Tag: lawsuit

  • Judge Dismisses Tuition Price-Fixing Lawsuit

    Judge Dismisses Tuition Price-Fixing Lawsuit

    A federal judge in Illinois has dismissed a lawsuit accusing the College Board and 40 highly selective private colleges and universities of conspiring in a price-fixing scheme to inflate tuition costs.

    In a decision released last week, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis determined that the plaintiffs, a Boston University student and an alum of Cornell University, “have not plausibly alleged that Defendants entered into an agreement” demonstrating collusion on pricing.

    The class action lawsuit, filed just shy of a year ago, alleged that the defendants overcharged tuition for students of divorced or separated parents by considering the financial information of the noncustodial parent, as well as the custodial one, in calculating financial aid awards. The plaintiffs claimed that the formula increased their tuition by an average of $6,200.

    The lawsuit alleged that the price-fixing arrangement among the 40 institutions began in 2006, when the College Board began requiring both parents to submit financial information for its College Scholarship Service profiles, regardless of the student’’ custody arrangements. While last week’s decision acknowledged the practice inflated tuition prices at the institutions named, Ellis found no evidence that they had conspired.

    “Nothing in Plaintiffs’ complaint suggests that the University Defendants exchanged their own internal financial aid decisionmaking processes or guidelines or otherwise shared with the other University Defendants the amount of financial aid they planned to offer a particular student,” she wrote. “Nor does the complaint allege that the University Defendants all agreed on the same exact formula for calculating financial aid based on the [noncustodial parent’s] financial information.”

    Source link

  • Southern University Student’s Parents File Wrongful Death Lawsuit Following Alleged Fraternity Hazing

    Southern University Student’s Parents File Wrongful Death Lawsuit Following Alleged Fraternity Hazing

    T Caleb Jayden Wilson he parents of Caleb Jayden Wilson have filed a comprehensive civil lawsuit seeking accountability from multiple parties they allege are responsible for their son’s death following a fraternity hazing incident at Southern University.

    Urania Brown Wilson and Corey Wilson, Sr., filed the wrongful death and survival damages petition Friday in the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish, seven months after losing their 20-year-old son. The junior mechanical engineering student and member of Southern’s renowned “Human Jukebox” marching band died in February following what authorities describe as a brutal hazing ritual.

    The lawsuit casts a wide net of accountability, naming as defendants Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Inc., its local Beta Sigma and Lambda Alpha chapters, the State of Louisiana through the Board of Supervisors of Southern University and A&M College, and 12 individual fraternity members.

    Among the individual defendants are Caleb M. McCray, Kyle M. Thurman, and Isaiah E. Smith—all previously arrested by Baton Rouge police in connection with Wilson’s death. McCray faces the most serious charges, including manslaughter and felony criminal hazing.

    The petition alleges multiple levels of negligence, from gross misconduct by individuals to institutional failures by the university and fraternity organizations. According to the filing, Wilson died as a direct result of being repeatedly punched in the chest during an unsanctioned, off-campus ritual at a local warehouse on February 27.

    The lawsuit particularly criticizes the response following Wilson’s collapse, alleging that fraternity members delayed calling emergency services and instead transported him to a local hospital where they provided false information about his injuries before abandoning him.

    Following an internal investigation that found the Beta Sigma chapter violated the student code of conduct, Southern University expelled the chapter and implemented a temporary moratorium on new member intake activities for all Greek organizations.

    The civil action seeks to leverage Louisiana’s strengthened anti-hazing laws, including the Max Gruver Act, which criminalized certain forms of hazing following another high-profile fraternity death. The legislation was named after Louisiana State University student Maxwell Gruver, who died in a 2017 fraternity hazing incident.

    The case highlights ongoing concerns about hazing culture in higher education and the challenges institutions face in monitoring and preventing dangerous initiation practices, particularly those occurring off-campus and outside official oversight.

     

    Source link

  • Trump’s New York Times lawsuit is a call to action for the ‘paper of record’

    Trump’s New York Times lawsuit is a call to action for the ‘paper of record’

    This article originally appeared in MSNBC on Sept. 18, 2025.

    President Donald Trump’s escalating legal battle against America’s media industry continued Monday as he filed a lawsuit against The New York Times. The whopping 85-page complaint alleges the paper defamed him, and it seeks $15 billion, plus punitive damages, which exceeds the market cap of the entire company.

    The lawsuit refers to the Times’ historic reputation as the “newspaper of record,” and that’s important for understanding the stakes of the case. The moniker speaks to the Times’ massive readership and prestige but also to an authoritative role — often setting the standards in terms of fact-checking, objectivity and independence that produce a definitive accounting of events for the record books. They’re the standards to which other newspapers are held.

    In light of that role, and Trump’s continued successful shakedowns of media outlets of lesser prestige, a capitulation would be devastating. Instead, the Times has an opportunity, and an obligation, to rise to its historic role by categorically rejecting the lawsuit — and putting a stop to a particularly insidious legal idea that provides support for Trump’s media war.

    The complaint, which First Amendment law professor Don Herzog calls “a press release masquerading as a lawsuit,” is a massive document that leaves ample room to hit familiar Trump beats, finding time to pick at the Times’ “deranged” endorsement of Kamala Harris and to hail Trump’s 2024 win as the “greatest personal and political achievement in American history.”

    Why everything Pam Bondi said about ‘hate speech’ is wrong

    The nation’s top law enforcement officer doesn’t understand there is no hate-speech exception to the First Amendment — and that’s scary.


    Read More

    The alleged damages center on reporting published in the pages of the Times and in the book “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success,” written by Times reporters Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner, that suggested Trump’s multimillion-dollar inheritance from his father was largely a product of fraudulent tax evasion schemes and that Trump owes his later fortune to producer Mark Burnett’s “discovery” of him as a host for “The Apprentice.” But Trump alleges that he was already famous and that his success with “The Apprentice” was “thanks solely to President Trump’s sui generis charisma and unique business acumen.”

    Through what Trump alleges are false statements and negligent fact-finding, the lawsuit claims this reporting sought to illegally “damage President Trump’s hard-earned and world-renowned reputation for business success” and “sabotage his 2024 candidacy for President of the United States.”

    The lawsuit has been met with universal dismissal by First Amendment scholars. “The complaint is full of bluster,” said Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, but “short on any allegations of specific false statements of fact that would meet the rigorous standards for defamation claims brought by public figures.”

    One part of the complaint has been a particular focus of criticism, specifically where it states that the defendants had a “desire for President Trump to fail politically and financially. Each feels actual malice towards President Trump in the colloquial sense.”

    As Fallow alluded, to prove defamation Trump must show “actual malice” on the part of the Times — and that’s a tough hill to climb, even assuming that the reporting is proven to be false.

    As laid out in the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, actual malice requires Trump to prove that the defendants actually knew their statements were false — or at least entertained actual, serious doubts about their truth. So resting this lawsuit on the idea that the defendants just really, really dislike Trump was met with predictable disbelief by legal experts.

    But this section and the broader lawsuit belie something more sinister than a blustery failure to establish its claims’ basic elements. Trump believes it is — or would like it to be — legally actionable to harm his political ambitions when you really, really dislike him. In his view, reporters should be liable for statements that make people not wish to support him.

    Beyond being a threat to the media, this idea is a threat to the very speech that makes up the core of our democratic process. No politician is entitled to support or votes, and to commodify them in this way is a perversion of democratic self-governance and a threat to core political speech.

    And we’ve already seen Trump advance this idea in his other lawsuits against the media.

    The lawsuit has been met with universal dismissal by First Amendment scholars.

    When he targeted CBS News last October, he alleged billions of dollars in damages from the impact of what he claimed was “deceptive editing” of a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Harris on campaign fundraising and “support values.” Later that year, he targeted pollster J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register, claiming her polling miss was “election interference” that required him to “expend … campaign expenditures.” With legal help from my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Selzer is fighting these bogus claims.

    The New York Times must similarly take this lawsuit as an opportunity to reject this idea, full stop. Its unique role in the media industry warrants a strong and defiant message in defense of the First Amendment and the Fourth Estate that depends on it.

    Anything less risks a future in which Trump’s lawfare barrels through smaller outlets that don’t have the same resources.

    FIRE has seen this in the campus context.

    A negotiation and a settlement between Columbia and the Trump administration have led the administration to triumphantly charge at less resourced universities, such as George Mason University and George Washington University. As FIRE counsel Tyler Coward warned, “We said from the beginning it was going to take a big institution like Harvard or Columbia to stand up for its rights, and if they failed to do so — if they capitulated to unlawful demands from the administration — there was little hope for smaller institutions down the line.”

    The New York Times, the Harvard of newspapers, should understand its role here accordingly.

    Source link

  • LAWSUIT: Texas bans the First Amendment at public universities after dark

    LAWSUIT: Texas bans the First Amendment at public universities after dark

    AUSTIN, Texas, Sept. 3, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a lawsuit today to stop enforcement of a new, unconstitutional law that turns every public university in Texas into a speech-free zone starting at 10 p.m. every day. FIRE is suing the University of Texas System on behalf of student musicians, journalists, political organizers, and religious students who span the ideological spectrum, all of whom the new Texas law threatens to silence.

    “The First Amendment doesn’t set when the sun goes down,” said FIRE senior supervising attorney JT Morris. “University students have expressive freedom whether it’s midnight or midday, and Texas can’t just legislate those constitutional protections out of existence.”

    In 2019, Texas was a national leader in protecting student speech, passing a robust law enshrining free speech on public university campuses. But after a series of high-profile protests over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2024, the Texas legislature reversed course and passed Senate Bill 2972, transforming the speech-protective 2019 law into one mandating that the state’s public universities and colleges impose a host of sweeping censorship measures.

    FIRE’s lawsuit is challenging two major provisions of the law, which went into effect on Sept. 1. The first requires public universities in Texas to ban all “expressive activities” on campus between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., which the law defines as “any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.”

    That is a shocking prohibition of protected speech at public universities. Under the new law, universities now have the power to discipline students at nighttime for wearing a hat with a political message, playing music, writing an op-ed, attending candlelight vigils — even just chatting with friends.

    “This law gives campus administrators a blank check to punish speech, and that authority will inevitably be used to target unpopular speech,” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “Administrators have plenty of ways to prevent disruptive conduct that do not involve such a broad censorship mandate.”

    FIRE is also challenging the law’s mandate that universities ban student groups from a host of protected expression during the last two weeks of any semester or term, including inviting guest speakers, using amplified sound, or playing a drum. The Fellowship of Christian University Students at UT-Dallas, for example, would be unable to invite an off-campus minister to lead a prayer during finals.

    “Our organization gives students on campus a place to worship with one another and hear from Christian leaders,” said FOCUS committee chair Juke Matthews. “For many of them, this is their church away from home. This law would yank away part of their support system right at the most stressful time of the term.”

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF STUDENT CLIENTS FOR MEDIA USE

    If state officials and campus administrators want to regulate disruptive speech, the First Amendment demands that they narrowly tailor any such regulation. But Texas’ blanket ban makes no distinctions about the noise level or location of the expression. The Texas law would permit a tuba concert during finals weeks, but not one with drums. And the law exempts “commercial speech” from its sweeping bans on speech. So Texas students are free to advertise t-shirts featuring the First Amendment after hours… but could face discipline for wearing them.

    FIRE is suing on behalf of a diverse group of students and student organizations whose speech the new Texas law will harm. Along with the UT-Dallas chapter of FOCUS, other plaintiffs include:

    • Young Americans for Liberty is an Austin-based national grassroots organization for students who want to advance the cause of liberty. Many of their student members at Texas universities engage in protests, petitions, and “Free Speech Balls” that traditionally take place during evening hours. FIRE is also representing an individual YAL member who attends UT-Austin and would personally face punishment for inviting YAL speakers in the final weeks of term or for sharing his political opinions at the wrong hour.
    • The Society of Unconventional Drummers is a registered student organization at UT-Austin that puts on performances throughout the term, including at the end of each semester. Texas’s arbitrary rule banning percussion the last two weeks of any semester would force the students to cancel one of their most popular shows.
    • Strings Attached is a student music group that holds public performances on UT-Dallas’s campus, including in the final two weeks of term. Some of their concerts take place after hours or during the day with sound amplification, both of which could fall afoul of the Texas law’s sweeping bans.
    • The Retrograde is a new, independent student newspaper that serves the UT-Dallas community. Whether it’s writing a story, emailing sources, editing a column, much of its staff’s newsgathering and reporting necessarily happens after Texas’ 10 p.m. free speech cutoff.

    “Under these new rules, we’re at risk of being shut down simply for posting breaking news as it happens,” said Retrograde Editor-in-Chief Gregorio Olivares. “With that threat hanging over our heads, many student journalists across the UT system face the impossible decision between self-censorship and running a story that criticizes the powers on campus.”

    FIRE’s clients will ask the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent UT’s new speech bans from taking effect. The defendants in the lawsuit include the members of the UT System Board of Regents, UT System Chancellor John M. Zerwas, UT-Austin President Jim Davis, and UT-Dallas President Prabhas V. Moghe.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]



    Source link

  • DHS Offers to “Simplify” Harvard Lawsuit

    DHS Offers to “Simplify” Harvard Lawsuit

    The Trump administration has extended an offer to Harvard University to “simplify” an ongoing legal battle by pulling back on threats made in a May 22 letter from U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem to revoke the institution’s ability to host international students.

    At the time, Noem wrote in a letter to Harvard officials that DHS was stripping its Student Exchange and Visitor Program certification due to an alleged “failure to adhere to the law.” Harvard responded with a lawsuit, and a judge quickly granted a temporary restraining order to block the federal government from stripping Harvard’s SEVP certification, which would have likely resulted in a loss of international students and dealt the university a severe financial blow. (Harvard also sued the Trump administration over frozen federal research funding in April.)

    Harvard argued in its May lawsuit that the revocation was “a blatant violation of the First Amendment” and due process and a retaliatory move by the federal government after the university rejected demands to control its governance, curriculum and the “ideology” of faculty and students. The move, according to the lawsuit, could potentially “erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body” and would harm students who had already been admitted to the university.

    Now, in a Wednesday court filing, government attorneys have agreed “that the May 22 letter will not be used to revoke Harvard’s SEVP certification or Exchange Visitor Program designation.” They called the proposal “an attempt to jointly simplify the case.”

    DHS officials wrote in the filing that they are “open to counterproposals and a meet and confer.” However, they wrote that Harvard “did not accept.”

    Harvard declined to comment and DHS did not respond to an inquiry from Inside Higher Ed.

    As Harvard and the federal government battle over international students in court, the Trump administration has found other ways to ratchet up pressure on the nation’s wealthiest university. Last month the U.S. Department of State announced it was opening an investigation into Harvard’s eligibility to participate in the Exchange Visitor program, which is overseen by the State Department and grants J-1 visas for visiting scholars, researchers and postdocs. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote that the probe will ensure programs don’t “run contrary to our nation’s interests.”

    There have been recent reports—and denials—that Harvard is nearing a settlement with the Trump administration, which, in addition to attempting to cut off its flow of international students, has leveled a litany of claims against the university, including vague allegations of unlawful action and accusations of antisemitism. The Trump administration has demanded sweeping changes at Harvard, which the university has largely rebuffed thus far.

    Congressional Democrats have threatened to investigate if Harvard agrees to a settlement.

    If Harvard settles, it would be the third Ivy League university to strike a deal with the federal government since mid-July. Columbia University was the first, agreeing to a seemingly unprecedented settlement, which closed investigations into allegations of antisemitism and restored some frozen research funding in exchange for changes to admissions, academic programs and other concessions that will be overseen by a third-party resolution monitor. Columbia agreed to pay $221 million as part of the settlement.

    Brown University also reached an agreement in late July to settle investigations into alleged antisemitism and restore about $510 million in frozen federal research funds. Brown agreed to spend $50 million on state workforce development efforts, provide admissions data to the federal government and bar transgender athletes from competing, among other stipulations.

    Outside the Ivy League, the University of California system announced earlier this week that it intends to negotiate with the federal government over $584 million in suspended federal funding amid Department of Justice investigations into alleged antisemitism. UC officials said the system is seeking a “voluntary resolution agreement” with the Trump administration to restore funding.

    Source link

  • LAWSUIT: FIRE challenges unconstitutional provisions Rubio uses in crusade to deport legal immigrants over protected speech

    LAWSUIT: FIRE challenges unconstitutional provisions Rubio uses in crusade to deport legal immigrants over protected speech

    • The First Amendment trumps the statutes that the government is abusing to deport people for speech alone
    • This lawsuit seeks a landmark ruling that the First Amendment forbids the government from deporting lawfully present noncitizens for constitutionally protected speech
    • FIRE attorney: ‘In a free country, you shouldn’t have to show your papers to voice your opinion’

    SAN JOSE, Calif., Aug. 6, 2025 — Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio, challenging two federal immigration law provisions that give him unchecked power to revoke legal immigrants’ visas and deport them for protected speech.

    “In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” said FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick. “Free speech isn’t a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.” 

    But since March, Rubio and the Trump administration have waged an assault on free speech, targeting foreign university students for deportation based on bedrock protected speech like writing op-eds and attending protests. Their attack is casting a pall of fear over millions of noncitizens, who now worry that voicing the “wrong” opinion about America or Israel will result in deportation.

    Noncitizens in the United States have First Amendment rights. Despite that, Rubio is wielding two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to target lawfully present noncitizens for their opinions.

    • The first allows the secretary of state to initiate deportation proceedings against  any noncitizen for protected speech if the secretary “personally determines” the speech “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest.”
    • The second enables the secretary of state to revoke the visa of any noncitizen “at any time” for any reason. 

    As FIRE’s lawsuit explains, the provisions are unconstitutional when used to revoke a visa or deport someone for speech the First Amendment protects. 

    The Trump administration is proudly using the provisions to revoke the visas of and deport lawfully present noncitizens for their speech if the government deems it anti-American or anti-Israel. Rubio used the first provision to target Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil for protected pro-Palestinian speech and the second to target Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk for coauthoring an op-ed.

    Rubio and the Trump administration claim — as all censors do — that this time is different. They claim that this political speech comes from noncitizens, which therefore warrants setting aside America’s protection of free speech.

    That’s wrong. America’s founding principle is that liberty comes not from the government, but is an inherent right of every individual. Every person — whether they’re a U.S. citizen, are visiting for the week, or are here on a student visa — has free speech rights in this country.

    “Two lawful residents of the United States holding the same sign at the same protest shouldn’t be treated differently just because one’s here on a visa,” said FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley. “The First Amendment bars the government from punishing protected speech — period. In our free country, you shouldn’t have to show your papers to speak your mind.”

    Plaintiffs in FIRE’s lawsuit represent the wide range of groups and individuals whose speech is threatened by the continued assault on noncitizens’ protected speech:

    • The Stanford Daily, the independent, student-run newspaper at Stanford University, where writers with student visas are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the war will endanger their immigration status
    • Jane Doe and John Doe, two legal noncitizens with no criminal record who engaged in pro-Palestinian speech and now fear deportation and visa revocation because of their expression

    “There’s real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,” said Greta Reich, editor-in-chief of The Stanford Daily. “I’ve had reporters turn down assignments, request the removal of some of their articles, and even quit the paper because they fear deportation for being associated with speaking on political topics, even in a journalistic capacity. The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.”

    There’s also historical context that should give the government pause. Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts 225 years ago. One of those acts allowed President John Adams to deport noncitizens if he thought they posed a “danger” to the country. It was one of the most unconstitutional laws in our nation’s history and died a quick death two years later, after the acts contributed to Adams’ resounding loss in the 1800 presidential election to Thomas Jefferson. 

    FIRE aims to stop the government’s use of the two provisions that stand counter to our ideals as a nation: Provisions that — in their expansive scope and unchecked authority — are more at home in countries like China and Russia than in a free America. By defeating these provisions, no administration of any party will be able to weaponize them against individuals for expression disfavored by the government.

    FIRE moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the government from abusing the visa provision while the case is ongoing.

    Marc Van Der Hout, Johnny Sinodis, and Oona Cahill at Van Der Hout LLP are serving as local and advisory counsel on the case.

    From today’s lawsuit: “Our First Amendment stands as a bulwark against the government infringing the inalienable human rights to think and speak for yourself.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. 

    CONTACT:

    Daniel Burnett, Senior Director of Communications, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • HACU Seeks to Fight Lawsuit Targeting HSIs

    HACU Seeks to Fight Lawsuit Targeting HSIs

    The Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, represented by the civil rights organization LatinoJustice PRLDEF, recently filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit that takes aim at Hispanic-serving institutions.

    The lawsuit was brought against the U.S. Department of Education by the state of Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions, the advocacy group whose lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action in college admissions. The lawsuit claims the federal designation for HSIs, which requires 25 percent Latino enrollment, is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

    HACU, an association representing HSIs, argued in its motion that it should become a party to the lawsuit to stand up for the constitutionality of the HSI program. The organization suggested the Education Department is unlikely to vigorously defend the federal designation while it’s in the process of dismantling itself.

    Antonio R. Flores, president and CEO of HACU, said the lawsuit “directly undermines years of advocacy by our founding members that led the federal government to formally recognize HSIs in 1992.”

    “The HSI program is a vital engine of educational excellence, workforce readiness and opportunity for all students attending these exemplary learning communities,” Flores said in a statement. “HACU joins in defending the policies and resources HSIs need to educate and serve 5.6 million students from all backgrounds nationwide.”

    Source link

  • UCLA Settles Lawsuit With Jewish Students for $6.45M

    UCLA Settles Lawsuit With Jewish Students for $6.45M

    The University of California, Los Angeles, agreed to pay $6.45 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Jewish students, the Los Angeles Times reported. The agreement, which would be in effect for 15 years, now awaits approval from the judge overseeing the case.

    The lawsuit, brought by three Jewish students and a medical school professor in June 2024, alleged UCLA enabled pro-Palestinian activists to cut off Jewish students’ access to parts of campus, violating their civil rights.

    Violence broke out in and around an encampment established at UCLA in spring 2024 when pro-Israel counterprotesters attacked it with fireworks and other projectiles. Hours of chaos ensued between protesters and counterprotesters before campus police intervened. UCLA’s former chancellor Gene D. Block, named in the lawsuit alongside other UCLA officials, was among the higher ed leaders called before Congress for campus antisemitism hearings.

    As part of the settlement agreement, each plaintiff will receive $50,000. Another $320,000 will go toward a campus initiative to combat antisemitism. About $2.3 million will be donated to eight different Jewish community and advocacy groups, including Hillel at UCLA, the Academic Engagement Network, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federation Los Angeles Campus Impact Network and the Film Collaborative Inc., to produce a film related to the Holocaust.

    UCLA also agreed that it is “prohibited from knowingly allowing or facilitating the exclusion of Jewish students, faculty, and/or staff from ordinarily available portions of UCLA’s programs, activities, and/or campus areas,” which includes “exclusion … based on religious beliefs concerning the Jewish state of Israel.”

    Source link

  • Lawsuit Over NIH Grant Funding Heads to Supreme Court

    Lawsuit Over NIH Grant Funding Heads to Supreme Court

    The NIH has cut hundreds of millions of dollars in grant funding that it says is used to conduct illegal DEI and gender identity-related research.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Adam Bartosik and Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock/Getty Images

    The Trump administration has taken its fight over grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health to the Supreme Court, requesting permission Thursday to finalize millions of dollars in award cuts, CBS News reported.

    President Trump began slashing research funding shortly after he took office in January, targeting projects that allegedly defied his executive orders against issues such as gender identity and DEI. By early April, 16 states and multiple academic associations and advocacy groups had sued, arguing the funding cuts were an unjustified executive overreach and bypassed statutory procedures.

    Since then, a federal district court ordered a preliminary injunction requiring all grants to be reinstated, and a court of appeals denied the Trump administration’s request to halt the decision. Now, executive branch legal officials are taking the case to the highest court.

    In an emergency appeal, Solicitor General John Sauer wrote that the NIH is attempting to “stop errant district courts from continuing to disregard” presidential orders.

    The solicitor also pointed to an April ruling from the Supreme Court allowing the Department of Education to terminate some of its own grants for similar reasons. In that case, the justices said the Trump administration would likely be able to prove that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to mandate the payment of a federal award.

    The court system does not allow a “lower-court free-for-all where individual district judges feel free to elevate their own policy judgments over those of the Executive Branch, and their own legal judgments over those of this Court,” Sauer wrote.

    Source link

  • Pennsylvania officers face First Amendment lawsuit for trying to criminalize profanity and using patrol car to chase man who recorded police

    Pennsylvania officers face First Amendment lawsuit for trying to criminalize profanity and using patrol car to chase man who recorded police

    ALLENTOWN, Pa., July 23, 2025 — In a bizarre scene, a police officer in Allentown, Pennsylvania, drove his patrol cruiser down a sidewalk at a man who was protesting police misconduct by filming outside a police station. 

    Today the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a lawsuit defending Phil Rishel’s rights to film and criticize police activity in public spaces — behavior that is protected by the First Amendment — without being assaulted or retaliated against for doing so. 

    “The retaliation over my speech confirms that there is a huge issue with the culture of the Allentown Police Department,” said Phil. “These officers have a disdain for the rights of the people they’re sworn to protect — and I hope my lawsuit changes things for the better.”

    Since 2015, the City of Allentown, Pennsylvania, has paid at least $2 million related to claims of police misconduct. In 2023, Phil began protesting in Allentown by non-disruptively recording police activity while standing on public sidewalks outside local police precincts.

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF PHIL RISHEL

    On March 26, 2024, Phil went to the Hamilton Street police station, where he stood on a public sidewalk and recorded what he could see in plain view. Approximately 15 minutes after he arrived, an officer approached him and briefly paused while looking at a “No Trespassing” sign. Phil responded, “Yeah, that’s a nice sign. Too bad it doesn’t apply to the public sidewalk.” The officer then silently walked away from Phil into the depths of the garage and up a vehicle ramp. Phil called out after him about his disregard of a sign next to the ramp that read: “PEDESTRIANS MUST USE STAIRS ONLY.”

    About 10 minutes later, the officer drove his patrol car out of the garage and sharply turned onto the sidewalk towards Phil while blaring the siren. The officer pursued him down the sidewalk, even driving around a lamppost in his way and back onto the sidewalk to chase Phil. The officer then exited the car, went into the office, and emerged with a police sergeant. They accused Phil of loitering and banned him from the public sidewalk under threat of arrest. 

    WATCH THE VIDEO FOOTAGE

    The next day, Phil returned to the same public sidewalk outside the Hamilton Street station’s parking garage and picked up where he left off, recording police activity in plain view. The same sergeant threatened to arrest him for returning and told him that filming the police “is not a First Amendment right,” while also claiming that Phil’s profanity the previous day constituted disorderly conduct. Ultimately, he charged Phil with disorderly conduct and loitering via a criminal citation sent in the mail.

    At the hearing on the criminal charge, the sergeant testified that Phil was in an area closed for construction and blocked pedestrian traffic and the parking garage entrance, but none of this was true, as shown by the video Phil took that day. Based on the sergeant’s testimony, the court found Phil guilty on the loitering charge, although the conviction was reversed on appeal. The disorderly conduct charge was dismissed by the lower court based on longstanding Pennsylvania case law.

    The First Amendment protects citizens’ right to film police officers and their activities. It also protects individuals who verbally criticize police and their actions, even by cursing or using profane language. 

    FIRE’s lawsuit seeks to enforce these established constitutional rights for Phil and other Allentown citizens. The complaint seeks a declaration that the Allentown police violated First Amendment rights, an injunction against the City of Allentown for failing to provide adequate training to its police officers about protecting and respecting First Amendment rights, and an award of damages to Phil for the treatment he received.

    “Citizens trying to hold police officers accountable should not be punished,” said FIRE attorney Zach Silver. “Public officials, including police officers, must uphold the law and respect citizens’ right to record police and to use harsh language, not bully them into silence.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT
    Katie Stalcup, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected] 

    Source link