameha to block its students from learning beside children of different ancestries — Asian, black, Hispanic, or white,” the lawsuit said.

    The comment shows the group behind the lawsuit doesn’t understand what is means to be Hawaiian or multiracial, said state Sen. Jarrett Keohokalole, who is running for Congress.

    He noted that his mother, Marilyn Stewart, is a white woman from Medford, Oregon, making him Scottish, German, French, Tahitian and Hawaiian.

    The challenge to Kamehameha Schools is coming from “tone deaf outsiders who know nothing about Hawaii,” said Keohokalole, who applied in 1995 for seventh grade, and two years later for high school, but was rejected and graduated from a Catholic boys school.

    There’s an understanding among Hawaii residents that only students with Hawaiian blood will be admitted. Many see the policy as a way to remedy disparities stemming from U.S. colonization and the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by a group of American business owners.

    The lawsuit says that if not for the admissions policy, there are non-Hawaiian families who would apply for reasons including: “bad experiences with local public schools,” Kamehameha’s “high-quality programs” and for its networking and career opportunities “that would benefit the daughter for the rest of her life.”

    This isn’t the first time Kamehameha has had to defend its admissions policy.

    More than 15,000 people protested after a 2005 ruling by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the policy of restricting admission to Hawaiians, ruling it violated federal civil rights law. Kamehameha sought a rehearing.

    The following year, the court upheld the policy. Kamehameha later settled with the family of the white student who brought the case when he was denied admission.

    According to the recent lawsuit, that settlement was $7 million.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Arlington considers ending LGBTQ protections in anti-discrimination ordinance

    The Arlington City Council meets every other Tuesday at 6:30 p.m. in the Arlington City Council Chambers following an afternoon council meeting.

    The Arlington City Council meets every other Tuesday at 6:30 p.m. in the Arlington City Council Chambers following an afternoon council meeting.

    rroyster@star-telegram.com

    The Arlington City Council will consider removing protections for LGBTQ+ residents Tuesday as part of the changes to its anti-discrimination ordinance.

    In early September, the City Council voted to temporarily suspend the anti-discrimination ordinance until city staff could propose amendments to it removing specific diversity, equity and inclusion language. Had this not taken place, the city would be at risk of losing $65 million in federal grant money.

    Tuesday night, the council will be presented with an edited anti-discrimination clause. The changes include deleting “Gender Identity and Expression” and “Sexual Orientation” from the definition of discrimination.

    But a leader in the LGBTQ+ community said the proposed change leaves a class of residents without local protections.

    Previously, the ordinance said discrimination is “any direct or indirect exclusion, distinction, segregation, limitation, refusal, denial, or other differentiation in the treatment of a person or persons because of a race, color, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.”

    If the council approves the amendments Tuesday, anyone experiencing discrimination due to their sexual orientation or gender identity will not be able to look to the city for help.

    DeeJay Johannessen, CEO of the HELP Center for LGBT Health and Wellness, said this is not necessary to keep grant funding.

    “Out of the 395 cities with sexual orientation, gender identity in their list of protected classes, not one other city is doing it,” Johannessen said. “In fact, historically, no city has ever removed sexual orientation from their list of protected classes. So Arlington would be the first.”

    When a municipality receives grants from the U.S. government, it enters into a contract with various stipulations on the allocation of those funds. Those contracts have been updated since President Donald Trump took office to prohibit “advancing or promoting DEI” in decision-making, City Manager Trey Yelverton said at the Sept. 2 meeting.

    In Fort Worth, the City Council voted to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs to protect federal funding in August. The city code still includes sexual orientation, transgender, gender identity or gender expression as protected classes from discrimination.

    Sana Syed, a spokesperson for the city of Fort Worth, said due to how the ordinance was written, “no changes were needed to adhere to new federal requirements and none are planned at this time.”

    An attorney who Johannessen consulted with regarding Arlington’s proposed anti-discrimination code changes said removing sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as protected characteristics from the current ordinance “reflects a fundamental and profound misunderstanding of the law.

    “The inclusion of ‘gender expression’ in this list is somewhat telling, since the term does not appear in the Current Ordinance,” Daniel Barrett, the Fort Worth lawyer Johannessen consulted, wrote in a statement. “Its inclusion exposes the staff’s analysis of the situation as sloppy or, perhaps, based upon something other than legal considerations.”

    Under the original ordinance, if someone is made to leave an establishment because of their gender identity or sexual orientation, they could go to the city and file a complaint. With the exclusion of those kinds of discrimination in the amended ordinance, the only way to rectify the issue would be through the federal government, Johannessen said.

    Johannessen was part of the focus group who helped make gender identity and sexual orientation protected classes in Arlington’s anti-discrimination chapter in 2021.

    “It passed unanimously, and there was not even any public comment voting against it,” Johannessen said. “It sailed through. So that’s why it’s so surprising now that there’s so little push back about having to make this change, even if it was required for them to make this change, there’s no angst about it.”

    The City Council will vote on the amendments at the 6:30 p.m. meeting on Tuesday.

    Related Stories from Fort Worth Star-Telegram

    Rachel Royster

    Fort Worth Star-Telegram

    Rachel Royster is a news and government reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, specifically focused on Tarrant County. She joined the newsroom after interning at the Austin American-Statesman, the Waco Tribune-Herald and Capital Community News in DC. A Houston native and Baylor grad, Rachel enjoys traveling, reading and being outside. She welcomes any and all news tips to her email.

    Rachel Royster

    Source link

  • Supreme Court takes up Republican attack on Voting Rights Act in case over Black representation

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican attack on a core provision of the Voting Rights Act that is designed to protect racial minorities comes to the Supreme Court this week, more than a decade after the justices knocked out another pillar of the 60-year-old law.

    In arguments Wednesday, lawyers for Louisiana and the Trump administration will try to persuade the justices to wipe away the state’s second majority Black congressional district and make it much harder, if not impossible, to take account of race in redistricting.

    “Race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution,” Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill wrote in the state’s Supreme Court filing.

    A mid-decade battle over congressional redistricting already is playing out across the nation, after President Donald Trump began urging Texas and other Republican-controlled states to redraw their lines to make it easier for the GOP to hold its narrow majority in the House of Representatives. A ruling for Louisiana could intensify that effort and spill over to state legislative and local districts.

    The conservative-dominated court, which just two years ago ended affirmative action in college admissions, could be receptive. At the center of the legal fight is Chief Justice John Roberts, who has long had the landmark civil rights law in his sights, from his time as a young lawyer in the Reagan-era Justice Department to his current job.

    “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race,” Roberts wrote in a dissenting opinion in 2006 in his first major voting rights case as chief justice.

    In 2013, Roberts wrote for the majority in gutting the landmark law’s requirement that states and local governments with a history of discrimination, mostly in the South, get approval before making any election-related changes.

    “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote.

    Challenges under the provision known as Section 2 of the voting rights law must be able to show current racially polarized voting and an inability of minority populations to elect candidates of their choosing, among other factors.

    “Race is still very much a factor in current voting patterns in the state of Louisiana. It’s true in many places in the country,” said Sarah Brannon, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project.

    The Louisiana case got to this point only after Black voters and civil rights groups sued and won lower court rulings striking down the first congressional map drawn by the state’s GOP-controlled Legislature after the 2020 census. That map created just one Black majority district among six House seats in a state that is one-third Black.

    Louisiana appealed to the Supreme Court but eventually added a second majority Black district after the justices’ 5-4 ruling in 2023 that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in a similar case over Alabama’s congressional map.

    Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined their three more liberal colleagues in the Alabama outcome. Roberts rejected what he described as “Alabama’s attempt to remake our section 2 jurisprudence anew.”

    That might have settled things, but a group of white voters complained that race, not politics, was the predominant factor driving the new Louisiana map. A three-judge court agreed, leading to the current high court case.

    Instead of deciding the case in June, the justices asked the parties to answer a potentially big question: “Whether the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.”

    Those amendments, adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War, were intended to bring about political equality for Black Americans and gave Congress the authority to take all necessary steps. Nearly a century later, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, called the crown jewel of the civil rights era, to finally put an end to persistent efforts to prevent Black people from voting in the former states of the Confederacy.

    The call for new arguments sometimes presages a major change by the high court. The Citizens United decision in 2010 that led to dramatic increases in independent spending in U.S. elections came after it was argued a second time.

    “It does feel to me a little bit like Citizens United in that, if you recall the way Citizens United unfolded, it was initially a narrow First Amendment challenge,” said Donald Verrilli, who served as the Obama administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer and defended the voting rights law in the 2013 case.

    Among the possible outcomes in the Louisiana case, Verrilli said, is one in which a majority holds that the need for courts to step into redistricting cases, absent intentional discrimination, has essentially expired. Kavanaugh raised the issue briefly two years ago.

    The Supreme Court has separately washed its hands of partisan gerrymandering claims, in a 2019 opinion that also was written by Roberts. Restricting or eliminating most claims of racial discrimination in federal courts would give state legislatures wide latitude to draw districts, subject only to state constitutional limits.

    A shift of just one vote from the Alabama case would flip the outcome.

    With the call for new arguments, Louisiana changed its position and is no longer defending its map.

    The Trump administration joined on Louisiana’s side. The Justice Department had previously defended the voting rights law under administrations of both major political parties.

    For four years in the 1990s, Louisiana had a second Black majority district until courts struck it down because it relied too heavily on race. Fields, then a rising star in the state’s Democratic politics, twice won election. He didn’t run again when a new map was put in place and reverted to just one majority Black district in the state.

    Fields is one of the two Black Democrats who won election to Congress last year in newly drawn districts in Alabama and Louisiana.

    He again represents the challenged district, described in March by Roberts as “a snake that runs from one end of the state to the other,” picking up Black residents along the way.

    If that’s so, civil rights lawyer Stuart Naifeh told Roberts, it’s because of slavery, Jim Crow laws and the persistent lack of economic opportunity for Black Louisianans.

    Fields said the court’s earlier ruling that eliminated federal review of potentially discriminatory voting laws has left few options to protect racial minorities, making the preservation of Section 2 all the more important.

    They would never win election to Congress, he said, “but for the Voting Rights Act and but for creating majority minority districts.”

    ___

    Associated Press writer Gary Fields contributed to this report.

    ___

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James Stirs Concerns for Black Women Leaders

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The coalition of New York NAACP chapters had just begun its annual state convention when Letitia James, a longtime member and the state’s attorney general, canceled her appearance.

    For the New York convention’s organizers, the moment was alarming and underscored the gathering’s importance, which featured multiple sessions on building political power at the state level in response to what NAACP leaders called federal attacks on social welfare, civil rights and the rule of law.

    “It was through our collective action that a democracy was built,” said NAACP New York State Conference President L. Joy Williams. “What we have to do is not only defend against what is happening now, but we have to push further past where we were before, to build a system to build a better American democracy that we all deserve.”

    The indictment of James, who had previously prosecuted the Trump Organization for business fraud, immediately sparked debate over whether the justice system had been politicized for President Donald Trump’s personal grievances. It also drew many parallels with the recent effort by Trump to remove a Federal Reserve Board governor, Lisa Cook, from her post over similar allegations.


    Claims against James and Cook carry symbolic weight

    Advocates see some of Trump’s recent moves as exceptionally targeted at Black women leaders.

    “This is something that we’ve been grappling with since the start of this administration,” said Shavon Arline-Bradley, president and CEO of the National Council of Negro Women, the country’s oldest civil rights organization for Black women.

    The claims also have symbolic weight to Black families, Arline-Bradley said, where property ownership has historically been restricted by the legal system through outright and implicit discrimination.

    “When you attack someone’s home, you attack their ability to own, you attack their ability to have choice, you have attacked their ability to make a statement about their economic future,” Arline-Bradley said. “This is a consistent pattern that has highlighted what they think is an Achilles’ heel in the Black community.”

    Black women, Arline-Bradley added, “feel very targeted” because of the president’s words and actions, which she said was rooted in “a misunderstanding about the accomplishments and leadership of these women.”


    ‘One tier of justice for all Americans’

    The Trump administration contends its prosecution of James over alleged mortgage fraud is justified and impartial.

    “No one is above the law,” Lindsey Halligan, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said in a statement. “The charges as alleged in this case represent intentional, criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust. The facts and the law in this case are clear, and we will continue following them to ensure that justice is served.”

    And Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote, “One tier of justice for all Americans” shortly after James’ indictment in a post on X.

    Critics of the administration have countered that the administration’s actions amount to political retribution and an attempt to unlawfully consolidate power. Black leaders have further argued that the administration’s actions have come at the expense of trailblazing Black leaders and Black communities.

    “President Trump has made clear through his own public comments against Attorney General James that the goal of this indictment is simply to exact retribution against his political opponents,” Yvette Clark, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said in a statement.

    “The American people see this corrupt prosecution for what it is — a desperate attempt by President Trump to weaponize the justice system. It will not withstand public or legal scrutiny,” she added.


    Case against James ‘very uncommon,’ legal expert says

    In addition to James, the Trump Justice Department has indicted former FBI Director James Comey for making a false statement and obstruction of justice related to a 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony.

    The Justice Department is also investigating Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, for mortgage fraud. Trump has called for Schiff, who was the lead manager of Trump’s first impeachment, to be jailed.

    Experts question the merits and motives of the mortgage fraud inquiries.

    “It is very uncommon for prosecutors to bring these sorts of claims absent a pattern of malicious activity or evidence that the individual has actually harmed the bank by not paying their mortgage or if it’s part of a much larger fraudulent scheme,” said Paul Schiff Berman, a professor of law at the George Washington University School of Law.

    For James, Berman said, “the claim is that she said that the house was going to be used as her second home but she also used it as a rental property sometimes,” which Berman said could be argued as a reasonable use for a second home and likely not in violation of a typical mortgage contract.

    Regardless of the ensuing legal debates, allies of James say they are ready to support her in whatever manner is needed. Organizers at the New York conference say she is welcome to return to the event when ready.

    “While we are responding in this moment, this is also happening to her, and so we want to give her space,” said Williams, the New York NAACP leader. “And the thing about home is you can always go there. So we know she’ll always come back.”

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Newsom signs law aimed at fighting antisemitism in schools

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Tuesday aimed at combating antisemitism in schools.

    The California Legislative Jewish Caucus said the law will help respond to alarming harassment against Jewish students. But critics, including educators and pro-Palestinian advocates, said it could inadvertently obstruct instruction on complex issues in the classroom.

    “California is taking action to confront hate in all its forms. At a time when antisemitism and bigotry are rising nationwide and globally, these laws make clear: our schools must be places of learning, not hate,” Newsom said in a statement.

    The law creates an Office of Civil Rights with a governor-appointed coordinator who will develop and provide training to help school employees identify and prevent antisemitism. The coordinator has to consult with the State Board of Education to make recommendations to the Legislature on policies to address anti-Jewish discrimination in schools.

    The new civil rights office could cost the state about $4 million annually, including money for six staffers, according to the Government Operations Agency, which oversees departments in the Newsom administration.

    Students in public schools nationwide are generally protected against discrimination through state, federal and district policies. But lawmakers in states including Missouri, Vermont and Tennessee have pushed further by introducing legislation aimed specifically at combating antisemitism at K-12 schools. The efforts come amid political tensions in the U.S. over Israel’s war in Gaza.

    Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill earlier this year that would have banned teachers from promoting antisemitism in schools. She said the bill was about attacking teachers, not about combating antisemitism.

    President Donald Trump’s administration has paused or frozen federal funding at colleges, including the University of California, Los Angeles, over allegations that they failed to adequately respond to antisemitism. UC President James B. Milliken has said the cuts, which are being litigated, won’t address anti-Jewish acts and that the university system’s efforts to address antisemitism went ignored.

    The Anti-Defamation League, which supports the new law, tracked 860 antisemitic acts reported to the group last year at non-Jewish K-12 schools nationwide. Reports include harassment, vandalism and assault. That’s a 26% decrease from the previous year but much higher than the 494 reported in 2022.

    Lev Miller Ruderman, a Jewish student at San Lorenzo Valley High School near the coastal city of Santa Cruz, said at a legislative hearing that school officials did not take an antisemitic act on campus seriously during his freshman year.

    Another student used school materials to make a Nazi flag and pinned it to Ruderman’s back, he said. Ruderman walked past numerous students across campus before a teacher asked him about it, he said.

    “I felt sad, confused and overwhelmed,” said Ruderman, who spent the rest of the school year at home.

    The civil rights office does not need legislative approval for educational materials for teachers. But some educators have criticized a part of the law requiring that all teacher instruction “be factually accurate” because they say it could unintentionally stifle learning.

    Many controversial subjects have conflicting facts depending on perspective, said Seth Bramble, a California Teachers Association manager. Not being allowed to teach those facts reinforces rote learning over critical thinking and gives advocates “a new legal tool to disrupt instruction and to threaten educators,” she said.

    A previous version of the bill set specific requirements for “instructional materials regarding Jews, Israel, or the Israel-Palestine conflict,” including that they be balanced, accurate, don’t promote antisemitism and don’t label Israel as a settler colonial state.

    The law no longer references Israel’s war in Gaza, but critics have said it could still have a chilling effect and prevent open discussion on contentious issues in the classroom.

    “Teacher discourse on Palestine or the genocide in Gaza will be policed, misrepresented, and reported to the antisemitism coordinator,” Theresa Montaño with the California Faculty Association said in a statement.

    Democratic state Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, who co-authored the bill, said in September that lawmakers had to push back against harassment, bullying and intimidation that Jewish students face.

    “When swastikas are painted on elementary school playgrounds, when a Jewish student has a Nazi flag taped to their back, or is chased and yelled at, we will not turn a blind eye,” he said in a statement. “This bill is about affirming safe and supportive learning environments consistent with our state’s values.”

    Source link

  • Supreme Court hears arguments on whether states can ban conversion therapy for LBGTQ+ kids

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments in its latest LGBTQ+ rights case Tuesday, weighing the constitutionality of bans passed by nearly half of U.S. states on the practice known as conversion therapy for children.The justices are hearing a lawsuit from a Christian counselor challenging a Colorado law that prohibits therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, argues the law violates her freedom of speech by barring her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.Colorado, on the other hand, says the measure simply regulates licensed therapists by barring a practice that’s been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.The arguments come months after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority found states can ban transition-related health care for transgender youths, a setback for LGBTQ rights. The justices are also expected to hear a case about sports participation by transgender players this term.State says therapy is health care and subject to regulationColorado has not sanctioned anyone under the 2019 law, which exempts religious ministries. State attorneys say it still allows any therapist to have wide-ranging, faith-based conversations with young patients about gender and sexuality.“The only thing that the law prohibits therapists from doing is performing a treatment that seeks the predetermined outcome of changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity because that treatment is unsafe and ineffective,” Colorado state attorneys wrote.Therapy isn’t just speech, they said — it’s health care that governments have a responsibility to regulate. Violating the law carries potential fines of $5,000 and license suspension or even revocation.Linda Robertson is a Christian mom of four from Washington state whose son Ryan underwent therapy that promised to change his sexual orientation after he came out to her at age 12. The techniques led him to blame himself when it didn’t work, leaving him ashamed and depressed. He died in 2009, after multiple suicide attempts and a drug overdose at age 20.“What happened in conversion therapy, it devastated Ryan’s bond with me and my husband,” she said. “And it absolutely destroyed his confidence he could ever be loved or accepted by God.”Chiles contends her approach is different from the kind of conversion therapy once associated with practices like shock therapy decades ago. She said she believes “people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” and she argues evidence of harm from her approach is lacking.Chiles says Colorado is discriminating because it allows counselors to affirm minors coming out as gay or identifying as transgender but bans counseling like hers for young patients who may want to change their behavior or feelings. “We’re not saying this counseling should be mandatory, but if someone wants the counseling they should be able to get it,” said one of her attorneys, Jonathan Scruggs.The Trump administration said there are First Amendment issues with Colorado’s law that should make the law subject to a higher legal standard that few measures pass.Similar laws also face court challengesChiles is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years. The group also represented a Christian website designer who doesn’t want to work with same-sex couples and successfully challenged a Colorado anti-discrimination law in 2023.The group’s argument in the conversion therapy case also builds on another victory from 2018: A Supreme Court decision found California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Chiles should also be free from that kind of state regulation, the group argued.Still, the Supreme Court has also found that regulations that only “incidentally” burden speech are permissible, and the state argues that striking down its law against conversion therapy would undercut states’ ability to regulate discredited health care of all kinds.The high court agreed to hear the case after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law. Another appeals court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, has struck down similar bans in Florida.Legal wrangling has continued elsewhere as well. In Wisconsin, the state’s highest court recently cleared the way for the state to enforce its ban. Virginia officials, by contrast, have agreed to scale back the enforcement of its law as part of an agreement with a faith-based conservative group that sued.

    The Supreme Court will hear arguments in its latest LGBTQ+ rights case Tuesday, weighing the constitutionality of bans passed by nearly half of U.S. states on the practice known as conversion therapy for children.

    The justices are hearing a lawsuit from a Christian counselor challenging a Colorado law that prohibits therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, argues the law violates her freedom of speech by barring her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.

    Colorado, on the other hand, says the measure simply regulates licensed therapists by barring a practice that’s been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.

    The arguments come months after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority found states can ban transition-related health care for transgender youths, a setback for LGBTQ rights. The justices are also expected to hear a case about sports participation by transgender players this term.

    State says therapy is health care and subject to regulation

    Colorado has not sanctioned anyone under the 2019 law, which exempts religious ministries. State attorneys say it still allows any therapist to have wide-ranging, faith-based conversations with young patients about gender and sexuality.

    “The only thing that the law prohibits therapists from doing is performing a treatment that seeks the predetermined outcome of changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity because that treatment is unsafe and ineffective,” Colorado state attorneys wrote.

    Therapy isn’t just speech, they said — it’s health care that governments have a responsibility to regulate. Violating the law carries potential fines of $5,000 and license suspension or even revocation.

    Linda Robertson is a Christian mom of four from Washington state whose son Ryan underwent therapy that promised to change his sexual orientation after he came out to her at age 12. The techniques led him to blame himself when it didn’t work, leaving him ashamed and depressed. He died in 2009, after multiple suicide attempts and a drug overdose at age 20.

    “What happened in conversion therapy, it devastated Ryan’s bond with me and my husband,” she said. “And it absolutely destroyed his confidence he could ever be loved or accepted by God.”

    Chiles contends her approach is different from the kind of conversion therapy once associated with practices like shock therapy decades ago. She said she believes “people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” and she argues evidence of harm from her approach is lacking.

    Chiles says Colorado is discriminating because it allows counselors to affirm minors coming out as gay or identifying as transgender but bans counseling like hers for young patients who may want to change their behavior or feelings. “We’re not saying this counseling should be mandatory, but if someone wants the counseling they should be able to get it,” said one of her attorneys, Jonathan Scruggs.

    The Trump administration said there are First Amendment issues with Colorado’s law that should make the law subject to a higher legal standard that few measures pass.

    Similar laws also face court challenges

    Chiles is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years. The group also represented a Christian website designer who doesn’t want to work with same-sex couples and successfully challenged a Colorado anti-discrimination law in 2023.

    The group’s argument in the conversion therapy case also builds on another victory from 2018: A Supreme Court decision found California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Chiles should also be free from that kind of state regulation, the group argued.

    Still, the Supreme Court has also found that regulations that only “incidentally” burden speech are permissible, and the state argues that striking down its law against conversion therapy would undercut states’ ability to regulate discredited health care of all kinds.

    The high court agreed to hear the case after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law. Another appeals court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, has struck down similar bans in Florida.

    Legal wrangling has continued elsewhere as well. In Wisconsin, the state’s highest court recently cleared the way for the state to enforce its ban. Virginia officials, by contrast, have agreed to scale back the enforcement of its law as part of an agreement with a faith-based conservative group that sued.

    Source link

  • Opinion | The Global Intifada Has Arrived in England

    London

    It was Yom Kippur when Jihad al-Shamie, a Syrian-born British citizen, attacked a synagogue in Manchester. According to the Guardian, al-Shamie was out on bail for an alleged rape and is believed to have a previous criminal history. Two Jews, Melvin Cravitz, 66, and Adrian Daulby, 53, were killed before police shot al-Shamie dead. Three other people are in serious condition. Al-Shamie’s method, car-ramming and a knife, is frequently used by Palestinian terrorists against Israelis. As the left-Islamist mobs say, “Globalize the intifada.”

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    Dominic Green

    Source link