Rather, the intent of the Secretaries was more invidious-to target a few for speaking out and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act (in ways it had never been used before) to have them publicly deported with the goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests and terrorizing similarly situated non-citizen (and other) pro-Palestinians into silence because their views were unwelcome.
During the trial, lawyers for the associations presented witnesses who testified that the Trump administration had launched a coordinated effort to target students and scholars who had criticized Israel or showed sympathy for Palestinians. Not since the McCarthy era have immigrants been the target of such intense repression for lawful political speech, Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told the court. The policy creates a cloud of fear over university communities, and it is at war with the First Amendment.
On Sept. 19, Senior U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith sided with the plaintiffs' first two claims, denouncing "a viewpoint-based standard of review to Plaintiffs that disfavors applications deemed 'to promote gender ideology'" - a catch-all dogwhistle describing depictions of gender and sexuality outside rigid heterosexual marriage. The court "vacates and sets aside Defendants' current plan to implement the Executive Order."
The July 17 story about a note bearing Trump's signature that was sent to Epstein along with a sketch of a naked woman in 2003 is true and doesn't defame the president's character, lawyers for the 94-year-old News Corp. chairman emeritus said Monday in a request to dismiss the suit.
We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving. On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half-staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this.
Newscasters. Columnists. Professors. Flight attendants. Comic writers. Late-night talk show hosts. Dozens of people have lost their jobs in the past week for criticizing Charlie Kirk in the wake of his death, some after conservatives mobilized online to find and report posts they deemed were not sufficiently mournful. Many of these people have been reprimanded not because they advocated violence, but simply because they posted Kirk's own words.
In an interview with former White House official Katie Miller, reflecting on fury over reactions by some cheering the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Bondi said Monday: There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society. She added: We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything, and that's across the aisle.
Vera wrote that federal officers "unleashed crowd control weapons indiscriminately and with surprising savagery." "Indeed, under the guise of protecting the public, federal agents have endangered large numbers of peaceful protestors, legal observers, and journalists - as well as the public that relies on them to hold their government accountable," Vera wrote in the 45-page opinion. "The First Amendment demands better." Vera wrote that he expected federal authorities to disseminate the order to their officers and agents in the field.
Earlier this week, I expressed exasperation at the seeming irrelevance of what I used to teach in American government classes in the context of what's going on now. Old standbys like "checks and balances," "equal protection of the law" and "judicial review" seem to have been discarded in favor of what Lionel Trilling called "a series of irritable mental gestures." I couldn't imagine how I would teach the class now.
California can enforce the core component of a law prohibiting minors in the state from accessing "addictive algorithms" on social media, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, a blow to the tech industry's campaign against state internet regulations. A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said the tech industry trade association NetChoice LLC had mostly failed to show that key provisions